Talk:Monica Crowley/Archives/2015

The plagiarism allegation
There seems to be much argument about whether there was an allegation, proven or otherwise, that has sometimes been exacerbated because the blog has been down from time to time. For the record, here is the text of the citation given in the article. Please don't delete it. Verne Equinox 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased attacks on Monica Crowley
This accusation of plagiarism, which is only one article, plagiarism has never been proven, nor has it been admitted to. Several have claimed all of Monica Crowley's work is now being questioned and speculation is none of it is her own. This is not true, and the article "The Day Nixon Said Goodbye" is the only article that remains questionable, it in its self, and the apology later printed by Wall Street Journal is the only incident of this nature. Neither constitute absolute proof of an act of plagiarism. This is the only place that this ember still has any life. The source that is used here is old, it is an inactive topic. There would have to be a lot more evidence to brand Monica Crowley's work as being the result of constant plagiarism. Monica Crowley also has been the target of blatant hate and vandalism by a user here on Attack made by 71.194.246.41 on 00:57, 2 December 2007

No reference to 'poor man's'
Google finds not a single instance of the phrase 'poor man's Ann Coulter'. IAW with the wiki policy on biographies, this statement should be removed immediately. Also, the article fails on the 'neutral point of view' test. The controveries section is completely out of proportion to the rest of the article, and its sources are mostly one-sided. Media Matters is not a neutral source, yet it comprises 25% of the citations for the article.--Flyer190 (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed offending sentence. The other points you mention will take quite a bit more time to clean up. Kidshare (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Eye
I removed this dupe "In March 2009, as a panelist on Fox News Channel's Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfelda, Crowley participated in a farcical ridiculing of Canada's armed forces while also praising them as good allies. There was significant backlash in Canada against the televised program due to the fact that, at the time, four Canadian soldiers had been killed in Afghanistan." There is at least one anon who feels it should stay and my contribution should go bye-bye. I've left the anons edits intact. I thought it should be here for comments, etc. CanuckMike (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been suggested that the "Anti-Canadian remarks" title is misleading. I took it from bio pages of Dave Gutfeld and Doug Benson (to which I contributed...but not the heading). Does anyone else feel that way? If so, alternatives? CanuckMike (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the title should be changed to "Canadian Military Controversy" or "Canadian Military Remarks". The remarks, which were widely publicized in the media, were generally seen as a swipe at the Canadian Military rather then at the country as a whole. --Guy674 (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's go with "Canadian Military Controversy" for now and see how it goes. Thanks for the suggestion. I was having difficulty with a quick title change because of Bill Schulz's RCMP comments during the segment. If there's a problem with bias or references please edit or discuss. My recent actions have been an effort to preserve the section in some form, not malign Ms. Crowley. CanuckMike (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism attacks (deleting whole sections without justification) will stop. All information contained in section 1.4 are fact based only taken from the video of the 5 minute segment and from Monica's blog page on her website. No opinion based comments appear in the article. Ignoring a significant event will not make it go away. Partisan edits of any page are disruptive.

Jacobite30 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who couldn't read the above section:

Vandalism attacks (deleting whole sections without justification) will stop.

In particular, Liberal00Q1, you have deleted sections without justification. Generic statements about length of articles is insufficient for explantion of edits. Consider the fact that all info in section 1.4 is taken from factual sources including Monica Crowely herself and the Red Eye video. This section shows that Monica Crowley is a class act for apologizing and rebutts persons who criticize her integrity. It was written with facts only in an attempt to deter those who wish to attack her from distorting the article to meet their own ends. The article is very significant considering her education/degree and work in international relations/affairs. Many other biographies in Wikipedia contain such sections and happen to be much less based on fact and more on conjecture. Try discussing the article and fully explaining yourself first before vandalizing pages. If you continue to do edits without discussion, I will report you for vandalism. If you have a personal issues with Monica Crowely, then I strongly suggest that you take those issues to an online political forum and stop using page edits to further any damaging agenda that you may have against her.

