Talk:Kirsten Powers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents 1 Positions on Key Issues 2 Confusing/Misleading 3 Misleads about Amanda Marcotte 4 Semi-protection 5 Neutrality disputed 6 Vandalism and POV 7 {{BLPC}} tag

[edit] Positions on Key Issues

Rather than a revert war, perhaps it would be best to discuss it here? Surely there are verifiable sources out there to tell us what her stance is on affirmative action and so on. Tarc 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I was not previously involved in this article and I happen to see only one person discussing to no one in particular. You can't have a real "dispute" until there is evidence to indicate what the positions are in the first place. You have also not made any objections about other good faith and relevant edits. Please take your own good advice you gave others and use discussion over instant reverting. Thanks. 129.71.73.248 14:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing this disputed and unsourced section entirely until somebody comes up with a source. 99of9 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirsten Powers was not against the war in Iraq. That should be taken out of this article. Otherwise someone should find her opposing the war BEFORE it started which she didn't. Furthermore she opposes a full pullout now.

Someone added that she "opposed the Iraq war" again. Again they cite a source from after the beginning of the war. I'm going to remove it. If someone wants they can write that she "has criticized the Iraq war" or something like that, or you can find her on the record opposing the Iraq war before the invasion, until then it's coming out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.0.229 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing/Misleading

Her positions are confusing. It appears the person who wrote it is saying she opposes environmental protections, etc and it appears from her ideological description that she supports but since I have no sourcing, I can't change it. Alamar2000 06:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that and other unsourced positions.99of9 06:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In one section this article says KP is a conservative and in the next section it says "Liberal blogger" KP. This is inconsistent and should be changed to be consistent at least.

[edit] Misleads about Amanda Marcotte

After mentioning that Amanda Marcotte has criticized Kirsten Powers in the past, it seems disingenuous to then refer to Powers's judgments on the recent "Edwards Bloggers" flap without revealing that the blogger who Powers was criticizing was, in fact, Amanda Marcotte. Quinthemighty 15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, realized that most of the statements in this section are falsehoods, after following the citations back to their sources.

--She has referred to comments made by a blogger hired by John Edwards that Catholocism is a misogynist "ancient mythology" [15] as religious bigotry. [16]

No, all she did was quote somebody else who wrote this approvingly-- hardly a fact worthy of an encyclopedia entry.

--She also has said that a vulgar sexual joke about the Virgin Mary made by one of the bloggers was offensive [17].

While true in spirit that she found some statements of Marcotte's offensive (in fact if you read the cited page, you will find no specifics whatsoever as to what *exactly* Powers found offensive), it is included in the midst of a several hundred words otherwise criticizing Ann Coulter.

--She has also criticized the religious right for their "rampant moralizing." [19]

No, she linked another blog's post that said this, again, hardly grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

On this basis, I am deleting all three sentences. If similar information makes its way back onto the page, I hope it will be better sourced.Quinthemighty 16:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I have semi-protected this in response to an OTRS complaint (ticket 2007030710001048 if you are an OTRS volunteer and want to check it out). The article has been inadequately sourced for far too long, please endeavour to get it up to scratch per WP:BLP. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 16:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed

I found this article while cleaning up after a vandal. Despite knowing very little about Ms Powers, I noticed some major problems. For instance:

1. The article said she is a "political conservative" but also said she's "usually very left-wing".
2. Neither of those claims had cites. Folks, Wikipedia should never report what we editors think someone's political stance is. We have to stick to what they say about themselves, and what Reliable Sources say about them.
3. It said she had praised conservative talk radio, but the cited article contains no "praise" for talk radio, only an argument against the "Fairness Doctrine".

I've done a quick-and-dirty cleanup, but the article needs more work from someone who more knowledgeable than me.

I also added a {{npov}} tag. My main concerns are with the "Criticism" section:

1. The linked response to Media Matters from Ms Powers' has disappeared.
2. MM does not deny that "Bob Casey was banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic Convention for being opposed to abortion rights", so the claim that they "disagreed with her account" is an overstatement.

We can do better than this. CWC 16:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and POV

Several conservative contributors have continually vandalized this article to insert their own opinions. The statement that Powers is "very left-wing" is a POV statement. The statement that the Fairness Doctrine "impedes free speech" is a POV statement. I will continue to delete these statements until these users are put on probation or the article is locked down, but this nonsense has to stop. Partisan hackery should not be allowed on wikipedia.

 Not only is calling her very left-wing a POV statement but its an absurd one.  

Frankly, Kirsten Powers is best known for being a very conservative/centrist pundit who is largely disliked by the left, but is represented as a liberal on conservative talk shows. That's pretty much the main thing to know about her

Krtisten Powers is a liberal. She is the liberal component to O'rielly factor Mondays with Kristen and Micchelle. Malkin being the conservative. Being rational like Colmes Juan Williams or Ellis Hannigan does not make you a moderate it makes you coherant.Kirin4 15:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{BLPC}} tag

Please see this entry at WP:BLPN. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on an e-mail complaint from the subject of this BLP, I've removed three sections of the article that were unbalanced or not properly sourced (for example, the "positions" section only stated positions that are commonly regarded as conservative, but none that are regarded as liberal). The "criticism" section was based entirely on self-published sources, and the "relations with bloggers" was completely unsourced (and the article subject disputed its content). Later on I'll try to recreate some of this content in a more neutral fashion. In the meantime, please respect our policy on biographies of living persons and do not include information that is not neutral or reliably sourced. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a (simple) attempt at a balanced "political positions" section. All of these cited positions were previously in the history, but some had been erased. I have no particular intent of making her look right or left. In fact, I am Australian, not particularly politically minded, and originally came across this page on a Random Page search. 99of9 05:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)