Talk:Martha Stewart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former featured article Martha Stewart is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Portal:Radio
 Radio Portal
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Pics

How do you know that these picture are real? ~~babs

Are we expected to believe that the photo in this article is of a 62 year-old women?

Markb

What photo???

Yes, that's her. That's what she looks like. -- Zoe

It might be an old pic, but she still looks pretty much like that as she is young looking for her age --Ade myers 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone who is following this case closely make sense of William Safire's OP-ED? [1] The parts that are of most interest, i think, are:

  • "the prosecutor James Comey handed off the insider-trading charge to the S.E.C., which seeks civil damages, not criminal penalties, and must meet a much lower standard of proof."
  • "she voluntarily answered the questions of investigators, she was not under oath and could never have perjured herself."

If those points are indeed true, this wiki-article should reflect them. I simply don't know enough about the law or about the story to take a stab at editing the article. I hope one of you can do so :) Kingturtle 05:20 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] TV

TV appearance? Martin

Yes, where? Not that I disbelieve, but I am curious. Koyaanis Qatsi 04:16 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Court

Hasn't she been in court for a while now. Any Americans know if this article needs some serious updating? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] image

that image is about 10 years old. we need an up to date one. Kingturtle 23:22, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does it really matter that photos are up-to-date? This is Wikipedia not a dating site! --80.177.124.44 16:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article

Unfortunately, she's not quite the "clean, nice old lady" she appears to be in the public eye and is often disliked amongst her peers. She is also known to step on people's feet and do just about anything, regardless of who it hurts, to get ahead in her career.

Seemed a bit POV and rantish so I removed it. Though many Americans I have met have had strong opinions on Martha (good and bad) so maybe something can be said... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have removed a bit of vandalism, such as the line that her grandparents were pornstars.

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek magazine image

I vaguely recall a television segment a while back about that image suggesting it may have been fakes. SD6-Agent 14:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC) ±±±

[edit] Scandals

Too much of this article seems to be spent on scandal. I know that it her current persona seems ridden with scandal, but she had years where she actually had a life without scandal. —preceding unsigned comment by Mrcsparker (talk • contribs) 23:07, November 19, 2005

Thank you Agateller for spliting the article in two. -Alexhb

[edit] Out of control

This article is waaay too focused on her scandal and jailtime. I know that was the subject of a lot of ridicule last year, but now she's pretty well re-established herself as the homemaker icon she's been for the past twenty-five years. Of course, include the scandal, but having "convicted felon" in the first paragraph, listed among her occupations - somebody had an axe to grind here --relaxathon 22:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • --thank you "relaxathon". i completely concur. --Kiwidude 01:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree, she's a convicted felon and that needs to be in the first paragraph. (Bjorn Tipling 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC))
Her conviction is metioned in the lede section just a few lines before your edit. --mtz206 01:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Image

that new image is good but the quality is terrible. it's fuzzy, at least on my computer. anyone else think the quality's a problem?Kiwidude 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean Image:Marthaapprentice.jpg? Yes, it looks fuzzy to me as well. Also, it is huge and oddly shaped: very narrow but very tall. Something not so fuzzy and a better shape would look much better. Also, I find it a bit odd to see Alexis' and Charles Koppleman's shoulders. --MatthewUND(talk) 09:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should just put back the old picture. Thoughts?Kiwidude 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --MatthewUND(talk) 06:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yay, it's been removed.Kiwidude 17:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I admire your initiative Kiwidude, but removing the rest of the photos was not neccisary.Alexhb

I didn't remove any of the pictures. i merely commented on the removal of the top one where she is standing on in her white suit. That's the only picture i wanted removed. my goodness look at the history before you rudely accuse people. Kiwidude 06:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i'm realy sorry. as soon as i posted the message i realized it was not you, and i was going to revert it then apologize. but i reverted it, got a new phtot, and completely spazzed. Sorry! Alexhb

sureKiwidude 05:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the part about her conviction, there is a seemingly POV part about how the case was biased against her, and it asserts more or less her innocence, besides misspelling "Exonerated" ("exhonerated"). I, myself, wasn't entirely convinced it wasn't tainted by schadenfreude, but at the same time, any critique of the trial ought to be NPOV.

She was not exonerated. She is not innocent. She was convicted. It is a fact. Saying so otherwise is factually incorrect. (Bjorn Tipling 01:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Pets

I believe some of her dogs died. Is that true?Kiwidude 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tag

Did Martha Steward Inc. come by and rework the article? It reads like a page from their website. Having been convicted of a felony is no small thing. The entire scandal is very notable and was national headline news yet there's barely a trace of it in this article. Her book is currently on sale for $.99 in the clearance section of Office Depot. This tag needs to remain until the article is cleared up. If not we'll have to start the process for a resolution, this article is a black mark on Wikipedia. (Bjorn Tipling 01:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)).

