Talk:The Apprentice (American TV series) season 4

A Plea For Spolier Tags

Hello - Although it seems to have finished in the US this season has not completed its run in many other countries (it is shown globally). I came here for a quick bit of info on the series and the first part of the article ruined many future surprises and events for me. I'd greatly appreciate some spolier tags and some introductory information that doesn't give away important information. This is the practice for many other TV show articles (even quite old ones) and i'm sure there have been others in my boat who accidentally read a bunch of spoilers when they first visited this article.

Cheers MagicBez 13:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate someone inserting spolier tags but right at the start of the article before the tags it tells you when every contestant was fired. Surely it's possible to have an introduction to the teams and the show without filling it with spoilers? MagicBez 18:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny Enough

That was the episode that was aired today. Jack Cox 02:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the scoop that I read was correct. --Madchester 17:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirects

Does anyone think that the names of the contestants should redirect to this page? CoolGuy 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Week 7

I think Clay's exact words were "tight Jew," not "tight-ass Jew." Can anyone verify? Ian 04:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• After Adam made the comment about not wanting to spend the money on dinner, Clay said "Remember, he is the shy, tight Jewish Boy".

No Exemptions should have a reason

I have noted that people have not been putting reasons why People have not been exempt from getting fired on the next coming task. From this point on, I would highly appreciate it if people put the reason why a Project Manager isn't exempt from getting fired on the next coming task. The reason for Clay not being exempt from getting fired on the next coming task is because key reason being that Alla felt that Clay gave Alla too much work to do, Clay not functioning well as Project Manager, Clay's team didn't like him, and Clay did too little to stand up for the team, and didn't too much to keep the team together. — Vesther 03:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Three Multiple-Firings!!!

It's true—Season 4 sets the record for the most multiple-firings in one season of the Apprentice. I thought that Felisha will be the only one fired for Week 11, but after the Donald told Alla to "sit down for one moment", Donald landed a heavy blow by also firing Alla before she left. What a surprise that was—Capital Edge is probably the first team to be completely jettisoned as well. — Vesther 03:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• He snapped "Sit, Alla" as she was getting up. I wonder what the big suprise is next week. IceDrake523 22:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I really doubt that there's going to be a one-on-one interview session with four prominent executives (with companies contributing a lot of money for the economy) now that Randal and Rebecca are left standing. — Vesther 04:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Purged unconfirmed Markus Garrison Information

I don't know whether or not Markus Garrison is actually "married" to Clay Lee, but I really can't have that in this article because it's not confirmed information. Also, I did some rebuffs as well. — Vesther 23:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of Sprint iDEN Phones

I saw instances where candidates had to use a Motorola i860 (I saw Alla, Felisha, Randal, and even Donald Trump using one) just for communication. I think that the Motorola i860 was used ever since Season 3 (I saw Tana used a Motorola i860 on a Yahoo! archived footage). I think the Season 2 Candidates used the Motorola i830. I think the Season 1 candidates used the Motorola i730. I think Season 5 the Donald might have his candidates use a Motorola i870, but sources from Sprint's iDEN Retail Stores state that it's likely either the Motorola i930 or the Motorola i860 that might be used, depending on how much i930's were in stock when the filming took place.

I would like your feedback on what iDEN phone is likely to be used by the candidates for Season 5 of The Apprentice with Donald Trump. I think given that The Donald used an i860 during Week 6 (I'm pretty sure The Donald has plenty of Cell Phones in his sleeve). I have not watched Season One of The Apprentice and I would like to know whether or not the candidates had to use Nextel iDEN Phones throughout the Job Interview. If so, I would like to know or not it's an i730 (given that it's filmed before the i830 was released).

I encourage you to give me your feedback. — Vesther 14:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I saw a candidate on The Apprentice: Martha Stewart use an i860 as well. Furthermore, I saw James Caan use an i930 as a prop in Las Vegas, and most of the people in Las Vegas used either an i95cl or an i730. I think currently in Las Vegas, Montecito subordinates use an i760, and the boss uses an i870.

