Talk:Megyn Kelly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Affair Rumors

Vandalism of Ms. Kelly's previous Wikipedia entry? [1] _SUBWAYguy 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are untrue, but they have being widely reported on a variety of websites relating to the cable news industry, and an explanation of how the rumor began is justified being on this page. And the fact that the starter of the rumor began the rumor by vandalizing this very page is an interesting fact that gives it more credit that it should belong her. The article is already a stub, and needs to be expanded. --IvanKnight69 12:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The untrue Hume rumor is just unadulterated TRASH not worthy of further debate or publication, does nothing to expand the biography of Ms. Kelly. No real media has reported it, just trashy internet gossip blogs. If it was true then it would be notable and article worthy, but is not true and is thus unfounded gossip trash. -- CommunistBloc 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And you know with certainty there rumors are untrue how? Cosand (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Rape Controversy

The O'Reilly Factor rape comment violates undue weight, as well as WP:BLP guidelines. It was poorly sourced, and not a controversy of Megyn Kelly. Arzel 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Arzel.. How much are they paying you at FoxNews? A look at your page shows for years you have dedicated yourself to whitewashing for them on a host of topics and personalities. Legitimate news networks don't do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.252.144 (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

oh contraire mon frére, it is properly sourced, i.e. it was brodcast on the most popular US news network. Second, I doubt anybody would regard the comments as anything but controversial and insensitive. It is a matter of record and must stay. --86.42.34.95 (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It should only stay if it had actually made news. It didn't. Otherwise, people like Coulter, Imus and Olbermann would have books for pages.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.155 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed nonsense

I removed some nonsense regarding Britney Spears quote. Not sure what it was about. Maybe add a citation here for discussion Tom (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of removing some unsubstantiated nonsense to clean up this discussion; made no edit to the article proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense will be a continuing scenario. Keep this Article up to WP standards! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Madonna

Even though I am not a fan of Madonna, I found Megyn's commentary this a.m. to be very distasteful. The ever saber-toothed Megyn kept referring Madonna's condition as "disgusting". One would think that a cable station as "fair" as Fox, might choose words like "alarming" or "pathetic". Wouldn't a sensible, caring individual see that Madonna's physical condition might indicate serious emotional difficulties? To me Madonna's appearance could never be as "disgusting" as Megyn's searing verbal attacks that she delivers on a regular basis.

I remain faithful to MSNBC as I have some sensibility for the world and its people.

Bev DeWachter Vero Beach, FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.19.62 (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Bev DeWachter,

These discussion pages are for the articles on wikipedia, not your idle rants about MSNBC and Fox News or any other odd thing you want to post on here. Please go find a chat board that would better suit your needs. Thank you. Ozonalayer (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon Stewart "Controversy"?

What controversy regarding her new midday show is this article talking about? Yes, I saw the clip of Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but it generated no controversy, as far as I am aware. A Google News search brought up a handful of hits, including the HuffPost Blog and Salon. Hardly a widely covered controversy, or in fact, a controversy at all. Rephrased to reflect reality, the sentence would read: "In early March, comedian Jon Stewart made fun of her on his comedy news show." Eh, can we take that sentence out, please? Lufiend (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Tom (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Name Change?

Is there any information regarding her change of name? This seems worthy of inclusion as it does not seem to be marriage related. Is this merely the adoption of a stage name or something more meaningful? Lifeofthemind (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• She used her first husband's name: [2]. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference "used her first husband's name" is interesting to read but not on subject. (That article talks about the FNC name changes.) Her maiden name is Kelly, (Megyn Marie Kelly from birth) and she has only one ex-husband whose last name is Kendall. Refer to links[3][4][5] . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC) . . . Glad to help.

Religion? (Religious Affiliation?)

Not that it is of particular importance, but information on the religious affiliations of individuals are interesting little tidbits of information (wikipedia has info on Glenn Beck & O'reilly's religious status, why not her?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.157.166 (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source for her religion?--Herb-Sewell (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't find one. She is a credit to whatever church she belongs to. Listed here as 'Christian', the only other clue is she is of Irish ancestry. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Megyn identified herself as 'Catholic' to Bill Donahue of the Catholic League in an interview given on her FOX programme on 16 February 2012.pidd (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Megyn identified herself as 'Catholic' on July 16, 2012 on her own FOX program - I placed the cat in her bio fox - remove it if it's an issue. --Wiki Comic Relief 17:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosesphdaviyd (talk • contribs)

As of this date, I do not find the word, 'Catholic', in the Article. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- As of this date, 'Roman Catholic' appears under her 2012 photo. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Come On Guys, Don't Be Rude...

So I was curious where Megyn Kelly went to law school. Naturally, I navigated my way to her Wikipedia page. I learned that she went to the University of Albany. That was helpful, thanks for that.

BUT...was it really necessary to mention that Albany is a "third tier" school? Come on, guys, that seems rude and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanemj (talk • contribs) 08:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You often learn more from dedicated professors at smaller colleges than at Ivy League universities. WP sentences should be neutral, not biased. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- The 'Personal life and education' section looks great. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Megyn Kelly (Image for Wiki).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Megyn Kelly (Image for Wiki).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There are so many pictures of Megyn Kelly. Would be nice if someone found an acceptable one. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done The added picture is great. Thanks to someone. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pepper Spray comments

Someone added a paragraph about a pepper spray controversy that is unnecessary. "In commenting on recent incidents involving police brutality directed at protestors, Kelly claimed (on a Fox News broadcast) that pepper spray is "essentially a food product". [16] This commentary has caused somewhat of an uproar among launching an internet meme (#MegynKellyEssentially and #FakeMegynKelly) [17] [18], as well as prompting a petition to get her to drink the "food product" pepper spray on air. [19]"

Further, they have selected opinion-based blogs like "Gawker" and "Change.org" and Twitter as sources for this paragraph. She is a journalist and lawyer, commenting on the legality of the incident, not condoning it. This is one opinion out of many and does not warrant a paragraph on her Wikipedia page. Someone is obviously upset with her comments, but by trying to get back at her on Wikipedia, as an editor, is truly childish.