I disagree with the placement of a POV tag on this article. The stated reason, "It is decidedly pro-Martha, with barely a mention of the recent scandal" is inaccurate. The 3rd paragraph in the lede section mentions "Most of her professional attention, since her release from prison (see below), has been focused on reviving the fortunes of her business, which suffered during the entire period of her litigation and incarceration." And there is a section on the ImClone scandal along with a link to the larger article on the topic. --mtz206 01:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I also disagree. I do not think that this article presents one point of view. The article does not have to include criticism of Martha to be neutral. It simply has to present the facts, which it does perfectly. It says the crime she was convicted of and the length of her sentence. the sleeper 02:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, there is no need to stated "and a convicted felon" to the first line of the article. It is mentioned just a few lines below (still in the lede), and it would be unreasonable to claim that such a phrase should be added to each and every WP biographic article in which it applies. --mtz206 02:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Though I don't like the "and a convicted felon" wording, Bjorn has a good point; the first paragraph is rather puffy without at least some mention of what she actually is, at the moment, perhaps best known for. Since the paragraph is phrased as "...is known for...", it's a wee bit disingenuous not to mention her notoriety as well as her fame. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I made an attempt at a more reasoned mention of her conviction in the opening paragraph. --mtz206 03:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks *much* better now. (Bjorn Tipling 20:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)).
I removed the tag b/c it realy was both inaccurate and innappropriate for wikipedia. Writing "It's is deciddedly pro-Martha" is something I think you would write in the talk section, not on the article itself. Sorry, but... Alex 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't live in the US so I didn't know who Martha Stewart was. When I saw her mentioned on TV, I wanted to find out who she was on Wikipedia. I must say, the first paragraph starts talking about imprisoning so abruptly that it feels like this is by far the most important thing about her. I can see there were considerable efforts in rewriting this but I think there's more work to be done. Romanski 11:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Is she or is she not a convicted felon? You people have no problem placing Peter F. Paul as a felon in HIS first paragraph. To be bia or not to be bias? That is the question?! Alex, YOU, are in fact a follower of Martha Stewart. Just look at your edits, ALL INCLUDE MARTHA STEWART, lets see, Martha TV program, Martha Stewart Baby, Martha Stewart Living, Martha Stewart Omnimedia, Martha Stewart Living Radio, and Martha Stewart Weddings. This is foolish and the issue be dropped entirely. I have been absolutely neutral in stating one thing: Fact: Martha Stewart is a convicted felon. Here is an example of the bias of the editors of wikipedia. I continually deleted Peter F. Paul's conviction in HIS first paragraph only to have someone change it back. Is this not the same case with Martha? He also has very important things on his resume, being a lawyer and working with the comic book writer Stan Lee. Should HE have his felony status reverted? No, because he is a felon. Plain and simple. Being a felon is a big deal. Do jobs not want you to know if your a convicted felon? Does the Department of Motor Vehicles not ask you if you have been a convicted felon? Of course they do, because in this country, when you do something wrong, especially something like trying to con other Americans in the stock business, it should be noted.

  • That's a very valid statement. However, the issue has been discussed here, and I am only following what myself and other members of Wikipedia felt was appropriate. If you feel otherwise, then you are welcome to discuss it here and if people believe that it should say convicted felon, than it should stay that way. However, at this point, you have been to only person to insist oh having it say convicted criminal and convicted felon, and I have only turned it back to what it was supposed to be. Just take a look at your edits, changing 2 words back and forth has been your only real contribution to Wikipedia. So what if I focus on a certain subject for my edits, atleast I have made relevant, neutral, and stable contributions to wikipedia. Alex 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex, I have been an utmost follower of Wikipedia for a long time now. Please do not stray from the topic by stating that I have only made a couple posts. Are you are being prejudice towards my "noob" status? I seldom feel the "urge" to make any improvements in the wiki, as I honestly hate to have my input in anything. I love reading the writings of the other editors in the Wiki, and I probably have read a third of the entire thing-- yes, I do have the time. But anyways, as I stated, I had just stated the facts, and it made me frustrated that Martha was placed under this special aura of "greatness" by others. I tell you the truth, I believe Martha could care less what has been stated about her and could absolutely care less what is going on in her wiki page, nonetheless from every other forum and webpage that has talked bad about her. Martha has better things to do, and she already probably knows that her image has depleted a bit from the scandal. Alex, I have nothing against you, I just ask that you stop deleting her felony status because others will be frustrated because you will have to justify Peter F. Paul's and others felony status also.

