Talk:Mary Katharine Ham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion Because Ham Tilts Republican?[edit]

I flagged this article for deletion on 12/24/06, because it is my understanding that blogger vanity entries are not good candidates for inclusion in Wikipedia. If someone can add something to this entry demonstrating this person's noteworthiness, please do so.

Dear Unsigned, deleting the bio on Mary would be a mistake. I've seen her several times on TV being interviewed by various hosts and I wouldn't know who she was without Wikipedia. Of course, being a babe doesn't hurt. Invasion10 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree this page should be deleted. her notability is not established. Being on tv isn't good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanPatriot2009 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should AFD the article, not unilaterally delete it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is a regular contributor on a top rated news commentary show, The O'Reilly Factor. I can't see why she is less deserving than any other TV personality to have a page on wikipedia. 98.14.211.46 (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC) NYCpresto 04/19/2010[reply]

Wikipedia is often called "Liberalpedia" because pretty much anything which doesn't tilt liberal is promptly deleted or edited. Ham is on TV enough to be noteworthy. She isn't a great commentator, and her sentences are peppered with the word "guys" like the young person she is. But, her immature speech patterns aside, she is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion of an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 27 April 2010

Agree with "unsigned" - Wikipedia loses credibility with the usual leftist attacks on conservative commentators...i was a little surprised there were none on this page...and Ms. Ham has some relevance as i hear her on the nationally syndicated Hugh Hewitt radio show at least weekly...as a regular joe schmoe, i would hope that wikipedia would keep pages on these minor noteworthy people because we are just looking for a reliable source of info and some basic facts...173.127.153.121 (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's only been one attempt to delete this article, back in 2006, by user 69.143.45.51. It got nowhere.
The Politico article and her awards mean that MKH meets Wikipedia's "notability" standards, so I don't see anyone deleting this article. Cheers, CWC 03:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Mary Katherine because she is a conservative? How about ridding these pages of Alan Colmes, a VERY LEFT WING LIBERAL. What's good for one should be good for all.

Removed youtube link[edit]

Per external links and relevance, I have removed the youtube link. Thanks, --Tom 14:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per being an encyclopedia, I've restored it again. Her videos have been very popular, winning her best-of-the-year awards in 2006 and 2007. That makes the link relevant. There are no policy problems with linking to YouTube content which was created, and is owned, by the person who put it on YouTube. Firefox users in particular will find the link valuable, since the Townhall.com video delivery system does not seem to work with Firefox. Please leave the link alone from now on. Cheers, CWC 16:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During my Big Edit (see below), I noticed that the latest video on http://www.youtube.com/user/mkhammer is from CNN. Sigh. The article now mentions her YouTube username but does not link to her channel. Also, videos from Townhall.com now play fine in Firefox 3.5.x. CWC 04:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009[edit]

I've just done a big edit, almost a rewrite. Changes include:

  1. Drop Category:Heritage Foundation
  2. Change stub category from {{US-nonfiction-writer-stub}} to {{US-journalist-stub}}
  3. Merge one-sentence "Personal life" section ("Her father ...") into "Early life and Career"
  4. Mention just three of the jobs MKH had before The Weekly Standard (the Richmond County Daily Journal, Townhall.com "where she was a columnist and managing editor" and The Washington Examiner)
  5. Mention current appearances on The O'Reilly Factor but not being show's former "internet cop"
  6. Say that the HamNation series ended June 2008 but she still posts some new videos on her YouTube channel
  7. Did not link to her YouTube channel because latest video is clip from CNN, which I assume is a copyright violation. (YouTube channels are OK as WP:External links only if all content is original; see previous section.)
  8. Say she's a "conservative" — probably should have wikilinked to Conservatism in the United States to be more specific
  9. Use Politico.com profile as a ref for "conservative"
  10. Move links to townhall.com from infobox to ELs section
  11. Drop website item from infobox because AFAIK she does not have a personal website at present

Some of the decisions I made were close calls. It is unlikely that I got them all correct. Further edits and comments welcome. Cheers CWC 04:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does a made-up word really belong in an encyclopedia?[edit]

(Personal attack removed)

