Talk:Melissa Harris-Perry

message: I am not convinced that this individual is important enough to have a Wikipedia article. Unless notability is established, this article needs to be deleted. Tkurt (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should be deleted

message: ISSUE: Is a Google link to a book (or other link to a website that links to sales of the book) required when citing a book? 71.77.20.26 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to http://books.google.com/books?id=vEEZyx4ebhoC for "Barbershops, Bibles, and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Political Thought" is not spam; it is provided so that the material in the article can be conveniently verified by a WP reader. The google link does not meet the definition of WP:LINKSPAM; viz. it is not a link "to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product." Please desist your deletion of this link. --Dr.enh (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Verified by a WP reader"???? What needs to be verified about the title of the book. Citations do not require links unless there is dispute about the information, in this case the title of the book and authorship. If links were required for citations to books, that means that an editor can't go to a library, find a copy of the book, and cite it. Absurd. Look around Wikipedia. It's loaded with citations to books -- legitimate citations -- that have no links. All that's needed in a citation is the title and other publication information, not a link to a website that promotes sales by its partners. If you want to "verify" that the title of the book is correct and that Harris-Lacewell wrote it, use this this webpage, which does not offer to sell the book. Please desist your irrational demand for a link when a link is not necessary and is, in fact, spam. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two paragraphs of the article can be verified. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The first two paragraphs of the article can be verified" ... with the book, not to mention various other websites that do not promote sales of the book. A link is not needed. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to provide links to sources. Thousands upon thousands of sources throughout Wikipedia are cited without links, and those citations are perfectly legitimate. Wikipedia does, however, have a policy against spam when that spam can be reasonably avoided, and that is the case here. I have tried to assume good faith in this matter, but your insistence that a citation must have a link when, in fact, it does not and when, in fact, that link is to a website that promotes sales of the book leads me to suspect whether you have some vested interest in the sale of this book. I don't believe Dr. Harris-Lacewell would (or needs to) stoop to such tactics, but at this point I wonder if you have some relationship with the publisher or other sales outlet. The fact that you are pushing this so hard when there is no need to do so raises my suspicions even more. Continue to make an irrational demand for a link in the citation and I'll be happy to seek other opinions on this matter. That's not a threat; it's a promise. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:ELYES, "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work." The About Melissa Harris-Lacewell link does not satisfy this policy. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Again, google is not a spamlink because google does not sell books. Your reply to that statement was that google gets paid by booksellers such as amazon; that has nothing to do with promoting the sales of the book. Also, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Civility and avoid ill-considered accusations of impropriety. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, Google makes millions of dollars from its partners who sell books, which is why they have placed a "Buy" link on the webpage, and which has everything to do with promoting sales of the book. I also recommend that you read Wikipedia:Civility and WP:CON and avoid ill-considered accusations of edit warring in a matter of content dispute. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As you have not responded to "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work," nor demonstrated how a link to google that links to a page listing publishers that links to sites where the book can be bought can be considered "promotion" of the book, I am restoring the google link. BTW, the reason I recommened that you read WP:CIVIL is you baseless speculation about my motives. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And since I have more than adequately responded to all of your concerns, and you have pushed this matter beyond reason, I now look forward to responses to the RfC. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, nothing is required to be added to Wikipedia. But Wikipedia:ELYES says that the book "should link to a site hosting a copy of the work." The link is helpful to the reader. --Dr.enh (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text: (from RFC) the external link is not really needed the standard book citation with an ISBN is OK. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm also here from the RFC. Per WP:ELNO: "For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." So long as the isbn is there, there's no need to put a direct link. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference link

message: As of Sunday, October 4, 2010, she is now Melissa Harris-Perry following her marriage to James Perry. She has changed her Twitter name, and is now publishing articles, making appearances and teaching at Princeton under this new married name. Her website, however, hasn't yet changed. I'm not sure of the best way to handle this here, as changing her name without changing the location of the article doesn't make sense, and moving the article and setting up redirects and all of that are beyond my sphere of knowledge. Anybody willing to make this update? (See http://www.twitter.com/mharrisperry and specifically http://twitter.com/MHarrisPerry/status/26607855037 http://twitter.com/MHarrisPerry/status/26608138857 http://twitter.com/MHarrisPerry/status/26608241658 and http://twitter.com/MHarrisPerry/status/26608300318 )
Aecamadi (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. Blankfaze (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Uhhhh, no. Your rant has place in this encyclopedia. This is not an isolated case; we have an established guide for this issue already: WP:MAIDEN. --Jeremyb (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: This is my first time using the edit feature, so I apologize in advance if it is incorrect. 
I think her position as a regular MSNBC contributor should be in her lead-in. She's on at least once a week and has hosted the Rachel Maddow show, and that is likely to be the reason people are googling her and finding this wiki page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.143.29 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSNBC contributor 

