Talk:Candy Crowley

2 step children are missing

In her personal life, it says she has 2 children but ignores her 2 step children. This is sourced from the same article that has the info on her 2 children.

"According to a Q & A at allthingsandersoncooper.com, her step-daughter dabbles at being a news producer and her step-son lives in Kansas with his three children." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.4.210 (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

so

so why do senators have open sessions, cand? Kɔffeedrinksyou 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just curious if this is the same Candy Crowley that worked for the University of Southern California, late 70's, as the director of their Washington DC student's program?

This morning on CNN, Crowley interviewed Michigan's gov. She ended her interview with, "from the state where I was born." Wikipedia has her born in Missouri.

According to this article, she was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan and moved to Missouri when she was six months old. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 07:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo

Jesus, that opening photo is large. 74.68.123.162 (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but so is she. That's ok, I'm sure she is a nice lady.130.126.198.238 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

LGBT?

I really don't know. What's the source on this?--T. Anthony (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Search results

I have removed a link to Media Matters that violates WP:EL in multiple ways, most obviously #9. Please do not restore it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Number 9 on the link you posted is this "Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." Media Maters does not violate that at all. Media matters infact does serve as a valid source for two things. Left leaning criticism of the media, and if properly cited on the cite with video, direct quotes from media figures. So why exactly are you removing their criticism of this media figure? 24.207.131.20 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Children

I'm pretty sure she has kids, or at least a kid. I remember her talking about having a daughter who got a scholarship for college, but the scholarship didn't pay for everything. I'm just saying... 76.193.177.51 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This Q and A has her saying this: "My oldest child is a neurosurgeon and just married a rheumatologist... My youngest son is the one in the band (Vinyette ) in New York... I have two step children who I love and adore. My daughter still dabbles at being a news producer, but she is mostly a Mom these days. Her brother lives way too far away in Kansas with his three children." I couldn't figure out a way to distill that into a neat sentence or two, but I agree we should mention children and grandkids under the personal life section. I'll keep an eye out for another source. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 07:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2012

The information on Crowley's presidental debate is misleading and misinformation. The following link shows Crowley's post debate interview in which she clarifies Romney was correct on Libya, however he used the wrong choice of words. The information is not fair and balanced at this point, clearly biased in an Obama supporter stance. 98.223.90.77 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be sufficient for now if an admin would simply remove the stray "ref" tag at the end of the section. The protection will be lifted in 48 hours, and in that length of time there will be a vast array of sourcing to choose from in pursuit of completeness and balance. Belchfire-TALK 04:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please change "On October 16, 2012, Ms. Crowley served as an independent moderator of the second presidential debate.</ref>" to "On October 16, 2012, Ms. Crowley served as an independent moderator of the second presidential debate." 24.16.5.241 (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 17 October 2012

I believe the last paragraph should be updated as follows. This change will portray a more complete and balanced description of the moment from Crowley's debate participation that will be remembered the most. I also suggest the removal of the comments about CNN because this article is not about CNN, and there is universal consensus that Crowley's fact-checking was technically correct.

On October 16, 2012, Ms. Crowley served as an independent moderator of the second presidential debate. Notably, Ms. Crowley several times spoke up to steer the conversation back towards the questions asked by voters and corrected the record - for example, when Governor Romney repeatedly accused President Obama of lying when the President said that he had called the Libya embassy attacks an "act of terror" during his speech to the American people from the Rose Garden the day after the attacks, Ms. Crowley intervened to point out that President Obama had in fact made such a statement. Perhaps in an attempt to level the playing field, she then acknowledged Governor Romney's point that the Obama administration took two weeks to acknowledge that the Libya incident was a planned terrorist attack, rather than a demonstration in response to an offensive film, as initially claimed by the Obama White House. Critics - mostly conservative - lamented that it was not Crowley's role to play "fact checker" during the debate, as it compromised the objectivity of her role as moderator.

Osamesama (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is completely neutral, although your attempts to make it neutral are clear and appreciated. You're using too many loaded words. I think the best move at this point is really to wait a day or two before editing. But since I don't see that happening, here's my attempt at this. It's lighter, but I think this'll help avoid edit wars, and it does have the important information.

On October 16, 2012, Ms. Crowley served as an independent moderator of the second presidential debate. Ms. Crowley several times spoke up to steer the conversation back towards the questions asked by voters, to stop the candidates when they exceeded their time, and notably interjected when Governor Romney accused President Obama of lying when the President said that he had called the Libya embassy attacks an "act of terror" during his speech to the American people from the Rose Garden the day after the attacks. Ms. Crowley intervened to state that President Obama had in fact made such a statement.

