Jump to content

Talk:Samantha Bee: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,028 edits
m Signing comment by 98.180.216.199 - ""
No edit summary
Line 287: Line 287:
::::::::Mika Brzezinski just referred to Ivanka Trump as "feckless".[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOOSzsdCri0] Other TV commentators are alluding to the "feckless cunt" quote. This shows that the section should not be trimmed; it should be expanded. If you're going to use the essay [[WP:Recentism]], then we've waited to see how important it will be, and it turned out to be even more important, judged by [[WP:RS]], than we expected. According to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]], that means we should give it proportionally more space.--[[User:Nbauman|Nbauman]] ([[User talk:Nbauman|talk]]) 14:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Mika Brzezinski just referred to Ivanka Trump as "feckless".[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOOSzsdCri0] Other TV commentators are alluding to the "feckless cunt" quote. This shows that the section should not be trimmed; it should be expanded. If you're going to use the essay [[WP:Recentism]], then we've waited to see how important it will be, and it turned out to be even more important, judged by [[WP:RS]], than we expected. According to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]], that means we should give it proportionally more space.--[[User:Nbauman|Nbauman]] ([[User talk:Nbauman|talk]]) 14:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


== ==
== "for up to 20 days" ==


"Bee began the episode with an apology to any women she had offended and lamenting that one bad word had overshadowed the policy of detaining illegal immigrant children for up to 20 days which she had been criticizing."
"Bee began the episode with an apology to any women she had offended and lamenting that one bad word had overshadowed the policy of detaining illegal immigrant children for up to 20 days which she had been criticizing."

Revision as of 22:13, 2 November 2018

Untitled

Was Samantha Bee in those "Cash for Life" commercials? (You know, "faaaaaaaantastic!") And if so, should we add that here? Adam Bishop 05:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Education

Is it true that she flunked out of McGill & UOttawa, which is why she ended up at George Brown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.64.20 (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Bee as Sailor Moon?

From the article: "Bee has also had guest appearances on T.V. shows, including the title role in a live action production of Sailor Moon."

Can anyone confirm this? It doesn't show up in her IMDB info.

It was at the CNE. -- user:zanimum
I could only find one source with a quote. -- Anonymous

Jason Jones

The link to Jason Jones, supposedly Samantha Bee's husband, links to an article about someone in Louisiana who is active in LGBTIQ issues-- ? This is most likely a case of two different people having the same name.

Yeah, her husband is [this Jason Jones ] --waffle iron 04:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy

I saw some photos of her at the Emmy Awards and she was looking quite pregnant. I wonder if that should be added. --waffle iron 04:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flashdance

Did she really help write it? How can a 14 year old Canadian girl write for an American movie?

Atomic Fireballs

Apparently Samantha Bee is on a CBC program called "Not This But This" along with a comedy troupe called the Atomic Fireballs [1] [2]. --Mathew5000 05:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden Name?

I saw on tonight's TDS that she's going by "Samantha Kearns Bee" now. Someone posted that this is her maiden name, what's the source on this? Since she's married to a guy named Jones, wouldn't "Bee" be her maiden name? Jeffrey McManus 03:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a pretty ignorant addition. It was a reference to Doris Kearns Goodwin who wrote that book about Lincoln, 'cause Bee was supposedly writing a book about Cheney's 2-hour-long presidency. —Fitch 09:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Me

I saw an episode of the Daily Show (not sure if it's new) and the guest was Dennis Leary. He mentioned something about Samantha Bee being on the show this week. Anyone know any details about this? Lesty 05:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant again

Is she really pregnant again? 71.63.88.166 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So she said tonight! -- MyrddinEmrys (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, she did. But it was part of a skit. If we can't confirm this (as in, she seriously says it), it should probably be removed. Trvsdrlng (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea gave birth to son Fletcher Jones on Friday June 20th (jsqaured named it)

We don't know if the second baby is a Jones or a Bee-Jones. It would be odd for them to give one kid a hyphenated name and not the other. Ariadne55 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday?