I respectfully request that this be removed in the interest of seriousness. Thank you.

Needsabrew (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Truly childish" here is, in my opinion, against WP:CIVIL. Note these remarks are being made from a single-purpose account; examine the editor's edit history. Feketekave (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notable request. The frivolous paragraph is now removed. Happy Thanksgiving. The sourcing was also not notable. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But now that Megan Kelly is an Internet Meme, does this not make it worthy of inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.77.163 (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Spurious negativism decreases both readership and Wikipedia reputation. The sourcing was also poor. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Her comment was made during a public broadcast and is, of course, available online. It should be easy to source it properly. It is, moreover, notable in that it is probably one of the main reasons for her notability by this point. These reasons alone should justify inclusion.

To answer a comment made above: Ms. Kelly was not stating an opinion in a legal brief. She was making a remark on public television. Its context and wording was such as to making many viewers, the editors above and myself included, understand it as condoning the act; if anything can be called frivolous, it is her phrasing. That aside, we can certainly include her statement, properly sourced, withholding further commentary; of course, there is probably commentary from the press that we can cite as well. Feketekave (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Except, of course, that doing so flies in the face of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Let it lie. SeanNovack (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some better sources on this controversy:

Megyn Kelly said WHAT about pepper spray? Not what you may think Los Angeles Times - ‎Nov 23, 2011 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/hey-megyn-kelly-how-about-you-try-some-pepper-spray.html

Megyn Kelly Calls Pepper Spray a 'Food Product, Essentially' New York Magazine - ‎Nov 22, 2011‎ http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/megyn-kelly-calls-pepper-spray-a-food-product.html

Will Megyn Kelly Drink Pepper Spray on Air? Reuters - ‎Nov 23, 2011‎ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/idUS1484440720111123

Megyn Kelly and the benevolence of 'food product' pepper spray Washington Post (blog) - ‎Nov 22, 2011‎ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/megyn-kelly-and-the-benevolence-of-food-product-pepper-spray/2011/11/22/gIQAVbdrlN_blog.html

Megyn Kelly minimizes pepper spray; Should she test it out? Washington Post (blog) - ‎Nov 23, 2011‎ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/megyn-kellys-minimizes-pepper-spray-should-she-test-it-out/2011/11/22/gIQAXQyEoN_blog.html

Opinion: Meme Patrol "Megyn Kelly, Essentially" WNYC (blog) - ‎Nov 22, 2011‎ http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/its-free-blog/2011/nov/22/opinion-meme-patrol-megyn-kelly-essentially/

Understatement of the day: Megyn Kelly calls pepper spray 'a food product' on 'The 'O'Reilly Factor' Entertainment Weekly - ‎Nov 23, 2011‎ http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/11/23/megyn-kelly-oreilly-factor-pepper-spray/

Megyn Kelly Pepper Spray Backlash: Martha Stewart Tries 'Food Product' [VIDEO] International Business Times - ‎Nov 24, 2011‎ http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/255676/20111124/megyn-kelly-pepper-spray-backlash-stewart-thanksgiving.htm

IMHO this event is notable. I also think the reporting of it should be fair and should give the full context.

Scanlyze (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There was some pretty clear POV creeping into the statements of those who asked for this edit to be removed. Sure, they had a point on the poor sourcing to begin with from the looks of it but I didn't even know who Megyn Kelly was until I caught the meme and this would be true for basically the entire world minus the small number who watch Fox News. Not that this is verifiable etc. but it's an important point. These sources were the type I would have used if I hadn't turned to the wikipedia discussion page to find out more about this character. I'm here to find out information about her remark and the reaction to it and many others would be too.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this isn't a WP:NPOV issue, it is a WP:RECENT and a WP:NOTNEWS issue as well. You personally may never have heard of this individual, but I have no idea who a lot of notable (or at least famous) people are. There is this "Snooki" person that is on a show called "Jersey Shore". That exhausted my knowledge of the topic. I don't know what the show is about or even what network it is on. I'm sure she's said many things that have generated meme's out there, but I don't expect that her Wikipedia biography is going to list all of them. SeanNovack (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not list all of her memes, but certainly the most notable ones, see the mention of "Sad Keanu"(another meme) on the Keanu Reeves page. I would even go so far as to say that this is her claim to fame, as this greatly increased the public awareness of her, seeing as how the number of google searches on her name coincidentally 10 doubled in the week following her statement(http://www.google.com/insights/search/#date=today+12-m&q=megyn%20kelly). I suggest we insert the following line: "On November 23 Megyn Kelly made the following statement about a Police officer who had used pepper spray on protestors at UC Davis: "Its a food product, essentially", this episode was satirized on Funny or Die, and also went on to generate an Internet Meme. " Sources: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/255676/20111124/megyn-kelly-pepper-spray-backlash-stewart-thanksgiving.htm, http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/dc5e05e8f4/Megyn-Kelly-Pepper-Spray-Thanksgiving and http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/megyn-kelly-essentially. Averagejoedev (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose to revert Revision as of 05:38, 24 November 2011 by Charles Edwin Shipp which deleted any mention of the pepper spray controversy, and to add additional citations as I listed above in this talk section. This is notable information and is properly sourced. Any discussion? Scanlyze (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done As discussed last year, not notable. It's been a month without discussion. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I just checked out this page for the first time and I was surprised not to see any mention of this. It seems like the majority of those who engaged in this discussion felt it should be included. How can anyone argue that it is not notable for inclusion at all, but think it is notable to have a paragraph about the 2012 election coverage that the sources only tangentially mention her in? - 68.51.33.90 (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional Current Megyn Kelly News

"MEGYN KELLY REVEALS PAST AIRPLANE BREASTFEEDING FLUB ON-AIR" on 29 December 2011.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/megyn-kelly-reveals-past-airplane-breastfeeding-flub-on-air/
Kelly distractors criticize her; Moms thank her; Fans say she does the right things. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

