Talk:Sophie Morgan

Neutral point of view

At the time of writing this article is headed with Close Connection template, reading through I find little other than simple factual statements that appear to comply with NPOV guidelines Daffodillman (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I see no evidence that the article requires a "cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view" that results from edits by people with a "close connection with its subject". It requires some cleanup and sourcing but not because of the material that has been added or removed by editors with a "close connection with its subject". Unless someone can provide actual evidence that demonstrates the validity of the template's presence I will be removing it. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid Journalism

I've pointed out to the editor of this major re-write of an old biographical article that it relies heavily upon refs derived from Tabloid Journalism. She has refused to take them down. The Daily Express, The Mail and The Sunday Mail are surely classic examples of this? The Evening Standard is also questionable. There are many other RSs she could have used. Can anyone help in finding other sources to replace those mentioned? Thanks and kind regards. Transparentfish (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What are your specific complaints? Off the top of my head I don't recall the Daily Heil being cited at all; The Daily Express, the Glasgow Mail and the LES are cited because they each contain direct interviews with the subject of the article. Your history of editing at this article (and see also [1][2][3]) suggests that you simply do not like any source or any information that does not back up your opinion that Morgan is some vapid, over-privileged non-entity who is being dishonest about her education. Deleting information about her academic studies and simply stating "she didn't complete them, they're irrelevant", for example - based purely on your synthesis of sources and in direct contradiction to quoted sources. (How would she be taking a master's degree without having first completed a batchelor's?) You reappeared after a 2 year absence to attempt to prevent this article being improved - you should take your crusade about "tabloid journalism" to the Kelly Knox article - now that's a doozy. Keri (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Keri for your comments. I still think you could do better than resort to using The Daily Express and The Sunday Mail for your sources. In fact, I always thought that independent sources rather than interviews with the subject themselves were thought more valid on wikipedia? Perhaps you could try to source some independent refs? I am free to edit when and how I choose - I've always thought this article was a mess. Perhaps you could tackle the Kelly Knox article when you've finished here, or at least flag up some of issues you've noted on the talk page as you have chosen to point them out? That would be really helpful. Sorry, not sure what a doozy is ! In terms of Morgan's education, as I understand it from what she's said - she did not complete her BA due to health problems when she was on bed rest for 2 - 3 years. In which time she did an Open University degree in English Literature. Hence she would have been able to apply for a MA. Not at all reliant upon her completing her Fine Art Degree in the circumstances. So according to your sources, she's now a qualified Art Therapist? Perhaps you could add that too to your re-write. Transparentfish (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)