Talk:S. E. Cupp/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Image

I think this page would be improved if it had an image and complied with the biography page rules. If anyone has a photo that fits with fair use rules, feel free to upload it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.193.9 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

The blog reference rules clearly state that when the blog reader is stating a concrete fact like "I am an atheist", it's admissible to Wikipedia. It's a personal statement about one's beliefs. Since we have an atheist category on YT, she should be admissible. LaLaBand (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blog reference rules? Maybe, maybe if it is from the subject's blog, then would consider. Otherwise, best to use RS for such additions, especially about religious beliefs, ect. --Tom (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly would like to know more about this. The material you removed was sourced with this blog, and I would agree with you that ordinarily unless it's the subject's own blog, that is kind of a sketchy source. However, this particular entry purports to be an interview by the blog's author with S.E. Cupp, and is backed up by files containing audio of the interview. (Here, for example, is the part where the discussion turns to religion.) Of course I have no way of verifying that this is really S.E. Cupp being interviewed rather than, say, some anonymous woman pretending to be her. But in view of the fact that the subject is currently announcing on her website a forthcoming book entitled Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity, this topic is certainly relevant to the biography. I'm not adding the interview's material back in because I can't vouch for the authenticity (which I assume was the concern prompting you to remove it), but I have the somewhat uneasy feeling that this data may prove to be quite relevant to the biography. Perhaps when S.E. releases her book, she will offer something to either confirm or deny what the interview claims her beliefs to be. -MollyTheCat (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ding ding ding ding ding. We have confirmation, ladies and gentlemen. I think it's appropriate to move this fact back into the article. -MollyTheCat (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I have personally witnessed her self-identify as an atheist- first in the Young Turks interview (audio only), which has been removed from the article for relevance. Then again on last week's Real Time. Restoring. Someone can remove the "Questionable" bit, as I don't know of any reason her sincerity should be questioned. --Replysixty (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have properly used the Daily News link to say she self-describes as atheist in the proper place in the article. There is utterly no reason to keep the rest of that poorly-written, inflammatory paragraph so please do not restore it again. — e. ripley\talk 11:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The very article you link to espouses a very unusual POV for an atheist — she complains that Obama acknowledged that there are unbelievers in the nation? --anonymous


Tons of edits going on, probably hundreds of edits where people try to note the controversy and dubiousness of her claim to atheism. She’s been questioned about it places as mainstream as Bill Maher, and even the C-SPAN interviewer had a hard time letting her say that she was an atheist who would never want an atheist president. There needs to be some mention of the highly unusual nature of her "atheism" if it is going to mentioned at all, which it should, because it’s a key part of her persona. I’m tagging with NPOV dispute. --Anonymous
It doesn't matter. The lady confirms it and the issue was resolved 2½ years ago. Let's close the books and move on. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Washington Post review of Cupp's latest book

Steven Levingston, nonfiction editor of the Washington Post, has published a review of Losing Our Religion on the Post's Political Bookworm blog. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of info about Cupp's Young Turks Interview

I feel as if the inclusion of this information in the introduction is not only misplaced, but also probably the result of antipathy. Regardless of the reason, it's to specific to rightfully fit into the introduction. For these reasons, I am removing it. If it belongs anywhere at all, it's under a section about controversy, which I will not be creating. Fourthcourse (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. I don't think it belonged in the article. Unless she made a very notable comment it shouldn't be included.Racingstripes (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"questionable atheism"

I removed original research and sources that fail WP:BLP (Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.) And restored the section title to "athism". V7-sport (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

I also removed this. It also read like original research/pov, the part about her talking points being off the point, ect. --Tom (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this "material" again. I won't revert again for now but probably best to take to BLP board, ect. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Reported here. --Tom (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, someone clearly has an ax to grind. On first blush, this section seems to almost entirely be inappropriately sourced for the information it's seeking to convey. I'll look more closely in a minute. — e. ripley\talk 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Utterly inappropriate. I removed the entire thing. Many of the "sources" cited didn't support the claims being made, and the ones that might have are blogs that aren't reliable sources, especially not for BLPs. Most blogs are inappropriate sources for almost anything, much less controversial claims about a person. — e. ripley\talk 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I personally think she's an agnostic based on this Hannity interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP0gLw4gp90#t=0m50s She says she's open to be converted and accepts Hannity calling her agnostic. --Brinchj (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately our own novel interpretations of things don't meet Wikipedia's policies and as such can't be included. From the no original research policy: Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources. (emphasis mine) What you're suggesting is your own interpretation and would be inappropriate for this article, particularly when we have a source where she states unequivocally that she is an atheist. — e. ripley\talk 19:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I know, that's why I'm not changing anything on the page, but writing in the discussion :) I am however quite sure, that if any interviewer explains atheism to her and then asks, she would call herself agnostic. Just like she did in the interview with Hannity. Unfortunately, it's not written anywhere. --Brinchj (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, my mistake then. Not to sound like a grinch, but these talk pages should only be used for discussing changes to the article, they aren't for general chit chat about the article's subjects. You can take a look at the talk page guidelines here WP:TALK. — e. ripley\talk 13:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

self-describe vs self-ascribe

While self-described makes sense, isn't the correct usage self-ascribed? As in, she doesn't describe herself as an atheist, she just thinks of herself as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.168.70.183 (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Self-described is the proper usage. I don't understand the distinction you're making. If you think of yourself as an atheist, and then write an editorial where you identify yourself as an atheist, then you've described yourself as an atheist. — e. ripley\talk 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted -- again

The only thing that may possibly be salvagable is the Washington Post book review, however that might more properly belong in an article about the book itself, not necessarily about her. Blogs are not reliable sources, and YouTube videos cannot be used to support your own suppositions about the strengths of her beliefs. — e. ripley\talk 11:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a recurring problem, I'll take a minute to deconstruct the edit that I just reverted. I'll take it source-by-source.
My first comment is that it's generally inappropriate (and also just plain bad writing) to have an entire section labeled "criticism." Any valid, properly sourced criticisms should be folded into the general narrative of the article itself. To the rest:
  • S.E. Cupp has generated significant criticism from the atheist/skeptical/rationalist community online, many remaining skeptical of her self-described atheism, backed up by [1].
The first problem with this text is that it raises blog commentary ("the [...] community online") to the level of something a Wikipedia article should note, which is problematic on its face. Secondly, it suggests that there has been "significant" furor over this, but is only supported by one reference. The reference used here is a blog, which rarely meets our policies for reliable sources even in the best of cases, and I see nothing anywhere on this blog to indicate that this person (whoever he is) is particularly qualified to comment on S. E. Cupp, atheism, religion or anything else for the purposes of sourcing a Wikipedia article.
  • Some have pointed out contradictions in her views on atheism as evidence for doubting whether or not she believes in God. During an interview with Luke Ford she claims when asked to recall what she cherished about religion “I loved a lot. I loved the belonging. I’m a consummate fan; whether it’s with the Mets or with a religion, I really like to be a cheerleader, a supporter. I get really into it. I was really turned on by that sense of group identity. You’re one of us.” as well as Then minutes later when answering a different question S.E. Cupp claims that "In part, I became an atheist became I’m not really a big joiner." Both are backed up by [2]
Setting aside the very open question of whether this interviewer's views are important or informed enough to consider his opinions a reliable source, this source does not support the text above. In this interview, he never suggests or infers any kind of contradictions in her views. This represents an editor's personal interpretation of her answers, which violates Wikipedia's policies on original research.
  • The central thesis of her book Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity has also been criticized for lacking substantiation and credibility. backed up by url = [3]
"The Young Turks" appears to be a podcast and possibly a satellite radio show. I didn't watch the interview, but regardless of what they may or may not have said, they don't appear to meet the standards for a reliable source.
  • She has been conclusively shown to have misrepresented at least some of the examples she uses in the book to support the idea that a liberal media exists and/or such media attacks Christianity backed up by [4]
This YouTube commentary is made by someone named "LiberalViewer" who appears to be an attorney [5]. Again, I see no evidence that this person is particularly qualified to comment on S. E. Cupp or her views, or religion or atheism for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, therefore he does not meet our standards for what constitutes a reliable source.
  • An Article on The Washington Post heavily criticizes her views on Evolution. Stating that "S.E. Cupp's handling of science and religion misrepresents the nature of evolution, obscures the science of biology and dismisses the deeply held religious views of most Christians outside of the fundamentalist subculture." backed up by [6]
There may be some salvageable information in here, however it's not really properly attributed. This is a book review published in the Washington Post, written by Joshua Rosenau, public information project director at the National Center for Science Education. Any views taken from this article should be attributed to him, not to the Washington Post as an entity. Additionally, as I mentioned above, I'm not sure that this is a criticism of her, as much as it is of her book. Editors would need to decide whether it's appropriate for inclusion as a criticism of her in this article, or whether it should properly be located inside an article about the book specifically.

