Jump to content

Talk:Joan Rivers

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.200.151.15 (talk) at 20:09, 27 September 2016 (→Death). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Celebrity Apprentice - Mark Burnett personal interests

Mark Burnett, Celebrity Apprentice producer, announced a new show, "How'd You Get So Rich" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How'd_You_Get_So_Rich%3F in which Joan Rivers would star, in November 2008, before winner of Celebrity Apprentice had been known. http://www.nypost.com/seven/11142008/tv/joan_rivers_ambushes_the_rich_138531.htm

Wikipedia visitors might be interested in this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 871x (talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Apprentice

I think someone who is able to edit protected pages should make a sepearte section which details more about her win on Celebrity Apprenitce. It will be a huge part of her legacy and it likely introduced her to the younger generations which before only new her by cameos. It seems that it should have a more significant place then a brief sentence at the end of a larger section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ic2705 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If it means anything, I don't think of her as a gay icon. Just playing a lesbian doesn't count, of course, but everything about Joan is a phony farce. Her talking up "gay rights" is just another game to her. Sure many people are like that but with Joan being so obvious she just shouldn't be included. It makes a mockery of what a true icon represents to the gay community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.225.46 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed colloquialism

I am appaled by the use of the horrible American colloquialism "gotten" in this article, so I have changed it to the correct synonym: "had". I also corrected other words in this sentence to make the tense consistent. Christoper P. Martin, 17:14, 20 Oct 2005 (BST)

You spelt "appalled" wrong. Love, WindFish 09:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrong?" I believe you meant "incorrectly". 208.104.52.233 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)J271[reply]

American colloquialism? I hear "got" and "gotten" many times in British films.Lestrade 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
SPELT??? I believe you meant "spelled," WindFish.

Unsourced Stein statement

I don't know how to add them so they look nice so here you go, please someone add this http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEED6163FF935A35751C1A961948260

Joan's albums and books

Joan Rivers' comedy album which was released in the 1980s was not called "Can We Talk?" It was called "What Becomes a Semi-Legend Most?". Her first album, released in the late 60s or early 70s, was called "The Next to Last Joan Rivers Album"

The Book Enter Talking was released in the 1980s, not the 1990s. It came before Bouncing Back. It does not mention Edgar's Suicide, as that had not occurred when the book was written. Enter Talking was released either shortly before or soon after the premiere of "The Late Show." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.193.250.114 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Didn't she direct a film?

Rabbit Test (film)? shouldn't it be on the page? Stimpy9337 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling for Soup

Could I have a reference for this:

She also insulted Chris Burney, the basist in Bowling for Soup. He called him a "fatso" and called his band "Bowling for Crap". Later that year she voted Bowling for Soup as the worst dressed musicians. The band took this very seriously and bought an amp saying "f**k you Joan. This has also been mentioned in the Jimmy Kimmel show.

Thanks JameiLei 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even without a reference, is this really notable? Rivers' schtick is insulting celebrities, there's not much purpose (or encyclopedic value) in enumerating individual examples, I'd have thought. 18:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

The band took this very seriously and bought an amp saying "fuck you Joan". --Filll (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange

Uploaded new picture on the Fringe page, but for some reason on here it's showing as a stretched version of the old one... Adaircairell (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cystic fibrosis

"Rivers is the National Chairwoman of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation" - is there a particular reason why? Does she have some personal experience of the condition? If so, I feel this article would benefit from some elaboration Dom Kaos (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other examples of civic involvement? Any charitable giving or volunteerism? Thanks, 69.118.112.224 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice

I think it goes without saying that things like calling Annie Duke a Nazi and "a string of verbal abuse" violate NPOV policy. However, the show's website does list Joan Rivers as "active". She may be back this Sunday, or (given the show's history) return in the final episode to help Clint Black/Jesse James beat Duke. Please keep an eye out for these kinds of edits in my wiki-absence. Recognizance (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your comment:

"I think it goes without saying that things like calling Annie Duke a Nazi and "a string of verbal abuse" violate NPOV policy."

I think you are confused as to what NPOV means. It doesn't mean not recording distasteful things. That those things happened are incontrovertible and were witnessed by millions. Any sentence which says Joan Rivers compared Annie Duke to Hitler is merely a statement of an incontrovertible fact. You may argue about the neutrality of the language, but not the fact itself, and if so, please feel free to put something together on the Nazi comment and Joan river's other outbursts and insults in your own words.

Her words may have been may be controversial, distasteful and something that Joan Rivers wish she never said. But there is no doubt that she said those words. And they are worthy of recording for exactly that reason. The living person policy exists to shield people from heresay and unverifiable claims. This is not the case here. Her words are recorded for posterity in other media, and should also be recorded here. However continual editing trying to hide or deny that she actually said the words violates the NPOV policy. It's a crime against truth and equally biased editing to delete material with the sole purpose being to push the existence of an event under the carpet. I'd encourage you to become part of the solution rather than as you currently are, part of the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.41.129 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference:

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.41.129 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphing

I find that the current paragraphing in the article makes it difficult to read. For instance, the last paragraph in the 2000s goes from December 2007 up to last week! There are simple rules for paragraphing that can be found in sources from Strunk & White to Wikipedia. I would like to go through this article and re-parapraph so that separate concepts are kept separately. For instance, in the 2000s, the information about The Celebrity Apprentice should be in its own paragraph. Any thoughts before I begin re-paragraphing? SpikeToronto (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Apprentice

{{editsemiprotected}} Rivers later returned to the show and on May 10, 2009, she was selected by Donald Trump as the Celebrity Apprentice, beating out Annie Duke for the position.