She was a main anchor for FoxNews at the 2012 Republican National Convention. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If someone has the time, there should be more about anchoring at FoxNews. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Megyn Kelly takes over #1 rating on evening news TV. Should this be in the article? [6] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes Megyn, there is no Santa Claus

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/watch-megyn-kelly-insist-that-a-mythical-present-giving-man-who-commands-flying-reindeer-is-definitely-white/

What's the proper category for her now? Hcobb (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

None. Don't you have better things to do? Arzel (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday, I saw people add info on this Santa flap and didn't get involved, but I did agree with keeping it out. Based on this Politico source, I think it has to be included now. She was absent from her program without any explanation given. It's been noticed by the inside-the-Beltway folks at Politico. It deserves a brief mention here, only to be expanded upon if future events merit expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

By that source "Megyn Kelly was out sick Thursday night and will address her Santa and Jesus comments on Friday night's show." So we could at least wait one more day before shoving coal into her stocking. Hcobb (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove the "no reason given" as the Politico article was updated after I made my edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You know this is really stupid and WP is not a newspaper. There is no evidence that her comment based in reality will have any long lasting impact on the fantasy of the left. Arzel (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments like that ("comment based in reality", "fantasy of the left") show that you're editing Wikipedia from a rightward POV. This inclusion does not violate WP:NOTNEWS. Full text: "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." We do have to consider what the "enduring notability" of this is, but this is not "routine news reporting". I gave this one sentence at the bottom of the bio, so it's not violating the "breaking news" principle mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

At some point, some liberal commentator doubtless said something stupid which is not included in his or her article. Therefore, mentioning the "Jesus was white and so is Santa" controversy here is anti-conservative bigotry. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Trivia is by definition not important. Keep Wikipedia professional. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Since she is a conservative, she deserves special treatment. It would only be appropriate to mention this incident if each and every controversy about each and every liberal commentator was included in their articles. That would render Wikipedia unprofessional. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This evening she said the humorless didn't get it and "that shows (1) race is still volatile, and (2) FoxNews and "your's truly" are targets." [7] She was responding to another who was kidding. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

What About this http://www.newslo.com/fox-news-anchor-megyn-kelly-admitted-into-psychiatric-ward/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.13.0 (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, you have been taken in by a Liberal satire website. [8] For example, "Administration Seeks to Insert Pro-Obamacare Propaganda in Preschool Sex Ed — To dispel myths like these and proselytize Obamacare, the administration has tapped a Democratic “strike team” to give “the talk” to the nation’s schoolchildren." — Very funny! Have a good weekend, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

And the prophecy has come true. Arzel (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone recently added the controversy to the Fox News Channel controversies‎ article. Considering the amount of coverage this has received, garnering reactions from all over the spectrum, I do think that the controversy should be mentioned on this article as well. Keeping the discussion above in mind, WP:NPOV is important here.LM2000 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I realize that the left loves to attack FNC and with Megyn having such an impact she is going to be a target, but this kind of partisan tripe has no place here. It is pretty telling that if this is the best that MMfA and the rest of the hyper left has got on Megyn then they are getting pretty desperate. The only reason it is getting reaction from all o er the spectrum is because most can't believe how ridiculous this nontroversy is being pushed by the left. Arzel (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well whether or not we think it is ridiculous isn't the point. It is being taken seriously in notable sources. The New Republic weighs in here [9] and some Harvard professor says that a fictional character can not have a “racial identity” [10]! It isn't our job to argue that this makes sense. We report, the readers decide. Disclosure: I put that info into Fox News Channel controversies‎. Sorry, I didn't realize you guys were already talking about this here. While there is no hurry, if it becomes important to notable sources, it is important. Let's not rule it out because we think it shouldn't be important. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. This has already received enough airplay to merit at least a couple of sentences. It was also covered last night on the Rachel Maddow show.- MrX 20:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Rachel Maddow takes time to attack FNC. What are the odds of that happening? 98% maybe 99%. Why are so many editors fixated on what the far left has to say about Megyn? Arzel (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be easy to represent both sides of this controversy. Neal Boortz has opined. - MrX 21:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in the article about Santa where this is a philosophical discussion. Arzel (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fictional characters can't have racial identity??? What about Uncle Tom? StAnselm (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not clear in a controversy which side is being controversial, the original speaker or the critics. Clearly a Harvard professor saying this in a mainstream journal is notable and controversial. By the way, I originally put this into the Fox News Channel controversies‎. It's just as much about the critics and our culture as it is about Kelly. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion in the article

Just to get the conversation back on track, should mention of the Santa Claus comments be included in the article? MrX added a well-referenced paragraph, but Arzel has disputed its inclusion. StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Did Arzel offer a credible basis for disputing it? If his argument is that there's too much material, did he offer a cut-down version? Or is he just opposing any inclusion of the incident? MilesMoney (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Arzel's edit summary, which seems pretty clear to me. And he's right, too. The content isn't suitable for inclusion, at least not now. Roccodrift (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember when you tried to substitute edit summaries for talk page discussion? I rest my case. MilesMoney (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You asked a question that has already been answered, Miles. Why? Roccodrift (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure Arzel didn't explain himself. MilesMoney (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Arzel's explanation, as I understand it, is that this isn't a controversy, it's an episode of leftists overreacting. That's a fine opinion to hold. But that doesn't mean that this situation isn't a notable incident in her career, as countless reliable sources have covered this extensively. Kelly has defended herself from the criticism, and Bill O'Reilly and others have also chimed in on her behalf, so that does need to be covered for NPOV concerns. But ignoring the incident entirely and leaving it out of the encyclopedia isn't the way to go about this.LM2000 (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not whitewashed, so I must agree. MilesMoney (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the lack of citation of the initial statement - that her remarks "drew controversy". I realise the New Republic source uses the words "scandal" and "brouhaha", but I would like to have a neutral source reporting this - how do we know that New Republic isn't blowing this out of proportion? How do we know this isn't a storm in a teacup that will quickly pass? On the other hand, maybe this is just a small part of a larger debate ("Fox News host Megyn Kelly sparked a larger conversation on the complicated relationships America has with race"). Either way, how do we know this really is a controversy? I also realise there is a bigger socio-cultural debate about Santa's race - as Arzel notes, this would belong in the Santa Claus article. StAnselm (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course The New Republic and others are blowing this out of proportion. That's what made it a controversy. It's not clear who is making a bigger fool of themselves. Several commentators have pointed out that the real St. Nick is Greek as if that isn't white. For the first time in my sixty years I've discovered that I might not be white (not that I care). It's not clear who is making the controversial statements here. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for non-encyclopedic content -- and it appears that this is, indeed, non-encyclopedic content. When NYT covers a story, then it might be actually usable, but so far - not. Collect (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Who needs The NYT when you have CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Politico, The Guardian, TV Guide, The Blaze, Variety, Hot Air, Time Magazine, The LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun-Times, etc., etc., etc. Demanding that a single source cover this, or it simply is not usable, is a rather arbitrary demand when countless other sources have dedicated a number of columns to this issue.LM2000 (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There are some very twisted interpretations of policy being floated here, all easily rebutted:

