Talk:Zell Miller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Georgia (U.S. state) Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

He glosses over the policy changes of the Democrats and the historical reasons for their divergence from Southern politicians'; his real complaint is that he disagrees with the Democrats' policy positions (positions he agreed with as recently as 1992, when he spoke to the Democratic National Convention), but he couches the split in the language of anti-Southern bigotry.

This passage hardly strikes me as NPOV. Angry liberals engaged in edit wars again?

I think this passage is essentially correct, but I'm an angry liberal...I agree that it's not NPOV - certainly in that form it is quite POV. john k 01:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


He glosses over the policy changes of the Democrats and the historical reasons for their divergence from Southern politicians'; his real complaint is that he disagrees with the Democrats' policy positions (positions he agreed with as recently as 1992, when he spoke to the Democratic National Convention), but he couches the split in the language of anti-Southern bigotry.

The passage jumped from the monitor at me, and I read it over several times, looking for at least one crucial "in my opinion" qualifier. There's gotta be one in there somewhere, but I've always had problems when it comes to reading Pidgin English.

What, the encyclopedia article would be better if a POV comment was couched with "in my opinion"? Surely that would be just as bad. I'd note there's some bizarre POV from the other end - for instance, it essentially backdates Miller's conservatism to his time as Governor, which isn't really true. Also, the idea that he is not now a Republican and remains a "lifelong Democrat" is rather dubious - he's giving the keynote address at the Republican National Convention. john k 13:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Miller's early political career included 2 runs for the House of Representatives as a segregationist, and Chief of Staff to the axe-handle wielding bigot Lester Maddox. His "conservative" politics go way back. Faveuncle 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Faveuncle

Contents

[edit] 2004 post-convention speech interview

All right, an anonymous editor wants this in the article:

"However, his interview on Fox News Hannity and Colmes went over without incident."

I removed it once on the grounds that Miller has doubtless given a large number of similarly uninteresting interviews during his career, and since we wouldn't want to mention all of them, there's no sense in mentioning any particular one. But maybe in the context of the Hardball interview (which should be mentioned because it received a fair amount of attention) it too should be mentioned. Does anyone else have an opinion? Everyking 17:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First of all that section needs to be explained in more detail. I mean I have no clue what the whole incidence was about. Was he asked tough questions and lost his temper? Did he challenge Matthews to a duel or Matthews and the whole panel? What is the context of that statement. Why should I care he said that? So explain or drop it. If it is dropped then the "However, his interview on Fox News Hannity and Colmes went over without incident." should be dropped too.

[edit] Edits today

I made some edits on this article today. If there are comments or concerns these edits, please post them here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 07:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He's got a new book out if someone care to add it. A deficit of Decency is the title.

[edit] Several minor edits, 2 additions to critics section, may 2005.

I've made several edits today to the critics section: 1. Correct a minor typo, 2. Correct the tense referring to his caucusing with the Republicans (I assumed this was true, and left it otherwise unchanged). 3. Some modifications to the paragraph on reaction to his speech at the RNC. 4. Some more genuinely minor edits (correcting spelling, tense, etc.) 5. Altering the paragraph on the Washingtonian.

Brief summary: I think it's somewhat misleading to say that the view amongst R&D of his speech was one of indifference: that implies most thought so. Certainly seeing it, I didn't, nor did those with very different political views from me. We all felt it was an electrifying and polarizing speech.

I noted that Andrew Sullivan, while nominally conservative, had endorsed John Kerry for president. As a frequent reader of his blog, I think this is relevant to his harsh criticism of the speech.

I added a reference to Michael Barone's column on Miller's speech. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040902.htm). I think this is an outstanding description of the speech, though one definitely biased positively.

Should a positive description be in the critics section? I think that's the strongest argument that can be mustered against my including the Barone column link, but I believe that an NPOV requires looking at the counterarguments in any section.

The Washingtonian paragraph, which, frankly, seems silly, was modified. As the website linked by the original author indicated, Democratic staffers viewed Miller as "spineless". Republican ones viewed him as "gutsy". The first fact was qualified, the second was added. I view this as largely "inside the beltway" material, but I am hesitant to remove it since a previous editor did see it as valuable.


