Talk:Joy Behar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Women writers (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Atheist[edit]

yes/no

Am I the only one who notices that "Moron" is listed as one of her occupations? I completely agree, but It doesn't seem fair... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.137.240 (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Only a "moron" would make such a stupid comment. As for she being an Atheist or not, what difference does it make, unless you think the spiritual beliefs of every person with a bio need be included. Cosand (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Continual deletions of factual statements, quotes, and sources[edit]

I'm concerned that two individuals are continually deleting text and links to current and past Behar controversies. These items are factual and duly sourced to reliable sources. Some include video of Behar herself.

74.60.63.155 11:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone is repeatedly vandalizing this article and removing and whitewashing any reference to Behar's Jewish comments. Also, Behar's quoted conversation with her mother thinking she was Bette Midler is pure Wikifiction.

119.23.47.12 09:19, 26 December 2006

I am concerned about the vandalism that the Joy Behar article is incurring, mainly from Wikinazis interested in censoring and reverting information they don't agree with. While the Wikinazis are indeed very diligent in monitoring other articles to ensure accuracy and legitimacy, in this case they are consistently deleting well-supported facts posted by users merely interested in documenting the wonderful Joy Behar.

== [[ LISTEN here! and listen closely. Someone need not touch Joy's page because she fine the way she is. Now for whoever changed her picture, you're a meddling fool! She looks like Barbara Walters in this picture. Someone needs to fix this picture and put a picture that represents the Joy Behar that I am used to! Quit it !]] == —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josiejoybeehar (talkcontribs) 03:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I have added back in additional content related to the Sharon Angle controversy on The View. This incident was one of the major news stories involving Behar in 2010 and based on amount of discussion in the media, was not a minor event. Also, the additional information involved both a follow-up comment by Behar and criticism from a national, mainstream organization. Not sure how either violates the "undue weight" provisions but welcome input from others. macae 16:13, 22 November 2010

Birthday[edit]

IMDB and NNDB list Ms. Behar's birth year as 1943. Someone from an anonymous IP keeps changing the year to 1942 (usually leaving a half deleted reference tag), saying that NNDB is not accurate and saying they got the date from Public Service records. We need a specific reference, not just a vague reference to Public Service records, ie what specific records show this date, and where can we find them. If it's something only the poster has access to it can't be used as a source. I'm not going to change it back for now to give the anonymous poster time to come up with a real reference, but if they don't in a few days I will change it back to the IMDB date, which is currently the only source we have access to.--HarryHenryGebel 15:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Yeah and whoever is listing her as celebrating her 53rd birthday in 2006... Learn your basic math 2007-1942 means that she is 64 years old!! She is smoking hot for 64 years old!!!!
      • assholes - she wasnt born in 1922.

Intimidation from Bill O'Reilly and Fox News[edit]

Several months ago Rosie and Joy alluded to Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit. This is what happened next according to Rosie at rosie.com:

Legal filing about Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit are here.

Paranoia is not a laughing matter. 208.111.241.155 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Source Reminder[edit]

IMDB is claimed as a source for three statements in this article. IMDB does not meet the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources guidelines, since it is a site made of user contributions, much like Wikipedia -- so claiming IMDB as a source for a Wikipedia article is about as legitimate as claiming Wikipedia itself as a source.

Of course, it is just a guideline, so I won't edit out the reference in this case. But I think WP editors would be well-advised to look elsewhere for sources in future. ♥♥♥ 18.252.5.63 13:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

fidgeting[edit]

An editor keeps inserting unsupported OR about Behar's fidgeting with her pen and the like. This is not notable, nor is it something that any citations have been provided for - I'm not talking about whether or not it is true, the issue is whether independent sources have cited it as having some kind of significance. I also think we need to keep WP:BLP in mind. I've removed this material twice and I don't think it should be allowed to stand in the article. The editor who has inserted it also has not given any reason in edit summary for its inclusion. Tvoz |talk 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

notable to me TV2007 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but that's not the way it works. You need to read WP:BLP, and also WP:NOTE and WP:OR. Please stop adding this material. Tvoz |talk 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

no! belongs! TV2007 07:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

derogatory is bullshit, tvoz. Saying someone figets if they do isn't derogatory in less you're crazy ExcellentEditor 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And while you're reading, try WP:CIVIL for your edit summary. Tvoz |talk 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Next time don't say someone is being derogatory when they're not and maybe people won't tell you that what you said was bullshit. Go read WP Civil yourself, numbnuts TV2007 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

lmao! Thanks TV2007, but I could have told him my self I wasn't reading that shit he put their for me to read ExcellentEditor 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Joy Behar at all but I don't understand why her fidgeting is important at all? Frankly I don't care. And if she has some sort of nervous problem that's her business and it's disrespectful for us to point out an issue she can't help. I'd much rather point out all the dumb things she says if we want to criticize her.Kgj08 (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right - it is not important. That's why it's not in the article any more. Tvoz |talk 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Real Time with Bill Maher[edit]