Jacobite30 (talk) 06:11, 01 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously what you are attempting to do to Miss Crowley is pretty obvious. Also, considering that you are affiliated with the Canadian military, it probably isn't too far fetched to say that you are controlling her accusations based what you consider a personal offense. You have every right to be offended, but that doesn't give you the right to edit her biography because of it. Yes, she said a few things about the Canadian Military that were out of hand, but it doesn't matter--because it was a satire/COMEDY show! How many times will you rail against Jon Stuart or Stephen Colbert for everything they say against many people, mostly conservatives? I don't see you editing their Wikipages. As long as you continue defaming others for reasons of personal gain and security, I will make sure to undo your actions. If you keep this up, I will continue to file a report every single day until it stops. I will do this because I know I am right. This ends here. This isn't they type of behavior one would expect form someone who is over 40. Either you can grow up, mature, and let it go, or you can let it bother you over and over again, your call. Liberal00Q1 (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding relavent, accurate, and verifiable information is not vandalism or defaming. Making false accusations is defaming.Now back to the content. If you feel so strongly that this info should not be on this page, then answer this: What page do you suggest it be on? The section 1.4 had info taken from factual sources including Monica Crowely herself (webpage) and the Red Eye video. If this info is inaccurate, please advise us all on what part is inaccurate. Explain why making a simple mistake and correcting it on an international level is not relavent to her degree in International relations taking into account her work experience as well. "Jon Stuart or Stephen Colbert.... I don't see you editing their Wikipages" Please explain why editing their pages is a pre-requisite to editing this page. I could not find that in wikipedia policies. To answer your statement "...but that doesn't give you the right to edit her biography..." This does: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Please respond as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DR guide. A non response will lead others to assume that you are fine with the new material and it will be re-posted. Jacobite30 (talk) 15:53hrs, 03 July 2009 (UTC)

The material is partisan and irrelevant to the biography. Give it up. Adding the information causes the entire biography to be unbalanced. I can understand that you may have a personal backlash against the comments that were made on the show (as you have every right to be), but it is a satire/comedy show. It is not meant to be taken as seriously, similarity to Colbert and Stewart. What you are attempting to do is deter the audience of Ms. Crowley by assessing that her comments were meant seriously. The reason she apologized is because the *perception* of those comments were seen as serious to many Canadians---had she said this outside of the show, about the military, it should be on Wikipedia--but it wasn't, and so it doesn't need to be here. As I said before, Wikipedia is NOT A TOOL or a WEAPON to use to defame others. If you feel strongly against Monica Crowley, I suggest you start another blog or make a web page about it. Wikipedia is not a bias organization, it is not partisan, and it is surely not a weapon. Yes, everyone is able to participate in contributing to Wikipedia--but in a manner that provides fair coverage. As I said before, I am actively monitoring this page. I suggest you read the bulletin at the top of this TALK panel. Thanks. Liberal00Q1 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I submit that the information is non-partisan. It is taken from factual sources, meaning Monica Crowely herself. You cause confusion when you say the information defames her. Defame - To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel. The information is not slanderous or libel as it is not false. I counter that it does deserve to be on the page as it was important enough to her (Monica) to include it on her own website and the reasons I stated earlier. "Adding the information causes the entire biography to be unbalanced." Unbalanced in what way? You have not explained this part of your edit. Please clarify. "As I said before, I am actively monitoring this page." Am I to understand that you are implying ownership of the page? I agree that she apologized due to the because of the perception and that is why I consider the inclusion of the facts important as they are not negative, but positive. The fact that she apologized by itself potrays her in a positive light. You don't even have to use opinion based comments to acheive that. Are you of the opinion that apologies are in themselves a negative act? Also, there is no need of using caps. It is against Wikipedia policy. Please refrain from using them.Stop stating that I have taken offence to her comments as this is a falsehood on your part. No where on here or in the article have I stated such information. If you do find it, please provide the source as it needs to be recitified. I am engaging in discussion about verifiable information that is not negative that I feel should be included on the bio. Jacobite30 (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