Why Martha Stewart references?

When I come to this page, I only read information for the Trumps version of the Apprentice season 4. I notice this article mentions alot of Stewarts version and it actually gets quite annoying to read through that. Not everyone that watches Trumps version watches the other, if I wanted Stewarts version I would have went to that page. I vote that we remove all mention of Stewart.

• I agree 100%. Reading through all the records of multiple firings gets confusing and boring. They're 2 completely different shows despite a similar premise. IceDrake523 04:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I also agree. It is simply not the right place to talk about Stewart.

• I also agree. Sue Anne 02:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I removed the Martha References. I may have missed some, but got most. IceDrake523 02:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the poor decision?

I realize this may not be the place for it, but I need to vent to someone. Why did Randal not choose to hire Rebecca as well? What could have been an extremely positive result instead became a season-end shock.

Excellent Season summaries by the way, I applaud the efforts of your contributors to keep such accurate details about our current times.

-- AlexanderYoshi 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression had already made up his mind to hire Rebecca as well. However, he was also asking for Randall's input on the decision. I think Trump got trumped in his own plans when Randall stated his own intentions. Rebecca didn't deserve to publicly humiliated on national television like that. Either hire one or both candidates at once.

Since the Apprentice is simply a PR job, Rebecca did end up calling out Randall for missing out on the big picture. The man hurt his own reputation and image, just 30 seconds after being hired. --Madchester 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You're the one missing the point, it's The Apprentice not Apprentces. There's no way of Randall knowing that his decision would affect Rebecca's hiring. Also what's the point of the finale if Trump hires them both? It's not like that The Aprrentice is the only way to get hired by Trump. Why should Trump hire Rebecca anyway if she lost and was already fired? Because she's a cute girl? A good businessman should have his ethics and principles, and not makes a decision based on popularity.

And in South Africa, the boss hired two Apprentices, so it's a moot point in repeating Randall's "justification".

Rebecca ironically foreshadowed Randall's weaknesses: the guy misses the big picture. Trump mentioned beforehand that the final boardroom was an important business decision to better his organization as a whole. Randall missed the mark by blocking another qualified candidate from working on a separate project within the organization; Randall would have retained his perferred Atlantic City position. Randall let his ego step in the way of his employer's actual wishes. Bad, bad first impression on the job. --Madchester 16:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I came here after watching the season with exactly this question, and this is a really good point. There's also a Larry King Interview, in which Randell basically displays that he was overwhelmed by the situation, while Trump emphasizes that it was a tough and unpopular, but in the end, rational business decision. But why would it be rational, except as to reduce the pressure of being compared in job performance to her? Your comment, together with the comment of Netoholic below really outlines the situation for me. In the end, Rebecca showcased her strengths while Randall showcased his weakness, providing her with a kind of moral victory - and maybe an overall better career outlook.

Her biggest personal "flaw" seems to be to overestimate people's ability to rise above themselves, and it probably ended up helping her in all three instances:

• defending the unpopular teammate and putting herself at risk, making herself notable early in the game
• "creative" teammate transferring into her 2-men team, because she probably couldn't have prevented it anyway and inspired a positive attitude
• the final decision, because it made her look good and redeemed her ability to judge other people's character, as described above

--62.206.8.4 05:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

By you logic, Trump should have hired Kwame, Jen and Tana as well for making it to the finals, even though they lost. This isn't the special Olympics and there is only ONE winner. You could hardly call Rebecca "qualified" when al she did was whine that people should go easy on her because she broke her ankle. Well Randall lost his grandma and I don't see him whine about it. The fact is that Randall never lost as project manager, whereas Rebecca lost and only won when Randall is with her.

