Jump to content

Talk:Kathy Griffin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Pulp Fiction cameo?

What character did Griffin portray in Pulp Fiction? If the character was unnamed, which scene?

On imdb.com (the Internet Movie Database) it says she played herself.

Well, I don't want to claim any expertise -- but I've seen the movie quite a few times, and I can't think of which scene she might have appeared in. I'm not disputing that she was in the film somewhere; but if she was, we should try to identify where and in what capacity she appeared. That's the proper nature of an informative encyclopedia article. So...does anyone know where in the film she appears? Does she appear in the diner somewhere, or during the boxing match? Does she play one of the "celebrity" waitresses? If so, please add the info.
She witnessed Bruce Willis' run over Ving Rhames just before the pawn shop sequence --Sketchee 21:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep, she helps Marcellus Wallace (Rhames) up after he gets hit by Butch (Willis), then she says,"If you need someone to go to court for you, I will be gald to help. That guy was a drunken maniac. He hit you, Then he crashed into that car." Wallace asks, "Who?" and Griffin points across the intersection and says, "Him." Wallace pulls his gun and Griffin runs off. She looks completely different i.e. before plastic surgery.--Atticus2020 07:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

D-List section

I removed this section of original anaylsis and hype -- including a laudatory quote from Kathy Griffin's mother -- as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Aside from constituing original research, it used wildly non-ency language ("sold-out shows"!) and was simply disallowed original research. and advocacy-- Tenebrae 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned from Tonight Show?

Has Kathy appeared on the Tonight Show previously? On her website, she does have a picture of her posing with Jay Leno on the set of the Tonight Show.BirdbrainedPhoenix 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

She claims to have been banned from the Tonight Show since that appearance. She has mentioned this in a number of promotional interviews of late. I know of no independent verification for this. -Jmh123 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As the article stands now, the wording appears factual: She claims this, with the implied uncertainly of the word "claim", and there's a linked reference to her making this claim in print. -- Tenebrae 14:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote

There was some quotes listed here - per the directions of the person who posted them, I moved them over to Wikiquote. NickBurns 14:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Replacing Rosie on The View

I'm not too sure that Kathy Griffin is the Kathy that the cited news article (which was a celebrity rumor site) meant. After all, the headline reads "Kathy Lee Griffin" and on Kathie Lee Gifford's article, it states that she is in the running for a seat on The View. It is also admitted by Kathy Griffin that she will probably never appear on The View again since a "showdown" with Barbara Walters. So, I don't know. It just doesn't seem to fit.

She's actually appeared on the show several times since the showdown and has co-hosted the show just as often, so her consideration for the seat is legitimate. 69.138.104.214 02:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
TV Guide mentioned her, too. I've been trying to find exactly which issue, but it was within the past couple of weeks. It's worth noting that Griffin tends to exaggerate claims of being banned from different shows, to support her claim of being a D-lister. More than one talk-show host has complained about getting pressure from Griffin's fans to "let her back on the show" when, according to the host, she never had been banned. Can't put this in the article without sources to back it up, but hunt 'em up. Lawikitejana 09:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Update: Found the TV Guide ref and added it in; oddly, it doesn't seem to be in the newsstand version of the magazine. ?? Lawikitejana 01:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Removed the passage. It's weasel-worded, pov, and dated. We don't write speculation or rumor in encyclopedic articles. 71.127.236.82 10:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The View

I added The View because various media outlets have said that kathy griffin is a front runner to replace rose on The View.

Really? Well when you can provide those sources, please feel free to add it. Until then, do not add unsourced information to WP. Carl.bunderson 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

well i dont know how to source it. but just look online and youll see its all true.

Link? --FireV 20:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New source to use

Parking this here for the benefit of people with more time to cull info for the article:

-- Lawikitejana 09:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Censored Emmy Statement

While defensive types were quick to condemn the statement, others found it to be a clever skewering of those who thank God or Jesus for assisting them in trouncing opposition, making them money, and generally saying and doing things which are shallow and theologically infantile. If your particular theology can't stand up to jokes, you really need to do some reevaluation of your positions. This isn't remotely relevant to the article, of course, but the speech was quite funny. Censors, to say only a very little of Catholic censors, are apparently employed to murder free and relevant speech and do their little bit to make the world a little more bland. Also, as a final note, I say this as someone who is in the God biz, and still finds the statement hilarious. Good job, Kathy, I might even watch your show sometime. MerricMaker 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Say What?
"If your particular theology can't stand up to jokes, you really need to do some reevaluation of your positions."
Would you be offended if someone called your mom a "whore" to her face? Just curious. I'd be interestedto see if your love for your mom can stand up to some jokes. JorgeK
Say pal, save your hateful attacks on religion for your next gathering of the 3rd Reich. Guess what? You don't get to decide if and when Christians are offended. Got it? Good.
Besides, You have NO IDEA what Censorship is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.70.140 (talk • contribs)
Using the term “censorship” in this context is really a misnomer. The only institutions that are truly able to censor speech, art, writing or whatever are sovereign governing bodies. To censor something is to complete disallow its dissemination under penalty of civil or criminal recrimination, whereby making a particular vehicle of expression completely unavailable to the public in any given jurisdiction, much like Nazi material being censored by the German and Austrian GOVERNMENTS, placing a total ban on said material under penalty of law. THIS is censorship.
A private company which chooses for whatever reason, not to promulgate or carry certain speech or actions, is not engaging in censorship. If you own a newsstand and choose not to carry Soldier of Fortune and Penthouse magazine, you are not censoring those publications. You are simply exercising your right to stock your retail establishment with the merchandise of your choice and these publications are still legally available elsewhere. You have not censored them by deciding not to carry them.
Calling the decision not to air Griffin’s comments “censorship” further confuses the issue needlessly. Her comments have NOT been censored (if they were we would not be able to talk about them and/or quote them here). It was simply a decision on behalf of a PRIVATE company to freely choose what content they desired to carry.
Please be more careful in the future with your choice of words. It may seem like a trivial distinction but in reality there is a tremendous difference between true censorship and what is actually the case here.202.88.81.69 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The first and most obvious thing I'd like to point out is what censorship is. Obviously, there are different levels of censorship. The fact that tens of millions of people watch the Emmys and were denied access to an accurate airing of its content makes the edit de facto censorship. That and the fact that I can not think of a single major television station that is not privately owned in the United States. Your news stand analogy is similarly flawed as in order to be analogous to the Emmy example here, the entire Emmy broadcast would have had to be canceled. Your reference to Nazi Germany makes it seem like you're really just interested in presenting the most extreme examples of censorship associated with some of the worst human consequences commonly known. In fact, in composing your response, you seem to be quite readily utilizing a method of propaganda known as Transfer as defined by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Maybe you should examine your own personal commonalities with the Nazis in terms of methods of communication. But so as not to behave similarly to yourself, let it be known I'm not calling you one.

