Talk:Trish Regan

Section titles

Needs help. --Tom 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Year of Birth

If Trish Regan was born in 1973,why is she listed under Category:1977 Births?67.177.69.133 (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like it was written by her publicist. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.129.78 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

not sure what her real birthday is, but the date is not March 8th. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.35.107 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

She was 20 in mid-1993 when she won Miss New Hampshire so the cited year of 1972 is obviously correct. I understand why her publicist might try to shave 5 years off of her age but this is an encyclopedia, not a PR machine. - 13:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Picture?

A portrait-picture and action pictures always improve an article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Denmark Issue

I mean, she is claiming no one works in Denmark, while everyone is studying (because you get paid for it) with no one having the intention to finish. Meanwhile she claims that everyone in Denmark opens cup cake shops. Well, despite her claims being in conflict with one another, non of the statistics support her ridiculous claims. As a source she mentioned a friend who visited Denmark. Lol.--APS^talk 11:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly a timeout is needed here with the latest controversy, still two plus weeks on the WP:BLP violations persist. Need to keep the edits based on facts and sources. -WGFinley (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times was used to cite a quote from the head of one of the largest media groups in Denmark. Why was that edited out? And she never once compared Denmark to Venezuela. That's patently untrue to include such a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedryun (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If you go into reference number 10 and look at the video, you will see how her point is that Socialism is all the same. She starts with the horrific scenes of Venezuela and then transitions to Denmark. To me it would seems she is comparing them. Jtrrs0 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

" you will see how her point is that Socialism is all the same"

Well, a couple of things> Denmark has gone out of their way to say they are NOT socialist:

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/

In fact none of Scandanavia is Socialist

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-problem-using-sweden-as-an-example-of-a-socialist-model-that-works-sweden-aint-socialist/

So I'm not sure where you're going with this argument if Denmark insists that they're not socialist. 96.231.98.31 (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Reagan's own words: "Denmark — like Venezuela — has stripped people of their opportunities"[2]. RS about her monologue: "Trish Regan, who accused Danes of being work-shy and likened the Scandinavian country to Venezuela in a television segment widely shared on social media."[3] The head of a Danish media group is in no way a recognized authority on the effects of Danish taxes on innovation and work, just as we wouldn't cite NY Times op-eds by non-experts on the effects of American tax policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In the link provided below, please see the section "taxes" where Denmarks 2017 "Top tax rate + SSC" is 55.8% which was the point Trish was trying to make. https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/denmark/usa (Philbert) 2605:A000:1407:8269:1C3B:F95C:BFA2:A58D (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Then using that site and comparing the US with Saudi Arabia (which has a 0% top tax rate), the US is a failing, socialist state. Sorry, this is just your opinion. O3000 (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Length

Isn't this one controversy unduly long and detailed? Given that we're writing short biographies about the core things about someone's career, shouldn't this be just a few sentences long, at most? /Julle (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to expand on some of the other controversies, or regular non-controversial content. TGCP (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

My argument isn't that it's too long compared to the rest of the content; it's that it's too detailed for a biographic entry in an encyclopedia compared to the role it has or hasn't played in her career. /Julle (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The section on this story might be a little over-detailed, but it does arguably seem to be the most noteworthy thing she's done in her career, in terms of the international attention it received. Robofish (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Change of narrative at Fox put Regan in the crossfire?

It's brought up in the NYTimes ref, and getting further press due to the lawsuit against Fox. The NYTimes ref seems enough to mention it... --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The coronavirus outbreak as a Democratic "impeachment scam"?

Snooganssnoogans reverted my correction to the slanted account of Regan's comments without trying to justify his revert.

Please notice that the lead sentence I changed was not justified by the account given in the body of the article under "Coronavirus". And please see the Newsweek article by James Walker, "Trish Regan Says Coronavirus Response Backlash Against Donald Trump is 'Impeachment All Over Again'".

Feel free to quote any 'news' story you like that takes issue with the reality of Regan's charge that the liberal media was using the Covid-19 outbreak to "demonize and destroy the president", but as Walker said, Regan then played "a montage of liberal network talking heads disparaging the administration's response to the virus." All of this contradicts the earlier version of the lead but is partially recounted in the "Coronavirus" section. I'll reinstate my change pending a stronger argument (than a silent revert) here in the Talk section for retaining the earlier account. I will also return to reference the Newsweek article and complete a truncated quote in the "Coronavirus. Please be patient on that last change as I am now late for supper! --Blanchette (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit (with apologies for ruining your supper). The "democratic narrative" is both unwieldy and inaccurate and the original wording was better. Not to say that this can't be expressed differently though. --regentspark (comment) 01:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Would you please find a rational reason for your position based upon Wikipedia guidelines? Or, suggest a policy based improvement. O3000 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

My changes and this post address the concerns of regentspark and O3000. The material I am changing says: "Shortly after dismissing the coronavirus outbreak as a Democratic "impeachment scam" against President Donald Trump,..."

