Jump to content

Talk:Andrea Tantaros

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

Inconsistency

[edit]

I came to this page because I know nothing about Tantaros. I leave it not even knowing whether she is principally at Fox News (implied by lead sentence), or not ("She intends to return to Fox News full time"--3rd paragraph under "Professional life", could be a fossil from 2012). Mdmi (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will be happy to know she is on FoxNews currently. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is she racially a Greek?

[edit]

Her article is so small, especially because she's a coanchor of The Five now. Some more info should be added. For example, what's her race? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.53.148 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Greeks are an ethnic group and a nationality not a race. The overwhelming majority of Greeks citizens and persons of Greek origin are Caucasian as is Andrea Tantaros.[reply]

Inciting listeners to punch Obama voters in the face

[edit]

Someone should write something about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V_8Y4b-3v8 She very clearly tells people to punch Obama voters in the face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.53.2 (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you're surprised? She's just one more example of FNC talking-head numbskullery. If we included in this article a mention for everytime Tantaros said something daft, her page would be a mile long.GodFearingLib (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recall the context. Obama advised his supporters, I want you to argue with them and get in their face. His tone made the remark ominous and aggressive. The president historically is supposed to be uniting, and a representative of all citizens. That kind of language dirties public discourse and invites in-kind comments. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-fires-democrats-argue-face-article-1.323400 His "opponents are enemies" comment set a negative tone as well, notwithstanding his later partial retraction. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/11/obama-i-shouldnt-have-used-the-word-enemies/1 Dsr70 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there's a difference between "getting in someone's face" and "punching someone in the face". The difference is not a subtle one. Secondly, I don't see why including her comment in the article is necessary, considering that Tantaros, as a talking head, is paid to be provocative - as all talking heads are, whether they are liberal or conservative. MiddleLaneRider (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another ridiculous attempt to create a "controversy" out of nothing. Example, here's a quote from President Obama:

Speaking to the perceived inequalities between the sexes in regards to domestic labor, President Obama said in an NBC interview that he thought men “need to be knocked across the head every once in a while.”

Is that any different or any less of a "controversy" than what Tantaros said?
Please, let's save "controversy" entries for real controversies, not stupid stuff. Thank you.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm AGREEING with the premise that Tantaros' comment shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Unfortunately your underlying contempt for President Obama is immobilizing you from having a NPOV. This is a page for TANTAROS, NOT Obama. Who cares what Obama said? If you want to mention President Obama's idiotic comment, then do it on his page.
On another note, you fail to understand that replacing Wikipedia articles' liberal bias with a conservative bias DOES NOT SOLVE the problem. The Libs on here certainly take their marching orders from the left-wing outlets MSNBC, Media Matters, etc., but you're no more credible than they are because you take your marching orders from Fox News and every other outlet around which Rupert Murdoch has wrapped his claws.MiddleLaneRider (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down and more importantly, stop making things up. I've expressed no contempt for the President on this page or any other Wikipedia page so I don't know where you're getting that from. Nor do I take marching orders from Fox News or any other news source so I don't know where that came from either. As far as quoting the President is concerned, since this entire section references Obama, there's no reason why I can't use a quote from him to establish context and to highlight the irony in suggesting that Tantaros' comment about Obama is controversial when it's no different than comments he has made himself.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TJ, I second your point. MiddleLaneRider, you're overreacting. And stop jumping to baseless conclusions. There is no reason why Obama's quote cannot be mentioned in this article, especially since he is the subject of Tantaros' discussions.DerWer2014 (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you're no more credible -- You have no credibility at all, with idiotic generalizations about "marching orders". -- Jibal (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Clinton reference in reference to Media Matters

[edit]

Changed Media Matters reference to remove "Clinton Backed" comment. I don't think there is evidence of this. Also on the Media Matters Wikipedia page the only reference to Hillary Clinton advising the group. "Clinton Backed" makes it sound like they are funding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedbow116 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malia Obama and Plan B

[edit]

