Talk:Ellen Weiss

WP:BLP, people

Yes, she found it "extremely hard" to resign, but at the end of the day it was a resignation and not a firing.

Any sources claiming direct knowledge that she was pushed out can be included, but don't link to an article which says nothing of the kind and misrepresent it. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please deal with any issues through the discussion section - particularly when removing referenced material in large quantities. Marty jar (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary references to a discussion?

What discussion are you talking about Marty jar in your edit summaries? Until now there hasn't been any discussion of the recent back and forth. Drrll (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As above - Clearly any removal of large swathes of text should be done through discussion - that's the point. The initial removal of a large, comprehensive section was inappropriate, replaced with a shorter section with POV issues. The longer passage also had POV issues to be dealt with, but covered more ground. Any removal of large swathes of text should be discussed first. Marty jar (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that major changes should be discussed first. That's what the anons did on multiple occasions with a number of deletions, changes, and additions and that's what Plot Spoiler and I reverted. It also should be noted that the anons were all from DC, raising the possibility of COI editing. Drrll (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Drrll. The newer version is clearly worse and includes original research that is not reflected in the given sources. I am reverted to the original version unless adequate sourcing can be given for the "newer material." The original version appears to be objectively written to me and backed by reliable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a certain amount of confusion there - the newer material in the Juan Williams section was fully referenced from reliable sources, which is why it was inappropriate that it was removed; some of the reversions on the first section were appropriate. If you read the earlier comments on the discussion, I suggested that it would be better to clean up the more thorough version, which I've now done myself. Marty jar (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Those changes have problems. It took away an important part of the narrative of the review process over the Williams firing and replaced it with a statement that Fox News repeatedly called for the defunding of NPR. And the statement about Fox News is not supported by the source; Fox News didn't call for defunding--2 Fox News contributing commentators called for it. I don't know what the commentators' statements about NPR funding have to do with the biography of Weiss. The changes also removed a statement by Williams specifically about Weiss and replaced it with a statement about Williams that belongs in his biography, not Weiss'. Drrll (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The new version has less to do with Weiss and has more extraneous information. Hard to see how it is an improvement. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Fox News, defunding element is indeed irrelevant. The claim that employees of Fox saying something isn't the organisation itself is clearly irrational, or no position would ever be attributed to any organisation, but as I say - not sure why it was included, and didn't spot it first time round, so quite right that it's removed. Given that the item is about the Juan Williams firing, the outcome of the Inquiry, and the position of management are relevant, as is Williams' retort, and the note on pot. COI. Marty jar (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)