Talk:Stephanie Birkitt

Fair use rationale for Image:Stephtor.jpg

Image:Stephtor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability tag

Added notability. I do recall she used to frequently appear on Letterman's show but hasn't appeared in years. Is someone who once appeared on a late night show notable? I say no but you be the judge. Mundilfari (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

well I'd say she is notable now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.130.0 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

She has appeared over 265 times as noted on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephanie_Birkitt page.

This is an irresponsible use of the notability tag. Deleting an article because of what a random person can recall at any given moment is among the worst scenarios possible of Wikipedia. Try to do a little more research next time. 131.247.83.135 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

there is no way steph or joe deserve an own wiki article. one could integrate some info about this irrelevant crap to david's wiki article. remember that the idea of wiki is not to collect irrelevant US gossip nor a "who blows who". neither the extortion nor this warholian 15-minutes-chick deserve to be in an encyclopedia. she has clearly no encyclopedic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.220.150 (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

David Letterman extortion plot

TMZ says that she's one of the staffers involved in this. Is TMZ a considered a reliable source for this to be added to the article? They scooped everyone on Michael Jackson's death so I think they should be considered a reliable source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xPre-Wwz9I&feature=player_embedded

Not just TMZ. ABC News, Fox News, NY Post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.122.71.68 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Accordnig to TMZ.com "One of the women at the center of the David Letterman alleged extortion case is Stephanie Birkitt, his former assistant -- according to the search warrant obtained by FOX 5 New York. And, the warrant says, Birkitt was the suspect's girlfriend and we've learned she was living with him until recently. According to the warrant, the suspect, "48 Hours" producer Robert "Joe" Halderman, sent Letterman a package which allegedly included treatments for a screenplay with supporting materials.

The warrant goes on to say the "supporting materials" included copies of parts of a diary and correspondence belonging to Birkitt.

Halderman allegedly sent more documents, including letters, emails and photos.

On September 23, Halderman allegedly told undercover cops he wouldn't make the diary public if Letterman anted up $2 million.

Letterman acknowledged on his show last night he had sexual relations with female members of his staff.

Birkett has been a regular on Letterman's show" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.219.234 (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

She seems to be involved (at least widely mentioned) and so this should be mentioned (though maybe just a sentence or two). Gingermint (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

An actress

Is Stephanie (and the other 'backstage' crew) really an actress? Does anyone know this definitively? DJ Clayworth 15:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When the Late Show runs long credits at the end of the show, Stephanie is listed as an "Assistant to David Letterman." She really does work on the show as a staff member and is not an actress. The same goes for the vast majority of extras you see on the show. Alan Kalter really is the announcer, Biff Henderson really is a stage manager, Pat and Kenny work as staff members, etc. --Rookkey 17:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wkfy ref

{{edit-semiprotected}}

Please to wkfy the 3rd ref, its: {{cite news |title=Just hanging out with Letterman |first=Gil |last=Bliss |publisher=New Hampshire Sunday News (Union Leader) |location=Manchester New Hampshire |pages=E6 |date=2004-03-21}}

-- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

n.b. I didn't include a URL as the one currently given seems to be broken. -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  323° 58' 0" NET   21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For future editors making updates, a link to her having attended Wake Forest University, graduating in 1997. http://www.wfu.edu/wowf/2003/092203.html Good link to use for a citation, since it's from the college itself. 130.111.163.179 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Steph and davids affair

Now, Stephanie Birkitt’s name has been dragged through the mud as she emerged as one of the women at the center of the extortion plot against the CBS funnyman.

Birkitt, 34, dated accused extortionist Robert (Joe) Halderman before the Emmy Award-winning producer was charged with concocting a bizarre plot to expose Letterman’s dalliances with “Late Show” staffers. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/10/02/2009-10-02_from_david_lettermans_perky_sidekick_stephanie_birkitt_is_now_woman_in_the_middl.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.50.138.234 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious notability issues

Even given the recent media bubble about the extortion event (and the fact that this article has been around for a long time), I think there are serious notability issues here for a BLP. She was a page who assisted on-air sometimes. Not notable there. Then there's a WP:BLP1E (the extortion). Really, there should be in an article for the extortion, which would include the "Extorter," Robert J. "Joe" Halderman who just got an article because of this. Also, it would include the huge amount of info which is growing on Letterman's page.... Comments?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

She was not simply a page; she started as a page but then moved to a different job in the Late Show office. (Also, incidentally, has it been established that she doesn't still work there, at least until last week? There's no citation for her being a "former" staffer and I thought she was still there.) There was a period (a couple years, maybe? It's sort of hard to remember exactly) where she was a very regular personality on the show, appearing probably more than once a week. I believe she's been interviewed by independent publications more than once. She's not the most notable person ever, but I think she meets the general standard, and almost certainly she would meet the standard now. That being said, it's possible that it would still be better if the article didn't exist.

