Talk:The View (talk show)/Archive 1

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

Protection

Resolved

Due to the large number of unconfirmed edits for rumors on the replacement, I have protected the page. Shawn W 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Protection from the page since a new host as been selected. If there is still a large number of vandelism, I will place the protection back on. Shawn W 02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to introduction

Resolved

This show has undergone some changes in co-hosts during 2006. Please keep in mind the style guide suggestions for a lead section (WP:LEAD) when making updates that reflect these co-host changes. Thanks 66.167.252.200 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Location of the View

Resolved

I'm just wondering, this show is like the first thing I see on TV every morning when I wake up (though it frequently bores me to death), I just want to know if anyone has the location of the studio. I mean that would be interesting information that has not yet been mentioned in the article, and I would just want to know where the location of this show is. My guess would be Hollywood, CA, but then again I have seen this show occasionally I have found some NYC-bias in this show to, further growing my curiosity. Falconleaf

Thank You now I can put that into the article. Falconleaf

Bias

Resolved

The View isn't a news show. It's a talk show, the purpose of which is for hosts to express their opinions. If the hosts have liberal opinions, that's not "bias" because there is no reasonable expectation of neutrality in this case. As such, I contend that the inclusion of this Bias section is unnecessary. Unless someone can give me a decent argument why it needs to be there, I intend to eliminate it. scola

Yes, The View is a talk show and not a news show, and it is for the hosts to express their opinions. However, to be bias you do not have to be a news show to be biased. To be biased is not to have neatrality, but rather equal representation of both sides. I believe that The View is mostly liberal, and does have Elisabeth as a representative for the conservative side, and that it is a talk show so yes they can be biased, but that does not mean that they aren't. I also think that Elisabeth is biased too, so if there is going to be a bias section that should be added. I think that in order to determine whether something is biased or not you have to have a neutral party determine that. I do agree that the bias section should be removed, however, because as it is now it is biased in itself, leaning to the liberal side, attacking conservatives. I also believe that if it should stay that it should not that Elisabeth is biased too.
As a talk show, "The View" is subject to less scrutinization for bias. However, the accusations of its partisanship are noteworth nonetheless if only to advise the article's reader of a criticism that is very serious. I understand that not all accusations can be mentioned in Wikipedia articles, but considering that two of the current four hosts are outspoken "liberal" and there is only one conservative, the charges of bias are worth mentioning. At the very least, I suggest the allegations be merged with the "negative criticism" section of the article. Polysci
According to the wiki article The View uses biased liberal thinking in deciding co hosts, so why should it not be mentioned that the program itself is liberal biased ?
If Barabra Walters or "the panel" has decided that the next co host should be a minority. this is clearly liberal thinking, add Rosies daily liberal statements on top of that and The View is clearly liberal biased overall.

Negative criticism

Resolved

... Is there positive criticism? I think this is a bit redundant. (QUINTIX 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

  • Thanks for the "constructive criticism", which is now fixed, having been overlooked due to more blatant problems on the page. "Negative criticism" is akin to Yogi Berra's comment about his 1960 Yankees losing the Series: "We made too many wrong mistakes!" Wahkeenah 07:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

Resolved

This article seems like a mishmash of current and old information. It's quite confusing to read. In at least one section it seems as though Star Jones is still on the show, and in another it seems like replacements for her are still being considered. What's up? Exploding Boy 08:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's the "Wikipedia Camel" effect. A camel is said to be "a horse designed by a committee". So also (sometimes) with wikipedia articles. Wahkeenah 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed a statement from the introduction

Resolved

I've removed the following sentence from the introductory section under the premise that it is most likely one person's opinion (there is no source for the statement) and it was rather poorly placed in its respective paragraph.

  • However, with the addition of Rosie O'Donnell it has turned into "Rosie's View" a platform for the Democratic Party.

Additionally, the user that made this change made only this change, and this has been their sole contribution to Wikipedia.

If anyone here thinks I'm wrong in removing this claim, do as you will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.40.172.245 (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Bias accusations

Resolved

First, this certainly should all be one section - there is no need to separate political from religious or racial bias, especially since there are not so many examples given of any of these accusations. As for the anti-Catholic bias accusation, I went back and actually read the source piece on this. It is just a press release issued by the Catholic League, stating that their president accused the show and Walters of bias. This is not an independent source reporting on it, it is an original source, and as such could be problematic in BLP terms - we'd rather quote third party objective sources who reported on this, than just his statement on its own. So a better source would be welcome - perhaps some newspaper reported this as news. I also removed the actual quotes from the press release because people can read the press release on their own and draw whatever conclusions they wish - this article, which is about the television show, can refer to this accusation, but should not spend more time and space on it than on the other ones where we similarly just give the source and not go into the details of who said what. I believe the way it reads now is fair, and of course will be happy to discuss it. Tvoz |talk 07:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, where is the proof that Kathie Lee Gifford is a conservative. Yes, she is a Christian (born again I think), but does that make her conservative? Maybe she is, but where is the proof?--RobNS 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Kathie Lee has given money to Republicans such as Rudy Giuliani and Elizabeth Dole as well as Democrats such as Hillary Clinton. She clearly isn't a conservative.RangerKing 17:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tryouts

Resolved

I am inclined to remove the overly long list of "Season 10 tryouts" - what's the point? Tvoz |talk 08:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumored replacement

Resolved

The Kathy Griffin article says she's rumored as a replacement; this one said Kathie Lee Gifford. Which is it, and is there any source? Wally 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC) It is Kathy griffin. go to google news and use those sources. Kathy Griffin is rumored as a replacement. http://www.nypost.com/seven/08062007/tv/sherri_deal_stalls_tv_.htm

I vote to remove mention of "rumored replacements". Rumors don't belong in encyclopedia articles.Rosiestephenson 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Replacement auditions

Resolved

I recommend removing mention of those who auditioned on-screen for Panelist job but weren't selected. I believe the info is not encyclopedia noteworthy.Rosiestephenson 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Controversies" section

