Talk:Terry Moran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Chicago Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Duke Lacrosse blog post

I again removed this section which, in my opinion, has no place in this article (at least for the time being). If Moran's blog post becomes a major news story--it certainly is not right now--and highly controversial it's possible it would warrant inclusion. Jball65 points out that the information about Moran's blog post is factual--i.e. he did make a post criticizing the Duke lacrosse players--which is true, however the fact that a piece of information is factually accurate does not at all mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. There are any number of facts about Moran which are not included here, and the fact that some people have disapproved of one of his blog posts does not seem notable enough to me--particularly since what has been posted here so far has strong POV problems.

The section I removed (which even after edits was still badly written and formatted) said that "The site where this article had been posted became indundated [sic] with negative responses to Mr. Moran's article." I looked and there were negative comments following Moran's post, but also comments agreeing with Moran, and other comments somewhere in between. In other words, Moran made a blog post and it created a bit of a stir. This is hardly fodder for an encyclopedia article.

I suggest that editors who are adamant about including this at least hold off for a few days. If it develops into a truly controversial story perhaps it should be put back in. If it basically just dies down and no one remembers his post in a month, I can't see any reason why it should be here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jball65 reinstated the Duke stuff and wrote a reply to what I wrote above which can be read at User talk:Jball65 (that stuff should just be moved over to this page) Below is my reply.

I'm not going to revert this again because I don't want to even approach violating 3RR. For Jball65, you should know that under this rule editors cannot revert one page more than three times in a 24 hour period. You have already reverted this page three times. The reason for this rule is to prevent edit wars. When you say "I will continue to place the Duke Lacrosse players portion of this article back up each time it is taken down" it suggests you will not abide by this policy. It also suggests you are not willing to work with other editors and listen to their opinions. You have only made a few edits on Wikipedia but I hope in the future you will be more open to other editors ideas about content, rather than insisting that your way is the right way.

Someone else will hopefully look at this, but in my opinion the section as written clearly violates Wikipedia's very strict rules about Neutral Point of View (see WP:NPOV). The entire section is quite negative toward Moran. It makes it seem as if everyone responded negatively to his post, when in fact some folks clearly agreed with him. Also you do not quote Moran in his own words, or fully explain his arguments in his blog post. As the criticism (little as their is) has only just developed, there has been no time for Moran to respond to his critics. Thus the paragraph reads like a hit piece on Moran. Also Moran is notable in this encyclopedia because he is a well-known journalist, yet the way the article is now this tiny, largely unknown controversy is given as much play as his entire journalistic career. It is completely disproportionate.

Despite Jball65's claim on his talk page, there are not "hundreds" of articles about this Moran blog post on the web. Hundreds of blog posts maybe, but a google news search on the words Terry Moran and Duke only turned up 15 articles. Most came from conservative news sites with a strong bias against Moran.

In short--this is not a big story yet and perhaps it never will be. Articles on well-known people would be really terrible if they included every minor controversy associated with that person. We try to decide what is notable, and just because you view this as notable and some bloggers have discussed it does not mean it belongs here.

Again, the best thing to do is to take this out for now and if the story becomes important in the next few days it's quite easy to put it back. With developing stories whose significance is unclear, there is no rush to put them in wikipedia (unless one has an axe to grind). So I think we should keep it out and see what happens with the story. Does this sound reasonable Jball65? If someone else wants to take this down right now I'm all for that, or I might do this in a day or two.

As for the paragraph itself, "ibid" appears in the middle which it should not, there is a link in the middle which there should not be, "site" is spelled "sight," and the extremely odd sentence "Many of the blog responses posted have made inevitable references ["inevitable?" why?] to shock jock Don Imus's statements regarding the Rutgers Womens Basketball Team" with no explanation as to what that means.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"He graduated from Lawrence University in 1982 and worked as a correspondent and anchor for Court TV, where he was recognized for his expertise in covering the Lyle and Erik Menendez murder trial in Los Angeles, California, in 1993."

What does it even mean to say he showed "expertise" in covering the murder trial? And how was this "expertise" "recognized?" Just curious. The person who has written this article appears to be a fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.25.139 (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)