Talk:Suzanna Danuta Walters

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)


 * 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)
 * 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 Ponyo bons mots 17:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * How about adding a section for it now? https://thenationalsentinel.com/2018/08/27/mens-group-files-title-ix-complaint-against-man-hating-northeastern-prof/ https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11249 67.170.135.201 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)