Talk:Star Jones

Content dispute, help requested

It is obvious, from the slanted content and unflattering photo of Star Jones Reynolds, that the person who wrote this article is driven by his/her dislike of Star Jones Reynolds. As other people have noted, this article reads like a tabloid, and it is not up to Wikipedia standards. I am relatively new, and I have just learned that 1. I should not keep deleting this person's biased and inflammatory version of events. 2. I should use this page to discuss the editing of this page. So, does anyone know what are the best steps to resolve the issue and get a more professional article (like the article on Rosie O'Donnell, who has also had her share of controversy)? Thank you!

You should also sign your rants by entering 4 tildes (the squiggly line in the top left hand side of your keyboard) 198.6.46.11 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Get it Right Wikipedia

The claim that Star Jones had a contractual agreement with the corporate sponsors of her wedding is not based on any fact provided by wikipedia. In fact, the source that supposedly verifies this relates in no way to the claim. For this reason, it should be removed or at least spelled out that this claim is NOT absolutely correct. Rather, it should read, "Some believe that Star Jones agreed to mentioned certain products on air for sponsorships."

Slanted

This article is obviously slanted against Star and appears to have been written by someone she pissed off. This seems like something I would write about my wrost enemy and not something you'd find in an encyclopedia. It makes it look as if Star never did one thing good in her life. But why is this only up for discussion WIKI? Shouldn't you change this instead of just having people discuss what's wrong with it? It's obviously biased and after reading many other bios here I'm surprised it's here.

Thats exactly what I said when I said that this article sounds like it came out of a tabloid, I dont know who or why erased my entry into the discussion. Still I don't care much for Star, I am just saying that anybody that would trust this encyclopedia researching Star would have a very baised view of her. So for me I don't care much to edit the article, but those of you who do like her and keep complaining should stop bitching and just fix the article.

As a former newspaper reporter, I agree that this entry is slanted and reads very anti-Star Jones Reynolds.167.217.4.123 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)danewslady

Conan O' Brian

Conan O' Brien has been quite cruel to her... isnt that a bit POV? :-/ Redwolf24 05:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Quite Cruel has been removed, but the paragraph still seems incredibly POV. For example, "[...]even after her dramatic weight loss (about which Jones has said very little), O'Brien has continued to target Jones[...]" -- this clearly tries to credit Jones for her polite modesty while accusing O'Brien of injustice. Also, "O'Brien even took a crack at Jones the night that fellow View co-host Joy Behar was a guest[...]" -- overly intensified and vilanizing of O'Brien. Thoughts, anyone? -Sean Hayford O'Leary 10:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Jones makes a joke of herself, Conan is completely justified in making fun of her, in other words, she has it coming her way (and no this isn't a racist issue). anyways, back to the top, I don't think the conan o' brien thing is relevant in this article, maybe in his article it would

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Star Jones has never done anything for the Gay cause, and has done more damage for Gays than most TV personalities not featured on the 700 club.

NPOV

The "near-anorexic" comment is definitely not NPOV. I'm not sure if it should be deleted or just modified, but it needs to be fixed. JaeRae 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you rather I said she looks bug-eyed? 'Cause it's the truth. Wahkeenah 02:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of truth that we do not publish concerning a lot of celebrities. It seems to me this article is very POV anti-Star Jones. I wonder why? 208.254.174.148 07:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have tagged this article as NPOV. Ohyeahmormons 13:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everyone that this article is really messy and while I appreciate recent efforts to clean it up and make it more balanced/mature, please STOP blanking whole sections and adding random, opinionated commentary. I hate Star as much as anyone, but please no vandalism or adding dumb comments... it just creates more work for those trying to improve this article. Thanks. CagedRage 20:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

On air fight with Joy Behar

This was reported on media. (see news link) http://news.google.com/news?q=%22star+jones%22+bitch&hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d

Wikipedia test

I have absolutely NO opinion of Star Jones. I saw her featured on an MSN article today in regards to Rosie O'Donnell. So I decided to come here and see what kind of article on Wikipedia we have about Star Jones.