After researching more wikipedia policies and other similar wiki pages, I withdraw my edits due to 2 reasons: (1) the fact that there doesn't appear to be any standard from bio page to bio page. Some have apologies and some don't. Most notably in my opinion, David Letterman pages. No mention of the Sarah Palin incident is allowed on his bio or show pages. (2) I have found wikipedia policies that contradict each other reference this issue. I have found a policy allowing you to edit out the apology and found another that allows me to enter it. This would be pointless then. It just leads to a big ???? session. Three more things before I go. (1)I still strongly beleive that the apologies of pers that have bios here should be included and are a positive thing regardless of whom they are. (2) I did not take offence to her comment and you should refrain in the future from spreading falsehoods like this about other editors. (3) Remove the personal info as per Wikipedia's harrasment policy which is very clear on this. That includes all archived versions. Thanks for the spirited debate and have a good day. On a sad note, today we lost another Canuck soldier to a roadside bomb. RIP Cpl Nicholas Bulger. Jacobite30 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Amsterdam
Please stop censoring out the Amsterdam paragraph. I won't accept that one user removes the source (including TV caption of Crowley herself) and then another user removes the fact for alledged lack of sources. Also, I think that this piece is not only sourced, but relevant, in showing that Crowley has no clue about life in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, or Europe, which does not stop her from promoting strong opinions about them on FOX. People could in fact believe what she says! -- Seelefant (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse people of censorship. It was given undue weight beofre. If you are going to add it in you should also add in everything else she has ever said on TV or radio.Cptnono (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed per WP:UNDUE. The sister project at http://www.wikiquote.org/would be a great place for this. You can also express your concern over this on various internet forums and blogs. Do not reinclude since Biographies of living persons on Wikipedia need to be handled with exceptional amounts of caution.Cptnono (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. This comment of hers received enough secondary media attention, which I will source, to be considered as relevant. Also, I see no problem from a biography-of-living-persons view: how could anyone sucessfully object to being quoted on something he or she said on TV? She came forward with this by herself, and I'm really confused why you would imply that it should be inappropriate to reproduce it. -- Seelefant (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the Wikilinks I provided? Take a look at UNDUE and BLP again. We can't give every quote mention here. If you want to put in the effort to put in other information it might fit. Unfortunately, just the juicy info isn't enough. Like I said, take it to Wikiquote. If you're feeling adventurous, you can instead dive into sources and start including info that received just as much if not attention than that single quote and find those that actually provide a better understanding for this biography. This isn't a rap sheet for why she sucks it is a neutral and fair summary of her life and career. That line doesn't even register as a blip in the real world so it doesn't here. Until more information is found that summarizes the 1000 other things she has said and the hopefully what she is notable for: it simply has to go. I'm sure you mean well but if you reinclude it you are bordering on being disruptive and violating guidelines that are very strict about articles regarding living people.Cptnono (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your allegations of me violating guidelines are unsubstantiated. I'm not making this up, it is sourced and valid. I'm not even claiming a single thing about her by myself! I merely quote her and refer to a third partys public reaction. There was a public reaction, other than to thousands of other things she said, so I consider this relevant. Your actions don't apear "neutral and fair" to me: it seems to be you who is judging her quote to shed an unvaforable light on her, and then removing it. I find that not acceptable. -- Seelefant (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were making it up. I said you were putting too much weight on one quote. Please reread my comment and click on the wikilinks provided. Like I said, Wikiquote is a great place for the line. If you want to add the 1000s of other significant things she has said this wouldn't look like a problem but just this one has the tone of trying to create a rap sheet.Cptnono (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simpy not true. You are interpreting things out of the rules that aren't there. Your view of "too much weight" is subjective, and it doesn't justify the removal. -- Seelefant (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you just simply want it in. If you have a problem with the guidelines or need clarification take it to a noticeboard, help desk, or the particular guidelines talk page.Cptnono (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from the guidelines that apply here: (essay not guideline)" In closing, you mentioned on my talk page that you did not appreciate my tone. Comments I have made include "no hard times need to be had" and "I'm sure you mean well". I have also attempted to provide alternative methods of including the information. You have been a little heated yourself with accusations of censorship and me making "hard-times-threats from digital vigilantes". I honestly could care less if you apologize or not but take a step back and double check the guidelines. Try to not assume the worst. As I have mentioned, the next step for me is to make a request for administrative action but that seems like too much drama for a relatively small incident. Before adding in the information again, consider the talk pages I mentioned above or even a RfC.Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. and Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources The line is sourced but the percentage of sources discussing the subject and this quote is low
 * Balance (this is on the same page but a few sections below): Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. See above rationale.
 * WP:BLPSTYLE Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively... The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Overstatement sums it up.
 * WP:COATRACK (essay not a guideline): The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article? The possibility of this becoming a coat rack is a huge possibility. The principle also applies.
 * WP:NOTADVOCATE: Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. Although it is a single subsection, the principle still applies. I apologize if it comes across in an accusatory fashion but you are only trying to include something that is negative. This could be unintentional.
 * Also, short choppy sections are to be avoided. This is actually something that is typically recommended to raise an article in the quality scale. This quote will never be able to fill a section on its own. That is why I recommended Wikiquote. If other stuff is added it might fit in the prose better, of course.


