Content deleted Content added
→Carl Paladino: reply |
|||
Line 88:
::Put another way, comments on a news article are reliable if they are offered to prove that comments are being made on a news article. Now, comments on a new article would not be a valid way to prove that the NY Times itself made the comparison, but that is not what I wrote. [[Special:Contributions/216.40.148.144|216.40.148.144]] ([[User talk:216.40.148.144|talk]]) 07:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:::No offense to the people commenting on the story, but their opinions simply aren't notable unless someone chooses to write about them. I can go on any number of message boards or news sites and find comments that are being made. Using your logic, I can go on a right wing website, find comments stating Andrew Cuomo is gay or is trying to turn our kids gay (please don't actually make me go to a right wing website to prove this), and insert that into his biography as a fact. Is it true that people are saying that or other salacious things about him. Yep. Are comments by anonymous readers on a website or to a newspaper article notable enough to be in someone's biography. No way. If you'd like we can bring this up at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/noticeboard]] if you like. I can guarantee you everyone there will agree with me though. As it stands, most of the "controversy" sections in that article read more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. It really needs to be worked on. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">[[User talk:AniMate|AniMate]]</font> 07:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
| |||