This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women 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.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
Barbara Walters was born in 1929[sources 1] (although Walters herself has claimed 1931 in an on-camera interview)[11]
I clicked on most of sources next to 1929 and I found that they all says she was born in 1931 so why are we saying that she was born in 1929??!!--SharabSalam (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1929. She was six months old in the 1930 Census, so obviously 1931 isn't possible. She also graduated from high school in 1947 which fits. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Including comments directed at Corey Feldman[edit]
@Wallyfromdilbert:rethese edits, I don't understand the sourcing issue. WP:RS/P seems to suggest that Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast and Fox News are considered unreliable in terms of BLP (I would question the latter personally, but that's the consensus). I don't understand the problem here. As for neutrality, I also don't understand the problem - everything that I've said is backed up by the sources afaik. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You already explained the problem — those are not reliable enough sources for the type of highly contentious content you are trying to include on a BLP. In addition, the Rolling Stone and Daily Beast articles only make a passing mention of Waters, while the Fox News article is almost entirely about random social media comments. Some of the content is also not adequately supported by the sources you provided, including the characterization of the exchange as a "clash". Finally, I don't even see the content being WP:DUE. Walters was a co-host of The View for a long time, and yet the article has little information on her tenure there. Other information is much more relevant to an encyclopedic biography than the exchange you had added. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant reliable rather than unreliable. Big difference, I know.
If you don't want to call it a clash then fine, but mention in multiple sources – even if some of them are passing references – surely shows that the comment has garnered a degree of notability and belongs here? And yes, this article probably should have more (arguably more encyclopedic) stuff about her as co-host on The View. If you can think of anything notable, then add it. I don't see what relevance that has to what I'm trying to add. --Bangalamania (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and you should reread WP:RSP if you think those sources are appropriate for contentious information on a BLP. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wallyfromdilbert it is grossly inappropriate to obscure the truth because you're incapable of sourcing it properly. What really is going on here? Can we finally add it or are you still here pushing back? 50.65.225.20 (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an actual video of what she said to Corey Feldman when he trying to expose systemic pedophilia Hollywood.
Search YouTube for "Barbara Walters Says To Corey Feldman "You're Damaging An Entire Industry"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.22.47 (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Ms. Walters is deceased, it’s time to choose a different infobox image. Here is my suggestion:
This image is both representative of a middle life image and, in my opinion, when she started to become successful. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Barbara looks wonderful in this photo 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼 151.197.244.71 (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Walters had a slight speech irregularity variously described as a lisp or a "rounded r" and is said to have decided against speech therapy to correct it. How should it be characterized phonologically, and how did it and her attitude toward it change over time? See for example https://www.speechtherapypd.com/blogs/8-Celebrities-with-Speech-DisordersCharlesHBennett (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually liked her lisp.. it set her apart from others. 💕 151.197.244.71 (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone your edits (which by the way "can't be undone with undo as they don't exist, why?") because you are not using correct decision-making.Infactinteresting (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To whom are your comments directed? On an article Talk page, please preface your comments (if to a registered account) with {{mention|<username>}}, as otherwise no one will be notified of them or know to whom your comments are directed. General IzationTalk 03:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was intentional. There's only one editor on here going off full-bore editing pell-mell. I can't quibble with putting references in where it says CN (citation needed) but to go further and misinterpret fundamental reporting and coverage, yes, I will debate that.Infactinteresting (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to be specific there if you want to allege that I am misinterpreting anything here. Your ranting on my talk page last night was similarly without any specifics. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Infactinteresting: Then place your comments on that editor's Talk page. This page is intended to facilitate collaborative editing of the article, not for your complaints about other editors. General IzationTalk 03:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not want this user on my talk page any more. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General Ization, this ridiculous comment was directed at me, as were the ones on my talk page. I am going "full-bore" in improving this page, and for some reason that's a problem with this user. I'd ignore it, but they just undid one of my improvements without any stated reason. Now I get that I am "not using correct decision-making", whatever that is supposed to mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, who has appointed you to decide the NBC editor information isn't "pertinent"? Oh, because it is. The only change which is relevant or needs to be made is taking out the word full in front of film editor.Infactinteresting (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know why I said it isn't "pertinent"? Because all of the sources I'm looking through, none of them mention him. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not put it back? Like it should be, wasn't supposed to be removed to begin with. I don't have to question your decisions or ability to edit to show you places you are misjudging criteria.Infactinteresting (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are merely wrong. Question for you, do you really think you are over 94, 97 percent right? Even if you think that and by some crazy great luck you are right, you could be WRONG here. Where do you get this weird notion that this particular editor is not even important enough for one mention. I don't think you could be more mistaken. You seem to not understand fundamental things here, even about the site.Infactinteresting (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only just seeing this now because I wisely did not look sooner. Your behavior is disruptive and inappropriate for this project. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is being bloated. I propose polling be done before further additions. Infactinteresting (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that's not how things work on Wikipedia. Also this article is 20 kB (3469 words) in readable prose, which per WP:SIZERULE shows that the page is not too big. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is serious enough that I think you and the other editor should not be admins. You aren't even handling this page well. I have no problem with some of your actions or your edits. You are incorrect about the NBC editor, you are wrong about how this article is being edited... I don't mind the DYK and ITN stuff, go for it, have it featured. You won't even allow discussion here. Clinton has zero to do with anything. The post you INSIST on putting back is an error - the specials are already covered.Infactinteresting (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bloating isn't even about size, it is what is said about the topic. For example I or other editors could find wonderful material (800 words) that should be added.Infactinteresting (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't handling yourself well. I could've blocked you at any point but I've allowed your abuse. Perhaps I shouldn't. You said "bloat", which I can only interpret to mean "size". If you think there's anything that's excessive, bring it up or cut it respectfully. Cutting that Barbara Walters' 10 Most Fascinating People started in 1993 is not it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out MikeAllen. I'm agreeing with you about WP:NOTHERE and will likely block this user on their next offense. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, what? Here's a question. Do you see how the Barbara Walters article is getting larger (in particular the last week)? At this rate it could be 26 kb soon. Instead of answering my questions you are misstating what I said. I didn't say I don't want 1993 or the most fascinating people mentioned. By now you are done trying to get the article featured and probably would be willing to discuss these points. In regards to polling, Wikipedia operates by consensus and polling is a method which would be useful. For MikeAllen to chime in, I don't know. I feel he is incorrect about the film article and I could explain it. An example is a user agreed that out-dogfighting is perhaps not suitable so MikeAllen got that wrong or didn't see it.Infactinteresting (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
probleMuboshguatic? I get trying to be funny but the humor is lost on me when I feel I am being misrepresented.Infactinteresting (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You removedBarbara Walters' 10 Most Fascinating People starting in 1938, twice. And then you started this thread about "bloat". While it might not have been your intention, it came off that you didn't want the start year mentioned. —Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have only said time and again that incorrect editing is being done on the article.Infactinteresting (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume most editors are not intentionally editing "incorrectly". With that assumption, fix inadvertent errors as needed, while preserving the correct portions. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t edit my comments like you did here. MikeAllen 13:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a possible WP:CIRCULAR case regarding Walters' supposedly graduating from Miami Beach High. It was added unsourced to WP in 2006 (courtesy ping to editor FrickFrack), and I haven't found any sources from before then to support this. Her autobigraphy, Audition, refers to her "senior year at Birch Wathen" in New York City. [1] It also says that her family went back to NY "for good" after her 10th grade.[2] —Bagumba (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beach High claims her as an alumnae of 1947. FrickFrack 00:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=sources> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=sources}} template (see the help page).
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
