Talk:Emily Carlson

Gossip columns and gossip web sites are NOT appropriate reference material

First of all this is not Ms Carlson. I am just advocating the use of properly referenced materials. Characterizing someone's entire career based on the unsubstantiated accusation of someone on trial for DUI is not appropriate when the articles sited are from a gossip columnist and gossip web sites that repeated it. It is more telling that police and prosecutors found the accusation without merit and never arrested or charged Carlson. The bigger question is what is Videojournalist's agenda trying to smear this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.253.170 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of reliable factual information

Articles written by gossip columnists are not factual information. The contents of gossip columns like CJ in the Star Tribune should not be stated as fact or used as a reference. Carlson was never arrested or charged with any crime. For a contributor to state that she is "best known" for the unsubstantiated accusations of someone who was on trial for DUI is unsupportable and irresponsible. Wikipedia is only supposed to use reliable sources and factual information. I agree that this person should possibly be removed as not notable, but gossip should not be included in the profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.253.170 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Ms Carlson, the article is not stating it for a fact. As a reporter you should realize that. It's simply saying that you were allegedly involved in it, and articles to back it up. In fact, if you read it, you would see it says that you weren't arrested or charged. So why don't you work on making it a little more neutral as opposed to trying to have it omitted.--Videojournalist (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

DUI Case removal/vandalism

Ms. Carlson clearly started this page for herself trying to damage control on the DUI case. The probelm is, the DUI case is why she's on many people's radar. If the DUI info is not included, than she becomes "not notable." So either this article should be deleted, or it should stay WITH the DUI case info.--Videojournalist (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion: Agreed. This is a simple case of blanking vandalism. I've left warnings on both IP pages; if it continues, leave them stronger warnings, and if you need to, take it to WP:AIV. Leave a message on my talk page if you need help. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Google trends are a reliable source

Article rewritten to reference the google trends reference which is valid. It would be good to research CJ from the Star Tribune before using her as a reference again. She is a widely known gossip columnist and not a reliable source of information. Her column had many factual errors including the occupation of the accuser. Videojournalist spelled the accuser's name wrong. Better fact checking is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.253.170 (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Google Trends is not a reliable source, as it's just an aggregate. Including the text about it does not get her any notability. And the second half of that addition is pure WP:OR. It needs to be sourced. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the edits to Emily Carlson you would see that incorrect information was corrected. You undid a version that fixed factual errors. Google trends was a reference sited by Videojournalist not me. If you say it is not a reliable source then why are you reverting to another version that sites it? Please read the edits before doing a blanket undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.253.170 (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First, the spicy thing is irrelevant since it's in both versions. The reason I've been reverting your edits is because you're censoring/removing the DUI. Your version only mentions it in passing; similarly, it is completely uncited, is OR (perhaps you know Carlson? then it's a conflict of interest too), and it's blanking vandalism. See WP:V for more on that. Right now, though, you're pushing POV by removing cited information.

In the interest of good faith, though, I'm going to look around for more references for this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked around, and all I could find were the sources listed in the other version. I've since reverted to that version, but with updates: I removed irrelevant external links per WP:EL, I added more references, and I fixed the headers to be a little more appropriate. I even added in your line about the two of them leaving KICD before the trial. This version is referenced; yours is not. Wiki policy states that everything, especially controversial subjects, need to be fully sourced. See WP:V and WP:RS for more on that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Third party rewrite

I followed this trial so fixed several errors in the account. I agree that it should be included on the bio but should be in context of the evidence. I actually think Carlson isn't important enough to warrant her own page but if she has one it should be fair and accurate. 67.79.205.3 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is not bad, but it's still unsourced. You only cite one article for the whole thing, and there are claims in your text that aren't in the article. Example: "Ninomiya denied the allegation and said he barely knew Davis." That is nowhere in this article. Whether or not you watched this case unfold is irrelevant; sourcing wins out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the Most Current and Accurate Sourcing

I appreciate your comments but don't understand why Videojournalist is undoing a third party rewrite to revert to a version that is clearly full of errors. Names are spelled wrong, Davis was 19 not 18, she was not an intern, etc. Also Videojournalist uses two articles from CJ at the Star Tribune in Minnesota as references when the second one corrects erroneous information in the first. Also, the Minnesota article entirely quotes an Illinois newspaper as their source of information. Why not use the Illinois source? Wikipedia articles should be neutral and undoing rewrites that correct wrong information is prohibited. 67.79.205.3 (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added a reference from the Champaign, Illinois newspaper. I used it and the most current Star Tribune article to write an accurate account according to published sources. EVERY BIT OF IT IS QUOTED FROM THE PUBLISHED SOURCES. IT should not be reverted with a blanket Undo to a version that is full of errors.

67.79.205.3 (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Videojournalist was right. Your sources contradict each other. From here, "Erin Davis, 19"; from here, "Erin Davis, then 18." The second one says "In court, Davis was described as an intern. Tim Mathis, GM of WICS and WICD, said Friday: 'Erin Davis was an employee, not an intern.'" How do you explain that discrepancy? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Davis was 18 when she drove drunk and 19 when she went on trial. The age reference was for her testimony at her trial. In court she was described by her attorney as an intern and no one at the trial disputed it. Subsequent reporting showed that she was not an intern at all but worked in the news operations department. Notice that the date of the Star Tribune article is after the News Gazette article and quotes the station General Manager who should know these things. Everything in my latest rewrite is from the latest information in the two articles. Videojounalist keeps spelling Davis as David and Ninomiya as Ninomoya.

67.79.205.3 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emily Carlson. 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/20060518025150/http://www.keyc.tv:80/article/view/98516/ to http://www.keyc.tv/article/view/98516/

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} 21:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)