Trump didn't have to hire Kwame, Jen, and Tana b/c they were the runner-ups. Trump said it himself they both were amazing and outstanding through out the process. Rebecca had physical pain and her injury was unexpected. She never whined about the pain from it, she used it to show how tough she was. IceDrake523 01:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

True enough... after Trump asked which projects they each preferred (and they chose different ones), he said something like "Well, that makes it easy then". He must have been planning on hiring them both, but with 30 seconds left in the live show, he couldn't recover from Randal's shocker. -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I see both points of view actually. The show is not called "The Apprentices" (or "the apprenti" as Randal said in his incorrect Latin), so as they used to say in the Highlander films, there can only be one. On the other hand, it would have been chivalrous of Randal to allow Trump to hire Rebecca as well (after all, there were two projects to be supervised, he could have one, and she the other). To his credit, Randal later admitted that he was caught up in the moment when he told Trump not to hire Rebecca. I don't think what happened in the South African version of the show had any impact on the decision.

-- Jalabi99 02:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a bit dated but I never got to comment on this supposdely "non-discussion message board". Look Randall was the winner because he never lost a project, Rebecca lost all but one project. She was unqualified. Just because she was white and pretty, is no reason for Trump to try to put Randal in a position to feel pressured to hire her also. Like everyone says, if this was the case Trump should have made offers to the previous runner ups and the ones following this series. To my knowledge he still hasn't hired two Apprentices.MPA 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Randal apologizes

From the front page of his website (http://www.randalpinkett.com/ retrieved 16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)):

Poor Sportsman
I should have just said "Rebecca can be my Apprentice" but I was so caught up in the moment that I was overcome with selfishness. I will spend the rest of my career trying to make up for my incredibly poor image. Please forgive me.

Hmm.. -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That almost looks as though his site got hacked. The site itself has also become buggy, with certain parts of the site completely torn apart. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Orion Minor (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 December 2005

It's being changed practically as I'm watching. Could be hacking, but I think someone doing that would be less subtle. -- Netoholic @ 16:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Randal's site seems to be down.

Anyway, on this morning's Today show, the charitably-challenged Yahoo lady had the nerve to offer Rebecca a job. Katie gushed about wouldn't it be unbelievable if Rebecca said "no," or some such drivel. The ever-poised Rebecca gave her Mona Lisa smile and responded that she would be happy to continue the conversation later. Matt later said that he agreed with Randal's decision but didn't say why. He's all about the selfishness? It was not The Today Show's finest hour.--Knapster2005 19:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where he apologized, or why he would need to apologize for winning. Why would he ask Trump to hire a completely unqualified contestant who lost all but one of her projects? There appears to be some subtle hints of racism in people's anger at Randal. On winner, one apprentice. That was the case then and it still is.MPA 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

There were two fatal reasons why Randal was chosen first

The key of this final task was to raise money for charity--Randal followed directions in spite of terrible weather, but Rebecca failed to raise money for her charity (if it wasn't for Yahoo! rejecting Rebecca's plans, then both Randal and Rebecca could've been hired) plus neither herself nor her recruits greeted the Donald right off the bat, which is extremely important in Apprentice tradition. Rebecca didn't greet the Donald promptly so I think the two flaws (not raising money for charity, not greeting the Donald right off the bat) were grounds for the Donald to choose Randal first. I would not hire Rebecca mainly because she didn't follow directions on the final task good enough. — Vesther 23:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

From what we were shown, Donald gave Randal a warning that he was coming by on helicopter. I didn't see Donald calling Rebecca and telling her he's coming.

• Rebecca follwed Yahoo's requests of not solely trying to raise money. She may have failed to raise money at the even, but in the end she beat Randal when Yahoo (the sponsor of her event) donated $50,000 to BOTH charities. Not greeting Trump as a reason is just egotistical on his part. He's not God, he can walk a few feet from his limo to the building without someone groveling at his feet. Randal was able to greet him because his team was doing all the work.