The first problem is that this 'report' violates MOS:LEADCITE because it is not referenced to any source -- which is required even in leads where something may be controversial. To quote:

"The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."

The second problem is that the word dismissed is a way to characterize her comments that tends to amplify the error of implying the outbreak itself was the scam and not the Democratic/media responses, which is what Regan was saying. This violates the spirt of WP:SAID, WP:SAY, WP:CLAIM.

The third problem is that nowhere does Regan say that the outbreak itself was a Democratic impeachment scam, and to imply that she did is to libelously imply that she is much more dimwitted than her actual commentary justifies and therefore violates WP:BLP.

The fourth problem is that I don't see any evidence that Regan is responsible for the standalone 'summary' of her views as a "Coronavirus Impeachment Scam". I gather from a variety of articles that the headline or chyron writer labeled her commentary "Democratic Impeachment Scam" but in the first place headlines which are attempts to condense entire arguments into three words are bound to be a distortion of the argument; in the second place, what evidence do we have that Regan was responsible for the headline?; and in the third place, what justifies applying the headline to the "coronavirus outbreak" rather than to the Democratic/media narrative on the outbreak? Only the CNN report by Oliver Darcy cited in the "Coronavirus" section supports that take on Regan's comments and considering the many more complete accounts from reliable sources I think we can discount the CNN slant as somewhat overwrought. For Wikipedia to prefer to quote a distorted out-of-context headline over quoting the actual commentary smacks of blatant POV pushing and violates WP:NPOV.

I am happy to modify my change to drop the term "Democratic narrative" which regentspark finds unwieldy but I gave my reasons above for disagreeing that the previous wording was better. My change is now a direct paraphrase of the Newsweek account and cited as such.

In the "Coronavirus" section I have also dropped the word "accused" pursuant to MOS:ACCUSED and WP:SAID, eliminated the unverified implication that Regan herself 'ran' the chyron with the quoted words and completed a quote truncated without an ellipsis, relying on the Newsweek source.—Blanchette (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(1) Newsweek is not reliable[4]. (2) Per the NY Times, she "dismissed concerns about the coronavirus as a “scam” fueled by enemies of President Trump."[5] Per the LA Times, she "described the coronavirus as a scam being used by the Democrats in attempt to politically damage the president."[6] Per CNN, "she dismissed the coronavirus pandemic as a conspiracy to throw President Trump out of office."[7] We should use wording along these lines. The relevant context here is also that the "liberal media" and Democrats were not engaging in hyperpartisan criticisms of the Trump at the time, but raising awareness and covering how an outbreak was developing into a pandemic. Thus, her comments understood in the context at the time was in relation to dismissing any and all concerns about the virus's severity. (3) The text does not say she was responsible for the chyron. But it is her show, and she is ranting about the coronavirus while the chyron is playing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis and the general rule is to use the most reliable source available. One can undoubtedly make the same edits I made using other reliable sources because the other sources cited in the article confirm one or another part of the Newsweek article, with the the partial exception of the carelessly written report from CNN (no fan of the Fox Networks, etc.). The reason to prefer the Newsweek article in this case is that it contains many more direct quotations from Regan's commentary than any other account I read, and as accounts of controversial opinions go, the more reliable will be the account with the more direct quotes, absent other bias factors that are certainly not evident in the Newsweek account, which can hardly be accused of trying to make Regan look good. None of your accounts from reliable sources quotes Regan saying "the Coronovirus is a scam" or anything like that. Every account supporting your preferred reading is a 'characterization' of what she said, the only "quote" having been grabbed from the chyron with nothing quoted from Regan's commentary to support the view that the 'headline' is a fair summary of her views. Don't you find this even a little bit suspicious? Let's be charitable and surmise that the "Coronavirus Impeachment Scam" was just too foolish and too pithy a label for news-writers to resist and let us proceed with an analysis based on a reasonable assessment of the facts (i.e. what was said and done by the subject) as presented in all the reliable sources. As for Regan "ranting about the coronavirus while the chyron is playing", I can pretty much guarantee that her teleprompter did not include the chyron scroll as she was trying to read her prepared commentary and if it did, she could hardly have been reading that and her commentary simultaneously. Whether she was ranting is surely a matter of opinion; another way to say it would be that she was delivering an impassioned defense of the President against political attacks. I have no interest in supporting her opinion -- my interest is in writing a Wikipedia article that presents the most accurate account of the incident that can be gleaned from the record. —Blanchette (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No, just sticking with a bunch of direct quotes is not necessarily better. As I've already explained, the context of her remarks is that she is dismissing the concerns that were raised about the virus, framing as attacks by the "liberal media" and Democrats. That's the scam in question. Just presenting a bunch of quotes is obfuscatory. She has at no point disavowed the chyron or clarified that she had no role in it. It's her show, so I'd be surprised if she has no role in how it's presented. To sum up, we should stick to what actual RS say (not non-RS such as Newsweek) and not try to decipher what she truly meant (your interpretation is wrong btw). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Using direct quotes to draw conclusions about what Reagan was trying to say is definitely WP:OR. What we need to do is to see what conclusions reliable sources have drawn and Snooganssnoogans sources look fairly convincing and I suggest going with their wording. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Rather weak rebuttal, Snooganssnoogans. We're not sticking with a 'bunch' of direct quotes but selecting the most relevant ones rather than just sticking with a bunch of characterizations, paraphrases, possible distortions, and innuendos. Your beloved chyron quote, which presumably is the kind of quote you find acceptable, remains intact in the "Coronavirus" section without trying to say without evidence that Regan herself was responsible for it. And that's an interesting addition to the WP:BLP policies you propose there: tort-worthy claims made without evidence should stand unless specifically disavowed by their subject?