Kst447 (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Were someone talking about the event--assuming that they didn't happen to be an attorney--and made mention of the response the Catholic representative managed to elicit from the Emmy committee or whomever has the final say with regards to the Emmy broadcast's contents, they would not say, "Ms. Griffin's statements will not be aired here as an exercise of the broadcasting authority's right not to disseminate certain material." They would say: "What Ms. Griffin said has been censored." If nothing else, this is much more expedient. To excise material from a publication or broadcast due to its content and based on pressure from some individual or body is properly identified as censorship. If an editor cuts something from a book because it talks about something that editor feels is inappropriate, it is censored. This does not prevent the author from keeping the material and finding a different editor, but the act remains one of censorship. There are degrees of censorship. Within a particular sphere of public consumption, the statements of Ms. Griffin were censored. As a side note, don't tell me to be careful as if I used language unthinkingly. What I offered was not introduced into the article nor was it intended to be; it was simply meant to point out that there are religious persons who think Jesus can take care of himself, and wouldn't mind a good joke at his expense. Oh, and use italics for pete's sake. All caps is rather gauche. MerricMaker 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this section being deleted? It is noteworthy. --Statsone 02:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Because it is already in the entry. See Kathy_Griffin#Solo_reality_show. -Jmh123 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see it. --Statsone 03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Kathy had it on her show "My Life on the D List". If she didn't have the actual footage, she at least acted it out a couple times. I agree that people that cannot (and should) take a joke when it comes to religion. It's not like you have to defend religion, its pretty mainstream. 76.197.230.127 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RE Griffin Renee Zellweger feud, Feedback?

I have attempted to document on Renee Zellweger's page a brief mention of her Fued with Kathy over her "alleged" use of the term "sweaty, puffy coke whore" after Zellweger refused to allow Kathy to present her an award at some Celeb show. I wanted to include that Renee sent Roses to stop the fued (fairly classy on Renee's part) The three or four fans (fanatics) that control her page remove the informations literial SECONDS after what they see as a negative post. Dozens of other celebs, writers, politicians etc have documentations of such fueds...Thoughts?Fanofdirtydancing 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source verifying it? --Stlemur 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's "feud" actually. - Zelmia 18:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelmia (talk • contribs)

Kathy's appearance on Oprah

I've seen an episode of Oprah in the past involving Kathy and her cosmetic surgeries. It's unfortunately not stated on your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.122.97 (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Kathy also confirmed this on her show. 76.197.230.127 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Kathy Griffin's "Coordinates"?

At the very bottom of the article page is a listing that she is at a certain latitude and longitude, saying, "Kathy Griffin is at...." Is that the location of her home (and, if so, is listing that cricket?) Or is it a piece of vandalism? 98.215.48.213 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call it vandalism because I fired up Google Earth, put in those coordinates, and the house it points to looks identical to the one they show on her TV show. So, it is her house. Whether or not it's relevant for the article, I don't know, but it doesn't really hurt anything. — AMK1211talk! 01:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Goofing on Sharon Stone

does anyone have a good way to add this information to the page?

There was a lot of talk about cosmic connections with deceased music legends at last week's AMFAR event, and not everyone was amused by it. A source who attended the event tells us that honoree Rosie O'Donnell was slightly annoyed and less than impressed by event chair Sharon Stone's at-the-podium musings about John Lennon. Stone recounted how she first heard the words to "Imagine" as a girl. Then, she continued, when she was 20 she felt John Lennon's "presence" and turned around to come face-to-face with him on the street. She then recited the last two lines of "Imagine" to the restless audience and proceeded with her speech, peppering it with quotes from the song. "Everyone thought it was really inappropriate. People were turning to each other with these bemused looks on their faces," says the source. Later in the ceremony, comedienne and event host Kathy Griffin poked fun at Stone, citing a chance encounter of her own: She felt Elvis's presence, turned around to see a glittery belt, recited lines from "Hound Dog," and proceeded to have sex with the King. O'Donnell's rep denies that Rosie was miffed by Stone's ramblings and tells us a good time was had by all.

comment added by sadchild (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC) This was ALSO accounted for on her show. Apparently Rosie dared her / promised her donation money in exchange for the mocking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.230.127 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Griffin, not Kathy

Reminder to editors: When referring to the subject of this article by one name (in the article itself, I mean), please use her last name, Griffin, not her first name. - dcljr (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

no

Birth year is 1960, not 1961

To whoever has put 1961 as her birth year, it is incorrect. On kathy's website www.kathygriffin.net on her personally written biography, she says she was born in Chicago in 1960. Also, on her True Hollywood Story interview they even said she was born in 1960. So to all who have been putting in 1961, please stop.