• There's a thing about "The Apprentice". Despite the tendency of most of the tasks given to the candidates being nothing more than free advertising for various companies (e.g. Yahoo!, Microsoft, Home Depot, etc. etc. etc.), the main way for the Donald to assess the teams is on how much money they raise, and he is always very explicit in telling them that right off the bat. If your team doesn't make more money than the other team, your team loses at the task. It's pretty straightforward. So by that assessment, Randal beat Rebecca. He raised $10K+, she didn't raise any. Yes, I understand why she didn't, but the fact is, she didn't. And yes, the fact that Randal had the sense to meet the Donald at the helicopter might have swayed his decision as well. Hard cheese, Rebecca. Jalabi99 01:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Week by Week results

Would it make sense to put the teams of the final task in the Week by Week results? Meaning Randal, Josh, Mark and Marshawn as Excel and Rebecca, Chris, James, and Toral for Capital Edge? It could be denoted below the chart they were recruited by the two for the final task. IceDrake523 23:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view, I don't think it would make any sense since once they are fired, they are fired regardless whether or not they were recruited for the Final "Monster" task. — Vesther 01:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No no no no no no no

Rebecca was actually fired because if you looked at the Yahoo! extended clips very carefully, during the Boardroom battles, Rebecca formed a coalition with Toral throughout the job interview. Randal is extremely impartial but Rebecca has a bad habit of favoring one from another, and she risked getting fired at Week 3, which is the Technology expo. From Yahoo's and NBC's point-of-view, Rebecca got fired after Randal suggested that Trump rescind the decision. A rule is a rule—unless hired, the candidate is fired. Rebecca was FIRED, and I don't want to argue neither have to engage in an edit war. — Vesther 02:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think you're getting a little too heated over this. Regardless of whether it says fired or not hired, the message is the same—She didn't get the job. I personally believe Not Hired is fine and in a way more suitible since it is in a more positive light; Trump was pleased with her performance, admitted the decision was hard (on The Apprentice as well as on other shows when he was a guest) and gave Randal the oppurtunity to hire her as well. IceDrake523 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK OK I give up!!! I'll go ahead and say that Rebecca wasn't either hired or fired, but I would have to say "Declared Unfit" or "Turned down" instead. How about that IceDrake? I'm just gonna go ahead and say "Turned Down" and "Declared not fit" instead, something that I wouldn't do since the Donald is all about either getting hired or fired. — Vesther 22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think Not Hired works best since "Unfit" is more with Martha and "Turned Down" delivers the same message but is more consistent. I'll change it to Not Hired for now, but I'm not gonna be the one carrying on an edit war ‐IceDrake523 23:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and declare Rebecca as being "Turned Down" instead just to avert an Edit War. "Not Hired" makes no sense from my point-of-view, so I'll just say "Turned Down" because Randal suggested that the Donald turn Rebecca down. — Vesther 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• How does "Not Hired" make no sense? I believe tt delivers the same message as Turned Down but is more consistent with the rest of the article.

Vesther has been right all along, the presedent set by all three prior Apprentice Wikipedia pages, and the offical reports by NBC state that the finalist is fired.--Orion Minor 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

But unlike the past 3, the runner-up was never given a chance to be hired by the winner. Everyone who has been labeled "Fired" was fired by Trump. Trump did not Fire Rebecca if he asked Randal for his opinion on hiring her. He obviously was considering it and felt she was well qualified, so Not Fired is suitable. And, honestly, what is the difference between Not Hired and Fired? Either way, she didn't get the job. IceDrake523 02:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

IceDrake523, there are only two options--Hired or Fired. "NOT HIRED" is NOT an option. I'm going to say this for the last time. — Vesther 17:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And if you don't believe me go here: http://apprentice.tv.yahoo.com/trump/04/candidates/rebecca.html

It is an option. As I've said, Fired and Not Hired deliver the same exact message. The only difference is one is more positive which obviously fits since Trump AND Randal both speak very highly of her. Check the transcript from Larry King, Trump says ...But I would say this. If for some reason she's not satisfied with those offers, if she called me, you know, I'd be honored to talk to her."

