Talk:Elisabeth Hasselbeck/Archive 1

Archive 1

Access Hollywood & its anonymous sources

Please don't quote Access Hollywood when they quote anonymous sources. If they quote a direct statement attributed to a named source, it's fine, but anonymous statements are strictly gossip and just because it's in print doesn't make it an acceptable source.--Bamadude 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist troops??

Could someone please add this and also correct Morning After Pill" information as it is scientifically incorrect !! Or do the right still run this site ? Dated: 2007-05-23 Did Rosie Call Our Troops Terrorists?

++The is directly from the transcripts of The View for May 17th:
O’DONNELL: …… I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look, we invaded –
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?
O’DONNELL: We’re invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.

I just watched Chris Matthews and his panel of journalists including Howard Feinman, Jill Zuckman, and Jonathan Capehart. Matthews asked the panel after replaying that segment of the show if she in fact said that our troops were the terrorists. They unanimously agreed with Matthews that she did call our troops terrorists. That conforms with the majority of journalists who have reported on this comment.

Rosie does not mention the troops at all in that segment of the show. She poses a rhetorical question. “Who are the terrorists?” “I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?”In both of her rhetorical questions she refers to the “United States” and “us.” The policy of the United States or “our” policy in Iraq is not the responsibility of the soldiers who are ordered to execute the policy. It is obvious that state supported terrorism can only be implemented by those who have the responsibility of doing the fighting and dying. But, it is not the soldiers who are the terrorists in that hypothetical. And she was not calling the soldiers terrorists.

It is absolutely absurd that these journalists agreed with the interpretation that Matthews and the majority of the MSM had concluded.These journalists who are supposed to be experts on language and communication certainly know that she meant that the U.S. policy was the villain here and not the soldiers. Yet they persist in accusing the accusers who do not fit into their elite club. People like Rosie and others who have been branded as eccentric and outside the main stream are always fair game. They do it with many others who speak truth to power by carefully portraying sound bites out of context. They have done that to Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal for years.

The truth is that it was the elite reporters like the Hardball panel aforementioned who aided and abetted the rush to war in Iraq and fostered the terrorist policy that has resulted in this catastrophe. So it is not Rosie who is the villain. It is journalists like these who have to rationalize their lack of courage and appropriate skepticism of a “policy” that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

I'm new, so I won't edit the page directly, but the fact added for 2006-08-02 regarding the "Morning After Pill" is scientifically incorrect: the morning-after pill does not provoke an abortion, it prevents pregnancy in the first place. The Wikipedia page on [Morning-after_pill] at least discusses the supposed "controversy," although the overwhelming scientific consensus is that this is a contraceptive, not an abortion. This page is at least misleading, and likely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benadida (talk • contribs)

That particular bit was added some hours ago; I would have reverted it entirely, but it seemed to have some validity, so I left it in and tagged it as unsourced. If you feel you can phrase that paragraph better, then by all means, go ahead and do so. (On a seperate note, remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes.) --Emufarmers^(T/C) 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not touching it for three months because it's just going to get vandalzied and reverted back and forth hourly till then, but all the "scientific/unscientific" see-sawing is pointless because it's semantic. A pro-life scientist will typically view conception as when a pregnancy begins, a pro-choice scientist will see it at implantation. The pill in question can cause termination in the first case (it generally doesn't take a sperm 72 hours to fertilize an egg) but very rarely in the latter. Apart form all that, comments on whether Hasselbeck's views are unscientific is moot becuase this is not an entry on a birth control device but on a talk-show host. jsh, 22:37, 4 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my confusion on where to post this, but does a detailed description of an argument really belong in an "article" about a person?

Episodes of Note

THE 05/23/07 ELIZABETH / ROSIE DISAGREEMENT SHOW This sentence in the Wikipedia entry is inaccurate:

"Hasselbeck denied O'Donnell's accusation, claiming that she knew Rosie didn't think that US soldiers were "terrorists" .

This is not true. Elizabeth did not give her personal opinion about Rosie. She did not say whether or not she believes that Rosie thinks the troops are terrorists. Instead, she insisted that O'Donnell must clarify her position.

Also, many viewers felt that Rosie O'Donnell was asking a rhetorical question in order to spur people to think about the loss of civilian life on both sides. She was trying to make the point that the loss of Iraqi civilian life is immoral. She has stated repeatedly on the show that she supports the troops and feels the Bush Administration is responsible for the mistakes in Iraq.

These sentences: Hasselbeck's views are typical for those in her "Alex P. Keaton" generation, who are more conservative than their parents. However, she is unpopular with many critics for all of her opinions on gay rights, and the GLBT community considers her a homophobe[citation needed]. Furthermore, she is considered too extreme in her political views for many women who watch the show.[citation needed]

Have nothing to do with any episode and are not NPOV, especially without citations. I have removed them. Matt T.69.254.107.214 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms?

A comic's take on her should not be view as logical criticism. Barney Gumble 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

The quote "On March 24, 2008, Hasselbeck called Rev. Jeremiah Wright a racist and equated him to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer." is an opinion of the writer. The link provided by said writer shows that she made an analogy. All other interpretation is left up to the viewer. By using "equated him to serial killer" shows bias in favor of the author's opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.69.246 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated below, Whoopi asked "how can you equate the two", and Elisabeth didn't deny it. Again, if you wish to improve the neutrality of the article, please propose some wording on this talk page, let's discuss it on this talk page, then once a consensus is reached, we can put it into the article. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"She is the perfect example of a blonde, affluent woman of limited talent who has used her family position and looks to advance her career. It is painfully apparent to all who watch "The View" that she does not have the same pedigree as her co-stars."

I totally agree she is also a total BITCH and many people dont watch the view because of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.140.122 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't sound very neutral to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.185.94 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Was she a television presenter before appearing on Survivor? No dates are given for her appearance on Survivor. The ordering of the article makes it seem as if she was. If she only became a presenter after appearing on Survivor the order of the article should reflect the chronology of her career. Would someone more familiar with this women please make it the article entirely unambiguous? -- Horkana 19:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Her appearance on Survivor was from January to May of 2001. Twineball 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This 'celebrity' has admitted that she changes her own biographical details on Wikipedia, and she has encouraged others to do so while on air. She definitely doesn't look 29 - I would guess at least 36.

She did not say she does it. She just stated you could change your information if you want too.

On May 23, 2007, Hasselbeck and O'Donnell became engaged in a heated on-air exchange over the Iraq War. During the argument, O'Donnell unbelievably referred to former president Jimmy Carter as "Christ-like", and to Hasselbeck as "cowardly".

Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semitic, Jew hating Nazi who supports the terrorist PLO. How is that Christ-like? Carter supports Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez. How is that Christ-like? 69.181.156.67 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter supports the murder of the unborn, contrary to the sixth commandment. How is that Christ-like? Jesus said to obey the Ten Commandments. 69.181.156.67 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither Jesus nor The Ten Commandments ever mention whether a fetus is considered a human being, or whether the destruction of one is considered murder. The only part in the Bible where the destruction of a fetus is mentioned, IIRC does not treat it as such. Nightscream 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If folks would check the article first, please, they would see that the comment about Jimmy Carter has been removed. -Ebyabe 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "unbelievably" makes the statement opinion. The rest is fact. She did actually say those things but that word should be removed.