1. "Undue weight for this nontroversy." - The subject is covered in dozens of reliable sources. Contrast this with the fact the much of the glowing praise for Mrs. Kelly is sourced to single, primary, affiliated sources. Why is that content not being cut from the article? WP:DUE requires representing material in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources.
2. "No evidence of long term notability." - Long-term notability is used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article, not whether content can be include in articles per WP:N.
3. " Just because the far left continues to go crazy over this does not make it worthy of her bio." This is hyperbolic. What is characterized as the "far left" is actually the left and the right. Besides, there is no such Wikipedia policy excluding content from particular areas of the political spectrum.
4. "I'm concerned about the lack of citation of the initial statement - that her remarks "drew controversy"." - "Megyn Kelly, the Fox news anchor, stirred a bit of controversy this week..." -Source:The Christian Science Monitor. There are others cited in the reverted content. Please be so good as to read them.
5. "Wikipedia is not a place for non-encyclopedic content" - Actually, it is, as evidenced by the thousands of articles about subway stations, football players, discographies, anime, etc. This controversy has become a defining moment for Mrs. Kelly, according to dozens of reliable sources. This controversy is far more every bit as encyclopedic as her list of spouses, her high school sports, her sorority, and her pithy comments to Karl Rove.
6. "When NYT covers a story, then it might be actually usable,..." - There is no such WP:PREQUALIFIEDSOURCES policy.

As I suspect this talk page will merely attract more non-editing editors with a strong political POV and poor understanding of our policies, it is likely that we will have to take this to WP:BLPN or WP:DRN to get some more eyes on it. - MrX 14:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Disputed claims should always be cited. If the "controversy" bit was in the CSM article, then it should be footnoted after the first sentence. StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the content in discussion

In December 2013, remarks made by Kelly in reaction to a Slate article drew controversy. On her Fox News segment, the Kelly File, she quipped that "For all you kids watching at home, Santa just is white, but this person is just arguing that maybe we should also have a black Santa," adding, "But Santa is what he is, and just so you know, we’re just debating this because someone wrote about it." Soon after, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow and others satirized her remarks. A few days later, she made additional on-air statements and characterized her original comments as "tongue-in-cheek". References - MrX 14:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like enough references are listed to make this controversy notable. This should not be included in her Career section, since it's a single controversy that is not likely to have a major impact on her career. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that we are supposed to avoid controversy sections in biographical articles. And that you mis-spelled "controversy". StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard of the WP:AVOIDCONTROVERSIESINBLP policy. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is not optimal to have controversies in the career section. We could take the 3rd and last paragraphs from 'Career in journalism' and move them to a new section called 'Media attention' (or something similar). This would avoid the controversy controversy altogether. - MrX 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's WP:CSECTION. StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree this must be done in the most professional way possible and also in accordance with WP policies and MOS. Nevertheless, I have the opinion that this particular subject is the most notable fact about this woman's career up to now. She is both a journalist and a public figure making "polemic" claims about Santa Claus' existence and his skin color. If this is not material to be put in her bio entry, then I don't know what would be. I hope editors here stand for what is correct. This is not a place for political propaganda or fandom. Seneika (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/13/megyn-kelly-responds-to-critics-over-santa-is-white-flap/

There should be a Santa Controversy. On December 11, 2013 Megyn ignited a controversy by claiming that Santa was white. She received a substantial amount of criticism in the media for this statement, which she later addressed on her show by claiming that her remarks were "tongue in cheek" and not motivated by "racial fear or loathing." However, she did admit that she may have been incorrect when she also stated that Jesus was white. Blakerider (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: See the section immediately above this one for discussion of this particular kerfuffle. Consensus has clearly not been reached to include it in the article at this time. If consensus is reached to include it, there appear to be any number of editors involved in the discussion with the ability to edit the page accordingly. --ElHef (Meep?) 23:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"several liberals"

Do we really need to discuss why this was a removal of WP:SYNTH? I hope not, but if we do, this is as good a place as any. MilesMoney (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Audible emphasis

An editor wants to place emphasis into our prose because he hears it in the audio recording of Kelly's controversial remarks.[11] The problem, of course, is that this would be original research. As editors, we can't be listening to audio clips and putting words in italics because we imagine the speaker doing so. That's the job of our sources. Anybody (besides Wormcast) disagree? Roccodrift (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Roccodrift. This is one of the problems with using video/audio clips as references. If the official written transcript has it, then fine. Otherwise, the italics for emphasis should be left out. Bahooka (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding original research to any source is contrary to policy -- and adding emphasis definitely falls into that category. Collect (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

wow. I guess while you're at it, you should also remove the gender specific pronouns in this article which indicate that Ms. Kelly is female - that is, until someone supplies a secondary source indicating her as such. Simply inferring this from the visual image being broadcast is original research. Have a good old time with this page, apparatchiks!Wormcast (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ps. I think that if an editor uses more than one account, it would generally be considered sock puppetry. Roccodrift, what would Belchfire have to say about my interpretation? -Wormcast (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur. There's a reason that when quoting something with italics in it, people indicate if the italics are in the original quotation or not. This is because italics can create emphasis or change meanings in significant ways. We should not be choosing where the italics go based on our interpretation of the material. If a reliable source prints the quotation with italics, we can revisit the issue of whether or not we think it is appropriate to include them here. Gamaliel (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This source has a capital "IS", but it's the only one I've been able to find easily. StAnselm (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

