Talk:Lisa Miller (journalist)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Cleveland

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cleveland, the scope of which includes Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Area. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.ClevelandWikipedia:WikiProject ClevelandTemplate:WikiProject ClevelandCleveland articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Obama article

Resolved

I want to make an entry about Lisa Miller to this article giving the name of an article she wrote. She deserves better information on her website. Kindly give consensus. Please do not involve in an editing war, this is not useful. I made my entries peacefully. I don't think any agressiveness is good. Peace. Thank you. Geiremann (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't single out an obscure news piece Miller wrote once, purely because you are interested in the conspiracy theory it describes. We already link to an index of her writing, and two cover stories - per WP:ELPOINTS ("try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website"), we don't need individual article links when we have an index. (We could also lose the two "cover stories" - if they're important, it'd be more useful to the reader if we wrote about their significance in the article.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singling out one column from the hundreds she's written is giving one undue weight. It's already linked on the page in her archive of columns, unless it's notable by outside reliable sources, there's no cause to include it specifically. Dayewalker (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me write here. So, in brief what would help me and save a lot of time is what ? you don't want me to say that the senior Newsweek editor wrote a piece in Newsweek. Is this a personal feud you have with her ? You don't want this particular information out ? What is this so particular about ? You don't involve in politics do you ? You don't choose sides right ? No agenda, right ? You're neutral, right ? I'll present this in the article: "Lisa Miller wrote an article called "Is Obama the Antichrist" ", please give me consensus here because McGeddon does not rule what's written here, he's never made the slightest entry until today. He's obviously here for some reason he alone knows. He's started this editing war so I'm going for consensus. I didn't start any war, he did. Thanks for voting here. How many votes for me entering that ? Geiremann (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None. There are no "votes" for you doing so as I've told you several times, and FisherQueen has now also told you on your talk page. The only place on Wikipedia where there is consensus to discuss this fringe idea is on the Obama conspiracy page, which I've sent you the link to twice. Please stop adding it. Dayewalker (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply no indication that this one article she has written is more significant (relative to her) than any other article she has written. The only reason to single out this one particular article is to draw attention to the topic of that article. This article is about Lisa Miller, not a conspiracy theory she wrote about one time. Searching for articles to add one particular piece of information to is seldom a good idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the policy explaining how Wikipedia doesn't use "votes" to resolve disputes - it operates entirely on discussion and consensus. Nobody is "ruling", we're just quoting policy, and yes, I'm trying to enforce that neutrally. You're welcome to explain why you think Miller's conspiracy-theory article should be mentioned above any of her others. --McGeddon (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McGeddon, surprised at your deletion. I'm not claiming one thing or another and am trying to understand the things you older editors are kindly showing me. I understand the notability, the relevance, the neutrality etc...But it's a work in progress and can't be perfect in a jiffy. Informing is important but it's not easy. How can we decide this information is important and that is not ? It's mind-boggling because that's a responsability. I'm trying to make light out of things that are shadowy still to me. Technical terms are hell. Very tough to understand. One thing about this article, my friend, I'm surprised that it's not more developped and has approximately zero information about a very influential and productive person (Miller). Why such a thin resume ? Are you close to her, and she's told you she wants the least possible on her page ? I thought any reasonable person would want a rich and colourful page, but if she wants to avoid all publicity that's very understandable too. Do you know her ? Did she ask for nothing to be said about her writings ? I can understand that. It's understandable. A Wiki page could be a headache. Geiremann (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McGeddon deleted your addition simply because he was the first one to see it, any other Wikipedia editor would have done the same. Selecting one article from her history and making it the focus of an entire section gives extremely undue weight, especially when it's obvious that's the only reason you're here at Wikipedia. Please stop. You're at 3RR already. Dayewalker (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's one article. Consencous has clearly determined that it is not significant here. Nor is it significant at the host of other places you've added it. Future attempts to add this one article to whatever article will be a problem. I suggest you address the issue on the intended article's talk page before adding to the article. Otherwise, I'll be reverting it on sight and probably tagging you for vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why in the light of the new revelations by Honolulu Senior elections Clerk Tim Adams, (saying they all know in the Hawai gov, that they have no birth certificate), why you should put above the article about the Antichrist....that Newsweek made Obama front page. Where's the Certificate Barry ? I don't get that you guys are all so solidly Obama-fans. I mean this is not the One-Party rule of Stalinism. Where do you guys come from ? Don't you guys have your own identity ? No moral strength ? You guys are so strongly political. Why ? What's so great about Obama ? I like the guy, but sheesh ! He's stupid and ugly but aren't we all hehehehe ! I don't get this guy hiding his name and birth certificate and you guys working overtime to cover up for him. What's teh point ? Don't you feel bad ? I mean I'm not alone to think like I do. What's with Wiki ? Nobody think like me here ? Am I alone ? Is Wiki different from the country ? All-Obama holdout ? Geiremann (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sourcing

With the exception of the rather-obscure 'Wilbur Prize', nothing in this article seems to be sourced to anything other than Miller herself (with the occasional exception of her employer and publisher). It does little to establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]