Talk:Wendy Williams/Archive 1

Archive 1

contested statement removed

• She is frequently rated by Arbitron as having the largest audience in her time slots,{{Fact|date=December 2006}} which vary from market to market.

Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 15:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace

The article says she was born in Asbury Park and Ocean Township. Which is it? TJ Spyke 07:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It says she was born is Asbury Park and RAISED in Ocean Township. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.80.106 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed song lyrics per WP:BLP

It is well within an artists's free speech rights to say anything they wish in a song. However, a Wikipedia article is not the proper venue to repeat those song lyrics, especially where the song lyrics are chosen and repeated in such a manner as to disparage to subject of the article, per WP:BLP. BLP violations should not be covered up or excused by the fact that they appeared first in the quotes of a song. That Wendy Williams is referenced in songs may be worth reporting. Repeating the actual lyrics of those songs, especially where the lyrics aren't doing anything except disparaging the subject, is not. --Jayron32 05:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Whitney's "alleged" drug use, Wendy's ethnicity

1)It would be interesting to know from the article whether Wendy has white or mixed parent. 2)Whitney talked about her drug-addiction million times. Thus word "alleged" should be removed.78.131.137.50 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I never heard of her until today. My guess is Puerto Rican.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Wendy Williams (media personality) → Wendy Williams – per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This Wendy Williams is more likely than Wendy Williams (actor) or Wendy Williams (pornographic actress) to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. This page has been visited 87000 times over the past 30 days [1] while the other two combined have only been visited 4,699 times [2][3]. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

television

The title should be changed from "wendy williams (radio host)" to just "wendy williams". she has a tv show now so she's not only known for radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.131.125 (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest "entertainment personality" or "talk show host" something like that. It can't just be "wendy williams" since there's already a disambig page. 12.162.122.6 (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the name is not so unusual, I looked her up here as "radio host". How about "radio/tv host" or Broadcast Personality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdoll (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: Title is now simply 'Wendy Williams'. Agree with title. David Spector (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Foul language

The use of foul language in the article is gratuitous.

Unsigned comment. No such language found in current article. David Spector (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Male or Female ?

Serious question, is she a genuine female or a post-op transexual ? She seems very masculine in her look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor-Scrumpy (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of her looks, she is and has been since birth a female. --Jayron32 05:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This question deserves mention on the main page. Many credible sources have reported the Ms. Williams has ambiguous gender. The entry takes a biased stance in omitting this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.91.47 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It is okay to go ahead and add any relevant material having several reliable sources. your own opinions cannot be added to Wikipedia. David Spector (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Its a She, just very very ugly and bad face lift in the 90s David Spector (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Physical attributes

In the show I just saw, Wendy revealed that she was rather tall and wore size 11 shoes. What else is known about her height, weight, measurements, etc.? Has she had plastic surgery? What of this information can we verify using references from reliable sources? And, finally, what place would such information have in the article?   — Jeff G. ツ 06:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because we can provide a reliable source for detailed facts such as a notable person's shoe size does not mean that such trivia belong here (there are lots of other wikis and fora on the Web that are good places for such trivia). These things are worked out by a process of editing. This is an encyclopedia, but it is also yours to edit freely. If you add something that another editor feels does not belong here, that editor will discuss and/or revert your edit. This process tends to produce good articles over time. David Spector (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Negative

This article is written in a negative way, not just the Controversy section or rather feuds section but all of it. (Monkelese (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources tend to have negative points of view, then those will dominate related WP articles. WP has no policy requiring articles to have a positive tone. WP does have a policy requiring a neutral point of view of WP editors, and you can remove or complain about any biased statements made by WP editors. David Spector (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

it was not just the sources and the items, but the framing and language was also far too much in the gossip mag world implying guilt and wrongdoing. and, in addition, what wasnt presented in an overly negative spin was presented in an overly promotional spin. I have gone through with a machete to try and address the issue on both sides. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at your edits quickly, and didn't see anything wrong with them. This is the normal way in which WP improves. You make your edits, and others make theirs. Eventually, the articles get better, aided by the WP policies (see list at bottom of page WP:Policies and guidelines). I will comment that Wendy is a vibrant, sometimes outrageous person who speaks her mind. Naturally, such a person is likely to be popular, and occasionally controversial. Any good article on her should reflect her honestly but fairly, in a complete, objective, and neutral way. David Spector (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Whitney Houston 2003 Interview