message: On 9 April, contributor 68.54.4.162 appeared to misunderstand WP policy when they deleted the image of this TV personality with this edit, giving the rationale: "Go read NFCC #1".  
The contributor seems to have some awareness of WP policy- they were referring to WP:NFCC  (Non free content criteria).  Criteria 1 requires that no free use image be available, and that the image is necessary for the article.  The requirement of a likeness of the person for a biography article does not appear to be in dispute- this has been standard practice for all articles on celebrities since WP began.  On every article, we have progressively replaced all fair use images with free images when a photographer has been good enough to release one under a WP- acceptable free license.  Up until that time, we have used publicity photos.  A scan of the history of articles on celebrities will demonstrate this practice to anyone doubting this fact. 
The question appears to be on whether a free image is available.   I performed a scan of available images in the usual places (eg flikr, commons, google image search filtering for usage rights) and as of this date, there appear to be no free images available yet for this person.   For this reason, I have restored the publicity photo/ logo for this person.  Certainly it should be replaced as soon as someone takes a shot and releases it on flikr or commons as CC3.0 or comparable.  Until then,  anyone doubting that it is conformant to WP general practice to claim fair use for this publicity photos would benefit from considering   Wikipedia:Publicity photos.  Usage for this article is on grounds acceptable to a large number of WP editors.  On the other hand, this is not WP policy, and many feel as Jimbo does that WP should be free of ANY fair use images unless there is some very special reason.  Consider the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos, especially the section: This_page_is_dangerous.  
The image is important to the article beyond identification because it gives an visual representation of the person's personality that cannot be conveyed in words.  
If anyone feels differently, let's discuss it prior to another removal giving the same mistaken rationale. J JMesserly (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't have a problem with keeping the image in the article, but to be precise, the anon makes a reasonable point if you read NFCC closely. On WP:NFCC, #1 states: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (italics added). For a living person, it is almost always possible that a free image could be created. It may not be readily available, but someone could go to the trouble to go to a public place where the subject is and take a photo. For that reason, many bio articles of living people don't have images that are not free. Cresix (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooops edits overlapped, and I was revising my entry, maybe take a look at my revision.  Anyway, I see your point.  There has been a war on Fair use for a long time, and Jimbo has a reasonable position though I have been with the other editors that see no harm in some fair use as long as we transition them out as soon as possible.  This "an image could be taken" measure is new on me- I guess it always blew past me.  Oh well.  J JMesserly (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Cresix correctly interprets my reference to NFCC1. This isn't even a debatable question: for nearly all living people, FU images are never acceptable for identification purposes, because it is possible to create an image of the person. This rationale is routinely applied at IFD and not really up for argument. See also NFC#UUI. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image restored. 

message: From beginning to end, this page reads as if it was written by MSNBC and then edited by Ms. Harris.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.4.190 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why you'd claim that.  The article gives much more detail than anything MSNBC would come up with as a publicity profile, is well sourced, and would be of interest to anyone who'd want to find out about more than just her on-air career.--Vistawhite (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this user makes the legitimate claims that, for example, the Mitt Romney scandal Mellisa found herself in should be included because right now this page doesn't adequately display MHP's public image as a political commentator and the divisiveness associated with it.Thesqueegeeman (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Romney scandal is included though.LM2000 (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes but it may be better to include it separatelyThesqueegeeman (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a publicity piece 

message: And it looks like this moonbat wrote the thing herself.§  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.32.70 (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can make a more reasonable argument for why you feel it's not worthy of an article?--Vistawhite (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not worthy of an article 