As for RegentsPark's comment, I must point out that using quotes would be original research only if I had, for example, recorded the program in question and insisted that my transcription of what was said be accepted as reliable. Using quotes from reliable sources is not OR. It is hard to justify the claim that what a subject is "trying to say" is better represented by someone else's opinion of what they were "trying to say" than their own saying of what they are "trying to say". If you can point me to a Wikipedia policy that prefers a second party's version of what a subject is "trying to say" — a second party whose motive may or may not be to make the most accurate restatement of the subject's meaning — over the actual saying of it by the subject, I will give you Wikipedia and say goodbye. But your take on this is wrong. Wikipedia has never preferred characterizations, paraphrases, possible distortions and innuendos over accurately sourced quotations, or Wikipedia would already be bereft of quotations since there is no shortage of secondary opinions on what any author of an even slightly controversial statement was really "trying to say". Wikipedia endorses neither the fallacy of "putting words into her mouth" nor the straw man fallacy, so please come up with a valid argument for your point of view.—Blanchette (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that preferring quotes over analysis from independent, reliable sources leads us into OR and NOT and POV problems. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"The relevant context here is also that the "liberal media" and Democrats were not engaging in hyperpartisan criticisms of the Trump at the time, but raising awareness and covering how an outbreak was developing into a pandemic." Which sources provide this context? Not entirely clear from Snooganssnoogans' analysis. Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It's my explanation of the context. The sources in question explicitly say she was dismissing concerns about the coronavirus (see above). I'm explaining why they came to that conclusion to a user who is instead dismissing what the RS said and trying to interpret her remarks four months later. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Quoting her vs. divining "what she was trying to say", continued. Well, to add Hipal and Dimaick to the mixture, what we have here is essence is a dispute over whether Regan said either that the Covid-19 pandemic was a "Democratic impeachment scam" or that it was a "Coronavirus Impeachment Scam" but what I am hearing is that whether Regan said either of these things – according to reliable sources - is irrelevant! What you seem to be arguing is that it doesn't matter what she actually said, what matters is what these "reliable sources" think she was trying to say. If she said one of those two dubious phrases in her commentary please provide the link to the reliable source that either attributes such a quote to her or paraphrases such statements from her commentary in an unambiguous way, e.g., 'Ms. Regan said the the Coronavirus was a scam' or 'Regan said the pandemic was a Democratic impeachment scam' or the like. My problem is that the article with the greatest number of direct quotes somehow missed the one or two juciest quotes from the entire commentary, calling into question whether all the other sources, e.g. CNN let's say, were as careful as they should have been in attributing to Regan what she was "trying to say".

Even the CNN article by Oliver Darcy ("Fox Business parts ways with Trish Regan, host who dismissed coronavirus as 'impeachment scam'") doesn't go so far as to say she said the coronavirus pandemic was a conspiracy to throw Trump out of office, no, he said she "dismissed" the coronavirus as such. Very cagey. If pressed he can claim she didn't dismiss it in so many words, but that's what her entire commentary implied. Later instead of using the word "said", Darcy says she described the coronavirus to her viewers as an "impeachment scam". Again she didn't have to say it in so many words because Darcy knows that her commentary as a whole "described" the pandemic itself as an impeachment scam. In case you didn't notice, Darcy's entire article was aimed at attacking the Fox News coverage for downplaying the pandemic, which is a good point, but if you want to close the sale, so to speak, why not feature that juicy direct quote from Regan's commentary that proves the idiocy of Ragan and her network beyound a doubt? Well, the reason is obvious: Regan never said it. The best they have is what appeared in the other CNN citation, Chris Cillizza's "Analysis" (not "News") article ("This Trish Regan rant on coronavirus is something else") where he – more accurately than Darcy – says Regan riffed "on how coronavirus was being weaponized by Democrats to hurt Trump -- all while a banner blaring "Coronavirus Impeachment Scam" appeared next to her on screen."