White Santa

http://screen.yahoo.com/white-santa-megyn-050000226.html

This has sparked some serious debate and the article barely touches on it 152.26.51.96 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem with dates

I see two issues with dates in this bio. 1) The main article stated that she covered the Beltway Sniper incident as a journalist. The bio states that she became a journalist in 2004 while the WP article for the "sniper incident" places it in 2002. So, I removed the mention of covering the Beltway Sniper from this bio. 2) Next the bio mentions graduating law school in 1995 and becoming a journalist in in 2004 (9 years later). It also mentions that she was at Jones Day for 9 years and was previously an associate Bickel & Brewer. The published article mentioned here was published in the Fall of 1996 (and mentions her as being at Bickel) which leaves 8 years possible for Jones Day. This is not overly important to the bio but clarity on this would make for a better bio. Arbalest Mike (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Career in Entertainment

Is the section calling her career on Fox News "Career in Entertainment" acceptable? I feel it would be more properly listed under "Career in Journalism," and the current organization is not NPOV. Thoughts? --Kurt Wagner (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The following edit was made by an anonymous user: "00:31, 7 April 2015‎ 2602:306:83ef:d000:f403:eef1:b7d5:8816 (talk)‎ . . (17,015 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (→‎Career in entertainment: The subtitle has been removed, as she is NOT in entertainment but still in news. The addition of the subtitle "Career in Entertainment" was clearly a slur against Fox News, not serious biography.)" However, I think it was appropriate and am inclined to keep it.Kurt Wagner (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Currently, the section is "Career in Journalism" which is most appropriate. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Birth date

All I'm finding in any reliable source is "1970." Sources giving a November date appear all to be mirror sites of Wikipedia or to have taken the information from Wikipedia (or possibly IMDb, which is disallowed as a reference source). Even her page at her own speakers' bureau gives just 1970 [12]. We need impeccable citing to claim a birth date for her.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Law career

There is probably an error on the time she spent as a lawyer as there is at most 9 years between she graduated from law school in 1995 and when she became a journalist at 2003 and thus she cannot spent 9 years for Experian and also lawyer for the other two firms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.187.151 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the story on how she managed to move from one of the worst law schools in her state to one of the most famous law firms in the nation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.129.170 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Megyn Kelly criticism

This is my first time on wiki. But I would like to give feedback not sure if this is where to do it. For megyn kellys wiki page, the controversy regarding the gootoo debate said that she got praise for her questions.but what about all the criticism that many of her questions to trump were not policy questions but gotcha question arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.61.82 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the section about the first GOP debate to reflect Kelly's performance being negatively received by some conservatives. Although, overall, the consensus of the media (yes the leftist liberal media machine) is that Kelly's performance was unexpectedly sharp and showed more of a willingness to ask difficult questions than any Democrat has been so far. I believe it's important to show 1) she gave a performance which the mainstream media praised, by-and-large. 2) Some conservatives criticized her for being too unsympathetic 3) the effect of her line of questioning on Trump's campaign Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the way to handle this. It covers all the angles in as "fair and balanced" (couldn't help myself) a way as possible. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Birthdate from IMDB

Nov 18, 1970 here [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎69.193.8.98 (talk • contribs) 18 August 2015

IMDB is not a reliable source for bio info. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 01:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Further shots from Trump

Do the rest of you think the recent news stories about Trump's ongoing criticism of Kelly, along with Roger Ailes' defense, merit inclusion in the article, maybe in a retitled section about the 2016 presidential race? John Carter (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

IMHO: This is a biography of Megyn Kelly, not a history of the petty back-and-forth around one interview. Once again, WP is not a news rag. HGilbert (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Take it elsewhere to Talk:Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2016, or to Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 -- Thanks for asking, AstroU (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding Hillary Clinton POV, removing archival links, adding MOS errors

I reverted an edit that adding contentious, POV political content about Hillary Clinton that has nothing directly to do with Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump's exchange. Moreover, I reverted edits that introduced MOS errors and removed archival links. When the previous editor was reverted, he should have, per WP:BRD, gone to the talk page to discuss the issue(s). Instead, he began edit-warring in defense of what clearly appears to be politically motivated edit plus — which for the life of me I don't understand — MOS errors and removal or archive links.

I ask the other editor to discontinue edit-warring and to discuss his edits here.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What is permitted?

I'm not really sure what can be put on here. Are things she's said and done pertaining to her career that have been sourced permitted? If so, I'd like to add this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/14/megyn-kelly-stands-up-for-transgender-people-on-fox-news/ Informant16 October 16, 2015

To start, you could become a Wikipedia editor/contributor by choosing an ID and password. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A very long and very informative article

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/12/megyn-kelly-fox-news-cover-story is very long and very informative, learned a lot (including how Megyn Kelly almost missed moderating the first Republican debate.) Search on the word 'ill' to see the coverage in Vanity Fair. I didn't read the whole article, but went there with the Drudge Report noting she almost didn't make it to the debate because of feeling ill that morning. The article seems to cover every aspect of her life, and more. Picking up on any aspect and then doing a Google-search should help extensively with any needed documentation here in her Wikipedia article. Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: Also, there are interesting pictures.

