Talk:Jane Skinner

Resignation
At ~1:00pm EDT, I just saw her on-air resignation. No website proof at this time, but I thought it should be added at least to here.--75.102.128.133 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And here's the evidence... http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/06/jane-skinner-wife-of-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-is-leaving-fox-news/1 --75.102.128.133 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection
Because of the edit-warring over this subject, this article has been protected. Please discuss any disagreements on this page so that the article may be unlocked, adhering to our policies and guidelines. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the current version seems as good as it has been in some time. As I mentioned in summery, the marriage issue can only be taken one way: the last article that gives any status is the one referenced, which specifically states they are married.  Whether she's wearing the ring is irrelevant, as we don't know the situation surrounding that action.  Remember, WP:OR.  Other than that, POV isn't rearing its head with this version, which is good.  I'd like to see this article stay protected for a good long time (read, indefinitely).  Given that there is relatively little information about Skinner available, any changes could be placed in Talk and included in the article later. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 19:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not being fulfilled by the editors who seek to include the information about Skinner being separated. I think The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it sums it up. However, I don't agree with Huntster that the article should be protected or semi-protected indefinitely; that's not really in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia and (IMO) should only be reserved for vandalism magnets like George W. Bush and the like. -Big Smooth 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was the mention of Skinner's "top cock" slip removed from this article? Mark2680 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter? It wasn't some form of intentional statement, she got tongue-twisted, as many of us do, she just had the misfortune of being on camera when it happened.
 * Also, I'm not sure why the inclusion of her father's political affiliation is important for this article. I agree that Jane having a parent who is also somewhat of a celebrity is worthy, but that he's a Republican doesn't necessarily mean she is. To put it in perspective, newsman Chris Wallace is the son of newsman Mike Wallace, that's significant for inclusion in each article about the man. Chris is conservative, Mike is liberal, that is only worthy of inclusion in regards to each reporter's own entry. Nolefan32 (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct. I have removed the Republican mention from the article as being trivial. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the top cop slip matters because it is wildly popular. I just provided a New York Post piece that covers it. The page is a frequent target of vandals because no mention of the slip is present, in my opinion. I think it will prove as a vandalism deterrent. -Pecoc (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been debated at length before, and it is simply not notable in the larger scheme of things. It may have pop culture interest, but it is not of biographical matter. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet if someone was writing a book about Jane Skinner, that it would be included. That being said, I do not know what "not of biographical matter" means. -Pecoc (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably could have phrased that better, but my brain isn't cooperating. In other words, if you were to read a biography of her somewhere else, would you *really* expect such a bit of trivia to be included? Surely not. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. The theoretical biography (as opposed to the theoretical biographical book) would likely be from a news related site, and resume-like, in my opinion. But WP aims to be a tertiary source, and is thus open to more secondary sources (provided they do not violate policy). Perhaps the opinion is that somehow its inclusion violates the spirit of BLP? To quote:
 * Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
 * I think the removed content from the New York Post (that does not use the word cock) is conservative. The content is unlike a rumor or titilating claim. It does qualify as being in "pop culture" but it is not sensationalist. I also do not think its addition would harm Skinner. Therefore, I find the removed content appropriate, and in line with BLP, (in contrast to the "not apporpriate" removal edit comment) as we are aiming to write a tertiary source, not a resume. -Pecoc (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You still haven't explained why this is anything but trivia. It was a twist of the tongue that happened to make it onto YouTube. This happens all the time, to you, me and everyone else. Why is her case so special?? I serious do not understand this. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I had to explain why it was not trivia. (Nor do I understand how one [or WP] defines it.) Yes, it is a truism that twists of the tongue "happen all the time". Yet this one has a secondary source attributed—making it unique. -Pecoc (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I undid the last revision. There is clearly debate on whether this fact should remain in the article, but Wikipedia should err on the side of including more if the information is true and relevant. The fact that this keeps coming up clearly shows its relevance. For some members of the public, this slip up may be the only thing they know about Skinner, making it a central part of her public identity. There are no privacy concerns (this happened on live television, after all), there are clearly no libel dangers, and it should be of little concern whether including a true and relevant fact might cause "harm" to a subject -- for some people, their biographies are born out of negative, embarrassing or otherwise unflattering realities. It is a difficult argument to make that this fact has no place on this page -- and if there is a convincing argument, I don't think anyone has come up with it yet. 01:43, 02 August (UTC)
 * I overstated WP:UNDUE in an edit summary, it does extend beyond viewpoints, despite focusing mainly on them. -Pecoc (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Pecoc, you are adding it to embarrass her and you know it. Get a life. 99.22.55.223 (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "... avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence" -WP:AGF -Pecoc (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh spare me...--99.22.55.223 (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) - When I google Jane Skinner I see she "loves the top cock". The idea that my edits are somehow driven to embrass Skinner&mdash;when a simple google search says such&mdash;is illogical and does not assume good faith. I will revert the edit again, as the information is sourced. -Pecoc (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sourced...Hmm. You know how much junk you can find online if you look for it. What you're trying to add is on kindergarten level... "Oh, 'cock'! *giggle* funny! *smirk*" -- seriously, the IP is right. This is just too trivial and below anyone's level. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This brings consensus to 2 to 1 in favor of removing the "kindergarten" level entry. 99.22.55.223 (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speculation on the type of laughter inspired by sourced content sounds like an argument to avoid... To the IP, consensus isn't a simple vote. -Pecoc (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Addition of contested paragraph sentence
Is the fact that Jane Skinner mispronounced the word "cop" as "cock" relevant and notable enough to warrant 2 lines in a 12-line stub? Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The content is a sentence. Calling it a "paragraph" seems misleading. -Pecoc (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the concerns raised by "Seb" and "Hunster". The detail appears to be in violation of WP:UNDUE. - Reconsider !  03:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To lessen the concern about undue weight, I just cited an additional source. -Pecoc (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The incident isn't notable. I couldn't find any reliable sources bothering to cover the event. The New York Post was the closest, but that's really a tabloid. To contrast, Ernie Anastos's "keep f***ing that chicken" remark gets covered by the New York Times, Kansas City Star, ABC News, MSNBC, Sky News (UK), Brisbane Times (Australia), and many others. The "top cock" event has been judged by reliable outside sources to be a non-issue by virtue of their non-coverage. One could try to make the case that this was notable due to becoming an explosive internet meme, but that doesn't fly. Just because an incident gets mentioned on several thousand web-pages does not make it notable. Bill Ritter's similar slip-up (calling Bernie Kerik "New York City's former top cock") also gets thousands of hits. This isn't even a close call.MarkNau (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I am persuaded. I still think the New York Post is a WP:RS for this, and demonstrates some notability, but it is tabloidy, and until something more weighty comes along, I'll go with that. I removed the request for comment. -Pecoc (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Portrait-photo
A portrait-photo always enhances a Wikipedia article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jane Skinner. 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/20090206103213/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/fnc_changes_up_daytime_70352.asp to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/fnc_changes_up_daytime_70352.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628012345/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/revolving_door/jane_skinner_leaving_fox_news_165725.asp to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/revolving_door/jane_skinner_leaving_fox_news_165725.asp