Does anyone know Samantha's full DOB (Month/day)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.168.92 (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Campaign

There's a link to the War on Christmas/2004-2005 Fox News Campaign, but it doesn't go anywhere. The War on Christmas page must have changed since then. Is anyone able to elaborate on it, as the link doesn't provide any additional info. Excise (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant 2010

The section Personal Life says "In an interview with Kate Fillion in Maclean's magazine (June 7, 2010)", today is June 3, 2010, how can this be? 89.152.178.33 (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines routinely date their issues anywhere from one week to a few months in the future, so that they can sit on the store shelves longer and not appear "stale." Mahousu (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' birth years

I just don't know about labelling the kids' birth years "2010-" and such. Andy Pipkin (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship

What does "She mentioned having recently taken out U.S. citizenship" mean? The possibilities are "applied for US citizenship," or "acquired US citizenship" (or more colloquially, "became a US citizen"). Another possibility is "rejected US citizenship," which might fit in with the subsequent sentence:

In a 2011 interview, she said that she didn't feel drawn to apply for citizenship ...

However, the sentence in which the phrase "take out" appears concerns activity in 2014, which is 3 years after this interview. Note that the wiki article on her husband, Jason Jones, says he became a US citizen in 2014. Ileanadu (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Daily Show for TBS

In March, if I recall, it was announced that she was leaving Comedy Central for TBS, but the assumption was that it was for the sitcom with Jason Jones, not for a talk show. The talk show was announced in September. Can someone double check the sources for this and clarify? -KaJunl (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Samantha Bee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Samantha Bee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian American?

Being a Canadian living in America, does not make a person a Canadian America. Are there any sources to back up the claim of Bee being an individual who either identifies, or claims to be a Canadian Amecian, as opposed being a Canadian who also happens to hold US citizenship as well. For example, Boris Johnson (UK Foreign Secretary) is a Briton who happens to also hold US citizenship not an Anglo-American, or Tony Abbott (former Australian Prime minister) an Australian who was born in London, is an Australian, and he is not Anglo-Australian.

Unless a source is provided, this inclusion fails verifiability, and is original research, as it is being assumed that Bee is a Canadian-American. Without independent verification, or reliable basis, to make a claim of her being a Canadian-American, it must be removed as a BLP violation. Sport and politics (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you point out are not comparable because as politicians, of course they are only considered to be part of the country they are politically active in. Bee is an American citizen who lives in America, works in America, raises her children in America and comments on American culture and has for years. None of that is original research. Therefore, calling her a Canadian-American just makes sense, and I see no reason not to, unless you can provide a source that proves that she doesn't identify as an American. JDDJS (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, MOS:BLPLEAD says "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

A similar discussion has taken place at Emily Blunt. After many discussions, it was finally established that she is British-American because she has American citizenship and lives and works in America. JDDJS (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take John Oliver as an example, most of his notable work comes from America, he is married to a US citizen, and has stated he is aiming to become a US Citizen. He will not all of a sudden become a British-American if he were to gain US citizenship, and nor is he considered British-American, due to being married to a US citizen, and nor is he considered to be a British-American as a result of his works in the USA.

In regards to Bee, she is a Canadian who holds US and Canadian citizenship. Nationality is an identity in this case, and citizenship is a legal concept in this case.

I also cannot find the discussion regarding Emily Blunt which is being used as a precedent.

If a source can be found describing Bee as a "Canadian-American" and not just a person who holds Canadian and US citizenship, by all means add the information, otherwise, her nationality as a Canadian and her citizenships as Canadian and US, are two separate mediums. Sourcing on Wikipeida is posItive sourcing, where claims have to be backed-up, as opposed to negative sources disproving claims. As negative-sourcing would allow any and all information under the sun as it did not contain a source which did not say "it's not this or that".

This needs wider discussion due to its BLP implications.

