Talk:Melissa Lee (journalist)

More biographical info needed

All this talk about what to call her position is a waste of time, she's a news anchor. The more important stuff is can someone find out her birthday? Where was she born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.198.104 (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

American English should be retained here

An editor has twice changed the national variety of English from American English by changing "anchor" to "news presenter" and "hosts" to "presents". That change has been reverted and shouldn't be repeated because it violates that Wikipedia Manual of Style's policy on national varieties of English. That policy presents four guidelines. (1) Consistency within articles - The second paragraph uses the American spelling "honor" and the third paragraph uses the Americanism "hosts" rather than "presents" which is used in some other varieties of English. Therefore, American English should be retained in the first paragraph to maintain consistency. (2) Strong national ties to a topic - Melissa Lee is from the U.S. and works for a U.S. television channel. This favor American English. (3) Retaining the existing variety - The article used American English before the IP editor changed it to a different variety. (4) Opportunities for commonality - News presenter isn't a term that is used in the U.S. American readers are likely to be unfamiliar with it unless they've seen the term in non-U.S. sources. In some other varieties of English, anchor is not used. So neither version produces commonality. I have changed "anchor" to the phrase "news anchor" in an attempt at greater clarity. --JamesAM (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is still being repeatedly edited to change American English terms to U.K. terms without any Talk page discussion (just edit summaries. "News presenter" is not a universal term - it's a nation specific term. In the U.S., from which Melissa Lee hails and where she works, "news anchor" (or simply "anchor" or "anchorwoman") are used. News presenter is not commonly used. It is a well established precedent that anchor is used to described U.S. news anchor consistent with WP:ENGVAR. The ledes in the articles about the three current network news anchors (Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Charlie Gibson) all refer to them as anchors, not as presenters. The same is true about the ledes for all of the Big Three (Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings) as well as the short-term successors of the Big Three (Elizabeth Vargas, Bob Woodruff, Bob Schieffer). Under the current status quo, anchor is appropriate. I think the IP editor ought to seek to change WP:ENGVAR if he/she thinks all news anchors should be referred to as news presenters. --JamesAM (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion. Normally, I wouldn't respond until the second opinion has been clearly stated here on the Talk page, but, fortunately, the anon editor has stated his opinions quite clearly in the edit summaries. The editor's argument appears to be that "news anchor" is not, in fact, regular American English at all, but simply a colloquial term inappropriate for a serious article, and, moreover, one that may confuse readers. They offer the news presenter article as supporting evidence for this position.

