Talk:Kelly Ripa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kelly Ripa article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Flag of New Jersey
NJ Portal

Kelly Ripa is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[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 21:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hand incident

Does a passing event really deserve 20% of this entire article. A month from now this will be barely remembered. 69.19.14.41 14:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


In a word? Yes. Quite frankly there is a dearth of real information on who Ripa is as a person. It's one thing when the media creates a straw man controversy involving a celebrity just to tear them down for profit and ratings. Such things tell us almost nothing. It's another thing when a very public figure blows up a small incident on national television, and decides on her own accord to not only take the moral high ground but to continue making statements that can and have been legitimately contradicted by the media, her peers, and the online community.

So, if you think 20% of this article is perhaps too much for just one incident, then perhaps you and other like minded individuals should find other factual information to add to her bio to paint a broader picture. Certainly no one believes that the incident is all there is to Ripa, but beyond all the manufactured cotton candy fluff from agents, publicists, tabloids, and masturbatory promo interviews done on entertainment and celebrity centric news programs it isn't often when we get a real glimpse of public figures straight from themselves. It's truth in its most naked and unflinching form, my friend -- and that is why it belongs in wiki.

S.W. 22:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


I agree that this section should be shorter. It's a blip in her biography. Also, maybe someone could find a clearer picture of Clay covering her mouth.

I figure just wait a month and delete the whole darn paragraph. Just tabloid fluff stuff. Triage 12:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There is truth and there is a neutral point of view which must be maintained on Wikipedia. I agree the incident was blown out of proportion, and was tabloid fodder (best coverage was only on entertainment shows and websites), first and foremost. It should be trimmed. It's not for me to say if it should be deleted--I am involved in most Live with Regis and Kelly-related articles. But if the decision is for it to be deleted, it should be deleted sooner than later.
As for adding factual information to her bio, she does reveal a lot of her personal life on Live, but that would not be a reliable source and including info from that source is discouraged. You would need verifiable third-party sources which may include the "cotton candy fluff" described above. I don't read the women's magazines that she appears a lot in, so I won't be adding from those sources. I will probably not be adding to her bio in the near future, as I'm busy with other subject areas. Tinlinkin 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am ready for this "tabloid fluff stuff" to be deleted now. It serves no purpose for Wikipedia. Michigan user 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy (that I know of) that says after a period of time a section should be removed. But based on comments on this page and Talk:Clay Aiken, I feel editors are uncomfortable with this section (which has been propagated to Clay Aiken and Rosie O'Donnell), yet believe Kelly Ripa should be chastised for her actions. The incident revealed a flaw in character that could happen with any other human being. That's all it was. The whole incident was a big misunderstanding among the 3 people involved, exacerbated by gossip and tabloids. It's probably time to lay this section and the others to rest (in other words, delete it), otherwise there remains undue weight to this incident. Tinlinkin 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine with me - IF it comes off the Aiken page as well. I would not want to see it left on that page and deleted here. If you can talk them into it, I would support you. 69.19.14.38 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've been persuaded to think the incident is memorable (see Talk:Clay Aiken). As unimportant as I think the story is, I'm now not going to delete it, but condensing it may be possible. Sorry. Tinlinkin 12:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever is editing out the balanced reaction to this - you do not get to decide which facts are nonsense. What is there is all sourced. There was no controversy until several days later when Ripa decided to scold Aiken on public tv. RIPA created the controversy. She does not get a pass. The section as it is tells both sides - you do not get to make it POV just because you like one version better. 66.82.9.81 01:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems it is time to pare this section down in terms of relevance and sourcing integrity. There is a primary point - O'Donnell accusing Ripa of homophobia on air. And there is a primary counter-point - Ripa claiming germaphobia in an on-air response. That seems plenty balanced enough with enough information for readers to draw their own conclusions; how various celebrity gossip sites have decided to weigh in on either side of that controversy in terms of "believing" Ripa's explanation or O'Donnell's accusation seems far below the standards of Wikipedia. Including a derivative source like the unsigned opinions of TMZ gossip staffers, none of whom have any direct connection to the controversy, does not make the article more balanced, and in fact makes it appear less so.68.175.112.133 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be balanced you also have to include Kelly saying that Aiken was rude, and MANY MANY sources laughing about that, because what he did is a common occurance on that show. There were 3 days of non-stop covreage of Kelly covering Regis's mouth, Regis covering Kelly's mouth, Simon covering Kelly's mouth. Are we supposed to pretend that all that just did not happen? I don't think so.
If you don't like the TMZ reference wording - try re-wording it here so that it still shows that there were many that rolled their eyes at the "germophobia" excuse, but the statement still needs to be sourced. There are other sources out there if you don't like the TMZ sarcasm.
ETA: You could reference segments where Kelly chewed ABC gum, or licked a door handle, etc, etc. Those are out there to be referenced, and definitely show that the germophobia excuse was ridiculous.