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) 02:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

15 February 2024 conflict of interest edit request
Hi, I'd like to suggest the following updates to the page to reflect Skinner's more recent projects that highlight women's roles in the NFL:
 * In 2019, Skinner was co-executive producer of, "A Lifetime of Sundays," a documentary about four female NFL owners: Norma Hunt of the Kansas City Chiefs, Virginia Halas McCaskey of the Chicago Bears, Martha Ford of the Detroit Lions and Patricia Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
 * In 2021, Skinner co-produced the podcast, "Earnin' It: The NFL's Forward Progress.
 * In 2022, Skinner was co-executive producer of a five-part docuseries about influential women in football called, "Earnin' It: The NFL's Forward Progress."

Thank you! Sadielousd (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Great work, and I support it.  CNC33  (. . .talk)  04:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your support! I went ahead and made the edits. I'd be happy to discuss the changes with the community, if anyone is interested. Thank you!Sadielousd (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Further updates
Hi there, I suggest updating Skinner's occupation in the infobox to: "Producer/Anchor," as these titles more accurately reflect the article and the sources used throughout. Additionally, please add that in 2016, Skinner was appointed to the Dia Art Foundation board. Finally, categorize the information in Career into two subsections (for example: "Broadcast news" and "Production"), to enhance clarity regarding Skinner's career trajectory. Reaching out to, who looked at the above request as well.

Thank you! Sadielousd (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sadielousd I saw your talk page ping and will work on this. I also went ahead and added sources for all of Skinner's broadcasting stops (fun fact: WCSH is one of my Good Articles). Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , thank you for all your helpful additions to the article! Sadielousd (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Women's Coaching Alliance
Hi, I would like to suggest including that Skinner serves on the board of the Women's Coaching Alliance (WCA), a program that connects female athletes with mentoring and coaching opportunities. was so helpful with the previous edit request, I would appreciate your help here, as well! Thank you!Sadielousd (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Reasonable addition. Went ahead and did this, @Sadielousd. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Sadielousd (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)