— e. ripley\talk 14:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you had to revert the changes, that's my bad. thank you. Could you please advise however on how to create an appropriate "critical reception" or "criticism" or "public reaction" type of section because I really think it's noteworthy to record the impact and backlash S.E. Cupp has made with her book and statements in interviews. Blogs, video submissions and comments make up the bulk of what constitutes a "public reaction" in the online communities but as you point out these are inadmissible as sources. Friendlyanon
First, thank you for coming to talk about this. I personally really appreciate it and the article can only benefit from these kinds of interactions. Second, there should really never be an entire section about "criticism," which I mentioned above. Valid criticism should be worked into the narrative of the article where appropriate. But first, what you need are reliable sources that mention criticism. These are typically secondary published sources like the New York Times, National Review, etc. If criticism of her has not reached the level of being mentioned in these types of sources, then we won't be able to include it here, typically. Do you have any reliable secondary sources that record criticism of her? Note that I am not opposed to including criticism generally but it must follow Wikipedia's rules on sourcing. This is true of any article, but it's particularly important to be strict about it in a biography of a living person. — e. ripley\talk 12:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that the article on Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity be merged into this page. This is because the book does not appear to meet the notability guidelines found in Wikipedia:Notability (books). The book was not (from the guidelines) "the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience." The book's article sites 2 outside sources--one, from the Washington Post, is legitimate and helpful, but the other is to a self-published site that specifically reviews pop culture from a Christian perspective (i.e., not serving a "general audience"). The book also meets none of the other criteria for being notable (hasn't won awards, isn't widely taught in schools, Cupp herself is not such a renowned author that all of her books are automatically notable, etc.). As such, I propose that we summarize and merge the relevant content into this article (our target would probably be 1 to 2 paragraphs in this article), and redirect that article to here. Anyone else with an opinion on the matter? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the book isn't particularly significant, certainly not enough to meet our standards, and as such would not be opposed to a merge. — e. ripley\talk 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree. I think we should expand the article about the book rather than merging both on them. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Do any WP:RS that could be used to expand the book article even exist? — e. ripley\talk
I couldn't find any, but perhaps The Egyptian Liberal knows of some. But, just to clarify--I'm not saying that the article isn't well enough written--I'm saying (as E. Ripley implies) that it cannot, by definition, ever be well enough written, because the book is simply not notable enough to have its own article. Adding more summary info, more quotes, more anything is not enough. The only thing that we can "expand" is the evidence that the book has been discussed in reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think e. ripley is more than qualified to find WP:RS and add them to the article. I honestly has been super busy lately with school so even if I could find reliable sources, I wont have time to edit the page and add them. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Without reliable sources attesting to the books notability, I believe that we should merge the relevant information and redirect the book here. Unless I see sources establishing notability (and, again, I looked and couldn't find any), I will merge. 07:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I searched through about the first 10 pages of Google results, and came up with this. These are actual discussions of the book or the subject of the book, as opposed to an appearance somewhere that mentions in passing that she's authored the book:

Appearances in various outlets when her book was first released (book tour stuff):
IMO this is pretty standard fare for book-related appearances and doesn't particularly testify to the book's notability in any enduring sense, but it is better than, say, the coverage an X for Dummies might get. Also, as an aside, the burden of proof was on The Egyptian Liberal to come up with these, frankly, so I'm not sure how it suddenly became my job, but in any case, this was what I found. — e. ripley\talk 12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those. I have no idea why they didn't turn up when I ran research checks. I think that those are enough to establish that the book meets the guidelines in WP: Notability (books). I only skimmed the articles so far, so I don't have enough info to add really useful details to the article, so I'll just add 1 sentence now so that the references are there, and I'll delete the merge discussion tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

War Room Hack

I removed the statement and reference saying that Cupp is the War Room's 21st worst hack. The intro to the list states "The War Room Hack Thirty is a list of our least favorite political commentators, newspaper columnists and constant cable news presences, ranked roughly (but only roughly) in order of awfulness and then described rudely. Criteria for inclusion included writing the same column every week for 30 years, warmongering, joyless repetition of conventional wisdom, and making bad puns." That's hardly a very important, useful, or even clear analysis. They even state that the order is approximate. I don't see how the opinion of a few news journalists on Cupp's writing this year deserves mention in an encyclopedia article about her. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it any different than the Star Wars Episode II page mentioning it was nominated for the Razzies? --72.204.240.161 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Because this article is a BLP and the Star Wars Episode II article is not. PRONIZ (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture

File:New York City Tea Party Speakers April 15, 2009.jpg
S.E. Cupp (fourth from right) and other speakers at a New York City Tea Party event on April 2009

I think that the current picture in the article should be deleted. It's not a very clear pic. She's really not idenifiable, and only slightly more if you look at the pic alone. I know what she looks like and if someone were to show me that pic, I wouldnt immediately think its her. I believe that this pic would be more acceptable as a secondary pic, definetly not a primary pic.Racingstripes (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC) ```