Resolved

I vote we remove this; am soliciting feedback first. Reasoning: This is an encyclopedia article about a talk show. Talk shows cover controversial topics and have controversial hosts. As it reads now, it comes across "gossipy". I'm not recommending deleting all mention of controversies, but they could be condensed and included within the appropriate Season's section (i.e. Season 10).Rosiestephenson 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proprosal. This is not the place for controversies. Shawn W 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth most of it was lifted off work I did on the O'Donnell article although seemingly the anti-Catholic section was rather gutted over there. For this article you could potentially reference the controversy section on the O'Donnell article as a See Main link and explain that her tenure was seen as having more controversies during the shows history thus removing the vast majority on the content that is duplicative. Benjiboi 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Update, I've trimmed down most of it and removed some wholesale. It can still be condensed some as we get more historical perspective. Benjiboi 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Update. I've moved these into season 10 section for continuity and suggest we remove 1. Kelly Ripa/Clay Aiken, 2.Accusations of anti-Catholicism and lastly 7 World Trade Center collapse as notable as these events were at the moment in hindsight they just haven't gone very far especially since O'Donnell isn't on air to further along the narrative. Whereas Danny DeVito interview (with Mocking Chinese language) and Donald Trump feud both seem to have widespread coverage. I'd like to remove these within the next two weeks unless there is any strong objections. FYI the material is all still documented in the O'Donnell article. Benjiboi 15:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Update, another editor has removed the section (see below talk section) and I've added context for the sections inclusion. Benjiboi 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Return to having a section for each Season

Resolved

I think collapsing the first 9 Seasons into one section is inappropriate. It makes Season 10 look like a TV Guide promo for Season 11. I am soliciting feedback.Rosiestephenson 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this one as well. This makes it seem like that the show was non-existant for the first nine seasons. If that was the case, then the show wouldn't be existing today. Shawn W 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I recommend within each Season: start with the season's Panelists then follow with Noteable episodes; no more than a paragraph per noteworthy episode. Feedback?Rosiestephenson 18:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure notable episodes as much as notable incidents or season highlights. I do support something quick that allows a reader to quickly look over at season is helpful. Benjiboi 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Rosie, I completely agree with you. However, as a long-time viewer I can tell you that you'll be hard pressed to find some "noteworthy" or even mentionable items from seasons 1-9, except maybe the firing of Debbie and perhaps all of Star Jones' pre-wedding blabber. Those seasons were pretty boring and uneventful. The show really started gaining traction after Meredith left and perhaps more so when Star abruptly quit live on the show. Vik —Preceding comment was added at 20:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

International broadcasts

Resolved

{{help}} An editor keeps removing the following information from the article. I'd like other editor's opinions if there is policy prohibiting the inclusion as the editor asserts or if the information presented is useful and if any changes/improvements would be helpful.

  • In Australia, The View is shown on the W. Channel on cable television, on a one-day delay. The episodes are also repeated in blocks over the weekend.
  • In Canada, The View is available on ABC affiliates and on the CTV broadcast network in simulcast with ABC.

All constructive comments welcome. Benjiboi 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I understand the fact that Wiki isn't a TV Guide or something, but honestly I don't see how adding those 2-3 lines is really a big deal. An outsider can see that, yeah, the show is aired in the US but it is also known internationally. I think we should keep 'em. Besides, there's a LOT more junk in this article than those two lines. Vik —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I don't really see why those two lines are a problem. RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 20:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Viewtitlecard5.jpg

Resolved

Image:Viewtitlecard5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell controversies

Resolved

I removed the list of controversies aparked on The View and added a link to Rosie's page. The list is too long and seems like O' Donnell is the center of attention for the article

Jagarin 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the section and moved the link i think the current treatment seems balanced but am happy to amend if needed. Benjiboi 02:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WhoopiView.jpg

Resolved

Image:WhoopiView.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed contribution

I have deleted this text from the section about the cast:

"The view can also be shown in the uk on osn broadbands show series. The uk virsion of the show otherwise known as Loose Wemon can be shown on ITV"

I don't think it was vandalism, just some kid (I hope it was a child, from the spelling) trying to be helpful. Liam Proven (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

is it possible to get ratings information thru the seasons of The View? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbhrmn (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I've been wondering what the current ratings are. I haven't seen any numbers since early June which means they are down. The week after Rosie O'Donnell left the ratings fell 14%.

Similar Shows

I believe that this section should be removed as it does not really pertain to the show itself, and lacks verification. Shawn W 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that this would be a good idea? Shawn W 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It could be clarified if this was the first and the others followed - if that's true. Benjiboi 22:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Walters and ratings

Barbara Walters has kept mum on their actual ratings, not even releasing their November sweeps information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.225.35 (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All interesting but we need sources to use any of it. Benjiboi 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Format section disputed content

Resolved. Sources added, the rest removed. Banjeboi 06:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything following the footnote in this section is unsourced POV, hence, OR and speculation.--72.76.6.186 (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the tag to OR as that's the main concern that should first be addressed by sourcing, then, based on sources, can be adjusted for any remaining POV concerns. If still no sourcing is introduced then the section can be re-purposed. Benjiboi 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

tag removed

I'm removing the readability tag as the section has been trimmed down with links to other articles. Banjeboi 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Various sections

What's with the sections on the Michael Vick discussion, Marcel Marceau's death conversation, Clinton baby plan discussion, and The word "nigger"? Could they be any less encyclopaedic? Could somebody please explain why they are currently in the article before I remove them? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These are notable highlights of the season, they should be left, IMHO, for a while to see if they show up as ongoing themes or otherwise are notable. Sadly everything they do is quite covered in the media so we could fill up several articles with their antics. i feel this is fine for now and can be trimmed in the future when seen through better hindsight as to what is still important or not. Banjeboi 00:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Bias

Updated host names. Added some cites for the alleged liberal bias of Behar and Goldberg. Added quote from Shepherd about not being very politically minded. Had to add this a second time as it was removed by a subsequent editor. I certainly think that updating the hosts names is proper. Adding cites for the political positions supports the previous assertion of bias where no cites had exited before. The Shepherd quote is to address the political (or in this case non-political) position of the only host not specified in the article. I'm open to suggestions. --Textmatters (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

breastfeeding

In light of whats going on now with facebook, I added some information on the controversy created by Barbara Walters in 2005 based on these articles[1], [2] Wapondaponda (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hasslebeck leaving - yet again

