Talk:Charlie Pierce

Tiger Woods

This guy is significant because he's the one who interviewed Tiger Woods many years ago and printed some jokes that Tiger told during the interview. Apparently these jokes were of questionable taste, and Tiger's reputation suffered. Ever since then, Tiger has never had another in-depth interview. This is of course more relevant now due to Tiger's recent accident and his continued closed stance with the media. Could someone add the Tiger interview article to this piece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.103.15 (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Diapers

Uh, it's a joke? I can't believe someone added that to this article. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlie Pierce. 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/20080705083028/http://www.worcestermagazine.com/content/view/2472/ to http://www.worcestermagazine.com/content/view/2472/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent controversy section

I'm undoing this edit purely because of sourcing, not objection to the content. It's sourced to a tweet, and the other citation is just an archive of the original article. If other sources cover it, maybe there's a place for it, but this fails BLP, DUE, etc. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So, the "Controversy" section is back and now has a few sources. I'm not removing it immediately, but I'm suspecting that within a few days it will be appropriate to remove it. Nothing so far establishes that any actual controversy exists here, just an embarrassing error with a few sites noting its swift retraction. (I think I noticed the headline in some feed of mine, thought "hmm, I don't remember that", and the article was gone before I ever read it.) Assuming everyone has moved on in 48 hours, it would likely be WP:UNDUE to include. CAVincent (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@CAVincent, agree. The two new sources both come from sites with flags on WP:RSP as well. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)