Talk:Paula Zahn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] ??
Lionden would seem to be an employee of CNN: there is no history whatsoever for him/her. I suspect he/she is Paula Zahn's flack. Reverting true stuff gets celebs into trouble. Clearly, Lionden now wants Paula Zahn to have pseudo-blood thrown on her as she exits her pricey building by PETA. Her flack wants the building to become notorious. Maybe even, she wants her children to be victimized by paparizzi, and therefore get expelled from their pricey private school[s].
I'm not gonna revert. I'm gonna make the damnation of her husband far more intense a bit later. This is Pale Male territory. Paula is a rich bitch who cares little for New York City wildlife.
May Pale Male poop on all of you CNN flacks.
Lionden must be particularly proud of the fact that there is now an article, Richard Cohen, husband of Paula Zahn. Pale Male has pooped on Paula Zahn. To stop the mess, Richard and Paula, with their kids, have to do a hardcore pro Pale Male video bit, even if they are evicted from their building.--FourthAve 06:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Reply to above:
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines key policy #2 states "Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject factually and objectively"
FourthAve comes from a highly biased view (the "comments" above make that quite clear), probably one of the people last year who were outraged and disgusted at the removal of Pale Male's nest from the building on 5th Ave. Therefore the inclusion of that controversy as a part of Paula Zahn's Wiki article (which FourthAve initiated) comes from a biased point of view and not a neutral point of view.
A neutral point of view (or NPOV as its own article states, which btw is also described as "absolute and non-negotiable") for an encyclopedia must look at a subject from a big-picture perspective. Unless Zahn's article is to become a litany of controversies she's been involved with, adding one particular controversy for which she had no responsibility (all legitimate press accounts at the time state it was Cohen's decision alone), is inconsistent with a NPOV. Unless it proves to be a significant minority view that it should be mentioned, it simply doesn't fit in. And thus far this add-Pale-Male-to-Zahn's-article crusade appears to be FourthAve's alone. If FourthAve feels so strongly about Pale Male he should express these opinions in an opinion-based blog or website, which there are plenty of, and not in an online collaborative encyclopedia which is about facts and information.
I should thank SysOp Johnleemk for his attempt at finding a compromise regarding this dispute, but I do feel the inclusion of this one particular controversy is out of place in this article, so I respectfully disagreed with that edit. But again if it proves to be a significant minority view I'm open for a reasonable compromise.
Also, it should be noted Pale Male has a Wiki article which does mention Paula Zahn among the building residents, so the information is indeed given within the Wikipedia. It just doesn't fit into a big-picture article on Paula Zahn herself.
And for the record, I do not work for CNN. I'm just a CNN viewer who gets sick and tired of people who become so impassioned about a particle issue or cause that they lose all perspective and reason, not to mention civility.
-Lionden
Furthermore, the text FourthAve continues to want to add:
"In 2004, Cohen evicted the squatter hawk Pale Male from his extremely expensive 927 Fifth Avenue (at East 74th Street) co-op's quarters and made headlines. He later settled out of court, and Pale Male resumed residence."
is clearly not about Zahn. It's about Cohen, so why should it be in Zahn's article? Because FourthAve knows Zahn's article is more likely to be read than one on Cohen, or even Pale Male himself. And since FourthAve's objective in editing Zahn's article isn't to inform about Zahn, but to inform about Cohen and Pale Male, he uses guilt by association to imply relevancy in an article on Zahn. This is an inappropriate use of an article that's supposed to be written with a NPOV, which FourthAve plainly does not have regarding the subject of this article.
-Lionden
[edit] New picture?
Is there another picture of her? This one only shows her from behind and all you can see is Barbara Bush.
There are many. However there is no point in adding them as that philistine/puritan pencil pusher Lionden will object on the grounds that she is showing too much arm.
Actually there is no point in adding them because 99.9% of them are copyrighted and Wiki admins have a thing about allowing copyrighted material in articles. So the photo that is currently shown is 100% public domain, being from the Dept. of Defense. Lionden 05:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)\
CNN used to send out a good looking pic of Paula to queries with great color and so available with no copyright issue. But i dont have a scanner and cant find it.
/s/ willy 4 zon
[edit] Richard Cohen, husband of Paula Zahn redirects here
Its AFD failed to get consensus to delete, and I made the editorial decision to redirect the article here. I've also merged some material from the article here. Johnleemk | Talk 09:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Good Morning America? or The Early Show?
I could have sworn I saw her on one of these in Fall of 2000 and then again in May 2003 I believe. Can anyone help me out?
[edit] Edits
I removed a statement that "Zahn is widely known for her extensive and in depth interviews." It was removed because the reference claimed in support of this was simply a transcript of one of her interviews. Since the interview is actually rather brief, was incompletely characterized, and does nothing to actually establish the claim, I don't consider it appropriate here.
If the sentence thus removed is in fact a fair characterization, it might be okay to put it back. I'd imagine there must be actual media commentary out there that discusses her interview skills. --Michael Snow 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thinly-veiled bad faith? Lionden you are a philistine and your sidekick Vikramsidhu is a feeble minded automaton.You seem not to understand that objective is not to subjective what white is to black. All my edits were facts or truths. I will never contribute again to this poorly run and managed enterprise.
- Okie-dokie...Vik —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:43, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
Yes, please never vandalize an article on Wikipedia again. Play your griefer games somewhere else. Thank you. Lionden 00:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. Anything not in accordance with your views is vandalism? What next? Will you burn some books? Your edit on the 1973 beauty pageant tells me exactly what you are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.180.102.94 (talk) 03:05, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
No, vandalism is maliciously adding things like outrageous (and libelous) claims of 16-year affairs with "international legal experts" that are blatantly absurd and you know are false, and continuing to reinsert it after it's removed by honest editors such as Vikramsidhu. Then getting bored of that game and deciding instead to make up vital statics you claim to know by having some mysterious access to the subject's personal medical records, again playing the reinsert-after-removal game a few more rounds.
In the end you make a point about objective and subjective information not being "as white is to black", as you say. Whatever the merits of that philosophical point may be, it remains true that phrases such as "her stunning good looks" are too subjective to be appropriate in an encyclopedic article such as this, which is why it was removed.
But all of this is just a game to you anyway, as your initial vandalizing of this article (among others) tells me exactly what you are. So as I said before, go play your griefer games somewhere else. You won't find a receptive audience around here. Lionden 05:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] News
Hope to see Paula back on TV as while she had her ups and downs with the recent divorce etc , it was always fun to watch her show.
/s/ Willy
[edit] Role on the Council on Foreign Relations
What about this bit of information that Wikipedia has somehow forgotten? I know that Paula Zahn sits on this important think-tank. Just read any article regarding the CFR, and you'll notice that she sits on the CFR. I'll go to the website of the CFR and check...
--XH 16:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)User:Xinyu
I don't know if its really notable.Kevin 01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