First, look at the big red lettering, then look UP and read the description "offical site on Yahoo!" key word, OFFICIAL. Wikipedia is not where you label things with your personal preference. Just because you like "not hired" better does not make it right.--Orion Minor 01:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the primary source of information is the actual episode itself, and possibly any behind the scenes stuff they uploaded onto the "official" and Yahoo! websites. However, everything else should be deemed as a secondary source whether it's the websites or press releass, etc. While they contain a wealth of information, those sources are written by individuals who did not actually work within the show's production. --Madchester 16:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Madchester, there are only two choices--Hired or Fired. NOT HIRED is NOT an option. If Rebecca is NOT hired, then she's fired! I don't want to start another edit war again, but you and a guy with an IP Address 70.132.4.170 are really putting a lot of disputes on Rebecca's status. So Rebecca IS FIRED, and that's that! — Vesther 17:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Madchester, I really hated the fact that you backed up 70.132.4.70 when you reverted my edit. Unless you watched the television show for yourself, stay out of it!

The website and television show are two separate entities. The former is managed by CBS, the latter by Burnett and Trump's respective production companies. There's inconsistencies in the presentation of information between the two forms of media. The Amazing Race and it's "official site" on CBS also share similar problems. I'd rather stick to A)the show or B)cast interviews as the most reliable sources of info.

And to Vesther, I'd advise you to keep your cool. Thanks. --Madchester 17:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rebecca's Yahoo! event did earn money

Trump gave rather ambiguous objectives for the task, he never specified when money for the event should be tallied. Rebecca's post-game interviews at TVGuide.com and Fishbowl.com (MP3) all suggest that funds were collected by the Elizabeth Glazer Pediatric Aids Foundation. It's rather silly to believe Trump that out of 200+ VIPs, none of them donated a cent to the charity.--Madchester 16:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The article on the The Apprentice: Season Four is obviously bias toward Rebecca and should be marked as such.

Not really considering Trump speaks highly of her and gave Randal the chance to hire her. Every article has some bias too it, this one just has a positive one which will be better than negative towards Randal. IceDrake523 21:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fired or Not Hired? (Dispute Resolution)