Not done: Could you be more specific? I couldn't find an obvious spot in the article to place that sentence. Celestra (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another cameo

She appeared at Curb Your Enthusiasmfirst 23 September 2002 (Season 3, Episode 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.24.54 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0551400/fullcredits#cast[reply]

"Real" name

According to this article: http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en (and many others about this indecent), the name on her passport is Joan Rosenberg. I assume that this would be her "real" legal name at the moment. Proxy User (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her husband's last name was Rosenberg.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic surgery

Oviously the woman has had quite a lot, any log behind it? Jackpot Den 01:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's practically what she's famous for (having lots of plastic surgery), why isn't there anything on it in her article? CTVampSlayer 11:33, 9 October 2006.

So that's why she looks like an alien? Spooky. 77.118.240.45 09:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some mention of it here in the article regardless of how obvious recent images of her make it (damn, I hope I look that good when I'm 75), people who are nearly notorious for their appearance are required to have some information on the subject in their article. K.H (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how could this be a B-class article with no mention of the surgery? Time for a reassessment, I think. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's actually what I came to this page looking for, information about her plastic surgeries. There must be some mention. Wikipedia fail here. Abergeman (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Film studio started by Joan and husband

Sometime between the late seventies and the end of the eighties, Joan and her husband started a film studio in Pennsyvania. It was on the Philadelphia news but not in Philadelphis. It later failed. I don't know if any films were made there. Nosoy2010 (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Age

She is now 81 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Because it would be controversial

I'd like to propose this on the talk first, rather than boldly do it, because it would be controversial:

I'd like to remove her gross jokes out of this entry. For example, in Criticism it reads:

Rivers has been criticized on numerous occasions for making jokes that are either insensitive or about serious matters. In 2013 she came under heavy criticism for making jokes about Adele's weight. Follow the birth of Adele's son in 2012, Rivers tweeted "Congratulations to Adele on the birth of her 68 pound 8 ounces bouncing baby boy." [40] Rivers continued to make jokes about her weight following her Academy Award win for "Skyfall".[41] Rivers refused to apologize.[42]

I would make a motion that it be changed to the following

Rivers has been criticized on numerous occasions for making jokes that are either insensitive or about serious matters. In 2013 she came under heavy criticism for makes jokes about Adele's weight. Rivers continued to make jokes about her weight following her Academy Award win for "Skyfall". Rivers refused to apologize.

Essentially, clean up the controversy section so that it just states that facts, in the same way as I've demonstrated above, so that we have the facts, but don't have to repeat her vile remarks. They're unnecessary and , while they don't violate any specific policy, I would consider it both common sense and IAR in that removing her vile remarks would keep to the facts, and improve wikipedia by not having her verbal pollution in the article. Reprinting her remarks are not needed for encyclopedic tone, nor for fair reporting of the facts. I'll wait and see what consensus says before taking any action. And for the record, I'm definetly biased against Joan Rivers (yet another reason not to act, but ask first  :) ) Kosh Vorlon    21:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Manually editing the date above to keep it out of archive for a while. I want as long of a time as possible for people to see this and make their consensus known. Kosh Vorlon    11:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a drive-by, I agree that adding isolated jokes doesn't work well for this, or most comedian bios. But I also feel it's almost silly to note that some of her jokes are "controversial" or insensitive about serious matters, since the essence of most comedy is based on making fun of "serious" events or issues. Rivers made a hundred jokes about Elizabeth Taylor's rapid weight gain, and she typically made more fun of her own dress and weight. --Light show (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think that much detail is needed. The types of things Rivers made jokes about can be mentioned, but the specific details of the jokes and comments (for example, mentioning Adele by name) are not needed. I also think it is silly to mention that she made jokes about serious matters. Many comedians make jokes about serious matters. CorinneSD (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Word is out that Rivers has suffered cardiac arrest, but there's already a death date in this article without any citation or other further reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.122.9.74 (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was vandalism, or possibly an edit made by someone who had been given false information. Whatever the case, it's been reverted.--Cojovo (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there has been a lot of controversy on the Jahi McMath article about "date of death", so if an editor is in California, they may actually have Joan River's date of death as the date she became brain-dead, or went on machines. River's status also illustrates the vast difference between how suffering brain-death-(if that is what Rivers had when she sustained cardiac arrest) is treated differently in states like NY and NJ compared to California. Any ref.to "hoping for a miracle" etc. was labeled as "fringe" and roundly abused in the McMath case, and even the media has a different "spin" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738687/Joan-Rivers-family-face-agonizing-decision-not-turn-life-support-machine-legendary-comic-fights-life.html when someone is "not quite dead" in NYC.24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full cause of death released by NYC medical examiner is "anoxic encephalopathy due to hypoxic arrest during laryngoscopy and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with propofol sedation for evaluation of voice changes and gastroesophageal reflux disease." This should be included in the text as the current text is an interpretation of the above statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.161.113 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current text states that the death was due to "anoxic encephalopathy due to hypoxic arrest", exactly as it appeared in the ME's report. The rest (the technical description of the surgery and the type of anesthesia that was used) is moot given the outcome, and would add nothing to the reader's understanding of her death. Dwpaul Talk 21:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the 'cause of death' infobox item at least include the manner of death (medical error, or at least "surgical complications"), not just the mechanism of death (cardiac arrest)? 72.200.151.15 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Carson

Johnny Carson was not the first late night talk show host nor did he pioneer the format. Steve Allen and Jack Paar were most responsible for developing the format and also very successful at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.188.25.68 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not make either claim. Perhaps you intended to comment upon the article Johnny Carson? Dwpaul Talk 03:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps s/he intended to comment upon the article Joan Rivers, in which the second paragraph of the lead begins: "Rivers first came to prominence in 1965 as a guest on The Tonight Show, the first of the late-night chat programs with interviews and comedy, pioneered by Johnny Carson, whom she acknowledges as her mentor." 2600:1006:B103:1681:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article also says that Rivers was the first woman to have a talk show, which is not true either. That would probably be Della Reese, though I think that show was syndicated. Perhaps the article means to say "talk show on a major network." Richard K. Carson (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza bombing controversy

