Talk:Elisabeth Hasselbeck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
 
WikiProject Conservatism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Details about kids birth dates and husband and brother in law[edit]

I have copy edited this material. Any reason to add specific details about births, husband, or brother-n-law? Maybe add birth years, but that should more than sufice since they are not notable in their own right. Thank you, Tom 14:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article is not a WP:COATRACK. Plastikspork (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind the kids name included in the info box since they are mention below in the article, but I sure wouldn't argue or revert over it. --Tom 15:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
There has been some contention over this issue if you check the edit history. I personally think it's excessive detail which is unimportant as (1) the children are not notable (2) there has been no controversy over the names the couple selected. Obviously the fact that she has children is important, just the names seem unimportant. My opinion. Plastikspork (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I have no problem with not including their names, just pointing out that they are still listed in the article. I, personally, would not fight to have their names excluded but would defer to others. If you feel strongly about this, ok, then the ownous would be on those who favor inclusion, imho. What are the applicable guidelines and policies here since this actually comes up quite abit? Anyways, --Tom 16:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Matt Hasselbeck doesnt need to be mentioned.
I disagree bc I feel her kids names & DOBS should be included. How is it excessive? Excessive would be birthweights, fav boooks, etc. Their names/DOBS is just data. If their names/DObs is excessive, y arent Brad Pitt's kids DOB & adoption dates considered excessive? 70.108.119.213 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Each WP:BLP is an individual article and should be considered as such. Arguments about "it's on X so why can't it be on Y" is an argument to avoid. There has been quite a bit of discussion surrounding inclusion of details about relatives and children in WP:BLPs. The main issue is that a WP:BLP is not a WP:COATRACK (and, of course, identity theft issues, rights of children to privacy, etc. but those don't really apply here since she herself has released this information). With that said, I believe this should be discussed further. If you check the edit history, I am not the only one has been removing this addition on this page. I'm just one of the few who have responded today. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The specific birth dates should not be included by any means. It is personal information about non-notable minors who are not the subject of the article. Including the birth years would be acceptable to me. I dont feel the minor's names should be included either, there is nothing in our sources that shows meaningful substance about the choice of names but if consensus holds otherwise, I will not block consensus on that point. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Plastic: I cited Pitt as an example. If u want EH considered individually, WHY NOT include the info? EH told the media about world about each of her pregnancies; about each of the labours; about each of her kids bday parties, etc. She isnt hiding the info so why cant it be here? 2nd: Including their names/DOB def doesnt fall under 'coatrack'. It is 1 line not a section.
RedPen: "not included by any mean"...again WHY? Eh is telling the world so y cant it be included? 70.108.119.213 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? because we dont include random info just because it's out there. And specifically, including personal information such as specific birth dates and names of non-notable minors is a violation of our WP:BLP policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Just because information exists doesn't mean it all belongs in a WP:BLP. Plastikspork (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You are both talking in circles. It isnt random info like her shoe size. It is the humans that she grew in her body & then pushed out! I gave u examples but u aint like them. So some1 get Jim Wales. Im puttinger her kids DOB/names back in. We'll be in an edit war soon bc you two dont want the info in. 70.108.119.213 (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Declaring your intention to start an edit war is a great way to get yourself blocked, especially when your edits are contrary to the consensus on the talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
AND PLEASE STOP UNTHREADING THE CONVERSATION. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(1)WRONG! IDing what will happen bc of constant reverting of 1 another's edit is just that: IDing what constant reverting of edit is called: an edit war.
(2)Y dont u stop yelling? 70.108.119.213 (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ADMINS WE NEED HELP ![edit]

{{tl:HELPME| Y cant the kids names & birthdates be included? redpen,plastic, & I are disagreeing. Thanks.}}70.108.119.213 (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

{{tl:adminhelp| Y cant the kids names & birthdates be included? redpen,plastic, & I are disagreeing. Thanks.}} 70.108.119.213 (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think RedPen has already referred to WP:BLP, but the specific paragraph is:

Privacy of personal information

Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates: (1)have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release; or (2) have otherwise been widely published.
Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth.
In a similar vein, Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.

