Talk:Scott Jennings

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government 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 supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Kentucky Low‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance).

This article reads like a series of press releases promoting the career of a political consultant, rather than meeting Wikipedia's biography standards. For example, statements & headers like "Jennings Named Resident Fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics", and the following text, as well as "Jennings Joins CNN".

Goes on CNN and expressed disdain for people voice, via votes. Wikipietime (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marquardtika haa been editing Wikipedia for at least nine years, has made almost 60,000 almost entirely political edits, and somehow doesn't seem to know that Wikipedia emphatically does not censor content. I saw Amber Rose for the first time at the RNC convention last week. She's extremely articulate, but her Trump endorsement pitch was silly. I presumed she is an entertainer. I'd never heard of her before, so I looked her up. I didn't know anything about her, but soon I saw and heard other quotes from Jennings regarding her. Jennings is a right wing commentator and political operative who regularly talks about how awful democrats or liberals or progressives are and derides them, and he went on about how terrific Rose was. I quickly found out she was a Porn star who has appeared on "OnlyFans," an adult content website which I'd never heard of before this year. I didn't make that characterization up. Editors can Google her name and "porn star" and start counting the hits. I'm not coming to any judgment about her. What she does is her own business. But editors should not engage in scrubbing her WP article. Similarly, Marquardtika also has been around long enough to know that we are not allowed to plagiarize other editors' edits, but he used the citation I'd created for his substitution of narrative content. He's also failed to notify me that he'd reverted my edit. I hope he doesn't repeat this behavior. Activist (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on my talk page, you really need to familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. You added to the article that Amber Rose is a "former porn star" but the source you provided doesn't say that. Our article on her doesn't say that. I Googled "Amber Rose porn star" and camp up with this Daily Beast article saying that "Republicans have midentified Rose as a porn star." She's not a porn star, current or former, and we can't add things to articles that aren't in sources. It's quite simple. Marquardtika (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]