Talk:Melanie Martinez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Why is this page being edited to remove mention of the video? Is there some sort of censorship going on here? - zorbarob (7/13/06)

This article is not original text. It's copied from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12691000/. 65.34.154.254 04:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we revert it to the edit made at 21:49, May 22, 2006 by 67.101.189.167? That's the last edit before the copyright violation started. --Gray Porpoise 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Subpage 2 Funny 3 MM and Tisch 4 Deleted Michael Moore refs here 5 Disambig page? 6 Contradiction 7 Assessment 8 fair use image

[edit] Subpage

I have started an alternate article at Talk:Melanie Martinez/Temp. --Gray Porpoise 15:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

They remove her because of two 30 second "comedy" reels involving sex. I mean, how many 2-5 year olds browsing for sexual related materials are gonna find this in the first place... If there are 2-5 year olds looking at this, its the parents who should be replaced, not the host of the show. So yea, Im ranting, but on the flipside, I will try to find some links to add stuff.

[edit] MM and Tisch

I recently added two links showing that MM was listed (in June 2006) on a page describing select alumni of Tisch and what they were up to, but has since been removed from that page. Is there a problem with this? I cite both webpages (the current one and the one from google's cache). I don't think that is WP:OR, is it? The tone is also NPOV. Nowhere does it say "Tisch has sneakily removed MM..." nor does it say "Tisch has righteously removed MM..." It simply notes the change and leaves it up to the reader to draw conclusions. Sproutviewer 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's analysis of raw data with an intended conclusion by the reader; you need a primary source that covers the change in order to mention such a fact, or it oughtn't to be included. The facts that are notable about a subject are guided, since we're an encyclopedia, by those deemed notable by primary sources. See Wikipedia:Original research. I do admit this isn't the most clear-cut case, but the biggest question is, "Why is it important to draw the reader's intention to the change in what the Tich school thinks is a notable alumnus?" So yes, in my opinion it's a problem. -- SCZenz 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the raw data of course suggest a causal relation between MM being dismissed from PBS Sprout and her name being removed from Tisch's list of alumni. But that couldn't possibly be controversial to anyone. I agree that the wording has to be NPOV about what one should conclude about this cause-and-effect relationship. Is it that it's in the article that you see a problem? If it were an external link at the bottom, would that address this concern? Open to suggestions, Sproutviewer 20:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Focusing on a piece of raw data that is deemed uninportant or is unnoticed by primary sources, even when using NPOV language, is not NPOV. Neutral point of view also requires a balance of viewpoints; this fact doesn't really suggest anyone's viewpoint except that the article author(s), even though it may not be stated explicitly. Obviously Wikipedia isn't usually a dump for diffs between current websites and the google cache; I claim it's original research to decide that this particular diff is noteworthy when no primary source suggests this. -- SCZenz 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just removed those links as well, Sproutviewer, because that's a class notes page, and class notes change with time on any alumni page.--SarekOfVulcan 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can understand SCZenz's explanation and will respect it. But SarekOfVulcan's explanation is woefully inadequate. (Removing Martinez's name from the Tisch alumni page is the only change made on that page, and its timing coincides precisely with her dismissal from PBS Sprout. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can draw the obvious conclusion of a causal link here. How one feels about it is of course one's business.) Cheers,Sproutviewer 22:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR comes into play here, without any citable reference (or any reference at all) to say that this is why the change was made.--SarekOfVulcan 22:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would guess they just had to many hits on a page from people who weren't interested in the school or it's rep. It said she was doing the show and now she wasn't. Should they have said she was just fired.

[edit] Deleted Michael Moore refs here

Compare the IMDB refs for "Melanie Martinez". http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1282260/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2273573/

[edit] Disambig page?

I'm moving this discussion off my page, because I think it's going to come up here eventually anyway.

Greetings; do you think there should be a disambig page for MM? There seem to be at least three or so notable MMs. THanks, Sproutviewer 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not. If someone wants to do Melanie Martinez (writer) or Melanie Martinez (songwriter) (or Mélanie Martinez, for that matter), and it's more of an article than "This is not the woman wronged by PBS", then we can think about disambigging. --SarekOfVulcan 02:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

This article says that Melanie was the host of the Good Night Show starting in 2004, but the PBS KIDS Sprout article says that Sprout itself didn't start until 2005. What's with that? --Gray Porpoise 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed. --Gray Porpoise 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I think that on WikiProject Biography's quality scale, this article's current rating is start-class. It's gone beyond a stub, but it is still lacking some things. At most, it is a B-class article. However, compared to some B-class biographies, it does not seem extensive enough for that rating. --Gray Porpoise 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the start-class rating. Low importance, or mid-importance at best.--Sproutviewer 01:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fair use image

The image was removed from the article with a note saying it could be deleted and then I got a note on my user page saying it could be deleted because it was not used in an article. I think the image is safe to use as long as it is clearly used under fair use. --Gbleem 11:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)