[edit] More cleanup, and a reversion, and some changes, may 2005.

Reverted to “A conservative democrat” vs. “An extremely conservative Democrat”. Remember, this line is speaking of his entire career. Moreover, would you characterize John McCain as “An extremely liberal Republican” ? I think “extremely conservative” is from a non-neutral PoV. I’ve no objections if the editor wishes to comment on a perceived move to be more “maverick” or more “conservative”, but I’m not honestly convinced that even democratic support for war/or GWB makes one “extreme” from a neutral PoV. (After all, over half those that voted in the presidential race felt otherwise, rightly or wrongly, and Sen Kerry supported the war, at least at one point. Surely he’s not an “extremely conservative” Democrat!) I invite the editor to comment here if s/he feels my reversion is unreasonable.

Corrected spelling of criticized for critisized

Inserted word “nominally” in front of “Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan”. While ostensibly pro-war, he does not strike many as conservative these days.

“the factorial discrepencies” – replaced with “apparent factual discrepancies”. Factorial and the misspelling seemed a typo in original. I recognize the word “apparent” may cause controversy and I’d be happy to have a discussion. I feel it’s appropriate because it’s technically correct; however, it can be misleading to focus on one particular senate vote; the other issue is that years later, Dick Cheney as Bush 41 Sec Def wanted to cut some of the same programs, as CNN ably pointed out. And I think most readers (unlike Mr. Matthews) are capable of grasping that “spitballs” is hyperbole.

broadcastors on content the government deemed acceptable or unacceptable, and to make automatic reappropriations – corrected to “broadcasters”

inflamatory – corrected to inflammatory.

Added “and in the press” to conservative bloggers since the citation is a press one.

Hyphenated flip-flopper (sorry if this is wrong) and non-ideological

and the idea that Miller was non-ideological seemed particularly odd to many supporters.—added this. I feel it’s true. You can criticize him for being wrong, inaccurate… but non-ideological? I’d say he was very consistent with a strain of the Democratic party that isn’t very strong these days, but none the less was once towering. (Much as concern over budget deficits and fiscal sanity seems to have vanished from most of the Republican party)

many Democratic leaders publicly claimed that Miller is no longer a real Democrat – changed to this from “have publicly claimed”. It’s past tense now, not present.

Changed “angry dispute” to “dispute”. With CNN. I read the transcript closely, I didn’t see anger. I don’t recall anger with CNN, though I’d accept the word combative certainly (which I left, and support). Inserted “what some viewed as harsh”. Reading that paragraph, that’s actually something I think the majority of Americans would agree with – that Abu Ghraib was wrong, and dismay was appropriate, and contrition appropriate, but that he would not join with the MoveOn outrage that placed the event in a vacuum.

[edit] Neutrality Disputed? May 21 2005

I propose removing the "neutrality disputed" comment at the beginning of this article.

I've watched the changes that have been made, and, apart from mine, they've been strictly limited to deletion of spam or nonsense that people have tried to insert. That seems basic evidence that there's broad, even if grudging in some cases, agreement on the contents being roughly neutral.

Zell's also somewhat less controversial today since he's no longer in the Senate.

I'm not going to take any action on my suggestion for at least a week to give people a chance to respond in comments, but if no one responds over the course of the next week or so to disagree, I'll remove the "neutrality disputed" (and hopefully no fur will fly)! Holmwood 20:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

remove away. It seems like the article has stablized. Feco 03:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
It just underwent a major edit. Let's wait a bit and digest this latest change. Thanks -Willmcw 06:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Wiullmcw, I agree. I'm trying to digest the latest changes. Had they not occurred, I'd have removed the flag (thanks Feco). The latest editor seems to be sincere (i.e. it's not just spam and junk, but I'm trying to sort through things as there are some very significant deletions as well and the edits have been made in many, many steps.) Holmwood 21:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

So now it's years later. Questionable material has come and (mostly) gone, but I don't see a dispute here now. Has the dispute been resolved? Should the "neutrality disputed" comment be removed?Originalname37 17:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to major anonymous changes May 29 2005

In general the editor in question has done a decent job (imo) of adhering to a neutral PoV. However, I'm underwhelmed by the laundry list of talking points that s/he quotes on the senator flip-flopping. This is beltway insider stuff, and largely irrelevant in the long view. To suggest a senator is against education because s/he votes against provisions in a bill supported by the NEA is laughable. It's almost as bad as suggesting a senator is un-american because he/she supports cuts in the defense department budget.

