Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Uchitel

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

Untitled

[edit]

Hi. I can't seem to figure out why the reference list isn't showing up. Can someone help me so that it appears on this article? Thanks!(Magentabanana (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

TMZ

[edit]

I think all the TMZ sources should be removed. Probably ones where other sources cite TMZ as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think again. They're all back by current ones.----moreno oso (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "They're all back by current ones." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "backed". If you look at how I sourced and improved lede today, you will see several reliable sources that back the entire TMZ stuff. The guy on TMZ is a lawyer and no dummy. While he may let the staff push a button or two like Entertainment Tonight, he's not going to let his show be taken down by ill-posted stuff on its website. In fact, none of the major players did not run Uchitel's story even though they had "sources" until the National Enquirer published its photos which is also referenced in lede. In essence, her story became very plausible and hard to deny. You should read all the sources provided to get "the big picture". ----moreno oso (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that TMZ should be considered a reliable source, but others at WP:RSN have felt it doesn't pass muster. It's not a big deal to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a special method of "flushing out" sources. Several of the ones used today were not available yesterday when I did the initial run. TMZ had the most stuff but their website is very segmented. Today, more WP:V sites came to light and I was really surprised when I entered her name followed by Wikipedia. A majority of the citations were indexed and tracked. Often by finding two confirmatory sources and placing them properly sourced and avoiding WP:NPOV and WP:NOR will usually bring more or "flush out" better sources. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, that's how I found The View and its URLs which I mentioned in my initial AfD Keep vote. Behar called Uchitel a name and it became very controversial with a number of other sites posting her comments. In the end, an apology was issued as per the citations. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this page has really improved. Maybe her PR person made the last edit ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.232.224.82 (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Uchitel at Australian Masters - probably not...

[edit]

I've removed the comment that she will be at the Australian Masters. NBC Out Of Bounds is a comedic column, and the thought that "Uchitel might be there this year" was an off-color joke that she was there this time last year. Please simply read the article referenced and you'll understand that there's no real reason to believe that Uchitel will attend and this sentence was just cherry-picking a joke...certainly not encyclopedic. 75.138.56.88 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was reported by NBCnews which makes it reliably sourced. Your beliefs or interpretation of a website is immaterial. ----moreno oso (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was most certainly NOT reported by NBC News - it was "reported" by a comedy journalist from NBC Sports. My "beliefs and interpretations" consider the following: 1) He may or may not have paid her way to the Australian Masters in 2009, 2) He's going to the Australian Masters in 2010, 3) THAT'S THE JOKE!!! "Come full circle," as it were.

There's no reason to believe, from this article, that she is going to the Australian Masters in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.56.88 (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was clearly done by a paid contributor

[edit]

just look at the way the references and everything is laid out. fishy at the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.132.56 (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your advert tag, if you have any specific problems with parts of the article, please feel free to discuss them here. I don't see any benefit to that tag, the article has 40+ references. Dayewalker (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why she has a wiki-page?

[edit]

From description, she is nightclub manager and TV correspondent, also mistress of Tiger Woods, also she had her picture published after September 11 th, and she is a drug addict that managed to get some TV appearance due to that. Which of these qualifies her to have a wiki-page? Yurivict (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't judge who is worthy qualitatively on wikipedia, we leave that to the Gods. But she has significant coverage in press sources, which passes WP:N.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the criteria of 'significant coverage' and who judges it? It's definitely not the number of Google search hits. She has ~10.5M hits, mostly gossip columns and blogs, and for example Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany) has only 6.5M hits. It's quite obvious that Angela Merkel is orders of magnitude more important and notable. Yurivict (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, according to the Internet! But to answer your question, see WP:N. But also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Uchitel (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4. Ultimately her article has been kept after being subjected to scrutiny based on concerns like yours. Not a lot of people like her, however, have 10.5 M hits, so she's not causing a flood of articles to be created.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rachel Uchitel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 12:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of this date

[edit]

I came here to get a source to solve a problem at another article. After finding 3 of 4 citations supplied for the sentence on Ms Uchitel at the Australian open to be unsupportive of that sentence's content:

  • one was a dead link,
  • two did not reference the matter discussed, and
  • the fourth addressed the matter, but did not state, in the source, what was stated in this article

(photpgraphed registering at hotel, in source, became photographed entering celebrity's hotel room in this article!)—after seeing this degree of misuse of sources and other aspects of non-compliance with WP:VERIFY, I placed the {{Cite check}} tag to request that the content of this WP:BLP article be carefully checked against the sources appearing.

The discrepancies found in this short time were alarming, and the possible implications for the article, dire. Please do not remove the tag until a top-to-bottom check of text versus citations is accomplished. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rachel Uchitel. 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:

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 15:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Uchitel&oldid=1205812686"