Thanks

Wikiman999224 (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper NYE incident

This so does not merit being in the introduction. Brianwilsonisgod (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Awards and nominations section

Why are the Emmy nominations and awards left out of this section?98.196.146.113 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Emmy awards and nominations for her role in particular shows and films are in the filmography where they belong per WP:ACTOR. Awards and nominations for the show Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List are located in that article. BOVINEBOY2008 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I was wondering whether to include in the "Emmy award speech controversy" section, that (according to Kathy herself , and I can reference this) her "suck-it jesus" speech was written by the writer from that kids tween show "Zoe 101". She herself has brought that up numerous times, and I think it deserves a mention in the article because it's a fact, and since we mentioned the speech itself, why not mention that? If I was a random encylopedia reader and stumbled across this I wold definitely appreciate knowing that. Any comments? (Aimma (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC))

Possible addition of her work with Gay rights?

 Done -L337*P4wn 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In the intro of the article, should "gay rights activist" be added as one of her titles? I mean, she's done tons of work with gay organizations, and is an outspoken supporter of Gay rights including marriage. It's my opinion that it be added, but I wanted to see what other people think first. What do you recommend?

-L337*P4wn 06:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The point of the intro is to summarize the rest of the article. If you (or anyone) are willing to write a paragraph or so in the article, of course with reliable sources, then you could add "gay rights activist" into the lede. BOVINEBOY2008 11:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Bovineboy2008. I think that I'll begin to compose that right now. L337*P4wn 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Citation Needed"

Since a lot of information about her comes from Kathy Griffin herself, primarily through her reality series, it seems odd that certain things are being tagged as "citation needed". But maybe that's just me. - Zelmia 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelmia (talk • contribs)

They still needed to be sourced. There is a way to cite episodes: see {{Cite episode}}. BOVINEBOY2008 18:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

addition of a section regarding her HBO and Bravo standup shows

is it possible to add a section, similar to the filmography, regarding her stand up shows on bravo and HBO?Tlatseg (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Militant atheist... joke?

When she mentioned that she was a militant atheist (on a biased website, not that they shouldn't be biased), I think the tone of it was rather smart-ass or an attempt to be funny. Hell if she was "militant" at all, wouldn't she be happy with the criticisms she recieved from the "Jesus comment?" It's not that I doubt she is an atheist (nor do I really care, I won't remove the statement for that reason), but the source has no other sources to back it up. Anyone care to find other sources where she mentions that she is in fact an atheist, from something a little less biased? 64.234.0.101 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Why is there no photo at the top of the page? Shouldn't there be one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.245.227 (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Is this series of edits accurate? Or is it vandalism? I'm not sure, though I'm leaning towards the latter. HeyMid (contribs) 22:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

True or not, it certainly does not comply with WP:NPOV. It needs to be written with a neutral tone, or removed altogether. —Mike Allen 23:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mole?

Noticed that at the bottom of the page it links to The Mole TV series instead of My Life on the D-List or anything related to Kathy Griffin. Would someone mind fixing this? Thanks! 69.251.60.146 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dilbert

Why did she go uncredited?206.123.191.246 (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kenny Griffin

I was the first person to come to this article and enter information about Kathy Griffin's brother Kenny. After listening to her 6 1/2 hour audio book reading of her recent biography "Officially Book Club Selection," in which Griffin discusses the history of her brother for a good 20 minutes, I felt that it was compelling and relevant information that seemed to have shaped a huge part of her life.

Almost immediately after I made my edit, someone deleted half of it as "unsourced garbage"; that person was an anonymous IP user. I didn't know this happened until today. The paragraph that was deleted came from the exact same biography as the first paragraph, so I'm not sure why someone would call it unsourced, yet not the first half.

As the part about Kenny stands, it is not factually accurate; the way it is phrased makes it sound like Griffin ended her relationship with her brother when she was in her teens and he inappropriately snuggled with her in bed. That's not correct.

