Talk:Martha Stewart/Archives/2015

New York Times Article

There is an article she wrote for the New York Times on her views of the progress of Westport, CT. It was highly offensive to the town. This should be mentioned in the article.

Incorrect details

In regards to the legal references on Martha's bio, most of the details here are incomplete, inaccurate or incorrect.

Martha Stewart was indicted on April 4, 2004, for conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators.

It is incorrect to say "In 2002, she was accused of insider trading and other crimes relating to statements that she made to investigators."

The investigation into Martha Stewart's trading of ImClone stock began in 2002.

Martha Stewart voluntarily stepped down as CEO and Chairwoman of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia in June 2003.

Stewart went on trial in January 2004 and on March 5, 2004, was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators.

In July 2004, Stewart was sentenced to serve a term of five months in a federal correctional facility, and a two-year period of supervised release (to include five months of home confinement), based on her conviction of the following felony offenses: conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators.

In September 2004 Stewart agreed to begin serving a five-month prison term while her appeal was still pending.

In October 2004, Stewart reported to Alderson Federal Prison Camp in West Virginia. She was released on March 4, 2005, after which she was placed under home confinement and required to wear an ankle bracelet for an additional 5 months.

In August 2006, in her settlement of the civil case brought by the SEC, Martha agreed not to serve as a director, or as the CEO, CFO (or other officer roles in which she would be responsible for preparing, auditing, or disclosing financial results), of any public company for five years.Samanthaschabel 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pics

How do you know that these picture are real? ~~babs

Are we expected to believe that the photo in this article is of a 62 year-old women?

Markb

What photo???

Yes, that's her. That's what she looks like. -- Zoe

It might be an old pic, but she still looks pretty much like that as she is young looking for her age --Ade myers 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps you should watch her show to see that it is her. :P

Just researched the photo included in this article and it is included in the 2010 TIME Magazine's top 100 and gala slideshow on Examine.com so it seems it is, in fact, a recent photo within this year. --Bloggirl (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Can someone who is following this case closely make sense of William Safire's OP-ED? [1] The parts that are of most interest, i think, are:

• "the prosecutor James Comey handed off the insider-trading charge to the S.E.C., which seeks civil damages, not criminal penalties, and must meet a much lower standard of proof."
• "she voluntarily answered the questions of investigators, she was not under oath and could never have perjured herself."

If those points are indeed true, this wiki-article should reflect them. I simply don't know enough about the law or about the story to take a stab at editing the article. I hope one of you can do so :) Kingturtle 05:20 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

TV

TV appearance? Martin

Yes, where? Not that I disbelieve, but I am curious. Koyaanis Qatsi 04:16 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

image

that image is about 10 years old. we need an up to date one. Kingturtle 23:22, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does it really matter that photos are up-to-date? This is Wikipedia not a dating site! --80.177.124.44 16:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) mkmi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.173.153 (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved from article

Unfortunately, she's not quite the "clean, nice old lady" she appears to be in the public eye and is often disliked amongst her peers. She is also known to step on people's feet and do just about anything, regardless of who it hurts, to get ahead in her career.

Seemed a bit POV and rantish so I removed it. Though many Americans I have met have had strong opinions on Martha (good and bad) so maybe something can be said... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have removed a bit of vandalism, such as the line that her grandparents were pornstars.

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Newsweek magazine image

I vaguely recall a television segment a while back about that image suggesting it may have been fakes. SD6-Agent 14:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC) ±±±

Scandals

Too much of this article seems to be spent on scandal. I know that it her current persona seems ridden with scandal, but she had years where she actually had a life without scandal. —preceding unsigned comment by Mrcsparker (talk • contribs) 23:07, November 19, 2005

Thank you Agateller for spliting the article in two. -Alexhb

Out of control

This article is waaay too focused on her scandal and jailtime. I know that was the subject of a lot of ridicule last year, but now she's pretty well re-established herself as the homemaker icon she's been for the past twenty-five years. Of course, include the scandal, but having "convicted felon" in the first paragraph, listed among her occupations - somebody had an axe to grind here --relaxathon 22:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• --thank you "relaxathon". i completely concur. --Kiwidude 01:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, she's a convicted felon and that needs to be in the first paragraph. (Bjorn Tipling 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Her conviction is metioned in the lede section just a few lines before your edit. --mtz206 01:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, listing Martha Stewart as a "convicted felon" in the first line (which, I should add, shows up immediately on Google if you search her name) slants the tone of the whole article to reflect the author's opinion. I did a quick search of a variety of other famous individuals who received convictions of varying degrees, including those who were notorious for their crimes as well as their accomplishments (including celebrities such as OJ Simpson and Lindsay Lohan) and not one of them had a similarly slanted leading sentence. This should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.182.115 (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The word "felon" does not appear anywhere in teh article, nor the word "felony". Here is an example of how it is used for others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Skrepenak Why does Martha get special treatment. Obviously a biased article. Fix it.98.236.88.47 (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

