Talk:Kathleen Parker

Agenda pushing in the lede

"Parker is a self-described "rational conservative", which, is a clever rhetorical mechanism used by leftists to imply that conservatism is irrational" Aside from the misplaced comma, "a clever rhetorical mechanism used by leftists to imply that conservatism is irrational" is outrageous. Where is NPOV? Talk about "edit wars" and "accurate" statements is purely specious in this case. Editorializing is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article. I am deleting the offending portion. Altgeld (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverting agenda pushing editor. --Tom (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe work into the article her political "leanings" if appropriate, but not even sure of that. We try not to "label" folks, conservative, liberal, progressive, ect, especially in the lead sentence unless you are pushing some agenda. This is different if they are a conservative commentator, ect and even then, it better be beyong a reasonable doubt. I would revert if this was a liberal label and would be happy to do so. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, we try not to label folks? Since when? Here are some examples, of commentators like Parker and other notable people: Keith Olbermann ("many have described Olbermann as a liberal"), Jim Hightower ("liberal commentator"), Jerrold Nadler ("a liberal Democrat"), and Mike Farrell ("a prominent activist for politically progressive causes"). Each of those quotations is from the introductory section of the article, by the way.

As for whether it's beyond a reasonable doubt, no, that's not the standard for Wikipedia. In any event, this particular assertion is based on Parker's own self-description, as shown by the reference I provided.

Nevertheless, I have no desire to waste time in an edit war with people determined to keep this accurate statement out of the first sentence. I'll edit the article to make the treatment parallel to that accorded Michael Moore ("a self-described liberal"). JamesMLane t c 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

KO doesn't have it in the 1st sentence, nor does Farrell, even though KO is the left equivalent of Hannity and company, imho. I would rather something similar to E. J. Dionne and just because other stuff exists, is no reason for it here. Can we move it out of the lead sentence? TIA--Tom (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks much better, imho. I really try to focus on the 1st sentence of bios, per MOSBIO. Its best, imho, to leave "labels" out of the first sentence unless they are Hannity, Limbaugh, or Moore, ect. Again, I would apply this to both "sides". Anyways, thank you, --Tom (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote, "We try not to 'label' folks...." Because you cited no policy or guideline, I interpreted your comment as referring to Wikipedia practice, so I had nothing to refer to except what other stuff exists. The examples of Parker, Dionne, and the liberals I cited show that the practice, with regard to a polemicist, is to label the bio subject. Where someone is prominently identified with a particular point of view, that should be noted. I would note it more prominently for both Parker and Olbermann (in the first sentence as is done for Hightower). I wouldn't do so for Farrell, though, because his primary notability is as an actor, not an activist. JamesMLane t c 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Parker's insights (or not)

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)

checking tendentious edits

I've reverted this edit [1] 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 [2] 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) revised

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)

I added "vulgar" back, sourcing it to a news story. Drrll (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This is kind of ridiculous. Why is it remotely noteworthy that Parker called them "teabaggers"? That's what they called themselves initially. Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There is one hell of a run-on sentence in controversies section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.238.117 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see it. If you're talking about that long sentence that starts "Problematically...", it's not technically a run-on sentence (that's a grammatical, not a rhetorical qualification). But I'm about to remove that anyway as verbose and not to the point in this article. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Quote farm

I've removed these quotes per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. She's been a columnist for 24 years yet this article is highlighting only very recent views and comments. Also, she's been a conservative columnist that entire time yet this article only highlights times she went against the conservative orthodoxy (no mention of her conservative views on health care, feminism, etc.) and serves to push the POV that she's some kind of left-winger. This material may have a place when properly framed, but when it's just strung randomly together in a paragraph, it's inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Parker may have been a columnist for 24 years, but she's had a low profile nationally almost the whole time--up until 3 years ago when she came out with her book and when she sharply criticized Palin. So naturally, what she has written/said recently is going to get more attention in sources. What's more, It is precisely because of the sharp criticisms of conservatives illustrated by those quotes that she got her 2010 Pulitzer (not because she strayed from conservative orthodoxy):

But she has no particular coziness with Republican power structures (and in fact, as she told King, is not a registered Republican), and wrote her most famous column calling Sarah Palin “clearly out of her league” and calling for her to step down from the GOP vice presidential ticket in 2008.

