Talk:Katie Couric

TV without pity

Does Television Without Pity rule the television viewer's mind? I had never even heard of that organization. What kind of importance do they have? Saying that the president of a family value organization has expressed against the Howard Stern show, for example, would seem more senseless to me, but Television Without Pity??

The best way to do it is to stick to the facts and leave the praises or critizism out, although I admit, some cases do deserve some expert's opinions, but Kaie Couric is a journalist, and, to me at least, most journalists pretty much do the same thing, they explain the news to their best ability, detaching themselves from a human side to the news and staying neutral. "Antonio Its Saturday, lets Rock baby1!! Martin"—Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 18 September 2004.

Rewrite

I agree with some revision. Parents' religion?, "why?" Delta Delta Delta? Being invited to live on The Lawn? This sounds like it was written by a sorority sister still stuck in college life, not by someone who has any biographic writing credentials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.198.143 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 April 2006

Does anyone watch the evening news anymore?

Kouric is going to host a show in decline. So what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.42.18 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 7 April 2006

Wikipedians are not the norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.148.201 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 April 2006

Negativity

There is so much negativity here. Isn't it good enough that she affects people's lives regardless of whether or not you call her an entertainer or a journalist? People enjoy what she does. I believe that the colon cancer and breast cancer awareness campaigns that she did were very important to their respective causes. By the way I don't know if you have noticed this, but there are rarely any "journalists" anymore that tell the story right down the middle with no bias. Has anyone watched Fox News or MSNBC Lately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.124.49.222 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 July 2006

Palin YouTube Video

I added a paragraph in the Palin Interview section about the just released video of Couric poking fun at Palin and her family (a search for "Couric Palin" should produce the video as the first result) but didn't link or site anything, someone should do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.231.218 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC) — 97.103.231.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please see WP:BLP and WP:RS. Youtube is not a valid WP:RS as copyrighted material can be illegally posted there. In addition, even I could edit any video to have anyone say anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morenooso (talk • contribs) 10:24, August 4, 2010

Here is the story from a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the mainstream press makes something of it, you might have something. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And, once the video has been certified as complete and not editted, then, inclusion will be considered. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no "certified" because who would "certify" it? This is Wikipedia. We don't make judgements of the sort we would need for that. We report what independent reliable sources say. Right now, we have a blog saying something about Couric, with a video segment they claim supports what they are saying. Until independent reliable sources have something to say about it, we have nothing to report. Imagine if every blog claim about Barack Obama (or George W. Bush) were included. We would have articles that were several thousands of pages long full of claims that the subject is a Muslim terrorist (or an alien lizardman). - SummerPhD (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Who would certify it? Duh, the reliable press and in particular CBS News who owns the copyrighted video. The blogs have multiplied fourfold from yesterday's unsourced edit. Just like the woman fired prematurely for an editted version of her speech, the alleged Couric video is making the rounds and it is just a matter of time before quote the reliable press unquote picks up the story and reports on it. Editors could then find say an AP or you name it reliable press story and try to include it. Nope, Wikipedia is editted based upon WP:V especially on a WP:BLP issue. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

When I hear "certify", I think of an independent agency measuring something against a standard. There is no such agency to verify that a video is unaltered and complete, in this case. If independent reliable sources say something substantial about the video, we will have something to report. Those sources will not, of course, say that Couric "pok(ed) fun at Palin and her family". Instead, it would likely be more along the lines of "critics contend... Couric replied...". - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are companies that will certify videos and sound clips. Some have taken fancy names like forensic video and sound etc. It's quite easy to see when a video or sound clip has been editted but pundits are getting better at "masking" editted videos.

In a BLP article there is no room for what could be speculation until CBS and or Couric admit the video is real. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Whether this goes in or not is up to coverage by RS not by whether CBS and/or Couric admit the video is real. By this faulty logic nothing is reliable unless those that have been viewed doing something admit that they are the people actually doing that thing, or by extension nothing anyone says is verfiable unless the person that it said admits that they said it. Thousands of articles would be currently in violation of this requirement. IF anything, the fact that CBS and Couric have thus far refused to comment on this would imply that it is true. Arzel (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Read WP:BLP and the headers on this talkpage. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing two issues, read up on wp:v

