Talk:Mary Cunningham Agee

message: Obviously they are the same person -- merge ASAP!!
WaltzingMatilda 06:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: The first paragraph of this article is decidedly non-POV to the point of libel. --KJRehberg 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-POV statements do not belong here 

message: It seems the neutrality dispute is resolved and almost every statement is well sourced. I'm removing the NPOV tag. Please do not re-tag simply because this article includes facts of a negative nature.--Bodybagger (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Article has apparently been heavily revised since previous entry, and now swings the other direction to the point of flattery.  The unsourced sentence "Her book struck a chord with young professionals as it documented the role of corporate politics and media bias in undermining the talents of successful women and individuals from non-traditional backgrounds" is but one glaring example. In addition, much of the content appears to be gleaned from the subject's own autobiography, hardly a neutral source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezeman2011 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need are third party reliable sources and no the tag shouldnt be removed because it is still completely appropriate to describe the articles unsourced non-objective characterizations. Active Banana  (bananaphone 18:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through and chopped out the worst offenses and am willing to remove the POV tag, although it still reads like a resume and from what I can tell there may be significant chapters of the story which had been previously deleted from the article whose absence might rightly justify the POV tags return until the full picture as covered by reliable sources is reflected in the article. Active Banana  (bananaphone 18:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag 

message: The tag was added at a time when the article had seven references. It now has 78. While I have not investigated them fully, and will review some shortly (I just got called to a meeting) the quantity is not likely to be an issue. I have not yet reviewed the concern that the article reads like a resume, and will attempt to do so.--SPhilbrickT 19:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources 

message: An editor has noted that the article reads like a resume, which I read a "too much emphasis on positive items, using WP:Peacock language in some cases." I concur, and identified a few Areas of concern:
Overall, the edits offered in this revision are excellent and acceptable.  A couple of changes that I feel are important are noted here and applied to the article so you and other editors can review them with good flow.  I have deleted a few Affiliations and Awards and re-instated a few with solid references that I thought were more essential to the article.  I offered this balance in order that  the “resume effect” would not increase.  Everyone’s effort on this article is commendable.  I am impressed with the quality and the outcome.
I don't know what happened to your nice numbering of these points. The points are all still included here but something happened to the 1-17.  My apoligies if my editing caused this.Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping to enter into a dialog to discuss these issues. I'll give it a few days, if hearing nothing, I'd be bold and make appropriate changes.--SPhilbrickT 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

text: In light of the fact that all but the referencing questions are addressed, I removed the maintenance tag. I'll add a citation needed to the affiliations section. I presume Omnibus170 has access to Cambridge Who's Who Registry - Executive & Professional Biographies, 2009 Edition and can confirm whether that source supports the claims. --SPhilbrickT 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing the resume tag concerns 

message: I suggest simply "when addressing audiences"
What do others think?--SPhilbrickT 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping to enter into a dialog to discuss these issues. I'll give it a few days, if hearing nothing, I'd be bold and make appropriate changes.--SPhilbrickT 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 5 in addressing diverse audiences

message: The easiest solution is to simply remove it--SPhilbrickT 01:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the fact that all but the referencing questions are addressed, I removed the maintenance tag. I'll add a citation needed to the affiliations section. I presume Omnibus170 has access to Cambridge Who's Who Registry - Executive & Professional Biographies, 2009 Edition and can confirm whether that source supports the claims. --SPhilbrickT 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 Unwittingly

message: I received your email and see your suggestions for the article.  Thank you. I will respond soon.  Is this talk page the appropriate place to share my thoughts?  Can I use my talk page just as easily and you will see my notes in either place?  Thanks.Omnibus170 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the best place to discuss possible changes to the Mary Agee article. I may see notes posted at your talk page, but other editors who may be watching this article won't know to check there. My talk page is the right place to prod me if you've posted here, and want me to know about it (not necessary if I'm actively posting here). I may see a note on your talk page, as I have watchlisted it, and I monitor a list of all changes to the watchlist, but the list has over 4000 items on it, so I get a notice every few seconds, and may miss it. A note to my talk page sends me a message I cannot miss.--SPhilbrickT 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that an editor has gone ahead and made a number of edits relating to issues I raised, although I think the action was independent. Please comment on the issues I've raised above (after looking to see the latest version) and add your comment to each section above. Just clock on the edit link on the right side of the page, and add your comment. Unfortunately, timing is not perfect, as I have very limited editing time over the next few days.--SPhilbrickT 02:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks SPhilbrink 

message: Thank you for getting this article more in line with encyclopedic style and removing the banner.  We can work with this as a starting point - and systematically strengthen it even further.  I will offer some edits and also search for additional documentation as suggested.  Truly appreciate your efforts.  Enjoy the 4th.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnibus170 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to all 

message: I have removed as "non-notable" "Her notes on How to Crack a Market Case: continue to be used as a teaching aid for first year HBS students" and presentations to the Committee on Labor and the Pontifical Athenaeums. To say that Agee was one of the first women to work in senior management of a Fortune 500 company is more specific and citable than saying she helped to break the glass ceiling. Again I would note that the task is not to present Agee in a glowing light so much as a neutral light. I again toned down the resume glow. Span (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV/Non-notables