Talk:Greg Kelly

Why?
Why is Maria Di Toro's name being removed from the rape allegations section? What is the rational behind this arbitrary censoring of established information? Kelly's accuser's name is not a secret and has been widely published in the media. Please explain the logic of concealing such information in the article.--97.92.26.67 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Kelly's Accuser
Because no one can have a fair trial in the court of public opinion when confirmed facts are hidden, I've added the name of Kelly's rape accuser, Maria Di Toro, to the text of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.71.161 (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it has to do with Wikipedia policies about private, non-notable persons as covered in the wp:BLP policy and perhaps elsewhere in Wikipedia's maze of policy pages. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A whole section on this topic is surely excessive for this officially closed investigation but an appropriate single sentence on what was perhaps the most widely publicised event of a minor notable person's life ought to be provided. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was recently requested to provide a third party opinion on this subject on a user talk page. Since it relates to a matter of dispute on the article (and since 3rd opinions are customarily added to article talk pages, and not user talk pages), I will copy it here as a general contribution to the discussion.


 * "In my opinion, there are several problems with the material that has been added by NiceTry8. First: speaking of "the re-victimization of the accuser in the New York City press" is a possibly libelous statement, since it was never determined that she was in fact victimized a first time.


 * Second: even if "re-victimization" were replaced with another word, it still speaks of "the victimization of the accuser in the press" as if it were a matter of encyclopedic fact, when it is a matter of opinion and subjective interpretation. Such a statement is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia-type reference.  If the press said "X and Y" about the accuser, then (assuming that were relevant here) it should be stated as a matter of fact what they indeed said.


 * Third: the sentence "The New York Post and Fox 5 New York WNYW (Kelly's employer) are both owned by News Corp" seems like too much of a detour in what is supposed to be a biographic article. It is a clear invitation for the reader to wonder about the involvement (or possible shared bad motives) of these news corporations.  A biography of a living person is not really the place to conduct a mini-trial of two news corporations.  IMO, that sentence should be removed and the statement about Buzzfeed condensed to one sentence.


 * Keeping a single sentence reference at the end of the paragraph is a good compromise. After all, every person who makes a public accusation has a story to tell, and a biographic article of the person they accused is not ordinarily the place to insert statements bolstering or impeaching either the personal character or believability of the accusers, or the merits of their accusations.  To do so will risk having articles devolve into pure "character trials," with a parade of sources lined up on either side, and spilling into the text of the article.


 * I can fully understand and appreciate the desire of Nicetry8 to ameliorate some of the damage that was done to the accuser's personal character as a result of her encounter with the press. That is a noble goal.  However, the article on Greg Kelly is not the most appropriate space to do this.


 * I support reverting the current version of the page back to IP 82.136.210.153's suggested version:  -Xanthis (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"The Soup"
What, no mention of Kelly's almost-weekly appearances on "The Soup"? I guarantee that's how most people outside NYC know him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.221.192 (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)