Talk:Katharine McPhee/Archive 1

Katharine McPhee lost the title of "American Idol" to Taylor Hicks. BAD WORDING

Katharine did not "lose the title of American Idol to Taylor Hicks" because she never held it; therefore Taylor could not have taken it from her. Taylor just won the title. That, or the above statement needs work. TheKillerAngel 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I changed it. How's that look? --JOK3R 05:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Better indeed. TheKillerAngel 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Katharine being a SOUL singer. Really, Wikipedia? Really?

If Katharine is a soul singer then Britney Spears is the Queen of Jazz and Bluegrass. Come on people 68.61.190.184 09:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirm Votes

Can we confirm that McPhee got the highest votes on March 17? If not then someone should remove the reference to her not being in the bottom two.

Musical theater actress?

McPhee has been added to the category "American musical theatre actors". Is this something she's really notable for, or is it just something she happened to do at at an amateur level (high school, summerstock, etc). What are the details of her theater work? -- MisterHand 17:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Judges' comments too long?

Should the summaries of the judges' comments on her performances really be that long and detailed? I haven't seen them this detailed on any other contestant's page. I really don't see the need to go so far as to actually write out that Randy said "good job, dawg, good job". If no one objects, I will change the wording to make that section more concise. SteveJ2006 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A week later and no response regarding my question on the overlength of the recaps of the judges' comments. None of the other contestants pages are done this way, with these overly detailed descriptions, and it makes the page too cluttered. If no one has responded to this in another week, I will reword these recaps to make them shorter and more concise. SteveJ2006 18:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You have my full support on this. This article borders on being a fanpage, in particular all the uses of "Katharine" instead of "McPhee." Another problem is the emphasis on certain words in judge's statements. Very POV. -- MisterHand 21:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

YES! Somebody needs to SERIOUSLY edit those judges comments. They're completely unnecessary, not a single other Idol page has comments anywhere CLOSE to that length. The above poster is right, it borders on fanpage. Lets edit with extreme prejudice! Batman2005 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since it is completely unnecessary and does not represent any milestone in McPhee's career, the judges' comments should be completely removed. As someone who barely knows the singer, I really don't care what the judges had to say about her in American Idol, primarily because she didn't win. But even if she did, the only thing that should be mentioned is her winning it. I don't see Hicks' page having a section like this, and he's the winner (and if he did, I'd propose to delete it too). As mentioned already, this is Wikipedia, not McPhee's official website or fan site. So, if no one objects, I'll volunteer to delete the whole section in 12 hours.--Miresil 07:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must object due to the fact that American Idol ended only one month ago, and the performances from the show are still relevant to her career and what she has done thus far. If you look at the rest of the contestants' pages, we still cite their performances from the show, as they are still relevant. The show has just ended, and, to be perfectly honest, none of the contestants have done an incredible amount in their careers. The songs they sung on the show are the ones people know them for, and they are still relevant. Indeed, you may not have seen the show or even know that much about the contestants, but many people do, and in additon to that, their fame is based off of these performances, which are listed in an isolated section of the article. Michael 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The show is a contest. The only relevant thing that people can get out of it is who won. Hicks won and she’s the runner up. Only that information is relevant here in Wikipedia. If this were a fansite or her website, I wouldn’t mind, but it isn’t. If McPhee has not achieved much so far in her career, it’s because she’s new and an amateur. Am I supposed to look at these songs she performed and the judge’s comments on her and believe she’s good just because they said so? Of course not. It can be deduced from her being the runner up that she is talented, albeit green. I don’t need to read the judges’ comments or praises to conclude that. And especially since I don’t consider these judges credible critics.

Also, this is “American Idol,” a pop contest, an American pop contest. There are people from other parts of the world who don't watch this show faithfully. You mention the finalists’ “fame” when in fact they are not yet established artists. All performances made by finalists in these shows are amateur performances. They were exposed yes, but whether they made a lasting impression on the viewers, we cannot determine. We can only determine that once they’ve released their albums. And if they had, then it's worth mentioning. But to have a page that's as long as the average professional singer's page in Wikipedia without actually contributing anything to the American music industry just yet... there's something wrong with that.

