Talk:Brian Kilmeade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Look, whoever keeps deleting the comment from Colbert, I have one question: why do you hate informing the public? It was on national television and was a newsworthy event. And besides, Stephen Colbert is responsible for at least half of the traffic to this site, so a little thanks is in order. 129.210.180.176 08:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm as much of a fan of Colbert as anyone, but frankly just being the subject of a joke-even a funny joke-is not newsworthy, much less notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. There are several other Stephen Colbert related incidents on wikipedia that are far more significant than this one, and I suggest it would be silly to include this one.

Whatever is decided about containing the reference to his hair color in the article, I think "brown-haired-guy-who-is-not-steve-doocy" should redirect here. 129.173.172.98 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It should not belong. It falls under the area of trivia, and is not really relevant to BK. Furthermore it is like an inside joke. If you don't know who Steve Doocy is or you don't know the relevance to why SC even mentions it, then it makes no sense whatsoever. Arzel 15:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if you DO know the reference, but don't know whether BK IS the brown-haired-guy-who-is-not-Steve-Doocy, then you're out of luck. This should be on the page, because I was trying to find out precisely this information and I could not find it here. It belongs. Pudge (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Controversies

Shouldn't there be a "Controversies" section in this page? This guy always seems to be putting his foot in his mouth (i.e. the Janeane Garafalo interview, London train bombing comments, suggesting car bombs be used offensively in Iran). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteU (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have sources and links perhaps to the comments in question, they could be integrated into the prose of the article, but probably not as a separate trivia section, whatever the title may be... --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there should be a section on controversies. The following submission was recently deleted: "During a discussion on Fox News about a Code Pink member heckling Hillary Clinton at a recent event, host Brian Kilmeade said that people who confront politicians are "threatening" and should be Tased or "beaten to a pulp,". He went on to say: “They should tase (with a Taser) this guy,” Kilmead says. “At one point with security so high and tensions on edge, don't you think they're going to get at the very least tased or beaten to a pulp by somebody? These people look threatening.” " This is evidence of a public figure advocating a violent response to the use of free speech. Even if the event was closed and unlawfully interrupted by a protester, the 'beaten to a pulp' response Kilmeade advocated is an illegal one. LPFixIt (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of controversies. Just because you think something is controversal doesn't mean that it is. You need to have some context of what was controversal and some independent reliable sources reporting on the controvery for inclusion. Read up on WP:BLP for proper inclusion of controveral or contencious material into an article. What you have dne thus far is impart your opinion, which is completely different. Arzel (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiGods: Please Lock

This article is being actively vandalized. --Purpleslog (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)