I'm not sure if there's enough verified information to justify a separate article for the extortion attempt at this point. It may only encourage people to keep adding every little thing that comes up, whether it's reliable or not. Propaniac (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stephanie Birkitt is notable. She appears regularly on a top-rated television show. I think that her bio would withstand attempts at deletion per non-notability. I would vote to keep.

You have also proposed eliminating the page on Joe Halderman.

• Joe Halderman is notable in his own right. Any film and television writer, director, and producer of his stature and career-length should have an article at Wikipedia, and the fact that he was nominated for an Emmy Award would virtually guarantee that his bio would withstand any attempt to delete it as non-notable. I would vote a stong keep.

cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To the logic "she appears regularly on a top-rated television show." Check out her IMDB page. Does that look significant? Do you have any idea how many other people on IMDB have more credits and would clearly never be considered notable? (Don't pull WP:OTHERCRAP here, it doesn't reasonably apply). An analogical example of someone who is notable for their appearances on such shows is John Melendez (his IMDB). There are staffers who appear on these shows repeatedly. Conan's The Interrupter (his IMDB). Check out those IMDB links and come back and say she's significant for "appearing regularly."

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PS As for Halderman, he's credited for ONE thing on IMDB. Hardly sounds significant in terms of prolific "writing, directing, and production." You consider this to be significant "stature" in terms of writing, directing, and producing!? It's interesting that given how much of a "stature" he supposedly has, all the third-party reliable sources on his page (nine of them) were published with in the last 72 hours! The other nominees in the same category (who should be "virtually guaranteed" an article because of their significance) were Peter Van Sant, Michael McHugh (producer) (NOT the Australian judge), Michael Vele, Michael Epstein (producer), Jonathan Yellen, Nancy Dubuc, Dierdre O'Hearn, Jessica Yu, Susan West, Sally Jo Fifer, Cara Mertes. One for eleven—with a totally uncited article to boot! So such a nomination for "Exceptional Merit in Nonfiction Filmmaking" is a "virtual guarantee" of significance? I don't even know what to say. Gotta take a step back and look at this objectively....

While it may be OK for the nominator to lament the American tendency to propel the unknown into renown through scandal; this subject is now permanently noteworthy. This is not even close to debatable. Recommend speedy keep. 96.238.20.26 (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please! An entire article about nothing. The existance of this article proves the point of wikipedia critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.49.21 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bla bla bla, its just the neurotic uptight brigade trying to censor the world again. Even without the "scandal" she had a small but noteworthy part in media history. All creatures great and small should be noted on wikipedia - and failing that, don't delete the pages who are here unless they are full of factual errors. Keep. --IceHunter (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Basing a decision off of: "I think", "I recall", "What I remember", "What my foggy, caffeine deficient mind can come up with" is what the worst critics of Wikipedia allude to. Did it ever occur to the people screaming for deletion to Google or go to a discussion page of the show *before* you put the tag on? Instead of slapping a tag on something without thinking and making everybody else do the work? It's just flat irresponsible and lazy to slap a tag on something and then make others do the work of proving what you could have done but were too lazy to do. Strong keep and close discussion here as this is also being debated on the deletion page.131.247.83.135 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.83.135 (talk)

Notability is a red herring. If someone writes an article and someone else wants to read it, that should be good enough. I'm sick of all these people with apparently no lives going around trying to 'police' things that are not their concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.132.165 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep the article

The issue is easy for me. This article should stay because of Birkitt's affair with Letterman. Had she never had sex with him, she would not be notable. Perhaps some of you are asking, does having sex make one notable? It does when one has it with a famous person under ethically questionable circumstances. Perhaps some of you remember a young woman named Monica Lewinsky? (Please note that Lewinsky has an article on Wikipedia.) Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Birkitt, not at this Talk page. There is no guarantee that any comments left here will be considered in the deletion discussion. Propaniac (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If the clear result of this 2009 deletion discussion was keep, why was a new notability tag added in July 2014? This article has been getting hundreds of views per day, and yesterday it got a spike of 12,000 (the result of renewed publicity that came with Letterman's retirement). I am removing the notability tag. HowardMorland (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

References / Sourcing

Anybody feel like cleaning up the references to appropriately assert subject's notability? Some reliable, third-party references about her significance & specific notability to her field of work. The last time I counted, 7/11 refs were from the last few days. 2/11 refs were interviews (primary sources). 1/11 ref was a CBS page (primary source). 1/11 was a blog. Let's somehow assert her notability, keeping in mind

WP:NOTABILITY:

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

• See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

PS The "Pop Candy" reference is an example of a good third-party source. Too bad it only has 3 sentences on her.

