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 sourcedmust 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
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 Ponyobons mots 15:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
As the section has been restored and expanded since I removed it, and as no other editors have discussed the content here, I've requested input at the appropriate noticeboard.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I would say that if the biographical parts of this article grow in size, and the controversy paragraph no longer sticks out like a sore thumb, then the version by User:Muzilon could be acceptable. Connor Behan (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Why webpage comments don't count as RS: any place where anybody can write anything they want (such as webpage comments, BBB reviews, etc.) are by definition not Reliable Sources. We don't know who said it or why. The Atlantic piece, already linked from the article, is a reliable source. The vitriolic American Enterprise oped is probably not. Those two are the only comments on the article Google News turns up, so this controversy is not very notable IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:40, 14 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 Ponyobons mots 16:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}