Talk:Elisabeth Hasselbeck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
I'm new, so I won't edit the page directly, but the fact added for 2006-08-02 regarding the "Morning After Pill" is scientifically incorrect: the morning-after pill does not provoke an abortion, it prevents pregnancy in the first place. The Wikipedia page on [Morning-after_pill] at least discusses the supposed "controversy," although the overwhelming scientific consensus is that this is a contraceptive, not an abortion. This page is at least misleading, and likely wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benadida (talk • contribs).
- That particular bit was added some hours ago; I would have reverted it entirely, but it seemed to have some validity, so I left it in and tagged it as unsourced. If you feel you can phrase that paragraph better, then by all means, go ahead and do so. (On a seperate note, remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes.) --Emufarmers(T/C) 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not touching it for three months because it's just going to get vandalzied and reverted back and forth hourly till then, but all the "scientific/unscientific" see-sawing is pointless because it's semantic. A pro-life scientist will typically view conception as when a pregnancy begins, a pro-choice scientist will see it at implantation. The pill in question can cause termination in the first case (it generally doesn't take a sperm 72 hours to fertilize an egg) but very rarely in the latter. Apart form all that, comments on whether Hasselbeck's views are unscientific is moot becuase this is not an entry on a birth control device but on a talk-show host. jsh, 22:37, 4 Aug 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Episodes of Note
These sentences:
Hasselbeck's views are typical for those in her "Alex P. Keaton" generation, who are more conservative than their parents. However, she is unpopular with many critics for all of her opinions on gay rights, and the GLBT community considers her a homophobe[citation needed]. Furthermore, she is considered too extreme in her political views for many women who watch the show.[citation needed]
Have nothing to do with any episode and are not NPOV, especially without citations. I have removed them. Matt T.69.254.107.214 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Yeast infections"
"With some risk to her clean-cut image, Elisabeth has been very outspoken about her frequent yeast infections. She has taken up vaginal health as her personal crusade and encourages women to have regular exams."
LOL. Is this serious or vandalism?
[edit] Criticisms?
A comic's take on her should not be view as logical criticism. Barney Gumble 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality?
"She is the perfect example of a blonde, affluent woman of limited talent who has used her family position and looks to advance her career. It is painfully apparent to all who watch "The View" that she does not have the same pedigree as her co-stars."
That doesn't sound very neutral to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.185.94 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Was she a television presenter before appearing on Survivor? No dates are given for her appearance on Survivor. The ordering of the article makes it seem as if she was. If she only became a presenter after appearing on Survivor the order of the article should reflect the chronology of her career. Would someone more familiar with this women please make it the article entirely unambiguous? -- Horkana 19:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Her appearance on Survivor was from January to May of 2001. Twineball 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This 'celebrity' has admitted that she changes her own biographical details on Wikipedia, and she has encouraged others to do so while on air. She is a conservative, pedestrian idiot, but personal issues aside, we should watch this space for disappearing criticisms. Pay particularly close attention to her age. It's probably fabricated, as she was encouraging Joy Behar to just fabricate and lie about her age on Wikipedia. This implies that the Great White Christian Bitch is herself fabricating and lying about when she was born. She definitely doesn't look 29 - I would guess at least 36.
[edit] Her leaving the view
Has that been confirmed? I know a representative said she was upset and looking...but I thought it wasn't confirmed. Small5th 05:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Intimidation from Bill O'Reilly and Fox News
Several months ago Rosie and Joy alluded to Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit. This is what happened next according to Rosie at rosie.com:
| “ | when joy and i
alluded to bill oreillys sex scandal on the view we were told the following day that we couldn’t bring it up anymore or else bill o would “go after” all the hosts of the view |
” |
Legal filings about Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit are here.
