Jump to content

Talk:Jessica Taylor (author)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An edit war

[edit]

This section added by Me for at least a couple of times and every time after a few minutes remived by user: generalrelative . It has sources within it, there's no doubt on the fact, while that user didn't let it be here. I really don't what should I do put it here.

reference to original tweets:

https://twitter.com/DrJessTaylor/status/1462061343767465986?t=6hy01RqwsO--Q99P4zftXg&s=19 Freethinker6799 (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and controversies

[edit]

After Johnny Depp defamation trial against ex-wife Amber Heard which the verdict was in favor of Depp, Taylor was on of those who claimed it is a stepback for women or makes them hesitant to speak out of abuse; while critics argues it could not be a stepback, because existing false allegationstions is obvious and everyone knows that. Other experts denied her claims, as well.[1][2] during public praising of “King Richard,” that the movie centered around the rise to success for Venus and Serena Williams with the help of their father,Taylor accused the film of sexism, it got a lot of reactions, mostly negative ones. she wrote on her Twitter: “Did they seriously make a film called ‘King Richard’ about the success of Serena and Venus Williams – but it’s about their dad, Richard,” [3][4] Freethinker6799 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these look like reliable sources to me, and Daily Mail is depreciated (see WP:DAILYMAIL). Beyond that, Wikipedia is not a platform for cataloguing WP:SENSATION churnalism, particularly not on WP:BLPs, where there is a higher standard for inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok. no problem you're right. I saw the page on daily mail. also there were a larg content cited to Guardian, independent, etc. or personal blog. I removed them. thanks for letting me know. appreciate it. while I think you accept my editions that did based on your guidance. Freethinker6799 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Freethinker6799 On WP, all newspapers are not equal. See WP:RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you're willing to engage. FYI, the Guardian and the Independent are considered reliable sources. That doesn't mean that anything they publish is necessarily WP:DUE for inclusion, but we shouldn't be cutting things simply because they're sourced to these newspapers. For more perspective on this, I'd suggest reading WP:RS. 12:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.spamchronicles.com/legal-experts-doubt-the-fears-expressed-after-the-depp-heard-verdict/
  2. ^ Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10879265/Its-end-MeToo-Hundreds-domestic-violence-victims-retracting-speaking-abuse-wake-pro-Johnny-Depp-verdict-psychologist-claims.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/sexist-claims-king-richard-film-venus-serena-williams
  4. ^ https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/11/22/white-woman-dragged-on-twitter-for-questioning-why-king-richard-is-about-richard-williams-and-not-venus-and-serena/

P.s

[edit]

For a detailed account of generalrelative inappropriate behavior look at my talk page & theirs. Freethinker6799 (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for discussing content, not conduct. If you need to file a complaint, ANI is thata way >>>. Generalrelative (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need. I got in agreement with you, all unreliable sources would be deleted. That way is fine by me as well as you were insistive on it too, should be fine with you either. Regards
Freethinker6799 (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no npv

[edit]

written as a hagiography 82.28.126.192 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jessica_Taylor_(author)&oldid=1257540619"