I've removed the above per wp:crystal, if we have reliable sources that support this then we should start there. -- Banjeboi 04:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been battling the same issue for months, but I become the bad guy when I remove it..because Fixed News is always right..What can you do other than constantly revert.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Start with quick reverts and blocking if needed; if it persists we can go with slow reverts and semi-protection. No worries, if Hasslebeck ever does leave I'm sure it will be widely covered so demanding a reliable source before it's added is all we need to do here. -- Banjeboi 05:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess I will be deferring all block requests to you then, seeing as though I don't have any of those privileges. You would be surprised at how many admins don't want to look over your edits and tell you if you're a bad editor. Ah well. There goes adoption. Cheers!--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol! I'm not an admin but have had to learn the ins and outs. The baseline seems to be the investment of time and energies. If a user hasn't made much vandalism I may use {{uw-test}}, if it's "___ is a fag" or otherwise makes wikipedia look bad I may use {{uw-bv}}. If several anon IPs are daily causing problems, WP:RFPP might be used. If one particular user won't desist then WP:AIV might help. In all cases don't stress and keep plugging away! -- Banjeboi 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Griffin

The above was removed but I think it may be true. Griffin herself was talking about the lifetime ban that she was under and how she liked to try to ruffle Walters. If anyone sees something we can use please post it so we can suss this out. -- Banjeboi 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


I dont doubt that it is true, sure it may have happened..but I yanked it simply because it wasn't sourced, and when saying something that could affect a different page, I feel like this should be cited and then replaced..im just one though so maybe I'm wrong.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, the text does imply the source - Walters' radio talk show - but we're probably better off with a transcript or at least a video that can be checked for accuracy. -- Banjeboi 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote format problem

I commented out an incorrectly formatted quote (from a NY Times review regarding Joy Behar appearing "parachuted in"). It's a fair quote if formatted properly, but as formatted it came across as a POV statement by a Wikipedia editor, which obviously wasn't the intent. For some reason I couldn't get the quote to work properly, so I commented it out and if someone with more knowledge of formatting can fix it, that would be great. 23skidoo (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Banjeboi 00:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ann Coulter Appearance

This section seems really large, is this a huge issue in reliable sources? My impression was that Coulter acted this way to get people talking about her. Anyone know if this is s big deal? -- Banjeboi 00:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I never saw a point to it being here either, it just kind of got added..and the last time i was bold about something, backlash abounded..so if you yank it im all for it. all i was doing was cleaning it up before it was removed for being pointless, redundant, and completely unneccessary.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Post election same-sex marriage dispute

The "Post election same-sex marriage dispute" section contains far too much detail about Prop 8. None of the other sections relevant to political debates contain much more than a sentence or two about the discussed topic, then continue with information about what was said or done on "The View." I removed this information earlier today, but it was reverted.

The information is (as far as I can tell) correct, but it doesn't make any sense that a section about a dispute on the View is nearly 2/3 details about Proposition 8, and only 1/3 about what was actually said and done on The View.

Re-removing. Mgius (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This subsection of the article seems to be far too lenghty in general and contains details that interested readers can find in the Prop 8 article itself. Sarnalios (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll look to trimming it; these issues have been endlessly discussed but we usually wwait until an issue resolves a bit - which this hasn't - to trim it back. -- Banjeboi 17:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've boldly tried to remove some rather trivial content and subsection formatting, in part, because the table of contents was extremely long. Several of the separate sections were only one paragraph. -- Banjeboi 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 12:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


The View → The View (American TV series) — The existence of The View (Irish TV series). I also thought of The View (band) before this show as well so was wondering why typing "The View" led me here. There is also a song. Both TV shows have been around since 1997 so it's not a case of one being more recent or less significant. —candle•wicke 02:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

--------number of episodes------------

can someone update the number of episodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.227.146 (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sherri's death

Shouldn't the article mention that Sherri Shepherd has passed away?

No, it's not true. Check the news (http://news.google.com/). みんな空の下 (トーク) 03:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly interview, Oct. 14, 2010 - I think Joy Behar called him a "Pinhead" not "Pig Face".

I believe there is a factual error in this article, based on an erroneous source, written in good faith. Yes, there is a source that says Joy Behar called Bill O'Reilly "Pig Face", but carefully review the video again. It seems to me Joy Behar is saying "Pinhead". I think this is a mistake that should be corrected.

Here is a link to the video.

JGKlein (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Obama

Find it hard to believe that in this enormously long article there is not one word about how Obama, a sitting president, appeared on it. Possibly first sitting president to appear in a daytime talk show studio (though Bush was interviewed by Dr. Phil, I think). Isn't that, well, noteworthy?

Behar

The reason for Behar's departure had been rendered gibberish. I deleted it (it was unsourced, anyway), but the info needs to be replaced. 70.64.34.140 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hasselbeck's replacement

By far most sources state that she is to be Hasselbeck's replacement. Here are a few:

