Talk:Star Jones

message: It is obvious, from the slanted content and unflattering photo of Star Jones Reynolds, that the person who wrote this article is driven by his/her dislike of Star Jones Reynolds. As other people have noted, this article reads like a tabloid, and it is not up to Wikipedia standards. I am relatively new, and I have just learned that 1. I should not keep deleting this person's biased and inflammatory version of events. 2. I should use this page to discuss the editing of this page. So, does anyone know what are the best steps to resolve the issue and get a more professional article (like the article on Rosie O'Donnell, who has also had her share of controversy)? Thank you!
: You should also sign your rants by entering 4 tildes (the squiggly line in the top left hand side of your keyboard) 198.6.46.11 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute, help requested 

message: This article is obviously slanted against Star and appears to have been written by someone she pissed off. This seems like something I would write about my wrost enemy and not something you'd find in an encyclopedia. It makes it look as if Star never did one thing good in her life. But why is this only up for discussion WIKI? Shouldn't you change this instead of just having people discuss what's wrong with it? It's obviously biased and after reading many other bios here I'm surprised it's here.
:Thats exactly what I said when I said that this article sounds like it came out of a tabloid, I dont know who or why erased my entry into the discussion.  Still I don't care much for Star, I am just saying that anybody that would trust this encyclopedia researching Star would have a very baised view of her.  So for me I don't care much to edit the article, but those of you who do like her and keep complaining should stop bitching and just fix the article.
:::::As a former newspaper reporter, I agree that this entry is slanted and reads very anti-Star Jones Reynolds.167.217.4.123 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slanted 

message: The "near-anorexic" comment is definitely not NPOV.  I'm not sure if it should be deleted or just modified, but it needs to be fixed.  JaeRae 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you rather I said she looks bug-eyed? 'Cause it's the truth.  Wahkeenah 02:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of truth that we do not publish concerning a lot of celebrities. It seems to me this article is very POV anti-Star Jones. I wonder why?  208.254.174.148 07:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have tagged this article as NPOV. Ohyeahmormons 13:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everyone that this article is really messy and while I appreciate recent efforts to clean it up and make it more balanced/mature, please STOP blanking whole sections and adding random, opinionated commentary. I hate Star as much as anyone, but please no vandalism or adding dumb comments... it just creates more work for those trying to improve this article. Thanks. CagedRage 20:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Folks...that was the BEST picture of SJR we could get?! Vikramsidhu 18:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a photo of Star at http://a.abc.com/daytime/theview/images/bios/bio_jonesreynolds.jpg and have uploaded it.  However, I am not sure on the copyright status if it would count as a TV screenshot.  There used to be a copyright status along the lines of "Publicity Photo" and "Press Release" but I no longer see that listed. Dwp49423 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profile picture 

message: Wikipedia’s value as a trusted resource has gone down.  I began using Wikipedia for an “Epistemology of Knowledge” course;  this article sounds like a tabloid.  
:Regardless of whether I agree with the information or not is irrelevant... This article is noticeably imbalanced and jaded with one perspective. What else has she accomplished professionally? Does she volunteer, give to charities? 100 years from now, if someone saw any entry in Wikipedia it should still hold value. In 2106, readers should be able to know who she was and why they should care. Wikipedia is more than a common muck-raker; and Wikipedia’s audience deserves quality, neutral, and factual information.
::No offense, but in 2106, no one will care who Star Jones is and this article would have probably been deleted years before to clear room. Most Americans can't even name who the President of the United States was 100 years ago, so anyone actually caring about a talk shot host 100 years from now is slim-to-none. HeyNow10029 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Change "2106" to "2007," and I agree with you. Eleemosynary 06:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trusted resource 

message: Please edit or rewrite any parts of the article that seem to require fixing. The article as a whole cannot be deleted, but it can be improved. --TruthbringerToronto 01:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please edit or rewrite 