Nothing on this neither in the whole article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719688/Youre-dead-deserve-dead-started-Joan-Rivers-astonishing-attack-stupid-Palestinians.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.175.251 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This information should be included as there has been petitions for her not to be let into the UK given her statements supporting genocide.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2014

Please add the following information that was previously in the article but someone has removed it. This is important information that was reported in the mainstream media. To be added at the end of the "2000-present" chapter citing current events. Thank you:

"In July 2014, Rivers was asked by a reporter, “Do you think the United States will see the first gay president or the first woman president?” She replied, "We already have it with Obama, so let’s just calm down.” She further added, “You know Michelle is a tranny.” The cameraman responded, “I’m sorry, she’s a what?” “A transgender. We all know,” Rivers said before walking away." Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/joan-rivers-calls-president-obama-716738

Seeker79dreamer (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - this is not "important information" - it is total trivia, which is why it was, correctly, deleted before. - Arjayay (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP should not promote tabloid journalism

Part of the article is digressing into sensationalism, adding tabloid-style statements about some jokes or her personal opinions outside her professional capacity. The article should really try to refocus on what she's notable for, as the lead sentence makes clear: Joan Rivers is an American actress, comedian, writer, producer and television host, best known for her stand-up comedy.

Rivers did not claim to be a doctor or dietitian, so her personal opinion jokes about other celebrity's excessive weight or their underweight status, should not become a separate topic of criticism. The same is true of other particular jokes, which don't become encyclopedic simply because a tabloid somewhere quotes an unhappy subject of the joke. Since she was noted for making fun of celebrities, along with herself, a few examples of her style are enough to make the point. If her general style of humor was either loved or criticized by some, that's objective and could be included. But making humor out of events or people, like she did in "Joan Rivers in the UK", was her style.

Nor did she ever claim to be a politician, although like many comedians, politics and politicians were a subject of their humor. But a reporter stopping a celebrity in a public place to get their personal opinion about world events, then WP adding those opinions, is even more non-encyclopedic and simply promotes the same tabloid style. Her airport-terminal comments about the Gaza war, which some tabloids called a "rant," resembled a "set-up" by news-hungry reporters looking for headlines. The commentary about it is clearly non-neutral in any case, since it takes a phrase out of context by excluding her other comments: The Palestinians… you cannot throw rockets, and not expect people to defend themselves. . . don’t put your goddamn things in private homes! I’m sorry, don’t you dare put weapons stashes in private homes!. But none of that kind of interview material really belongs anywhere except on tabloid media. Like the other stuff, it's trivia, non-neutral, off-topic and irrelevant to her professional notability. --Light show (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of referenced info regarding Palestinians