69.19.14.34 11:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it is clear that you are weighing in on this personally. It is also clear that you are displaying page ownership behavior and you are engaging in unilateral POV vandalism. Clearly, you have something against Kelly Ripa and you have decided to declare a vendetta against her because, in your ignorant opinion, this was an anti-gay episode in the media. Ironically, Clay Aiken's hasn't never said that he is gay. Furthermore, you are engaging in wiki lawyering. Just because you can find sources for anything, that doesn't make it okay for you to make disruptive edits. Personally, I don't care one way OR the other about this gossipy tabloid controversy. However, I do think that it was noticable for a passing mention. However, in accordance with wiki standards, any contribution should be concise and neutrally worded. This isn't the Michael Richard's racism episode. It is not necessary to report every detail of this flash-in-the-pan pseudo-controversy in the verbose detail you are outlining. Additionally, you appear to be the only editor on this talkpage obsessed with addressing this POV. The consensus, thus far, is to either delete the contribution OR keep it to a minimum, period. Again, I do think a compromise is possible: mention the controversy, and then mention that it was resolved aimicably. The problem with your verbose contribution is that you are making this episode in the focal point of the article. The media, and the general public, has already forgotten about this. So please stop trying to turn this page into your own Anti-Kelly Ripa blog. Thanx.12.134.217.39
Get them to delete it off the Aiken page, and I would support completely deleting it off this page. If it is going to stay, it should present both sides. Triage 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I second that. I think it should be deleted completely. However, if it stays then I support a very simple, brief summary. This shouldn't dominate the page. -anon
I deleted the entire incident from both pages. It is tabloid news, and old at that. Michigan user 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I also think this should be deleted. Okay, so that is four editors who want this deleted. Looks like we have a consensus to delete this nonsense. Organdra user
As long as you delete this now-faded story from all three articles. Wahkeenah 23:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the consensus that it should be deleted; if not, kept extremely brief.65.74.74.113 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race

Some websites are claiming that she is part Black or biracial. Does anyone know?

Strong feeling it's untrue. A reliable source would document that; otherwise that is rather gossipy and an unsupported fact. Tinlinkin 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB

No citations from the IMDB, NNDB, or any other junky trivia sites with no credited authors. IMDB is a website that contains a hord of mistakes because anyone can submit information which is largely unchecked (sounds familiar?). Wikipedia doesn't cite a source and then "lets the readers judge if it's reliable". Otherwise I can cite Wikipedia, or create a fansite and cite that, and see if people find that reliable (i.e. "according to Jack O'Lantern's fan site" or "according to this Wikipedia article"). If a source passes WP:RS, it can be cited. If it doesn't, it's not even in the stratosphere of inclusion. I see WP:RS used to have a note on the IMDB[1], though it seems it's now been removed. In any case, until the IMDB cleans up the crap, stops letting users submit anything and start citing sources, it's no way, Jose. No website that claimed twice that Adam Brody was the brother of Adrien Brody is a reliable source. Period. Mad Jack 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs dead

Just so you know, the first 3 sources are dead, i think the 4th one was, too, can't remember. Violask81976 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the 8 million edits I just did. It's the first time I've tried to put a link in for a source, and I think I screwed it up pretty good. Anyone, feel free to fix my errors in the references. Zackfins54 16:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Please explain me the hand incident

I dont know what was the hand incident with Clay Aiken, and why was that incident so important. I only know (based on what I read), that he covered her mouth with his hand during an interview, but I still dont know why was that incident so important, what was her question or her comment before he did that or what was the entire atmosphere. Someone said that that incident didnt deserved to be 20% of the article, but now is less than 1% and people like me that dont know anything about it dont understand what really happened. I tried to find answers at Clay's article but I couldnt either. Can somebody explain me why this incident was that important or relevant?

[edit] Fidgeting

Could someone with some true eloquence in their writing style mention that she is often criticized for fidgeting on camera and touching her face? I like her, but her fidgeting can be distracting and has been the subject of criticism. I propose this respectfully. Michaelh2001 05:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox out of order

Did you notice that the infobox is out of order? --69.150.163.1 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it. Feel free to revert if the edit was incorrect. --69.150.163.1 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Career Before Personal Life

I was just intrigued that Kelly's career is discussed before her (rather brief paragraph) of her personal life. I dunno if it'd be right to change it though, it kinda seems alright as it is (but I'd have thought personal life would come before career in a bio...?), I guess I'm just asking other users what they think about it! Londonsista (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)