It's true that a few sources mention both Hasselbeck and Behar in a confusing manner, but most sources state it's Hasselbeck who is being replaced, without mentioning Behar at all. If there is a source directly from ABC that contradicts this, then we need to see it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources are saying this because she was announced as co-host just days after Hasselbeck. However, she was in talks before Hasselbeck even announced she was leaving. One of McCarthy's statements regarding her joining clearly says she is joining because Behar is leaving, and Walters said on-air that they are not looking to replace Hasselbeck immediately. So while reliable sources may seem to point to her replacing Hasselbeck, the people directly involved have pointed to replacing Behar. There are also plenty of sources which correctly state that she is replacing Behar. --Shadow (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as I noted above, it can be confusing, so I totally understand your situation. There are a few sources that mention both of them leaving, which creates ambiguity, and a few which specifically mention McCarthy as a replacement for Behar, without mentioning Hasselbeck. The three links you provided are essentially the same article (the first one). I don't understand the technicalities about which actual chair she'll be sitting in, and whatever significance that might have, so I won't engage in any OR on that count. What we really need is an official statement from ABC, since Walter's original announcement doesn't mention anything. I did find one from an ABC affiliate which I have used in the article, and it states that McCarthy replaces Hasselbeck. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
An statement from ABC isn't needed though. Walters is the creator of the show and it's executive producer. She does have to get ABC's approval, but she hires the co-hosts and both her (indirectly) and McCarthy have stated she is replacing Behar. The parties directly involved are far more reliable then the media. --Shadow (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
And this is the ultimate proof. McCarthy next to Goldberg. --Shadow (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we would need Walters' and ABC's confirmation, otherwise it is OR (and edit warring) by placing your opinion above the vast majority of RS. When there is a disagreement between RS, we either document the disagreement or go with the majority view, which is Hasselbeck. Very few sources mention Behar in this connection. I have never seen a statement by Walters in which she mentioned who was being replaced by McCarthy. (Since two are leaving and one is arriving, we could speculate (OR) that McCarthy was replacing both.... ) Since ABC news mentioned McCarthy as Hasselbeck's replacement (and The View is an ABC program), and so do the majority of other reports from RS, we've been going with that version. (BTW, there are numerous images showing many different seating arrangements, so it's also OR to use that argument.)
Since you are claiming that "both her [Walters] (indirectly) and McCarthy have stated she is replacing Behar," that could settle the matter for me. Please provide those RS. They would trump other (non-ABC) media. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I have waited for RS backing the claims above, but none have been forthcoming, so I have restored the ABC News source. Lacking any statement from Walters, we'll consider ABC News (ABC owns The View) to be the most official source. I also made several copy edits and improvements. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You waited a couple hours, not all people live on the internet. And I've already provided those sources, I provided links to them a month ago and they are up in my first paragraph. One directly from McCarthy, and one directly from Walters, I also gave a source where it showed that McCarthy was already in talks to join the show before it was even known Hasselbeck was leaving. --Shadow (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
A couple days, not hours.... I asked for the sources and got no reply. Please provide them here. I would like to see them. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I apologize I looked at the time not the day, I apologize. But I just told you, I already gave the sources on this page. I'm not going to repost them when you can scroll up and click on them. --Shadow (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get to it later. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, below are the sources you supplied (quoting you).

Before I comment on them, there are two things to keep in mind:

The first is synthesis and original research.

We are finding it in the pronouncements of various RS, some certainly less "reliable" gossip sources than others, but the fact that Barbara Walters, in her original announcement (and I haven't seen any clarification from her since then), didn't say anything about whom Jenny was replacing. I fear that you are engaging in some of the same SYNTH violations, by looking at timing, what was publicly announced, while what was really known was kept hidden from the public, etc.. Transitions like this, just like the sale of businesses (I have sold businesses), are surrounded with secrecy, and what is said to the public cannot be trusted. Leaks occur, and lies follow to keep the real truth (or lack of certainty) from being known too soon. This leaves lots of room for journalists and editors to try to connect the dots. While we are allowed to quote RS who have done that, we can't do it ourselves.

The second is the difference between early statements about whom she was to replace, and whom she actually ends up replacing (her final status). Those can very well be two different things. It's definite that the majority of RS statements affirmed she was going to replace Hasselbeck, with a few mentioning Behar instead.

Even if she was initially supposed to replace Hasselbeck, she may well end up replacing Behar, and we can document that if we find good RS which state that. Right now things are a bit up in the air, but she's coming at a time with two empty roles, and which one will she fill better? We don't know, but I'm sure Walters and ABC will come with statements which clear that up.

Now to comment on your sources using quotes from above in this thread:

1. "she was in talks before Hasselbeck even announced she was leaving."

This one is repeating early coverage (based on unsourced info) from Us Weekly. Since Hasselbeck's fate was unknown at this time, but Behar's departure was known, what else could they guess? I don't put much confidence in these two sources.

2. "One of McCarthy's statements regarding her joining clearly says she is joining because Behar is leaving,"

This one actually supports the Hasselbeck replacement position:
  • "One bubbly, perky – and outspoken – blonde is about to be replaced by another. Less than a week after the departure of Elisabeth Hasselbeck from the syndicated daytime talkfest The View comes confirmation that Jenny McCarthy will succeed her when the show returns for its 17th season Sept. 9."
That's definitely referring to the blonde Hasselbeck twice, and supports the Hasselbeck replacement theory.
  • ""YUP, I'M DOING 'THE VIEW'!" McCarthy trumpeted on her blog Monday. "When word got out that Joy [Behar] was leaving 'The View,' I knew that the timing of my desire and her departure might be serendipitous for me.""
Jenny knows that Behar is leaving and sees an opportunity, and she's just mentioning her thoughts (in retrospect) based on what limited info she had "When word got out..." This one isn't a good one for the Behar replacement theory. On the contrary.

3. "and Walters said on-air that they are not looking to replace Hasselbeck immediately."

"...filling it ["the void"] very soon. Okay? There will be plenty of guest hosts..." were the words, but I don't think we can put much weight on that because this was five days before they could officially announce McCarthy's appointment. They had to keep it secret, so the public and media were left guessing, so we must use caution when quoting them. That's why I feel most comfortable with the announcement by ABC News. That's the most official statement so far. Yet it doesn't address the final results of where McCarthy will end up fitting in. It could be for Behar or Hasselbeck, but the initial ABC News announcements stated she was replacing Hasselbeck.

4. "So while reliable sources may seem to point to her replacing Hasselbeck, the people directly involved have pointed to replacing Behar."

Very uncertain based on the above.

5. "There are also plenty"

As noted above, Us Weekly is just repeating what they have previously written, but even when they quote Walters, it's her original statement which doesn't mention anything about "replacement".

6. "of"

Yes, this too is one of the few RS (but definitely a low impact source....) which mentions Behar.

7. "sources which correctly state that she is replacing Behar."

This is a Yahoo copy of the Us Weekly article above.

