Talk:Melanie Morgan/Archive 1

message: Or, maybe someone could mention how those who are trashing her reputation, without factual basis, are just to the left of Mao on the same political spectrum. It seems to me that defining the politics of those with whom one disagrees as "extremist," without providing examples of that extremism, is intellectually dishonest if the accuser fails to define their own politics in contrast, and in some kind of detail, so that the reader can decide for themselves who is what.
--annoyedman 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe you could stop trying to cover for her, and recognize that the article already provides examples of her extremism. Redxiv 08:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Her Conservative Politics

message: There's an NPOV tag on the page. I just went through the article and it seems more or less okay. Any objection to my removing the tag? If so, let's get a discussion started on the problem areas. Dylan 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After two months of no objection to your question, I've removed the tag.--HughGRex 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Once again, we see Keith Olbermann's OPINION popping up in encycolpeia entries.  Is it relevant if he thinks Morgan was a "worst person" on a particular day?  Do we see negative opinions about Olbermann (and I can site several) appearing on his page?  No.  Such opinions do not belong...just like Olbermann's opinion doesn't belong on this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votevets.org Controversy

message: We have some huge problems here.
#Media Matters is a biased left-wing smear machine.  Almost all of the references ARE Media Matters.  Who the hell did this?  Talk about a smear.
#There's a lack of opposing opinions on here.
#There does seem to be an attempt to smear Melanie in this article.
I'll be adding sourced information only.Matt Sanchez (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated Melanie's Activity

message: 
I recently made several sourced and precise edits to Morgan's article.  Those edits were changed back, please advise Matt Sanchez (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Template not applicable. The  template must be accompanied by a specific description of an edit request. Sandstein (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected Page Request Explanation

message: Opinions are overshadowing facts.  Melanie won an important award and it should be noted in her article.  
+R-8 BEST SPECIAL PROGRAM
“Voices of Soldiers”
Mark Williams, Holly Williams, Melanie Morgan and Jay Allen
KFBK-AM, Sacramento & KSFO AM. 
*
:Made the ref visible -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This information and the accompanying reference already appear in the article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MELANIE WON APTRA AWARD FOR JOURNALISM

message: Media Matters is not a reliable source.  They are an ideological driven media smear website and not a credible source.  They are quite unbalanced.  Melanie polemics need another source. Matt Sanchez (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this could have been worded much better there is referencing issue for users utilizing media matters should be aware. They are considered lefty-leaning or a bit unbias although I personally have seem them provide references for their work. If an editor wishes to use their material they should follow or search for the original source material that Media Matters quotes rather than just Meda Matters themselves whenever possible. If not it might be wise to state that "Media matters asserts ...". Benjiboi 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: Resolved. 
Removing the word fired is POV.  Saying she was released from her contract is obtuse, oblique, and a euphemism.  I am placing fired back in there.  This is an encyclopedia, the sources say she was fired, please do not revert. 72.222.181.186 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Benjoboi reverted this change.  This is twice Benjiboi has reverted the change, but he won't discuss this change on the talk page.  Please Benjiboi, discuss this on the talk page.  The facts are this: the source and other soruces describe her as being fired.  The wikipedia definition of fired redirects to termination of employment which describes accurately what happened to her.  Removing "fired" is a POV edit.  Not discussing your actions on the talk page violated wikipedia somethign assume good faith.  KSFO's statement is a euphemism and is not an encyclopedic statement. Please don't revert.  Do you have some sort of attachment to this article?  Perhaps you ahve a POV agenda that you would like to discuss here? My suggestion is that there are lots and lots of Wiki articles, perhaps if you ahve an undisclosed agenda, you should consider recusing yourself from writing further on this article.  Thanks.  72.222.181.186 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't accuse other editors of having an "undisclosed agenda", or make hints in that direction.  See WP:CIVIL. Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The source you cited included the word "canned" in the title but no, did not say she was fired. I've added another reference which states she was. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people and neutrality as we are writing an encyclopedia and we should be dispassionate as well as accurate. This is the first the subject has been brought up by you on the article's talk and as such is this first I'm addressing it. Had you asked here first I'd be willing to bet any number of folks would have agreed to adding such a statement if it were properly sourced. Benjiboi 19:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The news media is saying she was fired.  She says she was fired.  Sounds to me like some right winger here wants to soften it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been noted, the article has been amended with a reference that states she was fired and the article will reflect that she was indeed fired. Benjiboi 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firing is not POV.  Firing is succinct and everyone knows what it means. 

message: Here is the full statement from Linda Winslow, Executive Producer:
:Last night the NewsHour attempted to help our viewers understand why the members of Congress are having so much difficulty arriving at a decision regarding the way forward in Iraq. We believe the intensity of the pressure being exerted on Democrats and Republicans by the "wings" of their respective parties is having an impact on those who are looking for some sort of compromise position. We decided to let representatives of those wings explain their positions, hoping they would participate in a dialogue with us and each other. As our guests demonstrated, however, that was a forlorn hope and the result was a lot of heat, but very little light.
:Since neither guest was in the studio with Judy Woodruff, there wasn't much she could do to prevent them from interrupting one another, short of saying — as she did at least three times — "please let him/her finish his/her point". The NewsHour style is to ask pointed questions politely; we expect our guests to subscribe to the same rules. Since the program is produced live, we can't do much to eliminate rude guests from your television screen once the segment has begun; what we can do is guarantee you will never see that person on our program again.  (bottom of page)
Notice that neither Morgan nor Soltz is mentioned as being more rude than the other. We can't quote Winslow as saying Morgan was banned when that isn't unambiguously what she said. Evil saltine (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NewsHour quote