Talk:Mary Carillo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

[edit] POV

There seems to be a bit of an edit war that has been going on for some time here. This POV paragraph keeps getting reverted back in. It has no place in the article. If you want to keep it in the article, please follow up here and give some evidence as to why it should stay in the article. Here is why I think it does not belong in the article:

Despite having won a number of broadcasting awards, Carillo has become a target of heavy criticism in tennis blogging communities in recent years.

Weasel words. Which tennis blogging communities?

Chief among the complaints about Carillo are what some core tennis fans perceive as

More classic weasel words. Who specifically thinks this? What makes them "core fans"? Calling them "core fans" in order to validate their opinions is blatant POV.

an excessively gossipy style of commentary, a generally weak knowledge of all but the most famous tennis players,

These are all matters of opinion. The fact that these opinions are possibly held by some unspecified "core tennis fans" does not add to the article.

and a failure to back up her sometimes-whimsical on-air assertions with logical or factual arguments.

This is a very critical claim with absolutely no support. Apart from the following sentence (which is hardly damning at all), there is no evidence given for this.

Even her reports of top players have been inaccurate. For example, she reported that Davenport had said that she'd never use an on court coach only a few days after she had Adam at her side between sets at the Pen Pilot.

This sentence seems to get tacked on in some revisions, and really looks like an afterthought (e.g, who is Adam?). As for its contents, it's hardly a smoking gun.. maybe Davenport did say it or something like it, and there was a misunderstanding. Do you have some documentation of this event? Even if it did happen exactly as written, it doesn't really point to the kind of systematic incompetence that this paragraph is trying to paint on Carillo.

However, Carillo's commentating style, which is geared primarily toward casual tennis fans rather than core enthusiasts

Weasely again. Using condescension to push POV (i.e, if you disagree you are not a true tennis fan). Has she been quoted as saying that she gears her commentary towards casual fans? If not, then how do you know?

and which often incorporates flashy one-liners, has also won her a sizable contingent of supporters.

Every sports journalist in the world could be said to "often incorporate" flashy one-liners. So what is the point? Bringing it up with this tone serves no purpose but to make Carillo sound like a chump. Blokhead 17:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think that the paragraph that is continuously edited in is inappropriate by Wikipedia standards and should not be permitted. Not only is it unsourced, but clearly biased. Agrippina Minor 03:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

At least the anonymous contributor has provided some sort of link in the last edit summary. I googled and found the original newspaper column which talks about how Carillo is not on speaking terms with several players as a result of things she's said while commentating. It seems like the anonymous contributor can't be bothered to change the content of the disputed paragraph, only the content of the edit summary.. So I have added a sentence to the article which speaks to the contents of this column (it is not perfect, so feel free to revise/expand). Note that these are things we can freely add to the article (i.e, verifiable facts). Blokhead 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Blokhead, I think your edit of the paragraph has summed it up perfectly. Agrippina Minor 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)