DrkWraith (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do agree we should let the dust settle for a day or so. This talk page can be used to find consensus phrasing. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've marked all of the edit semi-protected templates as answered, please change to answered=no when consensus for phrasing has been established (or since some of you are autoconfirmed so it yourself :)). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Presidential Debate Controversy

Candy Crowley injected herself into the October 16, 2012 presidential debate by running defense for President Obama. She falsely claimed President Obama promptly acknowledged the September 11, 2012 Libyan embassy attack was terrorism which is false, cutting off Governor Romney and tainting the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgt02 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no actual controversy. Scattered caterwauling by right-wing blogs does not merit coverage in an person's biography on an online encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The "scattered caterwauling on right wing blogs" you refer to includes broad-based acknowledgment of the inarguable controversy across all sectors of the media from CBS News to TMZ to the Washington Times to Mediaite. I think the real caterwauling, as usual, is from inside-out disingenuous shills who infest Wikipedia like rats in a dump.YosemiteFudd (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow up: here's a "scattered caterwaul" from the aforementioned Mediaite (pretty far LEFT website, in case you didn't know) -- titled, "Candy Crowley’s Debate Moderation Exemplifies Why Americans Do Not Trust Their Media"

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/candy-crowelys-debate-moderation-exemplifies-why-americans-do-not-trust-their-media/

Even POLITICO -- another strenuously left-leaning site -- is heavily acknowledging the controversy that you swear doesn't exist. YosemiteFudd (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the transcript shows that the day after the attack, Obama called it an "act of terror". If you're really hung up on "act of terror" vs. "terrorism", I don't know what to tell you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're that hung up on being an unconditional Obama apologist and a defender of a blatant and unprofessional liberal shill passing as a "journalist," I don't know what to tell you.YosemiteFudd (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have picked it up and commented on it. It is very notable regardless of anyone's opinion on whether it is valid or not.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-candy-crowley-debate-fact-check-libya-20121017,0,5685665.story http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82512.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-injects-herself-into-the-presidential-debate.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57534438/conservatives-assail-debate-moderator-candy-crowley/ http://thehill.com/video/campaign/262489-rep-chaffetz-confronts-candy-crowley-on-libya-fact-check- Arnabdas (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Way too much detail in an otherwise very short article. She's had an extraordinary career. It's odd to have this one event constitute nearly half the article. TimidGuy (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, none of our personal opinions about her career being extraordinary matter. The topic is notable and backed up by multiple reliable sources. It also has only 3 sentences describing it. Maybe we should expand the article to highlight the rest of her "extraordinary career" instead of censoring a clearly notable event. Arnabdas (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"She's had an extraordinary career" -- is that an example of the much-vaunted NPOV "just the facts" Wikipedia editing standards? Or is this now a page for gushing fanboys to exercise their fanboy-ism? Maybe you can put in a request for that line to be added to the actual front page -- "Oh golly! Candy Crowley had an extraordinary career." I guess it depends on your definition of "extraordinary." Rush Limbaugh had an extraordinary career -- as did Ronald Reagan. But I bet you have a laundry-list of imaginary complaints against those gentlemen. Geez, the hypocrisy. YosemiteFudd (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, WP:UNDUE. Which isn't to say her fact-checking shouldn't be mentioned, though I'd like to see some actual proof from those who say "she changed the way presidential debates will be held...FOREVER" before we go with it. The rest of her bio could use some expansion as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually Muboshgu, if you read the transcript Obama did not on Oct 12 refer to the attack as an 'act(s) of terror'. He did use the phrase 'act(s) of terror' in his remarks, but it was a general comment, and not specifically identifying the attack as an act of terror. Rodchen (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Let's read the transcript...

“ No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act, and make no mistake, justice will be done. ”

• What do you think he was referring to? 9/11? Come on. Did he have to say "This attack was a terrorist attack" in those precise words? Saying he wasn't referring to the Libya attack as an act of terror is a semantic parsing I have not seen since Clinton wanting to clarify the definition of the word "is". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Muboshgu, as I said he did use the phrase 'acts of terror'. And I can see if you only read that one sentence, you would come to the conclusion you did. However, you need to read the entire statement. Here it is:

[verbatim address]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger. Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service OfficerSean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers. The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died. It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps. Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home. Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity. We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children. Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

Rodchen (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Still not seeing how his comment isn't about the Benghazi attack. We're debating semantics that has no relevance to the subject of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly undue in an article 7,700bytes long. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Measuring in bytes is deceiving as part of that has to do with references. The topic is very notable and 3 sentences describing the situation in detail from a variety of notable and reliable sources is not "undue weight." Arnabdas (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

