Talk:Arianne Zucker

BLP
Per WP:BLP, this article is in need of reliable sources. In addition, we should avoid adding exact birthdates of non-notable minors. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Trump controversy
Should we expand and improve the article now that it will receive plenty of hits in the next coming days.--94.234.170.70 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We should remove the "Trump controversy" section because it has essentially nothing to do with Zucker herself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The Trump controversy, neither adds not detracts from the character, rather this individual is perhaps part of something of indirect significance in American Politics, something larger than the character herself. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's also a source of real time information. The Trump mention need not be sensationalism but should be included as it lends to the article rather than the character. There will be individuals indirectly involved in highly publicized events throughout history, this mention neither detracts or enhances who Zucker is, rather, the public will want to cross reference the event and learn more about who the person was, and this is what Wikipedia is about, the gathering and sharing of information Beesmill (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I could be talked into including it as a throwaway sentence, but it certainly doesn't merit its own section. And I'd still argue that it doesn't belong here – this incident really has nothing to do with Zucker, and only has relevance to Trump (and Billy Bush). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Everything changed once she publicly addressed the controversy. It now belongs in the article. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed. It has nothing do with her and has no place in her article. Her statement said exactly that. Tiller54 (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody forced her to talk about it. By talking about it, she inserted herself into the controversy. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't pay attention to what she said – she said "it has nothing to do with her". She's right – it doesn't. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Being on the receiving end of sexist comments doesn't make her article the place for said comments to be repeated. Tiller54 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it doesn't belong here. It's possible that her reaction could be added to Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Per above consensus, I propose removing "See also" section containing only "Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy" link. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tiller54 (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the two users above who argue that the Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy should be mentioned in this article. Zucker has a connection to this notable event in American politics and is named in numerous news sources. The discussion in this article need not be extensive. I propose the following be added to the career section: "In 2005, while on the set of Days of our Lives, Zucker appeared in a video that later became the subject of the Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy during the 2016 US Presidential election." This is neutral, verifiable, and is not disproportionate with the rest of the article. Readers wanting more details can follow the link to the controversy. Given that myself and two others feel that this should be mentioned, and four editors disagree, there is not currently consensus either for or against including this. --Albany NY (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree to this language. I agree it is certainly relevant to this article and I appreciate the effort to keep the focus proportional and the tone neutral. Knope7 (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to object to this. But I'm not going to "support" it either – I still think this incident has nothing materially to do with Zucker... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added the text to the article. If anyone feels they can improve the wording, please feel free. --Albany NY (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose it as this does not, should not and hopefully will not form any part of her career. That is what the article should be about. It is slightly more relevant than at Nancy O'Dell and the current wording is not WP:undue. I will strongly oppose any expansion. AIR corn (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also oppose its inclusion in her career section. She met two men coming off a bus; it has nothing to do with her career. Tiller54 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll officially rejoin the opposers, as I prefer that this be kept out, as I don't think it's relevant to Zucker at all... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Other Videos cited
 * Arianne Zuker: 2005 "SoapTalk" Part 1 - Laurencia7 (YouTube)
 * related
 * Arianne Zuker: 2005 "SoapTalk" Part 2 - Laurencia7 (YouTube)
 * Actress Discussed In Trump Tape: 'It's Not About Me' - CBS Los Angeles (YouTube)
 * Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)
 * Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)


 * Agree with those above that this should not be added here. AIR corn (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I support a one-sentence link to the Trump Video tape in this article; since Arianne herself has made a statement in response to the controversy, it’s relevant to her and the whole event has made her more famous than she was before. More to the point, as per Wikipedia policy, multiple reliable third party sources have mentioned Arianne’s role in the video, making the event notable enough to include in the Wikipedia — including in the articles about notable people involved with the video. WP:BLP1E does not apply because her soap opera role makes her notable outside of this one event. Samboy (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I support a brief mention and link to the videotape article. Her appearance in the videotape was covered in nearly every major American news source, Zucker's appearance in the tape is substantial (although her part in the controversy was unwitting), and the videotape itself was seen by hundreds of millions of people around the world. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Support. We must follow Wikipedia policy. The policy is WP:NPV:
 * This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus....


