Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Campos-Duffy

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

Fiancee killed in car accident?

[edit]

The grammar is confusing in the bio section that states that Rachel was injured in a car accident along with passengers and an MTV producer who "were" killed. Who "were" the people who were killed and did that include her fiancee at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.151.53 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? Nightscream (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 7 March 2014

[edit]
  • The passage John-Paul(2006), needs to have a space placed between "Paul" and the opening parenthesis.
  • The end of that passage has two periods at the end of the last sentence, one before and one after the citation. The latter one is the wrong one, per WP:PAIC.
  • The passage Campos earned a master's degree in international affairs from the University of California at San Diego. is unsourced.
  • The passage on Jenny McCarthy replacing Hasselbeck is unsourced. There are a number of sources in The View article that could be added to that passage.
  • The passage on The Wedding Video may benefit from having "2003" placed before The Wedding Video for historical clarity.

Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rachel Campos-Duffy. 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) 16:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information regarding minor children

[edit]

I have deleted the full names and dates of birth of Campos-Duffy's minor children. There is no encyclopedic need for this level of detail of personal identifying information. If fans are that fixated on knowing this information, there are apparently other sources online, but Wikipedia shouldn't participate. This is People stuff, not encyclopedia stuff; WP:NOTGOSSIP.Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rachel Campos-Duffy. 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) 05:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced puffery in the lede

[edit]

(1) RCD is not "known as for her work as a television host and as a former reality television personality." -- She's not known for anything. She is a television personality, she is not known for it. That's puffery. (2) She did not "gain wide exposure". That's entirely unsourced. Puffery. (3) "Recurring" guest host is unsourced. It's more precise to say she "has guest-hosted", without specifying how many times or giving readers the impression that she's guest-hosted a lot of episodes. Again, unsourced puffery.

All of this unsourced puffery should be removed from the lede. The lede should be fairly straight-forward, objective and merely reflect what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk)

Before I respond to your arguments, can you please define puffery? Nightscream (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two months and you still can't be arsed to substantively respond to this? Do I seriously have to start a RfC to remove your unsourced puffery from the lede? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Short lede vs long lede

[edit]

There is a clear consensus to implement version A.

Version C was added only after nearly all of the RfC participants had commented. Darryl Kerrigan supported both C and A, Snooganssnoogans prefers C over A, and Nightscream prefers A over C. There is no prejudice against a new RfC to seek consensus about whether the community prefers version A or version C.

Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Which version of the lede do you prefer?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. The shorter lede:

  • Rachel Campos-Duffy (born October 22, 1971) is an American television personality. In 1994, she gained attention as a cast member on the MTV reality television series The Real World: San Francisco. Rachel Campos-Duffy is a contributor for Fox News. She has guest-hosted the Fox News show Outnumbered. She has guest-hosted the ABC talk show The View.

B. The longer lede (the bolded bits are the bits not covered in #A):

  • Rachel Campos-Duffy (born October 22, 1971) is an American television personality known for her work as a television host and as a former reality television personality. She first gained fame in 1994 as a cast member on the MTV reality television series The Real World: San Francisco, before becoming a TV host. She gained wide exposure as a recurring guest host on the ABC talk show The View before moving to Fox News, where she appears as a commentator on shows such as Outnumbered, on which she is a recurring guest host. (This version is no longer being promoted for consideration.)

C. The compromised Lead Rachel Campos-Duffy[1] (born October 22, 1971) is an American television personality. She first appeared on television in 1994 as a cast member on the MTV reality television series The Real World: San Francisco, before becoming a television host. She was a guest host on the ABC talk show The View, before moving onto Fox News, where she has guest-hosted the show Outnumbered.