To my amazement (but not surprise), the article is 75% anti-Star Jones rhetoric (she has a lazy right eye??), and seems to be geared towards villifying her. Following the Wiki-rules that I have personally been critisized for, I see quite a few accusations and heresay and irrelevant commentary. Examples include:

"Many journalists and comedians have suspected him of being gay or on the down low." - that is not relevant in this article about Star Jones. This is a comment about what other people may or may not think. But more interestingly was the placement of the text. The neutral statment about her marriage is followed by the controversal statement about her husband. So I placed it amongst the controversies further down. I am curious to see who and what excuse will be used to justify this extremely biased article. There is certainly a lack of Neutrality when most of the article discusses extremely controversal issues of a personal nature in regards to Star Jones. I take it the lack of respect and dignity for this particular woman is "ok" because...? (Let's hear it). Oh and yes, I think there is a racial aspect to this, I'm sure you were waiting to hear it so you can deny it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The game that is being played is this. Some people do not like Black people being in strong public positions, and yet not "fully assimilating" (I do not watch the View, but I am going to see the personality of Star Jones, and see if she fitting that description). Those who do not asssimilate are often described in "technically" truthful, but overwhelmingly negative and manipulative (and often irrelevant and misleading) ways.

So I started to look into some of the material here. I find these next two statements particularly immature and manipulative. "Star Jones is a supporter of the fur trade. "

and

"She topped People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' Worst Dressed list four years a row on their anti-fur website, http://www.furisdead.com"

The first statement is quite foolish to post. Perhaps a PETA person wanted to put this up. But

http://www.furisdead.com/feat-worstdressed.asp -

paris Hilton #1 2005, Diana Ross 2004, Liza Minelli 2003, ... is that mentioned on their Wikipedia biography page?

This statement is false. It's again, technically 'half' true. She was ON the list 4 years in a row, but she did not "top" the list four times in a row. She is named the biggest offender for being ON the list 4 years in a row. (And further gerrymandering editors will try to redefine "topped" to mean something other than being #1.)

A slip up perhaps. But "supporter of the fur trade" is as relevant as saying that "George Bush is a supporter of the war trade". Anyway lets see how you guys respond this time.--Zaphnathpaaneah 08:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree that Jones Reynolds' article here seems extremely biased, but you've made some outrageously ignorant assertions here that really tick me off. I couldn't care less what race SJR is, she has stirred up a maelstrom of controversy by various statements and actions on her part, and whether or not other articles pay equal attention to people's public antics has nothing to do with whether they should be mentioned here. SJR has proven herself to be a homophobe, and she has proven herself to be someone who does not care about the treatment of animals who are kept in captivity to be used for fur. She has made *NO* public response to the accusations by PETA. Things like this are noteworthy. As for her husband's sexual preference: it is entirely noteworthy. He is her HUSBAND, and it has been so heavily discussed in media that they even joke about it on Saturday Night Live. If you disagree with PHRASING in this article, that is one thing, but disagreeing with the CONTENT is blind. Pacian 19:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Go eat cake!

According to the article, after trying to sue PETA, "A judged ruled that she 'shut the fuck up and go eat some more cake'." Are there any additional citations (other than furisdead.com) or transcripts available to verify that?--Ryan! 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the lack of a corroborating reference, the linked page on furisdead.com contains neither the word "judge" nor the f-bomb, let along the quote used in the article.

Deletion

The article is inflammatory, divisive, image violates copyright, lacks citation, original research, is sensational, and slanted. --prangel 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Prangel

Yeah, but what else is wrong with it?

Profile picture

Folks...that was the BEST picture of SJR we could get?! Vikramsidhu 18:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Found a photo of Star at http://a.abc.com/daytime/theview/images/bios/bio_jonesreynolds.jpg and have uploaded it. However, I am not sure on the copyright status if it would count as a TV screenshot. There used to be a copyright status along the lines of "Publicity Photo" and "Press Release" but I no longer see that listed. Dwp49423 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a subpar, progressive-white-male biased joke

So now the article has been "protected" and supposedly that protection is not an endorsement. I find it odd that the edits I made were not protected. My edits include: "Star Jones married banker Al Reynolds on November 13, 2004. The wedding was held at Saint Bartholomew's Church in New York City in front of 500 guests, and featured three matrons of honor, 12 bridesmaids, two junior bridesmaids, three best men, 12 groomsmen, three junior groomsmen, six footmen, four ring bearers, and four flower girls.

