Talk:Melinda Tankard Reist

Weighting towards the Unbelief.org source

I think the reliance of the article on Unbelief.org makes it inherently unreliable, and I think it violates WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NPOV. The website's ranking on Alexa is so low it's negligible. This is another way of saying it's a source that is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I'll keep it in as a source temporarily, but other more reliable sources should slowly replace it. Twigfan (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Made some big changes

I have re-written much of the article and removed large sections due to it's over reliance on an article originally from Unbelief.org, but which is now hosted on one of Reist's most vocal opponents websites. The reason I made these changes is because aside from the reliance on an unreliable source, the entry was fixated on issues of religion and abortion. I thought it deserved a complete rewrite to give a more balanced snapshot of Reist's career to date. Jjane246 (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case, but it seems that you've whitewashed some important biographical information, including Ms Tankard-Reist's church fellowship. I note that this has occurred just before a profile piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, and a feature TV interview on ABC Television's One Plus One program with Jane Hutcheon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.57.214 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Frequent edits

Given the subject's current increasing media profile and controversy surrounding a number of her positions receiving coverage in the Australian media, can I suggest that some tighter editorial coverage be placed on the page? I'm too infrequent and editor of anything to have any influence to ask for it, but the volume of recent edits and pulls of changes that have verifiable, authoritative first-order sources such as the Australian news media and Australian Parliamentary records suggest that there's something of an edit war in progress. Trib22 (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference confusion

The fact the possible legal action is for this personal blog post (http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/10/the-questions-rachel-hills-didnt-ask-melinda-tankard-reist/) surely would make it a valid reference ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.37.62 (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Read WP:BLP, WP:RS amd WP:V to start. The claim of a threat is made by the blogger, and no second source makes that claim, nor do any RS sources make that claim other than to say that the blogger says something. "Contentious claims" require strng sourcing, and the claim by the bloger != strong sourcing at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info ! Fair enough then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.37.62 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blogger material

I agree with Afterwriting that the section header by Collect was too nebulous, but I disagree that this material (as tentative as it is) requires its own section. I would actually merge it with her career and NOT as a separate subsection. It supposedly relates to her professional conduct (which is essentially blogging and commentating). If it becomes a bigger deal in the future, we can give it its own subsection or section. I would put it in the main part of her career before the Writing subsection.

I'm going to take that action now but wanted to explain it first so if there's editorial disagreement, we can discuss it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay with me. This is similar to my edits regarding the recent controversy regarding Ian Gawler. Afterwriting (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since this "controversy" has mainstream news coverage, it would probably be fine to source it back in. —Cronium 07:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's already adequately mentioned and referenced in the "career" section. Afterwriting (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "sought legal advice" section

I've removed the section "No Place For Sheep controversy". Simply because a newspaper reported Tankard Reist had "sought legal advice" for being "deceptive and duplicitious about her religious belief" is not biography-worthy 129.180.175.45 (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For those who argue that it is worthy of biographical inclusion that she is a "baptist Christian" - she already has a category tag "Australian Christians". 129.180.175.45 (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melinda Tankard Reist. 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/20130513064640/http://www.womensforumaustralia.com/about-us to http://www.womensforumaustralia.com/about-us

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) 07:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)