Survey

[edit]
  • Version A - In ledes, we should strive to be concise and succinct. All this flowery language of "being known for", "gaining fame", "gaining wide exposure", "becoming a TV host" and being a "recurrent guest host" is unnecessary. "Being known for", "gaining fame", and "gaining wide exposure" are also unsourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, you have the phrase "gained attention" in your Version A, so that undercuts your argument.
    Second, the problem with your Version B. is that it's just a collection of unconnected standalone sentences, without any connective composition among them, which exhibits poor writing. I just edited the Lead to address this point. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support version #A. Your current changes are an improvement over version #B, but not over version #A. And it's frankly astonishing and incredibly annoying that it has taken this long for you to actually engage in discussion on the talk page and stop blanket-reverting any and all changes to the lede, despite the fact that you now say that version #B (the status quo lede which you edit-warred to retain) is obviously problematic. What a waste of time and energy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a significant improvement over Version A, which is poorly written, as explained above. As for my response time, it took me less than three hours to respond to your opening of this discussion which is perfectly reasonable. There was no reason for me to open one myself prior to this, since there I was clearly in the right, as you were not only favoring shitty writing, and making numerous errors, but using fraudulent edit summaries as well —and repeatedly — which were easily addressed in the edit summaries with which I reverted you. Had you continued this disruptive behavior, I would've availed myself to one of the conflict resolutions used on WP, be it talk page discussion or whatever. Nightscream (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here[1] is your deeply substantive response to my comment two months ago where I delineated the problems that you have now all of sudden discovered (and which you indiscriminately edit-warred back into the article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A (invited by the bot) "A" is a straightforward summary of the key facts, and "B" has many problems at several levels, most of them have the appearance of being promotional related. Several unsourced assertions, including most of those that Snooganssnoogans listed. (Although I disagree on "recurrent guest host"; such is real information). Overemphasis on her current role can also look promotional. Her reality show stint make in fact be what she is most known for but it is worded as being a prelude to her current role. BTW, the issue isn't short vs. long. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Version B is no longer in consideration, since I edited the section four days ago to address the notability-related wording that Snoogans took issue with. Nightscream (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you probably need to start a new RFC with whatever the new question is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A - Some reasons have already been mentioned, but the main problem is that the second version is longer and more flowery than the first without actually saying anything new or adding extra information. Some flowery language can make a text more easy to read, but this is not one of those cases. It just adds unnecessary words that don't add anything to the article. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A - second version adds unnecessary words. MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Why are you still commenting on this? The conflict has been resolved. I rewrote the Lead to address Snoog's complaints. Why are people still coming here? Is someone canvassing? Version "B" is no longer in consideration, so you're choosing not between a version Snoog favors and one that I favor, but a version Snoog has pushed and one I currently think is a good compromise that addresses his complaints without the problems he introduced in his version, which, is not an accurate representation of the two sides here, and therefore, cannot yield an accurate picture of the community's consensus. If anyone really wants to continue this, then you should consider the version I actually favor, which is NOT the Version B above, but the compromised version C, which up until this post, has not been presented here. Nightscream (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@96.8.24.95: Okay, I didn't know I could do that. In any event, if others' opinions are sought, then the status of the Lead, and the versions being discussed, should be up to date, so that those inclined to "choose" among them can do in an accurate, informed matter. Nightscream (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've aleady said A is better than C. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cuban-American?

[edit]

When you Google her it states she's Cuban-American. Not true? Robinrobin (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you have sources for her being Cuban-American, feel free to add them to the article, or present them here, and one of us may add it to the article. For now, the only source for her ethnicity in the article is this one that says that her grandparents emigrated from Mexico, though it doesn't specify if this was both sets of grandparents, or just one. Nightscream (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Hosting Outnumbered

[edit]

I have always thought that the "opening" for any topic should stick strictly to the main aspects for that topic. Accordingly, Nightscream, it didn't seem essential to leave her work as guest-hosting Outnumbered in the front of the article, especially since I added in that she is now the permanent co-host on Fox and Friends Weekend. I supposed I could have moved it to the main body, but as someone who watches Outnumbered on a fairly regular basis, this really isn't even a huge part of what she has done on Fox. Maybe you didn't need to come on so strong in your revision comment, but that's how it appeared to me. I am NOT changing your revision, but as I said previously, leaving in her work on Outnumbered in the opening seems wholly unnecessary. Asc85 (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I came across wrong, but how is her job at F&FW a "main aspect" if it only started this past May? If Campos-Duffy has done appearances on Fox News for some years, then there's nothing wrong with summarizing that part of her career, IMO, by saying, "She moved to this network, where she did guest gigs before attaining this permanent one." In this way, as I mentioned in my edit summary, it doens't have to be a case of Either/Or, but both. Again, sorry if I phrased this inappropriately. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Campos-Duffy&oldid=1257352234"