I believe this referenced info about her comments regarding Palestinians should not have been removed in a bold edit by User:Light show: here. I added a quote from Joan Rivers, demonstrating she felt it was significant enough to address the controversy, which happened only a few days before her death. It is not "tabloid journalism"; the point is not that she was interviewed by TMZ, but that it made international news and she deemed it significant enough to apologize and explain herself. The incident also led to a Twitter hashtag trend at the time of her death, as the Variety article shows. I believe the removal of this fully sourced info comes close to censorship and POV, as it may be an attempt to remove referenced information which does not paint her "in the best light." By the way, I also added some referenced info about her extensive philanthropic work, which shows that my edits are balanced. An encyclopedia should be fair and balanced.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the selectively quoted material was done with five rationales, and a link to a preexisting talk section explaining. You should just reply to the actual reasons first, in the earlier section. You should also read sources before adding them, as she neither "apologized," as you just stated, or "retracted" her comments, as you misstated in the edits. The only "controversy" about her comments is your apparent obsession with posting and reposting it without responding to the list of reasons for excluding it, trying to soapbox your opinions of what is encyclopedic. Nor does this have anything to do with painting her in the best light, but more in not putting WP in a bad light, by becoming a tabloid. --Light show (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like your aggressive tone; it is inappropriate. What are your five rationales?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first three paragraphs under the major heading above. Dwpaul Talk 21:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And your accusations that another editor, who you identified by username, was engaging in censorship and/or selective editing to flatter the subject were equally inappropriate and might have been expected to solicit an aggressive response. Please keep your comments to content, not other editors, and assume good faith. Dwpaul Talk 21:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you're completely wrong. It's not sensationalistic. The info is referenced; it was a major worldwide news story just before her death; see the Variety article. I believe it should be added back. (And the way you moved my comment to this section, under "tabloid," is appropriate. I insist that this Palestinians news story is NOT tabloid fodder.) What do others think? It should be added back to make sure the article is fair and balanced, shouldn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, the rationales were given in the edit, with links to others. As a notable comedian, not a politician, including a list of 1,000 of her jokes would be more relevant than her walking-through-an-airport rant, captured by a stalking papparazzi looking for a story. --Light show (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should let the sources speak for themselves. Her article is not just a list of jokes; it presents her entire life. So this important last chapter should not be excluded!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you let the sources speak for themselves as opposed to your opinion, you can see that this is not just about a gotcha moment from TMZ. It is about her reaction to it and the worldwide resonance this had just before her death. This is why I believe it should not be removed or censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting for a convincing reason for not re-inserting this referenced info, based on letting the sources speak for themselves, not just an opinion...Zigzig20s (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read, don't wait. There are a half-dozen guideline reasons already mentioned, none of which you've responded to. Add to those the basic fact that WP is not a newspaper. --Light show (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has become a very significant part of her life. It's everywhere except on Wikipedia--that makes it sound very whitewashed and akin to censorship! This biography should reflect her entire character, not just puffery. It is directly connected to her support of Israel and criticism of public figures who don't support Israel (which an editor tried to remove as well, even though it is referenced...). But please list those "half-dozen guideline reasons." Do you have six succinct reasons to give?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to copy and paste what's been said above so you don't have to scroll? Light show (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like confused ramblings, so I would like six succinct reasons...1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6). Please?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll list them later, although I can't believe you'd call any of the above totally clear explanations, "confused ramblings." But after I post guidelines, assuming you're a newbie and don't already know them, it'll be your turn, to find even one reason to include it. So far, you've given not a single logical reason besides your personal opinion: saying it was "a very significant part of her life," is ridiculous. Saying it's everywhere, meaning some celebrity tabloids, is wrong. Claiming the article itself is just "puffery" means you haven't read it. Insisting that keeping non-encyclopedic paparazzi junk off WP is "censorship" is also wrong.
And your quote and its description is also totally wrong: you call her quotation a "retraction," when she's essentially criticizing the press for posting an out-of-context quote to sell papers. Her actual statements and video are here. And even if her statement was encyclopedic and relevant to the bio, you'd have to quote the entire actual statement to keep it in full context. Is that what you'd prefer, a 400-word transcript posted to remain neutral? Think about it.--Light show (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just waiting for your six reasons. No need to change the subject and attack me, etc. Variety is a very good source...perhaps the most prominent entertainment publication. Btw, I think the statement was posted by her on her official Facebook account; it was a written statement; it was re-published in the Variety article. But we are waiting for your six reasons, as that is what was asked of you...Zigzig20s (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you're casually ignoring your own errors and misstatements, brushing them off with "I'm waiting," means you're not serious. Suggest you now read and reply to what's been posted instead of waiting, since the game's over. --Light show (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you or do you not have "half a dozen rationales" for not including the referenced info that you removed? If you don't, I am sorry, but I have to add it back. If you do, please present them here. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest repeated insertion was reverted. You have failed to respond to any of the guidelines mentioned above explaining why the quote should not be included. Your explanation that those reasons with linked guidelines are "confused ramblings" is nonsense. If you are so desperate to have this out-of-context "bad light" quote included, you will need to respond to those before edit warring. --Light show (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you found a buddy to cover for you, but this will go to ANI if you can't get over your erroneous edits. --Light show (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before posting there, let me know if you've used or are using different usernames, since socks are an exemption to 3RR, and your arrogant style of discourse and warring methods are too similar to previous events. --Light show (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping Zigzig20's edits to Joan Rivers in regards to her Palestinian comments. Editors on Wikipedia reserve the right to include critical comments that have been news worthy and River's comments are newsworthy and were a critical part of her beliefs. This doesn't make it tabloid journalism nor does it smear her name/legacy. It's simply about including unbiased fact in her profile. She was also very passionate about lots of causes, her being Jewish. This part of her life is relevant to her legacy. I support restoring and/or maintaining Zigzig20's edits. Kingslove2013 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Light Show deleted my comments on his/her talk page about the need for sensible discussion and an appropriate attitude. I concur that his/her attitude/tone about these edits has been condescending in nature and borderline rude. Kingslove2013 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the deletion rationale, there's no reason to start another discussion about the same topic on my page when this one is active. --Light show (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I agree Light Show and my apology. I still think you should be more diplomatic in your disagreements. Your tone with Zigzigs20 was possibly what frustrated him/her in the first place. Kingslove2013 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the 8 August 2014 she mocked the deaths of Palestinians including 2 year-old children. She said the dead were all stupid, deserved to die & the Israelis had not killed enough. Mel Gibson was quoted for his anti-Semitic remarks in his WP article although his objectionable right wing opinions were not part of his area of professional competence as an actor. Rivers was known for her propensity to make controversial bad taste jokes, but this was tantamount to incitement to genocide & I suggest that Netanyahu might be quite susceptible to such encouragements. above The British right wing tabloid (The Daily Mail) referenced found this behaviour as objectionable as I do. The reference given to put her comments into "context" a link to a US rightwing magazine) adds nothing to the debate. I feel that Joan Rivers' posthumous reputation is receiving some special treatment on Wikipedia that it will not enjoy elsewhere and this will only reflect poorly upon WP.These comments should be included and the block lifted. If it is not it is going to have to be permanent, because although support for shelling the Gaza ghetto may be uncontroversial in the USA it is not a consensus that is shared outside the USA & Israel - although to be fair many Israelis have spoken out against it.Streona (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't really feel that strongly either way, but I removed some "material" that was added in the last day or so to the personal section about Hamas, ect., since it really doesn't belong there per say. I know the subject just died so a lot is going on, but the personal section had been quite stable, so any additions like this need consensus and will be removed until there is such. --Malerooster (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Malerooster: Why do you feel it does not belong it the personal life section? You say this without providing any reason. The section starts by saying she supported Israel, and thus it makes sense to flesh it out with her comment on Palestinians there. User:Streona: I agree with you that the info should be included, to keep the article fair and balanced. (Btw, some sources like Variety are NOT a tabloid or conservative publications.) That's a second person who agrees with me, alongside User talk:Kingslove2013 (who is not me obviously--I've been using Wikipedia for years, creating thousands of articles, having had DYK's, etc...). To be honest, I don't even see what she said as that controversial, as she later explained what she meant (as the referenced quote I'd inserted shows.) It just shows that she was a strong supporter of Israel. Someone also removed her comments about celebrities who support Hamas, which should be added back, as it's all part of the same topic--her support of Israel.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s, I actually wouldn't include her "support" of Israel as the first sentence in the Personal life section either. That section should be, where she was born, grew up, her education, family life, yadda, yadda who she married, hobbies, children, yadda, yadda. I mentioned below that maybe another section, pick a title name, be started to include her political beliefs, comments, ect. The section needs improvement, which doesn't include getting into some end of life comments/controversy before we even learn about her "true" personal life, ect. Also, just because something is sourced or referenced doesn't mean we automatically include it in an article. It has to be well placed, be noteworthy, have relevance, be in context, be balance and NPOV, and follow a well structured format. --Malerooster (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Malerooster Isn't politics personal? We could have a philanthropy and political advocacy section (away from the personal life section, probably just before it). It is true that this quote was released by her to explain her worldwide headline a few days before she died, but that does not negate it. It was not an isolated event. She went on Israeli TV to say she "loved Israel," then criticised public figures who did not support Israel, then made this anti-Palestinian statement, then released this lengthy quotation to explain what she meant. That looks to me like political advocacy. It may go hand in hand with her Jewish philanthropy as well, which should be expanded. (I started writing about her philanthropic work, and it was then moved to a sub-subsection.)Zigzig20s (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Zigzig20s, political beliefs are personal and MIGHT belong in a subsection, IF they rise to a level worthy of inclusion. As this "material" was added recently, it felt very "forced" and "out of order" for a "normal" personal life section, that's all. I usually stick to MOS type of edits since I am a math guy, but seeing that this was just added since her death, I would ask others to help include this "material", if at all, in a "better" and more "orderly" fasion that it was done previously, that's all. --Malerooster (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe it is worthy of inclusion, given that it is a pattern (not an isolated incident) and it has received worldwide coverage. Her article looks censored without it. She believed in freedom of speech and this article should reflect that.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So support for genocide...not very memorable. I suppose this is a private opinion between the individual & the entire ethnic group they want to see exterminated IS IT? (NOT!)Streona (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what she said, at all. She just said the Palestinians had voted for the wrong people, and Israel was only defending itself. We should just let the sources speak for themselves, but not censor this either.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's Alive