I’m sorry but I don’t really see the point of putting these songs here and the judges’ comments. She didn’t win, the performances are probably going to be forgotten once the new season kicks in, the songs McPhee sang are not going to be released commercially, so there’s no point. You mention these songs are what these finalists' or the show's FANS remember them for. But I must reiterate, this isn't a fanpage. It’s supposed to be credibly and objectively informative.--Miresil 05:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, if you feel they are going to be forgotten next season, wait until then. The songs and judges' comments convey a message as to the types of songs McPhee is best at, as well as the particular songs she will be releasing, as several are on her upcoming CD, and some were released as her single and on the AI CD...And for people in other parts of the world, if they don't know anything about McPhee, this only states more; it does not limit their ability to understand. Removing the comments now would be incredibly premature given the recent end of the competition. Michael 05:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If I want to know what she'll be releasing and how well she sings, I will buy her album, and that other American Idol album. I will not look for the American Idol page and use Randy, Paula, and Simon as critical references. These judges are only relevant to people who watch the show regularly. Others who are not familiar with it will turn to entertainment critics, MTV, People, E Online, what have you, but not these three. These three exist in the American Idol world, a very limited one. This is still bordering on fandom to me.--Miresil 06:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As an alternative, why not post her most memorable performance in the show and the praise she got from it, whether from the judges or from outside the show.--Miresil 06:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, if you really want to post something of the show, why not dedicate a section for the finale, where she and Hicks sang their respective first singles. Then post praise or criticisms for her performances in it, what and which critics said she should win or not. That's pretty objective.--Miresil 06:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that could be problematic, because picking which performances are the "most memorable performances" would be subjective. Furthermore, many would argue the performances for the finale are not reflective of the entire season. Michael 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Scrap that.--Miresil 10:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and to those who don't watch the show regularly, you needn't look at the judges' comments if you do not want to. They are simply there as a reference or as background information. They do nothing to hinder those who have not watched the show. As of right now, her career is founded upon AI, so it's very relevant. Michael 08:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply being in American Idol doesn’t make the finalists established. So while it must be noted that she was a runner up, because that truly is an achievement, I don’t have to know the nitty-gritty details of every episode she was in. It doesn’t add anything substantial to my knowledge of McPhee. Because after all the bla-bla, she didn’t win. That’s the whole point. And that tells me she’s probably talented, was popular during the competition, but not as popular as Hicks was. Maybe if she had won, then I'd be interested of her journey, of the nitty-gritty details, of how she overcame Simon's criticisms, and this and that, etc. But since she didn't, quite honestly, I don't care.

It is not a hindrance at all, wherever you got that impression. But since this information is useless, I do consider it a nuisance.--Miresil 10:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether some "do not care" about this information, many do, and for the present time, the comments should remain. Have you looked at all the other contestants' pages (aside from Taylor Hicks)? In a year, they won't be relevant, but as of right now, they are. Michael 23:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just now and I did notice they have a list of songs they sang during the competition, although more organized and neutral than McPhee's page (except Daughtry's page). If it means so much to the fans of the show and McPhee's fans, I will not touch it. I just think it makes McPhee's page look more like a fanpage to me than an encyclopedic entry. But I would urge for someone to edit the section and make it more neutral. I can't edit it myself because I don't know what to remove and what to retain. But perhaps you can.--Miresil 02:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into that when I get a chance, Miresil. Michael 06:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire "Performances" section disappeared without ceremony in conjunction with a very suspicious edit, and seemed to go completely unnoticed. This was a huge removal of content, and there was no explanation. Should this not be restored??

MahlerFan 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic "gossip"

Moving this unencyclopedic blurb to talk page instead, written by an anon (not me). Chantessy 19:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

While the producers of American Idol make McPhee seem to be open to constructive criticism, former fellow contestants maintain the opposite is true. One contestant stated: "Katherine is not so humble, she's overzealous, she's bossy, she's a bitch, and they totally portray her as being the sweet girl." Several of the contestants also said that Katherine McPhee forgot the words to her songs for two days during Hollywood Week and was put through by the judges regardless. [1]

The paragraph above should be taken out of the article section and put in the discussion section instead since this is hearsay and unverified gossip. Also, it is hard to verify the accuracy of the above statement since we also do not know the identity, motivation or character of the contestant that allegedly uttered the statement.