message: Though not a heavily involved wikipedian[Clearly, I don't even have an account], I've found myself with an unexpected amount of time in which I can read wikipedia without it serving as really fascinating procrastination; that said, I've read a ridiculous amount of talk page text for various living bios and have seen some noteworthy ones wherein the subject is involved. So, when a user says, "hi, star" in response to what does seem some stilted assertion possibly in her favor, I wonder: has there been some confirmation, or even some sort of check, that would lead to suspicion of her anonymous remarking? It wouldn't be surprising, as this article does come up within five or six of the top results when you google "star jones" [another reason to hasten correction of whatever perceived and real issues from which the article suffers], so I'm curious.    
Thanks for anyone who could answer that. 24.13.8.214 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The implication is that only Star Jones herself would make such a comment as the one to which "hi, star" was a response. Personally, I don't think it improbable that Ms Jones has fans who would be offended by such material. For the record, the IP that posted the comment in question is in Chicago. DS 13:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor question 

message: I have to say just now that starting next week, Star Jones will be the new co-host of AOTS. Months ago we have been through a selective co-host audition, but this is a new surprise. I just hope that his is like that Vanilla Ice joke, because AOTS doesn't have enough money to afford a celebrity as a permanent co-host. --Seishirou Sakurazuka 23:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack of the show new Co-Host 

message: ... should not be the one currently on the page (the PR one).  We shouldn't use a purposely horrible photo of her, but neither should we use this over-airbrushed, over-photoshopped, Glamourshots attempt to make her look like a 1940s movie diva.  Star Jones's PR company (and they have my sympathies) is not a reliable source. Eleemosynary 01:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any suggestions for any other photo, I have been looking, and all photos either portray her in a very unflattering way, or in an overly photoshopped way. (68.203.243.154 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying one photo is unflattering or another one is "overly photoshopped" presents your point of view on the matter. A photo is a photo, as long as it depicts the subject it's perfectly acceptable. Plenty of celebrities have glamerous photographs used in their entries on Wikipedia, why should Jones be any different? That's part of show biz. Pacian 04:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Wikipedia is not a showbiz site, nor a place for celebrity PR. Nor is Jones part of the "glamorous" world of, say, runway modeling (in which case, a glamorous shot might be appropriate).  And a photo is not always just a photo. Check the history of this page for a screenshot of Jones that was roundly criticized as making her look like a bug-eyed shrew.  There's nothing wrong with a flattering photo of Jones, but such an airbrushed photo as is currently on the page is as encyclopedically wrong as would be a photo doctored to make her look repulsive. There should be a happy medium. For an example of what I've suggesting please check the Rosie O'Donnell or the Meredith Viera page.Eleemosynary 04:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this ... it was taken directly from ABC's feed on Tuesday morning's broadcast. It wasn't photoshopped (other then cropping the sides so it won't get distored by the image requirements of the infobox) and she looks rather good in it. Consensus?  HeyNow10029 05:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:StarJonesReynoldsTheView.jpg
Fine here. Eleemosynary 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good picture. An "in the middle" photo would be reasonable, using a bad picture, or an overly glamourised shot could be me misinterpreted as the uploaders POV, just like the a user above me pointed out that the "bug eyed" photo was heavily critized, and would probably lead into new pictures being placed over and over again. (68.203.243.154 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Someone has deleted some sections of the talk page.
:Now what loser would do that? - --Bdj95 03:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed my comments on what I think should go in the site were deleted, as well.  I wasn't sure if it was because I did something wrong or someone arbitrarily deleted my comments.  Scoop 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The article currently includes a reference to Meredith Viera which is a misspelling and redirects to the proper article title, Meredith Vieira. When the article is unprotected, this should be corrected. --Metropolitan90 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meredith Vieira 

message: That information is nowhere in this article. The Career section says nothing about when she joined The View.  Only when she was fired.  Please fix!  Moncrief 05:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When did she JOIN ''The View''?