Her date of birth should not be a controversial issue

Over on the AfD page currently associated with this entry, an editor named JohnnyB256 has repeatedly attempted to remove Birkitt's birth date. The first removals were labelled "citation needed." When the citation was supplied, using her official bio at CBS, where she is employed, the date was again removed, with the statement that her bio had been removed from the CBS page. The CBS papge was reinstated as a source with the access date properly supplied (dead links can be used if their access date is correct, and this one was), plus a new birthdate citation from Time Magazine was added, giving the same date. JohnnyB256 removed this too, but did not comment here, instead placing some strange reasoning on the entry's AfD page. I am quoting those comments, with my replies, here:

Comment [..] If we're to have this article, I hope that BLP will be strictly enforced. We need to pay attention to things like exact birth dates, which BLP discourages for invasion of privacy and identity theft reasons.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on birth date issue raised by JohnnyB256: I have never before seen a comment, essay, or administrative directive to the effect that BLP policy "discourages" birth dates. I have sourced hers from Time Magazine and consider that sufficiently reliable and public to retain in the article. Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_personal_information "Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." I'm removing the DOB and please don't reinstate it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyB256: Please take the above discussion to the article's discussion page. It is highly off-topic here. I have opened a discussion section for the topic. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, i find this insistence by JohnnyB256 to rest on a faulty premise: The Wikipedia policy directive he quotes does not, as he states, "discourage" the listing of exact bithdates. Rather, it raises a flag of "caution" with "less notable people."

Okay, so how "less notable" is Stephanie Birkitt?

To put this in perspective, i am a writer, and there has been a Wikipedia page about me for several years. It, like Birkitt's entry, also went through an AfD, and the result was keep. At no time prior to the AfD, during it, or after it, did anyone attempt to remove my birth date. My birthdate has never been posted on the site of a mega-communications company like CBS. My birthdate has never been published by Time Magazine. However, my birthdate appears on my Wikipedia entry. No one has ever removed my birthdate from my Wikipedia entry or claimed that having it online at Wikipedia would open me up to identity theft.

I think that my career has been notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article -- but Stephanie Birkitt is far better known than i am. She has appeared on national television hundreds of times while i have only been on a few shows (Larry King, ET, the History Channel, and so forth) and i have never had a recurring role as a character.

JohnnyB256 is trying to treat this internationally-known woman, Stephanie Birkitt, as some sort of unknown person whose birhdate should be protected infomation. Of course, as the BLP policy directive makes clear, if she objects it is definitely our responsibility to remove her birthdate -- but she has not objected, she is notable, and the birthdate was published at CBS and in Time Magazine, so it seems disingenuous of JohnnyB256 to pretend that we must protect something extremely private here.

JohnnyB256 has not established that he has any sort of personal authority to insist that we must delete the previously published birthdate of the well-known Stephanie Birkitt, so i intend to restore it.

Cordially, cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Great points, cat. Careful Cowboy (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ms. yronwode. However, if Ms. Birkitt happens to read this and does in fact object to her birth date being listed in the article, I'd like to point out that the process to remove non-public personal information is detailed here. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that speculating as to JohnnyB256's identity might be construed as outing, so I suggest that it be redacted from the talk page. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's poor reasoning in this case to say "so-and-so's article has the birth date, so this article should, too." I hadn't heard of this guidance about the birth date until it came up in the AFD discussion, and I suspect it's relatively new and not very well-known (a fair assumption since the majority of Wikipedia editors are probably unfamiliar with even the most commonly-cited Wikipedia policies). It stands to reason that if a new instruction is adopted, and no user, team or bot makes it their personal crusade to conform all articles to that instruction, there are going to be a lot of articles that don't follow that instruction, but should. The fact that, for example, Biff Henderson's article includes the birth date quite possibly just means that it should be edited to omit the date.

The guidance to omit the date makes sense to me and I think it probably should be omitted from this article. Birkitt is notable enough to be in Wikipedia, but she's on the lower rungs of the notability ladder, and I don't think the date is terribly relevant in any way. That being said, it's (presumably) true that the date was published elsewhere and I don't feel strongly enough about it to remove the date myself or mount a huge argument in the face of opposition. Propaniac (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Prop. I don't know about poor reasoning. The point about Biff Henderson was simply to encourage consistency, and following the rules. If the rules say delete DOBs for both, that's fine. However, the rules do not refer to the "lower rungs of the notability ladder." The rules refer to "doubt about the notability of the subject." As the article has just passed through an AfD, there is no doubt about notability here. If you want to change the rules to "lower rungs," that would be an interesting proposal, but you'd need to change the rules. Have a nice day. Careful Cowboy (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that the guideline is saying to omit the birthdate in articles about non-notable people and use the birthdate in articles about notable people. That would make no sense whatsoever because articles about non-notable people should not exist in the first place. There are degrees of notability, as the guideline clearly and explicitly indicates by referring to "less notable people" -- that is what the guideline currently states, not a change I'm suggesting. Passing the standard for an article does not mean that she is not "less notable." Propaniac (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Prop, the rule states "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." That does not apply here. The rules also say "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release." Her birthday is easily available in published sources. It's on IMDB. It's was in Time Magazine and the CBS website, as noted above. If you google stephanie birkitt birthday, you'll find it in 2 seconds. Careful Cowboy (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You are deliberately omitting the portion of the guideline that I am discussing. The first sentence is: "Caution should be exercised with less notable people." The sentence you quote, where it refers to "doubt about the notability of the subject," is clearly intending to say "doubt about whether the person is a 'less notable' person." That does apply here. If it meant to say "doubt about whether the person is notable at all," it would not advise users to omit the birthdate, it would advise users to consider deleting the article entirely, because articles about people who are not notable do not belong on Wikipedia.