True, but characters of prose are a good way to assess. With those sentences, it's 2,500 and without it it's 2,000. So one debate is 20% of who she is? Like I said, it would help the UNDUE concerns if we could beef up the rest of this article at the same time, rather than merely focusing on one single point. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That argument is not germaine to the discussion. The undue concerns are only because there is not other reliably sourced material about her in this article. That does not mean that this particular notable topic backed up by reliable sources should not be in there. Nobody is stopping anyone from putting in other reliably sourced information about her. Regardless of it, it doesn't make this any less notable and thus there is no argument to not include it. If you want to reword it feel free to, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Arnabdas (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reduced the weight of the section, though Arnabdas is absolutely correct, others can insert other sourced information on other topics to change the proportion. Rodchen (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say you reduced the size, but not the weight, and certainly not the POV issues. "...came under strong criticism" is not acceptable language in this case. Just because conservatives have had a shit fit over Romney being called out on his bullshit does not make it worthy of being included in Crowley's article. Frankly, a shit fit is all this is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion of "Romney being called out on his bullshit" is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue is notable and backed by multiple reliable sources. You are allowing your personal opinions to violate wikipedia's NPOV stance. This issue should be included based on notability, which you even partly conceded above. Therefore, you removing it only is being obstructionist and you are not working towards building consensus. The issue is being put in. If you want to reword it, feel free and we can discuss the best wording. Just because we may or may not like the fact that it happenned doesn't make it any less worthy of inclusion. Arnabdas (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is worth adding that although Crowley acknowledged that Romney was substantially right, she objected to his choice of words. She mentioned this point in most of the several refs provided by the editor who added the sentence about this incident, and in several others. Obama did obliquely refer to the tragedy in Benghazi as an act of terror. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation," he said in the Rose Garden speech on the incident. Crowley was responding to that. EMP (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Candy and her husband are divorced?

Strange statement. Needs rewording. If she is divorced, she doesn't have a husband. Or, is it saying she is married to a man, and each of them are divorced from other people? Also, she is not made of candy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.48.88 (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC) she was bias when it came to the debate she should have said Obama i will help you every chance i get — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.28 (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I added that, and I wrote it quickly, with the expectation that others can improve wording. It seems redundant to say that she and her "ex-husband" are divorced. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Mexican-American

Where is the source that says that Candy Crowley's parents were first-generation Mexican-American immigrants? The reference for that sentence actually has her saying that her father was born in Missouri and lived there for most of his life except a brief move to Michigan, during which she was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julyo (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I undid the unsourced addition by an IP editor and left a note on their talk page. Mojoworker (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps her grandparents were the immigrants? After all, a first-generation American would be the child of an immigrant, not an immigrant himself.--Icowrich (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

It bothers me somewhat that two small controversies constitute such a large portion of this article. This seems to be a violation of Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV, in particular the section on undue weight. I propose that the material on controversies be trimmed a bit, in particular the part about CNN airing unedited footage that named the rape victim, since it's not evident that Crowley was directly involved in that decision. And I further propose adding some of the positive material characterizing her career that's in this 2009 LA Times profile.[1] TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I deleted the Steubenville section since it is more of a general media issue and not relevant to Crowley herself. The 2012 presidential debate should remain as it is though since it isn't a controversy. Please go ahead and add from that LA Times article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. I support your edits. TimidGuy (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice the talk page discussion on this (the heading didn't stick out to me right away) or that my appeal to a higher editor sounded like a threat (it wasn't a threat, but was a solution offered if the two of us only were involved in discussion and it became a matter of disagreement). I disagree that this is "more of a general media issue and not relevant to Crowley herself" and believe that the references I included to the intense media scrutiny primarily about Crowley, Harlow, and CNN prove this as such. I respect and understand the concern about the proportionality argument (two events taking up more room than other information) - but I disagree with the characterization a Presidential Debate or CNN's Rape Coverage a "small controversy." I'm obviously a noob coming into edit wikipedia without being a part of it for a long time and I respect the work and decisions everyone puts into, but I believe my updated version is ethical and in accordance with Wikipedia's editing policies as I have understood them. 67.185.15.179 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to add: I agree that over a long career the proportion of these events to the whole entry has received disproportionate space, but wouldn't the solution then to be to advocate for more content about her life, not just erase a significant moment of criticism about her journalistic career? That seems counter-intuitive and a way that important events in our culture about an individual's actions may not be recorded in wikipedia, merely because it possessed more characters than other information about someone.67.185.15.179 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Given rules governing biographies of living individuals, any material that receives such disproportionate coverage must be left out until the article is expanded. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candy Crowley. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103122630/http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/culture/124501-cnn-host-candy-crowley-anchored-in-nuance.html to http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/culture/124501-cnn-host-candy-crowley-anchored-in-nuance.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)