Talk:Steve Doocy

Problems

all the info in this article is unsourced. Whitemensburden 22:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• On the air Doocy just mentioned that his Wikipedia page claimed he was a catholic. I'm guessing that means he's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.17.65 (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... methinks he's editing the page himself today. Either that or his producers. GRX Dragon (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiGods: Lock this Article

There is too much vandelism going on. --Purpleslog (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's because Steve Doocy and/or his producer(s) is/are editing the page while on-air and having fun doing so. GRX Dragon (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why it reads like a cheesy press release. Doocy has a pretty good sense of humor. I'm kinda surprised he let the vandalism get under his skin; doesn't he know that Wikipedia is a douche-a-rama?Simplemines (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unverified information.

SD age has been listed here as being 51, being born in 1956. However, he himself claims to be 67. I don't know his actual BD but unless sources can be found to verify it should not be included. Also, there is no evidence to him being Catholic, or doing some of the stuff people claim he has done. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, it does appear that he is 51, and there is evidence of the other stuff as well as noted by recent anoyn. Arzel (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I removed the external link to MMfA. It only serves to criticize Doocy, and does not offer a balanced view. Per WP:EL and WP:BLP and probably most specifically under WP:UNDUE it does not belong. Save for a moment that some feel it does belong, then by what means does one decide which belong? What makes MMfA so special that their criticism deserves special mention? By this logic we should have stories on Doocy from every source available. Arzel (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "special mention", it's just a link, and that is what the external links section is for. BLP, EL, and UNDUE do not disqualify this link. Legitimate criticism is appropriate and required by NPOV. You try to fight this battle on every article, and it's just not working. Gamaliel (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight applies to all aspects of the article. Your placement of a link to stories only critical of Doocy are hardly a balanced approach. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of links supportive of Doocy, such as his Fox bio. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

His Bio? Come on now, his bio simply states the relevant facts of his life. By you recent comment I can only conclude that his FOX bio alone violates NPOV because it is too positive. The nature of news tends to be negative. It is rare to find a site promoting the virtues of anyone, even your own KO positive stories from MMfA are not positie stories about KO, they are stories where KO criticizes someone else. You are going to have to do better than this. Arzel (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving out relevant facts is an NPOV violation. Presenting only positive aspects is an NPOV violation. If you want NPOV to apply to individual links like this, then it must apply to all links, not just links you do not like. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Palin/foreign experience "Alaska is right up there next to Russia" remark

Shall the following remain in the article?:
---

In August 2008, Doocy claimed that Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin does indeed have foreign policy experience because "Alaska is right up there next to Russia." He was criticized by Jon Stewart on the The Daily Show for the remark.

References

---

My take is that it is now receiving national attention, is very well referenced and it is ironically the only referenced content of this entire article.--Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So what? This is highly undue weight for Doocy. There is nothing to indicate that this will be historic in terms of Doocy. Additionally, Stewert hosts a fake news show, his comments, while generally funny, are not appropriate for an encyclopedia in relationship to someone else. Arzel (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A Wikipedia user's crystal ball speculation on future "historic-ness" of referenced content that's receiving a great amount of coverage by reliable sources is not criteria for deleting it. The John Stewart opinion on Doocy's remark is only additional information. John Stewart is extremely popular with The Daily Show receiving very high ratings and additionally CBS News is not a "fake news show." --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that this comment is not unique to Doocy. Cindy McCain made the original statement that Palin in not oblivious to world affairs because Russia is close to Alaska. It seems only that this being incorporated here because of remarks by JS and Stewerts comments regardless of how funny they may be, are undue weight here, Arzel (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you're only throwing up a red herring argument. You seem to be under the impression the comments have been included in the article because of John Stewart. They're not. The John Stewart reaction was added after. This is about Doocy's original remark that was covered by reliable sources like CBS News. Regardless of John Stewart, the remark has received reliable sources coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