I still want to stick with ABC News until we get a better confirmation of her final status, and then we can amend or add, depending on what it says. If we find that she ends up replacing Behar, and that another ends up replacing Hasselbeck, we'll add that info as it comes in. Right now we see that there has been some confusion in the media, so I'm sticking to the majority of sources and to ABC News. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point it seems you are just trying to poke holes in sources just for the sake of personal opinion and trying to discredit the most reliable sources. You may not trust a specific source, but that doesn’t mean you can just dismiss it on those grounds. US Weekly is a popular magazine that has provided plenty of material over the years to be considered reliable. And you said it yourself; no one knew Elisabeth was leaving, so obviously they starting looking for Joy’s replacement, not Elisabeth’s. And discrediting McCarthy because she may not have known about Hasselbeck leaving? I could easily say you are coming to your own conclusion as well. Plus, Elisabeth’s departure was a last minute deal. Former co-host Debbie Matenopoulos was set to host on July 10th, but they canceled her appearance that day to instead focus on Elisabeth after she decided to leave. Elisabeth up and leaving so quickly more so indicates that they were probably not ready for her to leave. As for Walters’s comment, just because she says void and not Elisabeth doesn’t mean her statement is null and void. She is clearly speaking about Elisabeth’s departure, and thus her seat at the table. And the cast picture is one of the easiest pieces of proof. It shows McCarthy sitting on the left side of the table. True that with only four co-hosts they can’t have a “normal” cast photo, but the other co-hosts (namely 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chairs) only move around when there are guest co-hosts or not regular co-hosts there. Sheppard is 3rd seat, if McCarthy was meant for the 4th seat, they would have put here between Sheppard and Walters. However, since we only have 4 out 5 chairs filled, even if we don’t have the picture as evidence, there are still enough proof to show she is replacing Behar, the picture just gives us a little photo evidence. --Shadow (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How 'The View' Has Drastically Changed Since 1997. Kirsten Acuna, Business Insider, Aug. 21, 2013

"Jenny McCarthy will join the show this fall to replace recently departed Elisabeth Hasselbeck while long-time co-host Behar departed earlier this month after sitting at the table since the show's first season in 1997.
"Though no official woman has been selected to replace Behar, the rumored frontrunners for the chair include Gloria Estefan, Brooke Shields, and Kathy Griffin."

Brangifer (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Direct parties > Outside sources. --Shadow (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. bd2412 T 20:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as this well-known talk show has several times more page views and cultural significance than any of the other articles listed on the disambiguation page. --Relisted. Cúchullain t/c 16:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)WikiRedactor (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Come now. You don't endorse primary topics among songs or albums, but different countries can have their own primary topics? --BDD (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Why is an American talk show full of female hosts and celebrities more relevant and significant than an Irish documentary series about historical and contemporary art-related topics? Or a Scottish band that made a hit debut album? --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear primary topic as it's much more likely to be the topic sought than all the other options combined. The series had 140,241 views in 90 days compared to 15,905 for The View (band), 5721 for The View (song), 543 for The View (Irish TV series), and 130 for The View (Winchester). The dab page itself has 22,560 views, more than all the other entries combined. It's pretty clear, the current setup isn't serving the vast majority of readers.--Cúchullain t/c 16:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Classic WP:PRIMARYTOPIC case. Clearly more likely to be sought by users search with "The View". --B2C 01:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The pageview statistics just reflect that Americans click more. It probably reflects: There are more Americans; Americans have idle time with internet access; Americans have faster access, probably meaning that fewer Americans are using local caches or mirrors. Pandering to majority bias is a bad idea. Classic clumsy "PRIMARYTOPIC" doctrine at play.

    Reorder the DAB page to put the US TV show at the top (done). Yes, this TV show is significant, locally speaking, with some limited international syndication. How significant? "genuine opinion and not mere fluff". The article contains a lot of incidental facts, almost plot summary, and very little commentary based in quality secondary sources; I'm sure this could be improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

O'Donnell announced she would be leaving the show as a co-host when her contract expired because the network could not come to terms on the length of a new contract

That's untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.174.61 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rosie returning

Here's the source 71.188.25.146 (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Subsections regarding comments by co-hosts

I have removed the "Refusal to hire people with black names" subsection, and significantly reduced the "Doctor's stethoscope controvery" subsection, with this edit and this edit. There have been literally hundreds of random, controversial comments made by co-hosts on this show during its 19 seasons on the air that received media coverage for a few days, then disappeared. These incidents do not warrant lengthy, detailed content, or even any content at all in most cases. Unless the incident had a significant impact on the show, then it doesn't belong. And if it's determined that it does belong, then it should be given due weight based on its overall impact. No one will even remember these incidents in the long run. If we included content about every controversial thing a co-host said that was covered by the media for a few days, this article would be 50 times it's current length. And it should be noted that the two section headings were quite misleading. The first made it sound like the show refused to hire black people, when in fact it was about a co-host's opinion about employers hiring people with "black" names. And the other heading was about Miss America contestant being made fun of for wearing a nurse's uniform, which happened to also include a stethoscope, while speaking about her profession. This is an encylopedia, not a tabloid. I kept some of the content about the Miss America contestant incident only because some advertisers pulled their ads, but I'm still not convinced that any of it belongs. Czoal (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The "black names" content has also been removed from Raven-Symoné as a result of this discussion at that article's talk page. Czoal (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 03 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The View (U.S. TV series) → The View (American TV show) – This was how I moved the page yesterday, 'cause the name didn't really match other American TV shows. However, an Adaim undid it (but not the talk page), so I can't redo it without help from an Adaim. Aaron's The Best (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Aaron's The Best: This request has been moved to full discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCTVUS. The preferred disambiguator is what the article is currently named. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose consistent with The Office (U.S. TV series). This is from the United States, not South America, Central America or Canada. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose There are two reasons this proposal fails immediately. First, as Steel1943 already pointed out, the guideline WP:NCTVUS is very clear on this specific naming convention. Second, there are literally no Wikipedia articles for a TV program that use the word "Show" parenthetically in the title, let alone "American TV Show" or even "TV Show". And the only other TV program that even redirects from the term "(American TV Show)" is Homefront, whose title is "Homefront (U.S. TV series)". "Series", not "Show", is the standard term. If you believe this is incorrect, please provide examples. Whether or not the title of this article should parenthetically include "(American TV Series)" instead of "(U.S. TV Series)" is a separate issue involving different arguments. In any case, WP:NCTVUS settles this matter because it is a widely accepted and used standard. Finally, the proposer of this move, Aaron's The Best, said, "This was how I moved the page yesterday, 'cause the name didn't really match other American TV shows". Similarly, he said in his edit summary, "Fixing the name to match up with other American TV Shows." He should provide proof of that claim so other editors can see specifically what he's talking about. Also, Aaron, your user page says you're 11 years old, so I respect your passion for contributing to this project at such a young age. However, I would heed the good adivce Steel1943 provided on your talk page. Finally, the word you're looking for is "admin", as in administrator, not "adaim". If you keep up the good work and make wise editing choices, I'm sure one day you'll be one. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 11:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the current format generally accepted among English Wikipedia is Name of television show (U.S. TV series) and not American; oppose per consistency with other television series. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 22:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons already stated above. WP:NCTVUS is pretty clear on this one. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everything said. DantODB 00:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Creativity97 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