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Arzel (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Additional sources. These are just a few of the many, I included a few of those that would appear to be the most reliable. I think it would be an appropriate followup to the Couric/Palin interview since most Palin fans feel that interview was unfair and this is would appear to back up their argument (from their point of view). It has been covered by several reliable sources and is directly related to the Palin interview which occured a few weeks after this incident. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Arzel (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No confusion and you probably didn't read all my post as I have cited WP:V. WP:BLP supercedes that as it states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The blogsphere and even reliable press can speculate all they want about the issue. Until it is proven true which is the ultimate WP:V, it is contentious. If you have doubts, take a look a look at Al Gore's talkpage. The reliable press can cover an allegation all they like but it doesn't get added to a WP:BLP until proven true. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because Al Gore has a troop of people defending his page doesn't justify misinterpretation of WP policies. At this point there is nothing that would suggest it is not true, and if Main Stream Sources are reporting on this story then you have little recourse for not including it on verfiability or BLP concerns. I find it slightly ironic that you would highlight that phrase when it serves you no good. This material is niether unsourced or poorly sourced which is the basis for that arguement from WP:BLP Arzel (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Total non-event. Doesn't belong even if verified, we don't include every item of trivia in biographies. Fences&Windows 17:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Arzel is a Statistician and Industrial Engineer, and as such feels that too much statistical weight is given to minor random controversy and criticism within Wikipedia." Ironic, much? Fences&Windows 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You are an Admin, act like one. Did I add the information? No. This was a discussion relating to WP policies. Next time comment on the contribution and not the commentor. Arzel (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the mainstream press makes something of it, you might have something. Morenooso, you were clinging to WP:RS with your teeth until the reliable sources started arriving. The difference between an actual reason and an excuse is that while a reason will stay solid, excuses will change the minute one of them is no longer relevant. This type of behavior is fairly common among veteran Wikipedians who feel that they must guard their favorite articles at any cost, and who are willing to do anything to exclude any information that is not to their taste. As for the "non-event" claim – pure POV. You don't exclude something just because it doesn't shed a positive light on the subject matter that happens to be favorable to you. If you want to make this a Katie Couric fan site, Wikipedia is definitely not the place for it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of the material in question. The editor readding it claims, "A single sentence is not putting undue weight, any way you look at it. Whether you like it or not, she did it and a reliable source exposed the deed. Not mentioning this fact at all would be a direct violation of WP:NPOV." We do not have a reliable source discussing this alleged event. We have a youtube video posted by... someone. Additionally, we have an explanation of what it might show by... someone. Pick your favorite/least favorite political figure, actor, athelete or other famous person. Now go to youtube and see howmany videos you can find involving that person. Does their article have a sentence about each? Certainly not. The articles on each of the current and last president would each be several hundred pages of meaningless links to videos of unknown origin with "explanations" by... someone. Each one would be a BLP concern and giving undue weight to some random something in that person's life. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "someone" is the Los Angeles Times and they published the video because they deem it reliable. If they did, so can Wikipedia. Maybe you should re-read the WP:BLP policy: there is no questioning of reliable secondary sources, which is precisely what is introduced here. It's not up to us to "wait for a better proof" because neither of us invented the rules. You still have zero grounds for the removal. I am reinstating the sentence because otherwise would be highly unfair.

FYI, the issue has been reported to the NPOV board. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The sole source of this video presented gives it 40 words of coverage. Your summary of what the reliable sources have to say is 44 words. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotta agree with SummerPhD here, one source reporting this means having it in the article is undue mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘} This issue has been discussed thoroughly here and at the BLP board. There is no consensus for addition of video just because it gets reported on. Sources are not the problem; it's a WP:UNDUE issue in a WP:BLP article. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this issue has been reported about a week ago at the BLP noticeboard as per the header above this talkpage. Consensus there is for no addition. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote Marknutley: "one source reporting this means having it in the article is undue." Now that there are seven, this is no longer the issue, is it? Besides, why won't you quote the policy that states that having only one WP:RS violates anything. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I did quote a policy wp:undue and i still think it` undue to put this in here, this is not a tabloid after all. There appears to me to be a clear consensus to not add this content, please abide by it and stop edit warring, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, this is not a tabloid and neither are the seven sources I referenced. As I mentioned on the NPOV board, your excuses keep changing only to exclude the information at any cost, just because all the editors reaching the "consensus" are Couric fans. You are edit warring together against me, which doesn't make it any less of an edit war on your end. Grow up. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I will remind all editors about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Let's stick to the topic and what this talkpage is about - article improvement. WP:CONSENSUS is also another core policy. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique I am going to let that slide this time, but please remain civil from now on. I am no fan of couric and had never heard of her until this was brought up on the blpn boards. mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this sentence still being stuck into this page? All journalists go through pre-air preparations before all of their televised productions so why is this one special. Doesnt look like a notable part of her life, and really! looks like a weak attempt to just make her look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolanz (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is something that she said as part of her professional work and is sourced out the wazoo. Inclusion depends on mentions in reliable sources, not whether you are offended by inclusion about someone you may like. Drrll (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion depends on more than a reliable source. Just because you like her you don't need to include every irrelevant infobit. The sentence on that page only informs me about one thing, and that is about the editors inserting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolanz (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a completely worthless addition and all those citations, they are all exactly reporting the same thing, off camera she said, these children's names are difficult to say and her mum and dad are out hunting carabu, so what, in this persons life story it is worthless, totally valueless crap. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This bit tagged on the end - The video is not dated but the incident occurred on the day that John McCain announced Palin as his running mate. - is totally leading and asserts that there is some connection which there is no evidence for at all, you could just as well add at the end, the video was recorded on a monday. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@Drrll: Looking at the above discussion, and the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard here, I see that you and Hearfour are the only people arguing to include that content, when the overwhelming number of editors are against it for good reasons. I still do not see why. After removing the text and seeing it replaced, I even tried to expand the content to make it significant enough to include in this BLP, but apparently we'll have none of that, right? Put in what the footage really shows, and a reader will clearly see what a non-issue this really is.