New Image

that new image is good but the quality is terrible. it's fuzzy, at least on my computer. anyone else think the quality's a problem?Kiwidude 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean Image:Marthaapprentice.jpg? Yes, it looks fuzzy to me as well. Also, it is huge and oddly shaped: very narrow but very tall. Something not so fuzzy and a better shape would look much better. Also, I find it a bit odd to see Alexis' and Charles Koppleman's shoulders. --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just put back the old picture. Thoughts?Kiwidude 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --MatthewUND^(talk) 06:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay, it's been removed.Kiwidude 17:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I admire your initiative Kiwidude, but removing the rest of the photos was not neccisary.Alexhb

I didn't remove any of the pictures. i merely commented on the removal of the top one where she is standing on in her white suit. That's the only picture i wanted removed. my goodness look at the history before you rudely accuse people. Kiwidude 06:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i'm realy sorry. as soon as i posted the message i realized it was not you, and i was going to revert it then apologize. but i reverted it, got a new phtot, and completely spazzed. Sorry! Alexhb

sureKiwidude 05:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---

At the end of the part about her conviction, there is a seemingly POV part about how the case was biased against her, and it asserts more or less her innocence, besides misspelling "Exonerated" ("exhonerated"). I, myself, wasn't entirely convinced it wasn't tainted by schadenfreude, but at the same time, any critique of the trial ought to be NPOV.

She was not exonerated. She is not innocent. She was convicted. It is a fact. Saying so otherwise is factually incorrect. (Bjorn Tipling 01:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Pets

I believe some of her dogs died. Is that true?Kiwidude 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd sure like to know why when I tried to add a pets section it never showed up... any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.196.134 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

Did Martha Steward Inc. come by and rework the article? It reads like a page from their website. Having been convicted of a felony is no small thing. The entire scandal is very notable and was national headline news yet there's barely a trace of it in this article. Her book is currently on sale for $.99 in the clearance section of Office Depot. This tag needs to remain until the article is cleared up. If not we'll have to start the process for a resolution, this article is a black mark on Wikipedia. (Bjorn Tipling 01:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)).

I disagree with the placement of a POV tag on this article. The stated reason, "It is decidedly pro-Martha, with barely a mention of the recent scandal" is inaccurate. The 3rd paragraph in the lede section mentions "Most of her professional attention, since her release from prison (see below), has been focused on reviving the fortunes of her business, which suffered during the entire period of her litigation and incarceration." And there is a section on the ImClone scandal along with a link to the larger article on the topic. --mtz206 01:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree. I do not think that this article presents one point of view. The article does not have to include criticism of Martha to be neutral. It simply has to present the facts, which it does perfectly. It says the crime she was convicted of and the length of her sentence. the sleeper 02:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no need to stated "and a convicted felon" to the first line of the article. It is mentioned just a few lines below (still in the lede), and it would be unreasonable to claim that such a phrase should be added to each and every WP biographic article in which it applies. --mtz206 02:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Though I don't like the "and a convicted felon" wording, Bjorn has a good point; the first paragraph is rather puffy without at least some mention of what she actually is, at the moment, perhaps best known for. Since the paragraph is phrased as "...is known for...", it's a wee bit disingenuous not to mention her notoriety as well as her fame. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made an attempt at a more reasoned mention of her conviction in the opening paragraph. --mtz206 03:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks *much* better now. (Bjorn Tipling 20:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)).