I added the section about her calling Michelle Malkin a "selfish bitch" and then later criticizing John McCain for not correcting one of his supporters when they called Hillary Clinton a "selfish bitch". This has been a pretty big story right now and should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talkcontribs) 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody took out my source for the Real Time section. Why? I documented the video on Youtube. I would think that the actual video of what happened would be the best source possible since it can't take her statements out of context as an article would. Leave that source please.Kgj08 (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Far-Left side?[edit]

I question the accuracy and lack of bias in the easy characterization of "...Behar stands on the far-Left side of the political aisle." Whatever the intent, it reads like the way conservative commentators characterize anyone to their left in an effort to make their views appear non-mainstream. As far as the article goes, Ms. Behar's are not.

Pm birch (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any source for the POV assertion, so I've deleted it while leaving the list of positions (which should also have sources). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

MISS Behar IS on the far left; anyone with ears to hear can tell that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.33.2 (talkcontribs) 07 April 2011

Father[edit]

Is her father, Gino Occhiuto, the one who shows up in the Ellis Island record as having emigrated in 1924 from Fagnano Castello, Calabria? Badagnani (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Duke Lacrosse[edit]

I have no doubt whatever that Behar made baseless and intemperate remarks about the Duke Lacrosse matter. Unfortunately, what is presented in the article is meaningless jibberish.Ed-Claude (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So are you recommending deletion? 130.156.31.240 (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on what? The article says she made a rush-to-judgment comment and obviously the facts refuted her opinion. I don't know what he thinks is "meaningless". I speak English natively, and the meaning is perfectly clear to me. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what the specific objection is so let's see if we get any response. I see no reason at this time why the material shouldn't be included, although I think the focus of the article is what she said after the case was resolved, and not that she 'made a rush-to-judgment comment and obviously the facts refuted her opinion'. If she made comments while the case was pending, they can also be included if they're documented. 130.156.31.240 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologize to all for not being more explicit in my complaint and for not getting back here promptly to respond.
My point is that although I don't doubt that Behar made remarks that should be criticized, the quotation in the article does not establish that fact. She sounds a bit snarky but that hardly earns a criticism in Wiki. The criticism seems to hang on the very end of the quote, "but..." It sounds like what is replaced by the three dots might be what is needed as a basis to criticize her.
Behar -- and others -- deserve to live with the record of the intemperate things they said in this affair. But we can not/should not criticize them without quoting the actual offensive words, IMO. I'd like to see those words in the article. Without them, I think the criticism is not substantiated and should not stand.
Ed-Claude (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No question - you can't post criticism of someone's words without posting the words themselves. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement is noteworthy since Behar, like many others (Selena Roberts, Nancy Grace, Wendy Murphy), presumed Mangums side even after the DNA had more than exonerated the players. In this case, Behar made this statement after Nifong's ethics probe was announced. As for the quote in question with the "but ..." at the end, be it a comment on their race, gender, actions, etc, we will never know. Since it is something that Behar never told us, if you have a problem with that statement, I suggest you take that up with Behar herself. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bringing up the fact that the Duke players were exonerated is irrelevant. Behar mentions in her statement that they were innocent of rape charges. However, mentioning the players are "white boys" is racist, and is worth inclusion. Race was not part of the decision to hire a stripper. It would probably be more accurate to criticize privileged athlete behavior. Swfong (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the entire paragraph pertaining to the Duke case, because it simply does not have any content that is substantial enough to justify inclusion as a point of criticism against Behar. Do I think that she had a nasty, lynch-mob, racist attitude in this affair? Yes, I do. But this is not a tabloid site, and we are not entitled to include our non-expert impressions. There is no smoking gun in the quote nor do we have a Howard Kurtz or other public person characterizing Behar as being part of the rush-to-judgment.

To break down the paragraph one more time, there are really two elements. First, Behar shows some snarky racial attitude in her comment about white boys waiting for black strippers. But these words are accurate and are not objectionable enough to form the basis for a paragraph of criticism.

Then Behar's unfinished thought behind the "but" seems to be that although there was no actual rape, there was something equivalent. It is too vague of an insinuation to hang the paragraph on, IMO.

I strongly suspect that Behar has publicly said things on this topic that would well justify the sort criticism attempted here. Our task is to find them if we want to make that criticism part of her Wiki biography.