There has been significant coverage in what is arguably one of Wendy's most famous interviews during her career on the radio. As such, it should also be covered on her Wikipedia page. As explained in the edits, the information has been reliably sourced. Silver Buizel (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

we are encyclopedia, not a gossip scandal sheet, you need to have more than "arguably one of Wendy's most famous" to overcome WP:UNDUE and present it in an appropriately encyclopedic manner appropriately attributing any of the analysis. "arguably" CANNOT appear in the article in Wikipedia's voice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

How about explaining what part of this event's coverage is WP:UNDUE? There's no issue of neutrality presented in the provided information. I'm also not sure where "gossip scandal sheet" is coming from. As stated previously, there is no original research within the article. The information was reliably sourced as per WP:SOURCE. Silver Buizel (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sources who cover the information: here, here, here, here, here, here, here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here, here, here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here, here, and here - WP:NEWSBLOG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver Buizel (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• It was requested I stop by and offer an opinion: In looking at the enduring and persistent coverage of Willaims inre the Houston interview, it is arguable that this may be the most notable person so far interviewed by Williams and, as interviews are what she does, it is sensible to have at least some mention of this key and widely-written-of interview included in the article. Caution should be taken to not assign it more weight than it is due, and to carefully share only what is already shared in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• while there might be reason and sources to include it; this is not even a negotiable starting point.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • and to clarify. Wendy Williams does an interview show where she says outrageous things, every day. It is not uncommon occurrence for one of those outrageous items to get picked up by other media "Did you hear what outrageous thing Wendy Williams did/said today?" How is the Whitney Houston outrageousness different than all of the others? and most importantly- Where is the third party sourcing that says so?- an analysis of the particular statement/commentary about the incident placing it in an encyclopedic context and not just "Here's another Wendy being Wendy". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you first explain what the issue you had with the section you removed from the page? There still has not be an explanation as to what part of the WP:UNDUE policy you cited, nor was there an explanation in your reply to the user MichaelQSchmidt.
      In response to your reasoning, I'd point out that the most notable incidents surrounding the subject of the biography would be included. Per WP:WELLKNOWN," If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." You made mention of third party sources, which, according to WP:THIRDPARTY, "A primary third-party source is one that originates written information and is independent of the subject being covered," have already been provided in the sources above: here - WP:NEWSBLOG and here - WP:NEWSBLOG are two third-party sources, seeing as HLN and The Huffington Post are independent of the subject being covered. Silver Buizel (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Red Pen, Buizel asked me to join this conversation (I've tried to contribute to neutrality in this article). I'm trying to understand your objection, which seems to be based mostly on undue weight and concern for 'WP voice'. Both of these are valid concerns anywhere in WP. But it occurs to me that it is appropriate for different articles in WP to have different 'flavors', even though the rules, guidelines, and policies are written once for all articles. An article on a technical subject on mathematics should not discuss how obstinate and argumentative the mathematician who studied it was, and an article on that mathematician should not discuss in depth a famous theorem of hers. And articles on popular culture have their own 'flavor'. It's like a dictionary, where words are included because they are used by populations, not because the dictionary writer thinks they are good words for internal or philological reasons. The current article is about a popular subject, therefore it belongs in WP and should be written to provide information to its special audience, just as an article on mathematics provides special knowledge to those who can understand the background of its jargon. We do try to add an accessibility of understanding to all WP subjects, so we do make an attempt to explain jargon and we do make an attempt to be objective about turbulent interviews. In my opinion, Buizel's addition is objective, neutral, and clearly written. One could hardly hope for better. If you disagree, I would be interested in the details of your objection.

