Jump to content

Talk:Charlo Greene

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

Fuck vs F****

[edit]

why the reluctance to quote the 'fuck it, i quit' line? 'unusual exit'? if wiki can show videos of erect cocks insanely spewing cum forever and forever (article: 'ejaculation'), why the reticence re the word 'fuck'? 63.142.146.194 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the reference section, it is shown with the asterisks because that is exactly what the subtitle of the source says. Wikipedia is not censored and there is no ban on using the word fuck in the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, i was referring to the article's opening paragraph (that contained the 'unusual exit' wording i quoted above), which has been since rewritten, as someone has rewritten the title of my comment. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly I just felt that it was unnecessary to quote the line exactly, mostly because I felt that the coverage was more interested in the fact that Greene quit after revealing that she was the owner of the club. Her exact wording led to interesting ways to title the articles, but other than that the whole "fuck it, I quit" line wasn't really given all that much specific attention. We can add it, but I just felt that it'd be a little bit of overkill. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This exemplifies "Bitch please"=

[edit]

SIX WikiProjects, and low importance for each and every one of them? I've long figured that the typical Wikipedian is incapable of distinguishing celebrity from notability, and this makes that too crystal clear. Even worse is that it's evident that some of you honestly believe that this was the most important thing to ever occur in KTVA's history. BTW, I didn't comment on the AFD because the very existence of this article left a very bad taste in my mouth about Wikipedia in general, plus it was far too obvious that many of you had your minds made up already regarding this. Compare to Stubbs the cat in that we're legitimizing a publicity stunt by giving it this much attention, all the while ignoring what's really notable because it's not "trending" in the corporate media. She is "notable" for engineering a publicity stunt on one particular day at a television station which is known for having an on-air personality who was at the station for 53 YEARS and was recognized by her profession numerous times for her contributions to said station. What a scam. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry that you disagree with the AfD, but that was honestly the best place to voice this opinion. However I do want to state that notability is and should be decided based upon what coverage is available on the given topic, in this case Greene. Is it necessarily fair that she gained that much coverage for engineering a publicity stunt that she knew would increase the visibility of her club? No, but it happened. Is it fair that she's gained more attention than other people that would seem more deserving because of their years of service? No, but it happened. Were there other things that were happening in the news that would be of more basic importance than one news anchor quitting the way she did? Yes, but this still happened and got coverage. If not for the High Times award and the Elle magazine nod, odds are high that Greene's article would have been deleted and she would have just been a footnote in the KTVA article. If you genuinely believe that Greene fails notability guidelines then you can take this to AfD, but I do want to warn you that your argument brushes dangerously against WP:DONTLIKE because most of your argument seems to stem from your exasperation that Greene got as much coverage as she did for making a calculated publicity stunt on public television. The thing is, we need to judge notability based on the sources and the weight of said sources. If someone passes notability guidelines then they merit an article. The reasons for their notability don't really matter much as far as article creation goes unless it is something that is so universally offensive that having it on Wikipedia can and will be harmful to the subject and to others. I don't see where Greene's actions- as dubious as they were- fall into that category. As far as there being other things that are more deserving of editor and media attention, there's no reason why people can't edit articles about those things as well. Basically what I'm trying to say here (and probably saying it badly) is that I'm sorry if you dislike that this article exists and that people spent time editing and rescuing it from AfD, but there's no real reason why we shouldn't cover something like this. Even if the topic may seem unworthy or offensive, part of having a well rounded encyclopedia is covering all the bases. If you honestly feel that Greene does not deserve an article, then bring it back to AfD- complaining here about how you hate that this article exists doesn't really do anything and isn't generally helpful when it comes down to it. Just please phrase it differently than you have here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pissing my pants laughing at this one...

[edit]

From the "article" left behind in draftspace (which I'm requesting to be deleted under WP:A10 concurrent with this posting):

"KTVA reporter Charlo Greene quit her job in perhaps the most spectacular fashion ever seen on TV"

I understand just how desperate some of you are to give free publicity to people just because they've made a few headlines recently, but come on. "Perhaps the most spectacular fashion ever seen on TV"? Go read Christine Chubbuck, then come back here and tell me that this statement isn't just pure and total bullshit.

More evidence of this being little more than a puff piece: this article contains no mention of *why* she outed herself, despite it having been mentioned by multiple reliable sources. Someone on Wikipedia is perhaps afraid of offending politically powerful people such as Alyce Hanley and Deborah Williams, or mentioning them merely detracts from the goal of giving free publicity to Charlo? The article also contains no mention of the recent court-ordered eviction of the Alaska Cannabis Club from its place of business, despite also having being mentioned by multiple reliable sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have a major issue with the article, a better place to post stuff like this is at WP:BLP/N. You could also add this information to the article yourself, but your statements here have really given off the impression that you have a very specific bias when it comes to Greene. I'm not saying that as a supporter or non-supporter of Greene or the ACC, just as someone who notices that you really, really appear to dislike Greene because of how you phrase things. Now as far as the draftspace article goes, that's something to just mark with deletion tags (which you've already done) and leave it be. The phrase isn't in the article, so there's no actual reason to bring this up here unless you're trying to be WP:POINTy. There's no agenda here as far as the lack of information in the article- mostly if it's not there it's because nobody has added it because they're not keeping constant tabs on her actions. If something is mentioned in multiple reliable sources that would pass muster at WP:RS/N and you can add the information to the article in a neutral fashion, then go ahead and add it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to question at BLPN about including the eviction

