This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
"Parker is a self-described "rational conservative", which, is a clever rhetorical mechanism used by leftists to imply that conservatism is irrational" Aside from the misplaced comma, "a clever rhetorical mechanism used by leftists to imply that conservatism is irrational" is outrageous. Where is NPOV? Talk about "edit wars" and "accurate" statements is purely specious in this case. Editorializing is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article. I am deleting the offending portion. Altgeld ( talk) 00:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reverting agenda pushing editor. -- Tom (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The article presents Parker as a multiply awarded, serious columnist. By contrast, this piece by Geoffrey K. Pullum is one of a series that suggest that she's a prattling ignoramus.
(Any "conservative" about to ascribe this to a "liberal bias" may wish to consider the authors' debunking of the notion that the number of gleefully cited " Bushisms" said anything interesting about Bush.)
Of course this WP article about Parker shouldn't say that she's a prattling ignoramus, but I think that this view shouldn't be entirely absent from the article. Suggestions? -- Hoary ( talk) 03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit [1] In one of her columns, Parker used the vulgar term Teabagger to refer to Tea Party protesters. because the term 'vulgar' is editorializing, and the sentence is not really notable enough anyway-- we'd need a secondary source which characterizes it as vulgar or otherwise derogatory (since there is sufficient debate at Tea Party movement and the disambig page for 'teabagger'). I also tagged another edit [2] On the MSNBC show Morning Joe she said that "it's only because I'm a conservative basher that I'm now recognized." citation needed for lack of proper citation -- though the latter one could probably be removed altogether. The editor has a history of pushing a conservative agenda on other articles, I think it's fair to mention his conflict of interest here. - PrBeacon (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC) revised
This is kind of ridiculous. Why is it remotely noteworthy that Parker called them "teabaggers"? That's what they called themselves initially. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
There is one hell of a run-on sentence in controversies section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.238.117 ( talk) 17:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I've removed these quotes per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. She's been a columnist for 24 years yet this article is highlighting only very recent views and comments. Also, she's been a conservative columnist that entire time yet this article only highlights times she went against the conservative orthodoxy (no mention of her conservative views on health care, feminism, etc.) and serves to push the POV that she's some kind of left-winger. This material may have a place when properly framed, but when it's just strung randomly together in a paragraph, it's inappropriate. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kathleen Parker/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I would change "talking head shows" to "talk shows." |
Last edited at 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
seems a little much, especially in the lede.
so I removed it. If you want it back, please present your reasons. Carptrash ( talk) 07:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Content was added by Rpafitzpatrick based on the asserted reliability of Breitbart. Numerous discussions about Breitbart at WP:RSN have concluded that its stories are not reliable (e.g. here, here). Therefore, this material should be excluded unless a real reliable source can be found to support it. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
"Parker is a self-described "rational conservative", which, is a clever rhetorical mechanism used by leftists to imply that conservatism is irrational" Aside from the misplaced comma, "a clever rhetorical mechanism used by leftists to imply that conservatism is irrational" is outrageous. Where is NPOV? Talk about "edit wars" and "accurate" statements is purely specious in this case. Editorializing is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article. I am deleting the offending portion. Altgeld ( talk) 00:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reverting agenda pushing editor. -- Tom (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The article presents Parker as a multiply awarded, serious columnist. By contrast, this piece by Geoffrey K. Pullum is one of a series that suggest that she's a prattling ignoramus.
(Any "conservative" about to ascribe this to a "liberal bias" may wish to consider the authors' debunking of the notion that the number of gleefully cited " Bushisms" said anything interesting about Bush.)
Of course this WP article about Parker shouldn't say that she's a prattling ignoramus, but I think that this view shouldn't be entirely absent from the article. Suggestions? -- Hoary ( talk) 03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit [1] In one of her columns, Parker used the vulgar term Teabagger to refer to Tea Party protesters. because the term 'vulgar' is editorializing, and the sentence is not really notable enough anyway-- we'd need a secondary source which characterizes it as vulgar or otherwise derogatory (since there is sufficient debate at Tea Party movement and the disambig page for 'teabagger'). I also tagged another edit [2] On the MSNBC show Morning Joe she said that "it's only because I'm a conservative basher that I'm now recognized." citation needed for lack of proper citation -- though the latter one could probably be removed altogether. The editor has a history of pushing a conservative agenda on other articles, I think it's fair to mention his conflict of interest here. - PrBeacon (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC) revised
This is kind of ridiculous. Why is it remotely noteworthy that Parker called them "teabaggers"? That's what they called themselves initially. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
There is one hell of a run-on sentence in controversies section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.238.117 ( talk) 17:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I've removed these quotes per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. She's been a columnist for 24 years yet this article is highlighting only very recent views and comments. Also, she's been a conservative columnist that entire time yet this article only highlights times she went against the conservative orthodoxy (no mention of her conservative views on health care, feminism, etc.) and serves to push the POV that she's some kind of left-winger. This material may have a place when properly framed, but when it's just strung randomly together in a paragraph, it's inappropriate. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kathleen Parker/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I would change "talking head shows" to "talk shows." |
Last edited at 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
seems a little much, especially in the lede.
so I removed it. If you want it back, please present your reasons. Carptrash ( talk) 07:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Content was added by Rpafitzpatrick based on the asserted reliability of Breitbart. Numerous discussions about Breitbart at WP:RSN have concluded that its stories are not reliable (e.g. here, here). Therefore, this material should be excluded unless a real reliable source can be found to support it. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)