I removed the tag b/c it realy was both inaccurate and innappropriate for wikipedia. Writing "It's is deciddedly pro-Martha" is something I think you would write in the talk section, not on the article itself. Sorry, but... Alex 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't live in the US so I didn't know who Martha Stewart was. When I saw her mentioned on TV, I wanted to find out who she was on Wikipedia. I must say, the first paragraph starts talking about imprisoning so abruptly that it feels like this is by far the most important thing about her. I can see there were considerable efforts in rewriting this but I think there's more work to be done. Romanski 11:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Is she or is she not a convicted felon? You people have no problem placing Peter F. Paul as a felon in HIS first paragraph. To be bia or not to be bias? That is the question?! Alex, YOU, are in fact a follower of Martha Stewart. Just look at your edits, ALL INCLUDE MARTHA STEWART, lets see, Martha TV program, Martha Stewart Baby, Martha Stewart Living, Martha Stewart Omnimedia, Martha Stewart Living Radio, and Martha Stewart Weddings. This is foolish and the issue be dropped entirely. I have been absolutely neutral in stating one thing: Fact: Martha Stewart is a convicted felon. Here is an example of the bias of the editors of wikipedia. I continually deleted Peter F. Paul's conviction in HIS first paragraph only to have someone change it back. Is this not the same case with Martha? He also has very important things on his resume, being a lawyer and working with the comic book writer Stan Lee. Should HE have his felony status reverted? No, because he is a felon. Plain and simple. Being a felon is a big deal. Do jobs not want you to know if your a convicted felon? Does the Department of Motor Vehicles not ask you if you have been a convicted felon? Of course they do, because in this country, when you do something wrong, especially something like trying to con other Americans in the stock business, it should be noted.

• That's a very valid statement. However, the issue has been discussed here, and I am only following what myself and other members of Wikipedia felt was appropriate. If you feel otherwise, then you are welcome to discuss it here and if people believe that it should say convicted felon, than it should stay that way. However, at this point, you have been to only person to insist oh having it say convicted criminal and convicted felon, and I have only turned it back to what it was supposed to be. Just take a look at your edits, changing 2 words back and forth has been your only real contribution to Wikipedia. So what if I focus on a certain subject for my edits, atleast I have made relevant, neutral, and stable contributions to wikipedia. Alex 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex, I have been an utmost follower of Wikipedia for a long time now. Please do not stray from the topic by stating that I have only made a couple posts. Are you are being prejudice towards my "noob" status? I seldom feel the "urge" to make any improvements in the wiki, as I honestly hate to have my input in anything. I love reading the writings of the other editors in the Wiki, and I probably have read a third of the entire thing-- yes, I do have the time. But anyways, as I stated, I had just stated the facts, and it made me frustrated that Martha was placed under this special aura of "greatness" by others. I tell you the truth, I believe Martha could care less what has been stated about her and could absolutely care less what is going on in her wiki page, nonetheless from every other forum and webpage that has talked bad about her. Martha has better things to do, and she already probably knows that her image has depleted a bit from the scandal. Alex, I have nothing against you, I just ask that you stop deleting her felony status because others will be frustrated because you will have to justify Peter F. Paul's and others felony status also.

GA nomination

For someone this famous and in an article this size, I am sure more than 2 footnotes can be made. Rlevse 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Martha Stewart/Archives/2015 has failed, for the following reason(s):

As Rlevse said above, references is the largest problem with this article. Almost no inline citation and even the non-cited refs are far too few. In addition, much is written non-encyclopedically. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

It has been suggested that a scandal involving the furniture company Levitz may have contributed to her decision to leave the firm of Monness, Horstman, Williams, and Sidel.

"It has been suggested" is a Weasel Word. The sentence needs adequate references, and a subject. ("The New York Times, in an article from 1973, cited sources claiming that a scandal...")

If no references suggesting this can be found, the sentence should probably be deleted. MIP | Talk 14:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

Someone keeps removing the reference to the fact (not opinion) that Martha Stewart is a felon. Committing a felony is not like taking a cookie out of the cookie jar. It is as equal an identifying quality of a person as "business magnate". Most famous people (most people at all for that matter) aren't felons, so I fail to see how including this is biased.

Shadowlink1014

The felon or felony conviction definitely needs to appear, since MS was convicted of the felony of obstruction of justice. We just need to be careful NOT to say that she was convicted of insider trading which she definitely was not. Smallbones 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rating

I rated this biography a B-class article. It seems pretty well written, and it has great photos, but it needs more elaboration of the biographical information, and more information about her personal, non-business activities. It also needs better and more citations. But it's almost A-class. I expanded the intro, which was way too short. -- Ssilvers 19:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the writing is pretty bad, actually. ". . . word of her business and skills grew rapidly"??? How does "word" grow, I wonder? It might spread, but grow? And that's just one example. 69.250.29.200 01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of word in Martha Stewart bio page....

Martha Stewart (born August 3, 1941) is a convicted felon and a shitheel American business magnate, author, editor, former stock broker and model, convicted criminal, and homemaking advocate.

I think this word in BOLD should be excised from the bio page. Whatever you may think of her personally, it's certainly not proper to use this word. Please remove it. 134.193.138.28 14:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, anonymous, for making Wikipedia such a better place! -HuBmaN!!!! 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "convicted felon" or "convicted criminal" belong in the opening sentence. This is a list of her professions, being a "felon" is not a profession. There is already more than enough space devoted in the article to her conviction. There's even a whole seperate article on the subject. Enough, already! It looks like Wikipedia is trying to smear her good name.

Please sign your name using four tildes. We have come to a consensus on this talk page that this reference should remain in, please see the discussion elsewhere on this talk page. Furthermore, a "smear campaign" would be writing information that is slanderous or false. If you continue to make these changes against the general consensus, you'll probably be in violation of the three-revert rule and could face a temporary block from editing. --Shadowlink1014 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is this consensus that you speak of? I can't find anything close to a consensus on this talk page. --MatthewUND^(talk) 00:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked for opinions up above... although I only received one response here, many users have been reverting these changes, so I'd consider that a consensus. However, you are right -- it would probably be best if we did a formal vote on it. --Shadowlink1014 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You can categorize her as a "convicten felon". That is a matter of fact. "Criminal" is a more general term that in American culture implies a lifelong predisposition to break serious laws. It is libelous and wikipedia is on shaky ground using such terms to define Martha Stewart in the intro of this piece. You'd think with the Sinbad/NBC reporter/last week's BLP lawsuit that wikipedia would exercise more caution before this sort of thing. Piperdown 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, under Shadowlink's criteria, the following people would have "criminal" in the first line of their biographies, they have all been convicted of breaking serious US laws:

George Steinbrenner Martin Sheen ... well, I hope you get the idea, there's dozens of famous people who have broken serious laws or even done jail time that shouldn't be labeled "criminals" in the first line of their biograpy.Piperdown 01:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean... even though I actually am not the person that put that in the intro, I did support it because of magnitude of the events surrounding that issue, and I felt it was noteworthy enough to include in the intro. However, it would probably be best not to include it there for legal reasons like you said, especially with regards to recent events in Wikipedia-land. There is something I should note about the category "American criminals" though... while I do not personally agree with it, the criteria on that category's main page says basically anybody convicted of serious crimes -- not neccessarily making a career out of it; that's why I did put the categorization in. So if we want to remove the category, we will have to change the criteria for that category, which would be a VERY big task, since there are hundreds of entries. --Shadowlink1014 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing the light on this. MegaMom 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Helping to propel her into international fame?

I would challenge anyone to ask someone outside the US who she is and get a response that doesn't resemble "Martha... who?". Certainly here in Singapore or Malaysia for example nobody I know has ever heard of her.

--rubenerd 07:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I had not heard of her until the scandal, and that is my main point of interest in reading about her. I would contend it was the court cases that propelled her to international awareness (fame I'm not so sure). I don't think my awareness of her is at all unusual in that respect. In other words, international fame would be appropriate if it was qualified by her insider trading problems. I don't know if those tele programs get screened her, still less watched.

I'm from the UK, by the way.

Wiki benguin 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Wiki_Benguin

The first time I heard about her was while reading UF's archive, when Pitr was looking for somebody as evil as evil can be, even worse than AOL (see http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020701&mode=classic ).

I'm from France, by the way, and I have no link of any sort to stock broking.

"Convicted felon"