I agree. I have removed the paragraph from the article once again. Feel free to discuss it here. SteveJ2006 00:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Different Aliases

Please don't add aliases or A.K.A.'s unless there is a source in which she is referred to as the alias. Sure her name is Katharine, but may HATE being called anything but. Batman2005 02:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source for Katharine's mother being Jewish?

Apparently, many believe Peisha McPhee, Katharine's mother, is Jewish. Can anyone verify with a source? - unsigned message by Michael

For that matter, is there a source that her father is of Irish descent and/or that she was raised Catholic? Mad Jack O'Lantern 06:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that her last name is Irish, I do not know of a specific source detailing this. However, I do believe there are sources saying she is Catholic, as she is very religious.

I wouldnt call her VERY religious, that taking it too far.

Okay, well, her family IS religious...We'll leave it at that.

I hate to ask, but is there a source for any of this? :) Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

She's verified it herself in interviews. I don't have time to look for one right now. Michael 22:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The question still stands. Anyone know, or has anyone heard anything at all in regards to McPhee's heritage? Michael 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything either. For what it's worth, checking ancestry.com records, her maternal grandmother's last name was "Bauman" (and her maternal grandfather's was "Burch", obviously). Her mother was born Patricia Hartman Burch. I suppose she could be Jewish, but I just am not sure. Mad Jack 06:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also seen those records. We will need to see if anything comes to light from that. Bauman is usually a Jewish name, and Burch, from my research can either be Dutch (possibly Jewish) or English. Regardless, we shall need to wait and see. Michael 07:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

whistle range?

come on peeps,you gotta have proof when you add!I have yet to hear her pitch a note e6 or above. If you know where it is say so.

I was just thinking what if katharine hit the whistle register on the show last week lol but no she hasnt so since there is no proof I'm taking her off. Although Tommy Matolla did say she had an amazing range and hes worked with Mariah and Beyonce who are both Whistle register singers. Still there is no proof of her hitting E6+ or a whistle note. Myke 07:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...Was there ever a source on this? Michael 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Struggle with Bulimia

Could we put a small article referring to Kat's bulimia problem? I just got word of it in this article.--CrispinOfOrion 05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats a real good way to get little girls not to be Bulimic. Let them know the hottest girl on the show does it. FancyPants 03:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because it may not be a good thing to idolize doesn't mean it didn't happen to her and should not be mentioned. Besides, she has come out saying she knows having an eating disorder is bad for you, and I think that her story shows girls that no one is perfect and that an eating disorder can really screw up your life. --CrispinOfOrion 05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. I put a little about it in the Post-Idol section, but maybe it should be expanded? k05jd01 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the mentioning in the post idol is good, but maybe it wouldn't hurt to put those exact words in its own section? It seems too covered up in that section to see.

The image on the top of the page

Can we try to come to a consensus over which image of Katherine McPhee to use? Most of them that have been rotated through there by several editors are good, but one should be chosen and left in place. -- ArglebargleIV 03:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I put back the Idol one for the reason that it portrays her quite simply. On every other season 5 contestants page, the promotional phots are still being used. I feel the "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" photo is too dark and really doesn't show her at all. For that reason, I have placed that one back where it was in the article, re-added the promo picture, and placed the picture of her performing (which was set as the main pic earlier today) in the post-Idol section, since that picture was only taken recently, based off the source, and it is of her performing after the show ended. Is this amenable? Michael 04:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is to me. I think the SOTR one is too dark as well. I like the one from after AI the best, but for illustrative purposes I think the semifinal one is the best for now. If she picks up significant fame after Idol, them a newer, more 'active' picture can be chosen then. Now, to just get everybody to agree. :-) -- ArglebargleIV 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...I think that for the present moment, it would be wise to just keep the promo there, and later, when there will undoubtdedly be more promos, change it for a more updated one. :-) Michael 04:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That picture is so out of date. I suggest this one from the album booklet, it is even the same width as the current one, it will fit right in! http://www.dynamicwebsitesystems.com/WikiSmall.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.35.203 (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Make a separate article for her AI performances