Joan Rivers is still alive as far as I can tell from news outlets. The "recent death" tag is premature. Upjav (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be some sources saying she died today.
Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked ~10 minutes ago, it was mixed. Thank you for correcting me. Rest in Peace, Joan. Upjav (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

No idea how to do this properly. Career section, 1980s-1990s, 8th paragraph, it says "which ran for five years and won her an Daytime Emmy in 1990", to be changed to "...won her a Daytime Emmy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodovision (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Rivers Died. RIPJoanRivers (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is insufficient evidence of her death, and recent media coverage shows that she is alive. Also, your username seems fishy, bud. Upjav (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had conducted my search just before it was confirmed. Upjav (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone blanked out most of this page before it was protected. Some admin should restore it. I can't. Web Warlock (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
nevermind. been done. Web Warlock (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RIP Joan Rivers.-- Theda 19:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede paragraph name and date

@Taram:: It's very common for articles to start with a person's legal name, followed by the name they're known as. Just a few examples: Bill Clinton, Charlie Sheen, Chuck D, Ice-T. I'm surprised that someone with 1000+ edits would not have noticed this. Also, why have the valid citations twice been removed from Joan Rivers' birthdate, death date, and real name? There is no guideline on Wikipedia to support the claim that we "do not need a citation for date of death" as one of your edit summaries said, and certainly no guideline to say that they should be removed once placed. (There is WP:OVERCITE but that's for cases where the number of citations in overwhelming in one place.) Wikipedia is intended to have a long-term view, not momentary ideas of what is obvious and what is not; a person 5 or 30 years from now will not be sitting with a TV behind them hearing about Joan Rivers' death like this afternoon; they should have sources that are already verifiable and reliable and not have to guess at whether the text was verified by anyone else, or what Google (or whatever is around at the time) might show. --Closeapple (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Closeapple (talk)Taram (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The death date is sufficiently cited in the death section, thus making any cites in the lede redundant. Connormah (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, it was even the lead story on the national news, tonight. The date of death is currently well within comon knowledge. Thank you again!Taram (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: And whoever wrote "Rosenberg née Molinsky" in the lede did a fine job of fixing a grammatical/historical problem. Thanks to that editor, too!Taram (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go with the quotes

User:LightShow seems to make a habit of filling articles of recently dead celebrities with all kinds of third-party quotes from biographers and people sometimes only incidentally connected to the subject, despite longstanding ways in which Wikipedia biographical articles are written without overquoting. The user did a similar overhaul to Robin Williams, making the article much poorer, in my opinion. Biographical articles "treated" in "this way" start to look like a Zagat guide. Moncrief (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think some would be better paraphrased, please point them out. --Light show (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

Pro Hamas to Pro Palestine 188.161.13.44 (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The phrase "pro Hamas" does not appear in the article. Where it discusses Rivers's criticism of those who have supported Hamas, that is what the cited source has said. Therefore, we should not change the meaning to say that she criticized all who have supported Palestine. Dwpaul Talk 12:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New section needed possibly

I know a section like "Controversial comments/jokes" would be a huge dumping ground, but "material" about her political beliefs, ect shouldn't be "forced" into her personal life section. What do others think about a separate section for the type of "material" being discussed above? --Malerooster (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A section about her alleged political beliefs is likely to be overwhelmed by substantially the same problem as "controversial comments", because, as shown above in the last few days, some people insist on conflating the two, attributing profound political/social activism to any off-the-cuff comment that appears not to agree with their own profound political/social activism. She also made jokes about her daughter's apartment being like the Ariel Castro kidnappings, sourced in the article; by the same standard, some fool could show up here and claim that Joan Rivers had anti-child-protection political views. From the article (and sourced), here's what one needs to remember when attributing political comments to Joan Rivers:

In 2002, Rivers told the Montreal Mirror that she was a Republican. However, on a 2013 episode of Celebrity Wife Swap, Rivers stated that she was a Democrat. Then, on January 28, 2014, during a conversation with Reza Farahan, she announced that she was in fact a Republican.