First 2016 GOP Debate

I've seen numerous sources laud Kelly for her performance as the moderator of the August 6th GOP Fox News debate. She is particularly generating a lot of press for her questions regarding Donald Trump's sexism. I believe a small paragraph should be added to reflect this significant moment in her career. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that something should be written. But in the current form, there is a major bias is how the event is portrayed. She, and the Fox, also received, if not much more, tons of citizen over the line of questioning given to trump. I Believe this paragraph should better display the controversy, rather than "Praise". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachious4o8 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kelly received praise by media outlets for her aggressive questions. She was criticized by some members of the right because some of her questions were seen as too sympathetic to liberals. This criticism isn't widespread and shouldn't be included just to give the article "balance" in my opinion. As far as Kelly and Fox receiving more criticism than Trump, that is just not true. However, the paragraph includes relevant results of her question, including a response from Brande Roderick defending Trump. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Megyn Kelly's viciousness has indeed been quite "widespread"--just from the Leftist "media outlets" you refer to. For a particularly visceral reaction, you might consider this: VIDEO: Donald Trump turns black women into Republicans--Artaxerxes 19:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kelly has been celebrated by the New York Times, the Huffington Post, Vanity Fair, and numerous other outlets for her performance. However, to give the paragraph balance, I will seek out and include well-sourced criticisms of Kelly's performance, if they don't add undue weight.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for specifying your Leftist "media outlets".--Artaxerxes 20:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What's currently written about Kelly and the first GOP debate is good, and not biased. If in two weeks it should appear that Kelly's questioning had no lasting effect on Trump's campaign, some of the material in this section should be cut and moved to the article on Trump's campaign. If that is the case then more space can be devoted to reactions to Kelly's questioning. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the changes to the article have been appropriate, and now to display a more accurate portrayal of the event. As an addition, Fox Chairman and CEO, is relevant here as showing a unbalance in the debate towards trump http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/10/donald-trump-makes-up-with-roger-ailes-of-fox-news/?_r=0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.73.172 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The article mentions the debate happened on August 8; this is a typo, the debate was on August 6. However, since the page is semi-protected, I can't fix this. 2001:981:4B0C:1:DAA2:5EFF:FE8E:C8D8 (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That typo has been corrected. Thank you for catching it. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Gossip page or encyclopedia?

This section is more like a news report than an encyclopedia entry. I propose that it be reduced considerably, something like (feel free to tweak):

Kelly's work as one of the moderators of the first Republican Party presidential debate of the 2016 election was well received by television critics and others, although some conservatives took issue with the pointed tone of the debate. Kelly challenged presidential candidate Donald Trump to defend disparaging comments he has made towards women. Trump responded with personal attacks on Kelly, as a result of which he was disinvited from the annual RedState gathering amid considerable controversy about the exchange. Kelly responded by saying she would not "apologize for doing good journalism". HGilbert (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In my edit I changed the leading sentence, which was biased in its own way, to reflect a more factual approach to the event. it seems important to me that Kelly's question central to this incident be included in the article, rather than claims about whether or not it was "pointed" This allows readers themselves to decide what they think about the question rather than priming their beliefs with a biased introduction. This maintains the NPOV which was disturbed as conservative supporters clearly edited the page to skew against Kelly in this incident — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp176 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Duggar interview

Could we get some editors input on this? this paragraph...

In June 2015, Kelly interviewed Jim Bob Duggar and Michelle Duggar, the parents of 19 Kids and Counting fame, in relation to their son Josh Duggar's alleged molestation of 5 girls in 2002. She later also interviewed two of their daughters, Jill and Jessa.

...is, first of all, a WP:TONE violation with the phrase "of 19 Kids and Counting fame." But more importantly, it's non-notable that a news person whose job it is to interview people has interviewed some particular people. Are we going to give a paragraph to everyone she's ever interviewed? And if we're going to single these subjects out, of all the subjects she's interviewed, what's the criteria for including it? It appears to be POV and recentism. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this help, I have added in the statistics from the citation that give some credence to significance -- its not just the newsworthiness, nor just the name dropping, and not just an exclusive interview, its the ratings (viewers and demographics) which reflect her "drawing power" -- ratings == advertising dollars == celebrity journalist status. WurmWoode^T 13:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Taking a vacation

How in any way, shape or form is someone taking a vacation of encyclopedic import? News anchors go on vacation all the time. It's WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting into a scuffle with a political candidate, then within days abruptly on-air announcing a two-week vacation is not "trivial." The source I cite calls it "curious" and there is a multitude of commentary in the press suggesting that the abrupt announcement of this vacation only days after a previous vacation of hers was related and relevant to the incident under discussion. It is part of the incident in the public mind, hence not "trivial" and directly related to the train of events under discussion. Abbondanza7777 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur. There's nothing 'trivial' about 'Getting into a scuffle with a political candidate, then within days abruptly on-air announcing a two-week vacation'. MaynardClark (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

First, I thank Abbondanza7777 for joining the discussion. And I think he did pinpoint the issue: As he currently has it in the article, there is none of context he gives above. Right now, all it says is she took a vacation, which in and of itself is non-notable.

So he is saying here that the Salon commentator and "a multitude" of others have found the timing of the vacation "curious", and that this is what makes her taking a vacation relevant. MaynardClark seems to be saying the same thing. If so, then this needs to be stated explicitly. Otherwise, we're making a statement without the necessary context and telling the reader to draw an unstated conclusion, with is disallowed as WP:SYNTH.

I'm not sure, in the absence of anything but commentators' conjectures, that there is any concrete fact here. But I do know that the way it's written currently is a SYNTH vio and needs to be adjusted. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with our ending the article with:

Kelly responded on August 10, saying she would not "apologize for doing good journalism".MaynardClark (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we research this a little more so that we can offer a more informed rewrite, when and if we do that? Huffington Post says that "Megyn Kelly Did Not Go On Vacation Because Of Donald Trump"<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/megyn-kelly-vacation-donald-trump_55cf4d87e4b07addcb43247d</ref>

“It's been six months since I had a vacation,” Kelly said on “The Kelly File” Wednesday. “So I'll be taking the next week-and-a-half off, spending some time with my husband and my kids trying to relax.”

So, should we rewrite this. How about using the (perhaps interesting and informative) phrase, 'followed by a vacation which some media sources called 'sudden' but which Kelly denied was related to the debate incident'?

MaynardClark (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly better than the WP:SYNTH vio that's currently there, although we can't use words like "denied" or "claimed" and need to simply use "said." We would also have to cite at least three media sources if we're going to use the term "some," and we need to use a specific term like "commentators" and not "media sources," since a "media source" can be anything from straight new reportage to an op-ed page.