(There are also numerous spelling and grammatical errors which I'm trying to fix up).

As a result I'm doing my edits in two stages. The first, I trust, will prove non-controversial to all. Minor cleanups, edits, insertion of balance, etc. The second (see way below) will be more of a scalpel. I'll do the non-controversial set first, so that if any are determined to revert, they can revert to that.

1. Restoring the word "conservative" as an adjective to Democrat. I don't think many would dispute he was just that: conservative. For someone looking back 100 years, that's a helpful adjective to explain him, I think. 2. Restoring "perhaps influenced by polls showing consistent majority support for retaining the flag" to explain the possible motives of the legislature on such a volatile topic. People looking back 100 years from now won't otherwise know that the climate of the times in the Georgia was general support for their current flag, without that equating [necessarily] to racism. 3. Removed "as a professor" from his teaching history at Young Harris, Emory, etc. Can this be proven? Please keep in mind that academics maintain a big difference between a professor and a lecturer. It seems unlikely he'd be appointed as a full professor, though I welcome being corrected. 4. Suggestion that some view 9/11 as Zell's turning point (vs. election of 1994). 5.Adding brief note on doing speech at RNC in 94-2000 stage. The addition of him doing a speech at DNC makes this a desirable point; it's worth noting that ZM might be the only person to keynote both RNC and DNC.

-- end of first pass changes Holmwood

[edit] Terrible Holmwood edit -- My apologies, and thanks Willmcw

I badly bungled an edit. I'm not sure how. (All but one section was wiped). I thank Willmcw for catching it promptly and kindly alerting me, very politely.

Im disappointed at my clumsiness, but also at the loss of some good NEUTRAL changes. Ah well :-/. I'll have another go, and I'll PREVIEW next time. I really do wish I could figure out how it happened...

Again, my apologies to the community. Holmwood 08:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two passes of changes coming from me, but with more care...

I promise to not delete the article! There are some basic issues that I believe none will disagree with that I feel need addressing in this latest edit. Stage1.

I then plan on a significant revamp of the most recent major edit. I honestly believe that PoV will not be shifted, but I do plan on focussing on what will be of interest to someone looking 100 years back. Stage2. (No, this will not involve deleting the article =/ )

I've modified the post below from first week of June 2005 to first half of June 2005.

If you feel the need to make major changes to the article in the next few days, please post here. Thank you.

It is currently proposed that the non-neutral POV marker be removed from this article. If you have opinions on this,

please state them on the discussion page. If you make any major change to this article in the first half of June 2005, please state

on the discussion page whether or not you agree with the removal of non-neutral PoV marker.

-- heh I still think this can legitimately be on the page itself for a week, but I'm not going to argue with you Will.... let me make about 500 to 1000 trouble free edits before I do that. Cheers.


[edit] Position on Homosexuality

"In 2004, he vocally pushed for a Constitutional ban on all homosexual domestic partnerships. Less than two years earlier, however, he voted (Senate vote #147 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00147); on S. 625 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN625:); 107th Congress, 2nd Session) in favor of expanding federal hate-crime laws to include crimes motivated by a victim's sexual orientation." I really don't see that as an "example of his flipflopping", I'm pretty sure both sides of the political spectrum can see that somebody may believe that just because two people shouldn't get married, doesn't mean you can commit hate crimes against them. (My aunt married a guy who was just scum, we all hated him...doesn't mean we should get to commit hatecrimes against him). Highly suggest removing that "example" Sherurcij 18:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Those are two separate issues. -Willmcw 19:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. K I think the flip flop ref should stand. After all, the scum ball uncle should be both allowed to LIVE and to MARRY, right? I'm assuming you don't want to change the laws so that scumballs aren't allowed to MARRY. (That might be the better marriage amendment.)

