I deleted, for the second time, a sentence that was not appropriate for this page. The subject of the sentence was a reporter named Ali Watkins. I suspect the user Lkshoe believes this situation tracks with the term. However, this is the page for the term "Presstitute." If the term is not used in the references, then it has not been "controversially used" as stated in the deleted sentence. Thus far, the user has failed to link to a reference that uses the term "presstitute." Just because a user thinks the term should apply, does not mean that it applies for purposes of an encyclopedic entry. Magic1million (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I reverted the same language by Lkshoe, this time supported by a highly-questionable news source. I would encourage Lkshoe to discuss the sentence here, so that we can have a conversation about its merits. As far as I can tell, the term has not been used by almost anyone to describe the Watkins/Wolfe situation. A Google News search of "presstitute 'Ali Watkins'" yields exactly one result from October 2017, which does not relate to this situation in any way. A regular Google search yields mostly non-notable Twitter commentary and the one non-WP:RS article credited to "Editor" on a highly-suspect news source. I am asking that users either state some further rationale for including reference to the Watkins-Wolfe situation, or stop placing the language into the page. Magic1million (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