That the Pulitzer Prize followed so soon afterwards was hardly a coincidence, Parker herself suggested in a call-in on “Morning Joe” the morning after her win last April. “It’s only because I’m a conservative basher that I’m now recognized after 23 years of toiling in the fields, right?” (Politico)

The material in question is written neutrally and is sourced to third-party sources. I removed the Glenn Beck quote last time and I'll now remove the Obama quote since there's only the CNN source where she directly said that on Larry King Live. The material is by itself due to the article not being sectionalized and due to not wanting to add an unsourced OR summary. In addition, it immediately precedes the Pulitzer material that talks about that very "conservative-bashing." Please modify the text if you see a way to make it flow better. Note that the sentence you removed about the Pulitzer was sourced not only to the MSNBC transcript, but to Politico. Drrll (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This odd speculation that she was suddenly awarded a Pulitzer and lots of attention because she attacked the right is nuts. She's been an establishment conservative columnist for over two decades. Lots of conservatives get a Pulitzer: Will, Safire, Gigot, etc. She got a lot of attention for her book, an anti-feminist tract, and the citation for her Mencken award specifically mentions her stances on "family values". This article should reflect that and not be a jumble bin of random quotes highlighting a few points of dissent from the orthodoxy. Let me be clear, my issue isn't sources anymore, it's presentation and POV. I have no objection to some of these quotes being highlighted in an appropriate manner in the context of her views overall. Gamaliel (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"This odd speculation that she was suddenly awarded a Pulitzer and lots of attention because she attacked the right is nuts." Not quite. Consider the following evidence that she was awarded the Pulitzer for that very reason:

• Politico news story: "But she has no particular coziness with Republican power structures (and in fact, as she told King, is not a registered Republican), and wrote her most famous column calling Sarah Palin "clearly out of her league" and calling for her to step down from the GOP vice presidential ticket in 2008.That the Pulitzer Prize followed so soon afterwards was hardly a coincidence"
• NYT news story, referencing the official Pulitzer citation for her award: "Also present was The Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, prom-girl pretty and winner of a Pulitzer this spring for "gracefully sharing the experiences and values that lead her to unpredictable conclusions," including a rebuke of Sarah Palin."
• Parker herself: "It's only because I'm a conservative basher that I'm now recognized after 23 years of toiling in the fields, right?"

And as to the level of attention she garnered, she had exactly 2 NYT articles about her pre-Palin remarks (an opinion column and the book review) in the two decades before the remarks. After it, not counting ones about the CNN show, she had 10 NYT articles about her in less in 3 years since the remarks (6 of which referenced the Palin attack and 1 of which referenced the attack on evangelical Christians).

I have added secondarily-sourced quotes that demonstrated noteworthiness. If these quotes need to be "highlighted in an appropriate manner in the context of ver views overall, you're free to add additional material about her views that are secondarily sourced. Drrll (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of this is just speculation, and none of it addresses her long career as a conservative. I'm disappointed that you respond to obvious and easily fixable pov and undue issues with a revert war. You could at least not restore typos to the article when you revert. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be speculation, but it may not be if Parker herself says that it is the case and two high-quality news sources say that it is the case. She certainly received more coverage about her attacks on conservatives than any other thing about her, save her CNN show. How are undue issues easily fixable (I don't see how there could possibly be POV issues with the neutral wording and sourcing, nor BLP issues when she is directly quoted, and in the case of "tea-baggers" & "gorillas" sourced to her complete columns using that language)? Are you simply talking about adding some additional views of hers, sourced to secondary sources? Sorry about the typos--I didn't see them and still don't, but I do see you added some wikilinks in addition to removing the disputed material. Sorry about that too. BTW, I removed the Glenn Beck stuff, the Obama stuff, and I can remove the Clinton/Thomas sentence as that doesn't seem that noteworthy. I think the name-calling disparaging of Tea Party activists and of evangelical Christians (with an additional NYT source), and her comments about winning the Pulitzer should stay (with an additional NYT source also). Drrll (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kathleen Parker/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would change "talking head shows" to "talk shows."

Last edited at 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This sentence

seems a little much, especially in the lede.

"An entertaining speaker on politics and culture, she is represented by Leading Authorities in Washington, DC."

so I removed it. If you want it back, please present your reasons. Carptrash (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Reliability of Breitbart

Content was added by Rpafitzpatrick 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)