Talk:Daryn Kagan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Info[edit]

  • A pet lover, Daryn had two three-legged cats, Tripod and I-Lean (the latter is now deceased.)

Is this the kind of information that we think is needed in an encyclopedia? The article reads like a fan bio. There doesn't seem to be a source for this material either. -Willmcw 19:14, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • The statement that Kagan grew up in an oceanside community was deleted because "Beverly Hills is not on the ocean". - 1) High school in the United States starts when a person is 13 -15 years old. Kagan could have moved when she was at high school age. 2) Even in the late 1970s when Kagan went to high school, students could go to high schools that were not the school closest to where they lived. 3) Kagan said on the air she grew up by the ocean.
  • "Was graduated" is perfectly acceptable, if somewhat old fashioned, usage. Please check sources on language usage.
  • Asbl wants to call television show that starts at 7AM PST, 8AM MST, 9AM CST time a "late-morning show" because of the relative proportion of people living in the EST. This is not a neutral way of describing the time.
  • Asbl says that the word oceanside does not mean "by the ocean" as in an "oceanside community". This is splitting hairs.
"Oceanside" means that the town actually has a beach on the ocean. Unless other information is given as to where she grew up we must go with Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills is more than 5 miles away from the ocean, hence "by the ocean". We therefore cannot use "oceanside" to describe where she grew up.
Active voice (she graduated) is always preferable to passive voice (was graduated). The latter is certainly awkward in this case, as nobody graduated her, she graduated herself.
We'll add wording to say that it is late morning east coast time. --Asbl 03:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated previously, Kagan has said she grew up in a house by the ocean. This is splitting hairs but the article now refers to her house rather than the community in which she grew up.
  • 9 AM is not late morning.
  • From the American Heritage Book of English Usage:
  • "The verb graduate has denoted the action of conferring an academic degree or diploma since at least 1421. Accordingly, the action of receiving a degree should be expressed in the passive, as in She was graduated from Yale in 1980. This use is still current if slightly old-fashioned, and 78 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it. In general usage, however, the old sense has largely yielded to the much more recent sense “to receive a degree” (first attested in 1807): She graduated from Yale in 1980. Eighty-nine percent of the Usage Panel accepts this use. It is handy because it ascribes the accomplishment to the student rather than to the institution, which is appropriate in discussions of individual students. When the institution’s responsibility is emphasized, however, you can still use the older sense. A sentence such as The university graduated more computer science majors in 1987 than in the entire previous decade stresses the university’s accomplishment, say, of its computer science program. On the other hand, the sentence More computer science majors graduated in 1987 than in the entire previous decade implies that the class of 1987 was in some way a remarkable group. The Usage Panel feels quite differently about the use of graduate to mean “to receive a degree from,” as in She graduated Yale in 1980. Seventy-seven percent object to this usage.
You must find out where this house is, because otherwise it does not make sense that her house is "by the ocean" yet she went to High School in Beverly Hills which is between 5 and 10 miles from the ocean.
Wikipedia is written in 2005, not in 1421. Lets keep up with the times and use the word "graduated" to mean "to receive a degree", rather than "the action of conferring an academic degree". --Asbl 17:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, Kagan said she gew up on the ocean. She said she had memories of playing with her brother in the sand by her house. The erroneous changes that eliminate reference to the ocean seem to indicate the author's belief that Kagan is delusional ot that Kagan is a liar. Also, again, Kagan could have moved by the time she was in high school or she could have had the option of going to a school that may not have been in her school district.
  • "Was graduated" or "graduated" are equally appropriate. I added the information to Kagan's bio so I am reverting to the original language.
Just because you "added the information to Kagan's Bio" does not mean you own the article. Be flexible.
If you want to add the "memories of playing with her brother in the sand by her house" find a way to add it to the article that makes sense. The current way you did it does not make sense. --Asbl 12:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language has been changed in a way that may be okay to both sides.
  • "Well behaved" need not be hyphenated. Check the article on hyphenation to see whether there is any case for hyphenating two adjectives.
  • My mistake - "best-behaved" is proper.