The section concerning her recent tiff with Rosie needs some serious work. Someone is putting words in her mouth. I erased them but somebody insisted on putting them back. Seems to me somebody is intent on making her look good. — NRen2k5 01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Try to communicate with that person on their Talk Page. If they do not respond, alert an administrator. Nightscream 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Her leaving the view

Since Barbara announced Elisabeth will be back next year with Joy today...shall we take off the area that says "Rumors she will be leaving The View?" Small5th 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though she claims she's returning to the show on January 6, 2008, I predict she won't be back. She'll use the excuse that with her husband on the road so much, caring for a newborn and a toddler by herself is too much. Guests hosts never appear when four regulars are sitting on the panel, but on November 12 a conservative Republican sat in as guest host even though everyone except Elisabeth was there. I'm sure they were auditioning her as a possible replacement, and I'm sure there will be more in the weeks ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dear 209.247.22.164, This is not a blog. No one cares what your prognastications are. Have a nice day! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 17:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If they were put within the article, you would have the right to criticize, but since this a discussion page, anyone can make any comments he or she likes.

Birthday inaccurate

Wikipedia say May 28, 1975, and that she is 31 (no source) IMDB says May 28, 1977 ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0276829/ )

Does anyone have quotes from Elisabeth herself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.112.116.206 (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Morning after pill

C'mon, did she really say life begins at the moment of "penetration" or is this just vandalism...Something that ridiculous needs a reference Freakdog 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I've seen the video clip. She was saying that she believes that "life begins at...", and then Joy Behar cut her off by saying, "Flirting". Presumably, Hasselbeck was going to say "conception". Nightscream 03:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Penetration of the egg by sperm (i.e. conception). --Tbeatty 18:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Penetration of the egg by sperm is not the same as conception, and no one refers to those two terms synonomously. Penetration would be the act of sexual entry, which is why I think it's probably vandalism unless she actually said it.Freakdog 01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherri Shepherd

...Sherri Shepherd made several attempts to stop the argument, with Shepherd at one point asking Elisabeth if her unborn child was "okay," apparently fearing the heated argument would hurt the baby's and mother's health.

We don't know Ms. Shepherd's motivation, so speculating on the meaning of "apparently fearing the heated argument would hurt the baby's and mother's health" is specious in nature.

Gpole 15:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)gpole 052607

it was quoted directly from a news article...i read somewhere else Small5th 21:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Sections

Many people have messaged me of certain sections of the article that has been deleted recently, which I have reinstated and then it has been deleted again. I would like to hear opinions on the sections deleted.

(1) The section of the Abu-Gharib incident, where Elisabeth was talking about the video and then Rosie O'Donnell cut her off (2) The section of Elisabeth attending the white-tie event for the President which was notable as "The View" spent an entire section discussing and it was an honor few people were invited to (3) The section where Joy Behar and Sherri Shephered attempted to intervene in the argument of May 23 (4) The section where Alicia Silverstone ignored Elisabeth when introduced.

I feel if the section where Alicia Silverstone was deleted, the section of Donald Trump should be as well. Both are of similar reasoning, and there is no reason why Donald Trump should be included and not Alicia Silverstone. All the sections that were deleted were cited, and had facts, and I (as well as other users) feel that by deleting these sections cast Elisabeth by a negative light, and thus makes the article biased. If we could hear input from non partisan people. Thank you Small5th

I have discussed it with the other party and they feel it is alright to reinstate those sections

Casting her in a positive light is just as bad as in a negative light. Keep that in mind. — NRen2k5 03:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Request: Could someone please add a photo? Thanks!

I second that request. She's hawt. 64.241.230.3 14:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationism

if Ms. Hasselbeck is a Roman Catholic, as her biography indicates, is it acccurate to say she is also a creationist? If so, that is a very rare stance among Roman Catholics. Has she converted to a more fundamentalist form of Protestantism? Can anyone back up the claim that she herself is a creationist?

She may have been Catholic at one time, but she describes herself as a "Christian" and never bothers to rebuke the inaccurate statements about the Catholic Church by the other hosts. This leads one to assume that she isn't Catholic now, if she ever was in the first place. BTW, there are Catholic creationists because the Catholic Church does not have a teaching regarding the biological origin of life, just the theological origin of life, which is God in His Sovereign Will. Therefore, you can be Catholic and support or oppose evolution without any problems. So much for the accusations of the Church being this megomaniacal kabal.Mattsteady 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not impartial

"Critics (and those with common sense) argued she was simply overreacting and was being too self-absorbed." The insertion of "(and those with common sense)" does not appear impartial.

Also, referring to Ms. Hasselbeck as a "conservative" voice on The View is not impartial if not juxtaposed to referring to the other co-hosts as "liberal". Otherwise, it's implied that Ms. Hasselbeck is conservative and the other co-hosts are middle-of-the-road.

Actually, her biography on the View's own website referrs to her 'conservative opinions' so I don't see how referring to her as such is POV since the show's own official site does so.--Lepeu1999 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Hasselbeck represents the conservative position" should be changed to "Hasselbeck often represents a conservative position", since there is no unique "conservative" position, any more than there is a unique "liberal" one.Evaluist 07:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

missing from 'on the view' section

there is no information as to when she joined the cast or basic information as to her role on the show - it jumps in with the stalker contraversy. I'd add the information myself but I don't know it.--Lepeu1999 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture maybe?

Is there a picture out there somewhere that can be included? Lowellt 04:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably not one that will meet fair-use standards. :( -Ebyabe 12:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why so many "incidents" of the view?

Incidents on the view are not encyclopedic and do not belong in this or any article. Bytebear 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, many (or all, I don't know) have been covered at length by WP:RS and thus pass WP:V and notability and deserve mention. Mad Jack 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:NOT:

Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news the less likely it is to create an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography. Even when news events themselves merit an encyclopedia article of their own, additional biographies of person(s) involved may not be necessary as they could largely duplicate relevant information. Additionally, extant articles should not carry daily reports of things such as game summaries of sporting events or musical performances by a band or group unless the events themselves are noteworthy. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews.

Bytebear 04:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear is correct. This is hasselbeck's bio, not a blow by blow accountof incidents on the view. This is classic undue weight and wp:not. These problems are BLP issues. --Tbeatty 04:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see every incident on the View here. It looks like there are only a handful listed. I can't see how they're undue weight if they've gotten more extensive media coverage than other incidents. For example, the latest Rosie O'Donnell thing is certainly notable. See WP:BLP: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article... " Mad Jack 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone has now restored the deleted section, except without proper formatting and the like. I agree that the length given to it is undue weight, though some mention of the whole thing should be made. Comments? Mad Jack 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Might it be worth creating a separate article about the incident? It certainly seems to be notable enough to warrant it. Just a thought... -Ebyabe 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say. If you want to see the benchmark for these - there was no article for the Michael Richards incident, though there was one for the Mel Gibson DUI thing. Hasselbeck Vs. O'Donnell seems to fit below Richards in notability, so I'd guess that it doesn't warrant an article, though I could be wrong. Mad Jack 17:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In any case, I'd think there should only be a short synopsis here, and then maybe a longer one on The View article, since that's where it happened. Wonder why that hasn't happened? Maybe b/c it's easier to add it here. Who knows? -Ebyabe 18:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mad Jack 04:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Be careful about creating a spinoff article. Wikipedia is not a news source, and it is not a tabloid. It is an encyclopedia. In 2 years, will the incidents be relevant? Bytebear 05:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashed

Is this a press release? Where are the controversies she has been involved in like comparing gay relationships to toasters, the morning after pill or her fight with Rosie O'Donnell? http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/229829/elisabeth_hasselbeck_pregnant_with.html

It is being widely reported that Elisabeth's husband Tim Haselbeck is having an extra-marital affair with actress Kate Hudson. Sources include showbizspy.com. Why is this update to Elisbeth's profile being deleted by the editors ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.134.41 (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Widely reported" is a lie. Your website plug is not considered to be a reliable source. A google search comes up with nothing. I smell vandalism/prank. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

The header of the article says it is protected against anonymous edits, but it is being edited anonymously. Why is the header on this page if it isn't actually protected? Note to new editors: Putting the warning up does nothing to the protection of the page. An administrator has to actually put a protection on the page. The warning is just a display element and means nothing. Bytebear 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Elisabeth still a Catholic?

