User talk:Piers Morgan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, Piers Morgan! Your username suggests that you might actually be Piers Morgan, and if not that you at least have a particular interest in this subject. I want to draw your attention to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Your contributions are most welcome under this policy, but they must take special care over neutrality, as Wikipedia articles are written aiming for a neutral point of view.

Most of your edits so far to Piers Morgan and Pride of Britain Awards have already been reverted. In most cases, they involved removing properly referenced information or rewording passages to a sympathetic or even defensive point of view. If you dispute the accuracy or neutrality of something that has been sourced, you should raise your concerns for discussion at the talk page. I have tried to be fair in judging whether individual changes you made to the page were constructive towards a neutral point of view, but in the future you may find that starting with less controversial improvements will make it easier for other editors to see whether they were made in good faith.

I'm particularly intrigued by your claim that Piers (you?) launched the Pride of Britain Awards. I can't find any news source of otherwise making this attribution. He (you?) was obviously editor at the time, but that only really justifies its inclusion in that section of the Mirror's history.

I hope you can help us out some more with these details. All the best, BigBlueFish (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pride of Britain Awards

Thanks for the reference on Pride of Britain Awards. I've requalified the wording based on what the sources say; does this now seem like a fairer representation? The obvious problem with the previous revision is that the Awards' website explicitly names Peter Willis as the founder, as do various news articles, so some bearing has to be given to this. I get the impression you're perhaps not best pleased with the prominence given to him on the subject.

I would rather cite your book than your NBC profile; NBC obviously have an interest in representing you as well as possible, even if you didn't have any editorial input (which you might have done). A book may too, but its purpose in some way or other is to inform, and I suspect there is more detail there, although I haven't got a copy.

As regards style, if Unsympathetic / Aggressive is the other side of the coin from Sympathetic / Defensive, then Wikipedia only takes notes. The aim is to state the facts neutral of what significance they have; if people have been critical or defensive of the facts, then this too is reported. As pointed out in a recent article this is something of a hamper to great prose, but it does save wars in a medium where you can't just go to the other encyclopedia. On the positive side, it does mean that if you know of a source of somebody saying that the Germans found "Achtung! Surrender" funny, even you in your memoirs, then that would be great. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)