Talk:Paula Zahn

??

Lionden would seem to be an employee of CNN: there is no history whatsoever for him/her. I suspect he/she is Paula Zahn's flack. Reverting true stuff gets celebs into trouble. Clearly, Lionden now wants Paula Zahn to have pseudo-blood thrown on her as she exits her pricey building by PETA. Her flack wants the building to become notorious. Maybe even, she wants her children to be victimized by paparizzi, and therefore get expelled from their pricey private school[s].

I'm not gonna revert. I'm gonna make the damnation of her husband far more intense a bit later. This is Pale Male territory. Paula is a rich bitch who cares little for New York City wildlife.

May Pale Male poop on all of you CNN flacks.

Lionden must be particularly proud of the fact that there is now an article, Richard Cohen, husband of Paula Zahn. Pale Male has pooped on Paula Zahn. To stop the mess, Richard and Paula, with their kids, have to do a hardcore pro Pale Male video bit, even if they are evicted from their building.--FourthAve 06:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Reply to above:

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines key policy #2 states "Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject factually and objectively"

FourthAve comes from a highly biased view (the "comments" above make that quite clear), probably one of the people last year who were outraged and disgusted at the removal of Pale Male's nest from the building on 5th Ave. Therefore the inclusion of that controversy as a part of Paula Zahn's Wiki article (which FourthAve initiated) comes from a biased point of view and not a neutral point of view.

A neutral point of view (or NPOV as its own article states, which btw is also described as "absolute and non-negotiable") for an encyclopedia must look at a subject from a big-picture perspective. Unless Zahn's article is to become a litany of controversies she's been involved with, adding one particular controversy for which she had no responsibility (all legitimate press accounts at the time state it was Cohen's decision alone), is inconsistent with a NPOV. Unless it proves to be a significant minority view that it should be mentioned, it simply doesn't fit in. And thus far this add-Pale-Male-to-Zahn's-article crusade appears to be FourthAve's alone. If FourthAve feels so strongly about Pale Male he should express these opinions in an opinion-based blog or website, which there are plenty of, and not in an online collaborative encyclopedia which is about facts and information.

I should thank SysOp Johnleemk for his attempt at finding a compromise regarding this dispute, but I do feel the inclusion of this one particular controversy is out of place in this article, so I respectfully disagreed with that edit. But again if it proves to be a significant minority view I'm open for a reasonable compromise.

Also, it should be noted Pale Male has a Wiki article which does mention Paula Zahn among the building residents, so the information is indeed given within the Wikipedia. It just doesn't fit into a big-picture article on Paula Zahn herself.

And for the record, I do not work for CNN. I'm just a CNN viewer who gets sick and tired of people who become so impassioned about a particle issue or cause that they lose all perspective and reason, not to mention civility.

-Lionden

---

Furthermore, the text FourthAve continues to want to add:

"In 2004, Cohen evicted the squatter hawk Pale Male from his extremely expensive 927 Fifth Avenue (at East 74th Street) co-op's quarters and made headlines. He later settled out of court, and Pale Male resumed residence."

is clearly not about Zahn. It's about Cohen, so why should it be in Zahn's article? Because FourthAve knows Zahn's article is more likely to be read than one on Cohen, or even Pale Male himself. And since FourthAve's objective in editing Zahn's article isn't to inform about Zahn, but to inform about Cohen and Pale Male, he uses guilt by association to imply relevancy in an article on Zahn. This is an inappropriate use of an article that's supposed to be written with a NPOV, which FourthAve plainly does not have regarding the subject of this article.

-Lionden

New picture?

Is there another picture of her? This one only shows her from behind and all you can see is Barbara Bush.

There are many. However there is no point in adding them as that philistine/puritan pencil pusher Lionden will object on the grounds that she is showing too much arm.

Actually there is no point in adding them because 99.9% of them are copyrighted and Wiki admins have a thing about allowing copyrighted material in articles. So the photo that is currently shown is 100% public domain, being from the Dept. of Defense. Lionden 05:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)\

CNN used to send out a good looking pic of Paula to queries with great color and so available with no copyright issue. But i dont have a scanner and cant find it.