Elisabeth is listed as an American Roman Catholic, but in a cited article, she specifically names New England Chapel as one she attends in Massachusetss. New England Chapel is a Dutch Reformed Church, certainly not Catholic. Also, on one episode of The View, she stated that she had been brought up Catholic, implying it was in the past and that she currently was no longer Catholic.

She stated she was a "Christian" during one June 2007 episode. I'll replace "Catholic" with "Christian" unless someone can produce a source that says she is Catholic. Mad Jack 08:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Argument with Rosie O'Donnell

There was no mention of her fight with Rosie so I decided to post a section. I know someone will try to take it down so I'll post it here as well. It's only fair since this section is posted on Rosie's article and Elisabeth started the fight. Brianga I will be posting this again if you take it down. There is no reason why there is no mention of this argument on this page while there is on Rosie's.

On the May 23, 2007, episode of The View, O'Donnell became engaged in a heated debate with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck.[86] O'Donnell asserted that Hasselbeck was "cowardly" for not answering whether she believed O'Donnell thinks of American troops as terrorists (in reference to O'Donnell's comment earlier in the week in which she said 655,000 Iraqis have died since the United States invasion and asked "who are the terrorists"). O'Donnell also complained of how the media would portray her as a bully attacking "innocent pure Christian Elisabeth" whenever they disagreed on air. O'Donnell stated that she believed Republican pundits were misinterpreting her statements by accusing her of comparing American troops to terrorists, and had asked Hasselbeck if she agreed with the Republican pundits. Hasselbeck denied O'Donnell's accusation, claiming that she knew Rosie didn't think that US soldiers were "terrorists" but told O'Donnell that she needed to "defend herself" as it was not her place to defend controversial statements made by O'Donnell.

The debate became even more heated as co-hosts Joy Behar and Sherri Shepherd made several attempts to stop the argument, including trying to change the discussion to topics like the results of Dancing With the Stars. When the feud continued past the five minute mark, Shepherd ventured to cut to commercial break promising Alicia Silverstone when the show returned. O'Donnell silenced the effort by saying "No, no, no we're not. No because we have a lot more time." Minutes later Behar endeavored again to end the argument by interjecting "Is there no commercial on this show? What are we on, PBS? Who is directing this show? Let's go to commercial!" Shepherd responded by asking Hasselbeck if her unborn child was "okay" after the heated argument, fearing for both the mother and child's health. The show did in fact cut to commercials shortly afterwards, and the subject was not resumed.

O'Donnell and ABC agreed to cut short her contract agreement on May 25, 2007 as a result of this issue.[87]

In a press statement released May 25, 2007, Rosie O'Donnell bore no ill will towards Hasselbeck and says that she "loves all three women". However, in her blog, Ms. O'Donnell stated she has not talked to Ms. Hasselbeck and that she was in shock and "stunned" that Ms. Hasselbeck had brought up Trump. She later posted a video on her blog discussing her future relationship with Ms. Hasselback. In a subsequent blog posting, O'Donnell stated that "I haven't spoken to Elisabeth, and I probably ever won't".[88] She also attempted to restate the controversial comment that had caused the feud with Hasselback saying, "the cowards who sent r [our] troops to this war . . . those men r [are] the terrorists."[89] According to ABC News, O'Donnell said that she knew her time on the show was over when she saw the exchange reported in the newsmedia with the split screen effect showing her and Hasselbeck on either side. ABC News also reported that her arguments with Hasselbeck brought the show its best ratings ever.[90]

How is this relivant to her Bio? Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I think it needs to be removed. (See above talk as well) Bytebear 23:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You say it's not relevant for this page. Then is it relevant for Rosie's?

It's not, other than it was a contributing factor to her being fired (oh, I mean her leaving the View). But it isn't significant in isolation, which is how it is being presented here. I haven't read the O'Donnell article, but I would say it should just be a footnote relating to her leaving the View and nothing more. Bytebear 19:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In previous versions of the 'article' on Elisabeth Hasselbeck it has been highlighted that her husband is Tim Hasselbeck and that he was a NFL quarterback. Now that Tim Hasselbeck has been summarily fired from the New York Giants (a referenceable fact - go to www.giants.com) you cannot dismiss this as a relevant fact. If you do so, this proves Wiki is only interested in positive promotion of celebrities - influenced by their PR hacks - and not in the truth - as embarassing as it may be for the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.146.133 (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

25,000 petitions statement

This statement According to fireelisabethhasselbeck.com, more than 25,000 petitions have been forwarded to Barbara Walters to ask her and ABC to fire Hasselbeck from The View as of October, 2007. Seems blatant POV-pushing and may violate WP:BIO. Online petitions are quite common and for wikipedia to give this undue weight seems in error. I'm not a regular editor on this article so I'll leave it to those more familiar to either balance it, cite it with reliable sources or get rid of it. We're an encyclopedia not a tabloid. Benjiboi 08:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have felt that we should probably get rid of that as well. It is (at least unless we remove it) placed in the Controversies section, however, and thus I didn't feel too motivated to get rid of it. Flyer22 08:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it was removed before, but an editor added it back. And I think when it was removed again, I added it back as well, not because I insist on having it there, but rather because of some vandal irritation, perhaps. Flyer22 08:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's time for it to go if it can't be wikified in one way or another. Benjiboi 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Flyer22 03:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing then. It's archived here for future editor's use if they need it. Benjiboi 05:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

what does this sentence mean?

"O'Donnell complained about Hasselbeck's unwillingness to morestrongly defend O'Donnell's statement following the media attention after her comment."--Filll (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Today Elisabeth disussed Obama's minister, causing controversy.