Review

  • The lead section is not long enough, and does not cover or explain briefly and poignantly all the points the article covers.
  • The "Format" section is severely lacking in several areas: several sentences and claims require in-line citations and verification to prove that they are true. Considering the series has been on the air for two decades, this section is lacking in information and in sources and as a result is very underdeveloped.
  • Keep things in historical perspective. On October 30, 2014, --> In October 2014,
  • For a subsection that is supposed to cover 17 seasons, 2 paragraphs also seems severely lacking and underdeveloped in content and verifiable sources.
  • Too many grammar issues in the season 18 subsection. Keep things in historical perspective. Needs a copyedit, as "in summer 2014" is extremely badly written and grammatically incorrect.
  • Seasons 19–20 subsection is also way too brief; lacking, underdeveloped, and in need of more sources.
  • The co-host section and its subsection seems fine in terms of content but needs a huge general copyedit for the same reasons listed above, and also to eliminate unnecessary repeated information, which I'm seeing a lot of.
  • The notable episodes section needs a ton of work. General copyedit to start (there are several sentences that are just on their own as if they are all separate paragraphs - extremely messy), but then more content with verifiable sources is going to need to be added to make it seem more noteworthy of having its own section.
  • Reception section seems fine in terms of content, but it also seems like the bare minimum in terms of research was done here. I guarantee that you can find so much more quotes from critics and other information for this section over the past 20 years. Also needs a general copyedit.
  • The rest of the article does not require any changes or further work in my opinion.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The majority of the article has far too many grammatical concerns. Needs copyediting.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Several parts of the article need more verifiable sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Definitely needs a lot more work in terms of coverage.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Fail. A lot more work needs to be done on this article before it can be passed for GA. Keep working on it with my comments and nominate it again when more work has been put into it.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The View (U.S. TV series). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The View (talk show)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I will give this review a go, haven't seen the show but the article looks promising at first glance. I'll try and get to it shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Review 1

It looks like some effort has been put into responding to the issues of the previous (failed) GA review, which is a good start. However, I am not ready to pass the article as GA just yet.

  • I think the lead still needs some work. This is a reasonably big and detailed article, and the lead should give a full and complete summary. You probably need at least three articles paragraphs worth of content there, and should aim for around a sentence per section of the body at least as a a good guide.
  • The format section doesn't really give a clear explanation of what the show is actually about. I am none the wiser having read it. The big quote is especially confusing, as you say it explains the premise but after reading it I don't think it actually does. Have a go trying to make the whole section clearer.
  • You start mentioning people in the format and production sections without having first introduced them in the body. Assume that your reader has not read the lead of infobox, and make sure they know who you are referring to as you first use names.
  • The last line in the co-host section, listing all the guest co-hosts for this year, is unsourced.
  • Make sure you aren't overlinking people's names. In the body, the people should only be linked for their first introduction and then also in tables.
  • The reception section could use some work. For such a long-running show, there should be a much more comprehensive critical response section, and it would be great to get some analysis content for the ratings section that can give an overview of the viewership (i.e. whether it has gone up or down at certain times, when the peaks have been).
  • I would seriously consider splitting the awards table off to its own article, given how big it is. There are plenty of articles like that out there that can be used as templates. If you do this, you should replace the table here with a short summary/overview with a link pointing to the separate article.
  • The entire international broadcast section is unsourced, and is probably a violation of MOS:TVINTL anyway.
  • Make sure all the references have been filled out properly, and in particular there should be archives for all web sources.
  • One more image in the article probably wouldn't go amiss, but that isn't a major.

I'll put the article on hold while you give this stuff a go. Let me know if there are any issues / when you are ready for me to take another look. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Review 2

