Talk:Liz Trotta

Plagiarism
Her introduction paragraph is ripped from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34775,00.html. 213.255.230.3 (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.98.245 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the footage from Fox News, at 1:50 left is the comment of interest: http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=769481&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaueko (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Category American terrorists
Category:American terrorists has:

There exist many different definitions of terrorism, but the article terrorism notes the following elements defining individuals on this list:


 * Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.
 * Targeting civilians.
 * Non-state actor, thus excluding state terrorism.
 * Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.
 * Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain.

It could be argued that the bolded parts apply to Liz Trotta's comments on Barack Obama. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first, third, and fourth points, but I don't think he's a civilian in this sense. 70.21.66.124 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are members of Congress considered civilians? Yes. Last time I checked, Obama was not in the armed forces of the United States. He is a civilian.
 * Oh, duh. I was thinking civilian vs. in the government. Guess I was just being stupid for a minute there. 70.21.66.124 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether wishing for someone to die is a threat a not depend on context, we should probably wait for some authority to declare it a threat before listing her as a terrorist here in Wikipedia.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe saying you wouldn't mind if someone was dead, in a humour context, is a threat at all. Now if you're going to argue that she was indirectly making a threat, and sending out some sort of subliminal message, thats a HUGE stretch of the imagination. Certainly noone here knows enough to call what she said a THREAT in any way. That goes for everything else on that list. "Designed to coerce or send a message?". Thats quite a stretch Bl4h (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
I don't know if she really wants Obama dead, but to say that she was "calling for his assassination" is a little absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.148.4 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the correct quote to be: "and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama. Um, uh, Obama. Well both would look good." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.128.100.208 (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * She clearly says either "would be good" or "if we could". It is clear she does not say "look" at any point.

The time is noted as 8:58 PT. That would have to be AM, since 8:58 PM PT has yet to occur. Also, why not use ET, the time zone in which the incident occured? In fact, why note the time at all? 72.244.200.203 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear what she says but it sounds closer to "...that somebody knock off Os, Osama, um, uh, Obama, uh, well them both, which we could" Bobhope08 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledging that this comment is a few years late, do others agree that she says "if we could" rather than "which we could"? The former suggests the desire given the opportunity, while the latter suggests the opportunity without the desire.jthetzel (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
The information about the "controversy" is only controversial if reliable secondary sources deem it to be.

Right now we only have YouTube links.

This is pure OR, and unless some reliable sources are produced it needs to be removed.--RWR8189 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=769481&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749 at 1:47, direct from Fox News. Looks legit to me. Alexander (talk)


 * It's been reported on by Americablog, Crooks and Liars , The Daily Dish , Daily Kos , Democratic Underground , The Huffington Post , The Raw Story , Talking Points Memo , and Think Progress . The mainstream media is largely on holiday for the Memorial day weekend, but this should get plenty of coverage on Tuesday. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not reliable sources, and the characterizations made in the article are original research. Its not controversial or even really notable until it is documented by reliable sources.--RWR8189 (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about removing the section if there's no documentation by reliable sources on the next work day (Tuesday)? And could you please point out which characterizations are OR? JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you somehow trying to argue that a pundit on a national news network supporting the assassination of a presidential candidate (days from the 40th anniversary of that exact act happening) is not controversial on face? That the act happened is unquestionable. That it is a controversial statement is also unquestionable -- this very talk page is contributory to that controversy. To claim WP:RS on this issue is analogous to claiming the hypothetical candidate who is assassinated is merely "murdered" until the word "assassination" is used by the alleged and increasingly-unreliable "RS."Bubbaprog (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly believe it to be a controversial statement, but who cares what I think? However, the statement is not notable until it is picked up by reliable sources.  I don't find "blogosphere" reaction to be particularly notable either, and I feel it should be removed.--RWR8189 (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Get (a) clue, (b) TFO; idiot. Removing things for the sake of removing things and twisting policy as after-the-fact justification is not cool, and only detracts from the utility of the article. Srsly, clue or gtfo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.1.47.242 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit: had a look at your contributions, which consist overwhelmingly of AfD edits, deletion review edits, actual deletions, removal edits, and non-namespace. As such, I revise my recommendation to simply GTFO. Find a hedge; WP does not need your trimming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.1.47.242 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice, I will try harder to please you in the future.--RWR8189 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Terms
I was reading the entry previously and noticed that it said that Liz Trotta was a racist, after refreshing the page I noticed the term was removed.My guess is that it is because the deleter felt that it violated POV. However, when does the term "racist" stop becoming POV and become irrefutable fact?