Whoopi Goldberg

I don't think the explanation of Goldberg's argument is necessary. It's clearly there to make her look right, and is not neutral. 156.110.35.146 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing material(bullet 5 on AfrAm vs ladies voting first in US)

Arthur Smart is repeately removing material explaining why Elisabeth was right in relation to her debate with Whoopi about black men having the right to vote before women. He says it's POV and that it's debateable. Obviously, there is no debate about when the ammendments were passed and what they were about. Whether or not Jim Crow laws were present in the South, technically, the ammendments covered the entire country. It appears to be an attempt to make Elisabeth look wrong by removing facts. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here I attempted to make the paragraph completely neutral, concluding, "Thus, all points of view on this issue were correct to varying extents for different parts of the country." AgnosticPreachersKid deleted all my verbiage, claiming here that "this has nothing to do with elisabeth herself". From there, AgnosticPreachersKid and I have reached an impasse. He insists that Elisabeth was correct because of 15th Amendment. In my view his position ignores the blatant lack of enforcement of the 15th Amendment throughout large portions of the South, thereby rendering Elisabeth's position naive at best and flat wrong at worst. I still say my original language is as neutral as can be achieved. Failing that, I vote for deleting the entire paragraph. But I vehemently object to having the article give its official validation on Elisabeth's point of view without mention of the fact that many of us consider that point of view quite incorrect. --Art Smart (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Writing about Jim Crow laws, the Voting Rights Act, etc. is not necessary in this article. Naive at best and flat wrong at worst? Well, at least we know your position already. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If Jim Crow laws and the Voting Rights Act are not necessary, then neither is the 15th Amendment. Both lend ammunition to the respective competing sides the paragraph in question is attempting to document. Including one without the other is flagrantly non-NPOV. As for your and my respective points of view, yours is not in the slightest bit more doubt than mine. --Art Smart (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what you think my point of view is, but not on this talk page so that we don't wander off. The current version will do, even if it doesn't explain the truth. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest noting the passing of the ammendments and adding something like "although the ability to exercise these rights has been impeded at times" - with a link to a suitable article on suffrage or disenfranchisement? Jay*Jay (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am againt the current version in the Eh controversy section(bullet 5).
1st, put the showdate in as dates r in the previous 4 bullets. It was on 21 Jan.
2nd, the punctuation is wrong as it ends with a comma not a period.
3rd, the previous version explained in detail. AfrAm were denied the vote with various taxes,laws, intimidation,etc and this needs to be mentioned\kept. It isnt 2 make EH look bad(she does this herself) it is 2 explain that ladies on paper AfrAm men could vote but it wasnt until 100yrs later that AfrAm men actually did freely.
. . . The previous 4 bullets have detailed explainations so y not explain bullet 5? 70.108.122.159 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on 1st and 2nd points, above, and now implemented. Regarding explanation requested (3rd item), please propose some wording here and let's see if we can reach a consensus. Personally, I oppose any 3rd party explanations. I'd rather see this bullet point deleted altogether, as I tried previously. But unless we can reach a reasonable consensus here on the wording of any 3rd party explanation, I would oppose adding any at all. --Art Smart (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and took a stab at some neutral wording. Sorry for not posting it here first (I did read the talk first, but missed that section.) I tried to as succinctly as possible present both views (which I consider equally valid) and here's the text I added: "The historical question is controversial. The first African American to vote under the 15th Amendment was Thomas Mundy Peterson in 1870 while the first woman to vote under the 19th was Marie Ruoff Byrum in 1920. On the other hand, some women were able to vote in various states long before either the 19th amendment or the 15th amendment and, due to Jim Crow laws, the 15th amendment did not effectively grant suffrage to African Americans on a national scale the way the 19th amendment did for women." I think it's worth adding (I was curious when I read the version) and I believe this version shows the strength of both positions. --theStorminMormon

Good job maintaining neutrality, theStorminMormon. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The first woman to vote in the United States was Louisa Ann Swain on September 6, 1870 in Laramie, Wyoming. Because women in New Jersey had the right to vote from 1776-1807, and there were no records kept of what time each voted in the first election there, the name of the first woman in the United States to vote (after independence) is likely lost in the mists of history. Their right was rescinded in 1807. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthomin1 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this statement: "The first woman to vote in the United States was Louisa Ann Swain on September 6, 1870 in Laramie, Wyoming. Because women in New Jersey had the right to vote from 1776-1807, and there were no records kept of what time each voted in the first election there, the name of the first woman in the United States to vote (after independence) is likely lost in the mists of history. Their right was rescinded in 1807." If the latter statement is correct, it can be put back in with a reference. I hadn't come across this in my slight research. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Why is her political affiliation added to the infobox? The other VIEW hosts do not have their party affiliation mentioned in their infoboxes. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The show is called "The View" because of the various different views of the co-hosts. As we obtain verifiable political affiliations, let's add them to the respective infoboxes. Hasselbeck's party affiliation, which she admitted on 3/24/08, is germane to just about everything she has to say regarding politics, which itself is the main "hot topic" on each show. --Art Smart (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you should add political affiliations to the rest of the hosts. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the political affiliations are obvious (Whoopi & Joy are Democrats, Barbara completely neutral, others Republicans). Do they need to be verifiable? --Art Smart (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an inflammatory piece of information when it is not added to the other host's. Some sense of uniformity should be adhered to.Einsfahrt (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, added citation for verifiability. As we get verifiable info re: the others, let's add them too. --Art Smart (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the FACTS from the recent poll (results published on ABC (network for The View), and varoius other publications - more than 1 million persons voted Elisabeth Hassellbeck as #1 WORST female talk show host on all of television. and #1 MOST ANNOYING. These are facts, reported by major news organisations. Why can't these be added to the subject's Wiki profile ? The locking and editing of this profile seems to confirm EXTREME BIAS in editing out negatives associated with this person's profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.149.205 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm coming late to this party, but there is one thing we need to consider. That if we put down the political affiliation for EVERY person on the view on their infobox, then every person that is a "special" co-host needs to have their infoboxes added. I dont' think this should be the case. It would be more viable if you simply added the information to the main article to these ladies, otherwise, we will be updating the information on EVERY person we can find and not all of them are open about their political affiliations to be able to be cited as a source. --Hourick (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you. Here's how I see it: There are five regular co-hosts, and for all but possibly Barbara, that is their main job. The show is called "The View" because the clash of their disparate viewpoints is one of the main features that draw their nationwide audience. Many, if not most, of their "hot topics" center on politics. The Infobox template has a field for "Party", which is clearly not reserved only for politicians. For those co-hosts who wouldn't be very notable outside of "The View", their party affiliation is very relevant, and that info should be visible at a glance in an infobox for easy reference, rather than buried down in the article. To the extent that each co-host's party affiliation can be ascertained from a reliable, verifiable source, it should be included in their infobox along with an appropriate citation. If your point was that the same should be done for guest co-hosts, I disagree. That information is superfluous to what would make that guest co-host notable. The same is not true for the regular co-hosts. --Art Smart (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright's Racism and Dahmer

