Talk:Donna Halper

Potential conflict of interest

Please note that editing articles about oneself is strongly discouraged since it can easily lead to a conflict of interest that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This is not to say that people cannot contribute to articles about themselves, just that they need to be very careful and refrain from making edits that are not verifiable, or those that could be regarded as self-promotion. -- Hux (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood, except I had no idea I had a wikipedia article about me till several of my friends told me! I teach media ethics, so believe me, I have no desire to do anything that would cause any ethical problems about my page. I added some sources from reputable newspapers, but do let me know if what I added is somehow considered inappropriate-- I don't think it is, but again, this is your site, and I am a guest on it. If I did it right, please remove the box that says it has no sources. Thanks! DevorahLeah (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The "quotes" and footnotes appear to be uniformly from interviews with Donna Halper - as in she is effectively providing [scripting] the narrative of the 'objective' source. Give me a break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.153.230 (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the subject wrote this article about herself. Is she a notworthy topic? Is Wikipedia becoming a forum for self promotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.62.178 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult for someone to write an objective autobiography. The issue of is she notworthy is a good question. I agree Wikipedia should have a separate area or clear tagging for autobiographies so as to clarify the objectiveness of all articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.3.117 (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Should this article be re-classified as a Wikipedia autobiography? Also it is not well written - should someone work to clean it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.21 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely did NOT write this entry, nor did I even know about it until some colleagues of mine called it to my attention. I have no idea what the procedure is for improving it, since any time I try to fix it, I am told I cannot, and when colleagues of mine try to fix it, the flag goes back up about the page having problems because the people fixing it are "too close to the subject." I feel as if I am caught in an endless loop. DonnaHalper (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup Tags

I've added a number of cleanup tags onto the page, after reading the content and looking at the comments on this talk page. I'm not inclined to think that this page needs an AfD, or doesn't meet notability, but the tone seems unencyclopedic, many sources are weak, and the content needs major overhaul. HOT WUK (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donna Halper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619233846/http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/whattodo/2010/06/10/women-see-underlying-theme-in-rush-documentary-film/ to http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/whattodo/2010/06/10/women-see-underlying-theme-in-rush-documentary-film/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)