Talk:S. E. Cupp

Picture

File:New York City Tea Party Speakers April 15, 2009.jpg

S.E. Cupp (fourth from right) and other speakers at a New York City Tea Party event on April 2009

I think that the current picture in the article should be deleted. It's not a very clear pic. She's really not idenifiable, and only slightly more if you look at the pic alone. I know what she looks like and if someone were to show me that pic, I wouldnt immediately think its her. I believe that this pic would be more acceptable as a secondary pic, definetly not a primary pic.Racingstripes (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC) ```

I don't understand your comment. Tt is not a primary pic meant to identify exactly what she looks like. It is a secondary pic placed into the body text of the article (not the lead) to show her giving her support to the U.S. tea party movement. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Something cannot be secondary if there is only one. So this is the primary picture of the article. The caption also indicates that she is the fourth from the right, when she is actually the fifth(an upon closer look, maybe even the sixth.) In my opinion, this picture would be more fitting if the article was much larger, and there was a pertinent section for her involvement in the tea party movement. Typically in wikipedia's biographical articles the first picture in the article is of that person by themselves and much closer and clearer. This is distant group shot in which the subject is not very identifiable. And what I mean by not identifiable is that after seeing her in this pic, I couldn't identify her in another pic.Racingstripes (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This picture is nothing but a meaningless group shot. It does not belong in this article, period. If you want to put a picture of S.E. Cupp on here, it has to be a decent picture of her, and her ONLY. Nobody else. It must also be a picture that is not non-free. So until an acceptable picture of her appears, no picture is to be allowed on her article, especially this worthless group shot. Fourviz (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I just got S.E.'s permission to use a couple of images, one of which is File:SECupp-HS5.jpg, which I just added to the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

New sections required

A Politics and Religion section needs to be added the to article to show her views on those matters. you can talk about her involvement with the tea party if you wished there. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Twice you've had those reverted, and I agree with the reversions. First, we don't just add politics and religion sections to articles on living people, unless those issues are directly related to their notability and can be backed by verified sources. If you have some sources or something to discuss, then create the sections, but a picture and quotes from her are not enough to do so. Note, for example, that Cupp is not a politician, nor an organizer, nor is there any indication that she will be in the future. Should she become one, then that section can be added. We already state in the article that she is a self-proclaimed atheist, which is enough. In fact, since she is an atheist, it's hard to say what else could go in to a "religion" section.

In any event, it is always inappropriate to add empty sections except if you have reason to believe that you yourself will be filling them soon. If you think the sections are needed, its up to you to do the research, find the sources, and add them. If you don't think that can be done, then we should add sections just to add them. This is especially true since this is a BLP, as we don't want to imply something without verifying on blps, ever. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"though she rarely says anything positive about atheism"

This phrase is referenced by this source, which, while it refers to her atheism and gives an example of her criticising atheists, it doesn't establish a pattern of her rarely saying anything positive about atheism. Is there a WP:RS that does so or should it be rewritten? Autarch (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there instances of her saying something negative? That's her point IMHO, that there is no need to proselytize with atheism... an Atheists lack of belief doesn't need to be turned into a religion unto itself complete with attempts to convert others. Criticism of particular atheists isn't criticism of atheism. V7-sport (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There absolutely are instances of it, see [this YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATz6MS9YPU], in which she uses the phrase “militant atheist” unprovoked, which is considered a vile slur by most atheists, as there is no instance of anyone being actually militant, as in wars/crusades/inquisitions, in the name of atheism. She also states that religious people are not deluded. However at least n-1 religious beliefs are necessarily delusions, no matter what you believe; this is especially clear to freethinkers. All this and more is in that video. --Anon.

“militant atheist” unprovoked, which is considered a vile slur by most atheists"..... The fact that there is militancy has been pretty much demonstrated on this talk page. I'm not religious by the way... V7-sport (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

67.242.148.212 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)how about the fact she said only theists should hold office? She insisted an atheist would be untrustworthy. How is that not a negative? If someone said that about Jews, would it not be anti-Jewish? BTW, standing up for yourself against slander and discrimination is not militant. Face the obvious, it is highly likely Cupp is hiding in a glass closet trying to use that "BTW, I am an atheist" card as a false sense of conversion or reasonability for Christians ("hey, even an atheist agrees with us.")