The agenda is so clear. A user adds the March 24 controversy w/o citing why Elisabeth said that. I added it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The video speaks for itself. Why does the reader/viewer need your explanation as to how to interpret what they see and hear with their own eyes and ears? Does Hasselbeck need an apologist? --Art Smart (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The other controversies have further explanations, yet you add a one-liner with no reason behind it. The reader might not watch the video clip and it gives info as to why she said it. It's from the NYT and London Sunday Times, RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AgnosticPreachersKid, it has to be in put in context on this site because some won't watch the video, or the video might go away (which will make it an uncited source).--Hourick (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What about that edit? I'm trying to compromise. I took out why he's considered controversial and explained why it pertains to the show. "Hasselbeck made the statement in regards to..." or something like that. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Any wording like "Hasselbeck made the statement in regards to..." should not be included unless her explanation was stated during the show. She doesn't need any of us here to explain anything for her. If the brief statement I originally proposed is too brief, then I would support adding some direct quotes from the clip, but not adding any explanations from any of us here. --Art Smart (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, you wanted it to appear like she called him a racist like it was something people had never said before? There are so many news stories that have talked about how his comments are seen as racist by many people. The title of the clip says "Should Obama distance himself from his reverend because of racist comments?" The NYT piece I had added and then removed explains why people have said that. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, when she made the Dahmer reference, she said she was going to make an "extreme analogy." She compared Dahmer eating peanut butter sandwiches and people that Dahmer had eaten, or some weird analogy I don't understand. Anyway, she did not explicitly "equate" him with Dahmer. That's a total twist of the truth. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoopi asked "how can you equate the two", and Elisabeth didn't deny it. I twist nothing. On the contrary, I advocate no 3rd party explanations whatsoever. Add extended quotes if necessary, but any 3rd party explanation is a landmine for points of view. --Art Smart (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your point of view. You are trying to paint her in a negative light without explaining why she said it. The current version is the most neutral, even if it does contain a lie about the equating. She didn't equate the two, she made an analogy. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to paint her in a negative light. If I did, I would point out how she was such a laughing stock for the Dahmer comment. I also would point out the dictionary definition of "racism" which was read later in the show, such definition showing how wrong she was. If her own comments appear negative to you, then by all means add an extended quote to put her in a better light. But don't inject your own 3rd party explanation into the article, please. --Art Smart (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You just violated WP:3RR. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Report me. --Art Smart (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I c Ag is being the same wrong way 2 us as he was with me.

The section is controversies & most of them r bc of things EH said w bad support( 4 ex she compared Rev Wright to mass muderer\human eater Jeffrey Dahmer: http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=b84dea1b-5be2-4cd6-a1fb-22d858de2390 ). I dont think its POV or NPOV. IT belongs in bc of the rXns of her cohosts & other media (ppl mag,huff post, etc) that comment on dayime US tv.70.108.122.159 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stanley011 and I have made significant changes regarding the 24-Mar-2008 controversy. The bullet item is much longer than I would have liked, but hopefully, the extended quotations will meet NPOV standards. If you disagree, and think this or any other item is non-neutral, then please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Stanley011 has removed from the article an on-air quotation defining the word "racism", which Joy read in response to Hasselbeck's calling Rev. Wright a racist. He (Stanley011) claims that the "Joy Behar quote about dictionary racism ... is impertinent to the Dahmer/Wright controversy." I say that it is very pertinent, as it directly questions the very grounds upon which Hasselbeck's position stands, and therefore is key to why Hasselbeck's comments were controversial. Therefore, I plan to add the quotation back unless the consensus here advises otherwise. Please speak up. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The comments of Hasselbeck were not so much "controversial" as they were ridiculous. What we need are the context of the Hasselbeck remarks (which are provided by first citing Shepherd) and the reaction to them (which are cited by providing Goldberg's reaction. What is needed are examples of how she has been further critiicized off the show--I actually added that line, but now realize that it requres substantiation, so there should be a fact tag added after it until some sources are provided. The whole Behar quote about racism is completely irrelevant to why this is an issue; it is an issue because the analogy was bizarre. Stanley011 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You write "it is very pertinent, as it directly questions the very grounds upon which Hasselbeck's position stands, and therefore is key to why Hasselbeck's comments were controversial." Find a source that says that they key to why Hasselbeck's comments were controversial can be found in Behar's quote, and then you can include it in the section. Otherwise, you are inserting your POV and therefore violating a cardinal wikipedia policy. Stanley011 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stanley011, thanks for now starting to use this talk page. Since you and I are at an impasse, input from others will be needed to move forward. Everyone, please speak up regarding this edit. I say Hasselbeck was controversial for calling Rev. Wright a racist, and Stanley011 disagrees. Additional input is needed. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We can VERY easily more past this impasse if someone finds a source that says that the reason this was a controversy was because Hasselbeck called Wright a racist. I know there are sources out there that have ridiculed Hasselbeck for drawing the analogy, but if someone would just find a source that said it was also controversial for her calling Wright racist, then Arthur Smart's wording can stand. Stanley011 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To further this discussion, let's start with what we both agree about. We both agree that Hasselbeck called Wright a racist. There is no question about that. What we disagree about is whether that is why the issue is controversial. I maintain that if that part of her comment is to be noted as the reason why the episode is controversial, then a source to that effect must be provided. Otherwise, it is a POV interpretation and that has no place on wikipedia. Stanley011 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I say Hasselbeck was controversial during the 24-Mar-2008 episode for two reasons:

• She called Rev. Wright a racist.
• Using Whoopi's verb, Hasselbeck equated Wright to Jeffrey Dahmer.