Stating "convicted felon" in a list of characteristics of a person, especially in the opening sentence, is an attempt to brand the person as some sort of rogue. It's not encyclopedic and is a borderline personal attack. Bridge & Tunnel 18:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I had never heard of Ms. Stewart until she became famous for her legal problems. She had some claim to fame before, but it has been eclipsed. As I said in the comment, "convicted felon" is the accurate legal term for what she is, and it is a big part of her current notoriety. There is no personal attack in calling someone by what the courts have deemed her to be. However, hiding her legal status is exceedingly POV. I think you have to admit that this is true. FraisierB 18:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Something like this is better: "was convicted in charges related to insider trading." "Convicted felon" is clearly a pejorative label, intentionally unclear. It is used by individuals to brand those they don't like as rogues by taking advantage of the vagueness of the term. Just a few more words makes it less vague. Bridge & Tunnel 19:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, convicted felon is an extremely negative term. I hope that none of us ever has to live with the stigma of being a convicted felon; Ms. Stewart, nevertheless, has the "distinction" of being a convicted felon. She was brought-up on felony charges and found guilty. For all eternity she is and will be a convicted felon. Unless you have a time machine available with which you can go back in time and convince Ms. Stewart not to commit her crime, she is doomed to remain a convicted felon. Yes, the label is not as pretty as one of her decorated cakes, but it is 100% accurate. You use the term pejorative which means disparaging or belittling. Please don't blame anyone for labeling Ms. Stewart a convicted felon. It is not being used to belittle. It is an accurate description. If you want to blame someone for the use of this accurate term, blame Ms. Stewart. She alone painted this scarlet label upon her person. She did the crime - not the wikipedia user who wrote convicted felon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.195.126 (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How about: "Martha Helen Stewart is an American business magnate, television host, author, and magazine publisher who was convicted in charges related to insider trading." What "convicted felon" denotes is accurate, fine. But its connotations are that of violent crime, grand larceny, or of someone who is currently serving time. Mentioning "convicted felon" first, also, makes it so that being a convicted felon is the most important part of her identity, which it isn't. --Philosophistry (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be undue to place significant emphasis on the "convicted felon" bit in the lead, let alone have it be the first thing we say about her. It's mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead, and additional detail is in the article. That covers it. It is not a core part of her existence as a human being or professional in the way she is an "American business magnate" and so forth and so on. (For reference, the phrase was added to the lead anonymously a few days ago here.)   user:j    (aka justen)   11:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest "Martha Helen Stewart is an American business magnate,(etc.) who was convicted of felony charges related to insider trading." Mydogtrouble (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The mention in the lead has stayed fairly static for however many years since her trial, specifically because it balances with wp:undue. It's mentioned in the lead. She isn't Bernie Ebbers or Ken Lay or Bernard Madoff. The charges, while a part of her existence, are not core to her notability. Thus, it's in the lead, but not given undue emphasis.   user:j    (aka justen)   09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As for as the term "convicted felon" it seems that many articles use it in the opening sentence, particularly if it is someone that the liberal media does not like. For example, Mark Furman is a retired LA detective, best selling author, and convicted felon. I have not looked at Mark Furman's wiki article, but I bet it reads something like that. Go check and see, told ewe so. In any case, it seems it is used for some and not for others. Both Furman and Stewart would be noted without the felony conviction while others are noted only for their crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.32 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of examples of wikipedia articles where it identifies someone as a convicted felon AS THE FIRST STATEMENT! Here is one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Skrepenak Why does Marth get special treatment? In fact, the word "felon" or "felony" does not appear a single time on the article. What a crock of shit 98.236.88.47 (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Jewish descent

Shouldn't it be more clearly indicated that Martha Stewart is of Jewish descent? ~~JayJay

I don't think that is accurate. Martha's ex husband, Andy, was of part Jewish descent (I believe on his father's side), but that doesn't make Martha of Jewish descent. I'm only aware of Martha's Polish background. Martha was raised as a Catholic. --MatthewUND^(talk) 01:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

From the Current projects section: "The Martha Stewart show is currently in its second season."
Also from the Current projects section: "The Apprentice: Martha Stewart was not renewed for a second season." This needs to be updated by someone who knows the show. Brisvegas 03:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I realised the "Martha Stewart Show" is separate from the "Apprentice: Martha Stewart", so it's actually correct. But it was confusing to read! Maybe someone can make it clearer? Brisvegas 03:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Martha Stewart Movie

There have been two biopics made for television about Martha. Why is there no mention of them? They are both on Wikipedia Martha Inc.: The Story of Martha Stewart for NBC and a sequel for CBS entitled Behind Bars, starring Cybill Shepherd It seems appropriate to mention it in the article.