I removed the youtube link, as it's not helpful here. In any event, even though I suspect you may possibly be correct, your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant--Wikipedia only includes information that can be verified by reliable sources in articles. We cannot draw our own conclusions about Cupp's private religious beliefs--all we can do is report what reliable sources have said. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

biographical info

the biographical info citation is to a cite that employs s.e.cupp as a writer. doesn't a citation like this need better sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkagen (talk • contribs) 03:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, as long as the source is reliable. In fact, a BLP's own website can even be a reliable source for some info, per the rules given in WP:SPS. If the website were claiming something like "She is the most famous atheist on TV" or "She can run 100 m in 6.4 sec," then we would have cause to doubt it. But the source is reliable, and it gives pretty basic details, so it should be okay. Was there any specific info that concerned you? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying removal of POV tag

If this article said "Cupp is an atheist," then I could see an argument that it is potentially non-neutral, and thus needed the POV tag. The article, though, says that she claims to be an atheist, and that is a completely neutral statement (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). By the logic of the editor who wants to add the tag, every single BLP article which has a self-professed religious stance should have the POV tag. This does not make sense. Again, an article may include POV statements and yet be NPOV, so long as those statements are properly attributed and all relevant viewpoints are included. If you had, for example, a highly reliable source which stated that there is evidence that Cupp is not an atheist, then we could include that as a balancing POV. If such a source does not exist, however, the article is proper as written, without the tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not my war, but as a reviewer, it seems to me some parties are attempting to muddy an issue settled long ago. I've removed the NPOV tag a second time.

X883 (talk) seems to be a sock created for the sole purpose of inserting the NPOV. Let's move on and find something useful to do.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not call me a sock for political purposes. I readily admit being a new account. Let’s focus on what matters. --X883 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No political purpose, especially as I don't care one way or another what religious beliefs a person chooses as it's a very personal and private matter. I suggest we're dealing with a sock because (a) the account was created today, (b) it's sole focus has been to address the POV issue on this article, (c) the account holder is obviously quite experienced, and (d) they've managed to outwit the reviewers, except that I stumbled upon it. Would you prefer an investigation?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow… Whom exactly did I “outwit”? I’ll stop reverting but still believe the omission of criticism is controversial. And religion is not a private matter when you are writing about it in the Times and giving TV interviews on the subject. Thanks for calling me “experienced” — I’m not really, I made maybe 10 edits a few years ago and you ’pedians bit me then, too. --X883 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the dispute to a halt. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."

What’s muddying things is that Cupp claims to be something and huge numbers of people have a very hard time believing her — but just like it would be unencyclopedic to mention only the official stance on JFK’s assassination, we need to present the controversy. --X883 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove it again, What was written isn't a "controversy".V7-sport (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't understand the controversy, but it appears to me someone is attempting to undermine an already settled issue. Stop this silly war and move on.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, X883! Whether or not you're a new editor in general, it is always good to have more eyes on any given article, assuming you're willing to edit within our policies. In this case, I think you point out an important oddity with this article, but the way you're addressing it isn't quite right. You mention, quite believably, that it seems odd that Cupp is so strongly in defense of the Christianity, and yet is a self-proclaimed atheist. As Wikipedia editors, however, we can't make that judgment ourselves; instead, we must have reliable sources to back up our claims. If, as you say "huge numbers of people of have a hard time believing her," then you should be able to find sources that support that. If you do (and they meet the guidelines in WP:RS), then we can include a line to that regard. I can easily imagine us adding a line that said, "Some commentators, such as X and Y, have stated that Cupp's self-professed atheism doesn't match her other claims..." followed by a reliable source. But, ultimately, the source must come first. If you can't provide any sources stating that, then really, the conflict is just between your personal POV and Cupp's. That conflict would not qualify the article for a POV template. I hope that helps explain why several of us think that the tag shouldn't be there. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwyrxian. That certainly makes sense. --X883 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the information added or the source--does anyone else? At first I was worried about the link to Youtube, as there are often copyright problems, but that appears to be CSPAN's actual channel, so it should be fine. I don't think we should add much more at this point, as the whole religious issue, while important to her public presence, isn't that overwhelmingly important so it shouldn't take up too much of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Positions

She was confronted about her position claiming to be atheistic/agnostic on Real Time with Bill Maher and on The Young Turk. The Young Turk source: Interview with S.E. Cupp on The Young Turk . I remember vividly that she got a little loud about this question on the Real Time with Bill Maher, where her book was introduced. She pointed out when questioned that she is on the search about faith and does not exclude to change her position about faith in future, which was declared by Bill Maher incompatible position and being just a character played for commercial interested (I would compare it to Steven Colbert on his Show).