[edit] Bias; Encyclopedic quality

I've edited this article to be slightly more informative, for better encyclopedic quality, and for proper emphasises. Maybe we should consider removing the NPOV sign after touching it up with some improvements. I think we should, but it's up to the administrators to decide. Though I admit whatever I type may be tainted slightly by my biases, I try to minimize my bias. But I think we can agree that an encyclopedic entry should read like academically and contain both negative and positive attributes to things, people, issues, places, etc., with the facts always clear and upfront.

[edit] Busted link

Dropped this busted link:

That site has been taken down and redirected to the Republican national committee page. Ellsworth 16:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random link

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/opinion/12088562.htm

[edit] Drunken or not?

I think we should clarify this because the one writes "drunk driver" and the next "convicted of". This kind of information doesn't reach us here in Germany. Was he only convicted of drunk driving or was he condamned of drunk driving? --Metalking 06:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention in the text of this. It should either be substantiated or the category removed. Rsugden 02:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] How does political designation work?

McAuliffe told CNN, urging Miller to switch parties.

I was curious if anyone knew how the specifics of party designation works? Does the DNC, the Party Leader, or anybody else have the power to "strip" a politician of membership in the political party? Or is it a matter of self-identification or previous electoral endorsement? Thanks.--Timoteo III 01:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really the purpose of this page, but no matter. Any can correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it, in the US, there are several issues, of which only the first usually defines what party you are in:
1. Party Registration (this is entirely the individual's choice).
2. Party Nomination (to run as a Democrat you have to win the nomination -- usually a primary election where only registered Democrats would vote for the Democratic candidate)
3. Caucus: Which party you caucus with once (if) elected. This is up to the individual, the leaders of the caucus and the caucus itself. I believe Miller stopped caucusing with the Democrats during his time in the Senate.
In essence then, if someone chooses to register as a Democrat and call himself one, there is little the party can do about it (other than deny him any further appointments, and attempt to prevent him from winning a Democratic Primary). Holmwood 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this might be relevant for this page. Does anyone (including Miller) claim that Miller is "still" a Democrat? If he isn't, terms like "his own party' would be wrong. On the very reasonable criteria offered by Holmwood:
1. Party registration is a personal choice, but it's about a conception of "partisanship" that most people don't really accept. Politicians are members of parties. Voter are consumers. If Bush, for example, decided to register as a Democrat, we would not accept that he became a Democrat. I don't know how Miller is registered.
2. Party nomination is a perfect test. Miller is not running for office. But he would not be able to win a D nomination, even in the South.
2a. Related to both 1 and 2 is the party whose nomination process you participate in. If you register as a D, you get to vote in Dem primaries. Analagously, if you are a D, you can go to the Dem convention and help nominate the candidates. Miller did participate in a party convention in 2004, but it was the Republican.
3. For an elected official, the Caucus is the right test, and Miller ceased to be a Dem.
By that reading, Miller is no longer a Dem. He's like Strom Thurmond or Jim Jeffords, someone who left his party.Still A Student 04:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Still A Student for your kind words ("the very reasonable criteria offered by Holmwood"). I disagree slightly with what you say in that the concept of partisanship is irrelevant to what someone is. If Bush registered as a Democrat, he would likely accurately be described as a "newly registered democrat who's ostensible change of heart did not seem replicated in his views". This is a man who's registered Democrat his whole life; there's a reason why I put that category first. The US is a country that respects individual rights, including the right to be wrong.
Party nomination: yeah, you're right. Miller would be unlikely to get nominated for any substantive office on the Democratic (or Republican) ticket. That said, it doesn't mean he's not a Democrat.
on 2a, you're being slightly simplistic. In many states, people have been able to cross-file, etc. There's a long tradition of this. I agree, though, popping up as a keynote speaker for the other convention is... out there to put it kindly.
This is a valid point, though not one I agree with.
My view is that you are what you say you are, if it's reasonably credible. And if you say you're something ludicrous (like George W Bush declaring himself a Democrat or Ted Kennedy declaring himself a Republican), then you'll get laughed at. Having a "purity test" for politicians -- or citizens -- is a bad idea IMO.
Thus, Zell Miller, like John McCain or John Anderson is a maverick member of the party he say's he's a member of. In my view. Holmwood 14:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The last paragraph of the critisism section

This should not be an opinion piece. Should vindicatory statements be inserted somewhere else?

