|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elisabeth Hasselbeck article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
ADMINS WE NEED HELP !
I think RedPen has already referred to WP:BLP, but the specific paragraph is:
Privacy of personal information
Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates: (1)have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release; or (2) have otherwise been widely published.
Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth.
In a similar vein, Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.
Speil: (1)redpen & plastic didnt cite the reasons you say, they say bc of WP:COATRACK.
The name/DOBS have always been sourced as Elisabeth HERSELF announced their birth & names. Thanks Spiel. RIP Jade Goody. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, in this case sourcing is not the issue, the question is why would the children be notable? Everything I've seen in the article implies they are as the policy says "less notable". ϢereSpielChequers 11:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the information should be included. The information has been published in more than one reliable source. I see much more detail throught out wikipedia(Angelina Jolie for example) so having the dates I think is fine. It is just what three more words? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
kids's birthdates allowed or not allowed ???
We're back on the same argument. See 3 sections above this 1 (section 9).
Since when does wiki not allow birthdates?
Detailed info--weight & length @ birth;fav colour-- isnt given! Why is having the birthdates not allowed when their parents put the info out in press releases? The info was also publicised by ABC, Disney,NFL, & People (magazine); so it is all sourced. 04:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- why are you even asking? you didnt bother to read the responses above. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and their thoughts are that you have not supplied sufficient reason for including specific birth dates in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I put it here and not within the article because I honestly don't know whether this sort of material on the Internet counts as a 'verifiable source' with respect to what it is about, or if it's simply 'a bunch of people mouthing off on the Net.'
In any event, 66% of 21 people submitting to www.hubdub.com, and 88% of eight people at rasmussenreports.predictify.com predict that Hasselbeck will be found (or shown to be) guilty of plagiarism. This should not be taken to mean that only 30 or fewer people are convinced that Hasselbeck is a plagiarist, since a Google search of the subject and reader comments shows that a substantial number of people believe that she is: that's simply the number of people who took time to make these predictions at the time of checking.
My point with regard to verifiability isn't the merits of the case itself, but its reflection of the degree to which Hasselbeck is so controversial that her guilt is assumed by many without question. (I suppose it would go under 'Controversies,' if it went anywhere at all.)
- A persons' "controversiality" has no bearing. All content in articles, especially articles about living people must be from reliable sources - places that have a reputation for fact checking and reliability; any sites making predictions are not at all suitable for content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, wait, wait... Places that have a reputation for fact checking and reliability? And any sites making predictions are not at all suitable for for content?? And who decides which "places" have this reputation? NOT YOU! And your description of "sites making predictions" is also sorely lacking credibility. You have made some excellent points in many places but this is not one of them. You do not have ANY authority here, yet you try your hardest to make it appear so. Stick to the facts and rules. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)TheRedPenIsDoomed
- I have added a photo of her with two others on the set of The View, that I cropped out of a Whitehouse photo of the set. I don't think it should be cropped down further and used for the infobox because it isn't really suitable for that. The infobox photo for Sherri Shepherd was cropped out of a US Navy photo that has Elisabeth just beside Sherri. But cropping Elisabeth out of that photo does not work as well as for Sherri; one gets part of background person's face in the crop, and Elisabeth is smiling a bit too hard to seem entirely natural.Bdell555 (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Notable debates on the view
Cranston, RI or Boston, MA
There are two biographical sections depicting Elizabeth being born on May 28 1977 (age 33), but the birth location differs. Which one is correct, and (more importantly) why is there a second bio section under the "Television Career" headline?
I know she was raised Catholic but I have heard that while she and her mother are Catholic (as is her husband), her father is Jewish. Anyone know if this is true or can find any sources for it? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Recent Dismissal Allegations
US Weekly stated March 8 that Hasselbeck will be dismissed from the show and not return next season because market research revealed she is too right-wing  On the March 11 broadcast of The View, Barbara Walters stated there were no plans to get rid of Hasselbeck. US Weekly responded that the denial was to 'save face'--Hasselbeck would seem to leave because she was ready, comparable to Star Jones's departure in 2006. . Some of this information was also quoted on The Huffington Post 
So the questions I have are: (1) Is US Weekly a sufficiently-reliable source for Wikipedia? (2) Should this news be considered worth mentioning? or (3) Should we wait until next season (and perhaps a few weeks after) to learn if she is still there--and if she is, don't bother to mention the US Weekly assertions, but if she isn't, insert the magazine's 'predictions' retroactively?
- She's joining FoxNews "The Five" daily show—a better match for her. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
How about a new picture?
The picture of Elisabeth Hasselbeck on The View is good. The section on Hasselbeck on "FOX & Friends" needs one also. "Elisabeth Hasselbeck currently serves as co-host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) FOX & Friends (weekdays 6-9a ET)."  — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, if you have any free-use images you're more than welcome to add them. Gloss • talk 18:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
So is Hasselbeck a Polish or an Irish?
The blow-by-blow description of the action on 'Survivor' is boring, excessive, and irrelevant. Reads like Wikia, not like an encyclopedia. I realize that this was her big discovery, without which she might not have landed the view, but this section needs help, and I can't do it today. Rags (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)