With all that said, it seems to me that Buizel's addition covering the Whitney Houston interview is most germane to the article. It is a concrete example substantiating claims made elsewhere in the article about Williams' interview style and propensity for getting into trouble. It is similar but more developed than the paragraph on Blu Cantrell, which would seem appropriate as Houston is somewhat more famous, celebrated, and had a larger repertoire than Cantrell. I see no violations of WP policies in Buizel's addition, and my vote would be to restore the removed text, as is. The current article, which omits any mention of the notable Houston interview, seems to me the poorer for the omission. David Spector (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I reject the notion that because the subject of the article is notable for her appearance in celebrity gossip tabloids that we should write our article in a manner that tabloid gossip readers expect. We are an encyclopedia. If people want tabloid celebrity gossip, they should go to the New York Daily News.

as for specifics about the initially suggested content, any claim of "arguably the most infamous" CANNOT be made in Wikipedia's voice. Basic polices of WP:NPOV and WP:OR forbid it. WP:PEACOCK says that at a minimum the inclusion of such a phrase needs to be in text attributed to a source (a source who is an expert in the subject area).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a point. I'm fine for changing "arguably the most infamous" to something like "has been claimed by observers to be the most infamous" if this can be justified by a citation. However, I must respectfully disagree that the paragraph is itself written in tabloid style. Please provide a rewording of the paragraph that has a better style. David Spector (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Lil' Kim on Wendy Williams & Rapper Biggie Smalls

per the editor proposing, the person making these allegations against a living person does not in any way come close to the sourcing needed and this section should probably be removed.

It would seem appropriate to include in this article the information rapper Lil'Kim gave about the "relationship" between Wendy Williams and Biggie Smalls during the days of her radio career. She seems to have made the allegations Wendy was prostituting herself for drugs, as it seems to coincide with the timeline of her radio career (established long before her television career), his life and the time she was addicted to drugs. There's enough coverage from secondary, reliable sources to include in this BLP. Some of these sources include here, here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here, here, here, here, here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here, here and other places. A search on Google, here, has turned up a multitude of sources, so it has satisfied WP:SIGCOV. Silver Buizel (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC) It certainly satisfies WP:SIGCOV - the general notability guideline. On that basis, it's true that there should be an article on Wikipedia about Wendy Williams. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE are separate requirements not affected by WP:SIGCOV. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Understandable, when users are citing WP:UNDUE and "WP:UNDUE etc" without so much as an explanation as to what they find undue about the content, it becomes problematic. There are multiple parts to the above policy, but there is no attempt to explain on the other side. If there can be civil discourse, then I'm sure an agreement of some sort can be reached. UNDUE:Good research is important in achieving neutrality, which is part of the reason these multiple sources of information were provided here. Silver Buizel (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Buizel asked me to join this conversation (I've tried to contribute to neutrality in this article). This issue has some points of interest. As to this, I would discard it as a suitable reference. It is written in an inflammatory way that makes discerning its accuracy difficult. This is a bit better, since it includes an actual Twitter exchange between Williams and Kim. But the subject would seem to be trivial, or unimportant, and not related to Buizel's topic (it claims sexual activity between Williams and Notorious, but does not claim prostitution). This is written in tabloid style, carries no author name, but does include a video clip from The Wendy Williams Show and apparently originates at a local CBS affiliate. But, again, it does not substantiate the charge of prostitution. Let me say that WP:BLP is very clear that only authoritative citations are allowed for allegations concerning living people, and that no Original Research be done. In my opinion, the first few citations given by Buizel do not substantiate the allegation of prostitution, which is rather serious and probably untrue. Unfortunately, I don't have time to check the rest of the references listed by Buizel. My opinion, based on what I have reviewed here, is that this entire series of statements by Lil Kim is untrustworthy and not independently substantiated by anyone else. Therefore, it does not belong in this article. David Spector (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC) oppose inclusion what basis would Lil Kim have to know with any authority about any relationship between Williams and Smalls? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Response. They were both members of the same group Junior M.A.F.I.A.. Lil' Kim was also one of his mistresses during the time of his marriage to artist Faith Evans. Silver Buizel (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Adorn by Wendy Williams section