You are right, that paragraph reads like a POV essay, rather than a summary of verifiable sources. We should remove it. -Will Beback 01:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

Altered this somewhat. To his discredit, I included the drunk tank stuff (this is easily sourceable within his own autobiography). To his credit, I killed off the silly kos-kidz "peacetime military service" stuff, and tried to speak about, from a neutral POV, what happened.

If wikipedians aren't mature enough to accept this edit, I want it removed entirely (since the whole thing is balanced)... not just "heh, let's remove the non-peacetime stuff, and leave the drunk".

Moreover, volunteering for the forces in 50-55 was a pretty serious thing. The cold war was running hot; to describe this as "peace-time" is highly misleading. Describe it as "During the nominally peaceful periods of the often-hot Cold War" ... fine. Holmwood 15:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of maturity as slant. The previous version bordered on sycophant-ish.

Given Miller's constant references to his military service, and the role it has played in his political story/personna, the fact that his military service was NOT during war time IS important and factual. Certainly more important than his claimed epiphany in the drunk tank, for which there is no verification other than Miller's sayso ... Faveuncle 22:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

[edit] Politics

Removed the editorializing regarding the alleged 2 party system in North Georgia - not germane, since Miller was a southern Democrat. Removed the "whitewashing" (and trivializing) of Miller's segregationist past - Miller unsuccessfully ran twice against the Democratic incumbent in 1964 and 1966 - the Democrat was a segregationist, but Miller tried to paint him as not strong enough on segregation. Removed the hillbilly stuff for quality Faveuncle 13:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Is there any documentation for the accusation that Zell Miller was a segregationist? Or is it an invention of his critics, like the unsupported accusation which is frequently made against Sen. Jesse Helms? I notice that the word "segregation" doesn't even appear in the Wikipedia article about Sen. Robert Byrd, even though it does mention Byrd's Klan membarship. 71.70.174.75 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I invented that Zell Miller was a segregationist? Oh really? Better watch out about calling people liars when you obviously don't have any facts to back you. Your ignorance does not make me a liar, sir.

It is laughable to try to paint any of the early careers of any of these men - Helms, Miller, or Byrd as race progressives or even neutral on race, given their associations with various aspects of white supremacy and/or Jim Crow. Helms ran several racist campaigns for his Senate seat up until his retirement, that is not an invention either.

KKK membership in the 1950s and 1960s is a prima facie case as support for segregation. So feel free to change Byrd's entry. I know all I need to know about Jesse Helms. There's plenty of evidence of Miller's segregationist background - google Zell Miller and porridge, for one. Miller was Chief of Staff for Lester Maddox, who ran solely as a segregationist. I believe Miller even apologizes for supporting segregation in his autobiography. 207.101.64.178 22:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

[edit] Reverted addition of biased "facts" to article

I just reverted Leaton's addition of what I thought to be POV, unencyclopedic information that sounded like it came from a political opponent's mailer or website. (I doubt this is the case, but what I mean is that it had that sort of tone and bias.) I reproduce it here, for reference:

Some noteworthy events from Mr. Miller's incumbancy as Governor of Georgia:

- Sued by taxpayers for institution of 'casual sales tax' without the constitutional authority to do so. When it appeared he would loose, he repealed it. The court struck down the illegal tax and the state was forced to refund all that was collected. - Sued by taxpayers over illegally taxing federal pensions. Courts struck down the tax and it was repealed. - Pushed for, and recieved an increase in the rate of state sales tax by 33% - Pushed for, and recieved a law permitting local option sales tax, and thus Georgia taxpayers are saddled with a sales tax rate that was 3% - statewide prior to his first term as Governor. Afterward, it ranged from 4% to 7% depending on the area. - Sued by taxpayers for illegally instituting a tax for registration of autos brought into the state from elsewhere. The court struck the tax down and forced the state to refund it to all that applied for the refund. - Broke original campaign promise to not run for a second term as governor. - Promised to remove state sales tax on food. During first term, broke promise by blaming 'complexity.' Finally passed during 2nd term, but definition of exempt food was narrowed to exclude almost everything but raw farm products. Exemption only applied to state portion of tax, local tax still charged. - Instituted many new taxes including tire disposal tax, rental tax.

