Talk:E. D. Hill

Professional A/K/A

If memory serves, she was also known professionally as Edie Tarbox when serving as an anchor for WPXI in Pittsburgh. See: http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/tribpm/s_509315.html 198.208.251.23 (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am a Democrat

For those that continue to delete this from the article.

Hill, a Democrat, considers herself the most liberal of the FOX anchors. “On everything but national security, I tend to err on the side of freedom,” she explains. “I believe in freedom of speech, even if it means allowing hate speech.” Arzel (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this? Perhaps we should put this back in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

a quick check shows it comes from 'Interview with E.D. Hill.' which is in external links. although if i remember right, there were some sort of POV issues over it at one point. Perry mason (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, she is liberal about freedom of speech just like Larry Craig was liberal about Gay rights! Let us not get into the game of interpreting nonsense to mean "sensible" points of view. --71.238.121.147 (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like she's trying to imply she's a liberal without providing a shred of concrete evidence. Being a "primary-voting Democrat" doesn't really prove anything. I have conservative friends who register as Democrat to vote in local primaries. The fact that she uses the word "primary" seems to hint at a lack of allegiance to the Democratic Party. (I could be misunderstanding her, as she might be using primary in the sense of "main" or "dominant," but her statement is at the very least ambiguous.) As for saying she "errs on the side of freedom," I have no idea what that's got to do with liberalism as conventionally defined; right-wing libertarians also advocate greater freedom, and since she makes an exception for "national security" issues, she could easily be a typical conservative. Since when was banning "hate speech" (however defined) a cornerstone of conservatism? marbeh raglaim (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting your place here. It is not for you to decide what is evidence and what is not. If the statement was said, then it was said. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism and you are not Bob Woodward. If she said she is liberal, then put it in there. This is no trial and she is no politician so it doesn't matter. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 07:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

June 6, 2008 broadcast

It is significant that Hill made her "terrorist fist jab" comment during her show's June 6, 2008 broadcast, and the show was cancelled June 10. As the entry currently reads, it sounds as if her show was scheduled for cancellation before her controversial comment, when that is not the case.

Also, it's important to remove "had" from before "cancelled." I don't think I've ever seen that tense used in an encyclopedia entry, and it seems wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.131.94 (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity in what she was implying

Malicious as E D's intent may or may not have been, I think that she was naming other people's descriptions of Obama's gesture, one of which was "terrorist fist jab". In other words, she wasn't presenting it as her own opinion. This is what she claims in her apology, and looking back at the original film it makes sense. I bring this up because this article says that she herself questioned whether the jab was a "terrorist fist jab". Not wanting to give the benefit of the doubt to either side, I think it would be appropriate to say that she "apparently questioned", and also to mention the apology and her explanation at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

More details

Sorry, I forgot to log in when I added the above comment, that was me. I also wanted to add links to the videos so you knew what I meant:

• Apology: http://youtube.com/watch?v=InahUzwRSH8
• Original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM&feature=related

Orblivion (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Wording

I'll admit that "apparently" is a bit weaselish, what about: "On June 6th, 2008, Hill brought up the question of whether a gesture made between Barack Obama...".

Though I also think that it would be fair to the other side to mention that there was a controversy over this because some people believe she was in fact giving her own opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orblivion (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source to prove that similar comments were made by others (other than her own account) before she made it herself. Unless this can be proven with reliable sources, we dont require to word it different. Docku (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is a real person she is quoting. I'm not even saying that she wasn't implying, at the time of airing, that these were her own thoughts, as some people took it. What I'm saying is that, in her apology, she claimed that she was quoting somebody else. The quote as it stands seems to presume that she is lying. Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't want to presume she's telling the truth either. This is why I want to say "brought up the question", which implies that it could have been her wording or others'.

In fact, the rest of the paragraph goes along with this, and you haven't brought up any issues with that.

Edit: Sorry, I reworded my argument while you were posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless a specific mention of the name of the person or persons whom she was refereing to can be found in some reliable secondary sources or in her own account (published in secondary sources), we need not worry about changing the text. Docku (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you even understand what I am arguing? "We need not change the text" Why not? What part of my point don't you agree with? Do you not think that "E D questioned whether..." implies that she's guilty of making the assumption herself? (Again, I apologize for changing my previous post while you were replying) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing it "brought up the question" sounds ok to me. Docku (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.148.87.1.167 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

temporarily protect from IP edits?

im not really sure on how all that works but i know its got something to do with this although im afraid i dont understand it. basically, i was just wondering if it would be wise to semi-protect E.D's page from non-established users for a little while because of the whole 'terrorist fist jab' issue. also, are references 4, 5, and 6 ok because they just link to wiki pages and i see no reference to E.D. anywhere. im afraid to edit them because i will probably end up getting banned. Perry mason (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RFPP is the correct link. I agree semi-protection is a good idea, but it would be improper for me to do it since I'm involved in editing the article, so you'll have to put in a request at RFPP. References 4,5, and 6 are citations of television programs. The wikilinks are links to articles about the television programs and are not intended to be links to individual episodes. The relevant episodes are identified by airdate. Gamaliel (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

im sorry but i still dont understand how to do it, i think it would be ok if you did it though because you seem sensible enough in trying to keep this article tidy and organized. what i meant about the references was there is no proof that E.D. was discussed on these shows, surely for them to be included, you would have to link to the videos of the shows? e.g. countdown video, Dan Abrams, Morning Joe Perry mason (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Internet links or available video are not required for a proper citation. However, since you've done the work of finding the links, I will add them to the citations. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The show seems to have been uncancelled. It is on as a type this with E.D. Hill as host. I have updated the main page.SOmebody should update the main page to reflect the fist controvery still. --Purpleslog (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was 100% wrong on the above.--Purpleslog (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

master's

What exactly is a master's degree in "government"? Government policy? Public policy? Political science? As far as I know, you can't get a degree in "government"--it's like getting a degree in "administration," i.e. what kind of governmentally-related field is she pursuing a degree in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrschum (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Update, I guess there are a few programs (such as Sacramento State) that offer what they call a Master's Degree Program in Government--but I have to imagine this is shorthand for a more specific track within those departments. If Hill is in one of these programs, it would be useful to see what track she is on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrschum (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

E.D. Hill attended Harvard

The Harvard University Alumni records online do not include E.D. Hill, as Edith or E.D. or Tarbox or Weill or Hill or Donahey or any combination of these first and last names.

Maatje (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Employment History???

Is she still working for CNN??? I have not seen E.D. Whateverherfaceis since the Eliot Spitzer show went off the air. I don't watch "The Blaze" so I don't know if she's on the payroll there.User:JCHeverly 18:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)