![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Film-- Has it been verified that the actor in the film is the same Terry Moran? I cannot tell, so I will leave it in but it should be checked as it seems odd.
Family-- Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons states: "Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, discuss the issue on the article's talk page".
The names and occupations of family members are not directly involved in this article's topic, and they do not have independent notability. This seems to be an unnecessary step into the privacy of all involved. The section should be removed.
Controversy-- (general) This article has no writing about his career besides two "controversies", one of which is based on speculation by a biased source. For the balance issue alone, the controversy section should be removed, but particularly because it is an admitted speculation from a biased source. Discussion of the second controversy is below.
Controversy-- (Duke) I was not surprised to read something with such an obvious bias against the individual, as this happens frequently on Wikipedia. I was, however, surprised to see the Mr. Ball whose online petition is promoted in the article has been the driving force behind including the Duke "controversy" in the article (as seen on the history, talk and discussion pages). This is irresponsible, and blatantly biased (if the author of the section has a petition attempting to get someone fired over the issue the section covers--that is bias). I was also surprised to see that this issue which had been settled was brought up again, a long time after the incident had passed. I agree with the previous argument against keeping it in the article, particularly now when it is an even more minor issue that it was at the time.
Wikipedia's policy on " coatrack" or " attack articles" include controversial topics involving living persons. The example given is particularly applicable here: "Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic. Articles about a particular person or topic should not primarily consist of criticisms of that person or topic. For example: John Doe works as a journalist. He has given over 30 years of long and faithful service to his newspaper. However, one day, he made the terrible mistake of nearly reporting an unchecked fact that came within a whisker of ruining an innocent person's life. Because he did this, he is an evil person. Here is some more information about this incident… (and so on, and so forth)."
That example from Wikipedia pretty much sums up my objection to the "Controversy" section, particularly because almost nothing about his career besides controversy has been covered. Jessiecat08 ( talk) 13:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
"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)
I removed the whole bit with this edit. We try to avoid those on BLPs, almost the entire thing was unsourced, and a significant portion of it was original research. The most recent addition relates to the tweet about Obama's comment about Kanye West (sourced to this) but that is: A) Extremely trivial, and not appropriate for a bio; B) Quite pov as written (as was much of the section); C) Not even necessarily about Terry Moran, since it's not clear whether he even posted or rather some staffer back at ABC did without checking first. If it becomes a huge media brouhaha and Moran is at the center of it then discussing it here might be appropriate, but we're a ways from that right now.
Please don't simply re-add this section—the sourcing was terrible among other problems and the burden is on those who want the material included to source it properly and keep it NPOV, especially on a biography of a living person. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I didn't re-add the controversial section, I simply put the facts back. We have a source that says it was him, however. If it turns out that it wasn't him then the page will be updated accordingly. Dumaka ( talk) 17:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Is he gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.49.125 ( talk) 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Film-- Has it been verified that the actor in the film is the same Terry Moran? I cannot tell, so I will leave it in but it should be checked as it seems odd.
Family-- Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons states: "Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, discuss the issue on the article's talk page".
The names and occupations of family members are not directly involved in this article's topic, and they do not have independent notability. This seems to be an unnecessary step into the privacy of all involved. The section should be removed.
Controversy-- (general) This article has no writing about his career besides two "controversies", one of which is based on speculation by a biased source. For the balance issue alone, the controversy section should be removed, but particularly because it is an admitted speculation from a biased source. Discussion of the second controversy is below.
Controversy-- (Duke) I was not surprised to read something with such an obvious bias against the individual, as this happens frequently on Wikipedia. I was, however, surprised to see the Mr. Ball whose online petition is promoted in the article has been the driving force behind including the Duke "controversy" in the article (as seen on the history, talk and discussion pages). This is irresponsible, and blatantly biased (if the author of the section has a petition attempting to get someone fired over the issue the section covers--that is bias). I was also surprised to see that this issue which had been settled was brought up again, a long time after the incident had passed. I agree with the previous argument against keeping it in the article, particularly now when it is an even more minor issue that it was at the time.
Wikipedia's policy on " coatrack" or " attack articles" include controversial topics involving living persons. The example given is particularly applicable here: "Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic. Articles about a particular person or topic should not primarily consist of criticisms of that person or topic. For example: John Doe works as a journalist. He has given over 30 years of long and faithful service to his newspaper. However, one day, he made the terrible mistake of nearly reporting an unchecked fact that came within a whisker of ruining an innocent person's life. Because he did this, he is an evil person. Here is some more information about this incident… (and so on, and so forth)."
That example from Wikipedia pretty much sums up my objection to the "Controversy" section, particularly because almost nothing about his career besides controversy has been covered. Jessiecat08 ( talk) 13:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
"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)
I removed the whole bit with this edit. We try to avoid those on BLPs, almost the entire thing was unsourced, and a significant portion of it was original research. The most recent addition relates to the tweet about Obama's comment about Kanye West (sourced to this) but that is: A) Extremely trivial, and not appropriate for a bio; B) Quite pov as written (as was much of the section); C) Not even necessarily about Terry Moran, since it's not clear whether he even posted or rather some staffer back at ABC did without checking first. If it becomes a huge media brouhaha and Moran is at the center of it then discussing it here might be appropriate, but we're a ways from that right now.
Please don't simply re-add this section—the sourcing was terrible among other problems and the burden is on those who want the material included to source it properly and keep it NPOV, especially on a biography of a living person. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I didn't re-add the controversial section, I simply put the facts back. We have a source that says it was him, however. If it turns out that it wasn't him then the page will be updated accordingly. Dumaka ( talk) 17:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Is he gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.49.125 ( talk) 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)