Jones Reynolds is known for her outspoken nature and controversial comments made on The View for which she has often been the subject of parody or mocking by comedians or television hosts. She is frequently mocked by host Conan O'Brien. She has been parodied on the television program Saturday Night Live by Kenan Thompson and previously Tracy Morgan, as well as Jim Rome.

Rosie O'Donnell, who was hired to replace former co-host Meredith Viera on The View, has criticized Jones Reynolds for not publicly admitting to having gastric bypass surgery. It was reported that Jones Reynolds' departure from The View was due largely in part to friction with O'Donnell."

However, the vandal or vandals who keep deleting my edits without giving any reason for their actions have been allowed to keep their biased and sensational version. My only edit that was allowed to remain was my addition of Star Jones Reynolds' official website.

I have done further research and have found that several Wikipedians of color (not just African Americans) have posted on their user pages that they find Wikipedia to be biased against people of color and to be driven by a progressive, white male worldview.

Based on my recent experiences, I would now have to agree with that.

For those of you who have stooped to attacking those of us who don't agree with your point of view, you may celebrate in knowing that I will no longer use my Wikipedia account, and I will not utilize these pages anymore. I am keeping my account active so that those who are interested in fairness and justice can read about my efforts to work within the system by clicking on my username.

I used to be a Wikipedia junkie, perusing through article upon article. I used to find Wikipedia so fascinating. Now, thanks to Administrator and user bias, accusation, and failure to uphold Wikipedia standards, I have kicked the Wikipedia habit.--prangel 02:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Prangel

I find your comments racist, inflammatory, and extremely unhelpful. Your section heading is sickening. And for someone whose first edit took place yesterday, and whose edits have been limited only to issues concerning Star Jones, I have a hard time assuming good faith that you had any Wikipedia "habit" at all. Eleemosynary 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It might interest all to know that I am a person of color. I'm also not unsympathetic to the suggestion that some select portion of the article could benefit from modification. However, I must ask all interested parties to note *specifically* the text in need of revision. Please also note that it is proper form to add new remarks to the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Xoloz 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Prangel, you keep saying you're quitting Wikipedia and yet you keep popping up to spew vitriol. How can we miss you if you won’t go away? Your hypocrisy is staggering--attacking everyone here (most of whom are trying in good faith to keep this article clean and accurate), flinging race-baited comments at every turn (a completely inappropriate use of the talk page, btw), then claiming we’re all a bunch of white males out to get you. We are not the vandals, you are. You blanked nearly half of the original article, added tons of inappropriate and unfounded content, and your comments all over this page practically constitute trolling. The notion that "Wikipedia doesn’t care about black people" is laughable. If you can’t stand the heat, get down from the stake. CagedRage 17:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but information regaring how many bridesmaids, best men and groomsmen were at her wedding is unnecessary....as well as unwarranted on other pages that include wedding information. - --Bdj95 03:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why be ashamed of the number of participants at her wedding? Many people would agree that the number of Bridesmaids, best men, and groomsmen are extremely noteworthy as this was the subject of much media coverage and has become a part of pop culture, which wikipedia is, thankfully, very versed in covering.

I think Prangel's POV has been proven over and over by the comments on this page.

Did the administrator unfairly target?

In my comment, "Needs Speedy Deletion", I did not originally sign my name. As I state in my comment below, "This article needs Speedy Deletion for these reasons", I did not understand that I have to sign my name after each post. I have made the correction. I have also observed that SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE HAVE NOT SIGNED their name, but they have not had an adminstrator identify them and tag their post "Unsigned by.." as I had. I feel Wikipedia is being extremely unprofessional in refusing to uphold it's standards.--prangel 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I did attempt to edit this article several times. The original article writer and/or others may have erased my edits, and have attacked people who disagree with their point of view. I got tired of having an editing war with this person or these people, so I started researching Wikipedia to find out my recourses.