All that being said: One social issue, which she has made clear is the real thing, and she has been continuously solid about, is gay rights (going back to pre-1970s I think) and HIV/AIDS care (before almost any other celebrity had the backbone to be associated with it in public). I don't know if there should be a whole section about it, but it was somewhat significant. There might be other things. If we keep it within the "Personal life" section, or maybe editors will be able to make the distinction between what she took the time to act on on in real life, and what was just output for the microphones. --Closeapple (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please scroll up and read my comments in "Removal of referenced info regarding Palestinians." I think there should be a philanthropy and political advocacy section, just before the personal life section. It would include her philanthropic work with HIV/AIDS, animal welfare, Jewish charities, as well as her support is Israel, including some of the comments she made about the conflict in Gaza and Palestinians. It is well sourced and widely covered everywhere except for her Wikipedia page now that it's been removed, which looks like censorship frankly. There was a pattern as she said she "loved" Israel on Israeli television, then criticised public figures who sided with Palestinians, then said they had voted for the wrong government, then explained her comment at length... Her support of Israel was closely linked to her philanthropic work. Philanthropy is not just about donating time or money: it is also about spreading the word. (Btw, I am the one who first started adding referenced info about her philanthropic work.) This section could also include her Republican affiliation btw. (She also wrote letters to Ronald Reagan when he was President btw.) As I said, scroll up and see above. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Including her personal opinions on topics unrelated to her professional field is best minimized or excluded, especially if quotes are used. That works for making tabloid headlines, which as explained above, automatically can become contentious when taken out of context. Regarding the long quote removed and how it was presented, with a shorter quote, there's really no way to make the inclusion neutral or even accurate. And WP is not a newspaper that should be used for scandal mongering.
The quote from her was provoked by a stalking, walking, pushy paparazzi and was obviously intended to be clipped for a headline. The quote about that quote, which you kept adding back, was never even described correctly. You first added it describing it as an "apology" for the quote, then re-added it calling it a "retraction," and then re-added again it calling it an "explanation." In fact, it's none of those. It was her clear and vehement criticism of the press for quoting her out of context just to sell papers. Being so insistent to re-add the out-of-context comment captured by some scandal-hunting celeb-stalking reporter, is unusual. If she was a political figure, quotes like that may fit, in context. But not for a comedian, IMO. And there's no obvious reason to keep creating new sections about a topic already being discussed above. --Light show (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors should read "Removal of referenced info regarding Palestinians." and see that I am not the only one who thinks the comments about Israel and Palestinians should be added back, because they present a balanced description of her character, not puffery and not tabloid talk either. It's also part of a pattern of political advocacy for Israel on her part. I should also note that I find Light show's tone disrespectful towards me; they also moved my concerns at the end of this talkpage up to a section they'd already created, with the subhead "tabloid" in it, possibly as a subliminal way to belittle my concern. I won't reach consensus with them, so hopefully other editors will agree with me, politely. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was abrupt. But the new section your started was part of an ongoing discussion section. I moved it intact, title and all, as a subsection there, even though it was all part of the same ongoing discussion. Now you've again created another section, on the same issue, instead of adding it to the other section. Not to be impolite, but there have been repeated questions to you in the other sections, about the same issue, and you merely ignore responding, instead starting a new section. --Light show (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create this new section lol! Still no idea what your "half dozen reasons" are for censoring this referenced info. Not sure what your questions are either.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without traveling back to the above sections, in this one it's mentioned that WP is not a newspaper; should not engage in scandal mongering; and an out-of-context quote could not be used in a neutral manner. --Light show (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think her support of Israel was "scandalous"!! It is neutral--part of a pattern (not a news soundbite, but a pattern) of her public image (a conscious decision) as an advocate of Israel (political advocacy/philanthropy). Hence I don't see why it shouldn't be included...Indeed, I believe that it should, if we are to be totally encyclopedic and fair and balanced.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're discussing a new topic, than the one earlier, you'll need to be a bit clearer, since you just said I "moved" your concerns. But those concerns where not about her "support of Israel." --Light show (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. She supported Israel over Palestine. Went on Israeli TV to say she "loved Israel", criticized public figures who did not support Israel, said the Palestinians deserved what they were getting for electing Hamas, etc. I feel like I am repeating myself a lot and we are just going round in circles. Can we please get consensus to add it back with a philanthropy and political advocacy section from other editors?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then as a minimum you should address at least the three guideline issues above, which you've been continually requesting. You asked for them, you got them, so deal with them first. --Light show (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I responded. Read again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please get consensus to add it again from other editors? There is already another editor (Kingslove2013) who is in favour of it. How many would we need?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I abolutely agree this section must be added. It is ludicrous to have an article about this woman that totally ignores a huge and well publicized controversy about her life. It is not tabloid journalism. Her remarks celebrating the death of Palestinians ("Good! They deserve to be dead!") were covered by almost all major news media, and they spawned a huge social media reaction celebrating her own death, all of which can easily be googled. It is totally ridiculous to exclude them from the article. 184.65.13.145 (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IP, it has to be placed in the appropriate section, written in a NPOV tone, and given proper weight. The subject has made a living saying over the top things for DECADES. This last bru ha ha, happens to have happen right before she died, and struck a raw nerve, and might have also, probably so, been personally motivated, but that is OR. Again, the subject has said many many things that probably crossed the line, but she felt licensed comedically to do so and was trying to get a rise mosgt of the time.--Malerooster (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't say this as a joke, and she took the time to release a statement to explain her comments later. It wasn't a publicity stunt or a joke she said on stage. Why would a Philanthropy and political advocacy section not work? I think it would. People seem to be clamoring for this section, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scatter My Ashes at Bergdorf's (2013)

Joan Rivers appeared as herself in the documentary Scatter My Ashes at Bergdorf's (2013). See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1893326/

Should Scatter My Ashes at Bergdorf's be added to her list of films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DyanSwan (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FACTUAL CORRECTION RE JOAN RIVERS

In the section on the 1980s, it says: In February 1983, she became the first female comedian to ever perform atCarnegie Hall.[34]

It should read: In February 1983, she became one of the first female comedians to ever perform at Carnegie Hall (Jackie “Moms” Mabley was the first in 1962).