I don't understand your comment. Tt is not a primary pic meant to identify exactly what she looks like. It is a secondary pic placed into the body text of the article (not the lead) to show her giving her support to the U.S. tea party movement. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Something cannot be secondary if there is only one. So this is the primary picture of the article. The caption also indicates that she is the fourth from the right, when she is actually the fifth(an upon closer look, maybe even the sixth.) In my opinion, this picture would be more fitting if the article was much larger, and there was a pertinent section for her involvement in the tea party movement. Typically in wikipedia's biographical articles the first picture in the article is of that person by themselves and much closer and clearer. This is distant group shot in which the subject is not very identifiable. And what I mean by not identifiable is that after seeing her in this pic, I couldn't identify her in another pic.Racingstripes (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This picture is nothing but a meaningless group shot. It does not belong in this article, period. If you want to put a picture of S.E. Cupp on here, it has to be a decent picture of her, and her ONLY. Nobody else. It must also be a picture that is not non-free. So until an acceptable picture of her appears, no picture is to be allowed on her article, especially this worthless group shot. Fourviz (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I just got S.E.'s permission to use a couple of images, one of which is File:SECupp-HS5.jpg, which I just added to the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

New sections required

A Politics and Religion section needs to be added the to article to show her views on those matters. you can talk about her involvement with the tea party if you wished there. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Twice you've had those reverted, and I agree with the reversions. First, we don't just add politics and religion sections to articles on living people, unless those issues are directly related to their notability and can be backed by verified sources. If you have some sources or something to discuss, then create the sections, but a picture and quotes from her are not enough to do so. Note, for example, that Cupp is not a politician, nor an organizer, nor is there any indication that she will be in the future. Should she become one, then that section can be added. We already state in the article that she is a self-proclaimed atheist, which is enough. In fact, since she is an atheist, it's hard to say what else could go in to a "religion" section.
In any event, it is always inappropriate to add empty sections except if you have reason to believe that you yourself will be filling them soon. If you think the sections are needed, its up to you to do the research, find the sources, and add them. If you don't think that can be done, then we should add sections just to add them. This is especially true since this is a BLP, as we don't want to imply something without verifying on blps, ever. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"though she rarely says anything positive about atheism"

This phrase is referenced by this source, which, while it refers to her atheism and gives an example of her criticising atheists, it doesn't establish a pattern of her rarely saying anything positive about atheism. Is there a WP:RS that does so or should it be rewritten? Autarch (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there instances of her saying something negative? That's her point IMHO, that there is no need to proselytize with atheism... an Atheists lack of belief doesn't need to be turned into a religion unto itself complete with attempts to convert others. Criticism of particular atheists isn't criticism of atheism. V7-sport (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There absolutely are instances of it, see [this YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATz6MS9YPU], in which she uses the phrase “militant atheist” unprovoked, which is considered a vile slur by most atheists, as there is no instance of anyone being actually militant, as in wars/crusades/inquisitions, in the name of atheism. She also states that religious people are not deluded. However at least n-1 religious beliefs are necessarily delusions, no matter what you believe; this is especially clear to freethinkers. All this and more is in that video. --Anon.
“militant atheist” unprovoked, which is considered a vile slur by most atheists"..... The fact that there is militancy has been pretty much demonstrated on this talk page. I'm not religious by the way... V7-sport (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

67.242.148.212 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)how about the fact she said only theists should hold office? She insisted an atheist would be untrustworthy. How is that not a negative? If someone said that about Jews, would it not be anti-Jewish? BTW, standing up for yourself against slander and discrimination is not militant. Face the obvious, it is highly likely Cupp is hiding in a glass closet trying to use that "BTW, I am an atheist" card as a false sense of conversion or reasonability for Christians ("hey, even an atheist agrees with us.")

I removed the youtube link, as it's not helpful here. In any event, even though I suspect you may possibly be correct, your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant--Wikipedia only includes information that can be verified by reliable sources in articles. We cannot draw our own conclusions about Cupp's private religious beliefs--all we can do is report what reliable sources have said. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

biographical info

the biographical info citation is to a cite that employs s.e.cupp as a writer. doesn't a citation like this need better sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkagen (talk • contribs) 03:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, as long as the source is reliable. In fact, a BLP's own website can even be a reliable source for some info, per the rules given in WP:SPS. If the website were claiming something like "She is the most famous atheist on TV" or "She can run 100 m in 6.4 sec," then we would have cause to doubt it. But the source is reliable, and it gives pretty basic details, so it should be okay. Was there any specific info that concerned you? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying removal of POV tag