In DOING MY RESEARCH, I discovered that erasing the SENSATIONAL, SLANTED, AND UNCITED portions of this DIVISIVE and INFLAMMATORY article, I learned that my action could be taken as vandalism. I immediately ceased doing so. I also learned that the talk page should be used to discuss the editing of this article, and I modified my actions.

I have spent SEVERAL HOURS, reading NPOV standards, and I stated on the request for deletion pages my reasons which include, the page has been flagged for lack of citation (verifiability), the page contains many references to tabloid reports (sensational and lack of original research), the page has gender biased, heteronomative speculation about the subject's husband's sexuality (which someone claimed to remove) and overall, the article has a tone which does NOT pass Wikipedia's test for fairness and a sympathetic tone.

For these reasons, I upgraded my request for speedy deletion.

Your statement "such frivolous nominations as yours will be ignored, except insofar as they might get you in a bit of trouble" was harsh, abrasive, rude, assumptive, accusatory, and threatening. I do not appreciate it. Just because Star Jones Reynolds happens to be in the media right now is NO EXCUSE for WIKIPEDIA TO LOWER ITS STANDARDS.

If the ADMINISTRATORS WILL take the time to read the talk page, you would see that several other people agree with me that this article is DIVISIVE and INFLAMMATORY.

Finally, it was my understanding that by signing into my account is was not necessary to sign my posts. Again, I understand that was in error. It was not attempt to hide, as you will see by my signature below..--prangel 01:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the article, please. Eleemosynary 02:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop erasing Prangel's comments Eleemosynary

Trusted resource

Wikipedia’s value as a trusted resource has gone down. I began using Wikipedia for an “Epistemology of Knowledge” course; this article sounds like a tabloid.

Regardless of whether I agree with the information or not is irrelevant... This article is noticeably imbalanced and jaded with one perspective. What else has she accomplished professionally? Does she volunteer, give to charities? 100 years from now, if someone saw any entry in Wikipedia it should still hold value. In 2106, readers should be able to know who she was and why they should care. Wikipedia is more than a common muck-raker; and Wikipedia’s audience deserves quality, neutral, and factual information.

No offense, but in 2106, no one will care who Star Jones is and this article would have probably been deleted years before to clear room. Most Americans can't even name who the President of the United States was 100 years ago, so anyone actually caring about a talk shot host 100 years from now is slim-to-none. HeyNow10029 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Change "2106" to "2007," and I agree with you. Eleemosynary 06:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please edit or rewrite

Please edit or rewrite any parts of the article that seem to require fixing. The article as a whole cannot be deleted, but it can be improved. --TruthbringerToronto 01:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I visited this article from the wikilink on AfD, and I'd like to congratulate the editors who have contributed to this article. It's turned out pretty well, and I'm not detecting much if any trace of the "anti-Star Jones Reynolds" bias that apparently filled earlier versions of this article. She's a controversial figure, but this article has turned out fairly well. Captainktainer * Talk 02:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a bio of Star from ABC.com that includes more detail about her professional legal career as well as in television. http://abc.go.com/theview/hosts/jones.html --anon, 04 Aug 2006--

A Disgrace!

This Article definitely needs to be more factual and more focused. It contains so little information pertaining to the womans Early life, career, education and proffession and yet is filled with a section devoted to scandal and accusation. Definately Tabloid material. What should also be noted that there is not explanation of her career at the view other than scandal. There is not even one line stating what the view is. It is as though someone used the first header to summerize the bare neccesities to pass this off as a credible article and used the rest for slander. A joke! And sadly, a bad reflection on the relevance and objectivity of wikipedia. CanuckScience * Talk

Minor question

Though not a heavily involved wikipedian[Clearly, I don't even have an account], I've found myself with an unexpected amount of time in which I can read wikipedia without it serving as really fascinating procrastination; that said, I've read a ridiculous amount of talk page text for various living bios and have seen some noteworthy ones wherein the subject is involved. So, when a user says, "hi, star" in response to what does seem some stilted assertion possibly in her favor, I wonder: has there been some confirmation, or even some sort of check, that would lead to suspicion of her anonymous remarking? It wouldn't be surprising, as this article does come up within five or six of the top results when you google "star jones" [another reason to hasten correction of whatever perceived and real issues from which the article suffers], so I'm curious.