I guess I am unsure as how to cite/reference Kathy's book as the source for this information, but if someone could tell me how, or could add the citation, it would be most appreciated. CouplandForever (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you can just treat it as a regular book. Use {{cite book}}. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is not incorrect. I have her book, and in the book she herself says that he used to inappropriately climb into bed and snuggle with her. (Aimma (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC))

I just wanted to point out that the last sentence of this paragraph does not read well in my opinion. The addition of "in his mother's arms while waiting for an ambulance" is a little confusing to a reader not familiar with Kenny's life (and they must be many). I think it would be best either (a) to delete this portion of the sentence, and just state that Kenny died at his parents' home or (b) provide more information and explain why he died/needed an ambulance. P@ddington (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

suggestion: 2011–2012 CNN New Year special

Hi! I have a suggestion: some short mentioning about the 2011–12 CNN New Year's Eve special and her wearing only pants and a bra.[1] Btw, the article is one helluva mess, there's a whooooole lot of stuff in a chronological disorder. (I know, I could edit it too, juts don't have time atm.) -- 82.181.251.33 (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Referenced in media

There is some news coverage today regarding an apparent edit to this article that stated that Griffin died in 2007 at the age of 90. Griffin herself has poked fun at this: [2] 68.146.52.234 (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Kathy Griffin. 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 02:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

suggestion: 2011–2012 CNN New Year special

Hi! I have a suggestion: some short mentioning about the 2011–12 CNN New Year's Eve special and her wearing only pants and a bra.[3] Btw, the article is one helluva mess, there's a whooooole lot of stuff in a chronological disorder. (I know, I could edit it too, juts don't have time atm.) -- 82.181.251.33 (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Referenced in media

There is some news coverage today regarding an apparent edit to this article that stated that Griffin died in 2007 at the age of 90. Griffin herself has poked fun at this: [4] 68.146.52.234 (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Kathy Griffin. 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 02:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Why Her parents Mary Margaret Corbally, John Patrick Griffin is removed?

It is rather strange, that her parents names Mary Margaret Corbally and John Patrick Griffin is not mentioned and is not even on Her main info box under Her picture. Is this some part of the "anti parents" agenda, that is supported? Waffa 11:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffa (talk • contribs)

Rupaul's drag race

This article states that Kathy was only a guest judge on drag race twice in season 7 but she was a guest judge on episode 1 of season 2? And I'm pretty sure she was on a few more episodes Seanmurpha (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kathy Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

Add {{Pp-semi}} template.

--190.147.132.116 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Done —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or tabloid?

"Griffin and Moline appeared to have a loving and supportive relationship on her reality show.” This is itself the kind of language one might encounter on a reality show. Orthotox (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've trimmed it.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017

She later wrote on Twitter that she did not want to encourage violence, but meant it humorously.[78]

This does not have a source as the link is dead. The footnote should be removed. TheRealKir (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Since the Twitter reference — if it ever existed — is a pivotal part of the paragraph, I've added a "dead link" template to it. It is possible, even likely, that the Twitter post actually existed, but was deleted. Tweets are ephemeral, but perhaps someone took a screenshot of it and it might be accessed through a secondary reference.
Done The next sentence is sufficient, and cited to RS, such that the sentence isn't necessary even if the link is dead. I've removed it. Izno (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Palin controversy

Should the paragraph about the Sarah Palin controversy be moved to "controversial events"?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The "decapitated head photo" controversy should be a separate article

I feel like this news story is big and controversial enough to expand into its own article, especially since it temporarily united the left and right in America, both sides of which agreed that it was absolutely disgusting and unforgivable. Even the most anti-Trump of Americans felt that it went too far. 86.152.147.57 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Even the most anti-Trump of Americans felt that it went too far. Yeah, sure they do. Docsavage20 (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and the issue has largely gone away a day later. And unless we're giving a separate article to every time an effigy of Barack Obama was hanged or set on fire, or every time Ted Nugent said Obama should be shot, then it would also be WP:UNDUE--Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't necessary agree that there should be a separate article for the controversy, but I will point out that Tenebrae's comment above that "the issue has largely gone away a day later" just is not true. Griffin has lost 5 more shows since the controversy and she held a news conference today with celebrity attorney Lisa Bloom that is getting national attention. So what we learned here is the Tenebrae does not decide for everyone involved in Wikipedia when a topic has "gone away" because in this situation the call was way too early and wrong. Even Griffin says it is not going away. She said today that she is going to continue to go after Trump. Here is an article after the news conference today from The Washington Post, where the Post provides a huge color picture of the advertisement of the press conference by Griffin's celebrity attorney. This issue is not over and Griffin and her PR person and her attorney do not want it to be over no matter what a Wikipedia editor incorrectly claims.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You're making this unnecessarily personal. If you'll look at what I actually wrote, yes, it has largely gone away. It has nowhere near the public awareness of the first day, and other news is quickly supplanting this kerfuffle. And also, if you'll look, you'll see it I was I myself who added the three additional venue cancelations. I'm quite aware of what's going on ... and of news cycles. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't have a separate article for the Dixie Chicks controversy; only a subsection.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The best way to get an article created is to start a draft, and then improve it until you believe it's ready to stand as its own article. If you get to this point, you can bring the issue back here, and there's a good chance it will be moved to moved to mainspace. FallingGravity 23:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
During today's press conference, her lawyer compared her to the Pussy Riot. However, they don't even have a separate article for their own run-in with President Putin.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The info could perhaps be added to CNN controversies.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Has the picture been deleted from Wikimedia Commons?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. But after today it is clear that this topic deserves its own article. There are tons of reliable sources on the topic. Griffin held a press conference and promised to keep it going. And there is a Secret Service investigation currently under way. The Secret Service investigation has been mentioned in over 20 reliable sources including: (1) The Washington Post, (2) The New York Times, (3) The Los Angeles Times, and (4) the New York Post. There is plenty of reliable sources discussing it and federal criminal investigation being conducted by the Secret Service justifies its own article. Yes, "criminal investigation by the Secret Service" is the wording that Kathy Griffin's own criminal lawyer used.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and it is far, far too early to say this kerfuffle deserves its own article. Also, the Secret Service investigation is reportedly underway; while the FBI, for example, has confirmed investigations into various member of the Trump administration, the Secret Service has not confirmed anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"Investigated" by Secret Service