If this article said "Cupp is an atheist," then I could see an argument that it is potentially non-neutral, and thus needed the POV tag. The article, though, says that she claims to be an atheist, and that is a completely neutral statement (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). By the logic of the editor who wants to add the tag, every single BLP article which has a self-professed religious stance should have the POV tag. This does not make sense. Again, an article may include POV statements and yet be NPOV, so long as those statements are properly attributed and all relevant viewpoints are included. If you had, for example, a highly reliable source which stated that there is evidence that Cupp is not an atheist, then we could include that as a balancing POV. If such a source does not exist, however, the article is proper as written, without the tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not my war, but as a reviewer, it seems to me some parties are attempting to muddy an issue settled long ago. I've removed the NPOV tag a second time.
X883 (talk) seems to be a sock created for the sole purpose of inserting the NPOV. Let's move on and find something useful to do.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not call me a sock for political purposes. I readily admit being a new account. Let’s focus on what matters. --X883 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No political purpose, especially as I don't care one way or another what religious beliefs a person chooses as it's a very personal and private matter. I suggest we're dealing with a sock because (a) the account was created today, (b) it's sole focus has been to address the POV issue on this article, (c) the account holder is obviously quite experienced, and (d) they've managed to outwit the reviewers, except that I stumbled upon it. Would you prefer an investigation?
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow… Whom exactly did I “outwit”? I’ll stop reverting but still believe the omission of criticism is controversial. And religion is not a private matter when you are writing about it in the Times and giving TV interviews on the subject. Thanks for calling me “experienced” — I’m not really, I made maybe 10 edits a few years ago and you ’pedians bit me then, too. --X883 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing the dispute to a halt. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."
What’s muddying things is that Cupp claims to be something and huge numbers of people have a very hard time believing her — but just like it would be unencyclopedic to mention only the official stance on JFK’s assassination, we need to present the controversy. --X883 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll remove it again, What was written isn't a "controversy".V7-sport (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't understand the controversy, but it appears to me someone is attempting to undermine an already settled issue. Stop this silly war and move on.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome, X883! Whether or not you're a new editor in general, it is always good to have more eyes on any given article, assuming you're willing to edit within our policies. In this case, I think you point out an important oddity with this article, but the way you're addressing it isn't quite right. You mention, quite believably, that it seems odd that Cupp is so strongly in defense of the Christianity, and yet is a self-proclaimed atheist. As Wikipedia editors, however, we can't make that judgment ourselves; instead, we must have reliable sources to back up our claims. If, as you say "huge numbers of people of have a hard time believing her," then you should be able to find sources that support that. If you do (and they meet the guidelines in WP:RS), then we can include a line to that regard. I can easily imagine us adding a line that said, "Some commentators, such as X and Y, have stated that Cupp's self-professed atheism doesn't match her other claims..." followed by a reliable source. But, ultimately, the source must come first. If you can't provide any sources stating that, then really, the conflict is just between your personal POV and Cupp's. That conflict would not qualify the article for a POV template. I hope that helps explain why several of us think that the tag shouldn't be there. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Qwyrxian. That certainly makes sense. --X883 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the information added or the source--does anyone else? At first I was worried about the link to Youtube, as there are often copyright problems, but that appears to be CSPAN's actual channel, so it should be fine. I don't think we should add much more at this point, as the whole religious issue, while important to her public presence, isn't that overwhelmingly important so it shouldn't take up too much of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Positions

She was confronted about her position claiming to be atheistic/agnostic on Real Time with Bill Maher and on The Young Turk. The Young Turk source: Interview with S.E. Cupp on The Young Turk . I remember vividly that she got a little loud about this question on the Real Time with Bill Maher, where her book was introduced. She pointed out when questioned that she is on the search about faith and does not exclude to change her position about faith in future, which was declared by Bill Maher incompatible position and being just a character played for commercial interested (I would compare it to Steven Colbert on his Show). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector Bosch (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

...is on the search about faith and does not exclude to change her position about faith in future, which was declared by Bill Maher incompatible position...
BS, how can that be an "incompatible position"? Not that Bill Maher is a reliable source, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.208.74 (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ballet category…?

