Talk:Liars, Leakers, and Liberals

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Promotion[edit]

The Promotion section's description of what happened with Goldberg is both too detailed and fails NPOV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail NPOV? It gives both sides, it's supported completely by reliable sources. Do you have any specifics to offer for what you see as POV? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's verifiable, but overblown in proportion to the topic (Also, rather unprofessional IMO). In 10 years will a viral news item still be worth including in an encyclopedia?? Mere verifiability does not mandate inclusion, and isolated events should not be given undue coverage per WP:PROPORTION and WP:WEIGHT. NPOV means some info of lesser importance should be pared down to create a well structured, fairly weighted article. It is a shame that so many Wikipedia articles are generated almost entirely from daily news and churnalism sources that give zero consideration to the lasting significance of their articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]