Sport and politics (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Emily Blunt discussion was under the RFC. Nobody who commented in the RFC has any problem with her being listed as British-American. Consensus couldn't have been clearer. JDDJS (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Nationality

There is consensus to describe Bee as Canadian-American in the lead section. As editors have pointed out, multiple reliable sources identify Bee as Canadian-American, and it is uncontested that Bee has dual U.S./Canadian citizenship. There is further consensus that details about nationality can go in the body of the article. Neutralitytalk 23:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is she a Canadian-American or an Canadian living in America who happens to have American citizenship? JDDJS (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

(UTC)

Comments

Unless Bee identifies as additionally as an American, calling her American or a Canadian-American in any context it is Original Research. this is because as we as editors are making an assumption, without verifiable sourcing. Saying the two are synonymous, is incorrect, See people who hold two passports at birth, for example Boris Johnson. Johnson is not considered British-American, even though he was born in New York City and holds both UK and US citizenship. There are also many reasons why individuals choose to take up citizenship of where they live, it may be for tax reasons, it may be for family reasons, or it may be a requirement as the country being lived in wiil only issues a visa for a et number of years. Unless the claim is sourced, it is Original Research as it is being assumed and not sourced. Sport and politics (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Johnson is not comparable. First of all, he's a British politician, so of course he is only considered British. Second of all, Johnson obtained notability for what he has done in Britain, but Samantha Bee became notable working in American Television, taking about American politics and society. JDDJS (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we're using Boris Johnson as an example, we would consider Bee an American only. She is an American citizen most notable for her work in America. I would say her becoming a U.S. citizen counts as self-identifying as an American. I'd go with Canadian-American or American. Knope7 (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But she acquired dual citizenship, as noted below. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian-American - She is identified as Canadian-American in sources. Boris Johnson is a poor comparison. He was born in America, so is a citizen, but has lived nearly his entire life in Britain and has said he is going to give up his American citizenship. Bee was born in Canada and grew up in Toronto, and for most of her career was not an American citizen, having acquired citizenship around 2014. — Strongjam (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources say "Canadian-American", yes, but others such as most Canadian newspapers and also Rolling Stone state that she is plainly "Canadian". The Rolling Stone article says, regarding her husband Jason Jones, "He is also Canadian, though he and Bee both acquired dual citizenship a few years back." I haven't seen any source that describes her as plainly "American". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I found this February 2016 interview in which she self-identifies as Canadian. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was clearly a joke about she's the only women in late night TV. JDDJS (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a need for a source from Bee regarding her being Canadian-American, sources provided are showing she is Canadian, with a US passport, not Canadian-American, as Bee from the sources provided is saying she is Canadian. Sport and politics (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
they were already provided, but here you go again: identified as Canadian-American . There you go. JDDJS (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided are not from Bee, the source claimed to be a joke, is not a joke as far as I can see, and that source is clearly Bee considering herself Canadian. At the very least the claim of 'Canadian-American' is disputed, and at the very worst a inaccurate claim ascribed to her that she does not hold herself. Either way sources on both sides have been provided here, and in my opinion more reliable sources, and reliable sources regarding how Bee describes herself and have been provided. For example the article from Rolling Stone clearly and without caveat states Bee is Canadian. That article is dated June 2016. Along with how Bee identifies as of today on Twitter with the description as 'America's Canadian Sweetheart'. I think that the sources are more reliably for describing Bee as Canadian, than as the clunky Canadian-American ascribed to her by older sources and not Bee herself. Sport and politics (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She might still claim to be Canadian, but she never once claims to not be an American. In fact, I argue that identifying as America's Canadian sweetheart is her efficiently identifying as Canadian-American because she is claiming to be part of America while still calling herself Canadian. If you provide a source from after she got American citizenship she says doesn't consider herself to be American, then you might have a point.