I've gotten into a Edit War during the last 4 hours in this article. I really hate to add this but apparently, some people say that Rebecca was "Not Hired" at the night of the Season Finale. However, I disagree with anyone declaring this 5000%. I am in a bad mood today, and I should say that the only valid status of each candidate is either Hired or Fired. "Not Hired" is not a valid choice. Because Rebecca isn't given the job, her status should be "Fired", NOT Not Hired. I am really embarrassed that I had to state this out but frankly, disputes of Rebecca's status here in Wikipedia is making me irritated at this point, since some people rather declare Rebecca "Not Hired" while others rather declare Rebecca as Fired. Like I said, there are only two statuses in Apprentice—Hired or Fired. If you disagree with me, then I would like to hear your voices now. — Vesther 21:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're in a bad mood, I don't think coming here to continue an edit war is the best thing to do. Both Fired and Not Hired deliver the same message: she didn't get the job. However, Not Hired is more positive which I believe fits since BOTH TRUMP AND RANDAL think highly of her. Trump said on Larry King he'd offer her a job if she came asking. IceDrake523 22:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rebecca said that it was unfortunate when Randal suggested Trump to reject her. Should Randal allowed Trump to hire Rebecca, then I wouldn't have to do this today. — Vesther 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, IceDrake, from my point-of-view, and like I said before, "Not Hired" is not a valid status, that is why I'm trying to follow status conventions of The Apprentice franchise. That is why I prefer to say "Fired unless Hired"—as I'm more skeptical in following conventions more closely than the majority of you who thinks that Rebecca deserved a different status than other "firees". — Vesther 22:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I also feel that "Not Hired" sounds too Martha-ish IceDrake523. I really feel that the reason why I was responsible for this Edit War is because I try to follow Donald Trump boundaries when it came to this article. Don't you think that "Not Hired" sounds a bit too Martha-ish? Doesn't sound Trump-ish to me. :P — Dark Insanity 05:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Martha never used Fired and didn't even use Hired on the finale. Read what Trump has said. If Rebecca came to him looking for a job, he'd be willing to discuss it. Besides, does Trump asking a new hiree if he should hire someone else seem Trump-ish? IceDrake523 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I think we should come to some general consensus and then stop all the edit wars going on about this. Please cast your vote for "Fired" or "Not Hired" below. Sue Anne 23:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Hired is my vote. Sue Anne 23:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Hired obviously IceDrake523 23:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fired is what I conclude — Dark Insanity 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Hired as per the show's finale. --Madchester 00:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Hired is my vote but I wouldn't mind Fired. Honestly, it's not worth the effort of an edit war. --RealMontrealer 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fired Based on the presendent set by all three previous Apprentice documents and the OFFICIAL SITES. Because the show never specified, the sites, even if you (improperly) see them as secondary, they remain the most reliable data on the subject.--Orion Minor 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Hired is what I vote. When someone applies for a job and gets rejected they aren't fired. Trump never explicitly told Rebecca "You're fired." Therefore, that is why I think this is more fitting. --207.200.116.14 00:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Fired Based on precedent. The only reason Trump didn't fire Rebecca on the spot is because he considered hiring both. Since Randal talked him out of it, Rebecca was FIRED. Acetic Acid 08:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Hired Trump never fired Rebecca. --172.139.255.219 15:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Fired If Kwame, Jen, and Tana are mentioned as 'fired' on their pages, why not Rebecca?--211.30.251.13 03:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Hired It wasn't an ordinary firing, and to classify it like that would be a mistake. --64.12.116.67 17:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

--This PatCheng comment was deleted at the request of Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 04:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)--

Fired If she wasn't hired then she was fired. What's next? Calling the winner Not Fired? Jtrost 17:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Undecided. You can't be fired if you weren't hired in the first place. So, technically, that means NONE OF THE CANDIDATES (except the winner, of course) was fired. But that would mean that the Donald's catchphrase was meaningless. Oh dear. Jalabi99 01:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Hired Kind of late, but I just wanted to add my two cents. --Sakano 14:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fired Dated I know, but this isn't a regular job interview. In every episode before this one, the final conclusion Trump declared "Contestant A you are fired, and Contestant B you are Hired".MPA 16:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

About this "South Africa" Multiple-Hiring Spree

(the South African version had a multiple hiring in 2005)

While I admittedly appreciate the contribution by any circumstance, I should point out that anything you put in here should be lying only within the Donald Trump limits. I felt that the italicized text that I have listed was off-topic IMO, and things like that should belong to the General Apprentice article rather than on a Donald Trump season article. — Dark Insanity 15:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually Mark Burnett's ultimately responsible for all the basic rules and premise of the show. He's credited as the creator of the program, even in interational broadcasts. It's up to the local bosses/hosts and producers to decide how to work those rules to their favour. --Madchester 07:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Fired!

