Talk:Judith Regan

Rumour

It is rumored that Ms. Regan is manipulative, agressive, and/or vindictive in her business practices. Perhaps this could be addressed in an objective manner. 21:26, 20 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqmillar (talk • contribs)

We can just cut and paste whatever is under Donald Trump. I dont know what I had written before, bacause it was deleted as being "not notable" 21:56, 20 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Referenced/Sourced in the Washington Post

This article was mentioned in a recent Washington Post article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401237_3.html

Just thought I should mention it. --Joewithajay 11:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad Link?

The link to the Vanity Fair article referenced here doesn't work.

Revert war

Why were my edits reverted? I sourced my material from the New York Daily News. Everything I wrote was NPOV. 01:13, 21 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk • contribs) .

This is not an appropriate addition: Their affair was consummated many times in a New York apartment that was donated for the relief of 9/11 rescuers. At the time, Kerik was shtupping Jeanette Pinero in the same apartment. That's salacious and unnecessary. Depending an entire paragraph describing an affair gives undue weight to that episode, which really figures more in the life of Bernard Kerik than in Ms. Regan's. I also think I was entirely justified in reverting an edit to a talk page in which a user (me) was described as a "wiki Nazi." Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that it is pertinent to the article (although perhaps not in such "salacious" terms) because an affair with the now very very troubled Kerik is another example of Regan's really awful judgment. Read about in an article about Kerik, immediately connected it to the OJ book and considered it a pattern.--208.58.3.202 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Firing

I think we should get the termination out of the first paragraph, where it currently plays a far too prominent role -- her career still outweighs her termination; the focus should be on big picture, not the story of the day.

Also, I'm not so sure we should be saying she "was" a publisher - just because a pitcher gets cut from the Yankees doesn't mean he "was" an athlete; there are other baseball teams and there are other publishing houses. Given Regan's status, talent and profile, I'd be surprised if she didn't quickly find work elsewhere.

Any objections before I make these edits? Editor Emeritus 06:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rearranged the article, including removing the firing (per se) from the lead section; I also agree that she still IS a publisher, albeit an unemployed one at the moment. Feel free to edit further, of course. John Broughton | Talk 16:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The article appears out of date. It seems to end with the firing in 2006. What has she been doing for the last FOUR years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.70.222.31 (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic people?

I also removed the Anti-Semetic people category that was applied to her name. It is unclear at this point if she is guilty of making the statements that are claimed and Wikipedia policy is careful to avoid putting information in a biography of a living person that could be libel or slanderous. 66.75.8.138 20:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that Ms Regan could say things of that nature when she hangs around the likes of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and sometimes goes to his house on Sabbath. NiceDoggie 13:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if what is quoted in the article is truly what she said, these are hardly the words of a virulent antisemite (though Regan is already loathsome for a whole host of other reasons). "Ganging up", "finding common enemies" and "telling the big lie" are clearly intended as references to past actions against Jews (by the Nazis): the statement is comparable to saying "one would think African-Americans, of all people, would understand that people must not be treated as slaves."

Comparing your Jewish supervisors to Nazis is clearly not a wise move, but I can't see any sensible interpretation of her words that could be taken as a slight against Jews generally, or against individuals because they were Jewish. --Saforrest 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this article really neutral?

First of all, I'm not saying that I find this person sympathetic or that I, personally, like her or the people similar to her in the City, but this article reads like a smear campaign. People are even using the NY Daily News as a source. Now, I understand, if you're not from NYC, you might think that this is a credible, well-regarded newspaper. It's not. It's yellow journalism at it's worst, full of rumor-mongering and gossip. This is not the kind of source that a serious encyclopedia should be using.

Why is her personality discussed here? Why is she called a plump, angry woman? I mean, how does this actually help someone doing research? Why aren't there any quotes from her (hypothetical) Jewish friends, telling me how she would never have said anything anti-Semitic? I assume such friends exist and have said such things in support of her. Instead, all we get are nasty comments about her weight and temper.