Ed-Claude (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Because of the lies of the alleged victim, there has been a tendency to paint the players as cherubs. The fact is, they had strippers over to a private party, and that's just begging for trouble. Calling Behar's remarks "racist" is silly. But that particular bit is just a blip on her controversy radar, and it's old news, so it's really hard to justify it being in the article. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Omnidon.3, 31 May 2011[edit]

The following statements were made by Joy Behar on the May 31, Episode of The View and can probably be viewed at www.abc.go.com/theview. They should be evaluated condensed and added to the controversies section.

The View (5/31/2011)

Joy: Well I was reading, um, ... somebody sent me a Wikipedia, you know Wikipedia, … you know what is is right? It's the biograpy of you. Barbara: Supposed to be factual… Joy: But it's not factual, it's really a crazy thing. So, because this is what it said; and it's been taken down. Behar, me, married Barbara Walters in 1965, they divorced in 1981, they have 12 daughters. That's on my Wikipedia. So I'm just saying, don't believe anything, my age is, i'm 10 years younger than they say. Elizabeth: Did you go in and , so you took it out correct. Joy: They took it down, yeah. ….. Sherry: On Wikipedia, I think, anybody can go and if you sign in and get an account ou can put anything you want … Barbara: No, but Sherry people believe it. Sherry: they do believe it. People look it up on Wikipedia. They look up your age and your marriages and your … Joy: It's all lies. Barbara: so just … Sherry: Yeah, you guys check it every once in a while … Joy: It's all lies, don't believe it.

I also think that Wikileaks should complain to The View, Barbara Walters and Joy Behar about her claims that Wikileaks is full of lies, etc.

Omnidon.3 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done:

While this is certainly interesting (it's always fun when Wikipedia gets mentioned on TV), and I personally witnessed the vandalism that Ms. Behar spoke of, I'm not convinced that it needs to be mentioned in this article. It wouldn't really be appropriate for the criticism/controversy section because it's Wikipedia that's being criticized, not Behar. If anything, it would be more appropriate for the Reliability of Wikipedia article.
As a side note, I've noticed that the criticism/controversy section of this article is getting a bit long. It's the most lengthy section in the article, in fact. I'm concerned that we might be giving some of the events/issues in that section undo weight. It might be good to trim it down so that it's more concise and covers only the most important / most notable controversies and criticisms. –BMRR (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversy Section[edit]

The controversy section, while factual, seems a little petty at times. The incident with Sharon Angle looks to be well over 500 words and reads like an episode of The Real Housewives. "She's a bitch, she's a moron, she's evil, she's hitler." I don't think we need the play by play. No one will remember Sharon Angle next year, much less this incident. I'd recommend removing it.

As a comparison, Elizabeth Hasselbeck's page doesn't contain a controversy section and seems much more neutral. I'd recommend going for the tone of that page vs this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talkcontribs) 20 June 2011

Any thoughts on these comments?Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Last request to remove paragraph 5. It just sounds like a petty inclusion with excessive weight given. Guess I'm the only one who feels that way.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Also the use of the word "stormed" in paragraph 4 sounds biased. They walked off the set. Would be nice to include the statement by O'Reilley that made them walk "Muslims attacked us" and Walters admonishment of O'Reilley, but seems I'm getting zero traction on this page. I guess I'll give up.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You can be bold and remove it yourself; you don't need anyone's permission. ;-) I agree that the section is too long and too detailed in relation to the article as a whole. And even though I spend a ridiculous amount of time on Wikipedia every day, I didn't have a chance to respond to your message until now. Doesn't mean you're the only one who feels that way; it just means that people have lives and can't always respond instantaneously. Be patient and don't get discouraged. :-) –BMRR (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The page is locked for me or else I would have changed it. Is it locked for everyone or am I on some special list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talkcontribs) 04:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize you weren't able to edit it. I don't think you're on any special list, but I see that you joined Wikipedia just recently, and currently the page is "semi-protected" (due to ongoing vandalism), which if I'm not mistaken means that only established Wikipedia members can edit it. Once your account reaches "autoconfirmed" status, you'll be able to edit semi-protected articles. –BMRR (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend removing the entire controversy section. It all sounds petty. She called someone a hooker and apologized. She walked off stage during a disagreement. Is this really "controversial?"Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been over 6 months since I asked if anyone had any objections to deleting this section. No one spoke up. I still stand by my belief that this section is petty and out of line with similar stars' wikipedia pages. If there were something truly controversial in here, then I'd say fine. But if we included every harsh thing every major celebrity/talk show host has ever said, then that would be the bulk of the celebrity pages. I'm removing this section per above comments.Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joy Behar. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 17:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joy Behar. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 11:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joy Behar. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

President Donald Trump[edit]

Why don't they have Mr. Trump take a lie detector test while being interviewed by Mr. Mueller to prove his credibility. WHY DONT YOU GET A BRAIN YOU ARE THE BIGGEST RACIST NEXT TO OBAMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.48.235 (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)