Yes, yes, the straw poll, containing a surplus of random IP's, would indicate that Rebecca was "not hired." That may have held some weight back when NBC would not comment on the last episode (when a show is over, a network moves on fast). However, I was poking around NBC and found that they have archived the past Apprentice results, and list Rebecca as fired: http://www.nbc.com/The_Apprentice_4/candidates/bio_rebecca.shtml. This is not from Yahoo!, or any other side project, but an official first party report. Now let's fix this long standing error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion Minor (talk • contribs) February 26, 2006

De-linking most candidates

I removed most links to the candidates[1] because those that existed are now merely re-directs to this page: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Therefore there really is no point in providing a separate article for each of them anymore. Thanks! 199.111.230.195 00:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Spliting "Candidates"

The whole section looks long and tedious. It simply does not stand out. And the information on different candidates is imbalanced, which makes it harder to read.
Why don't we make it pretty like The Apprentice 2 candidates? 199.111.230.195 00:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I came across this page when I needed to link in Jennifer Murphy. I've done some work on it - pulling it into a table which makes it look more uniform. I like the Apprentice 2 page - perhaps there should be both. I think its important to at least have the candidate names, ages, jobs etc on the main page. PageantUpdater 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• My point is that the article definitely needs to be cleaned-up to conform to a higher standard, and I'm seeing a lot of clutter here, so I'm gonna suggest that not only candidates be split up from this article, but I also have to place a tag above requesting that this article needs to be cleaned-up a little. Sorry if I have to be harsh, but in order to beautify the article, this has to be so. I hate to be extreme (and I also hate to place "Request Tags" and such and such) but after looking at the article, it has came to a point where this article needs to be beautified so that it would not look ugly. — Mark Kim 22:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the Tokyo Sexwale references?

(In September, Tokyo Sexwale hired both finalists on the South African version, eliciting anger from viewers.) [7], [8]

I just want to know why this is on this article. I feel that this seems to be out of place for a Donald Trump article. I think this is off-topic IMO and should be deleted from this season. If you guys don't want any Martha Stewart references here in this page, why do you consider putting the Tokyo Sexwale references here? I don't get it!!! — Mark Kim 01:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• After thinking it over and over, I had to purge the Tokyo Sexwale comment on Week 13: Decision Time, as it is considered to be OFF-TOPIC on this page. It also has came to my attention that this page needs to be cleaned-up because I'm seeing a BIG MESS at the beginning of this article, so I'm gonna have to mark the article for MAJOR CLEAN-UP. — Mark Kim 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: About Tokyo Sexwale, other moguls, and off-topic edits

Any of these references are considered OFF-TOPIC. I try to be as lenient as I can, but if it goes too much (like mentioning the Tokyo Sexwale decision to do a multiple-hiring), then it's likely to be purged and/or reverted. I have seen adds, modifications, removes, and reverts before on this page, but from this point on, anything in this article has to be WITHIN DONALD TRUMP limits. No if's, and's, or but's. From this point on, Off-Topic edits will be dealt with due course, and any Martha Stewart and/or Tokyo Sexwale references are considered OFF-TOPIC and will be reverted. Your cooperation is appreciated. — Mark Kim 22:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm mentioning this because I don't want this article to become a haven for any off-topic edits under any circumstances. During its run, there has been Martha Stewart references, and those edits were on dangerous grounds. Unless edits stay on-topic, like I said it will be reverted at due course. Not to be harsh, but I'd rather have a topic remain on topic rather than having it as a haven for free talk.

If this were an article only about Donald Trump, I would agree with your points. But, this is an article about the Apprentice 4 and one of the huge stories coming out of the finale was the potential of Trump hiring two candidates. I don't think it detracts from the article at all to have a mention of another Apprentice season at the same time that had a multiple hiring. Sue Anne 21:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I want to keep things as uniform as possible, and not to be harsh, I'd personally rather put the Tokyo Sexwale decision at the general Apprentice page rather than this one. Since this article talks about a season in particular, I'd personally think it's really important to keep things uniform as possible. Tokyo Sexwale's decisions fall more on the general Apprentice page than on this one, but given the fact that people were complaining about Martha references on this article, I have thus decided that I should keep the article uniform to Donald Trump ever since. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 04:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Apprenti ISN'T a grammatical error after all

In Week 9 of the Season 5 of the Apprentice, even Donald Trump used the word "Apprenti" to introduce the remaining candidates Ivanka and Donald Jr. Therefore, a multiple-hiring would've probably changed the show's name to "Apprenti", something that Randal felt overly opposed to. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 03:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate and Final Decision Split

After thinking it over and over, honestly for Season 4 of The Apprentice, I think the candidate section should be split up so that more of the candidates and how well or poor they performed can be placed on one article rather than on an entire season-related article.