Today, the {{ballet}} category was added… this seems awkward as S.E. is, to the best of my knowledge, not known or noted as a ballerina (though she was one). It seems inappropriate. Thoughts? --X883 (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the subject being described as a dancer or ballerina, and no problem with categories and project tags being applied in appropriate spaces, since the subject was a professional dancer for a normal career period. (Dancing ballet for pay at that level isn't a very common employment, maybe several hundred such at a given time in the U.S. The subject has earned the right to be so called, IMHO.) However, the ballet template has no business on this biography of a political pundit. I would think the template reserved for more directly related subject matter, not a peripherally related subject as this. BusterD (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Concur with both of the above: category + project good, template bad. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Master's degree

There is nothing wrong with the phrase "with a concentration in religious studies" that was removed from the article by Philomab. It is absolutely supported by a reliable source. However, Philomab's contention that there is no such thing at Gallatin is incorrect. As I pointed out to him in a 3RR warning on his Talk page, Gallatin's brochure ([7]), at page 111, states: "Regardless of their concentration, all Gallatin students earn the same degree: a Master of Arts in individualized study." In reading the brochure, it becomes fairly clear that the word "concentration" is used more frequently in Gallatin's undergraduate program than in their graduate program. However, it's perfectly acceptable for the article to use the phrase, even if Gallatin didn't use the precise word. The idea is that Cupp got a master's with a focus on that area of study, which she chose.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A "concentration" in academic language means a specifically declared focus. It is institutionally recognized. If someone studies in an interdisciplinary program in which no specific major or focus is required but happens to take several classes in one area this is still not a "concentration." "Concentration" is a technical term used for specific degrees with specific requirements. She may have taken a class or two--or four--the number of electives permitted--but this is still not a concentration. There is a religious studies degree at NYU, but this is a MA offered by the Religious Studies Program. It has no connection to Gallatin, although Gallatin students can take courses offered there. Upon looking at the Gallatin document I found no reference to a "religious studies" concentration. It is not my intention to be difficult in this matter, but because Cupp presents herself as a "pundit" on things pertaining to religion it seems all the more necessary to make it clear what type of degree she has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philomab (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but the source supports the material, which, at Wikipedia, is all that matters, and even the brochure supports that in getting a master's at Gallatin, it can have a "concentration"; clearly, the concentration can be in any discipline, including religious studies. Unless you obtain consensus to reword the material, leave it be. And, in any event, you cannot edit the article for a while without violating WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What she sounds like

She talks real LOUD and has a grufty-sounding voice kinda like Demi Moore or the Applebee's ("ONLY AT APPLEBEE'S!!!) spokesperson.

I mean this in the most objective way possible. Why do I think it's relevant? Cuz I don't have access to a tv and I am blocked from video at my work computer. She keeps making headlines on media sites with radioactive controversial arguing combined with all these lovely pics and video stills of her. So I was intrigued, but when I finally got to see her on a tv and I was startled by this voice, it was such an overwhelming aspect to her personality that I feel NOT bringing it up in some way is leaving out a vitally important aspect of this persons show-business character. In other words, Wiki did NOT prepare me for what I got whan I finally saw her live. If you think I'm being out of line, sure I'll agree, I'll even understand if you delete this, but can someone else come up with a nicer way of putting it into the main article? Cuz that's her 'thing', her 'identifiable trademark' so to speak and no one's mentioned it. Hanz ofbyotch (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this isn't original research and editorializing. It's your personal opinion, which doesn't really belong on a BLP talk page. If you felt so strongly as to post that, why not look for reliable sources that support your ideas in coverage? JFHJr (㊟) 01:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Atheism: values vs. beliefs

There is a steady influx of edits (e.g., this one) that add the assertion that Cupp is not really an atheist because of her defense of Christianity. However, she states quite clearly in her book Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity that

I am an atheist. I have been an atheist for fifteen years.
(April 2010)

She further clarifies that

I believe ... that Judeo-Christian values, religious tolerance, an objective press, the benevolence of Christianity, and civility and decency make for a better American democracy.

These are not contradictory positions. Believing that the practice of Judeo-Christian values is a good thing is not the same thing as believing in God. Many atheists take this same position. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but on the other hand she has statements that ring patently false to an atheist. Like the one about how the American president should believe in something greater than himself in order to not get drunk on power, which is in essence nothing more than the tired old "No morals without religion" argument, and I sincerely doubt there are actual atheists that believe that. Strawmen atheists such as her or Kirk "I used to be an atheist so I could sin" Cameron, on the other hand... --164.71.1.222 (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but such a conclusion is what Wikipedia call original research. If you can find a reliable source of sufficient weight that says she's not an atheist, we may be able to include that info as a quotation attributed to the source, but we certainly can't draw the conclusion ourselves, no matter how obvious it may seem. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course, I know that (used to be a fully fledged editor with a name and a fair number of edits). Rereading what I wrote I see I failed to make the intent of my post clear - I wasn't arguing for blatantly putting this opinion into the article, I just wanted to say Loadmaster is mistaken in thinking that people believe her fraudulent in the assertion of her atheism because she defends Christianity, per se. It's the details of the arguments she presents that ring painfully hollow, and *that* is the reason why we will probably continue to have a stream of people putting OR opinions about her feigned atheism into the article. 164.71.1.150 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, people will continue to attack her as a "faux" atheist. Yet none of what she says can be logically construed as showing a hidden belief in Christianity (or any other religion). For example, her preference for a believing President, and her general support of Christian belief for other people, does not make her a believer herself. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
For both of you, this isn't the place to debate whether or not her views are self-consistent. All we care about is making the article conform to what appears in reliable sources. Yes, anons and new editors will likely continue to change it, and we'll change it back, until such time as sources say otherwise. Debates about how "atheist" she actually is should take place on forums, news sites, but not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with categorizing her as she describes herself publicly, an atheist. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Affluent?