Sound good? They take up too much room in this article. TheKillerAngel 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that could only cause problems. I assure you not many would approve. We do not usually break articles in half if they are long. Michael 22:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ninth bullet point in Trivia section

Some critics {emphasis mine} say that with Katharine McPhee's beauty, vocals, and acting skills, she has the ability to become one of the few artists of today to become an icon of tomorrow and that she also has the potential to reach sex symbol status. Which critics?

I think that's pretty much true for all Idol semifinalists not just McPhee. Neither one of them wouldn't have made it to the top 24 if people/producers didn't think they have potential. If it doesn't have a reliable source or reference, then it's fancruft and should be removed. User:Arual 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this matter. Michael 06:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Katharine Picture

I had at first used a screenshot from the "I ain't got the blues" performance to use as a bio pic for Katharine. But someone removed and used an older one from the top 24. That was fine, though I didn't know, and had changed it into another one since I found a new picture from flickr under the common license. It wasn't specified, so I went back to change it into the original pick, but it's not showing.

What should I do? I don't know what happened to the original pic.

Part needs better wording

"It was a record breaker since it was the highest the almost 7 decade old song reached in the Hot 100 singles chart, reaching 12th position on BillBoard's Hot 100."

I first looked at the sentence and I didn't think it made sense. I had to read it several times. How about saying, " It was a record breaker, reaching 12th position on BillBoard's Hot 100, the highest point of the almost 7 decade year old song." TheKillerAngel 03:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Very concise.

195 of 200 auditions

The article is currently worded "was accepted in only 195 of 200 auditions." This implies that she was only rejected in 5 auditions. The article in Teen People magazine states that (and I quote) "Although Kat considers her Idol loss to be the ultimate rejection, she's used to hard knocks. Pre-Idol, she explains, at least 195 of the 200 or so auditions she had in 18 months were rejections." Here is the link to the article: [2] I edited this previously but it was called vandalism.

Efice32 04:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you change it back? Michael 04:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the reversion that was made to your edit and cited the information with the above source. Michael 04:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that! I have no idea how I misquoted it. I knew something wasn't right after :::reading it. Thank you.

--Borava 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Michael 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Performances Section Disappeared

It seems extremely strange that the entire "Performances" section--a huge portion of the article--has disappeared without ceremony. I checked the history and found that it had been taken out in the context of a very suspicious non-username edit. I think the removal of this large amount of content was, amazingly, overlooked and simply missed. These things exist for the other contestants in their articles and it should not have been removed. It looks like it my have been done as vandalism by a Taylor fan (or something) and was not noticed. This content really should be restored. MahlerFan 14:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah. I was wondering that too. AT the beginning of the year, there was a large portion of Judge comments, though I don't know what happened to it. I'll check it out. If it was done anonymously..it may be a good idea to bring it back into a new section. "American Idol Judge Comments" or something like that. I'll check who deleted it...it may have been some anonymous user..

If you get the chance, please restore it. Michael 05:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This still needs to be done, preferably by an admin. The content was edited out with a suspicious anonymous edit that inserted "AMERICAN IDOL WINNER 2006!" after a random mention of Taylor Hicks's name. The "AMERICAN IDOL WINNER 2006!" was removed with the next edit, but somehow the complete removal of the entire performances/judges' comments section went unnoticed. I am not knowledgeable enough to restore the content. I hope that an admin can do it soon.MahlerFan 14:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, an admin is not needed, copy from earlier version will work. I'll give it a spin in the next few minutes. -- ArglebargleIV 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I put back the version from "Revision as of 21:23, 20 July 2006; Mike 7" -- is that okay? -- ArglebargleIV 23:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Michael 00:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text from lead section

The following text was found in the lead introductory paragraph:

McPhee's strong, consistent performances led to her making it all the way to second place during the fifth installment of the hugely popular American Idol and being signed to RCA Records. Dubbed the Kat Pack(and sometimes referred to as the McPheever), Katharine's fans have been supportive of her throughout Idol and are anxiously awaiting Katharine McPhee's debut album which is set to be released on November 28th, 2006. In addition to her music, Katharine has been involved in producing theater and she is also the spokeperson for the new Sexy Hair Line.

