Talk:Whoopi Goldberg

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

Lack of Controversy Tab[edit]

Why is there no controversy tab for Whoopi Goldberg despite the numerous controversies she’s been involved with? As recent as December of 2022 she expressed anti-semitic views live on television. That’s pretty controversial in my opinion, but I guess Wikipedia is now Wokepedia. Why is it that Kanye West has a controversial views tab but Whoopi does not when it seems that they actually have very similar views when it comes to the Jewish community. 2600:100E:A010:E04E:BD49:8571:1612:904D (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally preferable to cover controversies and criticism throughout the body of an article, instead of in an isolated section. Structuring the controversies out into their own section not only creates a section that is generally tilted negatively, but also causes other sections to be tilted positively (since all the controversies go to the controversies section). See WP:CSECTION for more on this idea.
If there is specific material that you believe is missing from this article, you can make an edit request to add it. If your concern is that other subjects are being covered in a way that does not align with this, I recommend making improvements to those articles (as of this comment, Kanye West does not appear to have an independent "Controversy" section either, for what it's worth). Please note that Wikipedia's policy on coverage of living persons applies to talk pages as well as article space; any claims made here should be backed up with reliable sources (including claims about people who are not the subject of the article). Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 14:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023[edit]

Can the foxnews ref be removed? It's not deemed reliable, and there's already two other sources backing up the same point (in a non-propagandistic way). 92.10.153.30 (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. As it's not explicitly a politics or science article, there is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News as a source (WP:FOXNEWS), so that alone is not a reason to remove the source. However, this sentence likely does not need two mid-sentence and three end-of-sentence citations, the other sources cover the claim, and the Fox News link happens to be dead and malformed, so I see no serious issue with removing it. If other editors disagree with this, feel free to revert me. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 14:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024[edit]

19 EGOT winners update 2001:1970:5950:6200:A925:875A:EFD0:A835 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]