Talk:The View (talk show)/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes to introduction 

message: 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 
* WABC studios, 320 West 66th Street, downtown Manhattan. http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/show.html -- ArglebargleIV 01:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the View  

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed a statement from the introduction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias accusations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tryouts 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replacement auditions 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with the proprosal.  This is not the place for controversies. Shawn W 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "Controversies" section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Return to having a section for each Season

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree, I don't really see why those two lines are a problem. RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 20:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International broadcasts 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Viewtitlecard5.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rosie O'Donnell controversies

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:WhoopiView.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed contribution 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: All interesting but we need sources to use any of it. Benjiboi 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbara Walters and ratings 

message: Resolved. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Format section disputed content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  tag removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Various sections

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alleged Bias 

message: 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,   Wapondaponda (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: breastfeeding

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 , if it's "___ is a fag" or otherwise makes wikipedia look bad I may use . 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)
thread_title:  Hasslebeck leaving - yet again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Kathy Griffin]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done.  -- Banjeboi 00:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote format problem

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ann Coulter Appearance

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Post election same-sex marriage dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sherri's death 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Behar 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Subsections regarding comments by co-hosts 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120101351/http://theview.abc.go.com/blog/guys-guests-shake-things-she-said-he-said-style-month to http://theview.abc.go.com/blog/guys-guests-shake-things-she-said-he-said-style-month
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced/Innacurate Info 

message: 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'. Former co-hosts Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Nicole Wallace, and Star Jones came out strongly against their comments. On November 6, 2015, Fiorina returned to the show via satellite.
Should be included under notable episodes/controversies  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.220.49 (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carly Fiorina Feud  

message: 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'. Former co-hosts Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Nicole Wallace, and Star Jones came out strongly against their comments. On November 6, 2015, Fiorina returned to the show via satellite.
Should be included under notable episodes/controversies  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.220.49 (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Carly Fiorina feud

message: Get rid of all of them 151.213.118.62 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Y'all keep pushing lies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ban The View 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can Anybody Provide A Source Backing the Claim That The View Was The Number One Show In Both News And Talk 

message: What's up? CaptainPrimo (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The page formatting is broken and someone reverted me fixing that 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oscars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dan Abrams co-hosting