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 sourcedmust 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.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