There is no definitive evidence Griffin is being "investigated" by the Secret Service. Griffin's attorney used the word "contacted." All other sites, starting with TMZ.com, are using "reportedly" and other weasel words. If the Secret Service or another party such as Griffin's attorney confirms an investigation, that obviously goes in. Otherwise, a single, unsupported claim in passing on E! does not reach the bar of WP:BLPCRIME. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@SlackerDelphi: Neither does a claim by a publicity-hungry comedian. When the lawyer says it is, the lawyer is an officer of the court and under oath. All the lawyer said was "contacted." Per WP:BLPCRIME, we err on the side of caution when suggesting someone may be guilty of a crime. Without concrete confirmation of an investigation of a crime, we can't say there's an investigation. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
And unilaterally placing contentious, controversial, WP:RECENTISM content in the lead certainly requires consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no definitive evidence Griffin is being "investigated" by the Secret Service. Griffin's attorney used the word "contacted." All other sites, starting with TMZ.com, are using "reportedly" and other weasel words. If the Secret Service or another party such as Griffin's attorney confirms an investigation, that obviously goes in. Otherwise, a single, unsupported claim in passing on E! does not reach the bar of WP:BLPCRIME. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither does a claim by a publicity-hungry comedian. When the lawyer says it is, the lawyer is an officer of the court and under oath. All the lawyer said was "contacted." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'm here. You want to remove the FACT that she is under S.S. investigation. Please do not engage in a whitewash of the article. She stated HERSELF. Watch the news conference. Her attorney confirmed it. The Washington Post, the New Times, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post are ALL reporting the FACT that there is an ongoing Secret Service investigation. The word that ALL of these national newspapers use is the word investigation. Ok, so I have pointed out how you are attempting to remove the facts of her investigation. I will go back and re-insert the facts. You can review the reliable sources here:
Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-more-venues-cancel-kathy-griffin-shows/2017/06/02/5672370a-479d-11e7-8de1-cec59a9bf4b1_story.html Attorney Dmitry Gorin, who is a criminal lawyer representing Griffin in a Secret Service investigation, said the shoot was parody and the comedian did nothing wrong. He said Griffin is cooperating with the agency. Also: Attorney Lisa Bloom says Griffin has retained a criminal attorney, who also appeared at a Friday press conference in which Griffin apologized again for the images. Griffin said she is the subject of a Secret Service investigation, but did not provide any further information about the inquiry or if she was cooperating.

Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-june-venues-cancel-kathy-griffin-appearances-1496426402-htmlstory.html She and her team acknowledged that it was a "bad joke" and confirmed that she is under investigation by the Secret Service.
New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/arts/television/kathy-griffin-donald-trump-news-conference.html?mcubz=0 Kathy Griffin Is Being Investigated by the Secret Service, Her Lawyers Say The Secret Service is investigating Kathy Griffin for the photo online of her holding what looks like the decapitated head of President Trump, her lawyers disclosed on Friday. “We’re going to fully cooperate with the Secret Service in their investigation,” said Dmitry Gorin, a criminal lawyer hired by Ms. Griffin, based out of Los Angeles. Mr. Gorin, speaking at a news conference with Ms. Griffin that had several raucous moments, argued that the investigation should not have been initiated. “She basically exercised her First Amendment rights to tell a joke,” he said. “When you look at everything in the media, all the times entertainers make videos or express themselves in other ways, you’ve never seen an entertainer, let alone a comedian, be subject to a criminal investigation.”
New York Post
http://nypost.com/2017/06/02/kathy-griffin-says-shes-been-contacted-by-secret-service/ Kathy Griffin says she’s been contacted by Secret Service. Please play the video inbedded into the New York Post article. It shows Griffin specifically saying, "I am the focus of a Secret Service investigation."--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It was attorney Dmitry Gorin, not Lisa Bloom, who said there was an investigation. If you'd have stated the facts correctly in the first place, this discussion could have been avoided. Adding him--Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
No. You are wrong. Kathy Griffin herself says there is a Secret Service investigation being conducted on her. This is notable information and you should not keep attempting to remove it from the article.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems a claim of third party involvement made by the article subject may not be used in BLP article, per WP:BLPSELFPUB, meaning she might be mis-understanding or mis-speaking about the SS activities, do we have a statement from the SS saying she is under investigation ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Exactly. If the other editor had read what I said above, he'd have seen why a lawyer stating investigation is credible since they are officers of the court. A comedian stating it about herself, with no independent third-party confirmation, is not. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
No, @Mlpearc:. Wrong. I have been focusing on reliable sources such as the LA Times, the NY Times, NY Post, and the Washington Post reporting that Griffin is under Secret Service investigation. No, the wikipedia rules are very, very clear that if a RELIABLE SOURCE such as Wash Post, LA Times, and NY Times have reported a "Secret Service investigation". This is factual. It is not up to a couple of wikipedia editors to decide that somehow, in the Kathy Griffin situation, we must have a direct quote from the Secret Service themselves before it can be put in the article. It does not work that way. The focus is reliable sources and I have provided FOUR reliable sources. Also, Tenebrae's claim that well, the criminal attorney confirmed it, well now we can put it in. Wrong. The touchstone is reliable sources and reliable sources have reported it--along with Griffin herself and both of Griffin's attorneys. That's why it should be in the article.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, You can think/interput all you want, the fact is you're going to need consensus before your claims will be included, I will not support inclusion without a reference from the U.S. Secret Service and please see {{re}} and do not copy/paste user signatures. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I would have to say to SlackerDelphi that as for Griffin's claim, Mlpearc is absolutely correct, per WP:SELFSOURCE, since it involves a claim "about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." My opinion about the lawyer stating it is more flexible than Mlpearc's, since attorneys are ethically and legally required to be truthful, but I can certainly see his point that confirmation by an independent party would be optimal under WP:BLPCRIME.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
But once again, Mlpearc point is absolutely irrelevant because their are four reliable sources reporting that Griffin is involved in a Secret Service investigation. I know that it is hard to admit but I am right and I have been right. I have provided four reliable sources (and there are 20 others) which are the Washington Post, New York Times, New York Post, and Los Angeles Times. I don't think Mlpearc even reviewed the four reliable sources that I provided before he made the incorrect claim that we have to wait until the Secret Service completely acknowledges an investigation. That has been the Wikipedia standard so your point is wrong. If you point was right, which it isn't, then all of the articles about FBI investigations in Russian hacking of the election, FBI investigations of Trump campaign team colluding with Russian, etc. would not be able to be written based upon Mlpearc over-the-top standard, which is a standard that created apparently out of thin air. There is no Wikipedia rule to support such a standard. It doesn't exist. I met the standard, which is information must be supported by reliable sources and I provided four out of 20 and that is more than enough.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@SlackerDelphi: Please stop copy/pasting my signature, you need to use Template:Reply to. - User:Mlpearc 00:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@SlackerDelphi: There is no consensus here, please stop adding your agenda. - User:Mlpearc 00:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not a question about consensus. It is about the rules of Wikipedia. There are four out of 20 reliable sources that have stated that there is a Secret Service investigation of Kathy Griffin. The four reliable sources are: (1) Washington Post, (2) New York Times, (3) New York Post, and (4) Los Angeles Times. It is as simple as that. It is not about any agenda. The information is also supported by Kathy Griffin herself and her criminal attoney Dmitry Gorin, but these last two pieces of factual support are really aren't needed because there are plenty of reliable sources to support the inclusion of the facts. There is no interpretation involved. The reliable sources say it. It is notable information. There is no undue weight on the topic, just one sentence. There is no BLP violation. There are zero reasons to keep the information out of the article. I can see it is difficult for you to admit that you have nothing to support your desire to keep the information out of the article other than you really just don't like the information. But unfortunately that is not a valid reason to keep the information out of the article. Let's recap: The information is notable and relevant. It is supported by four reliable sources, (1) Washington Post, (2) New York Times, (3) New York Post, and (4) Los Angeles Times. It does not violate BLP. There is no undue weight on the subject, just one sentence. And above all it is presented in neutral point of view.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The only thing I disagree with is treating the New York Post as a high quality source when better sources are clearly available. The NY Post has been known to publish tabloidy articles in the past. FallingGravity 07:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it does need to be pointed out that Griffin has stated CNN "censored" her. That is factually incorrect on its face: A private corporation cannot censor; only a government can. This points out that when it comes to legal claims, a WP:SELFSOURCE, certainly one not versed in law, cannot make citable claims regarding third parties. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Bloom used the word "censorship", not KG, as far as I can remember.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, there you go: More reason that even attorneys' statements are subject to WP:SELFSOURCE.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. Your keep ignoring what the rules of Wikipedia are. No one is claiming the word investigation should be in the article because what Kathy Griffin said. The reason that the word should be in the article is for the simple reason that at least three well-known reliable sources have used the word "investigation" concerning the Secret Service contacting Griffin. Those three sources are: (1) the Washington Post, (2) New York Times, and (3) Los Angeles Times (I left out New York Post based upon the comment above by FallingGravity). And that is the issue here. You have not provided any rationale to overcome this basic reason that the information should not be in the article. Your constant reference to WP:SELFSOURCE does not address the three well-known reliable sources that use the term to discribe Griffin's current situation with the Secret Service. There is no requirement that we hear directly from the Secret Service. If this true, which of course it isn't, what is the basis for your desire to ignore the reliable source rules? I'm not quoting Griffin directly. I'm not using a primary source by Kathy Griffin, which is what WP:SELFSOURCE refers to. I am quoting the Wash Post, NY Times, and LA Times. These are reliable third party sources. They are not primary sources which is the topic of WP:SELFSOURCE. WP:SELFSOURCE refers to self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Even the Wikipedia rules allow the use of Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves if there are no other sources available. BUT that is the not the situation here. There are reliable sources, non-self-published sources. Tenebrae, are you trying to make the claim that the Wash Post, the NY Times and LA Times are self-published or questionable sources? Are you? If yes then what is your basis for that? Please provide a reasoning for your claim that the WPost, NYTimes and LATimes are self-published or questionable sources?--SlackerDelphi (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: With over twenty years of editing experience between us, why are we the one's that are always wrong ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This comment by Mlpearc is a perfect example of why Mlpearc and Tenebrae are wrong. Mlpearc did not even attempt to deal with the substance of what I said. He appealed to his own and Tenebrae's experience as authority. The problem is that making a claim that you are right because you allegedly have a whole bunch of experience is absolutely irrelevant to the issues I raised. Please notice that Mlpearc did not attempt to explain why the editors of Griffin's Wikipedia article have to apply WP:SELFSOURCE even though the word "investigation" is not being presented as a claim of a primary source published by Kathy Griffin. He did not respond to this fact because Mlpearc has no substantive response to the fact that I am providing three solid, well-known reliable sources (WashPost, NYTimes, LATimes) and he is making the incorrect claim that word "investigation" is a claim of Kathy Griffin on Griffin's Facebook page or Griffin's Twitter account. He is not responding to substance because he doesn't have an adequate response. He just wants editors to bow down and agree with him because he (and Tenebrae) are the only editors supposedly with a whole lot of experience. Where is it in Wikipedia experience is the defining principle? Please Mlpearc and Tenebrae provide a rule in Wikipedia that supports that position. Please provide a link to the Wikipedia rule that says: Please ignore: (1) reliable sources, (2) NPOV, and (3) relevance and simply rely on the experience of Mlpearc and Tenebrae!!!! Where is that rule? Also, Mlpearc please explain whether that rule only applies to you and Tenebrae or are there other editors that get this special treatment? Last time I checked not even Jimmy Wales gets that kind of treatment (at least not officially). Sorry, Mlpearc, you don't get special treatment. Admins don't get special treatment and neither of you are even admins. You need to provide support from reliable sources not your made up Wikipedia rules that you make up on the spot.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
You keep saying that you have no more to say or no more to add but yet you just keep coming back and adding more comments. Now, none of the comments are substantive to the issue about reliable sources. Your comments that you do add (after you say you aren't going to comment again) are about walls of text, how much experience you have, you want the article protected, etc. None of these things explain why we should ignore all of the numerous reliable sources and focus on your false claim that the word "investigation" can't be used because supposed the word comes from one of Griffin's Facebook page or Twitter account or something like that. Your argument is just not very well defined that why you only respond with off topic comments about walls of text and other nonresponses.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that investigated is an appropriate word here. We obviously do not have death trial level of proof for this. And nobody expects us to have. But an undenied statement cited in so many reputable newspapers. And statement by the relevant person. And she hired a lawyer. And lawyer says she is cooperating etc.
Absolutely enough for wikipedia purposes. Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
That's your opinion and I respect that. But one additional opinion does not in any way represent consensus, of course. I would like everyone to note that The New York Times does not say Griffin is being investigated by the Secret Service, only that her lawyers claim this. I think an encyclopedia has to be even more careful than a newspaper. Right now, all we have is Griffin and her people making WP:BLPCRIME claims about a third party — possibly for publicity purposes, possibly not, but we don't know either way. And without the third party, the Secret Service, confirming it, we don't know if any investigation actually exists. (Griffin's lawyers also claim she was censored by CNN, which a lawyer very well would know is not true — only governments can censor, not private companies.)
And as for the non-consensus wording I've just removed: Griffin's lawyers cannot "confirm" claims about an unrelated third party. WP:SELFSOURCE. And let's also keep in mind that WP:BLPCRIME requires a higher verification standard than many other types of claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Liberal violence