Dsr70, please do not remove cited text that has been worked on by multiple editors, who have thereby established a consensus for the inclusion of that text. Bring your concerns here and air them. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Matters is a biased group that targets conservatives. I hardly think that Tantaros' comments about the President's daughter qualified as a "controversy" because Media Matters and MSNBC say so. Unless the story was picked up by a more reliable and professional organization, it should be removed.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definately undue weight and very porly written. It looks like it has been written in a way to force a negative point of view. Arzel (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely undue weight and shouldn't be in the article at all. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly undue and horribly worded. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been removed. If anyone disagrees, it can be discussed here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the removal. The pragraph is properly sourced. I'm not sure why it's "blatantly undue and horribly worded", but if the reasons are provided, the paragraph can be reworded. Since the material in the paragraph has been covered by secondary sources, the paragraph certainly has notability. How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for removal are stated quite clearly above: WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:BIAS. Just because something is referenced doesn't make it fit to be encyclopedic content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily have a problem with including this somehow in the article, because I agree that there is coverage of it. But WP:UNDUE is clear that we can't have an entire section dedicated to a controversy of this magnitude (I use that term lightly here obviously) that hardly defines the subject's overall career. But the onus on how to accomplish this is on the editor arguing for inclusion. Ideally we could expand the bio at the same time, although I'm not sure how much material is out there for her. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of problems with the section, IMO. The easy part is the confusion of the FDA with the USDA. There is simply no reason to include such a minor issue. It is not integral to the actual discussion, but rather a side point purely to attack Tantaros. The main part is really just undue weight. A couple of people are upset that Tantaros used Malia within the discussion, but one has to wonder if they even thought about the point that Tantaros was trying to make, which is do they consider their own daughter to be a women in the same sense that they are forcing everyone else to follow this rule. Furthermore the section is purely on-sided. It includes nothing about the point Tantaros was trying to make, and the controversy is not even about that point, but that Malia happens to be of an age which was convenient to use as a discussion point. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel and FreeRangeFrog bring up good points. Although Tantaros was (justifiably) criticized for bringing up Malia Obama in making a political point, it was just one instance in a career in which she has been pushing the envelope of inflammatory statements. This will have to be re-written. How hot is the sun? (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How hot is the sun?: Given your obvious bias and POV against Tantaros ("one instance in a career in which she has been pushing the envelope of inflammatory statements"), I'm not so sure you should be the one to rewrite it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of where your political leanings lie, saying that all Muslims are violent and require force to be used against them (and refusing to later apologize or clarify this statement) or that a CIA torture report should be disregarded because it may portray America in a negative light is making an inflammatory statement, and Ms. Tantaros has made several recently. I don't think that stating this necessarily belies a bias against her. Shabeki (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Professional Life" section is getting absurd. It's turned into a collection of Andrea Tantaros quotes that upset certain other elements, not in the mainstream media, but in opinionated blogs and other on-line venues. If any of these so-called inflammatory quotes could be cross walked to even the (liberal) Washington Post, maybe they would be appropriate. But as it now stands, its simply ridiculous to include quotes such as the one that Andrea Tantaros said about "Supermodel Chrissy Teigen" because it was mentioned by "Jenny Kutner" in Salon. Once again, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:BIAS. The section begs to be edited, perhaps by starting a new section called "Controversies" and then a succinct summary of what she has said that is actually discussed in a reliable media source.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it isn't really a summary of a professional life anymore, and could be divided profitably into a section on career and a section on controversies. I did mention in a revision, however, that the "America is Awesome" moment was reported in Al Jazeera, Bustle, The Week, The Washington Post, The Independent, and The Daily Telegraph. Altenmaeren (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the creation of a section on controversies. I honestly had no idea who this woman was until the "America is Awesome" rant. Shabeki (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truth About Islam

[edit]

Instead of people listening to the guests giving only their opinions on topics, contact Brigitte Gabriel and have her on your show. She has experience and knows the truth of Islam. I would love to see her on the show to share her experiences, the facts about Islam and educate your main hosts. Right now the show is so general. Let's get some meat in the show that will be valuable to all.

Thank you,

Linda Beaston Conservative from Kansas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsbeaston (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like someone who has no idea how wikipedia works.Shabeki (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the picture?

[edit]

An action picture or a portrait photo always improves an article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books section

[edit]

It is unclear to what “Malice” is referring. ChinaChuck (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Tantaros&oldid=1242116886"