Talk:Nancy O'Dell

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nancy O'Dell. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091009062953/http://www.wwe.com:80/shows/raw/articles/11092738/11919858 to http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/articles/11092738/11919858

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Trump/Bush Access Hollywood video

I notice another editor deleted any mention of the Trump/Bush video from the article based upon the discussion on Zucker's page. I do not think this action was proper as the discussion on Zucker's page does not demonstrate a clear consensus. It has been reliably reported that O'Dell is being discussed in a video which has now become a major story in the 2016 election and O'Dell herself has released a statement. It is relevant to this article. Knope7 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

What argument could be made that this is not relevant? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Because this is a biography and this has nothing to do with her career. AIRcorn (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a biography of her, and she responded to this major thing that is about her. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • It is not a major thing about her. Major to other people and articles and that is where she should be mentioned, if she should at all. Her name wasn't even said in the video. AIRcorn (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"Nancy" is mentioned in the video and multiple sources, including Access Hollywood, have reported she is the Nancy mentioned. This is an enormous story that involves talk about her and which she has publicly responded to. She worked with Bush and at various times worked for Trump hosting his pageants. It is certainly worth a mention in this article. Knope7 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is big story and that is why we have an article on it. That is where this should stay. Get consensus, obey due and then include here, not before. AIRcorn (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Big stories can be included on more than one article. We can discuss cutting down the material here with a Wikilink to the full article. Saying there is an article about a topic does not mean it cannot be mentioned on another page. Taking your argument seriously, we should then remove all references to Access Hollywood and Entertainment Tonight from O'Dell's article because those shows both have their own article. We ere on the side of removing reliably sourced material pending consensus for a BLP violation. There is no BLP violation here. Sources discussing O'Dell's connection to the video are plainly relevant to this article and they are reliably sourced. I'll add that your citing of {{WP:Undue|due]] is not relevent to your argument that a major news topic should not be discussed at all. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite. Knope7 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You are not taking my argument seriously as that information is related to her career and belongs. I am not going to continue edit warring over its inclusion, but I am going to reduce the paragraph per WP:undue. AIRcorn (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a better argument for including it here than on Zucker's page. Still not sure that it belong here, though. Has it affected her career? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"After failing to seduce Nancy O’Dell, Donald Trump reportedly tried to have her fired" – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

She also spoke about the incident on today's Entertainment Tonight. I don't think the test is "did it affect her career" as this article is about her life, not just her career. A story of this magnitude warrants at least a sentence on this page. Knope7 (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Has it affected her life though? What are the consequences to her life relative to her marriage, divorce and the other personal life information currently presented. AIRcorn (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you prefer a separate section outside "Career" and "Personal life"? I could be amenable to that as I think this topic goes between both as she worked for Acces Hollywood and Trump was discussing a personal interaction. As for how this has affected her marriage, that is not the criteria for inclusion in the article, however Trump described making a pass at O'Dell while she was married. We don't need to ask how this affects her marriage specifically though, we need to ask is this a significant relevant topic, covered by reliable sources. It is. Knope7 (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I think that would be too undue. I thought career might be better, but wasn't sure how or where to fit it in. By the way I did not mean that this has had any affect on her marriage, just that it seems like a minor aspect of her personal life compared to her marriage and other notable (personal) events in her life. If the insinuations about Trump trying to sack her for rejecting his advances gain traction then career might be a good fit. Note I still don't think it should be included, this all seems much more relevant to Trump and his election campaign. She just happened to be the one he was caught mentioning. AIRcorn (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern about putting undue weight on one incident. I do think this article is underdeveloped as a whole and if other aspects were developed as they should be, then that would alleviate the undue weight problem. I don't think removing relevant, reliably sourced information is the best way to solve an undue weight problem. I think developing the article overall and improving it is a better long-term solution. This is the same approach I suggested at the Alicia Macahado article. Knope7 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this still shouldn't be included in her article. Trump mentioning her doesn't make the controversy relevant to her article. Tiller54 (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump's indiscretions are about Trump and not the victim. Trump's actions against a victim are off topic in the victim's article. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Incidents can be about more than one thing. Is Access Hollywood really about O'Dell? Must we scrub all references to Access Hollywood because it's a show about celebrities and not all about O'Dell? The controversy as a whole is more about Trump, but in that broader story, Trump bragged about making a move on O'Dell while she was married. That has now been heard by millions of people. O'Dell has responded. No one is saying we need to detail the entire controversy on this page. That O'Dell has been brought in to one of the biggest news stories this election cycle is relevant to her article and does warrant a mention in this article. Knope7 (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am late, but I agree with Knope7. Can I request a vote on whether or not we mention it? Not only is it relevant to her image, but we have a precedent of mentioned these incidents to all parties involved and refusing to mention it on her page because it would hurt her feelings (I think?) isn't valid enough reason to not include this. In fact, it violates WP:NPV and WP:UNCENSORED. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nancy O'Dell. 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/20090306230959/http://tvwatch.people.com:80/2009/03/05/jewel-and-nancy-odell-withdraw-from-dancing/ to http://tvwatch.people.com/2009/03/05/jewel-and-nancy-odell-withdraw-from-dancing
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309174505/http://www.creativememories.com:80/Content/nancyodell/nancyodell_main.aspx to http://www.creativememories.com/Content/NancyODell/NancyODell_Main.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090329092825/http://www.cookiemag.com:80/entertainment/2009/03/nancy-odell to http://www.cookiemag.com/entertainment/2009/03/nancy-odell

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)