User:MagicatthemovieS, after being reverted for adding an edit that was a rant about so-called "liberal violence" rather than about Griffin herself — who committed no violence whatsoever — began edit-warring to restore it, rather than coming to this talk page to try to reach consensus with other editors. I removed it again and ask this editor to please follow WP:BRD and discuss his edit with others. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The quotes were from an article from The Hill which opined that Griffin's severed head photos are part of a leftist culture that normalizes violence against people one disagrees with, not that Griffin had committed an act of violence by participating in that photo shoot. It shouldn't be removed just because someone doesn't agree with it. It was well-sourced and about Griffin. It also served to balance out the pro-Griffin quotes from Kyle Smith; it gave this page a pair of quotes from political commentators, one defending Griffin and one condemning her actions. It deserves to remain where it was. If not, we should also rid this page of the Kyle Smith quotes defending Griffin.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
First, the quote isn't about Griffin per se is using Griffin's situation to justify what might be considered a WP:FRINGE claim to tar third parties. Second, Kyle Smith speaks in her defense; no one else does, other than her attorney. Speaking out against her are quotes not only from Trump and Melania Trump but from CNN and Anderson Cooper. Adding a fifth to all that is clearly WP:UNDUE. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but Smith's being the only quote from someone who is not a Trump or someone close to Griffin gives him the air of objectivity, like he is the right one. Balancing this out is good. Also, look up Wikipedia:What FRINGE is not - it has nothing to do with political opinions. Also, if you won't consent to quotes from The Hill being used in this article, let's agree to get rid of the Kyle Smith quotes.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, let's see if a consensus of editors goes along with that. I would just say that while the two Trump critical quotes are coming from a partisan source, the CNN and Anderson Cooper criticisms are coming from a non-partisan and a friendly source, respectively. So four criticisms versus two defenses (Kyle Smith; Griffin's lawyer) suggests we actually need more quotes in defense in order to balance things, not more critical quotes. What do other editors say? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The point isn't the number of quotes, it's the source of the quotes. We need two neutral sources - one pro-Griffin and one anti-Griffin- to balance this article. The Trumps are a bit too biased on this subject to seem neutral to readers. The same goes for CNN and Cooper, neither of whom want to associate with Griffin now because of her pariah status. With that in mind, the quotes from The Hill work fine; it balances Smith's quote. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Notwithstanding your analysis of what's a worthy quote or not, we have four critical quotes and two quotes in defense. Any additional critical quotes is clearly piling on and WP:UNDUE. The section already has very wide criticism of Griffin. I would say the same to anyone wanting to add Chelsea Clinton's critical quote. Four is plenty; five against two is even more undue. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tenebrae and WP:UNDUE. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Since SlackerDelphi appears to be unaware that there is no consensus for heaping on more negative commentary due to WP:UNDUE, I am inviting him to join this discuss before making or reverting to contentious edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess we could make this a formal RfC and invite editors from across WikiProject:Biography, if my fellow editors prefer. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
After a comment from User:SlackerDelphi on my talk page, I guess I need to point out that WP:3RR does not apply to Biographies of Living Persons violations, and undue, imbalanced criticism falls under that. We can't heap mountains of criticisms on a subject's article page, and right now, we've got four critical comments about the Trump depiction and two supporting. By no stretch of the imagination is there any lack of criticism there. Adding more when there's already twice as much as positive is unconscionable and being POV "out to get her." Wikipedia is not a place to grind an ax against a subject.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
And he apparently has an ax to grind against me, writing the false and uncivil edit summary on his talk page, "Tenebrae believes that he owns the Kathy Griffin article. Removed his false statements." The purportedly false statements? "Once you broke WP:BRD, you're edit-warring. Also, 3RR does not apply to Biographies of Living Persons violations, and undue, imbalanced criticism falls under that. And incidentally, your claim of Revert #2 [in his attempt at claiming 3RR] is a completely unrelated edit involving completely different content from the other two edits, so your claim of three is a falsehood, as anyone comparing the edits can see from themselves." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Only in that he defended her right to free speech as a comedian. Nothing more.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The whole SS issue seems like a non-issue now. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"bloody, decapitated head of Donald Trump"

