Talk:Mike Freeman (columnist)

Untitled

 * That link doesn't seem to work for me, however a brief summary of the article can be found here: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-148948.html. He wasn't fired from the job. He admitted lying about having a degree, accepted full responsibility for his bad act and resigned the position before he actually started working..  it made the press, but until this article is expanded with other details about his career, this incident really shouldn't be the "highlight" of our article about him.. this single act isn't what defines his career or his character.  -- Versa  geek  00:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

--216.152.180.40 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

fix link
Could you fix the "1961 births" link. It is currently linking to the last name "Mike" instead of "Freeman". I'd do it, but this article is locked. - Bcc cindy (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone continues to add out of context information when as noted by Versageek one single act doesn't define career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trailmix42 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected

Please add  , so the article sorts correctly within its categories. Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done -- Versa geek  04:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In reference to Mike's career not being reflected by his lying to the star, most of what people want written is his reception. Why doesn't Wikipedia allow criticism of Freeman, after all he is very controversial. http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.45/aid.86372/column.htm Mike Freeman has negativity follow him, which is an indicator of his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arhat79 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of context Article lacks fairness, accuracy, context. There is extreme bias here and Wikipedia should correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trailmix42 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll need to be specific. You've already made damaging claims against an individual editor--whether or not those claims are true is not our business, though the edit history bears out that one or several editors have had agendas--and you've edit warred, per WP:EW, deleting sourced content. I have made sure that what's there is properly referenced, and doesn't appear to have bias. If you can find sourced content that offers a fuller view of his life and work, please add it. JNW (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You make no sense. How can context be added when the article is locked (edit protected)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trailmix42 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can discuss what you find to be the shortcomings of the article here. You still haven't offered what the specific 'bias' issues are, and instead only deleted passages of the article en masse. In referring to his resignation over misrepresenting himself, I included the Times editor's positive assessment of Freeman. The John Daly lawsuit ended in Freeman's favor. These issues received press coverage, and are not inappropriate here. I also added a link to his publisher's page, which lists his books. The idea is to fairly represent the subject, using the available reliable sources. JNW (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting context here isn't the same as putting context in the actual article. This article reeks of bias and lack of context. Where are the awards Freeman has won? Where is the information about him finishing his degree or pursuing a masters? (You now have some of the bias issues you asked for. There are more.) The passage is all about the negatives. You have not fairly represented the subject and should note what Versageek said: one mistake does not represent a life. You have made that mistake the highlight of the "article." This "article" is one of the more unfair on Wikipedia. By not allowing editors to comment in the article you are practicing censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trailmix42 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many times one has to repeat the need for reliable sources--cite them, and new information can and will be added. Since we are not even close to agreeing on this, you are welcome to bring this up at WP:BLPN, though I may do so first. JNW (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done . For my part, I find your unwillingness to assume good faith unfortunate. It also occurs to me that your claims of bias and censorship have a certain irony, given your contributions:, , , . For the record, I'm not familiar with the subject, and have no horse in this race. The content is largely determined by the reliable sources that can be found, and not surprisingly, a scribe who pens provocative or controversial content will receive the most coverage for those articles; such is the case here. Among other things, I have had nothing to do with not allowing you to edit the article; any blocks fall under the purview of an administrator. I believe I've improved the article, and look forward to input from others. JNW (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone that claims that this article is biased and unfair should look at the work of Freeman. As an old administrator stated a scribe who lives by controversy will have controversy follow. He writes with a style that tries to shock and upset people. I'm sorry but his career is DEFINED by negativity.Freeman is a journalist and "mistakes" hamper professional integrity. If Freeman wants to change his image he needs to work at becoming a respectable journalist instead of a shock journalist that relies so heavily on racebaiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.96.116.51 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Mikey still work for CBS Sports? They don't list him on their website anymore and I can't find an article written in the last 2 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.110.122.122 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)