Talk:Melanie Morgan

Please Note: "Pauline Friedman"

You may strongly disagree with Melanie Morgan and find her commentary offensive, but please do NOT put the "Pauline Friedman" version back online. It was a vandal's spoof. Morgan has made a third urgent request to restore the correct version, which I have just done. I am not certain what the legal consequences could be if she really gets mad, but I am pretty sure it would be quite messy. --Tangerine5000 16:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Here is what she said on Friday 12/22:

“ To Whom It May Concern,

This is the third time I have addressed this problem with Wikipedia, and for the life of me I cannot understand why it keeps popping up on your website.

I am Melanie Morgan of KSFO in San Francisco, and vandals have repeatedly changed my profile to clearly portray false information.

Wikipedia has corrected it twice, and it has happened AGAIN.

ONE MORE TIME:

Melanie R. Morgan is my correct name. I am not Pauline Friedman, nor was I born in Beverly Hills. I was born in Kansas City, Missouri in 1956, not 1948.

I have previously worked as a reporter, not an anchor for KGO-TV. My resume also includes several stints as a foreign correspondant for ABC Radio and Television, covering the bombing of the Marine Compound in Beirut in 1983, the live coverage of the return of American hostages from a hijacked airliner to Germany, and the uprising in Tianamen Square in China, as well as the earthquake that devastated Mexico City in 1988. I have won many awards for my 30 year career, including (most recently) the Associated Press Mark Twain award for special live programming from Iraq last year.(Voices of Soldiers, Truth Tour)

I have never called for the assassination of presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I have never called for the assassination of anyone-- period. I was referring to a 'political bulls-eye' on Nancy Pelosi, after her inflammatory comments regarding the President of the United States, and ugly political discourse about Republicans in general. This is in reference to a book I am planning to co-author to expose Ms. Pelosi's extremely liberal, anti-American comments and the agenda she has set for the new Congress.

These repeated efforts to smear me on Wikipedia are disgusting, and demeans your credibility as a source of unbiased information.

Please correct (again) immediately.

Melanie Morgan, KSFO Radio, San Francisco

”

I've put the above in quote form but suggest that a hidden text message also be added in several likely places where would-be dupes could see they are mistaken and their efforts reverted. Benjiboi 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Her Comments Against Liberals and Liberal Organizations

On numerous times, including at least twice on FOX News Channel she has unabashedly called for Terrorist acts against Americans, and in particular, Code Pink and other liberal groups.

I think it would be appropriate to add the fact that she has done so to her page here.

Are the FOX News Channel videos of her and recordings of her own radio broadcasts (of her inciting Terrorism against Americans) good enough to fit the sourcing requirements here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 (talk • contribs)

I've redacted your statement to remove slanderous statement against the subject of this biography of a living person as well as unhelpful WP:POINTy statements. Please avoid labelling people as such as it violates our policies. Just as you would like a biography about yourself to be accurate we need to do so as well, this includes not publishing such controversial items (without reliable sources) even on the talk page. Also disparaging remarks towards other editors, collectively or personally violates policies on personal attacks. Please avoid this and editing will likely go more smooth. As to your question, the content you're talking about seems like it would be notable enough that someone more neutral, like a newspaper (San Francisco Chronicle?) would have covered it. We need to err on the cautious side when introducing content likely to be seen as controversial just as a newspaper is likely to be. My suggest is to see what they have written and quote their words directly so they are stating she stated ____ rather than wikipedia inferring she did. This helps us remain neutral and we're simply reporting what a reliable source has published. I think San Jose Mercury News or the Sacramento Bee are also nearby and would been seen as more neutral on these issues as well. Benjiboi 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone what they are is not slander. Also it's up to her to prove that she wasn't attempting to organize terrorist attacks if she ever wants to take it to court. I agree with you on the neutrality. It's not my fault the newspapers don't want to report on right wing talk show hosts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.220.31 (talk • contribs)

(Redacted new comments). Again, we work off reliable sources and no, it's not up to her to prove anything. If the content you wish to see on the subject is notable enough it's likely to be published by someone reliable. As a talk show host she likely said a lot of outrageous things and it sounds like much of it was ignored. There are other places on the internet where you can publish your thought on the matter but this is an encyclopedia. Benjiboi 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestive/possibly grammatically incorrect

Probably should change 'support US armed forces' to 'US armed intervention in the (war on terror)' --- Crissa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.238.36 (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lacking biography

I've read other bios of Ms. Morgan, why is there no mention of her battle with a gambling addiction that nearly ended her career, and irresponsible behavior of taking her infant son to all-night card games, or the fact that her boss at KSFO was her husband? I also didn't see anything about a reason why she left KSFO (they didn't renew her contract). The article seems to be really struggling to put a major positive spin on someone with the scruples of... well, shall we say "a much lesser person" by "lying through omission." I would almost suspect that Ms. Morgan wrote this herself. Ragreen (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does mention her gambling addiction. As for the other material, you can add it to the article yourself as long as you have reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article talks about the movie made about her! She does not hide from the fact that she is a re-covering gambler.... Liberals like you all want to tear any conservative apart on all of their faults.. but somehow overlook or "forget" your own liberal leaders/personalities faults! Grow up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.33.132.19 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What it really doesn't talk about is that fact that she has no conservative credentials of any kind. She was literally bounced on Harry Truman's knee as a child and had a lifelong affiliation with Liberals and Democrats. Then ALL OF A SUDDEN she has a miraculous conversion when a job opens up for a conservative talk show host IN HER HUSBANDS RADIO STATION. It don't work that way.97.96.4.75 (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pelosi