However, the policy that is most relevant here is MOS:BLPLEAD which says "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Her most notable work is her current show, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, which is an American show about American politics, and she has been an American citizen for it's entire run. Her second most notable work is her previous work on The Daily Show, another American show about American politics. For most of her run there, she was a permanent resident of America until she became a citizen. As far as I can see, she has done very little notable Canadian work, and I doubt that it would even be enough to consider her notable enough for an article. It's her American work that gives her notability/ JDDJS (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to prove a negative is a faux argument as by the logic of negative sourcing is absurd and means anything could be included. Also Jon Oliver arguable did his most notable works in the USA, and he is in no way considered to be American. take Reginald D. Hunter he is an American based in the UK and he is in no way considered to be British. Also see Kiefer Sutherland, he is arguably most notable for portraying American character Jack Bauer as an example yet he is not considered to be American, nor British despite being born in the UK and being eligible of British Citizensip. See Anthony Hopkins he is a dual national yet he is not considered to be American, despite working extensively in the USA, in particular in the Hannibal portrayal. Finally Tracey Ullman is a dual national and is clearly more notable for her works in the USA, yet in no way is Tracey Ullman Anglo-American in any descriptor. The simplest way to describe this is gaining citizenship does not change national identity, just because. Also by the Logic is Bee working in American on an American Show taking about American Politics would mean James Cordon should be considered American, and so should John Oliver, both of which are not, as US citizenship is not a pre-requisite for working in America or commenting US politics on American TV. Also living and working outside Canada does not make a Canadian any less Canadian.
As for "finding sources after she got her US citizenship" see the Rolling Stone article, and see Bee's Twitter description, both provided above, or for that matter all of the sources provided saying Bee is Canadian . Those are all after Bee has obtained US citizenship. Also rolling out the same BLP quote is not relevant here as the claims being made are disputed by common precedent in other articles, and by reliable sources.
This is getting fairly silly and will need to move to dispute resolution unless the reliable sources stating Bee is Canadian and not Canadian-American are accepted, or sources are provided where Bee herself, and not a journalist ascribing her as Canadian-America are provided. The given reason for Bee obtaining US citizenship was because her Children were born in the USA, and nothing to do with Bee personally identifying as a n American. Sport and politics (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for letting dispute resolution decide what to label Bee as, which is why I started a request for comment, but your examples are not comparable. Tracy Ulman is not described as any nationality in her lead, but she is in categories for both British and American. Anthony Hopkins most notable work came long before he gained American Citizenship. James Corden has done a lot of notable work in British television and is not an American Citizen. Besides, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Like I said, Bee's Twitter description actually sounds like she is describing herself as Canadian-American because she is claiming that she belongs to America. Furthermore, consensus is currently on my side considering that three other editors agree with me while only one agrees with you. Finally, you are still ignoring that the policy in MOS:BLPLEAD. JDDJS (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a vote, and claims of more votes=my consensus is winning are ludicrous in this situation, this is about reliable sources and BLP, nothing to do with more are on one side than the other. This is not nursery, this supposed to be a discussion, not a win-loss game. The "otherstuffexists" claim ignores the fact the claim of 'Canadian-American' is at least highly disputed, and at worst being ascribed to her erroneously, and the claims being made for ascribing her as 'Canadian-American' would mean the above would be described in the same way, which would be patent nonsense. I am also in amazement that the Twitter description is being twisted to claim 'Canadian-American' is being claimed by her, talk about failing to see the wood for the trees, Bee has not and does not describe herself as a "Canadian-American, Bee clearly from the sources only describes herself as a Canadian. This is feeling like the 'Canadian-American' claim is flogging of a dead horse, as reliable sources have show it to be an unreliable claim. The easiest way forwards is to drop all mention of her being either Canadian or Canadian-American from the lede. As what is gained by its inclusion, in the first place? Sport and politics (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all BLPs begin with nationality. You are still 100% ignoring MOS:BLPLEAD. Let's just let an outside source resolve this. JDDJS (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Canadian sources above but neglected to specify. This is a sampling of some, all in 2016:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eddie Eagle

Should the Eddie Eagle article, covering an NRA mascot, mention the Full Frontal with Samantha Bee segment which covered her attempts to acquire one of the mascot suits? Please see the discussion at Talk:Eddie Eagle#Eddie Eagle in the news. Felsic2 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