Thanks for anyone who could answer that. 24.13.8.214 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC) russ.

The implication is that only Star Jones herself would make such a comment as the one to which "hi, star" was a response. Personally, I don't think it improbable that Ms Jones has fans who would be offended by such material. For the record, the IP that posted the comment in question is in Chicago. DS 13:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How to proceed from here?

There appears to be a dispute underway. To facilitate dialogue, I have temporarily protected the page. I would ask all interested parties to cite specific language within the article in need of revision, together with statement of why the revision is required. Please, everyone, be brief, polite, and focused on the article's actual text, not other matters. Thanks, Xoloz 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So now that the article has been locked for editing, what's next? Do we make suggestions for edits, does someone rewrite the whole article or what? Vikramsidhu

Yes, that's exactly it. Everyone who's involved, you all hash out a mutually-acceptable wording for the disputed sections here, and when that has been achieved, an administrator will modify the article accordingly. Then, if there are no more arguments after a few days, the page will be unprotected. DS 13:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is related or not, but I'd really like to see some info about her legal career - as this seems to only discuss her on-air persona(s). RN 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

More information on her childhood perhaps, if there is any info out there. It's always said how she was able to go from humble beggings to going to college on scholarships and loans? I think those details (number of brides maids, ring bearers etc.) on her wedding should be shortened, we get it, the wedding was extravagant... The Conan O Brien part, I think that should go to the Conan O' Brien article,

Attack of the show new Co-Host

I have to say just now that starting next week, Star Jones will be the new co-host of AOTS. Months ago we have been through a selective co-host audition, but this is a new surprise. I just hope that his is like that Vanilla Ice joke, because AOTS doesn't have enough money to afford a celebrity as a permanent co-host. --Seishirou Sakurazuka 23:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Walters sets the record straight

By Brill Bundy June 28 2006

Walters then turned to the camera and delivered the following statement:

"This is truthfully a very difficult day for us; and it is a sad day for us. If you were watching the program yesterday you would have heard Star announce that she's leaving 'The View' and will not be on the program next fall. We didn't expect her to make this statement yesterday -- she gave us no warning -- and we were taken by surprise.”

"But the truth is Star has known for months that ABC did not want to renew her contract and that she would not be asked back in the fall. The network based this decision upon a variety of reasons, which I won't go into now. But we were never going to say this. We wanted to protect Star, so we told her that she could say whatever she wanted about why she was leaving and that we would back her up. We worked closely with her representatives and we gave her time to look for another job, and we hoped then that she would announce it on the program and leave with dignity.”

"But Star made another choice and since her announcement yesterday she's made further announcements that have surprised us. So it is becoming uncomfortable for us to pretend that everything is the same at this table and therefore, regrettably, Star will no longer be on this program except for some shows that have been prerecorded. 'The View' helped make Star a star and Star helped make 'The View' the success that it is and we will never forget that. We wish her well in this new chapter of her life as we begin a new chapter on 'The View.'”

http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-barbarawaltersstarjonestheview,0,24834.story This should be included when the page is revised.

Photo

... should not be the one currently on the page (the PR one). We shouldn't use a purposely horrible photo of her, but neither should we use this over-airbrushed, over-photoshopped, Glamourshots attempt to make her look like a 1940s movie diva. Star Jones's PR company (and they have my sympathies) is not a reliable source. Eleemosynary 01:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for any other photo, I have been looking, and all photos either portray her in a very unflattering way, or in an overly photoshopped way. (68.203.243.154 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Saying one photo is unflattering or another one is "overly photoshopped" presents your point of view on the matter. A photo is a photo, as long as it depicts the subject it's perfectly acceptable. Plenty of celebrities have glamerous photographs used in their entries on Wikipedia, why should Jones be any different? That's part of show biz. Pacian 04:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a showbiz site, nor a place for celebrity PR. Nor is Jones part of the "glamorous" world of, say, runway modeling (in which case, a glamorous shot might be appropriate). And a photo is not always just a photo. Check the history of this page for a screenshot of Jones that was roundly criticized as making her look like a bug-eyed shrew. There's nothing wrong with a flattering photo of Jones, but such an airbrushed photo as is currently on the page is as encyclopedically wrong as would be a photo doctored to make her look repulsive. There should be a happy medium. For an example of what I've suggesting please check the Rosie O'Donnell or the Meredith Viera page.Eleemosynary 04:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How's this ... it was taken directly from ABC's feed on Tuesday morning's broadcast. It wasn't photoshopped (other then cropping the sides so it won't get distored by the image requirements of the infobox) and she looks rather good in it. Consensus? HeyNow10029 05:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:StarJonesReynoldsTheView.jpg

