Talk:Kate Bolduan/Archive 1

Sourcing
Simon -- I'm happy to work with you on the "appropriate" wording for the references cited. Your characterization as "unreliable" I do not agree with. The blog No Oil For Pacifists has been in existence for five years and has over 3,000 postings. The blog is noted for its rigorous documentation of facts.

Newsbusters.org is a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

Whole sale deletion of these references is inappropriate. As I said, if you would like to re-word the subject sentence I am open to suggetions.

Wholesale deletion of the bullshit line is completely appropriate. I deleted it and will continue to do so. One stray reference on one web site DOES NOT justify a general statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.103.17 (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Profane Vandalizer -- The deletion of content fully documented and supported while referring to it in a profane manner is proof that you have no place here. Vandalism is undone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.93.112 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement is fully supported by the sources. She is coming under attack as a partisan, biased journalist. QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altoids Man (talk • contribs) 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again...
Regarding edit : 13:41, 19 July 2009 204.248.24.162 (talk) (1,277 bytes) (deleted opinion that was weakly sourced from biased non-news sources (opinion blogs)) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

This vandal says he "deleted opinion" that was "weakly sourced".

1. The statement he is trying to delete is fact, not opinion. Kate Boldaun, like a lot of reporters, is finding herself under attack for biased, partisan reporting. That is a fact. Not opinion. 2. Weakly sourced is also hardly supportable. The blog NoOilForPacifists.blogspot.com has been in existence for five years and has over 3,000 postings. The blog is noted for its rigorous documentation of facts. Newsbusters.org is a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

Those who wish to hide the fact that Kate is coming under attack as a biased reporter should attempt to find material supporting the opposite view. If there is any.

Citing facts is not POV -- the article is neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.80.10.182 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Blogs are hardly ever reliable sources. If you want to change WP policy, go to WT:RS. If you want to argue that these blogs are an exception, go to WP:RSN. cheers, Rd232 talk 10:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kate Bolduan. 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://archive.is/20130125073609/http://www.goshennews.com/local/local_story_282102459.html to http://www.goshennews.com/local/local_story_282102459.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Pomerania
Bolduan, as a name, seems to center on Pomerania, any references ? Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * nope, Katherine Jean Bolduan. If you can not hear her name sounding nasal in your head, I can not help you. There are many Bolduan's in Germany (where her name doesn't sound nasal, nothing sounds nasal in Germany, not even sneezing). Her fathers side maybe have ancestors In Germany, but since you do not know how many generations they were in the US and how their history was. Her mothers side was from Chênée, Belgium. My last name has nothing to do with my biological father for example. Maybe the source of the Bolduans lay in Australia and only the German Bolduans had a favor for getting a lot of children?!? Who cares? Tlwm (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Banners
I added some banners (Journalism and United States). I am not objective in judging her importance for any category. Tlwm (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Her mother was criminally charged in two catastrophic accidents, most recently, 2012.
Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2013/06/17/read-this-kate-bolduan-new-cnn-anchor/
 * Yep, but this is her biography and not the biography of her mother. Make a page for her mother, there you can put that.Tlwm (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly you made me think again. I don't know really too what to do. It was in newspapers, guardian and washington post I saw. It's for sure a big part of her life, but also this is not a written biography. I once wrote her asking for an official image, but she didn't answered. She often talks about the strong women in her family. I put it back. May she curse me with back pain. Tlwm (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * not guardian, daily mail Tlwm (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Daily Mail is generally blocked by wikipedia - ok. So I took the (GeoIP locked) Goshen News article as reference. A right wing paper and a local geoip locked paper, hmm. Tlwm (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * “I wouldn’t ask personal family questions, and I wouldn’t expect you to talk about it.” - Kate Bolduan in 2013 <- this is written in the Washington Post article. I take it out. Tlwm (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is also that there are other people involved. Tlwm (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not her fault. If someone has a problem flame my account. Tlwm (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Why I took out religion
I see religion as private (if you follow one). That is why I took it out first place. The policy for info boxes is to leave it out. The parameter was explicitly deleted from the template, like ethnicity.

''Please note that in 2016, the |religion= and |ethnicity= parameters were removed from Infobox person as a result of the RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes and the RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes as clarified by this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_31#Ethnicity?_Religion? discussion].'' Tlwm (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Bombing
There is an article that concerns the bombing; material on that article goes there. As a reporter, Bolduan reports on literally hundreds of events; this is simply another event that she reported on, and we do not keep a running blog of every story a reporter reports on. Please do not re-insert until the issue has been properly discussed PaulCHebert (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You can not simply delete everything what you not like. That was a terrorist attack on multiple institutions in America. Since she is part of CNN, she was part of it. Stop supressing what happened. I wrote about what happened. It is based upon facts and third party sources. There is not a single word of personal opinion it it. It was an exceptional event. Tlwm (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An exceptional event that has a dedicated article. Bolduan's involvement in that event was inconsequential, and, at best, is worth a single sentence in the relevant article. This article is not a chronicle of her daily work. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When I write something in an dedicated article you delete it because you say it is not worth mentioning (can I remind you what you all have deleted from the State of America and At this hour articles). You supress information. A bomb threat is not an every day event. And she was personally involved. Tlwm (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It was just two sentences.Tlwm (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's just two sentences, that's probably a good indication that it wasn't worth a dedicated section. Thanks for making part of my argument for me. Her involvement, I repeat, belongs in the article about the event, in a sentence or two about CNN's on-air handling of the event that discusses the involvement of on-air personalities. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A terrorist attack is worth mentioning in a biography. Tlwm (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if her involvement was subtantial. The CNN package was sent to John Brennan, not Bolduan. She's just one of several hundred, if not thousand, bystanders. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But this is her biography page. She actively reported on that incident. Tlwm (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again and again and again. This was an attack on free press and free speech. Yes anyone in that building was meant. Tlwm (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. she actively reports on incidents every working day of her life. many of those incidents are remarkable -- otherwise she wouldn't be reporting on them. Many of those incidents have articles on this website I have yet to see a reason why this one in particular is worth mentioning in the article.Also, note that the bomd was sent to CNN in error -- the intended recipent, Brennan, doesn't even work there. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But it happened. Leave it out. I know what important, good work she did on that day, like everyday. I am not here to prove anything.Tlwm (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)