From Toni Armstrong Jr. toniajr@icloud.com - 09/08/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.30.21 (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're right. [2], [3] Changed. --NeilN talk to me 20:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2014

PariAmin (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I would like to correct some obvious mistakes on genre...thanks :)[reply]

 Not done Please only use this template to suggest specific and exact wording. --NeilN talk to me 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Norwegian version and its balance of views

I am the only one who has criticized the following text on Wikipedia in Norwegian, and attempted to change the following:

"and in 2014 only weeks before her death, she said in an interview that Palestinians deserve to die and that only civilians with low IQ died in Gaza. The statement came in connection with the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, and resulted in anger in several circles."

My comment: The problem (for me) is not the sources in that wikipedia article.

Am I wrong to try to change the text, or is the text something we should adopt in our wikipedia? --Swahulko (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Late Show Starring Joan Rivers

In the 1980's-1990's section of the article, the following regarding "The Late Show Starring Joan Rivers" should be added because that show was a major turning point in her career and personal life (death of Edgar).

ADD: On October 9th, 1986, with the birth of the Fox Broadcasting Company, “The Late Show Starring Joan Rivers” was Fox’s flagship show. With Joan’s talent and contacts, the show drew countless stars onto the set; which aired live each weeknight.

However, inexperienced and young Fox executives (with no comedy experience) made it impossible for Edgar (producer) and Joan to do their jobs because the network wanted the show to pull ratings similar to “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.” It was technically impossible for The Late Show to pull similar ratings because at the time the new Fox network only reached a fraction of homes nation-wide and was broadcasted on UHF. Additionally, the executives discounted that The Tonight Show had been on the air for decades and established a solid base audience. Regardless, the executives fought incessantly with Edgar and Joan wanting them to change a variety of things almost nightly based on Neilson ratings. The micro-managing was so extreme, that Fox executives had their own private viewing room next door to Joan’s dressing room; where after each show, they would want to talk to Joan and give a critique.

As the show’s producer and Joan’s husband, Edgar was courageous in attempting to protect Joan from the executives and their knee-jerk wants to change show content and style. However, toward the end of the show’s run (seven months), Fox fired Edgar and soon after Joan for her insistence that they re-hire Edgar and her refusal to change show elements. Fox executives never obtained an enduring late night talk show.

AustinGemini (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources would be required first before this could be added. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 04:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Rivers and the Reagans (was: Removal of verified content)

An other editor removed verified content, making a claim I did not assert in the edit description. The content was more about the friendship between the subject of this article and the late president Ronald Reagan. I made no claim of the subjects "importance" within the GOP. I didn't add the content for partisan reasons, as the edit description appears to allude to.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juxtaposed between two sentences that talked about her and her daughter's claims to be Republicans, the implication was clear, if unintended. Maybe this information belongs in a different place in the article, or at least not bracketed by those two sentences. Dwpaul Talk 21:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like where?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in 2000s-2010s, just before the article talks about her invitation to Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla in 2005. However, the statement you inserted doesn't by itself convey what you seem to think it does (that she was a close friend of Reagan), so that may require expansion (and citation) if that's what you're trying to get across. Dwpaul Talk 21:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making assumptions "you seem to think it does". We may view this edit differently, but please stop making assumptions of the reasoning behind my edit. WP:AGF.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lighten up, please. I never questioned your good faith. When you stated that "the content was more about the friendship between the subject of this article and the late president," I had every reason to think that you believed that the edit you made conveyed that information to the reader. I was suggesting that, IMHO, to most readers it will not (there are many other reasons one might be asked to perform in this role) and encouraging you to add more to illustrate it. Dwpaul Talk 23:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am being civil, thus usage of the word please.
Apparently not just a friend/supporter of Ronald Reagan, but of Nancy as well.
HuffPo, Washington Post via the Eugene Register-Guard, E!, Colacello, 2004.
She also attended the state funeral, as mentioned in the NYT, and WaPo.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, verified content was removed. Why is it that other editors don't want verified information of the friendship of the subject with the Reagans in this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are getting close to the three reversion limit, rather than getting into it, lets reach a consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The information was removed from the 'Career' section because it is not related to her career in comedy. I think "personal life' is more appropriate. IP75 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Her career included a number of roles that did not include comedy (read the lead). These events are relevant to her overall career, and her career may well have had something to do with her opportunities to participate in these events. Dwpaul Talk 20:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also – if you think something would more relevant in a different section, consider moving it rather than removing it. Dwpaul Talk 20:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DWpaul, You had it right the first time when you reverted stating: "Reverted 1 edit by RightCowLeftCoast: Trivia. In context, you seem to be saying this is evidence that she was an (important) Republican. There were many Democrats in attendance at the viewing and state funeral." and above "Juxtaposed between two sentences that talked about her and her daughter's claims to be Republicans, the implication was clear, if unintended. ))) IP75 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And in its current location, it is not juxtaposed with statements concerning political affiliation, thus not creating the implication I described. We have no obligation to redact anything that might suggest political motivation or affiliation; only not to give it UNDUE weight. Dwpaul Talk 21:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not in the 'Career' section out of contest and not WP:UNDUE, I will not interfere with the pov pushing IP75 (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it relates significant, verifiable facts about the subject and does not give them undue weight, it does not violate WP:NPOV. Dwpaul Talk 21:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is trivia, and it is only suppose to be about comedy in the career section, there is a lot more content that should be removed and or relocated to other sections. For instance the attendance of a royal wedding. However, since there is a lot more "trivia" in the career section, to only remove recently added content about the subjects relationship with the Reagans, it appears rather odd. If it should be in the personal life section, then other friendships can be included if verified. That being said, I think it's OK that it is integrated in the career section, most biographies go early life, career, post-career. As she never stopped working, and as career could be broadly interpreted, and there is not a post-career section to include it in, keeping it where it is is fine.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this conversation: can someone explain in three sentences or less why any mention of Rivers' friendship with the Reagans is being removed? I am not a big fan of extraneous trivia in any Wikipedia article, but a close personal friendship with any current or former U.S. president is usually of some significance to the subject person's life. So, explanation, please? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, the text that was proposed concerning the subject's interaction with the Reagans is present in the article. The conversation about it and its placement is above for your review. If someone removes it again, you'll need to talk with them about their reasoning. Dwpaul Talk 16:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no present problem with the Reagan-related content; it seems appropriate to me, and not disproportionate to anything else in the article. I express no opinion whether it or any other content might be better placed in a different section of the article. Ping me if you need a third-party opinion again. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
huh? presidents and expresidents have thousands of "close personal friends" and we are not here to pimp up anyone's bio through "fame by association". things like standing up at somebody's wedding or being named as a godparent to their children or the "really close personal friendships" of the level of the Bratpack, sure. But "we're buds", no. If you can bring three biographies of Ronald Reagan that have included information of this "close personal friendship", then we can talk.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheRedPenOfDoom: TRPOD, when the widow of the ex-president invites a person to be a member of the official receiving party at the state funeral for the dead president, I think we can safely conclude there's a relatively close personal relationship with that person. ("In 2004, Rivers was part of the formal receiving party when Ronald Reagan was placed in state at the United States Capitol.") As for your suggestion of sourcing to "three biographies of Ronald Reagan," I don't believe that's the required standard for inclusion of reliably sourced content in any article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
we dont "safely conclude". if she was so close to the family, it would be regularly mentioned in the biographies of Reagan / Nancy. Can you provide such evidence? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheRedPenOfDoom: Before commenting further, I suggest you review the HuffPo article and the reprint of The Washington Post article in the Eugene Register-Guard (see links above). I don't claim to be an expert on Joan Rivers, Nancy Reagan or her husband, but when the former first lady counsels the subject on the suicide of the subject's husband, and the former first lady publicly claims the subject as a friend and a supporter, that's pretty strong -- and clearly not just one of the thousands and thousands of political "friends". Your mileage may vary. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the first page of a Google key word search for "Nancy Reagan Joan Rivers":
Reagan released a statement following Rivers’s death in a New York hospital, calling her “not only a dear friend, but one of the kindest and funniest people I ever knew.” Reagan said, “I doubt there’s anyone who hasn’t laughed at her or with her until they cried. Today our tears are those of sadness.”
Rivers credited the former president’s wife with helping her after the 1987 suicide of her second husband, Edgar Rosenberg. The comedy queen recalled the conversation with Reagan in a 2010 interview, “I said, ‘I can’t get Edgar’s body out of Philadelphia.’ She said, ‘Let me see what I can do.’ The next day, his body came back to L.A. You don’t ever forget that, especially when the chips are down.”
From The Hill (September 4, 2014) link. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
now "Rivers credited the former president’s wife with helping her after the 1987 suicide of her second husband," is valuable encyclopedic content (if Reagan is one of the primary sources of counseling and not merely one of hundreds) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sir. It definitely needs to be in there -- and expanded up to a point that it does not become disproportionate to the rest of Rivers' life. The nature of the Reagan-Rivers friendship, at least between Nancy and Joan, is apparently a lot deeper than the current passing mentions in the Wikipedia article implied. TRPOD, I think our work is done here. And I think the writers/editors of this article have some work to do. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2014