Would it be too recentist to add this to the lede?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Rippey574: What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
CNN terminated her over it so it has definitely had a material impact on her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.96.11 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That is a good question Zigzig20s, likely need a little time to confirm it. On the other hand terminations will always have negative impacted. Can you find any sources that indicate her financial loss or what she was being paid for the event?Rippey574 (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we know. (Was she paid as much as Cooper?) I was also wondering if we should add that she was criticized for the picture by the President and First Lady, but also by Democrats like former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton. I understand Cooper also disavowed the picture.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  Can someone add the bit about Route 66 Casino in NM cancelling her show?2601:602:9702:6D50:D009:9914:F2D9:96F3 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment The phrasing "bloody, decapitated" is excessive, but it would be appropriate to mention the incident in the lede. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I think I'm going to just be bold and put a brief section in the lede. How about:

Ok @FlightTime: let's have a discussion! I hope you'll agree that my contribution was in a neutral point of view (or at least as neutral as possible for an incident as controversial as this). I also think the incident satisfied notability criteria. To try to reduce our biases due to our feelings towards both Griffin and Trump, let's consider what has occurred, in abstact: an American has been fired from multiple jobs, following an interaction with the sitting President of the United States, due to that interaction. That seems like a pretty big deal. I therefore suspect the reason you take issuse with the edit is due to WP:RECENT, in which case, I'd like to argue my position that this is worthy of the lede. Firstly, I stripped out lots of the less relevant information, then I think won't matter as much going forward into the future. This includes: her rescindment from congressional speakers and also anything regarding Barron Trump or the (in my personal opinion) frivolous subsequent legal action of her. The consensus (see above), although somewhat meagre, was that a mention of the incident in the lead was worthy, if after the passage of some time, effects from the incident were still being felt. Well, it's been 6 weeks and CNN has not rehired her, nor have her previously cancelled tour date venues been restored. Due to all of the above reasoning, I feel the edit was worthy and should be reinstated. What do you think? Greg (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Greggydude: I never mentioned neutrality, I just disagree that this event is lead noteworthy at this time, maybe if it proves to be career ending then sure, but at this point this (IMO) suffices (it is also my opinion the Trump thing is a dead issue). We'll see what others have to say. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2017

Please change the current photograph of Ms. Griffin to Kathy Griffin LGP.jpg . I am a professional celebrity photographer and have over 30 images on Wikipedia, from Willie Nelson, Tom Petty, Neil Young, Norah Jones, Ted Nugent and many more. I have photographed Kathy on multiple occasions, and would like to change the image to a more suitable image that depicts this brilliant entertainer's character. The image I have uploaded was taken with Kathy's permission, and I spent some time before the performance with her. This is in no way attempting to berate, belittle, or vandalize her current image in any way whatsoever. The image I just uploaded is absolutely reflective of her character, both on and offstage. Her fans, and friends will absolutely agree that my proposed image is more appealing that the current one. The image I suggest is my own work, titled Kathy Griffin LGP.jpg, located here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kathy_Griffin_LGP.jpg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Lgphilpot (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this proposed edit. While I was granted editor status under my old handle "nightshooter", in order that I could upload and edit images of rock stars, I let that lapse and began using "Lgphilpot". I have no idea how to get a consensus, and certainly do not want to even have the appearance of a disputed edit with an editor, I just thought the image would be a better fit. As a photographer, if an image doesn't portray a subject's personality, it is simply a 2 dimensional representation that may as well be a sketch. I know that Kathy is under some controversy of her own making, but if you change your mind, the image will be available, but I do not know how to get a consensus. Again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgphilpot (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kathy Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kathy Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kathy_Griffin/Archive_1&oldid=1138134195"