Talk:Melissa Harris-Perry
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Keep this article?[edit]
Should we merge this with MSNBC? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I love talking about various pundits, but unless we talk about how they say something batshit crazy or call out someone else's wingnuttiness, there really isn't much to talk about, and therefore kinda off mission. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Very true... That's why we have Rachel Maddow, she calls out awful stuff often. I'm drawing a blank on MHP. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe this will be a good start. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Added, thank you. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe this will be a good start. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Very true... That's why we have Rachel Maddow, she calls out awful stuff often. I'm drawing a blank on MHP. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Mission[edit]
I think the article is on-mission now that it discusses privilege and fundamentalism. I also need a second opinion; is this no longer a stub? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's only "no longer a stub" because it's full of cruft & filler. It's unclear why we have an article on this person; looks like she should be mentioned in passing in the MSNBC article & that's about it. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I said above, but I figured I'd give it a go. I'll pare it down, if you really think it's that padded.--TheLateGatsby (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the two things that are on there are probably good enough to remove the mission/merge tags...we have articles for other pundits (like Rachel Maddow) who are just as fiery but about whom we don't go into many specifics. If her rant about risk is any indication, I think we can see great things coming from this woman in the very near future. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, page is still a stub, I'll delete the other tags. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the two things that are on there are probably good enough to remove the mission/merge tags...we have articles for other pundits (like Rachel Maddow) who are just as fiery but about whom we don't go into many specifics. If her rant about risk is any indication, I think we can see great things coming from this woman in the very near future. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I said above, but I figured I'd give it a go. I'll pare it down, if you really think it's that padded.--TheLateGatsby (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor speaks[edit]
I've cut the following contribution from an IP editor:
- "Her issue with Snowden however seems to be that it took a white guy computer hacker warning people that the NSA may be looking at what they're doing online to suddenly make whites care about civil liberties, when African-Americans have been trying to build stronger coalitions for the last 50 years and trying to get more whites to care about government over-reach and civil liberties abuses.
- This can also be seen in the arrogant way in which Snowden-worshippers think topics like stand your ground and other civil rights issues affecting African-Americans are "distractions" that "divide" us, as if black people are too stupid to realize what real injustice actually is. And that real "injustice" is the government snooping on your WOW sessions as opposed to small black children dieing because of NRA fear mongering and black men being imprisoned and targeted by a corrupt justice system."
If anybody thinks there is something worth saving in the rant no doubt they will re-edit it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Proper category?[edit]
So, one of the categories she's been tagged with is "left-wing activists." Is this accurate? Rand0 (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)