This is a horrible article. I would have expected better from Wikipedia, based on its rhetoric for being neutral and having no POV. Maybe this woman deserves the criticism that she's gotten in this article (I make no statement for or against this), but an encyclopedia is not the place for character assassination, rumors, or insults; when Wikipedia is striving for credibility in the world, this is doubly true.

I would fix the article myself. However, I fear that my edits would simply be reverted, as this article seems to have a pretty long history of heaping on the abuse with no reversions. So, I will argue my case here, first, in an attempt to gain some support for my position.

Why this article?; because I ended up here and I was annoyed by it. No other reason. 69.11.189.85 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

This page needs to be re-edited quite a bit for neutrality. A source that would be quite helpful is her recently filed complaint for defamation against her former employers. This includes many instances of inconsistencies and changes in the stories behind her firing, many of which she documents with reference to other neutral sources. The NY daily and other sources cited here that portray her negatively are owned by News Corp, so that probably should be pointed out somewhere. One could also add that the O.J. book went on to be released anyway and was a bestseller. The complaint also details the praise heaped on Regan and the many awards she received prior to being fired and attacked by fox et all, which aren't really necessary, but would help make this more neutral. The complaint only has a few lines about Giuliani, explaining that the link to him is motivation for the campaign against her. It is mainly describing all the defamation. A

s far as the complaint goes, in my mind her allegations there, even if not independently documented, have a higher degree of credibility than many news sources. She could face major problems (i need to research to find out exactly what; it may be that civil complaints have tort liability, but i am sure she would be liable for SOMETHING if she made it all up) if it's just a bunch of lies. Perhaps more importantly, her lawyer could face sanctions if later on it's shown that her factual claims were falsehoods that the lawyer did not investigate or investigated insufficiently. Finally, I do not think that Regan, as a sane person, would file a complaint taking on a powerful corporation with control over a media empire unless she was sure she could back it up and defend herself against the onslaught she is about to face.

I will do this when i get a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McCabe H (talk • contribs) 11:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a general cleanup, but well-sourced statements should be left in as long as they conform to WP:BLP, whether they're positive or negative. I'd be against letting this recent lawsuit take over the article.

Wellspring (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Regan herself is Jewish."

Is there any evidence of that? Footnote 15 contains a quote from the director of the ADL stating that Regan "clearly stepped over the line by employing the age-old anti-Semitic canard that Jews conspire against non-Jews." Why would he phrase his criticism like that if she were Jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.154.224 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

POV editing by Regan sympathizers

Twice in the past two weeks, a single user or IP address has made multiple revisions to this article so that all of the controversies surrounding Regan are depicted as part of a smear campaign/conspiracy by Fox. The edits are so absurdly POV that they are almost comical. The first set of edits was by Johnsullivan10 and the second by the IP address 206.217.72.82. I made a series of edits that I hoped would wipe out Johnsullivan10's edits and restore some sense of POV, but the 206.217.72.82 IP address wiped those edits out and made the article even more unreadably POV. I am an experienced editor, but am no wiki expert or administrator; thus, I'm not sure the best way to proceed. The edits from the past 2 weeks, however, need to be undone. It appears the last NPOV revision of the article was on May 7. I suggest that be restored, but I don't know how to do it. Niremetal (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Dayewalker took care of some of the POV problems, and I tried to trim away more. Obviously, anything related to a "smear campaign" needs to be removed, unless very carefully sourced and attributed, lest we run afoul of WP:BLP on Guiliani, Kerik, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I do concur that Ms. Regan's vindication with regards to her alleged anti-Semitic statements should be balanced out with quotes from those who felt she showed bad judgment by paying O.J. Simpson to sign off on a ghostwritten, "fictional" account of his crimes. The book was an exploitation piece at best, and was received negatively both before and after its eventual publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.187.253.133 (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed a laughably unsourced stat claiming that when she left the National Enquirer, its circulation was 20 million. Aside from the fact that there was no information on her position with the publication or how she may have contributed to its circulation, we don't even know if it's true or what relevance it has here. Little things like this show how a simple article has turned into a bad POV joke. I suspect Ms. Regan herself should find better uses for her time. Shabeki (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Judith Regan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Judith Regan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)