Talk:Chris Wallace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Interview Transcript[edit],2933,215397,00.html If you want to have a quote from the the interview, at least quote it properly, instead of mashing separate sections together with the lines "But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted."

References needed[edit]

There are references to 1969, one of the peak years of the Vietnam War, but no indication of how Wallace was able to avoid being drafted. Also, since when did being accepted to a law school and not attending become a credential? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I placed a references needed template at the top of the article because there are essentially no references in the personal life section and the infor there has the appearance of original research. My hope is that references can be added soon. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a particular concern with the list of notable people he's interviewed. People add names to this list from time to time, and it's completely unsourced. I'm concerned that some jokers might just add names more or less at random. JamesMLane t c 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Material about not responding to 20,000 emails[edit]

I have removed this non event. If it is such a huge deal, doubtful, add it to the CAP article. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When Source X provides information about Subject Y, the information belongs in the article about Subject Y, not the one about Source X. Here, CAP is providing the information about Wallace.
Whether or not it would be a "huge deal" in isolation, it's clear that the Clinton interview (which gets its own subsection) is an important part of Wallace's bio. Out of all the interviews he's done, this one has been highlighted in the article for almost four years; see this version, which also includes the Rice information. The part about Rice becomes important because it relates to Wallace's own statements about the Clinton interview. JamesMLane t c 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This is still a non event. A partisan advocacy group emails are ignored? Was this covered by sources other than themselves? It's also OR/synthesis to then say, he got the emails but ignored them, see, look at the transcript. Again, has any other sourced brought up this "story"? --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You're ignoring the entire connection to the Clinton interview. Wallace himself stated that his questions to Clinton were prompted by emailed requests, thus making the emails relevant here. JamesMLane t c 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question about other sources. Have you even read the thinkprogress blog post? I am really afraid that your hostility is getting in the way of "fair" editing. Why can't we treat this article the way we would Obama's? --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
To my mind, "hostility" is exhibited by, for example, asking another editor, "Are you really that brain dead?" [1] Here, I didn't say anything about your brain activity or possible lack thereof; I merely pointed out that this particular comment of yours was erroneous in that it ignored the context of the incident. As for your question about whether I've even read the ThinkProgress source cited in my edit, the answer is that yes, I did -- what makes you think I might not have? Finally, we treat this article like Obama's in the sense that both are to conform to NPOV and other Wikipedia policies, but there are differences. Obama is involved in so many matters of consequence that we can't cover them all in his bio article. That's why there are several daughter articles. Even the silliness about Obama's birth has its own daughter article. The threshold of notability for getting something into the main Obama article is higher than that for getting something into the main (and only) Wallace article. If your question means that the threshold should be the same for both, then the Obama article will quickly grow to preposterous length. JamesMLane t c 00:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Maybe try rereading it. Also, it's a blog posting? Do you have any other sources that are really reliable? Also, nice spin to deny your admitted hostility and talk about my behavior. Edit warring over including a blog post about a non event says it all, IMHO. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "blog posting" conjures up some crackpot in his attic writing whatever he feels like, which is why Wikipedia generally doesn't rely on self-published sources. ThinkProgress, however, has staffers and an editor -- see listing here -- so, for our purposes, it's really more of an online magazine. As for my "admitted hostility", I always try to follow the advice of St. Augustine: "Love men. Slay errors." So, yes, I am hostile to errors, to bias, to sloppy thought, and to misplaced hyphens. As Barry Goldwater didn't say, hostility in the defense of accuracy is no vice. What is a vice is hostility toward other editors, as exemplified by your "brain dead" crack. Some of us consider this distinction important. JamesMLane t c 04:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Have you reread the link? Do you have any other source, other than this blog whose writers are not notable?--Threeafterthree (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)ps, you forgot your hostility to the right wing.--Threeafterthree (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This section contains a fair amount of orginal research, so much so that to remove it would remove most of the section. FNC sources are being used for most of the evidence against Wallace, ergo, the section is using Wallace's own words/actions against him with very little third party reporting on the issue. This is the very defintion of original research. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinkprogress material[edit]

The recently added material from Thinkprogress should be removed, as it is sourced to a blog. It has nothing to do with whether the site is partisan or not or whether the actual audio is on the website. Blogs of news organizations are allowed, per WP:IRS, but the Center for American Progress is not a news organization. If you want to add the material, find a reliable source that discusses the matter. Drrll (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Have main stream reliable sources covered this? --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think removal of this page misses the point on the need for reliable sources. Reliable sources are necessary for the reason you don't want a group or person with an ax to grind to make up something about a group or a person. Fine, I understand that. But, when that person or group has the exact audio of that conversation then that is definitive proof that conversation happened. It is silly then to argue about how reliable a source is when that conversation is recorded in audio.