message: Okay, I'm not a big Star Jones fan, but I agree some of the comments in here are not NPOV, and could be far more neutral in nature. The past edits seemed to veer wildly from anti-Star comments within the article to gushing fan edits....so I agree it needs a LOT more balance.
Besides all of that, I'd really like to see a more structured article....something with a chronological order. The information/discussion about the most recent events regarding Ms. Jones Reynolds (ie, her departure from "The View") should really be more towards the end of the article. Information about her pre-"View" activities should be fleshed out, too. I'd be willing to help at such time should the protection of this page be lifted. 
Just my humble opinion. Thanks! NickBurns 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What passages would you cite as being non-NPOV? 70.111.125.197 15:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aside from the controversy.... 

message: I added some headings and moved some stuff around, and made other (hopefully) minor edits. Also, I assume in the absence of information to the contrary that she is still licensed as an attorney at law, even though she's not practicing law at this time. If that assumption is correct, she's a "lawyer," not a "former lawyer." Yours, Famspear 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor reorganization

message: I think this article is in relatively good shape, compared to the problems it had been having.  It seems more or less balanced and isn't ridiculously unflattering, but still alludes to her image problems and controversies.  Does anyone have any thoughts?--Dmz5 22:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of the article 

message: On the Law & Order: SVU episode, she is introduced on a talk show as a former Brooklyn ADA.  According to this article, in real life she used to be a Brooklyn ADA.  However, this article says she was not playing herself, but a fictitious character, also named "Star Jones".  The justification for this claim is the following: "While her character was also named Star Jones, she was not playing herself, but rather a prosecuting attorney from Brooklyn."
First, this claim is not consistent with the episode itself.  The article implies she played a current ADA, while it is clearly stated that she played a former ADA.  Thus, the basis for the claim that she was playing a fictitious character is invalid, so I have to question if she was actually supposed to be playing a fictitious character. — 71.178.27.51 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law & Order: SVU 

message: :Image:StarLarryKing.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 11:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then her upcoming appearance on a March, 2011 episode of The Apprentice should be truly gross and disgusting.96.35.175.244 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:StarLarryKing.jpg

message: Although critisized as being untrue, Star Jones truly has passed away. I'm not sure how many tv stations reported it, but NBC in Manhattan did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himfan2006 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then her upcoming appearance on a March, 2011 episode of The Apprentice should be truly gross and disgusting.96.35.175.244 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: The article states that Jones was sued in small claims court in Detroit and the plaintiff was awarded $20,000.  The maximum jurisdictional amount for small claims court in Michigan is $3000.  96.35.175.244 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Claims Court 

message: In The View paragraph it states verbatim: 
In 1997, Jones joined The View as a co-host, a role that increased her public exposure significantly.
On June 27, 2006, Jones officially reported that she would be leaving The View after nine seasons as co-host. 
*So... what positive qualities did she have that got her hired on the View? 
*What opinions did she hold for those 9 years?
*What controversies was she involved in?
*What kind of role model was she?
*Did she do any good in those 9 years?
Why is the article spending 1 sentence introducing her to the show and treating it like it was a favor for her and the whole rest of the article is about her leaving?   Also, the reason given is in dispute with the Rosie O'Donnell article which states:
In September 2006, O'Donnell replaced Meredith Vieira as a co-host and moderator of the The View, a daytime women-oriented talkshow. Star Jones, a co-host on the show, quit with some speculating Jones's conservative views would be in constant tension with O'Donnell's more liberal counterpoint. O'Donnell had also disputed Jones's route of rapid weight loss, alluding that it must have been gastric bypass surgery rather than dieting and exercise alone as Star had insisted which also fed speculation about certain tension between the two 
This is some pretty horrific writing for Wikipedia...  I'm placing a NPOV and Improve tag on the article.  97.85.168.22 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is severely lacking information 

message: ...what??  --75.67.189.29 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "She played a pivotal role in the Clinton impeachment." 

message: Removed material about Reynolds coming out as bisexual ten years after they divorced; relevance unclear. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reynolds