/s/ willy 4 zon

Richard Cohen, husband of Paula Zahn redirects here

Its AFD failed to get consensus to delete, and I made the editorial decision to redirect the article here. I've also merged some material from the article here. Johnleemk | Talk 09:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Morning America? or The Early Show?

I could have sworn I saw her on one of these in Fall of 2000 and then again in May 2003 I believe. Can anyone help me out?

Edits

I removed a statement that "Zahn is widely known for her extensive and in depth interviews." It was removed because the reference claimed in support of this was simply a transcript of one of her interviews. Since the interview is actually rather brief, was incompletely characterized, and does nothing to actually establish the claim, I don't consider it appropriate here.

If the sentence thus removed is in fact a fair characterization, it might be okay to put it back. I'd imagine there must be actual media commentary out there that discusses her interview skills. --Michael Snow 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

thinly-veiled bad faith? Lionden you are a philistine and your sidekick Vikramsidhu is a feeble minded automaton.You seem not to understand that objective is not to subjective what white is to black. All my edits were facts or truths. I will never contribute again to this poorly run and managed enterprise.

Okie-dokie...Vik —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:43, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Yes, please never vandalize an article on Wikipedia again. Play your griefer games somewhere else. Thank you. Lionden 00:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Anything not in accordance with your views is vandalism? What next? Will you burn some books? Your edit on the 1973 beauty pageant tells me exactly what you are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.180.102.94 (talk) 03:05, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

No, vandalism is maliciously adding things like outrageous (and libelous) claims of 16-year affairs with "international legal experts" that are blatantly absurd and you know are false, and continuing to reinsert it after it's removed by honest editors such as Vikramsidhu. Then getting bored of that game and deciding instead to make up vital statics you claim to know by having some mysterious access to the subject's personal medical records, again playing the reinsert-after-removal game a few more rounds.

In the end you make a point about objective and subjective information not being "as white is to black", as you say. Whatever the merits of that philosophical point may be, it remains true that phrases such as "her stunning good looks" are too subjective to be appropriate in an encyclopedic article such as this, which is why it was removed.

But all of this is just a game to you anyway, as your initial vandalizing of this article (among others) tells me exactly what you are. So as I said before, go play your griefer games somewhere else. You won't find a receptive audience around here. Lionden 05:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

News

Hope to see Paula back on TV as while she had her ups and downs with the recent divorce etc , it was always fun to watch her show.

/s/ Willy

Role on the Council on Foreign Relations

What about this bit of information that Wikipedia has somehow forgotten? I know that Paula Zahn sits on this important think-tank. Just read any article regarding the CFR, and you'll notice that she sits on the CFR. I'll go to the website of the CFR and check...

--XH 16:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)User:Xinyu

I don't know if its really notable.Kevin 01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

When are you coming back to TV news?

Dear Paula :

      We miss you!  When are you coming back to TV news?  Don't let those lawyers get you.  Stop wasting money on lawyers.

Love from, Fan 10/1/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.234.233 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm serious. This is the saddest page on all of Wikipedia. Wow. Mardiste (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal

ref [7] no longer valid. i have to remove the sentence.Bw213 (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Patapsco913 needs to stop adding references to the unsubstantiated gossip and hearsay that was spread by the NYC tabloids in 2007. A Wikipedia article should be sourced with facts only. 24.41.33.69 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a reference from Nate Bloom regarding that she was raising her children Jewish. That was the sole purpose of the addition. I did not mention her affair. Nate Bloom is well-regarded in the Jewish community and writes for several publications. Second, I added a reference from People magazine detailing her lawsuit which also showed her net earnigs over the last 2 decades. Both are facts from credible sources.Patapsco913 (talk)

I found another reference supporting the statement about raising her children Jewish, which does not repeat hearsay. Hopefully this will satisfy you. 24.41.33.69 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I moved the people reference ahead of it as well. CheersPatapsco913 (talk)

