Talk:Jeanine Pirro/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Jeanine Pirro. 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.

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jeanine Pirro. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Does anyone know what Jeanine's religion is and what the religion of her parents were? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.69.4 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Money. And lying for money.137.205.183.31 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Albert and Jeanine

I understand it's important to speak about the tax fraud of Albert Pirro. But it seems to me like right now, all the article is about Albert's crime. It's not fair for his wife, and the article is quite biased because of it. (sorry again, I'm not an English-speaker)--Revas 17:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Currently, I think the article is fine. Most of the article is about Jeanine, not Albert; however, it is certainly notable that her husband is a very controversial figure and that should be noted here. If you disagree with the article, feel free to propose some changes here on the talk page. --Quasipalm 19:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know anything about Pirro so I won't change any of your edits(I'm a Frenchman, and I had not heard anything about her 20 minutes before I created the article). My point is that even if Albert Pirro's controversy is important, it shall not be the core of the article, and if we have more info about Albert than Jeanine, we sould create a separate article. Thank you for expanding this former stub !--Revas 22:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Nearly all of the Albert stuff was duplicated -- now it appears only once. The criticism stuff doesn't belong in the introduction, so it merits its own section. What is the vague stub The Westchester County Controversy for? If no one owns up, perhaps it should be deleted. patsw 21:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC) I will gather up a little more on Pirro's campaign positions, and reaction to her first week, and delete the The Westchester County Controversy stub if no wants to expand it. She's already picked up a few endorsements as well. patsw 23:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC) I've deleted the controversy stub. Of course it can be reverted, but please explain what it's there for if you do. patsw 02:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the following as it is not sourced and is potentially libelous: "Allegations surfaced about her husband's business dealings and his refusal to release information about his financial life. Pirro pulled out of the race and journalists later revealed her husband’s alleged ties to organized crime." Without source attribution this is not encyclopedic, but tabloid quality material, simply rumor, and the comment about ties to organized crime is potentially libelous. Hardwarefreak (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment: what's the point of the including this anonymous item?

Albert Pirro, has denied that he was trying to keep his illegitimate daughter from becoming a problem for the campaign by mending fences and promising to buy her a car.

The italics in the article are broken but that's not the problem. What's the encyclopedic value of this edit? The article isn't a newspaper or even a comprehensive chronology. The edit was made on August 24 but the story was first reported on August 16 so it's stale. It is also incomplete: His daughter denies the story as well. So what's verifiable? That something was anonymously reported and then denied by both parties concerned. patsw 04:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's not encyclopedic, it should be removed. It sounds like something you'd see in the Post. --Quasipalm 13:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Birthday?

She's been a public figure for years. Can nobody nail down her birthday to something more precise than "1952?"--RattBoy 23:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I found no substantiation for 1952 except in Wikipedia mirrors. One source says June 6, 1951 ([1]), but a couple others say June 2, 1951, including one that involved an interview with her ([2]). On that basis, I consider the June 2 date more reliable, and I've inserted it. JamesMLane 02:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Supporting James' edit, Newsday has it as June 2, 1951 [3] patsw 03:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Good find, patsw. Newsday is a well-respected paper, whereas, IIRC, Insight is a fluffy Westchester boosterish magazine not known for its journalistic quality. I've edited the "References" links to substitute the Newsday story. JamesMLane 07:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Added word

Without laboring a point at "an Indiana court eventually ordered DNA testing in 1998" the 'eventually' is again added - under law, when there is a dispute in paternity, a court MUST order genetic testing - it is (almost) First Step. The fact that the paternity case started in 1995, and it took the (lower) court to be ordered (by Indiana's highest court) to conduct genetic testing in 1998 - three years later - an 'eventually' is necessary (that is, without going into the 'interference' that a New York DA had in Indiana).

Rosa Calvi