Fine here. Eleemosynary 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good picture. An "in the middle" photo would be reasonable, using a bad picture, or an overly glamourised shot could be me misinterpreted as the uploaders POV, just like the a user above me pointed out that the "bug eyed" photo was heavily critized, and would probably lead into new pictures being placed over and over again. (68.203.243.154 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Image

I'm placing this image here as a placeholder until this page get unprotected. HeyNow10029 05:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also noticed -- EliSabeth -- is with an "s", not a "z". HeyNow10029 05:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A good shot that actually looks like her. I vote yes. Eleemosynary 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting this for the infobox image. I was going to add it to the article along with some information on her King appearance tonight. HeyNow10029 05:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

good image, thank you for getting that (68.203.243.154 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

This shot is much better. It's way better than the one currently on the page. Thanks for capturing it. Bdj95 03:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep the image that is up today (June 1, 2006), it's a better pic.--Red Titan 20:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The new airbrushed pic is just as non-representative of her as the really ugly screenie shown before. It seems her PR people are at work here.

Vandalism

Someone has deleted some sections of the talk page.

Now what loser would do that? - --Bdj95 03:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed my comments on what I think should go in the site were deleted, as well. I wasn't sure if it was because I did something wrong or someone arbitrarily deleted my comments. Scoop 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Meredith Vieira

The article currently includes a reference to Meredith Viera which is a misspelling and redirects to the proper article title, Meredith Vieira. When the article is unprotected, this should be corrected. --Metropolitan90 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When did she JOIN The View?

That information is nowhere in this article. The Career section says nothing about when she joined The View. Only when she was fired. Please fix! Moncrief 05:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopiakuta 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_View >:

Starring Barbara Walters (1997–present) Joy Behar (1997–present) Elisabeth Hasselbeck (2003–present) Star Jones Reynolds (1997–2006) Meredith Vieira (1997–2006) Debbie Matenopoulos (1997–1999) Lisa Ling (1999–2002)

Aside from the controversy....

Okay, I'm not a big Star Jones fan, but I agree some of the comments in here are not NPOV, and could be far more neutral in nature. The past edits seemed to veer wildly from anti-Star comments within the article to gushing fan edits....so I agree it needs a LOT more balance.

Besides all of that, I'd really like to see a more structured article....something with a chronological order. The information/discussion about the most recent events regarding Ms. Jones Reynolds (ie, her departure from "The View") should really be more towards the end of the article. Information about her pre-"View" activities should be fleshed out, too. I'd be willing to help at such time should the protection of this page be lifted.

Just my humble opinion. Thanks! NickBurns 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What passages would you cite as being non-NPOV? 70.111.125.197 15:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor reorganization

I added some headings and moved some stuff around, and made other (hopefully) minor edits. Also, I assume in the absence of information to the contrary that she is still licensed as an attorney at law, even though she's not practicing law at this time. If that assumption is correct, she's a "lawyer," not a "former lawyer." Yours, Famspear 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• The New York State Courts web site indicates that she is still licensed to practice law in New York (search at [1]). She is registered under her birth name, Starlet Marie Jones. --Metropolitan90 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

State of the article

I think this article is in relatively good shape, compared to the problems it had been having. It seems more or less balanced and isn't ridiculously unflattering, but still alludes to her image problems and controversies. Does anyone have any thoughts?--Dmz5 22:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Law & Order: SVU

On the Law & Order: SVU episode, she is introduced on a talk show as a former Brooklyn ADA. According to this article, in real life she used to be a Brooklyn ADA. However, this article says she was not playing herself, but a fictitious character, also named "Star Jones". The justification for this claim is the following: "While her character was also named Star Jones, she was not playing herself, but rather a prosecuting attorney from Brooklyn."

