Talk:Eric Bolling

Questionable addition
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with this recent addition to this article, but is it really notable for inclusion here? The info added is sourced to Media Matters for America, which is not a neutral source and is extremely critical of Fox News and conservatism (which its article makes clear). This info should either be resourced or removed. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "neutral source", and that's not what NPOV calls for. And it's objective and rational to be extremely critical of "Fox News" (which self-identifies as "entertainment"). "Conservatism" is is not well defined, and it's just your opinion that the article is "extremely critical" of same or makes clear that it is. And you're all over the place in your objection -- first there isn't anything wrong, then it isn't "notable", then a complaint about the source not being "neutral" (i.e., it doesn't share your biases), then it is critical of organizations you happen to like and political philosophies you happen to share, then it should be "resourced" (i.e., the source should be replaced with one that you happen to approve of), then finally the information should be removed for no reason other than that you don't approve of the source because it is critical of things you like. This is how Wikipedia should not work and how editors should not behave. -- Jibal (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dead link
The fox business link is dead 108.206.18.197 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

POV
Isn't it a bit pretentious (and POV) to say "because of the shake-up at Fox News"? Wouldn't it be more professional to say "due to scheduling changes caused by..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:C68C:A300:2126:E972:B2FB:FB99 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Son's death
Out of consideration for the family we should wait for coverage in better sources than Mediaite and The Daily News. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a source that knew Eric Chase Bolling personally. [unsourced material removed] Thetruthwillgetout (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Thetruthwillgetout: Sorry, but we need a published reliable source, not a second-hand account. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please fix: Personal life section
Eric Chase Bolling was not "Junior", because his father's name is Eric Thomas Bolling. TMZ and US Magazine both have this wrong. (US Magazine also tells us that Friday was September 9 when it was September 8.) Can someone please remove "Jr."? 173.73.172.102 (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A lot of sources refer to the son as "Junior". Not just the two sources that you mentioned.  But, you make a good point about the different middle names.  It is possible that "Junior" was not the son's legal name.  But that -- within the family -- everyone simply and informally called him "Junior", to distinguish the son from the dad.  Not too many family members go around calling each other by their full names (first name plus middle name) when speaking with each other.  Who knows?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You've seen the tweets from the family and people who know the family. Do any of them refer to Chase as "Junior"?  Secondly, if someone gives you the nickname "Junior", it doesn't mean that you put ", Jr." behind your name.  But then, I'm probably forgetting about WP:RS-WRONG which says: "always use 'Reliable Sources', especially when they're obviously wrong".  Anyway, Joseph, thanks for your response, such as it is.   173.73.172.102 (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Religion
It says on the article:

"He has expressed uncertainty in his faith since his son's death."

Can anybody find a source for that? Qwerty21212121 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question. I've read his statement in that regard so yes it's easily reffed but busy atm. Mark  Dask  22:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Secret service
I believe the two agents that were not agents are part of a bigger plot. I believe they were put there by the current administration. Not a threat to them at all. I think they are there to be infused into the presidential security so when President Trump is re elected, they will try to assassinate him since he is the one that ordered the hit on their general. Why else would the courts let them go and say they are not a risk. Typical democrats, the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Whoever messed up and opened up Pandora’s box will surly be fired. Thanks for your time. Susan Gibson (R- Florida) 2603:9000:A702:3D14:DD24:1C18:B5AC:A9B9 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

What Bobkustofawitshz (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)