The first part is subjective and unsourced, and the last parts are all stated elsewhere in the article. Also it looks so similar to Taylor Hicks' lead section that it's likely that a McPhee fan and Hicks-"hater" probably wrote it as an attack toward Taylor Hicks. On Wikipedia, attack pages (WP:ATK) are discouraged. If you're going to write a lead, please keep it neutral and sourced. Pink moon 1287 01:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Katharine's "Sexuality"

The entire section that was added on "Sexuality" was rather gossipy and not really supported by facts. It was added around the same time as some vandals added other pieces of gossip. Yes, there are some "gay" fans, but the section seems to be speculative rather than informative. The only portion that looks like it's "based on fact" is the section talking about the gay fan groups.

I think the entire section should be removed... it looks like vandalism.

Nathalie1977 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Post Idol section

This section seems stalker-ish. Does wikipedia really need every obscure detail of a musician's life after Idol? It needs pruning or something. Pink moon 1287^{(email•talk•user)} 13:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Portions of article missing

I've noticed that parts of the article is missing. I believe someone should fix it or restart it all over again. Robert Moore 04:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious Views

The section on Katherine's religious views needs some discussion. I have twice edited it to remove the repetition and the gossipy, inconsequential flim flam only for people to re-insert it.

The problem lies with the section that reads:

McPhee looked into Scientology[22], and no longer wishes to associate with it due to a widespread negative social stigma that surrounds the controversial subject, and only looked into it for a former love interest. In the past, McPhee had attended and completed two individual courses in Scientology, and had completed the purification.[23] Nevertheless, according to a 12 May 2006 interview on Los Angeles radio station KROQ 106.7 (Kevin and Bean), McPhee stated she "dabbled in Scientology" because of a former love interest but is not a Scientologist; according to her, she was "quickly out the door."[24] During a 26 May 2006 interview with Ryan Seacrest on Larry King Live, she once again explained that she is not a Scientologist, and only looked into it because of a former love interest[25].

The basic fault is that this is almost entirely irrelevent. There were comsequences or implications of her looking into Scientology so why is it gone into in such depth? This whole section could, and should, be reduced to one sentence. It is annoying that people keep reverting to this poorly written, repetative form when attempts have been made to streamline and improve it.Ando 13:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel McPhee

According to the most recent listing here, Daniel McPhee is not in the Forbes list of America's 400 richest people. Pink moon 1287 ^{(email • talk • user)} 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Need to redirect pages to Katharine McPhee

It appears from her official web site that her name is "Katharine McPhee." Can someone efficiency correct all the redirects so it gets to the right page? there's a few wikis with various permutations of her name out there. I LOVE KATHARINE MCPHEE!!!!!!!! (how can you not!?)

Eric the Midget controversy

I removed this info, again, because it is un-encyclopedic, it is not a controversy, it is not notable, it is not sourced etc, etc. Anyone want to make a case for it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akerkhof (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Of course it's un-encyclopedic but it hasn't stopped other Wiki editors from adding tabloid stuff to various articles. See Fergie's article and where it mentions an onstage urination and the ad nauseum debate for its inclusion and exlcusion. As far as sources for the Eric the Midget controvesry, here's one: [3]. I don't have a preference on whether or not its included, but I'm just letting you know. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The solution then, is to remove un-encyclopedic information from the Fergie article, not to muck up the others to lower their level. Sourcing was only one of the problems I have with the information. Akerkhof 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see this is back again and can't even be editted. If you click its edit link you get the next section. If you click the one before you get the one before. This is just a piece of vandlism. Who cares about some midge phoning howard stern and how long his penis is? What does any of this have to do with Katharine? The most this warrants is a footnote exlaining in Katharine's own words why she does not want to appear on this show. And it is in wrong place, coming before the Idol section. Can you ban whoever keeps posting this? Katharine is on her way to being a big star, midget penises or penii do not belong in her wikipedia entry. Yes, I'm a fan and am protective of her image, the person who keeps posting this must be an HS fan or a fan or midget penii or both. At least make it edittable so that I can come here every day and delete it!