She married 2 times and got married and divorced in 1955.

75.61.73.24 (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Yes - the infobox already clearly states that.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to her death

Nancy Reagan (http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/216712-gillibrand-mourns-death-of-joan-rivers), Prince Charles (http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/2014/09/prince-charles-mourns-joan-rivers), The Prime Minister of Israel (http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Legendary-American-Jewish-comedian-Joan-Rivers-dies-at-81-374508), Senator Gillibrand, among others all released statments about Joan's death. Not to mention hundreds of celebrities who took to social media expressing their sadness about Joan's death (http://www.people.com/article/celebrities-remember-joan-rivers-twitter-instagram). Shouldn't this be included in her 'death' section? Other deceased celebrities have it in theirs, such as Amy Winehouse and Whitney Houston, for instance. Her death also made front page news in several major papers/tabloids (http://www.poynter.org/mediawire/267739/farewell-joan-newspapers-lead-with-tributes-to-joan-rivers/) and People magazine issued a special Joan edition in her honor, and got a tribute at Metlife stadium (http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2024487969) . Could there be mention of this as well? 207.161.228.218 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added some of those. Hope the new section is OK. --Light show (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, these "reactions" seem mawkish and out of place.842U (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's hard to avoid sentimentality in giving reactions to someone's death. However, I think your rephrasing created a stark, he said-she said, list of quotes that needs some prose and context for easier reading. While we don't want anything as detailed as Whitney Houston's section, other editor feedback on rephrasing would be worthwhile. --Light show (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that given Joan Rivers was quoted as saying "As comedians, we are all laughing because life is so horrible. Life is so difficult, and I cope with it by making jokes about absolutely everything." we should include the tribute that comedian [Katherine Ryan] gave her by including her joke "Joan Rivers got exactly what she wanted from that final surgery – to stop ageing. Finally she nailed it." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/edinburgh-katherine-ryan-the-stand-review/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.65.189 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social liberal

Rivers is *not* a social liberal in the sense that that category means. She have been *socially liberal*, but she was not a *social liberal*, which is a political philosophy. By virtue of being on the right on fiscal issues, she is not a social liberal in the sense of political philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.75.121 (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. General Ization Talk 21:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015

Joan Rivers was in an episode of Drop Dead Diva in 2012. She was in season 4's episode titled 'Rigged' and she played the part of Jane's therapist. This appearance is not listed in filmography on this page. Please could you include it? 81.157.234.210 (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 81.157.234.210 (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide a reliable source before this can be included. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sourced via CBS News. Inomyabcs (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HATE SPEECH

Why is River's hate speech not included in this article?81.135.76.255 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is not one addressing the lack of HATE SPEECH AGAINST PALESTINIANS being mentioned in this article?86.170.51.163 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joan Rivers. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joan_Rivers&oldid=741485740"