It misses the whole point of need for relaible sources, it is not for the sake of needing reliable sources but as evidence or proof that a certain statement or fact is in fact, correct. Well, the audio did exactly that, other than if someone is going to argue that ThinkProgress hired actors to play the roles of Gallagher and Wallace, which would make them the greatest voice actors living today. If a journalist doesn't trust a source but the source gives them the exact audio of a conversation, he wouldn't throw away the audio because of the source. It is as if people in here are more concerned about rules for the sake of rules, then actually looking at evidence and judging it when it obviously shows that conversation happened. 4 Octorber 2010([User:]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt the veracity of the recording. It's just that Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources, not that the Thinkprogress blog technically doesn't fit the rules. If it matters enough to be covered in this WP article, then it is likely covered by some reliable source. If you find one, I won't object to the material being included. Drrll (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Wallace's mother and Mike Wallace's first wife.[edit]

There is a discrepancy between the name of Chris Wallace's mother "Kaplan" and the name of Mike Wallace's first wife "Kaphan",listed on his Mike Wallace's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Times Obit for Chris Wallace's stepfather says "Kaphan". I am undoing the unsourced edit revision 323375280 of 00:03, 2 November 2009 by and adding reference citation. --Lent (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable Interviews[edit]

I completely agree with the Wikipedia editor's tag on this section. I am alarmed by the fact that it is nowhere near complete and we should urge all readers to expand upon it. Are there any more proactive steps we can take as Wikipedians to encourage readers to add names of people Chris has interviewed over his career?

If you are reading this now and you have seen Chris Wallace on television interviewing a person whose name does not appear on this list, you can help Wikipedia by adding that information. Please don't be shy! As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia wishes to include all relevant information. Mardiste (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if the above two remarks are intended as jokes. The bloated and mindless "Notable interview" list was justly deleted several years ago. Let's hope it doesn't return. TheScotch (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Chris Wallace is the son of legendary journalist Mike Wallace. Wallace's father, Myron Leon "Mike" Wallace, whose family's surname was originally Wallechinsky, was born in Brookline, Massachusetts, to Russian Jewish parents Zina (Sharfman) and Frank Wallace, a wholesaler grocer and insurance broker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Registered Democratic[edit]

Is this section even necessary? It's basically like having a section based on his opinion of what color shoes he wears — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Political affiliation" would be better" Patapsco913 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the heading to "Political affiliation.--Southronite (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)"

Re: "It's basically like having a section based on his opinion of what color shoes he wears"

If Wallace worked for Fox Shoe News which purported to be a "fair and balanced" source of information about shoes, but in fact was nothing but a series of "infomercials" for Famous Footwear, then it would be like "having a section"...on what brand of shoe Wallace wears (not the color or "his opinion of what color"--this is as close an analogy as I can conjure). Since Fox News clearly and consistently espouses a very particular political viewpoint and actively promotes a very particular political agenda in an obvious and heavy-handed manner and since Wallace previously worked for many years in mainstream television news, his own political affiliation is certainly of interest. TheScotch (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

SCUD incident: Undue weight?[edit]

I've added a requested citation for the 1991 Gulf War incident, where Koppel admonished Wallace for revealing the location of a SCUD missile hit on Tel Aviv too precisely. I could find very little coverage of this incident (although articles from 1991 are not as easily available). I'm concerned that this might constitute undue weight. GabrielF (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Chris Wallace (journalist)Chris Wallace – Like Brian Williams, is primary topic. More recognizable than the others combined. 11,500 views vs 1400, 243 58. Christopher : 371. Marcus Qwertyus 03:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016[edit]

Chris Wallace attended the Millbrook School. He may have later attended Hotchkiss, but was a student at Millbrook for at least the two years, and was there when his older brother, who also attended Millbrook, died under suspicious circumstances attempting to do investigative reporting in Greece.

21:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC) (talk)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)