Let's see. One, it is obviously controversial. Two, it's as notable as so many other items throughout the entry. Three, it is quite sourced. Four, it's certainly Wikipedia encyclopedic. Five, it's not vandalism to make mention of a good spat involving major public figures. Don't ban the item's mention because of its titillation factor. Sure, it could be edited down and get a less prominent spot. Let's seek that solution.

Everyone, please sign your comments. Now, I just tried to edit this down as a "Trivia" section, but I just can't bring myself to. In checking for the source, all I could find was that Eric got the number for measuring his penis. Nothing about McPhee's reaction or the other bruhaha. So, this would appear to be trivia for Howard Stern, since it has nothing to do with McPhee. Some third party gave out her phone number for degrading a dwarf. End of story. This isn't even like the Fergie stuff, where she at least pissed herself. This would be like including a tidbit in Fergie's story where a fan pissed on themselves as part of a radio contest for tickets to her concert or something. Since this isn't about the person in the article except in its periphery, and there are no sources that establish a direct link, the current entry RE: Eric is unsourced. It is also un-encyclopedic in that it focuses on a trivial detail that does not relate to the subject of the article. It is non-notable since a search of "katherine mcphee" + "eric the midget" in Google returns around 300 links, the chief on this very article. It is not a controversy outside of Howard Stern fans. Eric is not a "major public figure". In light of this, my position is that the Howard Stern stuff should stay out. If it remains, we might as well add it to the Howard Stern article too. If it does come back, it should have a non-blog source as to the controversial aspect, and it should be re-written as trivia. Akerkhof 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're attempting to say that HowardStern.com and Howard 100 news are not legitimate citations and (if need be) MarksFriggin.com archives. Again, consider the "legitimacy" of so many of the items in this Wikipedia entry and evaluate, properly, what's truly a valid source. You may consider Eric the Midget info as next to nothing. But IT does have something to do with Katharine McPhee! Was the late (great) Larry "Bud" Melman a major public figure? For years he was, thanks to his appearances on David Letterman's NBC show. Well, the same applies to Eric the Midget. He is much akin through his appearances on Howard Stern's show. Some day he may not, and that will be the legitimate time for his mention in Katharine McPhee's Wikipedia entry to fade away. My position: it stays in! But, as mentioned above, it's possible to consider the information have a less prominent spot, which just might be as a trivia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.121.50 (talk)

First, yes, I don't agree that Howard's site is a valid source as defined by [policy]and [[4]]. Perhaps you'd like to make a case that they are valid sources? If there are other source problems in this article, I am fine with you removing that information or flagging it for sources. But just because there are other policy and guideline violations in Wiki or in this very article doesn't mean it is ok to add more.

Secondly, I am aditionally saying that in the citings that I have seen, there is no mention of Katherine's reaction to all this, which is the only possible way this could be construed as encycleopedic. So, I would need to see a source for the full text of what you keep inserting in the article before we even go forward here.

Third, what you are proposing is akin to inserting a several paragraph mention of Larry Bud Melman into every person's entry that was ever mocked or appeared in a Melman skit. If you want to create an Eric the Midget page, assuming one isn't already created, and put this there, feel free to do so. If you want to insert this into the trivia section of Howard's page, again, fine. But this has nothing to do with Katherine. She didn't give out the information. She hasn't publically commented on the situation. There isn't any proof of any of this happening except for the information coming out of Howard's site. For all we know, this is an elaborate scripted put on. In fact, that is very probable.