I am going to give this another look over now, per the message left for me at my talk page with this diff. I would also like to note that there has been significant edit warring regarding this page, with more details (including some input from myself) found at the talk page of Noodlefish96. Admin intervention has appeared to have solved the issue for now, so I am willing to overlook the problem for the remainder of the review as long as I do not receive any evidence of further stability issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like, for the most part, you have tried to address my concerns, and overall the article is looking better. I still have some concerns though, which need to be addressed if you want me to promote the article. The review can stay on hold until they are. There is a single sentence paragraph in the notable episodes section, which we generally try to avoid. You also still have an issue with not introducing people—literally the first line of the article's body references a person without telling us who they are. This is important since readers need to know who you are talking about. And most importantly, the references need to be sorted out as I said before. This is major, and I won't promote the article until it is done. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 I did all of the suggestions above, and I think the article's ready for review! Thanks! DantODB (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
That is looking pretty good now. Just sort out the introduction problem, and I'll be happy to give the review a pass. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Adamstom.97 May I ask what adjustments you would suggest I make in regards to introductions? Because I put job titles before every name (e.g. Broadcast journalist Barbara Walters). DantODB (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking about introductions in the body, not the lead. Since the lead is just a summary of the rest of the article, the body should be able to stand on its own. In the very first sentence of the body, you mention "Walters", with no explanation who that is. Likewise, in the following quote you give the last names of the other initial hosts but not who they are with wikilinks. Just make sure that anyone who has not read the lead and instead starts the article with the format section is able to know who is who. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Understood. I think I fixed it. DantODB (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Cool, I think that covers the issues I had. This is a good article, so I am happy to pass this review. Well done. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 Thank you very much! DantODB (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. The original proposal is the only one I can find consensus for. -- Tavix (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The View (U.S. TV series) → The View (talk show) – This is a talk show. Netoholic did this move, but it was then reverted a few days later. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Per WP:CONCISE, a disambiguation that is only two words is better and still gets across the same info.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose (re above, WP:CONCISE is not really about shrinking 10-character dabs down to 9-character dabs, see examples on guideline). The proposed move is contrary to normal titling of (TV series) as the default for all series whatever format, including talk shows. Even if The View (Irish TV series) was not also in part a talk show we wouldn't distinguish by (talk show), but in this case the Irish show also was in part a talk show " There was a varied panel of contributors who offer their opinions" ... i.e. talked in a panel talk show format; so the entire rationale for this move just evaporated. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You could not be more wrong when you say "titling of (TV series) as the default for all series whatever format" – that is absolutely incorrect. The default naming is actually "TV program". Generally only TV programs with continuing storylines (e.g. scripted fictional TV program) get the "TV series" disambiguation term. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - this precedent is clearly established per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Non-series television. This is a talk show, it uses (talk show). This has been part of the WP:NCTV for years and years. I don't have specific knowledge about The View (Irish TV series), but it looks like that needs to be renamed as a separate matter (if that one qualifies as a talk show also, then The View (U.S. TV series) would become The View (U.S. talk show) ). -- Netoholic @ 11:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC) -- added. Also support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC move to The View. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think it's likely that The View (Irish TV series) is also a talk show - the article says it consists of a presenter and various contributors discussing arts topics. Therefore this should be moved to The View (U.S. talk show), and the other one should be The View (Irish talk show).  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Amakuru: I don't get that The View (Irish TV series) is a "talk show". But it is also clearly not a "TV series", as it is simply a TV program (it even says so in the lede) devoted to the "arts". Thus, it should either be moved to The View (TV programme), or to The View (Irish TV programme) if it is felt that the talk show and the TV program need additional (national) disambiguation from each other (which, in this case, I don't feel that they do, though I would advise employing hatnotes at both articles...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
      @IJBall: from talk show article we learn that A talk show or chat show is a television programming or radio programming genre in which one person (or group of people) discusses various topics put forth by a talk show host. The Irish show is clearly that. So the title The View (talk show) is not possible because of WP:NCTV and WP:PARTIALDAB. To be honest with you though, looking at this again, I might have been over hasty in rejecting the outright primary topic though. Moving to The View might be an option, it does get a lot more page views than anything else.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to The View, and move the dab page to The View (disambiguation). This show is far and away the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it receives 91% of all article traffic,[3] is the best known of all topics internationally, and the one with by far the most influence and long-term significance.--Cúchullain t/c 14:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    I would oppose this. The show is not known internationally, and is not primary over all the other topics combined. The Scottish band are significant as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's objectively known internationally, as it airs or has aired in multiple countries, but that has no bearing on whether something's the primary topic. This gets over 90% of the traffic and neither the band nor the rest of the topics combined challenge it in terms of notability. When the vast majority of our readers are looking for the same thing, we shouldn't be throwing roadblocks in their way.--Cúchullain t/c 13:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's hard to argue with the page view stats... I'll mark this as my second choice, as I still prefer using the "talk show" disambiguator. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi. The proposed move would cause loss of analogous disambiguation via each series' national identity, thus putting into question the reason for use of "Irish" within one series' qualifier and omitting such identity in the other qualifier. Also, Cúchullain's point regarding positioning of the U.S. series as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is well argued and should be taken into consideration. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support moving to The View or as originally proposed. It's not a series. And the U.S. show is far better-known and more significant than the other topics - the Irish program and British band seem to be not exactly cultural icons in their own countries much less globally. —innotata 10:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support "Talk show" is more accurate than "series." Rockypedia (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support – "talk show" is absolutely the correct disambig. term as per WP:NCTV. There have been repeated discussions about this at NCTV, and the strong consensus is that "TV series" should only be used for those TV programs that have continuing storylines (which is primarily scripted fictional TV series, and some reality TV series). This program doesn't qualify: it's a talk show, not a "TV series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverts

A consensus should be reached before major edits like the ones that are being made are done. Please share your opinions, thanks. Noodlefish96 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, what information would you like to have a consensus on and what major edits to which you are referring? Because from my recollection, I proposed the article for GA review, and you were the one that came in and trimmed a lot of information out of multiple sections and removed properly sourced information (e.g. Michelle Collins being a permanent co-host). Thanks! DantODB (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced/Innacurate Info

1. I don't know what more is needed to annotate Collins as a co-host. It was confirmed by ABC News, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, I could go on. This diff says: "was a co-host for a few weeks then was reduced as a guest, did not become permanent co-host which is at least one full season." Source for this? Per Variety, Collins was let go and never made another appearance. I render the "reduced as a guest" comment inaccurate. On the subject of co-hosts having to stay a full season to become permanent, Rosie O'Donnell didn't do this during either of her stints, Jenny McCarthy did not do this, so should we not include them either? Plus, I'm not sure that setting one's own rules regarding which co-host to put where, in spite of citations proving that they were all contracted permanently at some point, is in line with Wikipedia policy.

2. Putting all the guest co-hosts that filled in for Haines during her maternity leave is excessive. Should we put all the ones that filled in for Hasselbeck during her pregnancies, or even all the guest co-hosts in the show's history?

3. The first sentence of the third opening says, "The show has received positive reviews from The New York Times, New York Post, Time, The Washington Post, LA Daily News, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair, and The New Yorker." Half of these outlets aren't anywhere else on this page, so why would these names be in the article at all?