message: I just added some brief information to the introductory paragraph from Harris-Perry's bio pages at thenation.com and melissaharrisperry.com.  There is a little bit more I want to add to the life and career section, with a citation, but I'll have to get to that later this evening.  I'd also like to question the relative length given in the "Public Controversies" section to a single very recent and apparently very minor controversy; it seems out of proportion to this very brief biography. Seems to me a single sentence should suffice. LBourne (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've removed that section header per the advice at WP:CSECTION. Inclusion of such a minor incident at all is WP:UNDUE and violates BLP. Gobōnobō + c 15:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The above contributor said the section is too long not that it needs to be removed entirely.  Hosts don't make apologies except in extremely rare instances which makes this relevant to her page, nothing undue here. Considering an MSNBC host only discusses controversial issues makes this a non BLP issue as well, by this standard all other political commentators pages have BLP issues as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xjuicer (talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to side with the CSECTION Proportionality argument here. The Mitt Romney criticism section is about a third of the total content and is off in its own section. It's way overboard. And the rarity or commonality of apologies on MSNBC (or anywhere else) don't ipso facto trump BLP standards. -- Veggies (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The section can be trimmed section down if needed. BLP complaints are irrelevant they are just quotes and no different from other political commentator pages, applying separate standards for her page isn't acceptable. Page needs to be removed from protection due to ownership problems.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xjuicer (talk • contribs) 08:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It may need a bit of trimming, but it's better off now without a separate section header (WP:CSECTION).  However, I was surprised to see how little was written about her "collective parenting" statements, which garnered quite a lot of negative attention before this most recent controversy.LM2000 (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's the trim.  Proportions are important, so if it is going to be included we need this abridged version... or something similar to it.LM2000 (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Controversy sections are discouraged on Wikipedia because they attract excess and "may be a troll magnet". This article is a perfect example; if some editors had their way with this article a controversy section would comprise most of the article. This article has notable criticisms included, just not in a separate section. By the way, your YouTube link is does not demonstrate "quite a lot of negative attention" and is a primary source. Sources should be secondary. Using it as the only source also would violate WP:WEIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some brief info to intro paragraph; question the length of the controversy section 

message: Use of the name "Romeny" is incorrect; it should be spelled "Romney".  
72.218.72.102 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The section containing the incorrect spelling has been removed. LittleMountain5 03:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014 

message: Existing Text:  Her father was the first dean of African-American Affairs at the University of Virginia.[1] Her mother, Diana Gray, who is white, taught at a community college and was working on her doctorate when they met.
Problem:  Incorrectly written due to vague pronouns, and also bizarrely leaves out her father's name.
Possible Fix:   Her father, William M. Harris Sr.,  was the first dean of African-American Affairs at the University of Virginia.[1] Her mother, Diana Gray, who is white, taught at a community college and was working on her doctorate when they met.
 
Inkor (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. LittleMountain5 05:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2014 

message: has repeatedly created a "Criticism" section and expanded that section into approximately HALF of the article. Such sections are discouraged on Wikipedia because they attract excess additions. Prior to DragonSlayerCzar's edits, criticism already existed in the article (legitimately) and were incorporated into the "Career" section. Despite repeated requests to discuss on this talk page and to succinctly state the criticisms so they do not comprise half of a very short article, DragonSlayerCzar has unilaterally and repeatedly took it upon himself to push his POV into the article. Note that this is the only article he has edited in the past seven months. I would appreciate any help in dealing with this problem editor. Thank you. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While a criticism section may not be appropriate, a public image or similar section may be necessary to display the controversies MHP has gotten herself in; most notably the Mitt Romney's kid scandal that she's probably best known for outside of her audience.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesqueegeeman (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 February 2016 (Thesqueegeeman (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive edits 

message: It doesn't matter what the section is called, perhaps criticism is not the right title, but it seems like many editors here are trying to move the news events in MHP's career bio like the Romney's kid scandal, into its own section as it doesn't fit well with the career bio.Thesqueegeeman (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate section would be inappropriate; this is a very short article. Any criticisms, praises, or public image issues within the bounds of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT can easily be accommodated in other sections of the article, as they are now. This information is directly related to her career as someone who provides political commentary. Separate sections on Criticisms, Praises, or Public image are not appropriate for such a short article. Any such section likely would attract excess in violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. If anyone thinks additional "public image" issues are necessary for the article, add them to existing sections or discuss here. Sundayclose (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't enough notable controversies for such a section, your section even included some praise.  I know she has made some controversial statements that garnered little attention, such as calling Star Wars racist.  This is WP:NOTNEWS and should not be included.  A "Controversy" section would encourage a WP:COATRACK where any such minor controversy could be included.  The major controversies are already given WP:DUE weight, such as collective parenting and the Romney incident.LM2000 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate section for controversies spurred as a political commentator 

message: removed the statement "until and unless editorial control were returned to her team" as POV. The very first sentence of the cited source states: "Melissa Harris-Perry will not appear on her MSNBC show Saturday because she said she feels editorial control was taken from her." I don't have a problem with also including information about her show being preempted for election covereage, but removing the information about editorial control is POV because it selectively presents only part of the reasons discussed in the source in order to make a biased presentation of MHP's motives. Sundayclose (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review my edit comment.  Neither the text you quote above nor anything else in the article verifies the text you twice inserted in the article. Moreover, I suggest you stick to the NY Times story rather than bring The Grio here as RS in a BLP.   SPECIFICO talk  22:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the false allegations in your edit summary. Yes the source most certainly does verify the edit. The source's statement "Melissa Harris-Perry will not appear on her MSNBC show Saturday because she said she feels editorial control was taken from her" clearly confirms "until and unless editorial control were returned to her team". And that's not to mention the direct quotations from MHP: "Our show was taken"; "we were effectively and utterly silenced". If you want to make additional comments from the NYT feel free to do so, but don't remove what is quite clearly sourced and accurate information. Stop trying to bully your POV into the article. If necessary I will seek an RfC on this. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

text: If a direct quotation of NBC's response to MHP's accusations is included in the article ("many of our daytime programs have been temporarily upended by breaking political coverage, including M.H.P."), there is no reason MHP's quotations should be removed; specifically, "Our show was taken — without comment or discussion or notice — in the midst of an election season. . . . [W]e were effectively and utterly silenced" should be in the article as MHP can speak for herself just as much as NBC can speak for itself. Sundayclose (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comment. We really don't need The Grio source because the NYT covers everything. My point is that we need to include the quotations from MHP that I noted above (they were removed) as a balance for the quotation of NBC defending itself. No one can speak for MHP better than MHP herself, so if we quote NBC, there is no reason we can't use MHP's own words to explain her position. Sundayclose (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: She got angry. She said various things. She quit.  The employer did not try to retain her.  Nothing much to see there.  An encyclopedia does not need to present her angry words or any detailed justifications from the employer. If there were widespread coverage of this as a major event in journalism, tv, or some other sphere, we'd cover it in more detail and with more RS available for balance.  SPECIFICO talk  02:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nothing much to see there.": Your opinion. As for whether Wikipedia must present her words, Wikipedia does not have to present anyone's words. But sometimes the words are the best way to state the person's thoughts and feelings. NBC's words are presented, so no reason MHP's shouldn't be presented. Unless of course the goal is to obscure MHP's motives by intentionally not presenting her words. And the quotations are, in fact, from a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 03:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The gist of her quotes and NBC's can be summarized without putting it in quotes. Wikipedia isn't her blog or forum or even NBC's for that matter. So quoting a reliable source doesn't justify putting in select quotes. This is not what Wikipedia is for or about.--WatchingContent (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason MHP left her show 

message: I removed the Personal section diff, as I felt it was intricate detail only reported by a local newspaper. Does not seem to belong. Content in question was:
*In April 2015, the Winston-Salem Journal reported that the IRS had placed a tax lien on the property of Harris-Perry and her husband for about $70,000 in delinquent taxes. Harris-Perry said she and her husband paid $21,721 on April 15, 2015 and have a payment plan with the IRS.'
Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm sorry, I understand your logic and why you removed it, but I don't agree. There are a number of reliable national sources that covered it: , , . I've restored it for now, but happy to discuss. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Melissa Harris-Perry. 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://archive.is/20130204210259/http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/feb/06/tdmet02-chesterfield-native-now-msnbc-commentator--ar-823398/ to http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/feb/06/tdmet02-chesterfield-native-now-msnbc-commentator--ar-823398/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023090345/http://melissaharrisperry.com/about.html to http://www.melissaharrisperry.com/about.html
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) 06:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: MHP was cohosting a podcast that assessed the state of democracy in 2020. There are no updated episodes after Jan. 8, 2021 (topic was the elections of Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff to the U.S. Senate with limited mentions of voter suppression and the 1/6/21 insurrection) The Nation's website still links to following System Check, but there is no information on why no new podcasts are there. 2601:152:A01:BCA0:41B5:43C2:6976:F3E0 (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting a change to the article on MHP? If not, be aware that article talk pages are not supposed to be used for general discussion of the topic. Sundayclose (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nation's podcast System Check