Talk:Martha Raddatz

message: While listening to Martha Raddatz at a book-signing and chat last Sunbday, I heard her talk about her 15 yr old son, as one of her children, so it appears your bio data limitng her to a daughter is incorrect,    Ron Thompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.39.236  (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If you can list print journalists by employer, why not broadcast journalists? RahadyanS 13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: categories

message: So, where was she born? Idaho Falls, or Salt Lake City? For all I know she was born in Hawaii before it was a state.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight Risk (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth Place

message: :I had inadvertently removed this section earlier, as part of the clean up described above. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not have a reliable source discussing her upbringing. If you have one, feel free to add it or discuss it here. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life - religion? 

message: "Niremetal" removed the "Controversy" section that had recently been added to this article, trying to justify this deletion with the statement: 
"POV much? Unsourced opinions are not appropriate for Wikipedia". 
While the statement is true, it does not apply and is not related to the deleted section. The "Controversy" section was fully sourced and centered around utterances of Raddatz herself. Ironically, it was Raddatz herself who, in the statements at issue, gave "unsourced opinions", offering her own POV.---Dagme (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More serious vandalism 

message: To establish "controversy" there must be substantial and credible but conflicting opinions. A single blogger expressing POV does not overcome this hurdle. Furthermore, the presentation of this information (voice, in-line hyperlinks) is outside of Wikipedia guidelines and should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.112.172 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with "Controversy" section 

message: Why is there no mention of the fact that she seems to be an impartial debate moderator?  She interrupted Romney to correct him siding with Obama.  She hectored Donald Trump. She cried on-air when Trump won.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:3300:EF00:CD68:4C82:80F8:8B57 (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are multiple reliable sources commenting on this and denoting it a "controversy", then by all means we can add it. Otherwise it is trivial editor POV. Hopefully you are not one of the IP editors who have been recently adding unsourced criticism like this to the article, which is inappropriate.— TAnthonyTalk 20:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Raddatz was obviously favoring Democrats in prior debates and was obviously favoring Democrats in 2016.  This should be in the article, but Wikipedia is pretty much Liberalpedia and anybody who writes such material into the article would be called a vandal and the material would be removed.  But the bias of Raddatz is a very important issue which should be put in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can collect actual journalistic sources making this point, perhaps it is notable enough to put in the article, but your opinion or the comments of TV pundits and bloggers is not necessarily enough.— TAnthonyTalk 02:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate controversy