After further glance, your RS are questionable at best. It is not CBS news that was the source, it was Steve Benen of The Carpet Bagger Report, on a political Blog. Via RS, his opinion is not usable within a BLP in this instance. Monsters and Critics doesn't look very RS either. Perhaps you should take a step back and stop trying to level undue criticism against a Living Person and readup on WP:BLP As for the Red Herring point of view, Doocy Comments are only notable if they can be used as criticism against him. The JS criticism was a later addition from the earlier for in an attempt to validate the criticism. Arzel (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The CBS News piece reports and confirms the Palin remark. Whether there's further opinion or commentary in the source is completely extraneous. Your attack on Monsters and Critics as not being a reliable source is disagreed upon. I'm VERY familiar with WP:BLP and even erased unreferenced content on this article per WP:BLP [1]. These comments are referenced and confirmed. And as for undo weight, these are only two sentences in the entire multi-paragraphed article. No other sentence is referenced at all. For those wikilawyers who must follow the letter of every wikilaw, then per BLP, the only content allowed in the article would be the Palin remark. --Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the CBS piece is simply linked to a political blogging site. I don't see the point in simply stating that Doocy made this statement. It is only being use to Mock Doocy, and it is not being covered by MSM. Perhaps you should state your reason why it is important, because it seems like the only reason for inclusion is to mock Doocy for his opinion. WP:BLP specifically warns against material which only serves to mock or denegrate the person, and this single comment seems to serve no other purpose. Arzel (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

the CBS News site is linked to the CBS New site. If it wasn't, CBS News wouldn't included it in their website. Anyway, you're opinion that this referenced content "is only being use to Mock Doocy" is 100% POV. If this was an unreferenced attack, you would be correct. However, this is referenced and confirmed content. I wouldn't be arguing to use it if it wasn't. Just added another source to the content. --Oakshade (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I see rather than waiting for additional comments you simply reinserted the text. Jon Stewerts opinion is not relevant. He mocks people all of the time in a satirical manner, and via BLP, WP should not serve to mock a living person. In addition this is undue weight given to his (JS's) comments which havn't been notable in MSM. As I said before the CBS link is actually a blog redirect, it is NOT CBS news, it is the words of a partisan. Please try to look at this from an objective point of view. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's part of CBS News any way you look at it. The why it's on the CBS News website. Actually, the source material is from the Washington Monthly which is partnered with CBS News. It's similar to a Chicago Tribune article that originated from its partner Los Angeles Times, but it's still reported by the Chicago Tribune. That's the "redirect" you keep bringing up. John Stewart is one of the most popular living personalities. If you truly don't feel what John Stewart has to say about people is relevant, then you may want to go over to the Tucker Carlson article and delete the entire 2004 confrontation with Comedy Central's Jon Stewart section. I've seen this vague "MSM" term bandied about lately as if it's mentioned in WP:Reliable Sources or WP:BLP. It's not. We provide content that was published by reliable sources, whether that reliable source is The New York Times or not. (By the way, New York Magazine, what many would consider "MSM," has reported on the remark along with John Stewart's response.) --Oakshade (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT part of CBS News. It is an independent blog from Washington Monthly called Political Animal. Incidently, this whole situation was manufactured by a friend of the writer of that blog to try and mock republicans, which he seems to have succeeded in doing. MSM is a general term for reliable sources when dealing with news reports. This kind of stuff should be reported in main stream media if it is going to warrent inclusion, not partisan blogs and the like. Furthermore, WP:BLP clearly states (which you seem to be ignoring) that WP is not here to denegrate or mock people, and that is what this clearly is. Additionally, the Tucker Carlson situation is very different. For one, there were not on his show. For another, they were actually interacting with each other. Completely different situation. Arzel (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Monthly (another reliable source by the way) has partnered with CBS News to present material on the CBS News website. CBS News published the content (I can't believe I actually had to type that). Any other claim would be in complete denial of reality. You seem to be under the false impression that WP:BLP bans any sourced material that might be seen as negative. It doesn't. If the material is cited by a reliable source, BLP does not require its removal which you keep trying to do here. And what's with this "denegrate" and "mock" you speak of? The remark was Steve Doocy's remark, not somebody else's false claim that Doocy made the remark. As for Stewart's commentary, if a Wikipedia editor decided to write there own commentary, then per WP:BLP, that content should be removed. But if one of the most popular living personalities makes confirmed criticism, then BLP does not stipulate the removal of the content. There is an "undo weight" issue to be aware of, but as this is only 2 sentences (the only sourced sentences by the way) of a multi-paragraphed article,, the "undo weight" charge is just silly. (Go to the Beazer Homes USA article to see a real example of "undo weight".) Like I said, if you truly do want to follow the letter of WP:BLP, then delete the entire article except these two sentences as these are the only referenced sentences in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Include - when media personalities make really stupid statements, it sometimes defines their careers. This would qualify. ► RATEL ◄ 08:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? You seriously think that criticism from a comedy show, in which he was called a "Moron" is appropriate for an encyclopedia? BTW, this isn't a vote, present your arguments for including the remarks from JS. Arzel (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, seriously, bub. This is a well cited inclusion. What was said on the comedy show is irrelevant, but what Doocy said isn't. Get over it. He will be remembered by many people for making exactly that remark. I know I'll never forget it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please to not be insulting each other; Wikipedia policy recommends a leave of sbscence from the site when things get too heated. Lots42 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Um....what is the insult? Arzel (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - I've yet to see compelling evidence that Doocy's recent gaffe/joke had a notable impact on his life or career. If he has a pattern of getting called out for making stupid remarks, I could see a case for its inclusion along with similar statements and reactions. Switzpaw (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Here from the RFC listing (see WP:RFC/A to help out). When my father heard the statement, he was sure it was a joke. Having heard Doocy before, I wasn't so sure, and I'm still not sure. It really could have been a joke. It should not be included. I agree with Switzpaw, although you would have to find an article making that exact case. You might be able to find one. Incidentally, I saw a clip of Cindy making the same basic statement -- I think it was on the September 2nd episode of Stewart or Colbert (probably Stewart). She seemed much more serious. II | (t - c) 17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - If this is a huge deal in one year, then add it back then. --Tom 15:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove I agree with Switzpaw and tom, if this is viewed as important a year from now, then add it back. As it stands now, including it would be gossipy, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does it really matter who Peter Doocy plans to vote for? This not the Peter Doocy article. Lots42 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. --Tom 14:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's the Steve Doocy article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs)

