Talk:Jesse Watters

Edit-warring
User:Wash whites separately re-reverted to a non-neutral subhead ("Racist behavior" / "Racism controversy") after his edit was reverted to the neutral status quo at the time of article protection ("Criticism"). Rather than discuss as per WP:BRD, he began edit-warring. I've made a note on his page, but so far, he refuses to discuss.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it non-neutral to call the section "racism controversy" when the section is about controversy that arose from racism? —Wash whites separately (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's loaded language and accusatory, and goes against WP:NPOV. Just as significantly, you've edit-warred to keep reinserting a contentious subhead despite there being no consensus for it. After the first revert, per WP:BRD, you were supposed to go to the talk page and try to reach consensus with other editors, but you chose to edit-war instead. This and the fact you chose to name-call rather than behave civilly indicates you are being emotional about the topic rather than neutral and objective. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not loaded language, it's consistent with how the sources described it. There was no consensus for your subhead either, but of course you don't mention that part. And of course you don't mention your constant condescension and pretentiousness (along with bullying threats) that prompted a contentious reaction in the first place. —Wash whites separately (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The consensus was that "Criticism" was the status quo when an admin protected the article. And yes, "Racism controversy" is a loaded term as compared to "Criticism." The facts are damning enough; we don't need to use accusatory, non-neutral language. More to the point, you should have adhered to WP:BRD rather than edit-warred. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CSECTION. According to that, I'm not sure that the section should be there at all, but I do know that what the title was changed to is not "appropriate". And, as for the changes in the lead and infobox, he's much more than just an "interviewer". He appears on other shows as a serious commentator. He did have his own weekly show, also titled Watters' World, but I see that it's no longer on. So, I am only partially reverting it. —Musdan77 (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree on the WP:CSECTION, Controversy sections stem multiple WP:NPOV and often WP:BLP issues. Always remove and replace the information into appropriate sections. EliteArcher88 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jesse Watters. 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/20160326014355/http://gawker.com/5225016/ambushing-bill-oreillys-ambusher to http://gawker.com/5225016/ambushing-bill-oreillys-ambusher
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/arts/television/16ambush.html?_r=0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://twitter.com/jessebwatters/status/783778709182550016
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://twitter.com/jessebwatters/status/783778748042805248

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) 23:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring anon IP
Non-neutral wording by 67.10.167.124 has been reverted by three different editors. He has declined to discuss the issue here. Additionally, he has been warned by multiple editors on his talk just today alone about his edit-warring on at least three different articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's "non-neutral" to quote his own words? What a shame that Wikipedia has devolved into such blatant partisanship from veteran editors. 67.10.167.124 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You've gone over 3RR are are being reported. Three different editors have said your comments are biased and non-neutral. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice deflection. I knew you wouldn't be able to explain how it was non-neutral. Because it isn't. 67.10.167.124 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All other involved editors were in agreement that your edits were non-neutral and even incendiary, and I see that you now have been blocked for six months. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Watters & Muslims
A couple of attempts have been made to remove the quotation by Watters that terrorist attacks are always Muslims. The edit summary for the first claimed the quotation didn't exist in the sourcing, which was false. The second removal claims the quotation is being cherry-picked, which is worth discussion. The source is a Wrap article which presents ten videos of Watters' "most controversial moments." The video in question is summarized by the Wrap as On the anniversary of 9/11, Watters went to a convention for Muslim Americans to ask them about terrorism and Islamic radicals. When a woman criticized the media for linking terrorism to the Islamic religion, Watters and O'Reilly both balked at the suggestion that "Christian terrorism" could even exist. The provided quotation is a summation of Watters' and O'Reilly's "balking" at the idea and the culmination of the segment on O'Reilly's show. Grandpallama (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Grandpallama re-inserted the disputed material via reversions twice in one day, I will attribute this to ignorance of WP:BLPUNDEL rather than arrogance, this time only. The first edit that Grandpallama reverted was by me, the second was by User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Grandpallama says "The edit summary for the first claimed the quotation didn't exist in the sourcing, which was false" but in fact I said "words which don't appear in the cited source", which is true, the words are not in the cited source (the Wrap), they are (according to Grandpallama) in a YouTube video. And the first part of the Wikipedia article's sentence that contains Mr Watters's quote suggests that by "it" he meant "acts of domestic terrorism" -- but that's a Wikipedia editor's interpolation, it's another thing that's not in the cited source. And I suppose that Mr Watters has made many statements in his life so there's no knowing why this is due. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The Wrap did not state that was one of Watter's "most controversial moments." That quote was simply an editor's opinion that the statement was "controversial." Pending legitimate, I shall revert it per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPUNDEL. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Grandpallama re-inserted the disputed material via reversions twice in one day, I will attribute this to ignorance of WP:BLPUNDEL rather than arrogance, this time only. Might be more reasonable to attribute it to your semantically-questionable edit summary which did not invoke BLP policy at all. That said, Swag Lord makes a reasonable argument as to its being undue, and I don't see any need to press for its inclusion. Grandpallama (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for being reasonable., let's try to be a little less snarky, okay? :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a Vanity Fair source that suggests a degree of notability. I don't think it's entirely Undue if it's used in Vanity Fair to illustrate the man. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/sinclair-wont-air-bonkers-judy-mikovits-anthony-fauci-conspiracy It says in the opening paragraph "While the Fox News host was once confined to serving as Bill O’Reilly’s man on the street—a role he used to mock Asian Americans and commemorate the anniversary of 9/11 by commenting, of terrorist attacks, it’s “always a Muslim”


