From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basing a section just on web page comments

I don't think that the comments on the web page for Walters' Washington Post article are a suitable basis for a section of her Wikipedia page. Such comments are a byword for partisanship, are effectively anonymous, and there's no way of knowing if they're remotely representative of any reaction to any article.

I propose deleting all the comments. If well-known people respond to the article, that should be used. Peace Makes Plenty ( talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I've removed the large paragraph under the "Activities" header as it does not comply with Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). The Washington Post article is sourced and mentioned in the lead; having an entire paragraph made up of quotes from a single article that nearly doubles the prose in the article does not meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC) reply
The National Sentinel is not a reliable and unbiased source, and your edits show a distinct lack of regard for Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and WP:BLP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basing a section just on web page comments

I don't think that the comments on the web page for Walters' Washington Post article are a suitable basis for a section of her Wikipedia page. Such comments are a byword for partisanship, are effectively anonymous, and there's no way of knowing if they're remotely representative of any reaction to any article.

I propose deleting all the comments. If well-known people respond to the article, that should be used. Peace Makes Plenty ( talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I've removed the large paragraph under the "Activities" header as it does not comply with Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). The Washington Post article is sourced and mentioned in the lead; having an entire paragraph made up of quotes from a single article that nearly doubles the prose in the article does not meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC) reply
The National Sentinel is not a reliable and unbiased source, and your edits show a distinct lack of regard for Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and WP:BLP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook