Talk:Kathleen Parker

message: The article presents Parker as a multiply awarded, serious columnist. By contrast, this piece by Geoffrey K. Pullum is one of a series that suggest that she's a prattling ignoramus. 
(Any "conservative" about to ascribe this to a "liberal bias" may wish to consider the authors' debunking of the notion that the number of gleefully cited "Bushisms" said anything interesting about Bush.)
Of course this WP article about Parker shouldn't say that she's a prattling ignoramus, but I think that this view shouldn't be entirely absent from the article. Suggestions? -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Parker's insights (or not)

message: I've reverted this edit  In one of her columns, Parker used the vulgar term Teabagger to refer to Tea Party protesters. because the term 'vulgar' is editorializing, and the sentence is not really notable enough anyway-- we'd need a secondary source which characterizes it as vulgar or otherwise derogatory (since there is sufficient debate at Tea Party movement and the disambig page for 'teabagger'). I also tagged another edit   On the MSNBC show Morning Joe she said that "it's only because I'm a conservative basher that I'm now recognized." for lack of proper citation -- though the latter one could probably be removed altogether. The editor has a history of pushing a conservative agenda on other articles, I think it's fair to mention his conflict of interest here. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rich coming from someone who has a history of agenda-pushing and edit-warring in articles such as Fox News Channel and Fox News Channel controversies.  I have simply put in examples of Parker's own words.  I did remove "vulgar" since it was unsourced, although I don't think it would be hard to find a source supporting this.  Incidentally, it's obvious that you followed me here (you have no history of being at this article and edited here first after coming back to Wikipedia) because I dared to question an admin's initial and temporary decision to reward you by blocking an editor where you were just as guilty as edit-warring as he was. Drrll (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I added "vulgar" back, sourcing it to a news story. Drrll (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: POV issues are a different ball of wax in BLPs where, as you (should) know, sources are held to a higher standard. Besides, I don't have the history you're trying to paint -- I'm at those other articles to provide sorely-lacking balance, something you & other pro-FNC pushers can't quite grasp. And you say I 'followed' you? Don't flatter yourself, I've watched this article long before yesterday when you first edited it. So do your edits here improve the article? They look more like mud-slinging. Especially how  you synthesize two sources to support your 1st edit. The second edit is still not sourced properly and should be fixed or removed soon. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the fact that she called teabaggers teabaggers in one article even worth noting?  Not everything a columnist says in their columns is worth noting, minor dustups are what they regularly aim for.  Rush Limbaugh's article would be 3,000 pages long otherwise.  I have to laugh at the editing kerfuffle going on here, Parker was considered a true conservative until not that long ago.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

text: No it's not noteworthy. And the second quote still has an incomplete citation, only a generic mention of the show and link to the channel. Both statements should be stricken, imo. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  checking tendentious edits 

message: Substituted at 20:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: seems a little much, especially in the lede.
:"An entertaining speaker on politics and culture, she is represented by Leading Authorities in Washington, DC.http://www.leadingauthorities.com/speakers/kathleen-parker.html"
so I removed it.  If you want it back, please present your reasons. Carptrash (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence 

message: Content was added by  based on the asserted reliability of Breitbart. Numerous discussions about Breitbart at WP:RSN have concluded that its stories are not reliable (e.g. here, here). Therefore, this material should be excluded unless a real reliable source can be found to support it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of Breitbart