Why is it that one editor keeps wanting to describe her hometown as "affluent"? There's no source for the term, it seems POV. Kelly hi! 23:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is not that important to the article however it is an accurate description that is continuously being removed.

See the following websites: http://inside-real-estate.com/garynessim/2010/03/11/foreclosures-in-carlsbad-ca http://northsandiego.org/carlsbad-ca-north-san-diego-county http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5031130

  • re the last ref carlsbad is located in north county which is northern san diego

Tjelsund (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why add it here? Kelly hi! 23:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Kelly is absolutely right. This has no business being here. I mean, for example, we could verify that the total land area of Carlsbad is 39.110 sq mi...but we wouldn't put that in this article. Just because something is true and verifiable does not necessarily mean it belongs in every article that mentions it. Putting the info here is transparently POV pushing, implying something about Cupp that may or may not be true, since not all of Carlsbad is affluent. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


*EDIT: the questions below are intended for kelly and qwyrxian but anyone who's knowledgeable can answer


three quick questions: why then have i seen on numerous wikipedia bios descriptions similar to "affluent" to describe cities, towns, or places of birth and no one is continuously removing those adjectives? why exactly is it not relevant to her bio, please elaborate. i'm somewhat new to wikipedia for the record. last question i'd like an answer to is what exactly is "POV pushing" and who gets to decide what "POV pushing" is? the user arzel clearly is a conservative based on his edits so who's to say he's not being POV by removing that edit? why am i labeled as POV for adding an accurate description of a geographic area? for now i will leave the article as is but there is no reason IMO it should be removed. please answer these 3 questions because i am very confused as to how wikipedia operates and can call itself "fair" and "NPOV". thanks. Tjelsund (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Because you also asked there, I answered on your user talk page. I'll copy my answer below so that others can see:

It's POV because it's an unneeded adjective. As to why you see it in other articles, its because Wikipedia is a work in progress, that still needs a lot of improvement. There are reasons why it might be relevant to some articles, but in a random BLP? In order to show why that word doesn't belong, let me turn this around. You assert in several places that it is an "accurate description of a geographical area." I don't dispute this, nor, I think, would anyone familiar with Carlsbad. And I bet we could find reliable sources that verify it. But why do you think it's important to include this specific fact about Carlsbad in Cupp's bio? Why not "coastal"? Or "34 square miles in size"? Or "Carlsbad, location of the world's first skateboard park"? The point is that the choice of adjectives is arbitrary. Noting that it's close to San Diego isn't arbitrary, because it helps give someone who doesn't have intimate knowledge of Southern California geography a better understanding of where it is. But how does mentioning the average income level of residents help us know anything more about Cupp, especially since Carlsbad is not uniformly high income? I certainly would not object if we had a sentence that said something like "Person X grew up in an affluent home, with both of her parents being corporate lawyers" (assuming that were sourceable). Or let me point out other facts in her bio: would it be appropriate to add "Ivy-league college 'Cornell University'"? Or "She currently lives in New York City, the city with the lowest crime rate among the top 25 US cities"? THe point is that by adding unnecessary modifiers to the city she grew up in, you (or someone) is trying to imply something that may or may not be true about Cupp herself. That's what we have to avoid. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I would add that using terms like "affluent" to describe a city, town, or notable neighborhood may be acceptable (with appropriate citations), if that description is relevant to describing the subject of those articles. For cases of biographies (places of birth), it is almost never relevant. There are special cases where it may be (with proper sources cited), for example, describing a person or family principally known for their wealth (e.g., Paris Hilton or Steve Forbes), but these are rare exceptions. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Page protect?

