Talk:Peter Jennings/Archive 1

message: Please stop deleteing the MRC link and reference. They are valid and true facts. --Rex071404 03:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: MRC link restored by me today. --Rex071404 15:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Taking a picture from a website does not guarantee fair use; if anything, you're not crediting the agency/photographer it came from, making it a possible copyvio. I'm placing the picture here until discussion can be raised. --Mike H 11:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:You're right but this one is a promotional photo, I think it counts. Cookiecaper 06:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I see no reason for it to be removed, especially since it has just been reported. --NickBush24 04:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
:I uploaded a new version of the same promo image from http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=126542. --Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current event" template 

message: Consistent with this article, from the NYT archives, I am changing all references to Jennings' solo anchor duties to beginning on August 9, 1983.  
Xoloz 20:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of anchor stint 

message: "Preceded by:
new show"
*I have no idea what this means, does anyone, it looks odd--172.131.197.25 14:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It means, there wasn't a CTV National News before then.  --Dhodges 21:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: There are a number of articles that link to this page, that still refer to him as being alive, anyone want to fix that? Not that it makes much of a difference, he was such a propaganda machine anyway, but still.--I-2-d2 14:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, I think insulting the dead on their articles' talk pages is in bad taste (otherwise, I'd have lots of fun with dead neo-cons), but I will address the issue you raise. Xoloz 18:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated links 

message: Eighteen categories is far too many to be on a single article. Some of them need to go. Bearcat 03:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are there limits on the number of categories? It would seem to me that if someone is notable in a number of spheres, an article about them would naturally lend itself to numerous categories. Most of these categories seem logical for this article. Crunch 05:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: An anonymous editor recently added him to :Category:Atheists.  The article doesn't seem to say that he was one, so I removed him from that for the time being.  Was he in fact an atheist? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible atheist 

message: Just letting everyone know, I'm doing a major rewrite of the article (which accounts for the rather noticeable split in style in the middle right now). Gzkn 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm impressed with your efforts on this article.  Well done!  Itsfullofstars 09:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite 

message: The trivia section should also be incorporated into the article. Gzkn, excellent job on the rewrite! --Daysleeper47 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Yeah, I'll definitely do that (I loathe trivia sections!). Kind of at a writer's block moment that I'm trying to overcome...haven't been able to make much progress past 1983...heh :-/ Gzkn 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trivia 

message: Where is the controversey over his refusal to allow country singer Toby Keith to play "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue (The Angry American)" on the ABC Independence Day special in 2002 because the song contained the line "We'll put a boot in your ass. It's the American way!" This led to many people in the US not watching the show and even calling for Jennings' deportation over this! Chris 14:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep this in mind while I do my research. It might be undue weight though, if it wasn't exactly a big controversy. Gzkn 07:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Thanks! I actually hadn't heard about it until you brought it up. Gzkn 08:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toby Keith 

message: I understand that this article is in the middle of re-write but I wanted to point out an apparent contradiction.  Near the end of the bio section there is a paragraph that explains that Peter's cremated remains were to be split in half and that half would be kept in his US home and the other half in his CA home.  The next paragraph says that his cremated remains were spread over his farm in Canada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.30.244.163 (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for pointing that out. However, I believe by the time you posted, I had already taken care of that contradiction. :) I found no evidence to suggest his remains were spread over his farm, so I deleted that sentence. Gzkn 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting statements regarding cremated remains 

message: Shouldn't Bob Woodruff be mentioned at least somewhere in the section discussing Jennings' replacement?  After all, it was he and Vargas that were originally named as replacements, until he was injured by an IED in Iraq in January 2006.  He has been out in recovery since then, and it is unknown if he will return to ABC News, but he should at least be mentioned.68.12.161.42 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for pointing that out! Thought I had included something about his replacements, but guess not...will do! Gzkn 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The year that Woodruff and Vargas were announced appears to be incorrect.  According to World News with Charles Gibson, the announcement was made in December 2006.  Additionally, the sentence about Vargas and Woodruff seems abrupt.  May I suggest changing it to "Nearly eight months after Jennings stopped anchoring World New Tonight and after much speculation, ABC, on December 5, 2006, announced Vargas and Bob Woodruff as the permanent successors to Jennings." Andymarek 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Andy! You're right, it was a bit abrupt. I modified your version a bit, added it (I think you meant 2005 not 2006, right?). Gzkn 06:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was in 2005.68.12.161.42 04:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Woodruff 

message: These seems to be a bit of an edit war occuring over the use of an info box.  perhaps the proponents can discuss the appoch on the Talk page rather than continualy revising the article back and forth?
cmacd 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is still ongoing. I really don't care if the box is there or not but it can't include a fairuse image. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  info box daily changes 