I think I'm in favor of the chronological approach for this article, that is putting significant projects during her Daily Show tenure in the Daily Show section, although anything not significant enough to explain should probably be relegated to Filmography only. I would propose eliminating the guest appearances section, which is mostly unsourced and covered by the Filmography section. Another option is to remove all side projects from the Daily Show section and combine that with guest appearances. Thoughts? Knope7 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's no point of keeping the Guest appearances section as it is. Think I'm in favour of the second option. Either way, do your thing. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2017

Today is Samantha Bee's birthday, and I noticed she is not showing up in the October 25 page. Could someone link her birthday date to the October 25 page?

Sublett1025 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC) @sublett1025 Sublett1025 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Samantha Bee. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2017

I would like to connect the date of Samantha Bee's birth to the date page for October 25 so that she shows up in the birthdays section of this page. Sublett1025 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Samantha Bee. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. The article you need to edit is October 25. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanka Trump

I disagree with the deletions https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Samantha_Bee&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=843977323&oldid=843974382 by user:Dp76764 and https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Samantha_Bee&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=843955170&oldid=843945876 by user:JDDJS, on the grounds that it was "Already covered in the show article."

First, well-sourced material shouldn't be deleted without a discussion and consensus in Talk.

Second, I don't know of any policies or guidelines that say that if a subject is covered in one article, it shouldn't be covered in another article. In the article on Dwight Eisenhower, should we delete the coverage of the Normandy invasion because it's already covered in another article?

Third, an article about the person can cover the subject differently than an article about the show. An article about the person can explain Bee's personal reasons for her decisions. An article about the show can discuss the effect on sponsors and network reaction, which might not be appropriate to an article about the person.

Fourth, even if you presumably say that readers who are interested in the controversy can read about it in the show article, there is no link to the show article, or hint of the Ivanka controversy, in the person article.

I think these deletions should be restored, and we should have an appropriate discussion of the controversy on both pages. --Nbauman (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion below. Also: 1-3 of your points can be covered by WP:BLP. 4 is partly incorrect: there is a link directly to the show page in the opening paragraph of the person article. DP76764 (Talk) 17:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dp76764, I will repeat my question, which is not addressed below. Can you give me the text of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that say that if a subject is covered in one article, it shouldn't be covered in another article? In the article on Dwight Eisenhower, should we delete the coverage of the Normandy invasion because it's already covered in another article? --Nbauman (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid "Controversy" sections

