Talk:Diane Black

message: I removed some questionable material about some aborted meeting, ect. Maybe if a RS says she is pro or con gay marriage, that would be more appropriate. --Tom (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political beliefs 

message: I'd like to move Black's net worth from the career section into the Personal section. Any objections? -- — Keithbob • Talk •  21:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: that was the right move. i have no idea why the IP reverted you. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Net Worth

message: I've made a series of edits to give the article a more traditional format, remove POV section headings for 2-3 sentences, remove adjectives and undue weight given to two political blogs that criticized Black for the Obama incident. An IP has reverted one of my edits and left a note accusing me of owning the article.  Therefore I'm calling on any prior editors such as USER:David Shankbone, User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Scribner and User:Jytdog etc. to please examine the article in its current state and make neutral changes as needed. Thanking you in advance. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk •  22:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reformatting and edits

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Diane Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100620100926/http://elections.nytimes.com:80/2010/house/tennessee/6 to http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house/TENNESSEE/6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131031121348/http://sarahpac.com/candidates?page=7 to http://www.sarahpac.com/candidates?page=7
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is she still the acting Chairman? Or has she been given the job officially now that Price has left Congress? 107.145.77.108 (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting Chairman 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diane Black. 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://web.archive.org/web/20150226010715/http://health.state.tn.us/licensure/Practitioner.aspx?ProfessionCode=5005&LicenseNumber=13146&FileNumber=13146 to http://health.state.tn.us/licensure/Practitioner.aspx?ProfessionCode=5005&LicenseNumber=13146&FileNumber=13146
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) 03:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: My attempt to add the documentary Change the Subject as a source regarding Black opposing the Library of Congress (LOC) decision to stop using the term "illegal aliens" has been reverted, on the grounds it was made by the college students involved in the efforts to change the term: reversion here ]. Yes, the film was made by college students, but it was published by the Dartmouth Digital Library Program. Do you not think that Dartmouth, an Ivy League college, would have an oversight or fact-checking process before they'd publish something? More importantly, what the video was backing up was easily verifiable and not taken out of context. Around the 32 minute mark of the film, footage of Black appearing on Blaze Media is shown, where she clearly cites the LOC using the term since the 'early 1900s' as justification for not changing it. The documentary subsequently points out her statement is factually inaccurate, as a version of the term was first introduced in 1980 and modified to its current format in 1993. While the film itself obviously has an agenda, I don't see how that specific coverage could be considered unreliable or biased. It's very straightforward. And wouldn't the documentary itself be considered secondary coverage of Black's inaccurate comments? (I understand it's not secondary coverage of the efforts to change the term, but that's not what it was sourced for.) For more background information there's an entire Wikipedia article on the subject of changing the term at the LOC - Illegal aliens (Library of Congress Subject Heading). Damien Linnane (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Best way to demonstrate WP:DUE is to cite reliable secondary sources (e.g. news sources) that covered her views on this subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking for sources, and I've inadvertently found there's actually a considerable amount of mainstream news coverage of the documentary. I think there's more than enough to create an article about the documentary itself. If the documentary was so notable it had its own article, would that change your feelings about it being cited? While there's no shortage of news coverage of Black attacking the name change, I think it's unlikely a news source picked up on the fact she was factually inaccurate about the usage of the term. The documentary obviously spent a lot more time researching the history of the term than  a journalist writing a short news piece would have. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the Subject documentary