I'm not convinced there's anything concrete here, since any commentator can say anything they want. But this at least is more contextual than what's here. I've asked WikiProject Biography members to weigh in for more guidance on a fairly nuanced edit discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

We'd also need to state what the significance of "sudden" is. Otherwise, we're still asking the reader to draw an inference from something unstated, which violates WP:SYNTH. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Abbondanza7777 has not responded, I have commented out — not deleted — the passage in question until the WP:SYNTH vio can be addressed. WP:BLP is very clear that we cannot make insinuations but need to state anything controversial explicitly and with full citing. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a statement from Fox News:

“ The conspiracy theories about Megyn Kelly's vacation rank up there with UFO's, the moon landing and Elvis being alive. Megyn is on a pre-planned, annual summer vacation with her family, which is much deserved. To imply otherwise as Donald Trump and his campaign operatives have is not only wildly irresponsible, but downright bizarre. ”

This whole thing is just gossip, so I am for removing the material that has been commented out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for that. Someone taking a vacation in August really does seem like nothing unusual. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, she's no longer at Fox News now. Seems more was going on than just "taking a vacation in August." Obviously, as the commentators at the time pointed out, it was a major turning point in Megyn Kelly's tenure at Fox and she left at the end of her contract. Sometimes you have to accept the obvious as the obvious and put it out there for people to draw their own conclusions, especially when it involves something as high-profile as this incident. And, yes, you can blather on about how it is a year and a half later, but that incident - as anyone with any objectivity could see - was a major turning point in her career, caused her a lot of problems which impelled her to take a sudden and immediate vacation, and ultimately led to the end of her Fox career. Being pedantic about "vacations being normal" deprived readers of valuable context. I hope you learned your lesson. Abbondanza7777 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Moderator of Cleveland Republican presidential debate

Since August 2015, up-through Jan 29th, the wording had been the following (with only minor changes):

Kelly's moderation of the first Republican Party presidential debate of the 2016 election was well-received by television critics and others, although some conservatives took issue with the pointed tone of the debate. Kelly asked presidential candidate Donald Trump about comments he has made about women. After Trump responded with personal comments directed toward Kelly, he was disinvited from the annual RedState gathering amid considerable controversy about the exchange. Kelly responded by saying she would not "apologize for doing good journalism". Citing the dispute, Trump declined to attend the Iowa January 28 debate that she moderated.

But, as-of two days ago, it was changed to read as follows, with the only changed sourcing being the addition of the last one referencing 'Voldemort':

What was widely seen as pointed questioning of candidate Donald Trump by Kelly overshadowed the first Republican Party presidential debate of the 2016 election, and generated a range of media and political reactions. Kelly responded to Trump's criticism by saying she would not "apologize for doing good journalism". Trump declined to attend the Iowa January 28 debate that she moderated. After the debate and off-camera, Kelly referred to Trump as 'Voldemort'.

This seems a total change in the tone of the section; and, more importantly, the phrase "widely seen" does not appear to be supported by the existing references. An IP tried changing that wording of the first sentence to state "What was, by Trump and his supporters, seen as pointed questioning ...". I find this wording awkward, but it did resolve the unsourced "widely" claim.

But @Lord Laitinen: changed it back with the edit summary "I feel that the bias is with the editor who changed this content. If it was truly biased, it would have been changed earlier. Also, even if Trump's supporters are the only ones who feel that way, there are enough of them to form a majority." - this revert reason is incorrect for several reasons: claiming it "would have been changed earlier" ignores the fact that the current wording is new; claiming Trump supporters are the majority is original research. The claim is also statistically incorrect, as he's currently ahead with around 30% of GOP voters polled - which is neither the majority of GOP nor the population at large. And, as mentioned, the existing sources do not support the "widely" claim, so stating it is a WP:NPOV issue.

I wanted to start a discussion on this talk page - as I suspect this section is likely to be targeted by supporters of both Kelly and Trump for a while, so it would be bemeficial to discuss and develop a consensus on the wording. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.(WP:BALANCE)"

The original wording was less that neutral "Trump responded with personal comments directed toward Kelly" is reinforcing Kelly's charge against Trump not giving Trump's response. Just give a bit more detail of what he said in reply and let the reader make up their own mind about Trump's rejoinder. Characterising it as "personal comments directed toward Kelly" is not NPOV. Nor is bringing in Rill Reilly and Redstate without giving an indication that some people thought that Kelly had gone very hard in the first minute of a debate in which she was moderator. If you disagree with Kelly being refered to as having engaged in "pointed questioning" it" could be called "incisive", " "Widely" seems supported, because most sources, whatever their standpoint seem to have considered Kelly's questioning of Trump to be sharp, and it is reasonable to mention that.Overagainst (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The quote of Kelly's question to Trump

Current article has a lengthy quote. It's one sided because the long quote is of a pointedly worded question, and that does not give the answer the person being challenged made-

"In the first few minutes of the Republican Party presidential debate on August 6, Megyn Kelly directed a question to Trump over his alleged misogynistic remarks. She quoted comments from his Twitter account alongside his reality show, stating; "“You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals,” and continued, "Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on the Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?"

A question being quoted is fine, but NPOV requires the interviewee's response if any be given. If they stood mute in response to the question that should be explicitly stated. NPOV requires Trump's answer to be quoted with the same weight as Kelly's question. I'm going to take the question quote out, and if it goes back in it needs to be accompanied by Trumps' response for NPOV Overagainst (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Something missing

From the article:

In the Republican Party presidential debate on August 6, 2015, Kelly asked whether a man of Trump's temperament ought to be elected president.[41] Kelly's moderating generated a range of media and political reactions.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] Kelly responded to Trump's criticism by saying she would not "apologize for doing good journalism".

