Talk:The View/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Protection 2 Changes to introduction 3 Location of the View 4 Bias 5 Negative criticism 6 Confusing 7 Removed a statement from the introduction 8 Bias accusations 9 Tryouts 10 Rumored replacement 11 Replacement auditions 12 "Controversies" section 13 Return to having a section for each Season 14 International broadcasts 15 Fair use rationale for Image:Viewtitlecard5.jpg 16 Rosie O'Donnell controversies 17 Fair use rationale for Image:WhoopiView.jpg

Protection

Due to the large number of unconfirmed edits for rumors on the replacement, I have protected the page. Shawn W 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Protection from the page since a new host as been selected. If there is still a large number of vandelism, I will place the protection back on. Shawn W 02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to introduction

This show has undergone some changes in co-hosts during 2006. Please keep in mind the style guide suggestions for a lead section (WP:LEAD) when making updates that reflect these co-host changes. Thanks 66.167.252.200 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Location of the View

I'm just wondering, this show is like the first thing I see on TV every morning when I wake up (though it frequently bores me to death), I just want to know if anyone has the location of the studio. I mean that would be interesting information that has not yet been mentioned in the article, and I would just want to know where the location of this show is. My guess would be Hollywood, CA, but then again I have seen this show occasionally I have found some NYC-bias in this show to, further growing my curiosity. Falconleaf

• WABC studios, 320 West 66th Street, downtown Manhattan. http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/show.html -- ArglebargleIV 01:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You now I can put that into the article. Falconleaf

Bias

The View isn't a news show. It's a talk show, the purpose of which is for hosts to express their opinions. If the hosts have liberal opinions, that's not "bias" because there is no reasonable expectation of neutrality in this case. As such, I contend that the inclusion of this Bias section is unnecessary. Unless someone can give me a decent argument why it needs to be there, I intend to eliminate it. scola

Yes, The View is a talk show and not a news show, and it is for the hosts to express their opinions. However, to be bias you do not have to be a news show to be biased. To be biased is not to have neatrality, but rather equal representation of both sides. I believe that The View is mostly liberal, and does have Elisabeth as a representative for the conservative side, and that it is a talk show so yes they can be biased, but that does not mean that they aren't. I also think that Elisabeth is biased too, so if there is going to be a bias section that should be added. I think that in order to determine whether something is biased or not you have to have a neutral party determine that. I do agree that the bias section should be removed, however, because as it is now it is biased in itself, leaning to the liberal side, attacking conservatives. I also believe that if it should stay that it should not that Elisabeth is biased too.

As a talk show, "The View" is subject to less scrutinization for bias. However, the accusations of its partisanship are noteworth nonetheless if only to advise the article's reader of a criticism that is very serious. I understand that not all accusations can be mentioned in Wikipedia articles, but considering that two of the current four hosts are outspoken "liberal" and there is only one conservative, the charges of bias are worth mentioning. At the very least, I suggest the allegations be merged with the "negative criticism" section of the article. Polysci

According to the wiki article The View uses biased liberal thinking in deciding co hosts, so why should it not be mentioned that the program itself is liberal biased ?

If Barabra Walters or "the panel" has decided that the next co host should be a minority. this is clearly liberal thinking, add Rosies daily liberal statements on top of that and The View is clearly liberal biased overall.

Negative criticism

... Is there positive criticism? I think this is a bit redundant. (QUINTIX 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

• Thanks for the "constructive criticism", which is now fixed, having been overlooked due to more blatant problems on the page. "Negative criticism" is akin to Yogi Berra's comment about his 1960 Yankees losing the Series: "We made too many wrong mistakes!" Wahkeenah 07:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

This article seems like a mishmash of current and old information. It's quite confusing to read. In at least one section it seems as though Star Jones is still on the show, and in another it seems like replacements for her are still being considered. What's up? Exploding Boy 08:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's the "Wikipedia Camel" effect. A camel is said to be "a horse designed by a committee". So also (sometimes) with wikipedia articles. Wahkeenah 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed a statement from the introduction

I've removed the following sentence from the introductory section under the premise that it is most likely one person's opinion (there is no source for the statement) and it was rather poorly placed in its respective paragraph.

• However, with the addition of Rosie O'Donnell it has turned into "Rosie's View" a platform for the Democratic Party.

Additionally, the user that made this change made only this change, and this has been their sole contribution to Wikipedia.