The article about Samantha Bee is a Biography of a Living Person. As such, stand along sections about "Controversies" disfavored. I support addressing the controversy over Bee using a vulgar term to describe Ivanka Trump. I removed the last attempt because it gave undue weight to one side and was incorrectly made into a stand alone section rather than being under Full Frontal. Why is Meghan Kelly's reaction the only one that mattered? Also, the section incorrectly stated that the controversy was over a tweet. It was a segment that Bee aired on Full Frontal. If we are going to put controversial material in a BLP article, it needs to be accurate and neutral. Knope7 (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that there is no reason to include it on this page. It is not at all comparable to the fact that we include her controversy on Roseanne Barr's page because Barr's comments were made on her own time while Bee's comments were made on her show. Also, Barr faced consequences for her actions (she got fired) while Bee herself has not (the show loss 2 advertisers, but that doesn't directly hurt Bee). In the extremely unlikely event that Bee gets fired for this, then I would reverse my opinion. However, this single controversy is extremely unlikely to have a lasting impact on Bee's overall career. JDDJS (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't arguing that there's no reason to include it here. It was a major media story and got a White House response. I think it's notable, but it needs to be written in a factual, neutral way. What was previously added to the article was lacking on both counts. Knope7 (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with JDDJS on this. The fact that she didn't get fired is a big part of the controversy. And the fact that the show was taped earlier in the day and the producers knew exactly what she said makes it more egregious that Barr's spur of the moment tweet. Jdavi333 (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like that your argument for including it is based on your personal opinion of the controversy. You have to remember to keep a neutral point view.
You also have to keep WP:Recentism in mind. In 10 years, I really doubt that her Ivanka comments would still come up when people talk about Bee. JDDJS (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Criticism is a Wikipedia essay, not policy or guideline. It doesn't even prohibit a Controversy section. If you can come up with a better name, I have no objection to your changing it.
WP:RECENT is also not a policy or guideline. It just gives the arguments for and against recentism, and lets you come to your own conclusion.
The Wikipedia policy that determines whether content goes into an article is WP:NPOV. This policy should "normally" be followed.
That includes WP:WEIGHT:
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
That means that if a significant number of WP:RS have published stories about that viewpoint, it's required in the article. There have been more than enough published stories. So the default is to include it in the article. The burden of proof is on the deletionists. If you wanted to delete it, you should have first gotten consensus in Talk. And I don't think you have consensus.
That also means we follow WP:NPOV. I think we should give a good representation of Samantha Bee's case, her critics, and supporters.
Under WP:RS, the way to decide whether something belongs in the article is to see whether a lot of WP:RSs mention it. If a lot of WP:RSs mention that she wasn't fired, then that belongs in the story.--Nbauman (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The PBS NewsHour discussed Samantha Bee's use of the slur at the conclusion of their show on Friday, June 1: on this program, Judy Woodruff, Mark Shields, and David Brooks all discussed Bee's statement and how the statement and/or the reaction to it is a sign of modern society. Was there any earlier time that Samantha Bee has been discussed on this respected, national public television news program? It seems that by the standard of coverage, this is the most important thing Bee has done.