But we don´t say that Trump criticized her or what the criticism was. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Gciriani (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing interview with Putin

Interview with Putin has been edited and some answers has been removed. This is a fake news interview. Watch original [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.100.228 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Three editors have now reverted anon IP 82.208.100.228's OR edit. I have given hi the required 3RR warning and invited him to discuss his issue on this talk page.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it's five. Good that you are finally beginning a discussion here. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 21:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And by "you," I take it Ebyabe means 82.208.100.228  : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, should have said IP user or somesuch. ;) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 21:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, here is an official site of Russian President with English version of this interview: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54688. And you can find there Putin's words about Occupy Wall street which have been removed. 176.194.50.77 (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the Kremlin's penchant for disinformation and propaganda, I have serious doubts that this Kremlin translation is fully credible. I would not consider it WP:RS.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You can lern Russian and translate. Or hire an interpreter. No problems. Ps/ But - wiki for fake news :) WP:RS WP:MS WP:ZS WP:lalalalala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.100.196 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there any resolution which says that kremlin.ru, an official site of Russian president, cannot be a relative source for Russian president's interviews? Or it's just your opinion? Anyway, you can hear Putin said words "Occupy Wall Street" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeuRzV06rbA&t=857 176.194.50.77 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that the Kremlin releases disinformation and propaganda, and a source that does so fails WP:RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinion? In wiki? very nice... 82.208.100.196 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I said, "It's not opinion." Now you're just trolling. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You said "opinion", so you said WP:RS - because you have "opinion". It's a false way, dear ) 82.208.100.233 (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, in that case I'm sure you can give a link to the resolution that we can't use kremlin.ru as a relative source for text of Russian president's interviews. 176.194.50.77 (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Already did. WP:RS. Propaganda and disinformation sites are not considered reliable sources. I think at this point you're beating a dead horse — there is no consensus for including this. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok. All refs to this site [15] (and other .gov sites) are not WP:RS too? Because Propaganda and disinformation sites are not considered reliable sources. 82.208.100.233 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 09:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

At this point, the two anon IPs are just trolling. I've never asked this before, but is it possible we need to ask for IP protection for a talk page???--Tenebrae (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. You say that propaganda sites cannot be relative sources. OK. But I'm asking a resolution in Wiki which claims that kremlin.ru is a propaganda resource for English Wikipedia. If there is no such resolution I can't understand why kremlin.ru is propaganda site. 176.194.50.77 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:, @Ebyabe: I think we need to keep in mind that kremlin.ru is not our standard, crackpot disinformation web-site, but rather that it is the official web-site of a government, and an on-topic one at that. So while kremlin.ru may very well be considered not a WP:RS, their possibly biased representation is still relevant, as long as we directly attribute to them their representation of the information, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We would in other words not just cite kremlin.ru for 'X', but rather 'According to Kremlin.ru then X'. This would become even more relevant if/when juxtaposed with a WP:RS that represents the information in a manner different from 'X'. Lklundin (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure Wikipedia should be helping disseminate a known propaganda source's misinformation under the well-intentioned idea of "equivalency," since false equivalency is a very real and troubling thing. The Kremlin like anyone else is entitled to its view, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to propagate a view that contains deliberate falsehoods. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You must remove all .gov from wikipedia, because this is propagada. And remove CNN, BBC, NBC, Fox - because this is propaganda too. 109.184.179.115 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: You are entitled to your doubts, but anything not specifically related to improving this article should really be taken elsewhere. All the best. Lklundin (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

We are specifically talking about whether a non-WP:RS source should be used as a cite in this article, so I'm not sure I understand your comment.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Kremlin may very well be lying bastards whenever it suits their agenda - and with lies far more sinister than those one can currently hear from the White House. However, when properly attributed, the Kremlin's likely biased view on matters that directly involve them, be it their war in Ukraine (citing kremlin.ru twice) or an interview their president gives to a US TV station, is both notable and sanctioned by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If you don't like that, you can try to rewrite WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Or maybe just limit yourself to editing pages where your personal opinion does not conflict with Wikipedia policy. Good luck. Lklundin (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion that the Kremlin propagandizes and disseminates falsehoods. You say yourself they likely do so with respect to the Ukraine. But your opinion of when the Kremlin lies and when it's telling the truth is your own POV. And honestly, do you really believe the Kremlin does anything that does not, as you put it, suit its agenda?--Tenebrae (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And aside from anything else, this isn't an article about Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly. In a biographical article about a TV personality, we don't go into plot detail about every episode of their shows. The pertinent point is that she interviewed a world leader on the premiere of her new show. Anything else is WP:INDISCRIMINATE plot overdetail.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And this is all moot anyway since WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV doesn't have anything to do with this. ATTRIBUTEPOV says, "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution." Biased statements of opinion ... not biased statements of facts! Looks like you're the one who's trying to rewrite ATTRIBUTEPOV. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

2601:640:C400:775B:0:0:0:934 (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC). http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/connecticut-nbcmegyn-kelly-alex-jones-interview-1202469317/

Now this comes out that an affiliate of NBC WVIT is not airing her interview with Alex Jones due to the fiasco with the Sandy Hook conspiracy.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Megyn Kelly. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=6546634
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722025413/http://www.albanylaw.edu/about/pages/facts.aspx to http://www.albanylaw.edu/about/pages/facts.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202120441/http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/zary-marekh-herself-equifax-experian-trw-18531486 to http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/zary-marekh-herself-equifax-experian-trw-18531486

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) 20:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Blackface

It seems worth mentioning in the NBC section that Kelly, and perhaps others on the show, were using the word blackface incorrectly. I am not an expert in theatrical traditions, but I'm fairly sure that blackface refers specifically to the pattern of makeup worn in the old minstrel shows and not to any dark makeup used to portray a person with darker skin.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Certainly it was the original denotation but usage has expanded in the last century; to say they are using it incorrectly when that's the usage today is to go off-topic and would require impossible proof and constitute original research. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"Accolades"

There are a few things in this section that are questionable. Some are simply unnotable (hall of fame in your old high school?) and some are not really accolades (Time calling you "influential" is not an award or necessarily praise, it's what it says it is, an assessment that you are influencer. And I'm not saying they should not all be in the article, necessarily; just not sure that's the right place for all of them). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)