If anyone here thinks I'm wrong in removing this claim, do as you will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.40.172.245 (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Bias accusations

First, this certainly should all be one section - there is no need to separate political from religious or racial bias, especially since there are not so many examples given of any of these accusations. As for the anti-Catholic bias accusation, I went back and actually read the source piece on this. It is just a press release issued by the Catholic League, stating that their president accused the show and Walters of bias. This is not an independent source reporting on it, it is an original source, and as such could be problematic in BLP terms - we'd rather quote third party objective sources who reported on this, than just his statement on its own. So a better source would be welcome - perhaps some newspaper reported this as news. I also removed the actual quotes from the press release because people can read the press release on their own and draw whatever conclusions they wish - this article, which is about the television show, can refer to this accusation, but should not spend more time and space on it than on the other ones where we similarly just give the source and not go into the details of who said what. I believe the way it reads now is fair, and of course will be happy to discuss it. Tvoz |talk 07:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, where is the proof that Kathie Lee Gifford is a conservative. Yes, she is a Christian (born again I think), but does that make her conservative? Maybe she is, but where is the proof?--RobNS 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kathie Lee has given money to Republicans such as Rudy Giuliani and Elizabeth Dole as well as Democrats such as Hillary Clinton. She clearly isn't a conservative.RangerKing 17:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tryouts

I am inclined to remove the overly long list of "Season 10 tryouts" - what's the point? Tvoz |talk 08:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumored replacement

The Kathy Griffin article says she's rumored as a replacement; this one said Kathie Lee Gifford. Which is it, and is there any source? Wally 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC) It is Kathy griffin. go to google news and use those sources. Kathy Griffin is rumored as a replacement. http://www.nypost.com/seven/08062007/tv/sherri_deal_stalls_tv_.htm

I vote to remove mention of "rumored replacements". Rumors don't belong in encyclopedia articles.Rosiestephenson 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Replacement auditions

I recommend removing mention of those who auditioned on-screen for Panelist job but weren't selected. I believe the info is not encyclopedia noteworthy.Rosiestephenson 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Controversies" section

I vote we remove this; am soliciting feedback first. Reasoning: This is an encyclopedia article about a talk show. Talk shows cover controversial topics and have controversial hosts. As it reads now, it comes across "gossipy". I'm not recommending deleting all mention of controversies, but they could be condensed and included within the appropriate Season's section (i.e. Season 10).Rosiestephenson 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proprosal. This is not the place for controversies. Shawn W 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth most of it was lifted off work I did on the O'Donnell article although seemingly the anti-Catholic section was rather gutted over there. For this article you could potentially reference the controversy section on the O'Donnell article as a See Main link and explain that her tenure was seen as having more controversies during the shows history thus removing the vast majority on the content that is duplicative. Benjiboi 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Update, I've trimmed down most of it and removed some wholesale. It can still be condensed some as we get more historical perspective. Benjiboi 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've moved these into season 10 section for continuity and suggest we remove 1. Kelly Ripa/Clay Aiken, 2.Accusations of anti-Catholicism and lastly 7 World Trade Center collapse as notable as these events were at the moment in hindsight they just haven't gone very far especially since O'Donnell isn't on air to further along the narrative. Whereas Danny DeVito interview (with Mocking Chinese language) and Donald Trump feud both seem to have widespread coverage. I'd like to remove these within the next two weeks unless there is any strong objections. FYI the material is all still documented in the O'Donnell article. Benjiboi 15:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Update, another editor has removed the section (see below talk section) and I've added context for the sections inclusion. Benjiboi 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Return to having a section for each Season

I think collapsing the first 9 Seasons into one section is inappropriate. It makes Season 10 look like a TV Guide promo for Season 11. I am soliciting feedback.Rosiestephenson 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this one as well. This makes it seem like that the show was non-existant for the first nine seasons. If that was the case, then the show wouldn't be existing today. Shawn W 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend within each Season: start with the season's Panelists then follow with Noteable episodes; no more than a paragraph per noteworthy episode. Feedback?Rosiestephenson 18:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure notable episodes as much as notable incidents or season highlights. I do support something quick that allows a reader to quickly look over at season is helpful. Benjiboi 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosie, I completely agree with you. However, as a long-time viewer I can tell you that you'll be hard pressed to find some "noteworthy" or even mentionable items from seasons 1-9, except maybe the firing of Debbie and perhaps all of Star Jones' pre-wedding blabber. Those seasons were pretty boring and uneventful. The show really started gaining traction after Meredith left and perhaps more so when Star abruptly quit live on the show. Vik —Preceding comment was added at 20:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

International broadcasts

{{help}} An editor keeps removing the following information from the article. I'd like other editor's opinions if there is policy prohibiting the inclusion as the editor asserts or if the information presented is useful and if any changes/improvements would be helpful.

• In Australia, The View is shown on the W. Channel on cable television, on a one-day delay. The episodes are also repeated in blocks over the weekend.
• In Canada, The View is available on ABC affiliates and on the CTV broadcast network in simulcast with ABC.

All constructive comments welcome. Benjiboi 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I understand the fact that Wiki isn't a TV Guide or something, but honestly I don't see how adding those 2-3 lines is really a big deal. An outsider can see that, yeah, the show is aired in the US but it is also known internationally. I think we should keep 'em. Besides, there's a LOT more junk in this article than those two lines. Vik —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't really see why those two lines are a problem. RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Viewtitlecard5.jpg

Image:Viewtitlecard5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell controversies

I removed the list of controversies aparked on The View and added a link to Rosie's page. The list is too long and seems like O' Donnell is the center of attention for the article

Jagarin 18:43, 29 November (UTC)

I've reworded the section and moved the link i think the current treatment seems balanced but am happy to amend if needed. Benjiboi 02:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WhoopiView.jpg

Image:WhoopiView.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)