The two statements were controversial, both jointly and severally. Each is controversial enough to warrant a bullet entry in its own right. However, doing so would look silly, so I favor having both controversies documented in the same bullet entry, especially since they both were part of the same conversation. --Art Smart (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to specifically respond to my claim that a source that says the issue is contentious because she called Wright a racist is needed before that is included as part of the controversy in the article. Stanley011 (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Google News yields seven articles on the subject, and that's just news articles. Does anyone really think that calling someone a "racist" on national TV would not be controversial? Now, let's get input from other editors. Back and forth between Stanley011 and me, without input from anyone else, is both a waste of time and disruptive. --Art Smart (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your google news search yielded 0 articles that mention that the reason the issue is controversial is because she called Wright a racist. Not one article even criticized or ridiculed her for saying that Wright is a racist. In fact, of the articles you brought up only one even touches on the subject that is referenced in this entry. Stanley011 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps the undisputed fact that Hasselbeck called Rev. Wright a racist should be moved from the "Controversies" section into the main body of the article? Is that your proposal? (rhetorical question, no reply needed) For the last time, let's get input from other editors, please. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's first stop any edit warring that's going on in the article and discuss any changes here first. Second, we do not place fact tags on unsourced, contentious content in a WP:BLP, instead we immediately and aggressively remove it. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. The same goes for content in an article or on a talk page, so be cautious as to what is posted even here in this discussion. Third, in order to say that something is controversial, it must be sourced, otherwise it is original research. Who is saying something is controversial? It cannot be us, it has to be sourced. Dreadstar † 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I provided a source for the claim that the analogy garnered ridicule off the show. As of yet, Art Smart has provided no source to support his claim that her calling Wright a "racist" is what was part of the controversy. Therefore, as you say Dreadstar, he is engaging in original reserach and should be warned by an administrator to stop immediately. Stanley011 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The source provided does not seem to support the content added, I've reverted and protected the page. It was clearly asked that no further edit warring take place and all changes be discussed here first. Dreadstar † 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hasselbeck called Rev. Jeremiah Wright a racist and equated him with serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer." This is a libelous statement and CANNOT be permitted to stand at all. You are putting wikipedia in legal jeopardy by leaving this line. Stanley011 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I take exception to the word "libelous" used herein. May be a violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. The word "equated" was Whoopi Goldberg's word, not mine or anyone else's. Whoopi clearly said to Hasselbeck, "How do you equate those two things together?" and there is no doubt that Whoopi was referring to Wright and Dahmer. At that point Hasselbeck could have denied that she was equating Wright and Dahmer, but she didn't. She said words to the effect, "That's how my mind thinks." I would urge all of us to avoid legal threats and slinging around characterizations of other people's edits as "libelous". Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that Goldberg said that Wright and Dahmer are "things?" Stanley011 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was you who first said it. Here you added a reference whose link contains the quote: "GOLDBERG: How do you equate those two things together? I’m sorry, I, I-" --Art Smart (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who provided the link. You were the one who made the assertion that Hasselbeck "equated Wright and Dahmer" which Dreadstar correctly removed. Goldberg was never claiming that Hasselbeck equated Dahmer and Wright; by using the word "things" she was referring to an equation of something else. OTHERWISE she would have used the word "people" as in "How could you equate those two people." Do you typically refer to "people" as "things?" Stanley011 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing that content now. Dreadstar † 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstart, please explain how my source does not support the claim that I made. Also, please note that leaving it as is: "equated Wright with Dahmer" is intellectually dishonest at best, and libelous at worst. Read through the transcript. Stanley011 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Source does not even use the word "ridicule" and I'm not convinced that the video clip is a WP:RS that meets the threshold of WP:BLP. Find a better source. Dreadstar † 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreadstar. I posed the question of ABC Daytime's website video clip being a WP:RS at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Is a Video Clip a Reliable Source?. The consensus was yes, "it's a perfectly valid source for quoting people, but not for stating their claims as facts." Furthermore, "If the publisher was some obscure website no one had ever heard of, or the only copy was on youtube, that might be up for discussion, but we're talking about a major television corporation and news distributor." Thanks, again. --Art Smart (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will, and I ask you to remove the libel (equating Wright with Dahmer) immediately. Stanley011 (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Dreadstar † 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The libel is removed, but now it's just an incorrect rendering of events. She did not use the Dahmer example to prove her point about Wright being a racist--she used it to respond to Shepherd's claim that Wright is not a racist because he did great work for the community. Please word it as such. Also, you have not provided a source that documents why the racism issue is a controversy at all. NO one has responded to my point about that yet. Stanley011 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording of it is still dishonest. The issue is NOT notable because she said that Wright was racist. That was an INCIDENTAL part of the controversy. The controversy was that she used an idiotic analogy to refute Shepherd's comments about Wright being a good man overall. To start off "called Wright a racist" is, while factually correct, dishonestly framing the issue. As I said FIND A SOURCE that criticizes or ridicules her for calling Wright a racist. Just ONE source. Otherwise, it is original research, as you yourself pointed out (but now are going back on). Stanley011 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In my short review of the available sources, I didn't see where she actually called him a racist, so I've neutralized the opening line. I believe the entry can be better written, so all the editors here should work and find consensus on a proposed new version. Dreadstar † 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The opening line should convey why the issue is worthy of being under the "controversies" section. As of yet, I, you and Arthur Smart have not found one source that documents any criticism of Hasselbeck's use of the word "racist" on that show. The only sourced criticisms of Hasselbeck are the ones that deal with her use of the Dahmer analogy to attempt to refute Shepherd's claim. I think the opening sentence should convey something about the Dahmer annalogy, rather than the racism, for the reason I stated in this post. I look forward to hearing others' suggestions about this. Stanley011 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the other part of the entry, I do not see how the Behar quote is at all relevant to the controversy. As I wrote, no one has found a source that conveys any criticism of Hasselbeck's use of the word "racist" on that show. The section should be about the analogy, and the reaction to the analogy, both on the show and off. The part about Behar's attempt to refute Hasselbeck's point about the racism does not belong here unless a source can be found that documents that Hasselbeck's use of "racist" on that show has been criticized Stanley011 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar, you have not answered either of my objections above as of yet. Please provide an explanation as to why you are choosing to include the Behar quote under the controversy. If you have found a source that describes Hasselbeck's use of the word "racist" as controversial, or criticizes it in any way, I would ask you to provide that source Stanley011 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC). Here is a source that describes her comment as "odd": can that be included in the article now?[1] Stanley011 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

pls correct [17] to this better link

Pls correct [17] with this better link :http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=b84dea1b-5be2-4cd6-a1fb-22d858de2390. The current abc.com isnt a direct link and they only keep up video for 1 week anyways. Thx 70.108.122.159 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I added your link, but I also left the original one which starts a bit earlier in the show. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Political party affiliation

The statistical information under her spot for a picture lists her as a republican. However, in a specific quote "Hasselbeck has said that she calls herself neither a conservative nor a liberal. Her parents had an independent political stance, never telling their children for whom they voted. She has stated that the term "conservative" does not define her as a person.[9]" under the header "Personal Life", reference at "All stated on Hasselbeck's April 12,2007 appearance as a guest on Fox's Hannity and Colmes". Is she in fact a republican, or is this just inferred? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsfahrt (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that if this is indeed true, that all host's of 'The View' have their political affiliations added to their pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsfahrt (talk • contribs)[2]

Agreed. As we get verifiable political party affiliations regarding the other co-hosts, let's add them too. --Art Smart (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AOL Poll: Hasselbeck Is the Worst Interviewer

AOL reports that "Talk show hosts have strong opinions -- and so, apparently, do you. We polled our users on monologues, fashion sense, even a hypothetical 'View' smackdown ... and 1.3 million votes later, we wound up with results so surprising, they'd leave even Whoopi speechless." Click the "Next" button nine times until you get to page "10 of 19":

9. Who's the worst interviewer?

• 35% E. Hasselbeck
• 25% Tyra Banks
• 23% Dr. Phil
• 11% Larry King
• 7% Meredith Vieira

This Google News search yields five news articles that picked up the story.

Since the article is protected, are there any admins willing to add the above item to the article? Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a template for requesting consensus edits to a protected page here. Dreadstar † 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks yet again for your help. --Art Smart (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't the results of this survey been added to Hasselbeck's profile ?? Presidential race polls include far less persons (1.3 million) yet the editors of Wiki are so biased in maintaining the profile of Elisabeth Hasselbeck that they refuse to post these FACTS ?? Worst interviewer on television, 1.3 million persons in national poll

Maybe because it adds no value to the article. Bytebear (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's because I haven't yet had time to draft up an EditProtected template, and no one else has done it either. Please go ahead if you wish. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a different wording for this section. I was wondering what the various editors think of it: "In 2008, AOL conducted a poll to ascertain public opinion towards various American talk show hosts. In question nine "Who is the worst interviewer?" the choices offered were Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Tyra Banks, Dr. Phil, Larry King and Meredith Vieira. 35% of the repsondents, a plurality, chose Hasselbeck. Referencing the poll, the Daily News reported that Hasselbeck is "considered the worst interviewer on television "

I think the statement "voted the worst interviewer on television" does not provide the full context of the survey, which the new version provides. I would like input before adding it. Many thanks Stanley011 (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

The source that I would like to add is the following, which shows the results of the poll: (go to question 9): http://television.aol.com/feature/talk-show-hosts-poll Stanley011 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please add the following below the categories:

{{blpwatch|from=04/2008|reason=Controversial media figure, disputed BLP.}}

Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Category change request

When this page is unprotected, could someone please change Category:People from Providence, Rhode Island to Category:People from Cranston, Rhode Island. Thanks! -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Republican

Hasselback is not a politician, therefore why is it relevant to state her political party in her info box? None of the other View hosts have these labeling in their info boxes.Mdriver1981 (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached in Talk:Elisabeth Hasselbeck#Infobox, above. --Art Smart (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus at all in that section. Bytebear (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed this bit of information because the reference used to identify her political affiliation. First in the clip in question she never states she is a registered republican. If she resides in NY could very easily be a member of Conservative Party of New York State. The major positions are very similar in support so it is a huge assumption that she is a republican. And last time I checked "assumption" was never reason enough post "fact" on a profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebMachiavelli (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mis-representation of Elisabeth Hasselbeck's Husband, his Job and his Achievements