4. This diff's description says, "needs source with breakdown of the 18-54 demo," when editor removed the information AND its source.

5. This diff's description says, "section was improved," while one of the suggestions made by the GA reviewer was not to overlink article titles, which this edit did.

6. This diff's description states: "became permanent co-hosts at the middle of the season like raven and candace were and promoted to full time for season 20." Source? Because The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline say the exact opposite.

7. On the subject of this diff, why would the shifting of production oversight from entertainment to news division be removed when it is a big factor in the show's change in content and resurgence in viewership? It was properly sourced too if I may add.

8. This diff is vague and confusing. If in June 2005, the show had X amount of viewers, did it have that number for every episode in the month or just one, and if so, which one?

9. The notable episodes section looks like a list of celebrities the show has had as guests. Not to mention it is only half of what it was. I don't see a reason why the doctor's stethoscope controversy involving Joy and Michelle, which received backlash and cost them sponsors shouldn't be up here. The same goes for the infamous Rosie–Elisabeth confrontation. They were all properly sourced, and they were monumental for the show, as described by the sources. Regarding the celebrity guests, I opine that Michael Wolff being a New York Times best-selling author isn't enough to make his episode notable. The show has had hundreds, if not thousands, of best-selling authors throughout its run. What makes Wolff's episode more significant than all of theirs? Moreover, Kim Kardashian's appearance garnered the same media coverage as those of Jennifer Lopez, John McCain, Caitlyn Jenner, Kevin Hart, respectively. Why is her episode notable and not any of theirs?

I would love to have a discussion about these points. Cheers! DantODB (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina Feud

Over 20+ sources, former hosts speaking out against current hosts

User "DantODB" doesn't believe this should be included on the page, but believes the nurse controversy should be. It should be noted that the sources that cite the nurse controversy also mention the Fiorina feud both in the url and in the article. This user feels he is entitled to all desisions that should be made on the page. I am leaving it here for discussion.

Carly Fiorina feud

On October 10, 2015 The View came under fire after the co-hosts joked on a segment about what presidential candidate Carly Fiorina's face looked like when smiling during a primary debate with Michelle Collins saying she looked 'demented', Joy Behar calling her face a "Halloween mask", and Whoopi Goldberg defending themselves as 'comics'.[1][2][3] Former co-hosts Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Nicole Wallace, and Star Jones came out strongly against their comments.[4][5][6] On November 6, 2015, Fiorina returned to the show via satellite.[7][8][9]

Should be included under notable episodes/controversies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.220.49 (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lovelace, Ryan. "'The View' thinks Carly Fiorina's face looks 'demented'". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2017-05-27.
  2. ^ CNN anchor to 'The View' hosts: 'Double standard much?' - CNN Video, retrieved 2017-05-08
  3. ^ "'The View' Responds to Carly Fiorina Attack: 'We helped raise your profile' Video | The View". ABC. Retrieved 2017-05-08.
  4. ^ "Elisabeth Blasts 'The View' Hosts' 'Faux Feminism' After Their Attack on Fiorina". FOX News Insider. 2015-10-30. Retrieved 2017-05-08.
  5. ^ "Nicolle Wallace Blasts Former 'View' Co-Hosts Over Carly Fiorina Jokes: Not 'At Their Best'". TheWrap. 2015-11-09. Retrieved 2017-05-27.
  6. ^ Star Jones talks Fiorina's feud with "The View" - CNN Video, retrieved 2017-05-27
  7. ^ "Carly Fiorina returns to 'The View'". Fox News. 2015-11-06. Retrieved 2017-05-08.
  8. ^ "Fiorina returns to 'The View' amid controversy". MSNBC. Retrieved 2017-05-27.
  9. ^ The View (2015-11-06), Carly Fiorina On Why She's Running For President on The View, Part 1, retrieved 2017-05-27

Y'all keep pushing lies

Get rid of all of them 151.213.118.62 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ban The View

The women, using that term lightly, are nothing more than bigots and racists themselves. Here we are, trying to get past racism, and all they do is spout lies that reinforce it. Look at Whoopi. Screaming and crying about slavery. It’s in the past. She sure wasn’t a slave. In fact, the so called white supremacy, including us regular folks, are the reason she’s rich and well known. We’re so bad, but she had no problem taking our money for her movies. And the rest? Well, all they do is attack any guest that disagrees with their racist beliefs. They insult and talk over anyone that disagrees with them. They’re so big and strong on that set. But do you ever see them publicly bullying people? No, because they have security there. Basically keyboard warriors. Brave as long as they’re safe. Instead, they try to get you, the people that watch them, to do their dirty work. You go out, you start trouble for them. You risk getting hurt, arrested, killed. They’ll just sit back and smile at the idiots working for them. Ban the show. Because believe me, they don’t give two farts about you. 47.135.152.37 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Can Anybody Provide A Source Backing the Claim That The View Was The Number One Show In Both News And Talk

That would be compliant with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. Personally, ratings I've read tend to change.2601:447:4000:220:8DD2:6904:766A:95D3 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Here. It's in the body of the article. While ratings tend to change, the material refers to the 2020–2021 television season. Since there is still no information for the ongoing 2021–2022, the claim is due for inclusion. KyleJoantalk 02:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The page formatting is broken and someone reverted me fixing that

What's up? CaptainPrimo (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainPrimo: That was my bad. I wanted to entirely remove Ana Navarro from the infobox and table but failed to properly revert the edit prior to yours. KyleJoantalk 01:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Oscars

While everyone is talking about Will Smith, how about someone talk about what a compassionate person Lady Gaga was with Liza Minelli 2001:5B0:44DE:8298:6C7B:9C24:FA78:9431 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Dan Abrams co-hosting

Dan Abrams is an insult cohosting on the view….of all the women in the world, why a male? It changes the dialogue and intent of the show, and appears this is an attempt to quite and contain women’s view being voiced. It is another effort to contain women’s rights. 2601:483:500:15B0:ACDE:E906:1253:776A (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_View_(talk_show)/Archive_1&oldid=1137245248"