Late Night appearances

Ms Stewart has appeared on Late Night with Conan O'Brien at least twice, and I think both in the last current season (2006-7). I don't know anything about why she was there, as she didn't seem to be "marketing" anything as celebrities/personalities usually do. As a possible point of interest (or just to my own amusement), both times they made drinks. She and Conan made egg nog and a Russian drink with raspberries and vodka. Joliefille 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Note on video clips mentioned in "external links" section

The clips were withrawn by the user from the google catalog and placed instead at the site links indicated below: http://michaelchessman.org/Martha_defence.html http://michaelchessman.org/insane_justice.html These clips are also available at http://www.welovemartha.org

The links shown on the main page are therefore not functional and should be modified in accordance with the information indicated here. These clips have been wodely viewed worldwide as competent offerings for Martha Stewart fans and had a thousand views on Metafafe.com within a week of being previously posted there in addition.

posted by chessmanfoundation October 18th, 2007

She's still a convicted felon

Somebody removed most of the info on her felony conviction and jail time. It's quite notable when somebody listed in an encyclopedia is a convicted felon, and it's a 100% accurate statement. He says it's a matter of weight. I think it's a matter of NPOV including this very relevant info. I'll list it on WP:BLPN just to have an outside viewpoint. Smallbones (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It is undue weight on the lead. It needs to be reduced, summarized and referenced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's such a small percentage of who she is. By placing it in the lead it really defines her in a way that I agree would give it undue weight.SamanthaG (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The word "felon" does not appear anywhere in teh article, nor the word "felony". Here is an example of how it is used for others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Skrepenak

Why does Martha get special treatment. Obviously a biased article. Fix it.98.236.88.47 (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Charges and Undue Weight

I have cut out the unsourced material on the charges. Please do not include unreferenced material of this nature. Please also think carefully about how this type of info is relevant to an LONG TERM article. Just because the charges got a lot of media attention doesn't mean that they are particularly relevant to her life. My opinion is that it is a pretty meaningless incident, big picture, in her life. Do others agree? I certainly don't feel it's appropriate to mention in the lead.. Further, as user smallbones points out, "insider trading charges" is misnamed, b/c she was not charged with insider trading... Please, let's work out this type of info on the talk page, and not "experiment" with negative material within the article. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that she was convicted of a crime and spent time in prison, even if (as I feel) unfairly, should certainly be mentioned in the article. I came here from the BLP board expecting the article to be unfairly against her and prepared to defend her, but found it was the other way. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here prepared to defend her. The reason it's not mentioned fully right now is that it was unreferenced. I def agree it should be mentioned, I just feel that it should be thoughtfully considered in the context of her life as a whole. Please stay on the look out, and help us maintain balance in this area. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be sourced but it's a large enough issue that it should have it's own section - there are no BLP issues in saying she's a convicted criminal. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Further - this article reads like a whitewash, there are vague references to a trial, but I struggle to find any mention of her being sent to prison. There is LOTS of sourced material, so there should be no problem adding this stuff. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "felon" does not appear anywhere in teh article, nor the word "felony". Here is an example of how it is used for others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Skrepenak

Why does Martha get special treatment. Obviously a biased article. Fix it.98.236.88.47 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Criminal conviction etc.

Outside view: In response to the posting on the BLP Noticeboard: her criminal conviction and lengthy insider trading trial and conviction is most definitely relevant to this biography and should be more prominently mentioned than currently. I agree with some commentators that that subject has been given insufficient weight in the biography of this major public figure. Additionally, the references to libertarian views in the brief section on her "legal issues" is given excess weight.--Samiharris (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have made some small changes to fill-out the topic. I also agree that the libertarian vews are over-represented. Lots of people had lots of opinions about the case, and I don't see any reason to spotlight those two. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse those changes and think it is better balanced now...--Jkp212 (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added some more details concerning this very widely publicized case. It really requires further fleshing out in my view, considering the notoriety of this case, which was page one news for months. Note that Peter Bacanovic, a little known broker caught up in this case, has an article of his own because of the scandal, and that it dominates the article on ImClone Systems and Samuel Waksal. I wonder if perhaps there should be a separate article on this scandal, which was and is notable.--Samiharris (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly notable enough for an article, and there are plenty of sources. A separate article could prevent it from overwhelming other articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The article already exists and reference to it had been removed from this article. I put the reference back to Martha Stewart insider trading charges. That article could probably use some sprucing up, more (and better formatted) references (about 5 now).

I added back some other info that I think was unwisely removed. There are 5 references in this short section, so I think it is reasonably refereneced. Given the wide publicity on this case, I don't think we need 1 reference for every 10 words.

Sorry to put this on the WP:BLPN board and then running off to the beach, but there is life outside of wikipedia. The beach makes tracking down references a bit hard, but please let me know what you think is needed, and I'll track them down.

BTW, I think the word "allegation" - which is needed BEFORE a conviction - is entirely out of place here - AFTER the conviction.

