Talk:Jane Hamsher

message: First things first: This link doesn't go anywhere: 
I have removed the link and added a  flag.
And the article seems very POV to me, especially the lawsuits described in the film career section -- none of the links provided mention Hamsher, so it's impossible to deduce that she was linked to the lawsuits except for working on the films in questions. Links which are provided in a biography, especially about legal claims, should at least go to something which name the person involved, in my opinion. I would like to see these removed, or replaced with better citations. 
Additionally, this link:  is a copy of an LA Times article on Don Murphy's web site, not a valid source for wikipedia. Original sources need to be checked and verified. Plus, the source does not say what the article claims it does. What's more, the linked copy does not say what this article claims it says.
Furthermore, the reference  does contain the phrase "colorful expressions of opinion" as claimed in the article, but does not say they are merely such; instead, the full quote is "colorful expressions of opinion are thoroughly disclosed with no fact of any significance falsely stated." The premature truncation of this quote introduces further POV problems into the entry.
In short, this is an entry with serious POV issues related to Hamsher's film career. --Kynn 06:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...you're kidding here, right? Let's look at what all you've said. ...the woman gets involved in a lot of lawsuits... Is she notable for her lawsuits? Is this encyclopedic? In any case, most of the articles linked to for the lawsuits do not mention her. ...Who cares whose site they are on... It definitely does matter whose site it is on. A copy of an article on someone else's site is not a valid source for wikipedia. ...is not for you to question... You're totally wrong there. This is wikipedia. Saying "you can't question this" is not appropriate. Everything can be questioned. --Kynn 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  if everything can be questioned then Wikipedia has no value.  Are you therefore slamming the site?  This can lead to banning.Spawnopedia 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... What? Questioning a specific source and specific entries on Wikipedia are not grounds for banning. Again, I ask you to step down from this aggressively confrontational attitude, assume good faith, and work together to resolve our differences regarding this entry. --Kynn 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link and POV problems 

message: (Note: AZJustice is most likely another ban-evading sockpuppet of User:Spawnopedia, but good faith assumptions require me to play along until he tips his hand again.)
I have added appropriate full name, explanation of his role in Killers, and a wiki link to Oliver Stone's name. Also, as explained before, the link to a web page hosted on the web site of Don Murphy is not a valid source for wikipedia. Please find a better source for this reference.
I have deleted the sentence that reads "Hamsher's Hollywood career ended soon after." as this is not only POV, but also incorrect -- the book (and supposed article) were in 1997. Hamsher's IMDB entry clearly shows that she produced From Hell in 2001. --Kynn 08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure I follow you on this one.  Are you claiming that Murphy somehow edited the Times article? AZJustice 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have no way to confirm what he did or did not do with the LA Times article. Linking to copies of articles on someone else's web site is bad practice. --Kynn 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by AZJustice 

message: I have added a section on her involvement in l'affaire Joe Klein.  I hope that it meets the standards of everyone.
--Nbahn (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wasn't aware that Hamsher is such a contentious topic..... 

message: Many "facts" are held up and footnoted to her personal blog, firedoglake.com.  I believe Wiki Rules FORBID using blogs as references.  Unless someone disputes I will be removing all matters substantiated only by her personal blog GumbyOrmond (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed citation to a self-published blog not by the subject of the article (as per above). --NYScholar (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Firedoglake.com

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jane Hamsher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123103542/http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/author/1/ to http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/author/1/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924023649/http://eventcosm.com/person/Jane-Hamsher/ to http://eventcosm.com/person/Jane-Hamsher/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118022948/http://2007.sxsw.com/interactive/programming/panels/?action=show&id=IAP060137 to http://2007.sxsw.com/interactive/programming/panels/?action=show&id=IAP060137
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified