Talk:Nedra Pickler

message: I have reveerted to include "American" rather than US or United States. This seems pretty standard stuff unless I missing something? Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "American" is vague. U.S. is specific. If there is no explicit Wikipedia policy which you are citing, then stop baselessly reverting other editors. — goethean ॐ 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality in lead

message: Just now. Hurmata (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted "stub" categorization 

message: On 21:46, 11 August 2008 Gamaliel wrote this edit summary: "we don't need to recount the Roger Stone article here". Here's why we do: Stone's extreme tactic is largely the basis for both impeaching Pickler's heavy reliance on him as a source for criticizing a politician and for providing context to the massive number of protests, 15,000, that Pickler's article received. Hurmata (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll concede the point. My concern was that the criticism section was overwhelming the article, not with that specific info, and I was looking for places to trim. Gamaliel (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem with the criticism section getting longer and longer. It's what makes her notable. She wouldn't be notable just for being a senior reporter, nor for winning an in-house award from AP for covering the Michigan Congressional delegation. Charles Manson is only notable for bad things. Hurmata (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger Stone story 

message: It would really be better to just have a couple sentences saying that she has been criticized for biased (pro-Republican) and unprofessional reporting and have footnotes to the sources so that people could check out the controversy themselves.  WP shouldn't be a court of law where evidence is presented against individuals. (Political note to Obama supporters:  Do you really think it helps to be seen as attacking, one, a mainstream journalist and, two, a successful professional woman?) Just my thoughts. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This remark starts off strongly, but you finish it with an clumsy rhetorical question.  (1) "helps" what? (2) Nedra Pickler does not represent professional women because she is one professional woman of millions. There aren't just 117 professional women in America, so that faulting one of them is an attack on all. (3) What is perturbing about faulting a mainstream journalist? Hurmata (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. My last remark was to Obama supporters (I'm going to vote for him too.) assuming that the blog attacks on Ms Pickler were intended to help his campaign.  Americans don't like it when politicians have "enemies lists" of journalists. They also tend to feel sympathy when women are personally attacked. The second is not very logical, it's true. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between media criticism and personal attacks. Citing the Columbia Journalism Review is a clue as to which one is being engaged in. — goethean ॐ 00:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that many undecided voters read the CJR. But I am confident that Barack will win anyway. :-)  Steve Dufour (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight to charges

message: I removed the mention of the number of complaints that AP received about one of her stories, and then it was put back. In today's cyber-connected age 15,000 e-mails is not all that notable. (I'm guessing they didn't take the time to send in paper letters.)  BTW I was also assuming good will in calling them "geeks", that is smart people who are a bit clueless about human relationships. :-)  Steve Dufour (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all fairly subjective. The article did make a point to illustrate 15,000 emails, an the implication is that its a lot. I'm sure they receive statistical amounts of email about subjects, and by their measure its a lot. That's their perspective, and we document perspective.Yeago (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They might have been Rush Limbaugh Operation Chaos operatives. :-)  Steve Dufour (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, you might be right.Yeago (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 15,000 geeks

message: Coverage of the 8 July 08 controversy should be compressed. We only need to mention what her article was criticized for, not the whole story. — goethean ॐ 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 July 08 controversy 

message: I note Croctotheface has raised an issue from this page (whether MMfA is a RS) here and it was determined MMfA was not a reliable source on this page, essentially confirming my removal of the MMfA ref.  I mention this so others may have a say if they wish on the RS noticeboard and so the MMfA link will not be restored. (I would have appreciated Croctotheface informing me that he took my edit to the RS noticeboard.) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MMfA is not RS 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nedra Pickler. 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/20150325054541/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/presidentelect_obama_first_pre.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/presidentelect_obama_first_pre.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) 08:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)