Talk:Barbara Comstock

message: I have added links to the US DOJ webpage with Comstock's statement, a CNN interview of Comstock, and her personal webpage on her law firm's website.  I feel it would be inappropriate to transfer information from her self-promoting web page to a Wikipedia article.  Mauralarkins 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maura Larkins 

message: It's fine with me if you delete this page. I didn't start the page, and I chose it randomly to see if it would get deleted even if I added links and quotes showing that this person was the chief spokesperson for the DOJ and John Ashcroft. I'm personally glad that I learned about Barbara's existence, because I like to know about people in politics and people in power. But my experiment was simply an effort to find out if Wikipedia would decide to limit others' knowledge of her. I'm a liberal myself, so obviously Barbara Comstock is no hero of mine. Still, I think it's a clearly unbiased article, and I'll be interested in the outcome no matter which way it goes.Mauralarkins 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Bkonrad 

message: This edit restored content from InTheCapital.  The content had been removed due to concerns over the reliability of the source.  There is no evidence of editorial control at the source, which is one of the key requirements for WP:reliable sources.  The edit comment for restoring the content is that the site has sister sites which are reliable.  I don't believe this has any bearing on the reliability of this site.  If you still believe that this site is reliable, please seek consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard.  This content should not be restored until the burden of evidence is met per WP:BLP.  Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a better source that corroborates the content. There's also this source  which I'm pretty sure is reliable.- MrX 21:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

text: "There is no evidence of editorial control at the source", says who? Do you have anything to substantiate that claim? -  Cwobeel (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Barbara Comstock. 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/20090330224905/http://airamerica.com:80/thomhartmannpage/blog/2009/jan/12/highlights-show-jan-12-16-2008 to http://airamerica.com/thomhartmannpage/blog/2009/jan/12/highlights-show-jan-12-16-2008
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 15:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barbara Comstock. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225988/whats-fair-fair/barbara-comstock
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is this particularly relevant? I don't think so. Conservative Review is one of many interest groups on both the left and right that issue scores to members of Congress. I don't think it is routine to include such scores unless they are included in secondary sources, so as to establish their particular notability/relevancy. The only source here is a primary one. Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While no discussion has yet taken place here, this information has been re-inserted. My concern is that members of Congress are routinely given "grades" by hundreds of interest groups. We can't include them all here, so the standard for inclusion, per WP:SECONDARY, should be that a particular grade was found notable enough to cover by an outside source. That doesn't seem to be the case here, at least as far as I can tell. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The material has been re-added again, but the editor who is adding the information has not yet taken part in the discussion here. Please, OakTreeByWindow, make your case here and hopefully some other editors will weigh in so we can reach a consensus on whether to include this information or not. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Conservative Review grade 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barbara Comstock. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20141107151421/http://cms.sbe.virginia.gov:80/public/?p=election_summary&id=1&loc=true to http://cms.sbe.virginia.gov/public/?p=election_summary&id=1&loc=true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have again posted Barbara Comstock's Conservative Review grade because it is relevant information to her page.  It was removed within minutes by editor Snooganssnoogans without explanation.  I went back and reinstated the information and explained that it is relevant and sourced.  Snooganssnoogans again quickly removed it explaining "That's not why I removed it."
This is the forum for settling this dispute and working toward language that we can agree upon.  Snooganssnoogans?
(OakTreeByWindow (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Conservative Review is a fringe outlet (redacted). I do not think we should add grades of politicians by this outlet, unless these grades are deemed notable enough to warrant coverage and context by independent reliable sources (e.g. the Washington Post). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

text: You're mistaken about how Wikipedia works. Read WP:RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative Review Grade