Who is 24.41.33.69? Some disgruntled fan or family member of Zahn? I think the information about her divorce is absolutely in order. Added again with sources. 79.136.116.120 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do happen to be a long time fan of Paula Zahn's, but that's besides the point. The point is Wikipedia itself is cheapened and degraded when "information" is added to its articles that only comes from unreliable sources such as tabloid gossip columns. And this is the case with the "information" you're seeking to add to this article. The fact that it's been accepted by people who believe what they read in these tabloids does not indicate its veracity, especially when this "information" has never been substantiated outside of these tabloid gossip columns. 24.41.33.69 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You being a fan is clearly clouding your judgment. This is not a fan-page, this is Wikipedia! You should stop deleting the information, 24.41.33.69! I've now made an attempt at compromise: I changed the wording to "rumored and much publicized". The information is out there, and it hasn't been denied or refuted by P.Z. Feel free giving us sources were she is denying the affair, but you have no right to delete it. Any further attempts from you to suppress this information will be reported to appropriate administrator. 79.136.116.124 (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. --Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged

Also, 79, you should consult WP:3RR. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Added information about her "alleged affair" again, now citing FoxNews.com. I -- as well as many others -- have previously included this information citing many different sources, but they have all been deleted. A couple of points: 1) Fox News can not seriously be considered a tabloid. 2) The affair was widely publicized and noteworthy 3) Paula Zahn has not denied the affair 4) The wording follows Wikipedia's recommendations and instructions -- all in accordance with WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN BTW, if this is about "tabloids being unreliable," then why haven't you removed the link to People.com, citing her divorce (but conveniently for you, not mentioning the reason for the divorce)? People.com have another article detailing her divorce, AND telling us why she divorced her husband (the "alleged affair") -- a link that I have previously included, that you've deleted. That's very hypocritical of you. AGAIN, STOP DELETING THIS INFORMATION JUST BECAUSE YOU FIND IT NEGATIVE, AND THE SUBJECT MAY DISLIKE ALL MENTION OF IT! 79.136.116.124 (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There is admittedly a valid point in that the rumors and allegations of 2007 were relatively high-profile and well known, so for my part I can compromise on that point, with language making it clear that these were just rumors and allegations, and were never substantiated.

There are people who believe what they read in tabloids, but tabloids have the reputation they do for a reason. 24.41.33.69 (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Dealing with the points raised above:

1) Fox News can not seriously be considered a tabloid.

My opinion, (and I'm sure I'm not alone) is that most of the major US News broadcasters are very poor indeed. Fox is particularly bad. Admittedly, Wikipedia policy is vague on the matter. Also isn't Fox an ex-employer and rival company to CNN? A possible COI?

2) The affair was widely publicized and noteworthy

Bring some of these sources to the talkpage then.

3) Paula Zahn has not denied the affair

Queen Elizabeth II has never denied being a shape-shifting lizard from outer space.

4) The wording follows Wikipedia's recommendations and instructions..

WP:PUBLICFIGURE states:

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

I can accept that we policy may allow mention of the affair, but your edit 79. did not make clear that rumours and accusations are flying back and forth, nor does it make clear who had the affair; the Fox source kinda does, but your edit didn't.

WP:BLPGOSSIP states:

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

The Fox source presents it as straight fact, when others do not. This is why extraordinary claims require higher standards re sourcing.

Though I see 24 has improved the wording — rather than provide disclaimers regarding the veracity of the information and trustworthiness of the sources — it is far simpler to just not mention the 'affair'. Anyway, I'm gonna leave you guys to it. Best of luck. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.

The lawsuit has been removed per WP:BLPCRIME. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

STOP DELETING THIS INFORMATION JUST BECAUSE YOU FIND IT NEGATIVE, AND THE SUBJECT MAY DISLIKE ALL MENTION OF IT! 1) Wall Street Journal can not seriously be considered a tabloid, or an unreliable source. 2) I'm using in-line citing from an article written by a respected New York Times and Wall Street Journal reporter Peter Lattman 3) The lawsuit is absolutely noteworthy event in her life, because it was widely publicized (even on her former employer CNNs website, though it have since been removed). The lawsuit was filed by Paula Zahn against her former husband, and later dismissed by the judge, and I have included this explanatory information -- as per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:INCITE and WP:BLPSOURCES 79.136.116.124 (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ow, my ears. It wasn't cited to those sources when I removed it. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paula Zahn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061204192347/http://www.multiplemyeloma.org/foundation/1.05.html to http://www.multiplemyeloma.org/foundation/1.05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paula Zahn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325071502/http://www.newyorkpops.org/pdf/nyp-20years-5.pdf to http://www.newyorkpops.org/pdf/nyp-20years-5.pdf

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) 03:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)