So in the case of the children, year of birth should be OK if sourced. Hope that helps ϢereSpielChequers 17:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Speil: (1)redpen & plastic didnt cite the reasons you say, they say bc of WP:COATRACK.
The name/DOBS have always been sourced as Elisabeth HERSELF announced their birth & names. Thanks Spiel. RIP Jade Goody. 70.108.119.213 (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in this case sourcing is not the issue, the question is why would the children be notable? Everything I've seen in the article implies they are as the policy says "less notable". ϢereSpielChequers 11:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that the information should be included. The information has been published in more than one reliable source. I see much more detail throught out wikipedia(Angelina Jolie for example) so having the dates I think is fine. It is just what three more words? 208.58.196.66 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to move on and stop feeding[edit]

ip keeps reverting to version with multiple problems and unwilling or able to try to listen to others. Time to block and semi protect. Tom (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

kids's birthdates allowed or not allowed ???[edit]

We're back on the same argument. See 3 sections above this 1 (section 9).
Since when does wiki not allow birthdates?
Detailed info--weight & length @ birth;fav colour-- isnt given! Why is having the birthdates not allowed when their parents put the info out in press releases? The info was also publicised by ABC, Disney,NFL, & People (magazine); so it is all sourced. 04:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

why are you even asking? you didnt bother to read the responses above. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking bc it is polite. I did read them. Obviously YOU didnt. If you did read you 'd have seen Tom and spielchequers thoughts.70.108.110.22 (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and their thoughts are that you have not supplied sufficient reason for including specific birth dates in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism 'Predictions.'[edit]

I put it here and not within the article because I honestly don't know whether this sort of material on the Internet counts as a 'verifiable source' with respect to what it is about, or if it's simply 'a bunch of people mouthing off on the Net.'

In any event, 66% of 21 people submitting to www.hubdub.com, and 88% of eight people at rasmussenreports.predictify.com predict that Hasselbeck will be found (or shown to be) guilty of plagiarism. This should not be taken to mean that only 30 or fewer people are convinced that Hasselbeck is a plagiarist, since a Google search of the subject and reader comments shows that a substantial number of people believe that she is: that's simply the number of people who took time to make these predictions at the time of checking.

My point with regard to verifiability isn't the merits of the case itself, but its reflection of the degree to which Hasselbeck is so controversial that her guilt is assumed by many without question. (I suppose it would go under 'Controversies,' if it went anywhere at all.)

A persons' "controversiality" has no bearing. All content in articles, especially articles about living people must be from reliable sources - places that have a reputation for fact checking and reliability; any sites making predictions are not at all suitable for content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait... Places that have a reputation for fact checking and reliability? And any sites making predictions are not at all suitable for for content?? And who decides which "places" have this reputation? NOT YOU! And your description of "sites making predictions" is also sorely lacking credibility. You have made some excellent points in many places but this is not one of them. You do not have ANY authority here, yet you try your hardest to make it appear so. Stick to the facts and rules. 75.17.194.240 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)TheRedPenIsDoomed

Picture[edit]

Anyone have a picture we can put in the article? Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a photo of her with two others on the set of The View, that I cropped out of a Whitehouse photo of the set. I don't think it should be cropped down further and used for the infobox because it isn't really suitable for that. The infobox photo for Sherri Shepherd was cropped out of a US Navy photo that has Elisabeth just beside Sherri. But cropping Elisabeth out of that photo does not work as well as for Sherri; one gets part of background person's face in the crop, and Elisabeth is smiling a bit too hard to seem entirely natural.Bdell555 (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The current pictures herein are very good now. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable debates on the view[edit]

Isn't this material more appropriate for the show article rather than this bio? --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cranston, RI or Boston, MA[edit]

There are two biographical sections depicting Elizabeth being born on May 28 1977 (age 33), but the birth location differs. Which one is correct, and (more importantly) why is there a second bio section under the "Television Career" headline?

Jewish heritage?[edit]

I know she was raised Catholic but I have heard that while she and her mother are Catholic (as is her husband), her father is Jewish. Anyone know if this is true or can find any sources for it? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not important. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Dismissal Allegations[edit]

US Weekly stated March 8 that Hasselbeck will be dismissed from the show and not return next season because market research revealed she is too right-wing [1] On the March 11 broadcast of The View, Barbara Walters stated there were no plans to get rid of Hasselbeck. US Weekly responded that the denial was to 'save face'--Hasselbeck would seem to leave because she was ready, comparable to Star Jones's departure in 2006. [2]. Some of this information was also quoted on The Huffington Post [3]

So the questions I have are: (1) Is US Weekly a sufficiently-reliable source for Wikipedia? (2) Should this news be considered worth mentioning? or (3) Should we wait until next season (and perhaps a few weeks after) to learn if she is still there--and if she is, don't bother to mention the US Weekly assertions, but if she isn't, insert the magazine's 'predictions' retroactively?

JWMcCalvin (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

She's joining FoxNews "The Five" daily show—a better match for her. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

How about a new picture?[edit]

The picture of Elisabeth Hasselbeck on The View is good. The section on Hasselbeck on "FOX & Friends" needs one also. "Elisabeth Hasselbeck currently serves as co-host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) FOX & Friends (weekdays 6-9a ET)." [4]Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you have any free-use images you're more than welcome to add them. Gloss • talk 18:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)