Unnamed critics of Kagan's Ned the Banker interview[edit]

I deleted this text:

  • Critics of Kagan have said her CNN career nadir was when she interviewed Ron Michaelson, the actor who plays Ned the Banker in commercials run by loan company ditech.com.

because we have no idea who these "critics" are. Is this from some forum? -Willmcw 22:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping. I already reverted this twice today, an anon editor keeps re-inserting it and won't cite the source. Only some vague reference to a subscription site. --rogerd 23:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's from a forum. Unless we have notable critics saying this it has no place in the article. See Wikipedia:reliable sources. -Willmcw 01:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you followed the television news business, you would find some of the best media criticism happens to be in a subscription web forum. The criticism is written by intelligent but non-"notable" persons. Your notion of encyclopedic purity is narrow and elitist for the year 2005. You are applying a Wikipedia guideline without discernment.
Also re-read the Wikipedia:reliable sources. In bold it states that these are "guidelines", not policy. It is okay to use some judgement in applying these guidelines. If we were discussing opinions of, say, treatment of pancreatic cancer, the judgement of reliability of sources would (appropriately) be different.
We don't know if these critics are notable or not because we don't know who they are or even what they said. That means the assertion is also unverifiable. Criticial judgments like "nadir of her career" require attribution to a specific critic. Nobody here agrees with your introduction of this material. Please stop adding it. -Willmcw 18:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to "nobody here" like there is some authoritative group not wanting the Ned the Banker incident described. The "nobody" is actually you and the other editor. Stop bullying people by claiming false authority. Stop trying to enforce on others your personal guidelines, i.e., "judgments like "nadir of her career" require attribution to a specific critic". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.255.21.236 (talk • contribs) 15:57, December 11, 2005 (UTC)
The criticism of Kagan is not "gossip". The criticism took place in a context that you personally believe is unencyclopedic. Your view is just that - your view. This is a discussion of current popular culture. Sorry that attribution cannot hold up to your academic standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.255.21.236 (talk • contribs) 15:57, December 11, 2005 (UTC)
The attribution certainly does not meet our standards. If you could copy the criticisms here verbatim, so that we can see them and evalute them, then we might be able to accept them. You haven't even given us the specific URL where it is located. We don't know the context, the wording, or the speakers. Also, you have grossly violated our policy aginst making multiple reverts, WP:3RR. Please stop or we'll have freeze the page preventing anyone from editing it. -Willmcw 20:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop discussing "our standards" when they are your standards. Again, you are making up rules for extreme standards of attribution so you can enforce your own will. Instead of acting this way, try to come up with a compromise. As you will see, the language describing Kagan's Ned the Banker interview has been changed. Now, can you compromise or do you have to make more threats and take actions to harm other persons' reading of the page?
Thanks for working with us. As for the standards, they are Wikipedia's. Wikipedia:cite your sources, Wikipedia:verifiability, Wikipedia:reliable sources. As for rules, one of our few hard-and-fast rules is no more than three reversions in a day. Regarding your current phrasing, it is better. However it more clearly highlights that these critics are just anonymous folks contributing to a forum. -Willmcw 22:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Willcmw, persons post to the tvspy.com forum with a username just as you post to Wikipedia. If tvspy.com posters are just anonymous folks contributing to a forum, then you are just an anonymous folk making your thoughts known on a forum. Kitty, if comments posted under a username to another Internet site are to be devalued, then comments made to Wikipedia posted under a username are also to be devalued. Kitty, if information is not to be considered verfiable because a person must pay to access it, then I hope you will clean up information in Wikipedia that come from journals that charge a hefty subscription fee. - It is a waste of time to deal with this Wikipedia hypocrisy. Dishonest, bullying editors are also not worth the time of day. Do whatever you want with the Ned the Banker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.192.133 (talk • contribs) 09:18, December 13, 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that anyone can go to wikipedia to verify information. Not anyone can go to a subscription based service. If we can't see it, then it isn't verifyable --rogerd 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further, even if it were a free service forums are not wikipedia:reliable sources. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to express their opinions inside articles. Have you read the Wikipedia policies? -Willmcw 19:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does user:69.208.192.133 have anything esle to say in favor of this material? I think that we've shown that it is not in accord with our policies on sources. -Willmcw 06:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Willmcw, you have shown the material is not in accord with your personal narrow interpretation of our guidelines and our policies. You have not, however, shown discernment. Nevertheless, Kitty, do what you want with the statement that posters on the news industry tvspy.com forum (whose archives can only be accessed be paying a fee) criticized CNN anchor Daryn Kagan for interviewing the actor who plays Ned the banker in the ditech.com commercial. As mentioned before, there probably are citations in Wikipedia that are only in expensive journals. If you want to follow the dictum, "If we can't see it, then it isn't verifiable", when you excise the Ned the Banker information (which you will do), Kitty, think about beginning a project to excise any information that a person must pay a fee in order to see. If you want information cited from "notable" souces, start a similar project whose first task is to define "notable". Finally, if you excise the information because it is from a "forum", realize that Wikipedia may also be considered a "forum". Good luck. - The other editors can have the final comments on this matter (as if they won't make them anyway). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.185.14 (talk • contribs) 08:33, December 16, 2005.