THIS IS THE LATEST UP-TO-DATE AND VERIFIABLE STATUS ON ELISABETH HASSELBECK'S HUSBANDS EMPLOYMENT STATUS: In April 2008, Tim Hasselbeck's contract with the Arizona Cardinals expired and was not renewed. He is no longer appears on the team roster (see www.azcardinals.com) and was made an unrestricted free agent. As of the July 22, 2008 NFL deadline no team has signed Tim Hasselbeck and he was released by the Cardinals and is now effectively unemployed and no longer a professional football player in the National Football League (NFL) and should only be referred to as a former NFL quarterback and former NFL player. [source: nfl.com/freeagents] THESE ARE REFERENCEABLE FACTS: WHY ARE THESE FACTS BEING DELETED AND CALLED VANDALISM. THESE FACTS ARE IMPORANT, ARE ACCURATE AND MOST CERTAINLY ADD TO THIS WIKI PROFILE. SOURCES TO VALIDATE THESE FAACTS ARE NOTED (WWW.AZCARDINALS.COM) SHOWS TIM HASSELBECK IS NOT LISTED IN THE CURRENT TEAM AND IS ONLY LISTED IN THE ALUMNI INDEX. OFFICIAL NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE STATS (WWW.NFL.COM) SHOW THAT TIM HASSELBECK IS AN UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT AND DOES NOT HAVE A CONTRACT WITH ANY TEAM FOR THE 2008 SEASON. ANY REFERENCE TO MS. HASSELBECK'S MARRIAGE SHOULD SAY SHE IS MARRIED TO "FORMER NFL PLAYER TIM HASSELBECK". IT IS ALSO FAIR TO NOTE ON ALL THE DATA, STATISTICS AND EVIDENCE THAT TIM HASSELBECK HAD A VERY UNDISTINGUISHED CAREER, WAS NEVER A STARTING QUARTERBACK AND IN MANY SEASONS DIDN'T SEE ANY GAME TIME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.7.14 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The wiki profile for Elisabeth Hasselbeck stil claims that her husband is an NFL Quaterback playing for the Arizona Cardinals. Both points are incorrect and misleading. I've checked with the Arizona Cardinals and can confirm that at the end of the 2007 season Tim Hasselbeck was let go froom the team's roster and made an "unrestricted free agent". Which means he can be pick up by any team without any payment to Arizona Cardinals. There was a deadline of June 1 2008 for either Arizona to make him an offer or another team to make him an offer. He did not receive an offer from Arizona nor any other team. He remains an unresricted free agent which means he is no longer employed by Arizona, he is no longer a player in the NFL and any claim that he is an "NFL Quarterback" is patently incorrect and misleading. Source: Arizona Cardinals

Further, I think it is important to have actual data and facts to support the current assessment of Tim Hasselbeck's career. The current Wiki profile says his career is "undistinguished". This is not accurate. The fact is that according to detailed statistics compiled and publisehd by Sportsline and the NFL (NFL Stats) in 2007 Tim Hasselbeck was ranked #116 of a total of 117 quarterbacks in the NFL. This suggests that Tim Hasselbeck's career was a dismal failure not merely "undistinguished".

As Elisabeth Hasselbeck continues to make many references to her husband being an NFL quarterback and approved having this reference in her profile up until now, it is only just that the profile is modified to reflect the truth about her husband's career and status in the NFL (no longer in the NFL). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.107.66 (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why have the edits to CORRECT the information about Elisabeth's husband TIM HASSELBECK been deleted? The fact is that he is NOT currently an NFL player. He has been cut by Arizona. Further, he does NOT have a contract with FOX Sports. He is unemployed. Has not played an NFL game since 2003. Elisabeth continues to talk about her husband being an "NFL Quarterback" as recently as June 18, 2008 when appearing on Hannity & Colmes. This is false, a lie and should not be allowed to be perpetued on Wiki. I thought Wiki was about being accurate and truthful, not a PR outlet for D-list celebrities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.194.218 (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I stated this on your talk page. Well, on the IP talk page you had before the 58.169.194.218 one: "I reverted to the last good version of the article, which was not meant to target your edits as not good, but simply to restore information and formatting that was taken out by others. Now that that has been done, feel free to reinsert your edits. You should not put that her husband had a failed NFL career...without valid references, though."

Anyway, I just tweaked the part about Tim Hasselbeck due to your comments. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

i dont know how to add tags like the NPOV one, but i find everything about the "controversies" part of this artical to be biased and POV Macenblu (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not so sure I see POV. But then again, I wasn't one of the ones a few months ago battling over how certain information in this article is presented. Unless you count my "battles" with an annoying IP about proper headings and linking. Others, though, also had a problem with that IP. Flyer22 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Factual Accuracy issues

I have put up a POV and factual accuracy tag due to the many problems that this article has. Many of the citations and references are from obscure sources, with at least one being from PerezHilton.com. The article needs thorough cleanup. -- AJ24 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the original research and the PerezHilton.com source. Thus I have also removed the "neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed" tag. But if you feel that this article is somewhat POV, then add a POV tag. But I really do not see any POV; it's just that she has had more than one controversy, which is what the Controversies section takes care of; it should be taken out of bullet point form, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hasselbeck and Goldberg 'N word' debate

Should this particular incident be added to the "Controversies" section? It did recieve news coverage, but I can't say myself whether it merits being included in the article. I was just wondering because the debate does raise the question of whether or not there is a double standard in the US when it comes to racial slurs.

Hmm, I'm not really for or against its inclusion, IP. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hasselbeck to Campaign for Palin

ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: The McCain-Palin campaign’s efforts to reach women is about to get a celebrity boost: Elisabeth Hasselbeck is set to join Gov. Sarah Palin on the campaign trail. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/hasselbeck-to-c.html Reporterage (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hasselbeck to go to Fox News?

I've seen a lot of refrences on the Internet about Elizabeth's possible departure to Fox News. Is this just an unsubstantiated rumor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.190.173 (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are news stories saying that she is not leaving the View.OwenSaunders (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The View Controversies - Palin Wardrobe

"On October 26, 2008, Hasselbeck introduced Sarah Palin, saying criticism of her $150,000 clothing budget were blatantly sexist."

This is misleading, as it listed under The View controversies, which would indicate that Palin had appeared on the show rather than the reality - Hasselbeck introducing her at a rally and commented about it afterwards on the show. Did Hasselbeck say at the rally that the clothing controversy was sexist? Need a reference if so. Hasselbeck did refer to it as such on The View, but the statement above has a slanted POV as it does not refer to Goldberg's specific refuting of this as being sexist, since such criticism has historically been aimed at candidates of both sexes. Lastly, is it really significant enough to be included on the page? OwenSaunders (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Revisions

I think there are getting to be too many major revisions without discussion first (myself included). I believe that 'Survivor' should be under 'Career,' since that did launch her televsion career. Also, "stints" isn't exactly encyclopedic.OwenSaunders (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a bit more reorganizing to help the flow. I consider Survivor to be part of her career, indeed, appearances on reality shows have played a role in many peoples' careers. As a shoe designer with no previous visibility on television, it's unlikely she would have gotten any of the subsequent appearances, which were at least in part a result of the Survivor's audience positive response to her and her ability to handle herself well before the cameras. But to help, I've changed Career to Television Career.

