Talk:Melanie Morgan

message: You may strongly disagree with Melanie Morgan and find her commentary offensive, but please do NOT put the "Pauline Friedman" version back online. It was a vandal's spoof. Morgan has made a third urgent request to restore the correct version, which I have just done. I am not certain what the legal consequences could be if she really gets mad, but I am pretty sure it would be quite messy. --Tangerine5000 16:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the above in quote form but suggest that a hidden text message also be added in several likely places where would-be dupes could see they are mistaken and their efforts reverted. Benjiboi 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: <big>Please Note: "Pauline Friedman"</big>

message: Probably should change 'support US armed forces' to 'US armed intervention in the (war on terror)' --- Crissa  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.238.36 (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestive/possibly grammatically incorrect 

message: I've read other bios of Ms. Morgan, why is there no mention of her battle with a gambling addiction that nearly ended her career, and irresponsible behavior of taking her infant son to all-night card games, or the fact that her boss at KSFO was her husband? I also didn't see anything about a reason why she left KSFO (they didn't renew her contract). The article seems to be really struggling to put a major positive spin on someone with the scruples of... well, shall we say "a much lesser person" by "lying through omission." I would almost suspect that Ms. Morgan wrote this herself. Ragreen (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does mention her gambling addiction. As for the other material, you can add it to the article yourself as long as you have reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking biography 

message: What happened to the bit about her saying "We have a bullseye painted on (Nancy Pelosi's) forehead? I know that was in here at some point. SirChuckB (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it was. I dug it out of the history and restored it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. There's no indication that there was ever a noteworthy "controversy" over the statement. Kelly hi! 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some more news items that clearly indicated there was. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked sources say nothing about anyone notable considering the statement a death threat. Media Matters is not a reliable source, the Lehrer NewsHour ref says nothing that I can find about any Pelosi death threats. The other two sources {NYT and USA Today) are not linked and we have no idea what they say. Removing per WP:BLP until this is resolved. Kelly hi! 19:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, this game again.... What constitutes a reliable source in your mind?  I have nothing against searching, but it seems that everytime is comes to editing conservative/liberal articles, WP:RS gets thrown around like confetti SirChuckB (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: You could have just removed the part about the death threat. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but WP:BLP isn't a game. For something like an accusation that a living article subject was making death threats against the person third in line for the Presidency of the United States, I don't know what exactly an adequate reliable source would be, but it would have to be something more than a blog which is admittedly partisan. I really don't care about the ideology of this person, but regardless, we don't keep BLPs here just so people can include links to any blogger that doesn't like something the article subject said, and then call it a "controversy". See WP:COATRACK and WP:REDFLAG. Kelly hi! 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That really doesn't address anything.  You could have easily just removed the material you found troubling and left the clearly and properly sourced material, but you removed it all. There is no dispute that she has been criticized for that comment and that fact was documented with plenty of mainstream, reliable sources. We have a duty to be responsible when it comes to BLPs, but we also have a duty to NPOV and comprehensive encyclopedic coverage, and we fail in that duty when we cut out chunks of articles that are accurate and properly sourced because of a problem with a couple of words that could have been easily removed by themselves. Gamaliel (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tracked down the NYT article...it appears there was indeed a controversy. In regards to NPOV, the previous language of the paragraph could hardly fit that description. I've included her response for balance and properly cited the Times article. The Media Matters link should be removed, as the source isn't reliable, I think. Kelly hi! 20:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have emailed you a copy of the NYTimes story had you asked. I've got Lexis/Nexis access so if you want a copy of anything let me know. I don't particularly care how the section is worded but I trust you will word it in an NPOV manner. I do object to removing mention of Media Matters as they are perfectly reliable and part of the controversy as one of the groups objecting to Morgan's comments. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pelosi

message: Stage three in the BRD process: discussion. Basically, I don't think this article is neutral. The reason for that is the use of the word controversy, which on Wikipedia is prima facie evidence of POV-pushing regardless of veracity or verifiability. Especially when it's in a section of its own. Sceptre (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's... nuts. The word "controversy" essentially describes a person like Melanie Morgan, who is a talk show host and commentator whose job is to stir up controversy. If you'd like to suggest a better title for that section, go ahead. But to redact all mention of notable incidents in her outspoken career, is a whitewash. What other word should we use to describe such incidents? FCYTravis (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Lots of articles have a section called "controversy". We shouldn't make a special rule about them just for this article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the article would be much better if any noteworthy criticism was merged into the rest of the article, to prevent encouraging further coatracking. Kelly hi! 22:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes. They fail NPOV too. Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article does not adhere to NPOV 

message: Is Melanie Morgan still involved in Move American Forward?  I noticed that her name and bio has been deleted under the "About MAF" section on the website www.moveamericaforward.org. Dale720240 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement in Move America Forward 

message: This article does not list the Melanie's correct birthday. THe entire article is a mes and should be reewritten and should include those things called facts. After all isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia that is accurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.107.124 (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy  

message: If we are going to mention dollar amounts, we should get that from a reputable source. Can personal websites be used as sources on Wikipedia? Doesn't seem like they would be. Just in the news today. The charity in question is being sued by the state of California for funneling donations to Republicans and skimming off the top of donations. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-lawsuit-military-charity-donated-to-politicians/ar-AAENP0p?ocid=spartandhp
2601:244:8301:98C5:60E8:FB09:81EE:8A0B (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added POV tag. MAF Charity info comes from subjects own vanity website