Talk:Elizabeth Morgan/Archive 2

Archives

Untitled

Previous page has been archived. --JPotter 05:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Proper structure within Wikipedia

The orignal aritcle only occupied one page, but the two Acts of Congress are notable in their own right and now this subject takes up three pages at Wikipedia. This is a lesson for those who would put "too much information" on a single page. -- Fplay 19:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph

I removed the below paragraph from the article, since the statement is accurately quoted further down the page, and the second sentence is nonsensical.

Morgan has stated that the three options she held out for women who believe the system is not protecting their children from sexual abuse: Give in to incest, pick up the child and run for your life—or get a gun and shoot the abuser. It was clear from that context that she ment for the listener to ues handgun and injure or kill the abuser with sufficiently large pieces of ballistic metal, as opposed to using a gun-type needleless system to vaccinate the abuser.

Alexforcefive 04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she said it both in her speeches AND in the email, so there really was not much room to suggest that it was some kind of misunderstanding. And someone did get hurt. We should somehow make that clear to the reader. -- Fplay 20:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added ANOTHER sentance TWICE. Find it in the diffs and then ask yourself: Is there some other way to drive home the point that there is a common thread running through this saga? Obviously, we cannot just say that Morgan is a bad person, but we need to make it clear to the reader that there is SOMETHING about her that is likely the reason for this story and these common threads. -- Fplay 20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the sentence(s) you added, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it or why you wrote it twice. Also I didn't understand the message you left on my talk page, is there a reason I should rewrite a paragraph which we all agree was extraneous? Alexforcefive 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest some else: What the reader really wants to do is have a very initimate conversation with that lady and figure out what is true and what is not true. They cannot have that, so the best we can do is bring them as close as possible to the story and let them decide. If she did something more than once, then make sure that we note that fact. -- Fplay 20:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we're not here to "drive home" any point. I think the article summed up that there were special laws passed in relation to the Morgan case, and anyone's perception about the ethics of special laws is just that, perception. If you could reference special criticisms of these laws to some kind of editorial in a major newspaper or some kind of book or academic essay, it would surely be worthy of inclusion, but trying to get across how natural it is that a predominantly male Congress would step in on behalf of Ms. Morgan, natural in the sense that you feel it's something like animals would do, might be a bit like original research. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry also that I'm no expert as to the whole Morgan case, so please correct me if I'm wrong. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for favors or POV. My point is: If it happened more than once, then make sure that the reader understands that. The whole case is special and many would find the long sad story boring. It is currently fairly brief, but there is such a thing as too brief. It may sound odd to repeat a sentance (or nearly so), but it is not a disaster to do so. Hisory sometimes does repeat itself. It is fair to note when it does. -- Fplay 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to explain that something happened more than once, you say it happened more than once - you don't say it more than once. This is a weird and stupid argument. Alexforcefive 15:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"...for matters for the rights and authority..."

This sentence appears twice in the article: "Morgan could behave without any consideration for matters for the rights and authority of Foretich or Dixon."

This may have some meaning to a lawyer, but to my non-lawyer eyes it's incomprehensible and looks jumbled. Can someone replace it with a lawyerese-to-English translation?

The point is: Congress stepped in and stripped the men of their authority. It was a very natural and typical thing for a male-dominated group to do to other men, but it was not in the spirit of a democracy based on laws. Who do kings usually torture and kill? Other men. Who does the alpha male in an animal pack drive out? The other males. The point is that this was an assault on our ideas of law, society and civilization. Morgan should have been left to rot in jail until she either gave in or Hilary/Ellen turned 18. But we cannot say that in the Wikipedia article, so all we can point out of WHAT WAS WRONG or interesting about what happened. It is a fine point and a point of law, but it is worth driving the point home in the text in an NPOV manner. If it happened more than once, it is worth repeating to make it clear to the reader what happened. -- Fplay 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, so THIS is what you were trying to say! Dude you are raping WP:NPOV so hard with your edits on this article, not to mention being pretty nonsensical about it. Please refrain from "driving the point home" in this manner in future. Alexforcefive 23:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long and complicated story, primarily because of the intelligence, wealth and despiration (to prevail) of the person involved. It is difficult to choose what to say, but repeated problematic behavior in a person who, as a surgeon, is assumed to be socially responsible is worth noting. If you think about it, very few people other than those in position of governmental authority or in law enforcement have higher expectations placed upon their conduct. -- Fplay 05:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

incest category

The incest was always "alleged" and never to the satisfaction of the courts. Maybe there will be an "alleged incest" category someday... -- Pinktulip 13:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and we can put Caligula in it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The incest connection appears tenuous. The subject has never even been accused of incest. Rather than Caligula, the subject appears more similar to Agrippina the elder, the mother of Caligula and Drusilla. -Will Beback 04:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotected

I noticed that this article was sprotected against “Amorrow IPs” and that this revision was reverted. I don’t know anything about the situation, but IMO the revision prior to the reversion looked better – it was properly footnoted + sourced, merged the stubby paragraphs, and had an infobox and persondata. I was about to revert myself and remove the semiprotection, but I figured I’d leave a note here instead. Thanks, Andy _t 20:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone more familiar with the content than I am, needs to look back through the article and remove all of banned user Amorrow's edits. He can not be permitted to edit the any articles at Wikipedia. After the article is free of all his material then we can decide which content we want to add under an established Wikipedia user's name. Please email me if you have any questions. That is as much as I'm going to discuss on the site. regards, FloNight ^talk 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current article may be so perfused with creepy, stalkery prose and opinion that it may be best just to start over from scratch. - Nunh-huh 20:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In sooth, I haven't read it since maybe December, but I remember thinking it was well-written, at least back then. Shouldn't have to start over from scratch. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from something other than the present state then. Just a thought, as it seems in not terribly good condition at present. Say the sooth - Nunh-huh 20:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual

We have a complaint about this article which appears to me to be a reasonable complaint. It would be best to rebuild the article with extreme attention to sourcing.

There is a banned user who is likely to attempt to screw around with this page... please keep an eye out for him, and revert everything he does.--Jimbo Wales 22:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 29 July 2014

This edit request to Elizabeth Morgan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article was renamed Elizabeth Morgan Act on 26 May 2007 and Elizabeth Morgan became a redirect to Elizabeth Morgan Act. On 9 July 2009, the Elizabeth Morgan (disambiguation) page was created, because Elizabeth Morgan was protected and could not be converted into a disambiguation page. Since then, the Elizabeth Morgan redirect has continued as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Elizabeth Morgan (disambiguation) page. The suggested edit is to move Elizabeth Morgan (disambiguation) to Elizabeth Morgan since none of the four entries which are on the disambiguation page as of this writing, are indicated as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This Talk:Elizabeth Morgan page, which has pertinent postings, would remain, along with those postings and the archive of earlier postings, to serve as the Elizabeth Morgan disambiguation page's talk page. A note stating "See also: Talk:Elizabeth Morgan" already exists at Talk:Elizabeth Morgan Act. In fact, as far as the talk page is concerned, a more labor-intensive, but perhaps clearer possibility, would be to move (or merge) the contents of this orphaned Talk: Elizabeth Morgan page (along with the archive) to the nearly-empty Talk:Elizabeth Morgan Act, thus making those extensive early discussions more accessible. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner:

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a messed-up page move.

Not done: Protected edit requests are not for requesting pages to be moved. Those are handled through the WP:RM process. If there has already been a discussion resulting in consensus to move, but you are unable to move the page yourself, please see WP:RM/TR. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]