I've also tried to combine the political aspects of her life in one place. OwenSaunders (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I like your recent revision of the headings; I formatted the ones that needed formatting to comply with Wikipedia's policy on headings, though. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, now let's see how long it last before the next wave of random editing.OwenSaunders (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversies - Voting Rights

With the recent deletion by TheRedPenOfDoom of the explaination of who got voting rights first (African-Americans or women), the way this entry is now it could easily be misread that Goldberg corrected Hasselbeck, and that woman got voting righs first, which is at least technically incorrect. Goldberg subsequently corrected herself later in the episode or the next day, but I can't easily find a written source for this. And since this incident really was not a controversy, just an interesting discussion about political history, I've removed the incident entirely. OwenSaunders (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

has any third party news organization commented on this? if no, then it is not noteworthy, and constitutes original research. Please remember to use third party sources and not comment on events directly. Bytebear (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who this comment is directed at? OwenSaunders (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is to you, clearly. You cannot comment on an event directly. You must have a reference from a third party source that commented on the event. Bytebear (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I have not been a contributor to this article, just an editor. I am the one who removed the entry, as I stated above, because I could find no third party (or as I put it, written) source to confirm what happened.OwenSaunders (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry to be accusatory. I just think it cannot be reiterated enough on many controversial articles that have continuing events surrounding them. I see it all over the place and on many subjects. If we actually included what is verifiable and noteworthy, many of these articles would be quite a bit smaller. Bytebear (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OwenSaunders, above you state that you removed the incident entirely. But I see that it is still there. Do you mean you would have removed it entirely if you were TheRedPenOfDoom? Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had removed it. Not sure what happened. Do you agree it should be removed?OwenSaunders (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I had originally removed the history lesson added by Wikipedia editors and not 3rd party source but had not actually looked at what was "referenced". In going back and looking at the source provided and the based on the discussion here, I have removed that whole paragraph. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with its removal. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to say, though, that we did not need a url link from a valid website to include any of that information. We can use ({{cite episode}}, which does not have to include a url. References do not have to have urls to be valid, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The more that I look at this section, the more I think it should be pared down. For instance, the statement about Cindy McCain: What exactly is the controversy? There has to be some counterpoint stated (at the very least) for it to be controversial. Yes, it was a jab at Michelle Obama but that's not evident here, and does it really belong in the bio? At this point, the most relevant controversy was the one with O'Donnel, partly notable because O'Donnel left The View early because of it (which isn't even in stated in this article). Thoughts? OwenSaunders (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it (the Controversies on The View section) already has been pared down a little. I feel that it is fine now, except for the Cindy McCain instance you mention; that should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

She's pregnant again! 3rd pregnancy

Announced just now, live on 'The View' (01/29/2009).

Macshill (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You people are quick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macshill (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hasselbeck at Palin rallies

This "material" is under the View sub section? There has to be a better section for that if it is even notable? Any takers? TIA --Tom 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Details about kids birth dates and husband and brother in law

I have copy edited this material. Any reason to add specific details about births, husband, or brother-n-law? Maybe add birth years, but that should more than sufice since they are not notable in their own right. Thank you, Tom 14:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article is not a WP:COATRACK. Plastikspork (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the kids name included in the info box since they are mention below in the article, but I sure wouldn't argue or revert over it. --Tom 15:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been some contention over this issue if you check the edit history. I personally think it's excessive detail which is unimportant as (1) the children are not notable (2) there has been no controversy over the names the couple selected. Obviously the fact that she has children is important, just the names seem unimportant. My opinion. Plastikspork (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no problem with not including their names, just pointing out that they are still listed in the article. I, personally, would not fight to have their names excluded but would defer to others. If you feel strongly about this, ok, then the ownous would be on those who favor inclusion, imho. What are the applicable guidelines and policies here since this actually comes up quite abit? Anyways, --Tom 16:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Matt Hasselbeck doesnt need to be mentioned.

I disagree bc I feel her kids names & DOBS should be included. How is it excessive? Excessive would be birthweights, fav boooks, etc. Their names/DOBS is just data. If their names/DObs is excessive, y arent Brad Pitt's kids DOB & adoption dates considered excessive? 70.108.119.213 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Each WP:BLP is an individual article and should be considered as such. Arguments about "it's on X so why can't it be on Y" is an argument to avoid. There has been quite a bit of discussion surrounding inclusion of details about relatives and children in WP:BLPs. The main issue is that a WP:BLP is not a WP:COATRACK (and, of course, identity theft issues, rights of children to privacy, etc. but those don't really apply here since she herself has released this information). With that said, I believe this should be discussed further. If you check the edit history, I am not the only one has been removing this addition on this page. I'm just one of the few who have responded today. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The specific birth dates should not be included by any means. It is personal information about non-notable minors who are not the subject of the article. Including the birth years would be acceptable to me. I dont feel the minor's names should be included either, there is nothing in our sources that shows meaningful substance about the choice of names but if consensus holds otherwise, I will not block consensus on that point. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Plastic: I cited Pitt as an example. If u want EH considered individually, WHY NOT include the info? EH told the media about world about each of her pregnancies; about each of the labours; about each of her kids bday parties, etc. She isnt hiding the info so why cant it be here? 2nd: Including their names/DOB def doesnt fall under 'coatrack'. It is 1 line not a section.
RedPen: "not included by any mean"...again WHY? Eh is telling the world so y cant it be included? 70.108.119.213 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? because we dont include random info just because it's out there. And specifically, including personal information such as specific birth dates and names of non-notable minors is a violation of our WP:BLP policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because information exists doesn't mean it all belongs in a WP:BLP. Plastikspork (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You are both talking in circles. It isnt random info like her shoe size. It is the humans that she grew in her body & then pushed out! I gave u examples but u aint like them. So some1 get Jim Wales. Im puttinger her kids DOB/names back in. We'll be in an edit war soon bc you two dont want the info in. 70.108.119.213 (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Declaring your intention to start an edit war is a great way to get yourself blocked, especially when your edits are contrary to the consensus on the talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

AND PLEASE STOP UNTHREADING THE CONVERSATION. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(1)WRONG! IDing what will happen bc of constant reverting of 1 another's edit is just that: IDing what constant reverting of edit is called: an edit war.
(2)Y dont u stop yelling? 70.108.119.213 (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to move on and stop feeding

ip keeps reverting to version with multiple problems and unwilling or able to try to listen to others. Time to block and semi protect. Tom (talk) 00:08, 23 March 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)

I'm asking bc it is polite. I did read them. Obviously YOU didnt. If you did read you 'd have seen Tom and spielchequers thoughts.70.108.110.22 (talk) 11:37, 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)

ADMINS WE NEED HELP !

{{tl:HELPME| Y cant the kids names & birthdates be included? redpen,plastic, & I are disagreeing. Thanks.}}70.108.119.213 (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

{{tl:adminhelp| Y cant the kids names & birthdates be included? redpen,plastic, & I are disagreeing. Thanks.}} 70.108.119.213 (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

So in the case of the children, year of birth should be OK if sourced. Hope that helps ϢereSpielChequers 17:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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. 70.108.119.213 (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? 208.58.196.66 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism 'Predictions.'

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. 75.17.194.240 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)TheRedPenIsDoomed

Notable debates on the view

Isn't this material more appropriate for the show article rather than this bio? --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)