Finally, what little [[5]] there is so far appears to agree that the Eric stuff has no merit. Several other registered editors have taken the info out, and it appears that one anonymous user, namely you, keeps putting it back in. So by putting it back in, you are working against the emerging consensus. If you want to trim it back, re-categorize it as trivia, and properly source it, you can take a shot and we'll see what happens. Please do not keep adding the information while it still contains the above problems, especially the first and second ones. Akerkhof 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if the truth gets in the way of your argument. The facts are the facts, whether you want to challenge the citations or not. The Eric the Midget data is ACCURATE, including McPhee's reaction; there only appears to be a question of how and/or why to make mention of it.

Did you read the Larry "Bud" Melman comparison properly? There was a time, in his heyday, where Melman made news worth citing. Today, not so much so. Same for Eric the Midget. There will be a tomorrow where his "interaction" -- even Howard's interaction -- with McPhee won't mean a thing to her career...and her Wikipedia entry. But that time isn't now! (Have you missed how Howard Stern is constantly cited about Sanjaya???)

Some people are McPhee fans. Some people are Stern and (perhaps) Eric the Midget fans. Why is it wrong to mention that these three media figures came into contact? Because someone may not know Eric or listen to Stern? Well, for a whole lot of other people, they'd never know who McPhee is and/or listen to her if it weren't for Eric and Stern! Think about that when deciding to censor today's news to fit some bland concept of official content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.108.121.50 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

You didn't respond to the substance of my comment, which is namely: 1) Provide a source for ALL of the information you keep adding 2) discuss how this source meetings Wiki guidelines for verifiability and reliable sources, and 3) justify why you are working against the editors of this articles consensus. Additionally, I checked, and Eric already has his own page where all this information is already contained, so its not like Wikipedia is censoring Howard's corner of the world. Finally, Larry Melmen is irrelevant to the discussion, because if he were in his heydey I'd resist unsourced mentions of him spilling into other people's articles just as much as I'm resisting this one. I'd like to work with you on this, but I can't if you just talk past me. Akerkhof 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Even at a glance, it's clear quite a bit of information throughout the entry "lacks" the source qualifications being demanded. But the focus is only on this portion. Why? Is hagiography the objective here? That's the censorship issue, not whether Eric the Midget has a page. And, Larry "Bud" Melman IS relevant. Irrelevant is the inconsistent application of one's opinion (masquerading as thought) about sourced/unsourced celebrity data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.108.121.50 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

If you think that about the Scientology info, remove it, or better yet, flag it for sources. What is happening here is not censorship. The government is not involved. This is two wikipedia editors having a dispute about the contents of an article. I am trying to work out a solution. You are still ignoring the substance of my complaints, and after the latest revision you are coming across to me as a guy who just wants his way. I could be wrong. Would you like to take a stab at coming up with something that is mutually acceptable? I would vastly prefer that to a revert war. Akerkhof 14:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is removing or flagging more material the answer here? And isn't removing under the guise of "editing" a form of censorship?

It would appear a revised submission would be appropriate, but is beyond the interests of whatever parties are so far involved. The beauty of Wikipedia, however, is that other parties will engage this issue and resolve it in an appropriate context.

No, attempting to follow wiki policy and guidelines is not censorship. If you look at my edit of 14:31, 24 April 2007, I did revise the submission, I did not delete it. Yet instead of revising that 67.108.121.50 just reverted yet again. 67.108.121.50 apparently wants me to keep trying edits until one meets his approval. That's not going to happen. My position is that I don't want the mention there at all, for all the reasons I have stated. So, when I re-wrote it and classified it under trivia, marked it as needing sources, and linked to the relevant article with more details, I see that as a good-faith compromise, and I think entirely appropriate. How can it be censorship when you state the basic facts of the matter AND link to an "in-depth" article that has all the gory details? But it looks like I am wasting my time. Akerkhof 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, no consistency is being shown, at least in regard to this Wikipedia entry, of an attempt to uphold wiki policy and guidelines uniformly. Thus, the repeated removals of one item has smacked of censorship, not editing. (Especially when the "editor" says: "I don't want the mention there at all.")