JDDJS speculates, "In 10 years, I really doubt that her Ivanka comments would still come up when people talk about Bee." That might be true. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In the year 2000, Al Gore avoided too much association with Bill Clinton because of the Lewinsky scandal. In 2008, Bill Clinton was a revered elder statesman and a tremendous asset in his wife's campaign -- and the best crystal ball said that he would be remembered as a great president. Yet in 2018, with the rise of #MeToo, Monica Lewinsky is the most newsworthy thing about Bill Clinton. In the 1980s, Janet Jackson was a pop star; today the first thing everyone remembers about her is a wardrobe malfunction. If JDDJS is right that in ten years nobody remembers this comment, the Wikipedia editors of 2028 will remove it. That's their job -- not ours. Our job is to give due weight to the thing that has gotten Ms. Bee talked about on PBS. (And of course, I agree with Knope7 that any coverage has to be NPOV.) — Lawrence King (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that there is no consensus to delete the discussion of Ivanka Trump. In fact, there is no valid reason under Wikipedia policies and guidelines to delete it, and several valid reasons under Wikipedia policies and guidelines to restore it, specifically including WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT as described above. No one has explained why this violates WP:BLP in any way. Therefore, I think we should restore it. I think we should restore this version [3], since it meets WP:NPOV by giving both viewpoints. I don't like to get into edit wars, and out of courtesy I don't like to restore a section while somebody is still objecting to it on Talk, but this discussion has gone on long enough and I don't think you've made a case for deletion. Unless you have anything to add, I think that by now I or anyone else should feel free to restore that text. If you don't like it, you can improve it, but don't delete it. --Nbauman (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if some Wikipedia editor wants to add this material to the article, they should. Our discussion here wasn't a formal RfD, but only one person in our discussion argued that this material shouldn't be in the article at all. However, I don't think that the version you pointed to should be restored. It has serious errors: most bizarrely, it claims that Bee made this statement on Twitter, but in fact she made them on her TV show. Also, it would be better to have quotes from secondary sources (e.g., a newspaper article describing the controversy) rather than the Megan Kelly comment. A whole lot of folks have commented on this, so we shouldn't be deciding which of them to include. — Lawrence King (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would restore it while correcting the mistakes. Bee made the comment on her show, not on Twitter. I'm not sure whether Twitter statements would be WP:RS in this context, since they are primary sources, but they do represent the opinions of the author. However, it should be easy to find the Twitter feeds quoted in news media. With all the stories on the subject, we can't include them all, so we must inevitably decide which ones to include. I would rather give full sentences that convey an idea, rather than snippits that simply drop an adjective like "disgusting." I think the Jezebel story is a good source. CNN and Slate had some good stories. I would prefer linking to two or three complete stories from established WP:RS, rather than any old short piece that turns up in a Google search.
But I think we should put up an adequate story now, and improve it later. The trouble with WP:RECENTISM is that editors use it to delay including content at the very time Wikipedia readers are most interested in it. According to Page Views https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Samantha_Bee the greatest interest in this page peaked on June 1, and after that page views declined. So while editors were deleting the controversy for specious reasons, readers were coming to this page to find out more about it, but the content wasn't there. I try to avoid edit wars, but maybe we were too polite in not reverting those deletions immediately. We've let them censor Wikipedia pages at the time of greatest interest. --Nbauman (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added brief coverage of the events, using correct sources. I didn't include Meghan Kelly's reaction -- hundreds of folks have reacted to this event. I included only Trump's reaction (he's president and the father of the person Bee insulted) and Bee's apology. Perhaps other information could be added as well, but this seems a bare-bones version that is (to the best of my ability) NPOV. Also, for what it's worth, while I agree that Wikipedia should try to cover important things, it isn't our job to always do so quickly. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it's better for our coverage to be accurate than for it to appear the moment that people start searching for info. If someone on June 1 heard about the Bee controversy, and came to Wikipedia, they expect our article to tell them who Samantha Bee is, what television programs she has been on, and basic biographical info. Information about her latest comments can be found a million places on the web; that's not our job. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but I've moved the new section to inside the section about her career on her Full Frontal show. It seems like the natural place to put it as the controversy was about what she said on that show. --ChiveFungi (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The new location is an improvement. I'm not sure about the new title, but we'll see what future editors do to it. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On recentism -- As I said above, the policies that determine whether content goes into an article are WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, which require us to represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in WP:RS. WP:NPOV has no mention of waiting to be accurate. Wikipedia policies and guidelines require us to determine whether something is reported by multiple WP:RSs; that's the only definition of accuracy that Wikipedia uses. Wikipedia doesn't guarantee that its contents are true, it only guarantees that we try to base our content on WP:RSs.
(The joke is that if WP:RS said that the sky was orange, Wikipedia would say that the sky was orange, even if you could look out your window and see that the sky was blue.)
So I can't find any Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires us to wait before including something, and I can find policies that require us to include whatever is prominent in WP:RSs. At the time it becomes prominent in WP:RSs, it meets WP requirements and should go in. If it later turns out that the WP:RS have changed their minds, we can change it then.
I can imagine some circumstances in which we might not even want to include material based on WP:RS; for example articles predicting an election, or JonBenét Ramsey-type breaking stories where even the WP:RS haven't had time to verify the facts. But there weren't any doubts about the facts or opinions in the Ivanka Trump story.
I do think it's a problem when an editor uses WP:RECENT simply as an excuse for delay. As a writer, I want to give people what they're interested in when they're interested. This delay defeats my purpose. When something is in the news, 100,000 people want to read about it [4]. After you've "thought about it" for a week,those people are gone, and unlikely to come back, and we're back down to 5,000 page views a day again.--Nbauman (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the title either. Hopefully somebody will come along and replace it with a better one. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A title is supposed to clearly tell the reader what the section is about. We have to follow the policy WP:NOTCENSORED. It would be difficult to find a better title. --Nbauman (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not crazy about the section name either. There are several ways to describe what happened. You could call it a statement rather than a conversy or focus on the fact that she used vulgar language without using the actual term. There are options.