I didn't even know about this until reading this conversation, but man. An "unbiased" reporter's son apparently served as a plant for an extraordinarily partisan question designed to denigrate a Democratic candidate, and you think this is clearly and unequivocally not worth including? I'm not saying it *is* -- that depends on the coverage it got -- but certainly the reasons for excluding it are not the ones given above. --Saforrest (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Journalist"

How does Steve Doocy qualify as a journalist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.140.21 (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How do reliable sources describe him? --Tom (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

steve doocy journalist gets 9,550 google hits. Isn't that remarkably low? --Tom (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the lead needs rewriting for clarity in regards to his current position? Anyways,...--Tom (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

coprophiliac???

Under the section "personal life", it says that Steve Doocy is a practicing "coprophiliac"... that can't be right. Toadspring (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism, now reverted.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Salary?

Whats up with the salarything here... strange. Remove? Herr X (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That was part of some recent vandalism that was missed. It is fixed now. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Non notable material

I removed some stuff about worst person in the world and lunch and nap habits. --Tom (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

remarks on cannabis

there should be some reference added regarding the infamous "potted up on weed" remark that has been ridiculed by the rest of the media. http://jezebel.com/5958575/fox--friends-anchor-hilariously-worries-about-nation-getting-potted-up-after-marijuana-legalization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.210.233.156 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ridicule and hilarity are subjective reactions. The same occurrence may just as well elicit reactions of praise and somberness.173.72.111.239 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Hans Wurst

Vandalism in pronunciation?

Does the man really pronounce his last name /ˈduːʃi/? Because I can read the IPA and that clearly comes out sounding as "doo-shee", i.e. "douchey". If that's actually how he pronounces it, that's fine, but I can't help but think this is subtle vandalism to call him a douchebag. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson's harassment lawsuit

where is Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson harassment lawsuit which has been just settled? The whole topic has evaporated from his wiki. http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/07/gretchen-carlson-files-lawsuit-against-roger-ailes-alleging-sexual-harassment-225162

--2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89 (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