As noted above, other parties should engage this issue and resolve it satisfactorily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.108.121.50 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm curious, did you look at my referenced edit? If not, on what are you making your various judgments as to my motives? If so, what do you think compromise means? Are you just pulling my chain? Akerkhof 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Chain pulling. One might assume that would apply to the one arguing that the material is not controversial and not notable, although it is. Chain pulling. That might concern a source stickler who applies such an argument in an un-uniformed manner to the entire entry. Chain-pulling. That could be the good-faith effort to address the matter despite having already stated "it has nothing to do with McPhee," when it does. Chain pulling. That may shed light on the accusation of an "elaborate scripted put on," although it is not. Chain pulling. Censorship is government sponsored only, and doesn't occur in the hands of anyone who doesn't "want the mention there at all." Chain pulling. Perhaps imposing a compromise when it would appear best that, again, other parties engage the issue and resolve it.

I removed this again too. Look, I have been a Katharine McPhee fan for over a year now. I participate in two message boards where every part of her life and career are dissected. No one there has ever heard of the "eric the midget controversy". I have only heard of it by coming here. We are though aware of the dispute with Howard Stern, that could be a one sentence footnote. This "eric" story has nothing to do with Katharine McPhee. I believe the person who keeps posting it in it's own section as if it is of equal importance to her "Ealy Life" and "Post Idol" is actually a Katharine hater who does this to heap ridicule on her. Now can someone here ban this person? Surely there are rules about ridiculing celebrities on Wikipedia? Katharine is gaining in popularity and I don't think it does her career any good if the 3rd thing people read about her in her wikipedia entry is some crap about some midget and the size of his penis! Please, this has been going on long enough. You must have some way of dealing with persistent vandals. You are being far too fair to this person. Even if for some reason you decide that this story is relevant, does it deserve it's own whole section wh title as if it is as important as the other titles? This person is just seeing what they can get away with. Imagine if every entry in Wikipedia had a troll like this trying to vandalize it with irrelevant information whose only purpose is to ridicule the subject of the entry. Why else is this person so persistent in posting this crap? Please write me, vandal. simon@katsconcerts.com Meanwhile I am going to check back here every day and remove any reference to Eric the midget.

I personally don't believe it should be included because it's tabloid and unencyclopedic but I felt I needed to respond. For one thing the inclusion is not vandalism. I've reverted vandalism on thousands of articles on Wiki and the so called controversy is not vandalism. It probably doesn't deserve such prominence in the article. Probably a sentence or two would suffice but again it is not vandalism if it can be sourced or cited. It's an edit war which in and of itself is disruptive. The person who keeps posting it may be a Eric the Midget or Howard Stern fan as opposed to a Katherine McPhee fan. But in any case you may want to read up on Wikipedia's policy on article ownership. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, Dysepsion. Who ever that continues to revert back to include this stuff won't accept a one or two line edit, and they certainly won't be bothered to cite sources. I tried reducing it to a sentance or two with a link to the full (and, IMO, deeply sad) Eric the Midget article, and figured if he/she didn't like it they could alter that. Nope. Revert, and we ended in stalemate. I mean, look at the conversation thread above. Where to go from there, and to what end? There are too many more important things to worry about than dragging an anon Howard Stern fan unwillingly through arbitration or some other formal policy over a Kate McPhee article. I've certainly read up on my wiki-policy, and can't for the life of me see where it has helped. Akerkhof 04:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Former Scientologist?

I don't think it's appropriate to put her in this category, as she has only said she looked into it for a short time, but she never said she ever once believed its beliefs, or ever considered herself one. 72.206.97.34

BLP issues

Editors here are expected to immediately and without mercy enforce any suspected WP:BLP violations. Any unsourced or poorly sourced negative information should immediately be removed from the article and talk pages. BLP applies to all of Wikipedia, including personal user space. It applies not only to the subject of the article, but to all living persons, including those outside of Wikipedia.

I hope that editors here will review this talk page and remove such stuff. Demand very good sources for sensitive information. According to Jimbo Wales, anonymous IPs do not have the same civil rights as registered users. This is certainly the type of situation where they should be accorded less influence than registered users. -- Fyslee/talk 11:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pics

What happened to all the picture files? Why were they deleted? --Smokizzy (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)