Smallbones (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the term "allegations" and I had no idea there was a separate article. Thanks for the fixes. --Samiharris (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Martha Stewart insider trading charges is misnamed (they were not insider trading charges), and almost completely unreferenced. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that the name of the article is wrong and that should be fixed, as well as the referencing. But it is still the main article on this issue.--Samiharris (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link to Martha Stewart insider trading charges because that article has been redirected back to his one. However, I do believe that such an article would be useful if its name and the sourcing issues are corrected.--Samiharris (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That article seems well-sourced, with at least 17 citations. I'm not sure why it was redirected, and we may undo that once the situation is clarified. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there was a bit of insufficient footnoting, I guess. I do think the article is easily salvageable, though the title does need to be changed.--Samiharris (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Martha Stewart, I live in Europe. She was on the news recently (about a month ago) and I came here and found her criminal convictions buried. I have no axe to grind, but the fact it's been missing from the opening paragraph looks like someone's rewriting of history (see edit history). Someone keeps writing "it was agreed" and taking some consensus which from these edits I can't see, Also, please stop nit-picking about timelines. Someone pointed out earlier in this talk section that many famous people had been jailed and that shouldn't define them- can you name anyone who is as high profile as Martha Stewart and it isn't mentioned in their opening paragraph? She's banned from travelling to the UK, as she has a serious criminal record. This wasn't some driving misdemeanour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremsley (talk • contribs) 11:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Buried? Her criminal affairs take up the entire second half of the lede. Two sections in the body deal with the events leading up to her conviction and a third subsection of almost five hundred words solely covers the details of her incarceration. You were in such a hurry to put something in the lede that you did it in a factually inaccurate manner. That's not "nitpicking." If you don't understand the importance of verifiability, reliability, and accuracy, you really ought to review wp:blp before trying to ramrod something into a biography. Your second try was not much better — and rather than discussing here first, you, once again, rammed some haphazardly worded and grammatically poor language into a lede that has been stable for years. The coverage of her conviction, sentence, and incarceration is due across the lede and the article. Gain consensus for your edits if you disagree. user:j (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the lede does not give enough information regarding the conviction. I don't think it necessarily needs to be in the first sentence. But somewhere in the lede, it should mention the fact that she was convicted. That is not a violation of WP:BLP. It is accurate, and there is no undue weight as long as the mention is proportionate. It may have "stable for years", but consensus can change. It would be fair to speak only of "entangled" if there were no criminal charges, or at least no conviction. But in fact, she was charged, tried, convicted, and served time. None of that is mentioned in the lede. It is not accurate to say "Her criminal affairs take up the entire second half of the lede." since there is only one sentence which mentions "entangled" and "affair", then discussion of her return to business. "[E]ntangled" could just mean e.g. criticism in the press.

I propose "In 2004, Stewart was convicted of charges related to the ImClone insider trading affair [...]" Superm401 - Talk 03:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly accurate to say that the entire second half of the lede covers her "criminal affairs" — the words "criminal" or "convict" do not have to be there to be summarily covering the scandal for the purposes of the lede. If I recall correctly, the reason "convicted" wasn't used in that context was due to the fact that she wasn't actually convicted of insider trading (but, rather, of obstruction of justice, hence "entangled"). That being said, I don't have any major issue with switching out "entangled" for "convicted of charges related to the ImClone insider trading affair..." I figure "related to" safely enough covers the original precision concerns that "entangled" was meant to address. user:j (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that's part of why I chose the word 'related'. I've changed the wording to this. Superm401 - Talk 06:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "felon" does not appear anywhere in teh article, nor the word "felony". Here is an example of how it is used for others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Skrepenak Why does Martha get special treatment. Obviously a biased article. Fix it.98.236.88.47 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Stewart's billion

Would it be safe to say that increasing stock prices was one of the reasons why Stewart became a billionairess (U know what I mean) while she was in prison? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.2.23 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There's almost a perfect correlation between the value of her stock and her net worth. SamanthaG (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, SamanthaG, what do you mean by 'correlation'? Does that make it true or false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.23.36 (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Apprentice World-wide WikiProject

Please contribute to the relevant discussion here, as this discussion relates to this article. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Stewart

This is relevant but I'm not sure where to put it in the article (it was just deleted because it was in the "popular culture" section)Americasroof (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Plus-size clothing clothing company Ashley Stewart targeting black women is named for her (and Laura Ashley)