Few would disagree with me when I say something like "Francis Galton was a racist" or "Nathan Forrest was a racist" in the pure form. However in modern context, because we find "racism" distasteful, we can hardly believe anyone in their right mind would be a racist. However does that mean that no one is racist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.116 (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read up on some key Wikipedia policies, WP:BLP WP:V and WP:NOR.--RWR8189 (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to indicate that her call for the assassination of Barack Obama is racially motivated. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually perhaps, I posted this in the wrong place, since it may seem as though I am just talking about Liz Trotta. I am asking as a general question whether it is possible that a wiki article can state that XXX is a racist, given that being a racist is a an actual actionable quality. For example, if the current grand wizard of the KKK comes out states that he is a racist, and proceeds to lynch a black man, and claims that he is doing it because he is black, and only because he is black; Can the wiki article state that "He is a racist"?

While I understand that Biographies of living people are a sensitive issue, but really how can we exercise wisdom in the face of truth (again not about Liz Trotta)? I don't think wikipedia has any compunction about criticizing General Than Shwe. ---original topic starter

--someone else

Noted again, this has nothing to do with her calling for his assassination. --OP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.112 (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I did not see how "Trotta briefly laughed after her remarks." was relevant to the article. This is suppose to be an encyclopedic summary. Keep the tone appropriate please.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you propose we explain the initial coverage of this incident - that her comment was "assassination humor" - as covered by Editor & Publisher and the various high-profile blogs? Mentioning the post-comment laugh succinctly reflects the nature of her comment, in my opinion, without delving into the intent of the speaker. With it omitted, as the article stands, a reader might be unclear that it was likely an attempt at humor. -- Gaueko (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it clear that it was an attempt at humor rather than a serious remark? JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't determine whether or not it was humor. However, the mention of her laughter after the comment is a very relevant piece of information to the story. Gaueko (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was humor. If interpreted appropriately, moreover, the remark did not express her point of view. The context was the 'suggestion' that has been made that Clinton had been referring to knocking Obama off; Trotta instead said Osama...only to (humorously) add the "both, if we could" segment still within the point of view of that original suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.135.188 (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