It appears that the most of the last 70 or so edits since Aug 2012 have been reverted, my guess being most of them dealing with the terms "atheist" and "affluent". Is this enough noise to warrant protecting the page for a while? — Loadmaster (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see that moments before hitting "Save" on my comment above, the page was indeed protected. Kudos to the clairvoyant admins. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Signatory of amicus curae

Is her signature of that letter really WP:DUE for this page? I mean, it's great (in my opinion), but she's just one of many signatories. Is it of lasting importance to her biography? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it merits inclusion. I left it in because, given the history of this article, it was relatively innocuous, but I would support its removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I've removed it. It's possible that someone just saw the news story and thought it was important to add, not knowing our rules on taking the long view. But if people want to discuss further, it's possible I could be convinced otherwise. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited Photo

Hey All -

Is the photo used in this article doctored? She appears to have a tumor on her right temple. 24.142.168.140 (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No. These images were contributed to WP by Cupp herself, per a request from me. If you compare image SECupp-MG-1028.jpg with image SECupp-HS5.jpg (which was also contributed by her), you will see it's simply an artifact of the lighting and the non-linear hairline on both sides of her head. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"writing" for the New York Times Index Department?

The Index Department of the New York Times is in charge of curating and cataloging NYT resources internally (http://www.slideshare.net/edwardcurry/data-curation-at-the-new-york-times). The way that this is worded makes it seem as if Cupp was a writer for the New York Times, which burnishes her journalistic bona fides.

Don't get me wrong. She may have written some internal documents, or summaries of existing Times articles, but you might as well say the same about anyone who crunches data for a living. That's not "writing" as we understand it with reference to a major newspaper like the Times.

98.231.186.219 (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Dan

--i agree. This is not writing at all -- Sjd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.170.53 (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Atheist Persona

Much akin to Stephen Colbert, she has a fake persona that claims to be atheist. In her book "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity" she claims to have been an atheist since 15 but then went to college and majored in religious studies. She constantly attacks atheist perspectives and defends Christian perspectives, but then ends the conversation with quick statement "But I am not religious, I am atheist." Older versions of Talk about her wiki page are filled with examples.

She has submitted her own picture to wiki and someone is altering her wiki page with lies to push her own agenda of being an atheist instead of just having an atheist persona. I suggest this page gets locked if it keeps getting reverted back to non-truths. — Eclecticerudite 15:37, 2014-04-17

I was the editor who solicited her for her picture, which she graciously gave to WP. Nothing you state has any supporting citations or references. Studying religions in college and defending the rights of believers is not sufficient evidence to claim that someone is a believer themselves. The claim that she is in fact a Christian and is presenting a fake atheist persona in public must be backed up by reliable sources. While Steven Colbert admits he is acting as a character in contradiction to his actual political beliefs (see here, for example), Cupp has stated no such thing. Until that happens, we must take her at her word from her own published book (which counts as a reliable source); the actual quote from her book is included in the article. Until then, please stop making unsupported edits. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Please stop changing Cupp's religion to "Christian" without proper reliable sources. Also stop insinuating my motives or personal relationship with Cupp; I do not know her personally, and the only interaction she has ever had with me was granting WP permission to use her photo after I requested it from her via email. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, stop disruptively editing it back in against consensus. I've reverted due to WP:NOR, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPSOURCES, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Until you can provide a reliable source to the contrary, we go by what she and her book says, per WP:PRIMARY. Tutelary (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Why are we prioritizing her statement over the facts? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pious_fraud is a good explanation of what she is doing. There are innumerable websites/blogs/articles discussing the fact that she proclaims herself an atheist but then contradicts the definition at every step possible. - Eclecticerudite (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Because we go by what the sources say, else we engage in no original research. Please provide the articles, where we can analyze whether they are reliable or not. What a Wikia what anybody can edit is not considered a reliable source. In addition, BLP carries with it another wall of a standard, so we may even have to be even more skeptical as to not be libelious. Tutelary (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The wisdom of Internet forums and blogs is not a substitute for a reliable source. To add that to the infobox, we need self-identification. If there is notable controversy then we need several high-quality sources covering it. --NeilN talk to me 21:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Why are we prioritizing her statement over the facts? Because Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Cupp's claim to be an atheist is not plausible. At most, this article should say that she claims it, rather than stating it as a fact. And there should be some mention of the controversy around the claim. -- 71.102.128.42 (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

We will need something more than your opinion that it is not plausible to make this change. She says she is an atheist and that is good enough to make it a statement of fact. As was stated above, if there is a controversy about it, provide high-quality sources that discuss the controversy. GB fan 10:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much, after reading the article I guffawed at the atheist claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.213.247 (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:S._E._Cupp/Archive_1&oldid=1074616240"