There is currently an WP:UNDUE tag on the Adorn by Wendy Williams section. As the one who added the information, I see nothing undue about since the information was only presented from the factual viewpoint presented within the sources. I am generating a discussion on the issue so we can find out what's "undue" about it. Silver Buizel (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

An "In Popular Culture" section

I think the article could benefit from having this section added. Wendy has been mentioned by a number of artists within her work. Wendy Williams appeared as herself on an episode of Law and Order:SVU in the episode Funny Valentine, which was based on the Chris Brown and Rihanna domestic abuse incident. Wendy Williams was also one of the answers to a question asked on the syndicated version of Wants to Be a Millionaire? Wendy's show is also referenced in the ABC show Happy Endings by Dave's character in the season three premiere Cazsh Dummy Spillionaires. The show is also mentioned in the TVLand series Happily Divorced where Peter, Fran's (character's ex, not real life) ex-husband who is a regular on the show, says he's been watching too much of the show. It was also mentioned in the cancelled ABC show, Animal Practice in the pilot. Silver Buizel (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"In popular culture: sections are generally just trivia dumps of "lookey lookey, i seen it here!" Do you have third party sources that provide any type of context that would show the appearance have any encyclopedic value? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nicole Spence Section

There's one part of the Nicole Spence lawsuit that has gone unmentioned and it can be substantiated by reliable sources. In addition to sexual harassment, Nicole Spence also alleged in the lawsuit that Kevin Hunter planned to "hire a hit man to take out Hot 97 DJ Miss Jones after she dissed WBLS shock jock Williams," per this source - WP:NEWSBLOG, this source - WP:NEWSBLOG, here, here and here - WP:NEWSBLOG. Silver Buizel (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the article about Williams, not about her husband. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Williams & Rachel Crow

The interview where Wendy Williams asked X-Factor contestant Rachel Crow if she was a crack baby received coverage. The sources on the information can be found here, here and here. I think it should be included in the article. Silver Buizel (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• None of those are reliable sources --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fairly debatable. Zap2It is a widely used source across Wikipedia, and this satisfies WP:NEWSBLOG. Silver Buizel (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Williams and Beyoncé Knowles

Wendy's comments about singer Beyoncé Knowles sounding like she had a fifth-grade education were heavily publicized and warrant inclusion in the article. Reliable sources include here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here, here, here, here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here, here, here, here and others. I think this warrants inclusion in the article. Silver Buizel (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a place for scandal mongering or celebrity gossip. Also, not every news report about a celebrity is notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that not every news report about a celebrity is notable. However, whichever reports receive the most coverage are to be included in the biography of the subject per WP:SIGCOV. Because of this , I believe the incident warrants inclusion. Silver Buizel (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The incident may have received a lot of coverage, however it has not recieved continued coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidents section

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Wendy Williams and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

My opinion is that I agree with Hirolovesswords that the inclusion of tabloid-style news coverage is not appropriate for a biography of a living person on Wikipedia. As WP:NOTNEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." It is also important to note that the WP:BLP policy requires that we write biographical articles conservatively and with sensitivity to the subject of the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Williams and Janet Hubert feud

Following Wendy's tearful breakdown after the death of singer Whitney Houston, Janet Hubert wrote an open letter that lambasted Wendy Williams and her talk show. The letter was reported by various media outlets, here, here, here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here, here, here, here, and others. More evidence of the feud occurred after Wendy interviewed a former co-star of Hubert's, Tatyana Ali, asking about her departure and Hubert wrote yet another letter condemning the talk show host. These sources can be found here, here, here - WP:NEWSBLOG, here, here and other places. Due to the significant amount of media coverage, I think the information should be included in the article. Silver Buizel (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a place for scandal mongering or celebrity gossip. Also, disproportionate space should not be given to particular viewpoint in a biography of a living person. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The coverage given here presented a condensed version of the material covered by the multiple sources. It also satisfies WP:NEUTRAL since there was no reply given in response to the letters. The information here warrants inclusion in the article. Silver Buizel (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