message: I haven't found any evidence to suggest that Peter Jennings had a brother named Rob; however, he did have a sister named Elizabeth.
:You're correct, he did not have a brother. Answerthis 07:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brother/inaccurate family information 

message: For what it's worth, this guy was parodied in the 2004 film "Team America".
138.243.195.136 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Does anyone else think the current picture at the top of the page should be changed?  Surely there are better pictures of Jennings than the one that is up right now.  The current picture seems to reflect too much on his sickness.  I remember a while back the picture was something like this one here .  Perhaps change the picture to something like that? Answerthis 08:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I noticed the picture that was previously at the top of the article has been removed, along with the infobox.  So, now is the time to get new versions of those back up.  I'm not very good with this kind of stuff, so I'll leave it to someone else.  However, I would like to see something up ASAP, as this article really needs a good picture and infobox.  Thanks to anyone who can help. Answerthis 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture that was there is a copyrighted television screenshot. It needs to be in the body of the article next to passage describing his sickness (along with a caption) in order to satisfy fair use (and even then, its use is slightly dubious). It can't be used just to show what he looks like in an infobox. Hopefully, someone will come along with a FREE picture to use at the top. No copyrighted pictures (even handout photos) are acceptable if we just want to show what he looks like. The article is perfectly fine though, even without a picture. A photo is just icing on the cake. 69.28.2.42 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture? 

message: :Image:Peterjennings033081.jpg is being used on this article. (yada yada yada...deleted).
BetacommandBot 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Peterjennings033081.jpg

message: Charlie Rose interviewed those involved in the new Jennings bio tonite, and asked a question in which he asserted Jennings never became a US citizen. A female panelist (i think the widow? one of the editors?) contradicted him, and i assumed we didn't know that. But it turns out we've had it at the end of the lead secn for over a year. Have they been told "Stay away from WP, it'll mislead you"? Does he ask questions like that without checking the research they do for him? Tsk! --Jerzy•t 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've found Charlie Rose's research/preparation to be pretty flaky/inconsistent at times, which sometimes makes for quite awkward interviews. On another note, though, I'm excited that there's finally a biography on Jennings, even if it's only a collection of interviews. Maybe one day, someone will write an actual, authoritative biography on him; perhaps the author might even use this article as a starting point for some of the research :). 69.202.60.86 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlie Rose's Staff doesn't Check Wikipedia 

message: To the anon. editor calling my good faith edits "vandalism": please stop being childish. Wikipedia is built on consensus. You added info about Kayce Freed, info which was sorely needed in the article. However, it was tacked on randomly as its own paragraph at the end of a section, and it was a rather awkward sentence grammatically. It also made the article seem like an obituary. I decided to merge the information with a source so that the entire article still flowed. Since it seems you agree with the "merge" idea, why didn't you just edit the sentence instead of reverting back to your unsourced version?
RE: "Happy occasion". Why are you still harping on this? I removed the phrase, and you still justify your revert by announcing your opposition to the "pleonasm". You need to stop and take a closer look at edits before reverting.
RE: "Vandalism". Excuse me? Take a look at our policy before calling good faith edits vandalism. 
RE: POV. I don't believe this edit is POV at all. The "instability at work" phrase is a transition from the other sentences in the paragraph. Did you even read the rest of that paragraph? Or the article at all? 1996-1998 were certainly not the best years at ABC News, and this instability is evident in the installment of a new president in David Westin, the decision to scrap an ambitious ABC cable news network, and a loss of their ratings crown to NBC News. Take a look at the first sentence of that paragraph: "The slide in the ratings coincided with some rockiness at ABC News."
Of course, the easy thing to do when you don't like a good faith edit is to just blanket revert and call it "vandalism". But that's not how things work are supposed on Wikipedia. I didn't revert your first edit back to what the article looked like before; instead, I took your idea and built on it. Please take a look at my new edit (don't just blindly revert this please), and if you find something you don't like, edit it; it's what Wiki was built for...collaborative editing. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The single sentence is flawed as it's not sourced. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord. You really are making a mountain out of a molehill... Great to see you dragging up my other edits to criticize me on this talk page, while maintaining that I should keep my edits on the talk page to discussing the article only and not for "incidental blather". Oh the irony. I am sincerely heartened, though, that you finally stopped being stubborn and tried for a compromise (which is acceptable to me), instead of knee-jerk reverting all of my edits. Now can we please drop this inane matter? 69.202.60.86 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage to Kayce Freed