[edit]

@Tokyogirl79:If her notability is tied to her work with the Alaska Cannabis Club and not just the WP:BLP1E of her on air PR stunt then the eviction should go in if it can be dealt with neutrally without adding so much text as to make it WP:UNDUE. Essentially the article needs to state at a minimum why she was evicted. The linked source said she violated the lease by " violated her lease by not obtaining insurance in a reasonable amount of time, and was therefore subject to eviction" It might be good to explain that she would not allow the fire inspectors access to the upstairs sprinkler system and that prevented the downstairs owner from getting a business license and that among other reasons were why the eviction proceedings were started.

I would propose that the best way to include it is: In January 2015 Greene and the Alaska Cannabis Club were evicted from a building they had been renting, a former Kodiak Bar and Grill location in Anchorage, for failing to obtain insurance in a timely manner. JBH (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making into a redirect

[edit]

Looking at the AFD Discussion, I am not convinced that there was much of a consensus for Keep (the closing admin did not summarize the debate). It seems that the only notable thing she did in her life - quitting her reporting job on the air while saying an expletive - is not sufficient to satisfy the notability requirement for an article. Everything else in the article (working on a marijuana legalization campaign, having campaign finance dispute with a regulatory agency, and being evicted) are not notable to merit this article. I am therefore converting this article into a redirect, so if she does do something notable in the future, the article can be easily restarted.

If reverted, I will officially re-nominate the article for an AfD. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated that this has WP:BLP1E written all over it and little else going. There exists a cadre of editors, a poor man's backbone cabal if I ever saw one, who are desperate to hang on to this article. The only possibility I see is that these editors apparently believe that Wikipedia exists to be a portal to The Huffington Post and that this is somehow notable because ol' HuffPo acknowledged it. Speedily closing the last AFD over bullshit procedural issues is suspicious as fuck considering that people have strong opinions on this topic. The fact is, as of several months ago, the debate on cannabis in Alaska has shifted and she has been left behind. The establishment of the Marijuana Control Board has brought the focus around to the process, which she has chosen not to participate in (not surprising, as all she's really done from Day One is seek publicity for herself).
You didn't specify the target of your redirect in this message, but redirecting it to KTVA would be a bad idea. That article already reads too much like a series of unconnected facts and statements thrown together. It has also attracted editors who believe that Sarah Palin's cup of coffee at that station merits a greater mention than people such as Augie Hiebert and Norma Goodman, each of whom had crucial roles at the station and an association lasting in the half century range (and not coincidentally, far more sources exist which discuss their association with the station in detail, even if many of them aren't online). It's the same deal with Charlo. It suggests that we're here to reflect celebrity rather than notability, and that the station's history matters little to the context of the station's notability inasfar as Wikipedia is concerned. Look at that article's revision history while you're at it, too. Of particular interest is the "Joe Miller controversy" of 2010. Evidently, there are editors who believe that this was notable one year and not notable the next, which is not how Wikipedia works. As Charlo has about the same shelf life, I wonder if the Tokyogirls of the world are going to continue to defend this to the death a year or two down the road, or if we're eventually going to see yet another instance of WP:DEGRADE being shit upon. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This went through two AfDs, both of which closed as a keep. The second AfD closed as a speedy keep (endorsed by Hullaballoo and closed by Kraxler) because it was opened only hours after the redirect was contested. This is why Hullaballoo called for a speedy keep and I need to point out that he called you out on this, Victor Victoria. It also kind of came across like you're trying to nominate it until you get what you want: a delete. The first one was closed as a keep by Joe Decker, who does not have to give an exhaustive summary of all of the arguments on either side (all of the arguments were for a keep to one extent or another, I might add). As for me arguing for its inclusion, the reason I defend it is because I feel that a lot of the argument against inclusion (especially from RadioKAOS) tends to come from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I can understand that you're unhappy that someone received coverage for what was ultimately a grandstanding stunt, but she's continued to receive coverage since she pulled the on-air stunt. I'm sorry that you both personally dislike that Greene has an article but she seems to pass notability guidelines. There are multiple other articles out there that need improvement and thousands of people who need articles, so I'm not entirely sure why you both keep coming back to this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second AfD closed as a speedy keep (endorsed by Hullaballoo) because it was opened only hours after the first one closed

Really? Let's see what the AFD template at the top of the page says, shall we?

This page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
speedy keep, 8 September 2015, see discussion.
keep, 6 October 2014 (UTC), see discussion.

The dates on the AFD pages match up. Looks to me like there's a world of difference between 10–11 months and "only hours". If the second AFD occurred after "only hours", it was more like only hours after someone got around to finally marking the page as reviewed after almost a year. (NOTE: I faced an edit conflict due to Tokyogirl – looks like she refactored these comments after I began this post, so I didn't really need to point out in detail how far removed they were from the facts).

but she's continued to receive coverage since she pulled the on-air stunt.