@Hearfour: I've moved that sentence out of the "Palin Interview" section because it had nothing to do with the Palin Interviews -- that footage is from months before Couric even met Palin. Just because you found a source that mentions that footage and her later interviews with Palin in the same article, that does not mean the two events are related. Please show me a reliable source that says the two are related. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I didn't have a problem with your changes to the content, nor did I have a problem with your moving the material away from the Palin interview section, since as you said the video occurred months before the Palin interview. I obviously do agree with Hearfour on inclusion of the material, though. Drrll (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, that last part was originally there, I assume, just to provide an approximate date of the video. An editor tagged the sentence with a ^{[citation needed]} tag, so I fixed it with the date that another source provided. There was no intent to make any connection. Drrll (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Rio-rob has it right, even with Drrlls changes it still doesnt look anything like encyclopedic information. Reading it tells me nothing about the Journalist, and looking at those sources doesn't inform me any better. Whole lots of implied meanings being tried, I think. Geo Lanz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolanz (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A mob can't overthrow reason. Xeno, "kudos" for your politicking, e.g. choosing selective wording to make it look less significant. Geo, "smearing" involves lies... 'nuff said. This article looks like a fan club, there is not a single sentence (apart from what I am trying to establish) that doesn't praise her work and personality. I am not saying anything negative or positive about her, I am not trying to smear or praise anyone. All I ever wanted was to balance out this article just a little bit. Just like the adding editor must prove their assertion (which I have done more than plenty, and thank you Drrll for that last source), the contesting editor must do the same. Repeating phrases like "non-event" or "smearing" is nothing but senseless witch hunt. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the disputed content has been reinserted. I've removed it one final time. My next response to its reinsertion will be to file a request at ANI to put an end to the tendentious editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

...and not unexpectedly, you have reinserted the disputed content against consensus once again, so I have filed a request at ANI here. Perhaps you could put your edit warring on hold, and work to resolve the issue instead. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• - I thought this was sorted, the addition is crap and there is consensus that it is crap. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've only looked at the most recent version that was removed, and I agree with it's removal per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV (in general), WP:UNDUE (in addition to general NPOV problems), and SYN. BLP is very clear that , "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted the following comment to one of the last Admin notices [8] about this, re-posting here since I don't see the issue raised before: @Hear: Yes, the pro-Palin, anti-Couric sentiment ("extensive smear campaign") appears to originate from right-wing blogs which are not reliable (especially for BLP). You say you're working for balance in the Couric article -- what other criticisms have you discussed on the talkpage and/or added to the article? Surely there is more substantial (and objective) press coverage of her journalistic credentials, for instance, when she took over the news anchor position. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected this article so you can spend some more time discussing the inclusion of that text. You may want to consider dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

name and dob

I had a look but I couldn't see , where is here full name and date of birth cited to? Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This past year's edition (2010) of The World Almanac, p.175, gives her date of birth as 1/7/57 in Arlington, Virginia. They follow the U.S. convention, so that would be January 7th. It doesn't give her full birth name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a New York Times column[9] from a few years back that not only asserts her birth name, but also that on the Today show she initially called herself "Katherine" rather than "Katie". I would suppose the switch to "Katie" was to suggest a less formal image. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The international unit for fecal measurement

The 2007 South Park episode "More Crap" introduces the couric, a fictional unit of measurement for (human?) excrement, explicitly named after Katie Couric. This should be mentioned in the present article at least, and if possible also with some discussion of this ignominious reference. __meco (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:IPC. "In popular culture" references are trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources. Otherwise, articles like, say, God, Barack Obama, Chicken, whatever would be little more than extensive lists of songs, TV shows, movies, books and such. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This particular item was debated and flushed some time ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Brooks Perlin?

I am somewhat surprized that the Personal Life section contains no reference to Brooks Perlin, who has been with her (the press calls them a "couple") for four years and counting. Very publicly so, e.g. White House State Dinners. SteveO1951 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Departure

I don't think we are getting the whole scoop of her departure from CBS yet. What I mean is that I don't think she left under her own power, I think CBS fired her, but we'll never know. (AROUNDNASCAR (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

major hottie

Katie is a major hottie! Is she dating that guy my age?? I'm 33 ;-) Between her, Ann Curry, and Joan Jett, I don't know who is hottest!!! :-O68.186.48.171 (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove reliableresources.org cites

This domain no longer has the originally cited material (mainly Walter Cronkite award refs). I will clean them off this article and related in a week or two so if no objections. Magicianeer (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)