Talk:Kate Howarth (writer)

Untitled
The writer seems to take hyperlinks of the authors claims as source. Would not this fall into the catagory of personal experiance rather then sourced information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.238.221 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be worth getting some proof as to Howarth's supposed "aboriginal" identity. This is a claim that she makes - but without proof we might wonder if she only makes the claim so that thia white Australian woman can enter her work into indigenous writing competitions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.118.45 (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are both problems in her Abborigginal claim as at times she has switched Tribal groups in her claim. The Manpower claim also is contradicted. The book "The History Of Manpower-a case study" By James D. Scheinfeld makes no mention of her claim of ownership of manpower what so ever. Through personal experiance I am aware her book Ten Hail Marys was born of a parlimentary inquireys testimony some years ago. As a long time participant in chat rooms with Kate...I can personaly attest she expressed the desire to "personalize" the testimony from the inquirery and the resulting memour has emerged. Kate has also been involved in questionable speech against certain peoples and nations in non scholorly ways. Kate has also had her Barns and Nobel reviews removed and ratings removed for using the Barns and Nobel review page for Ten Hail Marys innappriotatly, posting critics personal information. This can be varified by simply searching her book name on the Barns and Nobel web site, 14 reviews are noted but are hidden from view with 0 stars rating. If more info is needed...you may contact onekooleskimo@yahoo.com. Some of this info is cited, and some is personal experiance derived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.209.44 (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This artical is self promotion...written non objectivly after the fact in additions and edits by howarth herself...its more akin to a book seller review than an objective bio...this is a controviosal person...and should be more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.209.44 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems unflattering yet sourced additions to this artical ...on a controversial person..are being removed/censured. Is this not vandilasim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.209.44 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems that howarth....is trying to censur this page...edit it to HER standards. Turn it into an advertisement for her book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.209.44 (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again Howarth has undid, (vandilised ?), a users cited and sourced contribution. She has also tried again to insert her MANPOWER claim. The manpower claim is supperted by her voice as a source. I earlier comments here...the book "The History Of ManPower,a case study"...was cited as NOT mentioning her as any founder or otherwise of ManPower Aussi. Howarth has done this previously on the Barns and Noble book seller website for her book. Barns and Noble removed all reviews as a result...when Howarth tried to turn the review page into a internet forum / face book page. This is a controvisial person who has made many statements over many years. This bio certainly, by Wiki standards, allows those statements to be included. Wiki is not a face book page. Howarth seems to be attempting to edit out anything she doesnt find flattering, in an effort to controll whats presented here (within wiki standards). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.209.44 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

an author with a single book published. it is strange that anyone thought this was worth a wiki page in the first place. i would suggest removing the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.120.194 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article needs to be deleted. The subject of this biographical article is not well known and not deserving of a Wikipedia entry. The article does not meet the general notability guidelines and it appears it has been here for 3 years with no action taken as of yet. Can an administrator please delete it? Thanks Mathnarg (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)