[edit] GA nomination

For someone this famous and in an article this size, I am sure more than 2 footnotes can be made. Rlevse 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Martha Stewart has failed, for the following reason(s):

As Rlevse said above, references is the largest problem with this article. Almost no inline citation and even the non-cited refs are far too few. In addition, much is written non-encyclopedically. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

It has been suggested that a scandal involving the furniture company Levitz may have contributed to her decision to leave the firm of Monness, Horstman, Williams, and Sidel.

"It has been suggested" is a Weasel Word. The sentence needs adequate references, and a subject. ("The New York Times, in an article from 1973, cited sources claiming that a scandal...")

If no references suggesting this can be found, the sentence should probably be deleted. MIP | Talk 14:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical revisionism

Someone keeps removing the reference to the fact (not opinion) that Martha Stewart is a felon. Committing a felony is not like taking a cookie out of the cookie jar. It is as equal an identifying quality of a person as "business magnate". Most famous people (most people at all for that matter) aren't felons, so I fail to see how including this is biased.

Shadowlink1014

The felon or felony conviction definitely needs to appear, since MS was convicted of the felony of obstruction of justice. We just need to be careful NOT to say that she was convicted of insider trading which she definitely was not. Smallbones 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

I rated this biography a B-class article. It seems pretty well written, and it has great photos, but it needs more elaboration of the biographical information, and more information about her personal, non-business activities. It also needs better and more citations. But it's almost A-class. I expanded the intro, which was way too short. -- Ssilvers 19:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the writing is pretty bad, actually. ". . . word of her business and skills grew rapidly"??? How does "word" grow, I wonder? It might spread, but grow? And that's just one example. 69.250.29.200 01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of word in Martha Stewart bio page....

Martha Stewart (born August 3, 1941) is a convicted felon and a shitheel American business magnate, author, editor, former stock broker and model, convicted criminal, and homemaking advocate.

I think this word in BOLD should be excised from the bio page. Whatever you may think of her personally, it's certainly not proper to use this word. Please remove it. 134.193.138.28 14:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, anonymous, for making Wikipedia such a better place! -HuBmaN!!!! 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "convicted felon" or "convicted criminal" belong in the opening sentence. This is a list of her professions, being a "felon" is not a profession. There is already more than enough space devoted in the article to her conviction. There's even a whole seperate article on the subject. Enough, already! It looks like Wikipedia is trying to smear her good name.

Please sign your name using four tildes. We have come to a consensus on this talk page that this reference should remain in, please see the discussion elsewhere on this talk page. Furthermore, a "smear campaign" would be writing information that is slanderous or false. If you continue to make these changes against the general consensus, you'll probably be in violation of the three-revert rule and could face a temporary block from editing. --Shadowlink1014 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is this consensus that you speak of? I can't find anything close to a consensus on this talk page. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked for opinions up above... although I only received one response here, many users have been reverting these changes, so I'd consider that a consensus. However, you are right -- it would probably be best if we did a formal vote on it. --Shadowlink1014 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You can categorize her as a "convicten felon". That is a matter of fact. "Criminal" is a more general term that in American culture implies a lifelong predisposition to break serious laws. It is libelous and wikipedia is on shaky ground using such terms to define Martha Stewart in the intro of this piece. You'd think with the Sinbad/NBC reporter/last week's BLP lawsuit that wikipedia would exercise more caution before this sort of thing. Piperdown 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, under Shadowlink's criteria, the following people would have "criminal" in the first line of their biographies, they have all been convicted of breaking serious US laws:

George Steinbrenner Martin Sheen ... well, I hope you get the idea, there's dozens of famous people who have broken serious laws or even done jail time that shouldn't be labeled "criminals" in the first line of their biograpy.Piperdown 01:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean... even though I actually am not the person that put that in the intro, I did support it because of magnitude of the events surrounding that issue, and I felt it was noteworthy enough to include in the intro. However, it would probably be best not to include it there for legal reasons like you said, especially with regards to recent events in Wikipedia-land. There is something I should note about the category "American criminals" though... while I do not personally agree with it, the criteria on that category's main page says basically anybody convicted of serious crimes -- not neccessarily making a career out of it; that's why I did put the categorization in. So if we want to remove the category, we will have to change the criteria for that category, which would be a VERY big task, since there are hundreds of entries. --Shadowlink1014 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for seeing the light on this. MegaMom 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/Talk%7EMartha_Stewart_4150.html"