Protected[edit]

I protected the page to spur discussion. I also reverted the uncited information before doing so. Work it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are we any closer to agreement? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that if unprotected, the anonymous editor will come back and start entering his POV again. But then again, we can't protect it forever. --rogerd 04:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I will unprotected. pray. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell this piece had received some "extra-attention," wholly out of line with the worth of the subject. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Kyra Phillips Microphone Conversation[edit]

  • 8/29/2006: from Scottymoze: CNN today between 12:45pm and 1:00pm EST. George W. Bush's Katrina anniversary speech live: the audio also had someone (sounding like Ms. Kagan ?) and Kyra Phillips having a side conversation, actually playing louder than Bush's speech. There were a few remarks, one that stood out near the end was, "his wife is a control freak." If this information belongs in this article (or some other article, ie: "news anchor mistakes") feel free to pass it along. This is not meant to be vandalism or biased information. If this is useless info, that is understood. Thanks and sorry if this info doesn't belong here. Feel free to remove if needed. UPDATE: see link to video transcript here: http://www.wonkette.com/politics/cnn/cnn-live-mic-snafu-the-video-197383.php

See also: Kyra Phillips for a Wikipedia article that has this incident detailed.


Kagan as a NASCAR "junkie"[edit]

In the U.S. News and World report internet site's blip on Kagan's web site, she implies that her Wikipedia profile said she was a NASCAR junkie. Kagan is mischaracterizing the Wikipedia description. The article said NASCAR was among her favorite sports, not that she was rabid about NASCAR. When she was on CNN, she stated she was a fan. She said she thought she was one of the few female urban NASCAR fans. Unfortunately, though, there is not a transcript to link to.

notability[edit]

This is a bio of a person who is not notable. It is written like a sad and bad PR piece. It needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.102 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the tone of the article could be improved. But I don't think notability is an issue. Kagan is a well known journalist. --89.180.107.205 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Mark Jefferies.[reply]

Postmenopausal?[edit]

Am I missing something? Why is it important that she's postmenopausal? Chrissypan (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably vandalism.[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Issue is notablity. This BIO violates notablity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.44 (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superslick entry -- Was this "Puff Piece" written by her PR people[edit]

This is perhaps the skickest entry I've ever seen in Wiki. A better puff piece I've never read in my life. And there's so much of it? Other people's entries are ruthless edited down by the Nazis who style themselves "Wiki" editors. One wonders how this relatively insignificant person gets such a write up, referring to her father, mother, ethnic identity, her pets, etc. Where's her dating of Rush Limbaugh (who allegedly divorced his wife for this woman back in 2004)? This is a puff piece! Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Daryn Kagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Daryn Kagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daryn_Kagan&oldid=1203170010"