What happened to the bit about her saying "We have a bullseye painted on (Nancy Pelosi's) forehead? I know that was in here at some point. SirChuckB (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was. I dug it out of the history and restored it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. There's no indication that there was ever a noteworthy "controversy" over the statement. Kelly ^hi! 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Added some more news items that clearly indicated there was. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The linked sources say nothing about anyone notable considering the statement a death threat. Media Matters is not a reliable source, the Lehrer NewsHour ref says nothing that I can find about any Pelosi death threats. The other two sources {NYT and USA Today) are not linked and we have no idea what they say. Removing per WP:BLP until this is resolved. Kelly ^hi! 19:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, this game again.... What constitutes a reliable source in your mind? I have nothing against searching, but it seems that everytime is comes to editing conservative/liberal articles, WP:RS gets thrown around like confetti SirChuckB (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You could have just removed the part about the death threat. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but WP:BLP isn't a game. For something like an accusation that a living article subject was making death threats against the person third in line for the Presidency of the United States, I don't know what exactly an adequate reliable source would be, but it would have to be something more than a blog which is admittedly partisan. I really don't care about the ideology of this person, but regardless, we don't keep BLPs here just so people can include links to any blogger that doesn't like something the article subject said, and then call it a "controversy". See WP:COATRACK and WP:REDFLAG. Kelly ^hi! 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That really doesn't address anything. You could have easily just removed the material you found troubling and left the clearly and properly sourced material, but you removed it all. There is no dispute that she has been criticized for that comment and that fact was documented with plenty of mainstream, reliable sources. We have a duty to be responsible when it comes to BLPs, but we also have a duty to NPOV and comprehensive encyclopedic coverage, and we fail in that duty when we cut out chunks of articles that are accurate and properly sourced because of a problem with a couple of words that could have been easily removed by themselves. Gamaliel (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I tracked down the NYT article...it appears there was indeed a controversy. In regards to NPOV, the previous language of the paragraph could hardly fit that description. I've included her response for balance and properly cited the Times article. The Media Matters link should be removed, as the source isn't reliable, I think. Kelly ^hi! 20:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have emailed you a copy of the NYTimes story had you asked. I've got Lexis/Nexis access so if you want a copy of anything let me know. I don't particularly care how the section is worded but I trust you will word it in an NPOV manner. I do object to removing mention of Media Matters as they are perfectly reliable and part of the controversy as one of the groups objecting to Morgan's comments. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I didn't say it was a game. I meant that everytime something like this comes up, it turns into a "source not reliable, how about this?" type of deal where everyone argues. The Pelosi comments certainly were controversal and led to a lot of calls for her termination, it was also used to depict the double standard commentators are held up to. You say "I don't know what exactly an adequate reliable source would be, but it would have to be something more than a blog which is admittedly partisan." But then you remove material from the NYT and other known journals. I ask again, what do you consider a reliable source? SirChuckB (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Article does not adhere to NPOV

Stage three in the BRD process: discussion. Basically, I don't think this article is neutral. The reason for that is the use of the word controversy, which on Wikipedia is prima facie evidence of POV-pushing regardless of veracity or verifiability. Especially when it's in a section of its own. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's... nuts. The word "controversy" essentially describes a person like Melanie Morgan, who is a talk show host and commentator whose job is to stir up controversy. If you'd like to suggest a better title for that section, go ahead. But to redact all mention of notable incidents in her outspoken career, is a whitewash. What other word should we use to describe such incidents? FCYTravis (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of articles have a section called "controversy". We shouldn't make a special rule about them just for this article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article would be much better if any noteworthy criticism was merged into the rest of the article, to prevent encouraging further coatracking. Kelly ^hi! 22:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They fail NPOV too. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Involvement in Move America Forward

Is Melanie Morgan still involved in Move American Forward? I noticed that her name and bio has been deleted under the "About MAF" section on the website www.moveamericaforward.org. Dale720240 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy

This article does not list the Melanie's correct birthday. THe entire article is a mes and should be reewritten and should include those things called facts. After all isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia that is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.107.124 (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Added POV tag. MAF Charity info comes from subjects own vanity website

If we are going to mention dollar amounts, we should get that from a reputable source. Can personal websites be used as sources on Wikipedia? Doesn't seem like they would be. Just in the news today. The charity in question is being sued by the state of California for funneling donations to Republicans and skimming off the top of donations. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-lawsuit-military-charity-donated-to-politicians/ar-AAENP0p?ocid=spartandhp 2601:244:8301:98C5:60E8:FB09:81EE:8A0B (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)