Okay, what Cillizza reports is what this Wikipedia article now recounts, but for some it's not enough that the headline writer condenses Regan's commentary into three silly words. No, they must at all costs put those words into Regan's mouth. It's abundantly clear that what Regan was 'trying to say' is what her words actually said, that the pandemic crisis was being used by Trump's political opponents to harm him unjustifiably. You don't have to agree with her but you do have to report what what she said according to reliable sources and not what she was 'trying to say' according to your interpretation of those so-called reliable sources.

All they have is that headline and no reliable source claims that Regan wrote or approved of it; indeed they are all well aware that article or opinion writers seldom if ever get to write their own headlines: that's an editor's or producer's or production assistant's job. This is what we should assume here unless you have a reliable source showing that things were atypical in this case.

Snooganssnoogans appears to be saying that I am "dismissing" – there's that weaselly word again – "what the RS said and trying to interpret her remarks four months later." How can I be interpreting when my aim is to get the commentary in Regan's own wordsas much as possible so there can be no misunderstanding of what she did and did not say. As for Hipal's attempt to tag my using quotes from reliable sources as OR, I already answered that baseless claim above. —Blanchette (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"What you seem to be arguing is that it doesn't matter what she actually said" So the dispute is not about content, but about the reliability of the available sources and the bias in their presentation of the event. Per Biased or opinionated sources: "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate" So:

• Are the sources reliable within the context of this article?
• Are they third-party sources, disinterested in the topic?
• Is in-text attribution of their views appropriate here? Dimadick (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 conspiracy theorists category

I believe that https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-trump-fox-business-trish-regan-removed-impeachment-conspiracy-a9403011.html is enough to meet the requirements for the category without violating OR and BLP. I'm less sure about using https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trish-regan-out-fox-business-news-conspiracy-theory-rant-coronavirus_n_5e7e694dc5b6256a7a2a8844 though it verifies the category exactly. --Hipal (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting what the Independent article is saying. It says: "A Fox Business presenter who suggested the coronavirus crisis was part of a conspiracy to impeach Donald Trump again has been moved from her prime-time slot". In this case, "conspiracy" doesn't mean conspiracy theory. It means something along the lines of a plot or scheme [8]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the matter.

So it's fine with the HuffPost ref? --Hipal (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You're correct that the Huff Post is much more explicit with the conspiracy theorist label. However, Huff Post is a pretty garbage source when it comes to politics (RSP entry). Additionally, we're dealing with a contentious label to a BLP. We would need more solid sourcing than Huff Post. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never followed closely the inclusion criteria for such BLP categories, so not sure how fine a line we're drawing here. I do think it's personal opinion to dismiss the Independent by interpreting what the author meant by "conspiracy". --Hipal (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The CNN ref states The Fox Business Network announced on Friday that it had parted ways with Trish Regan, the conservative news host who ignited controversy earlier this month when she dismissed the coronavirus pandemic as a conspiracy to throw President Trump out of office. --Hipal (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/on-fox-news-suddenly-a-very-different-tune-about-the-coronavirus/2020/03/16/7a7637cc-678f-11ea-9923-57073adce27c_story.html For weeks, some of Fox News’s most popular hosts downplayed the threat of the coronavirus, characterizing it as a conspiracy by media organizations and Democrats to undermine President Trump. --Hipal (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/12/media/fox-news-coronavirus/index.html The main thrust of the conspiracy theory was that journalists are intentionally trying to create panic in the markets with frenzied coverage to sink the economy and hurt Trump's chances of re-election. --Hipal (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yea the CNN ref and the WaPo ref are saying the exact same thing as the Independent. The authors are saying that Regan believes that there is a "scheme" / "plot" to get rid of Trump. In effect, this is somewhat related to a conspiracy theory, but not exactly the same thing. There's also Conspiracy (criminal) in the legal sense of the word. This basically means colluding with someone else to commit a crime. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: As this is a BLP, and it does not look like any of the sources listed explicitly refer to her as a "conspiracy theorist", the use of the "conspiracy theorist" category would not be appropriate. If reliable sources do start to refer to her that way with some frequency, the question could be revisited at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, Thank you for your response. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding back reliably sourced content

Awhile back, an account that was named "TrishRegan" came onto the page and made some changes. Some of these changes were strongly sourced (USA Today & People magazine)WP:RS via WP:RSP and some weren't(WP:Primary sourced content from her website). However all the changes were undone due to WP:COI/WP:AUTO. I understand the revert, and agree with it to a certain extent; but I think the article would benefit from adding back the reliably sourced content. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)