today http://fortune.com/2016/09/06/fox-gretchen-carlson-settlement-apology/

--2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

She didn't sue Doocy. She didn't sue Fox. She sued Ailes, personally. Her lawsuit made allegations about Doocy, but he wasn't a party to the lawsuit. Thus, he also wasn't part of the settlement. Ailes's lawyer denies that he is paying anything out, so it remains an interesting question as to who is forking over the $20 million. - Nunh-huh 08:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Th parent company is settling...21st Century Fox.--MONGO 11:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It was removed by this edit, citing our biographies of living persons policy. I concur in its removal: we ordinarily don't report allegations in lawsuits, especially before a trial, because they are unproven and unsworn—they're little more credible than claims made on Facebook. As Mr. Doocy will likely never have an opportunity to defend himself, it would be unfair to mention the lawsuit. Rebbing 11:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Except it wasn't an simply an allegation, he was actually named in the lawsuit as someone at Fox who sexually harassed her and was rewarded by Ailes, he just wasn't sued as Ailes was. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what an allegation is. Rebbing 12:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but an allegation brought forth into court is not the same as a gossip-rag claim. It's entirely appropriate and encyclopedic for the content on Doocy being named as a participant in the same behavior as Ailes to be included in the article. It's a court case she brought, it's widely reported, and you can't get a better source for such an allegation that what was filed with, and brought forth in, court. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As the above just mentioned it is "widely reported", not just some gossip column tabloid one off--2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89 (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not far removed: it's an unsworn accusation by Ms. Carlson in a lawsuit against a third party. I don't see this as a verifiability or sourcing issue—I accept that Ms. Carlson made the claim in her lawsuit—but I am skeptical that the incident is noteworthy, especially weighed against BLP concerns. Rebbing 13:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If the lawsuit is noteworthy, then items within the lawsuit are noteworthy. Especially if someone else was mentioned in the suit as committing sexual harassment against the individual who is receiving a settlement because of the lawsuit. If the suit had been thrown out of court, I could see your argument as somewhat valid. That isn't what happened. We can mention that there were similar allegations against Doocy as there were against Aisles in the manner that they are allegations. But by no means is there anything that I can see which prevents this content from being included in the article. Especially since it has been reported in mainstream publications such as the LA Times and the Huffington Post. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. The lawsuit may be noteworthy, but that doesn't make every allegation within it noteworthy and suitable for discussion, and the fact that the lawsuit was settled doesn't mean that Ms. Carlson's allegations about Mr. Doocy are valid: there were other, more serious allegations in the complaint that were independent of Mr. Doocy. That said, the sources may be enough to meet PUBLICFIGURE: it's hard to tell since it appears most sources mention Mr. Doocy's role only in passing. Go for it and see what sticks? Rebbing 16:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steve Doocy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222084031/http://english.360elib.com/datu/P/EM303002.pdf to http://english.360elib.com/datu/P/EM303002.pdf

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) 05:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Published works

added cookbooks 65.215.66.106 (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Did not need to start discussion on this, next time add description to edit summary before publishing

50.250.86.203 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Career

This section was out of order and out of date. Nobody starts in TV in New York. Located his bio and fixed chronology

50.250.86.203 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, years out of date. Looks like part updated, but the lawsuit stuff was not. Agree with REBBING in a previous talk discussion on the topic that the entire item is inappropriate given Wiki's longstanding BLP policy that allegations in lawsuits are not included bz they are unproven and unsworn. Surprised it's remained published this long

Thoughts?

I concur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.88.115.177 (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Career

Steve Doocy is uniquely telegenic. His career requires a physical appearance and personal qualities that are deemed highly appealing.

But this entry is less about Steve Doocy than it is about the need for a better description of his career.

Doocy is described as an American television host, political commentator, and author. It is more precise to describe an employee (or owner in Doocy's case) as someone who relays information subordinated to corporate interests or more mildly is obedient to authority. An oversimplification perhaps of the actual details of the work but nevertheless a directive that isn't subordinate to any other.

Consider that the use of obvious perjoratives (or not) but nearly meaningless terms like honesty, left, right, center, conservative are not proffered in this entry to describe Doocy or his career. This is not a short shrift of the subject's humanity or biography.

A historical context or rough comparison to another broadcaster is meaningful. A comparison to Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf in the early days of the Iraq war.

Doocy was on Fox and Friends delivering the assigned promulgations and entertainment but instead of the sounds of bombs that accented al-Shahhafs final broadcasts, there is nothing but silence in following years with Doocy's programming. The US saw large numbers of former military but also larger amounts of the general population killing themselves variously (increasingly with fentanyl), foreclosures, unemployment, corruption, criminality and dramatic urban rioting.

A subjective evaluation of Steve Doocy is best left to the reader but the hope is that this entry provides more clarity on Doocy's career.

Steve Duucy

Steve Duce cld u plz keep ur excitement of President Trump off camera . U r not for him but i dont need to see u all smiles and slant discussions against him keep ur excitement off my TV u r my least favorite.. 2600:8807:2D0A:CC00:4932:9D2E:F20F:E796 (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure he really cares 98.97.82.48 (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)