German Wikipedia
Could someone please add Liz Trotta ? Thanks, --85.178.37.207 (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 12:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Contributor
Can someone find a source that defines this term more clearly? I see that she has a webpage on fox news. Does this mean that she is paid by Fox News for her appearances? Does the date on her page signify when she became a Fox contributor? Does being a Fox contributor mean that she is an employee of Fox news? If these questions are answered, I think the article would substantially be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.165.2 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Does her laughter belong in Wkipedia?
I believe it should be included. She laughed. That's a fact. Her laughter underscores the fact that her joking of killing both Osama and Obama was no gaffe. Her laughter is a part of the context of the controversy. Is Wikipedia going to end up being the sanitized version of history? An example: If after the comment "Oh the humanity" during the Hindenberg disaster the announcer then laughed would it not be reported? It would completely change the context. "Oh the humanity, oh really I am joking who cares about Nazis burning up?" Her laughter does not reverse the context but it completely underlines the fact that she cracked a joke about assassinating a sitting US Senator, a presidential candidate, and she thought it was funny. Or am I missing the point why she and what she said is worth making a wiki page?MBCF (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Corrections
Could someone please change "1984" to "1972" which is when McGovern actually ran? Also, "vile, utterly disgusting, "assassination" humor" should be "vile, utterly disgusting, 'assassination' humor" -- fixing the nested quotes. Thanks. 63.138.93.66 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've corrected the nesting. McGovern did run in 1984 and Trotta did cover it - I've added a reference for this. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 16:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Feldman
I don't find the remarks of some blogger to be particularly notable to the subject at hand. Lots of people may have opinions on the incident, but that doesn't mean we include them in the biography of a living person.--RWR8189 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are 260 hits for "huffingtonpost" on Wikipedia, many in BLP. Is The Huffington Post sometimes non-notable, or always non-notable? JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some things said in the Huffington Post are notable, they often have notable figures writing guest columns, ect. Browsing through a lot of those 260 hits, you see many mentions of contributions or work done by individuals for the Huffington Post.  In this particular instance, there is nothing unique nor notable in the criticism leveled by Feldman.--RWR8189 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Huffington Post is generally only reliable for people's opinions on a subject, rather than the subject matter itself. I've been to a private event where Arianna Huffington, founder of the site, was speaking about her new book, and she basically said about the web site, "I encourage anybody to join us and help build it into a better site".  While they don't actually let just anybody write on the front page (you do have to be vetted before being able to contribute), it is still essentially blog-style in its presentation, and there is little or no editorial control or peer-review over most of its contents, so it is largely unsuitable as a primary source.  There have been some recent exceptions, however; they did "break" the news about Obama's "bitter" comments.  -/- Warren 20:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JCDenton2052 in a single edit you added this quote about humor, and also added a line below it calling it a "call for obamas assasination". This isnt very consistant and one has to worry about the agenda here. 76.124.104.181 (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 76, please assume good faith. Dreaded Walrus t c 22:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NPA. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully request that (1) the link to the original Huffington Post piece that broke this story, as well as the note containing the title/author of that story, be added back to this entry. There is no basis in fact for the blanket assertion in this thread that all articles on Huffington Post are untrustworthy and, therefore, should be edited out of bio entries. The Huffington Post does have an editorial process, is treated widely as a primary source by journalists, and includes amongst its writers both practicing journalists and recognized experts. Furthermore, the article in question included the primary source (e.g., a video clip) that started the controversy: a political 'opinion' offered on air by Liz Trotta. Because it was the key primary source on this topic, the Huffington Post article subsequently generated a discussion of over 1,500 reader comments and has been referenced to date by tens of thousands of other sources worldwide-- including journalists. In other words, there is ample evidence that the video of Liz Trotta's comment and the Huffington Post piece are the key primary sources for this controversy. To not cite the Huffington Post article is tantamount to inadvertently changing the story. Thanks for considering this request. Jeffrey Feldman (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On the women in the military rape issue:

To the person who deleted my post: The link contains a video of her speaking. It is not subject to factual controversy. It clearly shows her to be a lunatic. And the re-edit to "women in the military should expect a higher chance of rape if women are put into combat situations" is actually an understatement. She actually argues against actions to try stop it from happening. Watch the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.243.27 (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Peition Status
Could someone update the petition signature numbers, as of Tue. May 27, 9:30pm EST there were over 7600. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.72.94 (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done at 7,700 Pericles899 (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think the petition is only relevant (if it is relevant at all) insomuch as it is mentioned in the source. There is also no way to verify that this number represents 7,600 unique individuals, such is the nature of unreliable petition websites such as this one.--RWR8189 (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Updated to over 10,000. I checked, they are all unique. MBCF (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal Information
I have seen blog posts/comments that have been posting her personal contact information (phone/address) and urging people to report her to various agencies. While this is non-notable at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if something surfaces (news) in the next few days over harassment which would then make it (their actions) suitable for inclusion in the response section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston2austin (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Psychologist
She is also an amateur psychologist. In her comments today on Fox News regarding The Hurt Locker, she revealed that the real motive of the film's military critics is to become highly paid consultants in Hollywood. Her final diagnosis? Expressed as a cliché: "The whole controversy is a 'tempest in a teapot.' "Lestrade (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Pagans and Obama
Fox's Trotta: Health Care Reform Deeply Rooted In "Creeping Paganism" --Wikipietime (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)