Also, I have requested the Final Decision for this season to have its own separate article as well because after thinking it over and over, I think this has been something that was more of a controversy. According to a Straw Poll result (to calm down the Edit Wars), some people were in favor of labeling Rebecca as "Not Hired on Television" while some prefer to label Rebecca as "Fired on the Season Finale". I'm just gonna assume clean faith with the "Not Hired on Television" label for Rebecca, the only things why I'm still thinking it over and over (and the main reason why I'm considering a separate article for this season's final decision) is mainly because of the following: Rebecca had a fierce loyalty with Toral, even though Toral should've been the one brought back to the boardroom on Week 3, Rebecca felt that both Jennifers were responsible for the loss, and she believed in Toral's abilities. I think being fiercely loyal to someone has to be a fatal flaw, but some may disagree with me because in other words, people tend to believe in others and/or people happen to be advocates of others. Rebecca painstakingly had to let Toral be fired in Week 4 because Rebecca felt that Toral should've stepped up as Project Manager (but let Felisha do the dirty work instead). Rebecca's PM record of 1-2 also concerns me and Rebecca would only be able to succeed if she has strong and easy-to-work contributors, while Randal was capable of managing and working with all walks of life.

Therefore, for Apprentice 4 Candidates Separate Article, Yea, for Apprentice 4 Final Decision, Yea. That's that. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 02:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fired Candidates' Notes

This entire section was pretty much verbatim copyvio from the NBC website bios, so I've nuked it. FiggyBee 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Results table

I think The_Apprentice_(UK_Series_One)#Weekly results table should be replicated here. It will easily help someone keep track of the movement between teams, project manager etc. Linnah 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Apprentice World-wide WikiProject

Please contribute to the relevant discussion here, as this discussion relates to this article. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 15:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on The Apprentice (U.S. season 4). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apprentice.tv.yahoo.com/trump/04/show/summary/week1_5boardroom.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apprentice.tv.yahoo.com/trump/04/show/summary/week1_2assignment.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apprentice.tv.yahoo.com/trump/04/show/summary/week1_4results.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apprentice.tv.yahoo.com/trump/04/show/summary/week2_5boardroom.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week2_p18.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week2_p9.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apprentice.tv.yahoo.com/trump/04/show/summary/week2_3task.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apprentice.tv.yahoo.com/trump/04/show/summary/week3_2assignment.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week3_p14.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apprentice.tv.yahoo.com/trump/04/show/summary/week3_5boardroom.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week3_p21.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week3_p2.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20060830225625/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week1_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20060822212633/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week3_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20060613191856/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week4_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20060522223117/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week6_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20061126120500/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week7_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20060831052340/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week8_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20061126120529/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week9_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20060525002739/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week10_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20061126060928/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week11_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20060524222245/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week12_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20070117031703/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/The_Apprentice_4/recaps/week13_p1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051218032424/http%3A//www.ew.com%3A80/ew/article/commentary/0%2C6115%2C1141575_3_0_%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007014745/http://www.collegecrier.com/interviews/int-0001.asp to http://www.collegecrier.com/interviews/int-0001.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701130959/http://www.markuswinelifestyle.com/ to http://www.markuswinelifestyle.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116011750/http://www.adam.israelov.com/ to http://www.adam.israelov.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128073619/http://www.felishamason.com/ to http://www.felishamason.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20100804231013/http%3A//web.me.com%3A80/gogirlworldwide/Site_84/Home.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820154338/http://www.randalpinkett.com/ to http://www.randalpinkett.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) 10:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)