 * Due and undue weight


 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. [Emphasis mine]

--Nbauman (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. The entire discussion here before SSilver's comment happened before Zucker's first interview on the subject, where she very clearly wanted to use the incident to promote positivity and for woment to step forward. The "not about me statement" was made the day of the incident in response to being questioned outside her home when she probably didn't have a full statement to make yet.  She then released a short, general statement on the issue a couple of days later,  before giving the above interview a few days later. So the entire premise that Zucker doesn't' think she's part of the incident which could form part of an argument to avoid coverage is flawed and in fact contradictory to Zucker's own hope that she could use it to to help people. And looking at how reliable sources treated the incident, they very much considered it important to cover her in that context (e.g. ). In fact, when Zucker announced she was leaving her best known role in Days of Our Lives, the PEOPLE article about it devoted about 6 lines of the article to her departure and 16 lines to the Trump incident. A short one or two sentence segment on Zucker being the the recipient of sexist comments in the tape, plus one of her final statements on the issue would sufficient.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While I find Nbauman reasoning hyperbolic and unconvincing Patar Knight has raised some good points. I would like to see an example of the proposed wording before supporting though. I am however opposed to shoehorning it into a see also where no context can be provided. AIR corn  (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave direct quotes from Wikipedia policies and guidelines in WP:NPV. Why do you find them hyperbolic and unconvincing? --Nbauman (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All the unnecessary bolding and the way you assert we must add this information. There is very little we must do here and adding this to a BLP is not one of them. Policy can be interpreted different ways by different editors so simply quoting the policy is not very convincing. Also adding something to a see also and telling other editors to deal with it is just lazy. AIR corn (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote, quoting WP:NPOV, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Do you agree or disagree with that? --Nbauman (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it is not as simplistic as that. We have a whole lot of other policies and guidelines as well including WP:Recentism WP:BALASP WP:BLP and WP:NOT. It takes more nuance than simply copying a boilerplate message from your userpage and we should assess these situations on a case-by-case basis. Arguing neutrality (or insisting on it as you seem to be doing) does not really make sense in this case as she is the victim. The article is not unduly balanced with or without the information and most here agree that if it is mentioned the mention should be very short. At the end of the day it will come down to editor discretion and consensus. I would say there is local consensus here to include it now. In fact my only request at the moment was that we come up with suitable wording here before inserting it. AIR corn (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I would suggest writing that, "She appears in the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording, in which then-presidential candidate Donald Trump made lewd remarks about women, including her, before she appeared to escort them through the studio." Do you have a better suggestion?--Nbauman (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the new argument focuses on her response and this article is on her I would frame it more from her perspective. Maybe Zucker hoped that a leaked recording which revealed then-presidential candidate Donald Trump making lewd comments about her could be used positively. She beleived men could learn from it "how not to be in front of women or when they're speaking about women". This can be referenced to Rolling Stone. AIR corn (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, now she's speaking on TV again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwgzXABy4pM I think we've clearly established that it belongs under WP:WEIGHT as I and others described above. User:Aircorn never explained why my reasoning was "hyperbolic." There are no objections based on WP policies and guidelines. There are reasons for including it based on WP policies and guidelines. Therefore we have consensus. It requires at least a short sentence stating that she was the actress in the video with a link to Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording. It should go in. --Nbauman (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Nbauman, Ssilvers, Patar knight, et al. Everyone who writes that it's not really in any way her doing is of course correct, so we shouldn't go into great detail, but we can't avoid mentioning it. Somewhat like Jodie Foster (though to a much lesser severity, of course). --GRuban (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with her career. I agree it belongs at the dedicated article on that controvery. But there is nothing about this that suggests that it needs to be covered here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that an incident shouldn't go in an article if it has nothing to do with her career? --Nbauman (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

patrolling Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy ...
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)
 * is the POV fair ? please look at the edit history...

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Arianne Zucker. 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://www.emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_37th_nominations.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_40th_nominations.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091026024702/http://www.officialarizucker.com:80/about.html to http://www.officialarizucker.com/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arianne Zucker. 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://www.emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_37th_nominations.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_40th_nominations.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6QYYeym5x?url=http://emmyonline.org/day_41st_nominations to http://emmyonline.org/day_41st_nominations
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.officialarizucker.com/about.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)