you seem to keep ignoring the fact that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a celebrity expose or gossip mag. just because "its true" or just because it made it in print somewhere does not mean that it is something that belongs here. If you want to write about "incidents" go start your own blog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid including the most notable moments in a subject's career doesn't reduce the editor to the basic assumptions you're attempting to project onto me. If anything, the information in this section is continued coverage of the interview the subject had with Wendy Williams, easily satisfying the criteria for WP:PERSISTENCE. Silver Buizel (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

fired from HOT 97

Wendy Williams spread a rumor on hot 87 that 'Puffy Daddy is gay' which eventually cost her that job - Unbelievable, The life, death and afterlife of the notorious b.i.g. by cheo hodari coker p.225 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.139 (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Wendy Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110122034045/http://tv.gsn.com:80/shows/lovetriangle/ to http://tv.gsn.com/shows/lovetriangle/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110304000601/http://abc.go.com:80/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/season-12-pros to http://abc.go.com/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/season-12-pros
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100221023220/http://www.radiohof.org:80/2009_inductees.html to http://www.radiohof.org/2009_inductees.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141103010320/http://www.njpac.org/events/detail/wendy-williams-presents-how-you-laughin to http://www.njpac.org/events/detail/wendy-williams-presents-how-you-laughin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Education - college

I notice that the Wiki entry says Wendy graduated from Northeastern University in Boston. On her Aftershow posted on youtube recently (June 8 2016) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr860IWhUCw Wendy talks about graduating from "BU" - which is the common abbreviation for Boston University - just before taking a radio job on St. Croix in the Virgin Islands (where she earned $3.25 an hour; she also mentions that her folks paid for her car and her apartment, considering it "grad school"). I have not changed the article, just seeking help in confirming the facts. Is it possible she attended BU as well as Northeastern, i.e., one of them was bona fide grad school, one of them undergrad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizfran (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Wendy Williams Hunter

Per WP:RS, specifically ABC News and Biography (A&E), I've removed any hyphen from her full name. 🖖ATS / Talk 01:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the references, she changed her middle name from Joan to Williams on marriage and changed her last name from Williams to Hunter. Her last name is definitely not Williams-Hunter. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

Revert most recent IP edit. 2602:306:3357:BA0:4869:A0DA:9425:410D (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC) 2602:306:3357:BA0:4869:A0DA:9425:410D (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Appears done — Andy W. (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2017

please update the profile picture from 2005 to a more recent and flattering picture. Kvnniv (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please see WP:UPIMAGE. Need to upload image before it can be inserted into article. Image must have proper licensing. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add to the main page

Thank you. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

Add category: Communication Degree Holders Beeareeye (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: That category is currently listed at WP:CFD. If the category is retained after that discussion closes feel free to reopen this request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Need to improve wording of the section about Ms Williams' clothing line. Hyperbole

"The household name media mogul debuted her HSN Clothing line" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiindarwin (talk • contribs) 07:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Legal name and divorce

According to an interview she gave on The Karen Hunter Show, she is keeping her legal name of Wendy Williams Hunter after her divorce is granted. Please do not change the lede. It should say Wendy Williams Hunter (born Wendy Joan Williams...) soruce thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 00:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

Please add the article about rumors that she was born a man 204.186.241.170 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:BLP. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

POV Medical slang

Would someone with an account PLEASE remove the term Bug Eyes, from the section dealing with the subject's "Image"? "Bug Eyes" is an insult, and it is POV, it is also insensitive to people who suffer from Graves syndrome. No medical professional would use that term. I attempted to remove that and replace it with something more neutral, however an overzealous editor reverted it. I am not a regular editor on Wikipedia, in part because legitmate edits are removed for no logical reason. 69.143.156.77 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Public Scrutiny Section seems biased

It's written in a subjective matter. Can someone clear that up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.152.154 (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SydneyFenty.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)