Also, I restored sentences about people who defended Bee and Bee's own response on her show. I think it is important to NPOV and BLP policies that those who defended Bee's statement are included, particularly Bee herself. Without that context, it looks like everyone agrees she should have apologized and/pr been fired when there is more complexity than that. Knope7 (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit. I agree that it needs balance, and so naming some folks who have defended Bee is a good idea. The current list of four names need not be the perfect list, but it's good for now. As far as a section name, how about "Controversy regarding criticism of Ivanka Trump" -- "Controversy regarding comments regarding Ivanka Trump" -- or "Criticism of Ivanka Trump" -- or "Comments regarding Ivanka Trump"? Just brainstorming. — Lawrence King (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-section is beyond over-inflated. The info about the advertisers and Bee's addressing the issue the next week on her show(!) belong on the show's page (if anything) and has no place here. We should be thinking about how we trim this sub-section down, instead of adding redundant info. This could be perfectly summarised with a few sentences, while following NPOV. This isn't a WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. Many of the quotes are an overkill, same goes about naming the supporters, etc. Keeping this sub-section inflated and almost as long as the entire section is certainly not NPOV and giving it too much WP:WEIGHT. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem trimming, but cutting Bee's supporters and follow-up comments gives the incorrect impression that everyone agrees Bee behaved badly. Cutting two sentences does not drastically change the weight in the overall article. Bee's work on the Daily Show and Full Frontal should be a major part of this article, they are what she is primarily known for. The other way to address the weight issue is to expand in other places. I know you have done a lot of great work on this article in the past. Continuing to expand is I think a better solution than cutting all defenses of Bee's actions while leaving the perspective of her detractors. Knope7 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can only agree that we should be activity thinking about how we trim this monstrosity down; what should be summarised (like quotes), removed or moved to the show's page. Perhaps starting with the advertisers (BLP issue). --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about we delete the final two sentences? That removes the bit about the advertisers (which seems important only due to its unstated implication) and Bee's second apology (redundant given her first apology which is quoted at length). Bee's initial statement should be kept and not summarized, since the controversy was launched due to that statement, and if we try to summarize it instead of quoting it, nobody will agree on whether the summary is accurate and fair. The first apology could be shortened, either by summarizing it or by removing the third and maybe the second sentence, although I'm also fine with keeping it as-is. And Trump's tweet should be kept, both because it directly ties to the notability issue, and because I don't think any living writer could summarize the text of Trump's tweet and capture its meaning and nuances and its je-ne-sais-quoi.... — Lawrence King (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's too long. The Wikipedia criterion for how much to include is the guideline WP:RS, including WP:WEIGHT, which say that we must include viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in WP:RS. By that criterion, it's too short. This incident has gotten enormous coverage, probably more than anything else Bee has done, and it should get proportionate discussion in the article. Bee highlighted the issue of the government separating children from their parents. The issue was dying down for a while, and she's as responsible as anyone for bringing it to public attention again. And the coverage in WP:RS reflect that. Please don't delete anything from this section without getting consensus in WP:TALK. --Nbauman (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mika Brzezinski just referred to Ivanka Trump as "feckless".[5] Other TV commentators are alluding to the "feckless cunt" quote. This shows that the section should not be trimmed; it should be expanded. If you're going to use the essay WP:Recentism, then we've waited to see how important it will be, and it turned out to be even more important, judged by WP:RS, than we expected. According to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, that means we should give it proportionally more space.--Nbauman (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"for up to 20 days"

"Bee began the episode with an apology to any women she had offended and lamenting that one bad word had overshadowed the policy of detaining illegal immigrant children for up to 20 days which she had been criticizing." Why is "for up to 20 days" included in this sentence? There is no evidence that the administration policy was to detain children for only 20 days, nor is there any evidence that Samantha Bee believed that such a policy was in place and that this is specifically what she had been criticizing. There are two sources cited, but neither of them note anything about a 20-day detainment of children. The criticism is that children were being taken from their parents, and this isn't even mentioned. The combination of this omission and the addition of a false detail make this statement seem intentionally dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.216.199 (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samantha_Bee&oldid=866989898"