 * The vanity fair "source" is the same link is using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipsally (talk • contribs)

Quote about what is more humane
Kenneth Edelstein inserted on 2 July 2019 a passage ... referring to President Trump's policy of separating children from their families, he claimed “some would say it’s a more humane policy” than keeping them together. Wallyfromdilbert reverted on 27 September 2019, Grandpallama re-inserted on 30 September 2019, 47.151.8.65 added "which is taken so out of context" on 22 October 2021, Larry Hockett reverted that, then Wtmitchell changed what was in quotes on 22 October 2021, I reverted that, then Wtmitchell made another change on 22 October 2021 so we now have Fox news reported that Watters said regarding the Trump administration policy of separating children from their families, some would say it's a more humane policy' than keeping them together.". The passage was against WP:CLAIM because "said" would do, was against WP:RS/QUOTE because there's no cite to the original which of course is available via a Fox transcript, was against WP:BLPUNDEL because no consensus was sought for re-insertion. Now it's also unsourced because some material that Wtmitchell has attributed to Fox was not by Fox. I think a good solution is to remove the whole thing again, but as a compromise I propose to shorten to "... referring to President Trump's policy of separating children from their families, after a suggestion "So find a different place for them", Watters said "So, some would say it's a more humane policy to do that. with the proper cite and without pretending we know what it's more than, since he didn't say. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning a long trip in a couple of days, so I may not be able to engage well here. I'm responding to, "... some material that Wtmitchell has attributed to Fox was not by Fox" above. Yeah. You're right. On second look, I wasn't quoting Fox; without realizing it (and I ought to have), I took the quote from a previously cited MediaMatters description of what Watters had said. My error. Having made a ham-handed error in trying to fix this, I'll not compound that but will leave it ot other editors to straighten it out IAW WP:NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this is WP:DUE given it is sourced to a list of quotes. I've removed it for now to see if there is a consensus to include it based on the discussion here. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with whatever the consensus solution might be. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Controversies
Why is this section larger than the rest of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createaccount2332432 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Jesse Watters reaps what he sows. In other words, the attention he receives for the controversies he generates is proportionate to those controversies. If you cannot handle that, that's not on Wikipedia—that's on you.Vandelay, Nostrand, &#38; Varnson (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Parents?
No info. available in reliable sources re: parentage? This is a standard piece of info. in a biographical article and is always of value for context, particularly in media figures such as Watters. Numerous online sources give his parents as Stephen, a school headmaster and admissions director, and Dr Anne, a psychologist. They are likely these two individuals, but clearly this does not suffice as a citation given no mention of their son (as he didn't exist at the time of their marriage, obviously): https://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/14/archives/anne-p-bailey-is-future-bride-of-sh-watters.html The connections to education etc seem to match. Some pretty fancy- at least solidly upper-middle-class- ancestors there, as one would expect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.217.17 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, and of course Jesse Watters having the middle name "Bailey"- per announcements of the birth of his son, a "junior"- is basically the decider. Oh- this Boston Globe article confirms all the above, including the NY Times marriage announcement- https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2018/07/31/poking-around-fox-host-family-tree/rZvjqMyfyykbuBTJi1RzdN/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.217.17 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversy?
Why doesn’t Don lemon have a controversy section? 74.194.110.91 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a concern that can be handled at Talk:Don Lemon. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The majority of this article is one long attack on Jesse Watters by people who oppose him politically(both here on Wikipedia as well as in the left wing medias used as sources). Of course most of those "controversies" are bogus, nothing controversial about them, but they are blown up here and in left wing media with false indignation and misleading presentation. Don Lemon being firmly on the left is mostly spared for such attacks, and no "controversy" section, with only mentions of the incidents that got him fired from CNN. This obvious political bias is not a good look for Wikipedia. FindTheBalance (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If those sources are not being summarized accurately, please detail the specific errors here- or, if there is missing information for which you have independent reliable sources to support, please propose your edit here. If you have concerns about the Don Lemon article, please discuss them at Talk:Don Lemon. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All sources have biases, so a source being biased does not by itself preclude its use on Wikipedia, unless you are alleging that the source invented their information out of whole cloth and has a reputation for doing so. If you have issues with how a source reports information, you need to take that up with the source, not us. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are talk sections on pages (Like Anthony Fauci's) that say controversy sections should be removed from personal pages being "deprecated in biographies as defamation magnets" by user Acroterion. Sure is funny how many Controversy sections are still active and quite large on certain people's pages. 107.195.140.198 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)