Talk:The Apprentice (American TV series) season 8

Winner

the chart shows that Joan wins.. but the episode discription says that Annie won.. who is it???

What???

Whoever added the contestants...where did you get the info? I can't find it anywhere.--96.244.39.151 (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this section Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Apprentice World-wide WikiProject

Please contribute to the relevant discussion here, as this discussion relates to this article. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 15:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Thecelebrityapprentice.png

The image Image:Thecelebrityapprentice.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Charities

Hey guys,

I noticed that the charities column was blank as of now, and found them online here as part of a press release: [1]

I am not experienced enough to edit the article and cite properly, so I thought I would let someone else do a better job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyguyone (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Press release added as reference. Thank you for finding it.Naraht (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

KOTU is an acronym

I believe that the men's team name should be more accurately spelled 'KOTU'; it is, after all, an acronym, 'Kings of the Universe'. --71.111.23.79 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Exact numbers?

There seems to be a sort of small scale edit-war over whether to round the amount of money raised by the each team and overall to the nearest thousand or to have the value exact. Feelings?Naraht (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Elimination Chart

I think that the chart is pretty good (to whoever was involved with making it), but I wonder if we could do something like the Top Chef chart ([2]) where instead of putting just "IN" for all of the contestants, putting "IN (+)" or "IN (-)" to differentiate between players on the winning team and the losing team. This would help clarify who was on each winning and losing team each week (which may be less clear if teams are ever mixed up or restructured). Thoughts? Ngaraadhe (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Ngaraadhe

Double tasks

Episode 8 featured two complete tasks, boardrooms, and firings. Yet, the standings table has combined them into one column. Shouldn't we have two separate columns for these two separate tasks? It wasn't a true "double firing", and there wasn't "two winners" as the table currently shows. Anyone disagree, or can we make this change to improve it? --Mtjaws (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't seen the episode yet, but I agree that it should be split into two. Either 8a & 8b or something like that.Naraht (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Joan

Until we know for sure if she is coming back or not, should it say on the chart that she quit? Or should it say in for now until we know for sure?--Woodwindgal (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Woodwindgal

It should stay in until we have either a reliable source whe's quit, or the next episode shows us for certain. Editing can make it seem like anything has happened, we need proof. Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As of around noon today (CST), nothing has been stated in concrete reliable sources. A google search for "Joan River quits Apprentice" links here [3], which is just more speculation. She's still [4] showing as an active participant on the official website, also. I think we need to keep her as an active player until we hear otherwise in reliable sources. Dayewalker (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Joan and Melissa are doing press this week, and still not saying whether or not she quit the show. Again, please do not change the page to indicate she's quit until it's properly sourced. I won't edit war or violate WP:3RR over this, but I do encourage responsible editors to keep a watch on the page for IP editors, who may not be interested in checking the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Teams For The Final Week

We've had IPs adding the presumed teams for the final week based on the final promos for next week's show. However, until we see that sourced somewhere, I don't think it belongs in the article. As we saw from the promos last week that made us all think Joan was gone, the promos are not a reliable source and can be used to manipulate us. Any further thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Trump Affiliation with glwd

Why was my tiny note about direct affiliation of a Trump family member with Joan's charity removed ? Public does not have right to know ? Trump has been friends with Joan for years, and clearly made things easier for her. glwd.org/about_directors.html Blaine Trump is on Board of directors of Joan's charity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 871x (talk • contribs) 08:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. It is a fact. Why is it being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.251.174 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding a note about a member of Trump's family being affiliated with a charity is clearly original research, which is not allowed. If it's reliably sourced that it played a factor in the final decision, then we could add it. Otherwise, we're just using our opinions to cast doubt on the results. Dayewalker (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that one can justify removing the text not with reference to its being original research, which I am not entirely sure that it is. Rather, one should remove it because it is a supposition to say that Trump made his choice because of bias and nepotism. When a third-party source establishes a clear link between Trump’s decision and his relative sitting on the board of Rivers’s charity, then it can be included in the text with an appropriately footnoted and verifiable reference. Simply showing that one of Trump's relatives sits on the board of GLWD does not establish a causal link with his decision. The statements that were removed from the article lack a third-party establishing causality. Just because Duke’s supporters apprehend the existence of bias, does not mean that there is, in fact, any actual bias … unless and until a reporter/journalist establishes it and it is printed in a third-party publication that can be cited here. SpikeToronto (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A family member on the board of the winning charity is undeniably a conflict of interest. It should be noted in the interest of full disclosure. It is impossible to "reliably source" - and it is not necessary. It is not an opinion or conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.192.65 (talk • contribs)

It's not an opinion, but it is either original research or synthesis, neither one of which is allowed. SpikeToronto above gives a good explanation of the situation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're here to present information from reliable secondary sources, not to point out conflicts of interest in other forms of media. Dayewalker (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

SpikeToronto: "David Tutera, was overwhelmed by the task".
That was not said during the show, it was not said during David's interview on Barbara's show. I posted three links, they have been all removed ? During the show we saw Joan being negative about David, complaining, suggesting his assistant one of her friends, who works in design, might help him. Joan started calling her friends before David had quit, saying to them things like "he does not know what he's doing" (about 46 minutes from start).
Annie Duke said she was told they quit because, as she expressed in the board room, "they were not happy with Joan". If he was just overwhelmed, wouldn't it be more likely they would answer the phones, be more hospitable in their office; Joan had cameras around her 16 hours a day, wouldn't we hear it, to make sure "overwhelmed" possibility Trump raised during the boardroom looked better ?
"without opening discussion on article's talk page" - SpikeToronto, you did not do this before your past changes either.
And why was previous text, that Annie had disadvantage with "whatever help they could muster" because 1) she was not notified of event planner quiting, not even answering her phone calls, having to drive there 2) her charity is based in Washington, D.C, globally focused, while Joan's charity is focused on local operations, and based in New York, where events took place.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 871x (talk • contribs) 05:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Picking facts from the show and drawing independent conclusions (i.e. "Annie was at a disadvantage") is synthesis, which isn't what wikipedia is for. When we report on the events of the show, we should take proper care to maintain a neutral point of view. Dayewalker (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a fact Joan knew David quit, before Annie knew. Conclusion that that was advantageous to Joan might not be that complex, that it would require reference to external source !?. Wording "Annie was at a disadvantage" may have not been most appropriate, without reference of specific times, specification of particular type of disadvantage, but at least that fact might still deserve a mention. A fact from the video is even that Joan was actually calling "all her friends in NY", as she put it, before David quit.
There seemed to be no problems with "David Tutera, was overwhelmed by the task", how is that even a fact ? His web site does not say it so, he did not say that on Barbara Walters', Joan did not mention it, only Trump brought it up as possibility in the boardroom, Annie answered "I don't know" and continued to refer to what the designer said to her. So, where from does "overwhelmed" come as a fact ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 871x (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What I think is being missed here is the point of the article, which is to report properly sourced facts about the show. A lot of what's been posted lately is amateur analysis of the show (i.e. who was at a disadvantage, what certain events did to the contestants, why Trump made some of his actions, etc.) and isn't appropriate for a wikipedia article. Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Apprentice (U.S. season 8). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://nbcumv.com/listing_detail.nbc/nbc-20090419210000.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nbcumv.com/listing_detail.nbc/nbc-20090510200000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406013856/http://sapn.nonprofitoffice.com/ to http://sapn.nonprofitoffice.com/

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: 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) 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Apprentice (U.S. season 8). 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/20090406013856/http://sapn.nonprofitoffice.com/ to http://sapn.nonprofitoffice.com/

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: 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) 10:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)