First, this claim is not consistent with the episode itself. The article implies she played a current ADA, while it is clearly stated that she played a former ADA. Thus, the basis for the claim that she was playing a fictitious character is invalid, so I have to question if she was actually supposed to be playing a fictitious character. — 71.178.27.51 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over Controversy

Tonight I tried to add a factual section to the controversy section about Ms. Jones. The section I added was properly researched, included references and citations, and was NOT slanderous. In a matter of seconds, both attempted edits were deleted and I was threatened with being banned from editing WikiPedia!

The editors who threatened me and deleted my factual edits were User:Alexfusco5 and User:Jonathan.

I will admit, my laptop crashed in the middle of my edits. If that inadvertently deleted some content, I apologize profusely. However, that does NOT explain why my edits were deleted and threats against my account were made.

I would like my content reinstated or at the very least, discussed here openly.

--Alphaman (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the course of attempting to add this section, you deleted approximately 3/4 of the exiting article. Looking at the revision history, the character count for the article went from 13,967 bytes to 4,003 bytes after each of your two edits. That's what elicited the warning. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For ease of viewing, here's the text Alphaman attempted to insert:

• On September 16, 2001, Star Jones declared on The View that she "would not vote for an atheist" for president, although an atheist "could babysit her kid -- possibly" <ref>http://atheists.org/flash.line/islam6.htm Talk Show Maven: No Atheists For President, American Atheists Flashline, accessed December 5, 2007</ref>. She refused to apologize for her slanderous comments<ref>http://atheists.org/flash.line/atheist8.htm Despite Early Report, No Apology From Star Jones For Slurs Against Atheists, American Atheists Flashline, accessed December 5, 2007</ref>, ultimately resulting in a call for a boycott against Payless ShoeSource who signed her on as a spokesperson during the midst of the controversy.<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist7.htm Another Slur From Star Jones Generates Call For Boycott, Demos, accessed December 5, 2007</ref>

Note that the <ref> tags have been escaped with <nowiki>, so that they are more easily read in this context. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StarLarryKing.jpg

Image:StarLarryKing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Death

Although critisized as being untrue, Star Jones truly has passed away. I'm not sure how many tv stations reported it, but NBC in Manhattan did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himfan2006 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then her upcoming appearance on a March, 2011 episode of The Apprentice should be truly gross and disgusting.96.35.175.244 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Small Claims Court

The article states that Jones was sued in small claims court in Detroit and the plaintiff was awarded $20,000. The maximum jurisdictional amount for small claims court in Michigan is $3000. 96.35.175.244 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Article is severely lacking information

In The View paragraph it states verbatim:

In 1997, Jones joined The View as a co-host, a role that increased her public exposure significantly. On June 27, 2006, Jones officially reported that she would be leaving The View after nine seasons as co-host.

• So... what positive qualities did she have that got her hired on the View?
• What opinions did she hold for those 9 years?
• What controversies was she involved in?
• What kind of role model was she?
• Did she do any good in those 9 years?

Why is the article spending 1 sentence introducing her to the show and treating it like it was a favor for her and the whole rest of the article is about her leaving? Also, the reason given is in dispute with the Rosie O'Donnell article which states:

In September 2006, O'Donnell replaced Meredith Vieira as a co-host and moderator of the The View, a daytime women-oriented talkshow. Star Jones, a co-host on the show, quit with some speculating Jones's conservative views would be in constant tension with O'Donnell's more liberal counterpoint. O'Donnell had also disputed Jones's route of rapid weight loss, alluding that it must have been gastric bypass surgery rather than dieting and exercise alone as Star had insisted which also fed speculation about certain tension between the two

This is some pretty horrific writing for Wikipedia... I'm placing a NPOV and Improve tag on the article. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"She played a pivotal role in the Clinton impeachment."

...what?? --75.67.189.29 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Reynolds

Removed material about Reynolds coming out as bisexual ten years after they divorced; relevance unclear. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)