As I said in my original statement, I will defer to others on this issue, particularly because the date has been published elsewhere. But I will not let you continue to mangle the guideline by omitting the relevant portions and pretending it says something completely different. Propaniac (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Prop, you should try to avoid making personal statements here. You've already mentioned poor reasoning and deliberate mangling. You don't know me and you're not in a position to make those judgments. The link to the whole set of guidelines was given above. There would be no point for me to re-copy the whole set of guidelines every time I make a comment. You did not re-copy the whole set of guidelines every time you made a comment either. Have a nice day. Careful Cowboy (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's been a phenomenal amount of personalizing previously. Editors need to restrict themselves to policy and stop questioning motives and personalizing arguments. I've never heard of a situation where editors object to remove precise dates of birth from people who aren't major celebrities. It's a routine thing and I'm struck by the resistance to it here and the passion to include.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have to restate the entire guideline, but you do have to acknowledge the parts that other people restate, when they indicate you aren't reading the relevant parts correctly. When you ignore corrections and continue to repeat a faulty argument, it's natural for others to assume you're doing it deliberately. (Also, there's nothing personal or out of line in saying "I think the argument being presented is poorly-reasoned." It's simply another way of saying that I don't agree with the reasoning. If I agreed with it, I would presumably think it was well-reasoned, and vice versa.) Propaniac (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the zeal to include this lady's date of birth in contravention of clear policy. She is a minor employee caught up in a show business controversy. "Well known" in the guideline refers to heads of state, CEOs of major corporations and movie stars. Being thrust into the limelight does not put her into that category.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, no one else here seems to think that this is "in contravention of clear policy." Moreover, given that her official CBS biography lists her birth date there isn't a good argument for removing it here. Presumably, if she wanted it kept private she could easily get CBS to remove it. Thus, if BLP works off of a notion of trying not to do harm, it is very hard to see how any harm is being done by the inclusion. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing her CBS biography among the links. At one point I think it was linked, but the link is dead. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The primary point stands. There was a biography of which she had control. That biography had the birthday. If BLP is at all motivated by Do-No-Harm then there's no good BLP reason not to include it here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then what's the point of BLP making a distinction between well known people and those not as well known? I don't see her as in the former category, which is why I'm having trouble digesting why the DOB is needed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that if someone is well known then their birthday will be easily accessible so not having it in doesn't create any privacy issue. The situation where it might make sense to remove (as the policy say to use "caution") is where someone is not well known and the source for the birthday is somewhere they would have little or no control of, or a primary source. Nothing like that is happening here. It is clear that Birkitt has no issue with her birthday in public bios. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But that's just my point. She is not well known. And what gives you the idea that low-level employees such as her have the power to remove that kind of biographical information? Its appearance in a now-withdrawn staff bio proves nothing of the kind, and might be evidence that she did object to the bio or even to the birth date. With all due respect, I think interpreting the policy this way would make it applicable in very few instances, so as to make that entire subsection meaningless. Certainly nothing in the policy refers to primary sources. Now, it is sourced in Time, and that may be a loop from Wikipedia. If there's evidence of more abundant sourcing I'd be more comfortable with it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

At most organizations I've had anything to do with, employees have a fair bit pf leeway over what goes in their bios. Indeed, many organizations have staff write their own bios. If she didn't want her birthday there she could almost certainly have had it removed. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's in Time. It's on IMDB. That's two major public sources. How many more do you want, John? This reminds me of when you said that 265 television appearances was not enough, but you wouldn't say how many are enough. Careful Cowboy (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just another note about the dead link to the CBS bio. That link should not have been removed. It had an access date and an access date is sufficient for our purposes. I am half inclined to go back and restore it as it was, with the access date -- but sime Time and the IMDb both give the date, we really have no reason to retrieve the CBS bio, and no reason to eliminate the birth date it unless the BLP subject requests it. cat yronwode, not logged in, sorry, just passing by. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)