In a very similar vein, on June 14, I reverted the following additions by anonymous editor 65.210.142.102:

Some noteable items from Zell's record as governor: - Sued by taxpayers for institution of 'casual sales tax' without the constitutional authority to do so. When it appeared he would loose, he repealed it. The court struck down the illegal tax and ordered the state to provide refunds. - Sued by taxpayers over illegally taxing federal pensions. Courts struck down the tax and it was repealed. - Zell pushed for, and recieved an increase in the rate state sales tax by 33% - Zell pushed for, and recieved a law permitting local option sales tax, and thus Georgia taxpayers are saddled with a sales tax rate that was 3% - statewide - to range anywhere from 4% to 8% depending on the area. - Sued by taxpayers for illegally instituting a tax for registration of autos brought into the state from elsewhere. The court struck the tax down and forced the state to provide refunds - Broke original campaign promise to not run for a second term as governor. - Promised to remove state sales tax on food. Took several years and many excuses before institution of this. Definition of exempt food was narrowed to exclude almost everything but raw ingredients. Exemption only applied to state portion of tax, local tax still charged. - Instituted many new taxes including tire disposal tax, rental tax.

I haven't checked but these appear to be nearly-identical texts, if not the same. I have no idea whether Leaton and the anon editor are the same, and it really doesn't matter -- the point is, in neither case does a (badly) bulleted list of Miller's tax increases belong in this or any encyclopedia. Some of this might belong -- items such as the state food tax and the second term he said he wouldn't seek were certainly noteworthy, and might belong here if formatted properly (as a paragraph, in the appropriate place in the article). Some of the other stuff probably shouldn't be in the article.

As always, please please please cite a source for every point you make. That doesn't happen in a lot of articles, I know, but it should, especially when you make broad allegations about a governor who served eight years in office -- I'm certainly not going to check every single fact, and I know most readers aren't. You must provide your references for us, per Wikipedia policy. Also, as I mentioned above, editors need to be careful not to inject their own point of view in the articles -- this is also WP policy and important to make sure we don't become another forum for people's opinions when we're supposed to be a place for verifiable facts.

Thanks in advance to everyone for following the guidelines in the future. --SuperNova |T|C| 05:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Born Again Christian Category

I am putting Zell in the born again Christian, and B-A-C-politician categories because he claimed such in his book "Was Blind But Now I See" (see excerpt [1]) Anonymous Wikipedian 20:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism Section

This section was just way too long, obviously written by an opponent and full of extraneous information. I trimmed it back to retain what seems important, culling things like John McCain's reaction to Miller's RNC speech on the Daily Show. I'm sure debate on this will continue, but for the record I'm not trying to suppress information about Miller, only keep it in proper context. --21st Century Fox 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Matthews

I re-did my edits, now properly sourced with a link to the video on MSNBC. I do not believe these qualify, in any way, as "POV."
The first edits are to the preceding paragraph; I truncated the arguments of the commentators Miller fought with after the speech. The writing was clunky ("Their points were; X, Y, Z."), but it also had little to do with the article's subject. Reporting that there was general criticism of the speech is encyclopedic; a point-by-point rebuttal is more the area of political sites. Moreover, there's no responses from Miller, so it actually is POV.
The second batch of edits are to the Chris Matthews section itself. I clarified tht it was not Matthews questioning that Miller objected to, but the way Matthews was conducting the interview, by interrupting with questions while Miller was speaking. This is both apparent in the video, and is specifically stated by Miller (at 6:40).
I also added the conclusion of the interview, which can likewise be seen in the video, and which shows that the incident was not just playful bickering but that Miller was, indeed, angry. I do not understand the charge of POV for any of these edits. Korossyl (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)