 * Your interpretation of the rules appears to be mistaken or biased.
 * UNDUE/Balance: These guidelines are explicitly about the weighting of viewpoints and/or opinions. The paragraph in question is perfectly weighted: it quotes the subject of the article, who made a controversial public statement, and then documents that the statement drew criticism.
 * BLPSTYLE: The style of the paragraph in question is of utmost neutrality - the strongest adjective used is the word "widely". There is no violation of BLPSTYLE. The quote itself is, of course, controversial - that's why I mentioned the public criticism, to make it balanced again. Maybe you are misinterpreting the term "conservatively" here? I think it is meant in the sense of "cautiously", and not with its political meaning.
 * COATRACK: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." This is not applicable. Quoting the person who is the subject of the article, the paragraph in question is as closely related to the subject as it is possible.
 * NOTADVOCATE/"attack the reputation of another person". I am not doing this. Monica Crowley presents her sometimes controversial views to a TV audience - O'Reilly has about 6 million viewers every night. Quoting something that was addressed to millions of viewers, and sourcing the fact that it drew criticism, is not an undue attack. It is noticeable and legitimate information.
 * -- Seelefant (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a problem with the content it is how it reads in comparison to the rest of the article. It is written fine but it is provided undue weight and imbalance with other aspects of the subject matter in relation to the other content in the article. Yes, conservatively as in cautiously. You are attempting to add content in manner that is against Coatrack and Notadvocate principles. I basically just repeated myself because I was clear in the previous comment. Your editing is disruptive since your sole purpose is to criticize the subject. Apologies if I am accusing you falsely but if it quacks like a duck it is more than likely a duck. If you tried other methods of inclusion such as a Wikiquote link box or adding in a series of information regarding drug policy with a mention it might be OK. Unfortunately you are having a knee-jerk and closed reaction to the removal of content. That would be permissible if you were not adding in such information in this way but since you are it has to be removed.Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Education
The condensed info box cites ms crowley as having done both her graduate & undergraduate work at Columbia while the article itself makes reference to her having done her undergraduate work at Colgate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.102.65 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Good looking out. If the source says otherwise it should be fixed but this looks to be the correct info.Cptnono (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion
I saw this listed on Third Opinion. I do not believe that including this as a section is appropriate, per WP:UNDUE. This is one single event, that does not have a large amount of secondary coverage in reliable sources that I can tell. PGWG (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point regarding reliable sources. The Holland Times, which I referred to, is only a monthly tabloid, and the rest is just weblogs. If it was a daily newspaper (which I thought it was at the time of my last edit) I couldn't agree. -- Seelefant (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say that I appreciate the efforts of all the editors on this article. My opinion regarding the matter under discussion is that the editor proposing inclusion has not demonstrated enough reliable, secondary sourcing of the significance of the matter in question (or at least I can't find it). However, should such sourcing be indicated, I am sure that parties would agree to include the information.  —  Matheuler   22:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Clarification of the plagerism allegations are in the lines following the tag. I will be removing the tag in the next day unless viable reasoning for its inclusion is provided.Cptnono (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can the citations be moved up in that section? I must admitt that I haven't "studied" this "issue" that closely and only read the one NYT article. Anyways, hopefully this isn't that big a deal. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal at all. Just happy it wasn't a quick tag and forget.Cptnono (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like this was covered and beaten to glue above. Did somebody actually come out and say, hey, you plagerized this or was it hey, this looks similar ect as in the NYT article? Is there a difference in how the article should be worded if that is the casse? Should we include who made the accusation? Lots of questions :) Anyways, I will try work on this and feel free to remove the cn tag since this is being discussed again and being looked at. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadians
Removed this. Like other incidents, it is a trivial aspect of ehr life and career. All of the mudslinging contraversial sections would be fine if they were not given so much weight. Expand it in a balanced and neuteral fashion if it is that important. Furthermore, this was sourced with a copyright violating youyube video (WP:ELNO). It also was about Red Eye not her spevifically. Removing per "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."Cptnono (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I put it back. It is not trivial - when late night talk show commentary elicits foreign (Canada) government rebukes in public, it's notable in every sense of the Wikipedia definition. A few days of television and newspaper coverage in Canada elevates the dialog to non-trivial, significant status. There is nothing contentious about Monica's actual involvement or the content of the section and, therefore, no reason for "immediate removal" per BLP. Contentious because you disagree? Fine. However, that does not qualify the content for immediate removal without a number of other conditions being met. YouTube has alleviated any copyright concerns by removing the video clip and supplying a message to that effect. I suppose the reference could be removed but I hesitate - that link was the cause of this notable event. CanuckMike (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not understanding undue weight. WHy does this get play in the article while the countless things she says on TV and the radio every week does not. Furthermore, the controversy was with Red Eye as a whole and not just her. The amount of detial you inserted belongs in that article. Alternatively, you could add it to every article discussing those involved, that would still pose weight concerns.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who defines what is "undue weight"? I do see a pattern here: Monica Crowley makes a living by talking trash about foreign countries, on TV, to a massive audience. Of course, that is my personal interpretation, and won't make it into the article. We have, however, two well-sourced examples, and as I've pointed out above, I see no guideline that would disallow it to include them in the article. On the positive side, I would have to agree to Mike: making a foreign defense minister call for an excuse is clearly something. I think it's relevant. -- Seelefant (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is undue weight since she has made countless remarks on TV and radio. f those, it is safe to say that yes, many have been controversial. This receives too much weight because it gets a prominent mention in the article while ignoring thousands of other aspects of her and her career that could be in the article. As I said before, I would have no worries about it if the editor would include additional information not necessarily painting her in a poor light. And undue weight can be looked into here. As this is a biography of a living person, we have to be extra cautious. It is in the rules.
 * Additionally, it might be better in the Red Eye article.Cptnono (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I just saw the edit. Reducing it presence to a subsection handling all such remarks gives it much less weight and doesn't bother me as much. The information is still given too much weight but not as bad. We'll see what happens, if this turns into an attack page I might blank it. Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we seem to be moving towards a compromise here. To address your concern over the undue weight policy, I don't think anybody is trying to make a trash section collecting every unfavourable word she ever said. But these two received international attention, and IMHO that does make them noteworthy. Regards, Seelefant (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pic please
She's hot. Lionel (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A photo always enhances a WP page. At least the reader can visit her website (via our External link section). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegations
This is discussed elsewhere on the talk page, but I see no firm conclusion to remove the discussion. (I agree that it should not be given undue weight, of course.)

This edit by an anonymous ip removed the section completely, without explanation.

My first instinct was to simply restore it, but given the BLP implications, I wanted to have a discussion here first. Are there conclusive arguments for excluding it completely? It seems that the Wall Street Journal did make a clear statement that they wouldn't have published the piece had they known of the similarities, and there is a reliable source for her explanation of what happened. I think Slate is probably a good source, but I am unsure as to whether the Slate source is a "mere" blog or something that would be normally accepted. (I'm not super familiar with how we handle Slate blogs.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say restore it. To be accused of plagiarism by WSJ editors is significant event in an author's career. The sources are solid.
 * Also, the article could be more informative about the nature of Crowley's career. As primarily a talk radio host, she is perhaps more of an entertainer than a serious commentator.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)