The article uses the juvenile slang "blog" when it should use web log. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously, it shouldn't try to sound like a teenager texting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.116.228 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People of all ages have been using the word "blog" for several years now. It is most certainly not made up. Languages are not static. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Which photo is best for the infobox?[edit]

Consensus for Choice #4. Alsee (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of these three photos gives the best image to the reader of the article subject and is the most complimentary? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#1
#2
#3
#4
Infobox images to choose from

Choice #1[edit]

  • Support this image per WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." In addition to being the most "natural and appropriate" image, it is the most recent and best represents her current appearance. In option #2, her laughing face is distorted and her eyes squinting—not "natural and appropriate". Bede735 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think this image is the most suitable for the article. The subject is depicted in a natural setting, a comfortable environment, and is not posing in any way. The lighting and contrast are perfect, and the photo is clear. In addition, the picture is the most recent of the subject therefore it is the most accurate representation of her. I too agree that photo 2 and three are not "natural and appropriate." Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My preference would be 1 > 3 > 4. Agree 2 is a little "squinty". 1 appears most flattering. NickCT (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this image: I believe she just looks professional here, as if she's thinking about something, and not giving a dirty look. Otherwise, I would support image number 3. -Darouet (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Second choice. Gamaliel (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choice #2[edit]

  • Support as 1st choice Best view of her face, smile is nice, hair is not askew and causing her to look disheveled and as if she just got up from a nap (as in #3). Her head is cocked to one side a bit too much and the crop on the photo is not optimal for an infobox photo with the microphone in the way. #1 is a poor choice because it is a side view and not optimal for an infobox photo (per MOS on infobox images). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choice #3[edit]

  • Support as 2nd choice Subject has a natural smile, image is straight on, and lighting is good. Image #1 is too much of a side profile and image #2 makes her appear as if she's unsure about something. Meatsgains (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #3.  In #1 it looks like she's giving somebody a dirty look.  Photo #2 seems to make her look a little dopey.  Number 3 is the most natural and neutral (not to mention attractive) of the three photos.
    Richard27182 (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)    [reply]
I am redacting my posting above so that I may change my !vote.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think this image is the best overall in terms of the image quality and the subject's appearance. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My preference would be 1 > 3 > 4. Agree 2 is a little "squinty". 1 appears most flattering. NickCT (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - preference would be 3 > 1 > 4 > 2. Eman235/talk 19:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choice #4[edit]

  • Support as 2nd choice Meatsgains, Safehaven86, Richard27182, because it seems choice 3 has been the preferred choice so far, I have taken that photo and cropped it, removing the microphone and rotating it slightly left to have her appear more "upright" and with he head tipped less to one side of the photo. Have pinged you three to see if this version would be more preferable to you. My main objection with choice 3 has been based on her hair being askew, but with the new cropping, I think it makes it less of an issue (as well as the microphone no longer visible). Thanks for taking part in the RfC. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as 1st choice - The minor issues with choice #3 have been resolved with this edited version. Meatsgains (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think the cropped image, #4, looks great. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My preference would be 1 > 3 > 4. Agree 2 is a little "squinty". 1 appears most flattering. NickCT (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #4.  In #1 it looks like she's giving somebody a dirty look.  Photo #2 seems to make her look a little dopey.  Photos 3 and 4 are the most natural and neutral (not to mention attractive).  I have a slight preference for #4 because it gives us a closer look at her face (and also crops out the microphones).  But please note that photo #3 is a very close second choice.
    Richard27182 (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Gamaliel (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is by far the best choice. She looks natural and great, and she is a smiley person, so it's perfect.Chrstphr80 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The best choice. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I'm not a huge fan of any of them if I'm honest. Would be great if someone with a flikr account could ask the photographer to release [1] for wiki usage. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer is her recently deceased husband. Not only would getting a response from the actual photographer be impossible, it would be incredibly tacky and insensitive to ask considering the circumstances (she probably has access to his Flickr account). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mary Katharine Ham. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]




Why doesn't it say that Mary Ham is also on PewNews? Because she has been on pewnews multiple times. Just like Gloria Borger and Poppy Harlow

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019[edit]

Marry K Ham is, in fact, PewDiePies news correspondent. 67.163.87.134 (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Þjarkur (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Katharine_Ham&oldid=1207522845"