Where? As I just pointed out, she disappeared from public view months ago, because the emphasis has shifted towards the actual issue and away from promoting her and whatever cause she had at the moment. You're using a BLP1E episode to assert notability because that episode received attention from certain media outlets, then further gaming the system by claiming coverage by multiple outlets, when shamelessly copying the next guy is how corporate media and the web works these days. Now you're going to use further coverage, all of which followed and was motivated by that episode and none of which has continued to TODAY, as evidence of further notability. A-fucking-mazing.

I'm sorry that you both personally dislike that Greene has an article but she seems to pass notability guidelines.

Uh, excuse me, but you're the one (and the only one, from what I've seen) who has repeatedly attempted to portray this as a personal matter. I already made it clear that I could care less about the person. I dunno if you're one of the sort of editors who believes that being a Wikipedian means walking around with blinders on all the time, but ever hear of the meme "Wikipedia is a joke"? Content such as this and editors who blindly defend it is exactly the reason why. There's also the real-world smell test to consider; Wikipedia won't make it in the end if it continues to be this self-absorbed (which in large part explains why "I keep coming back to this one"). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I fixed that quote once I took a second look at it. Also, her sustained coverage came from her receiving awards/recognition from High Times and Elle. That's pretty much why I'd voted for her article to be kept in the first AfD because those showed that it went beyond some reporter quitting in a ridiculous fashion. She also received more coverage for some of her further actions, although the Elle and High Times stuff is the main reason. As for why I keep saying that you seem to take this personally is because your main arguments are centered around how she quit and how you feel that there are more deserving people out there. Some of your statements came across pretty strongly to me like you just really don't like her. The thing is, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia that have achieved notability for less than stellar reasons. However if they pass notability then they pass notability. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so we can cover things that traditional encyclopedias would not. Just because Encyclopedia Brittanica might not include her in their books (or even their website) doesn't mean that she should automatically be excluded from ours. There are a lot of things on here that pass notability guidelines that would be excluded from them, things that I'm pretty sure you'd consider to be fairly notable (Snooki, Belle Knox, your average mainstream TV show, etc). I don't feel that this article would be deleted again if it went to AfD. A few years from now after guidelines became more strict? Maybe, however we're not at that point in Wikipedia yet and I don't think that Wikipedia is going to be sunk because we have an article on Charlo Greene or even a dozen Charlo Greene-esque topics. If anything, I know that I've read news coverage and other sites that actually laud us for covering things that the traditional mainstream encyclopedias do not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Charlo Greene. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page layout?

[edit]

This is the block-iest, most terrible looking and reading Wiki page I think I have ever come across, especially for someone who is now relevant again(?).

Maybe break it into sections that are similar to other people. See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Adolf_Hitler for examples of different sections, since this guy has a lot for whatever reason.

§§§SoC651§§§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.173.71 (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit thread

[edit]

I removed the mention of her being outed as a scam artist at Reddit. I'd thought that this was referring to one of the fake AMAs that was put out by people pretending to be her, but it's possible that they were referring to this. In any case, we can't use something like that as a source on Wikipedia to say that she is a scam artist, as saying that is reliant on the argument posed by a Reddit user. Since we can't guarantee their fact checking (likely they're spot on, but we still can't guarantee their quality), we can't state that she is or even that she's allegedly a scam artist based on that source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • AlaskanCannabis The AMA has been verified, however you still can't post that she was outed as a scam artist on there because as I wrote above, you can't guarantee the veracity of the person who made the post. It poses a WP:BLP issue since ultimately what you're relying on is research that was conducted by a random person on the Internet. Reddit has mods, but they don't have editors that verify each and every claim that is posted on their site, so all you have is something that is at best a self-published source that hasn't been verified by anyone. Now if there was coverage of the AMA in independent and reliable sources then it may be different, but it would have to be fairly extensive and even then you couldn't outright call her a scam artist. You could say something like "In a (insert date) AMA on Reddit Greene was accused of being a scam artist.." and then finish it with her response or something to that extent, however that's about the limit of what you can and should post on Wikipedia. In order to make a definitive statement you would have to have a lot of good quality reliable sources, otherwise it opens up the door for her to accuse Wikipedia of harassment. The same thing goes for the claims that she tried to get a restraining order under false pretenses. Heck, just to add stuff like this in general you need a LOT of coverage to justify inclusion.
I've removed the other content about Facebook since stuff like that is of little interest to Wikipedia, honestly, unless it gets a ton of media coverage. I'll run all of this by WP:BLP/N, but offhand this seems like the type of stuff that BLP disallows on Wikipedia. A lot of stuff like this is considered to be gossip column type material or stuff that you'd find on KYM or ED, honestly. Even when stuff gains a ton of coverage in a short while there have still been cases where certain pieces of information were deemed unimportant or too WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for Wikipedia's purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

changed name

[edit]

Apparently she has changed her name to "Koko Kwon" [1]http://kokokwon.com/ 58.80.201.106 (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlo_Greene&oldid=1207433119"