Let's not get into an edit war over trivia

An anon wants to include the "popular culture" that Brad Pitt says "Fuck Martha Stewart" in some film. Others want to eliminate the entire pop culture section. Ashley-Stewart (immediately above) at least has a reference. The biopics have links to wikipedia articles on them, so I think those should be included - most people don't have even one notable biopic on them. As far as "fuck" - at a very minimum it would need a reference (somebody needs to have mentioned this as notable somewhere - no WP:OR allowed, as in "I saw the film." It's a big "so what" as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones (talk)

Misleading infobox

The infobox as it is currently displayed says that she was born in 1941 at age 67, and suggests that the photograph was taken on the very same day, and that the person on the photograph is called Kostyra:

Born Martha Helen Kostyra
August 3, 1941 (1941-08-03) (age 67)

This is how it a casual viewer like me understands the caption. This information should be reorganised: the image caption should provide her name and the year when the picture was taken, and perhaps her age at that time. --Yecril (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSE Boardmember

No mention of Stewart's membership on the Board of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange up to October 3 2002, whereupon she resigned. See http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-120113334.html

http://media.www.bcheights.com/media/storage/paper144/news/2002/10/08/Marketplace/Martha.Stewart.Sinks.Into.Hot.Water-290998.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydogtrouble (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is difficult info to pin down. Unsure of the date she began this position, (approximately 4 months prior), http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542234 only when she resigned. Granted, many don't know about this, or have forgotten. If not objectionable, I will addd this to the main article (or someone else should in my view feel free to do so)Mydogtrouble (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC) added to articleMydogtrouble (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/2298399.stm Mydogtrouble (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

better image

at [2]. 212.251.190.66 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable Lawsuits

There are several newsworthy lawsuits that are not mentioned in the article. A slander or libel suit against National Enquirer; lawsuits by Harry Macklowe; and by Matthew Munnich. These summarized at http://www.snopes.com/embarrass/celebrity/stewart.asp I will await discussion on the propriety of inclusion of these. Mydogtrouble (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Banned from UK

She is listed under 'Other notable individuals banned or refused entry' on the page 'List of individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom'. Surely this should be included somewhere? --Scythre (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised she was banned. I mean, the insider stock thing was years ago, and she isn't a violent criminal. What's the story on that? --RyanTee82 (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro editing

I removed the following sentence from the intro: "An observer has noticed that she and her firm get more media coverage than they objectively merit because "she personifies the media's obsession with the cult of celebrity."" Though this was sourced, it's unsuitable material for the introduction, as (aside from a lack of neutrality) the original observation was about the company rather than Stewart herself, and it's also not a theme developed substantially in the main article. I've preserved the link here though as it might be useful further on in the body (the whole article could use some work -- I can't see the death of her dog as encylopedic for starters!) Gusworld (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Lead Images

• 
• 
• 

conflicting birth dates

In the body of Martha Stewart's bio, her birth date is listed as 1914 rather than 1941.Lesgles (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.221.98.4 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Martha Stewart - model question mark, question mark

Please see Martha Stewart's Modeling Past Lesgles (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Home confinement

Vanity Fair has Tyrnauer, Matt. "The Prisoner of Bedford." August 2005. Lesgles (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Martha Stewart was on Wait Wait… Don't Tell Me! recently, and she says this page is horrible.

11/10/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.201.131 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, she mentioned that her marriage date was wrong. I removed the date and month but left the year, which appears to be correct, but we need a source either way. Lesgles (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The same link to Wait Wait should be ok for the source right? Think it was #50 or 51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.173.212.21 (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect details

According to other sources she separated from her ex-husband in 1987 and divorced him in 1990. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.203.21 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Which other sources? Please provide any links you have or mention a book title or magazine article. Moncrief (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Source of 1987 separation and 1990 divorce: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20101736,00.html

Edit the article then, using that as a source. Just don't phrase it as speculation and definitely include the source with a < ref > tag (no spaces). By the way, could you please sign your posts here on the talk page? You do that by putting four tildes after your comment (~ 4 times). Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "felon" does not appear anywhere in teh article, nor the word "felony". Here is an example of how it is used for others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Skrepenak Why does Martha get special treatment. Obviously a biased article. Fix it.98.236.88.47 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Match.com

She put her profile on Match.com. You know It's better to be late than never.She has a weblog too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.123.22.128 (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Pixels?

It should be mentioned her appearance in the 2015 movie called Pixels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldie100 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)