In my opinion, the article quoted does not support this position, and "news anchor" does seem to be standard American English, and should therefore be used in the article per WP:ENGVAR. Indeed, the news presenter article has clearly stated that this is the regular term for at least the last twelve months (as far back as I searched), without any apparent dispute on that page. However, given the situation, I would suggest linking the term "news anchor" in this article to News presenter#News anchor just in case anyone else is confused by what it actually means. Although, personally, I'm British, and it didn't confuse me...Anaxial (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Linking to the relevant article and section is a sensible recommendation. --JamesAM (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the little change as the name <anchor> means different thing. In many places (including here in China - important as Melissa family) <presenter> is the word. I think maybe if some american people like <anchor> they need think it may is the same as <presenter> in your country but also the only word in others. The word <anchor> just puzzle people and Wikipedia is for everyone of world not just american. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.141.183.162 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The notion that articles about Chinese-Americans should use non-American English spellings isn't anywhere in the WP:ENGVAR policy. There's no basis for that practice. When an article has a strong tie to a particular English-speaking country (in this case, the U.S.). In the U.S., anchor is the regular term. The use of "anchor" in articles in the numerous American people is an uncontroversial practice at wikipedia, but for some reason this particular obscure anchor article has been a target for edit warring. Using presenter to refer to a news anchor is obscure in the U.S.; American readers may misinterpret the term to mean sponsor (commercial) or producer. Furthermore, news anchor is already wikilinked to avoid the possibility of confusion by those who prefer presenter. With that wikilink, there's no reason anyone should be confused. Under the national varieties of English policy, the national varieties are treated equally and consistently. So American English is not treated with an inferior status even though other readers may prefer their own national varieties. --JamesAM (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at the articles for the three main U.S. national network nightly newcasts (World News with Charles Gibson, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News). All three use the U.S. term "anchor" rather than the "present" consistent with WP:ENGVAR. That practice has stuck on those highly trafficked pages. The text of this page was originally, logically written to be consistent with that policy and practice. It doesn't make sense to idiosyncratic impose British or Australian or whatever usage on this one particular article. --JamesAM (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please not change this word as you puzzle people. This is not your writing but for every person in every country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.141.183.162 (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm following the rules. The policy on national varieties of English can't be ignored just because a particular user doesn't like a certain national variety. American English (including use of the word "anchor") is the standard variety for article about American news personalities and news program - used across the major articles without resulting in edit warring. Other articles about CNBC personalities (e.g. Maria Bartiromo, Erin Burnett, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, Bertha Coombs, Melissa Francis, Sue Herera, Joe Kernan, etc.) have all existed up to this point with the American terms "anchor" or "host" with absolutely zero Talk page complaint that those words are confusing. But since the effort by 119.224.43.24 to change the national variety of English for some reason this page has been targetted for idiosyncratic treatment. Your word choice will puzzle many people. --JamesAM (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not your writing. I change so many people can better understand I see other peoples not like <anchor> . There are many <Lee> people here and want to know of other <Lee> people like Melissa this why I come here. If funny word like <anchor> used then many people will confused. I may think you not want to help wikipedia but want to own this writing or make little war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.141.183.162 (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not just representing my own personal opinion. I'm representing a broad consensus regarding the use of the word "anchor" in articles about North American subjects. The policy on national varieties of English, which you have done anything to address, is the product of consensus. The use of "anchor" in North American articles (as per the policy) is the consensus the person who originally wrote the Melissa Lee (journalist) article, the experience editor who was contacted for a third opinion on this matter, the users who have written and maintained the other articles on CNBC anchors, the articles on major U.S. network anchors (including U.S. news anchors Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Bob Schieffer, Elizabeth Vargas, Bob Woodruff, Anderson Cooper), and the articles on the U.S. nightly newcasts. The consensus reached on all those pages agrees with my positions. You are disagreeing with a huge number of editors who have reached that position (not just me). I see that you are a new editor, so you should familiarize yourself with the relevant Wikipedia policies. Anchor is not a "funny" word. It's the regular term used in the U.S. (and Canada) for the host of news program. The term "news presenter" sounds strange to me because it is not commonly used in the U.S. I didn't realize the term was used until fairly recently. When there is a conflict between different term, the WP:ENGVAR offers clear guidance of which term to use. That why a consensus has been reached on all those other U.S.-related pages to use anchor rather than presenter, and there isn't conflict on those pages. --JamesAM (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I know the word <consensus>. This mean that everyone agree? If yes then you are not right. I can see here many people not like <anchor>. This <anchor> puzzle people so why you use? Why not use the word I made? You know what <present> is I think. All I say is use word that many people know. If I change now you will know the word and so all people. If you next change the word you puzzle people. I think you want a little war. Do you want to puzzle people? Maybe you do not like Chinese people so that why you want to puzzle them. Have you visit China? Have you met Chinese people- I mean Chinese people not <Chinese Amercian> which is silly as people can not be of two countrys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.141.183.162 (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, consensus on Wikipedia does not mean the agreement of every edit on a stub page. You can find information on the consensus policy here. Note the sentence that reads, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The views of three unregistered (two of whom have no recorded edits prior to editing Melissa Lee (journalist) don't outweigh the consensus reached by many editors on dozens of pages about American anchors and American news organizations/programs. On this pages, I have linked to many pages to demonstrate the broad practice of referring to Americans with word "anchor." There is not an exception if the American anchor is ethnically Chinese. Note that the pages for Connie Chung, Julie Chen, and Kaity Tong all refer to them as "anchors", not as "presenters." The use of American there was uncontroversial. All three pages are very old (2002, 2004, and 2005 start dates), and there are no Talk page exceptions to using "anchor" there. --JamesAM (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Me again. I talk to other <Lee> people. You se then they not like <anchor> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.141.183.162 (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What people who have the same last name think is not a consideration of the national varieties of English. I know people named Lee (Chinese-Americans like Lee) and they use the word "anchor." But that's irrelevant. What is relevant is the policy. And aside from that, Melissa Lee's employer refers to her as an "anchor" not a "presenter." http://www.cnbc.com/id/28897439?flvFile=resources/mLee/Lee-TwentyFiveDollarsAnArticle.flv --JamesAM (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You say what other people think is not consideration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was right you want to own this writing. Many peoples here told you there not like <anchor> but you like so you say must stay here.

I never change after her name from <anchor> to <presenter> so why you say this? Why you tell these bad lies? I change onlys writings after <she sometimes>

What is that is wrong with you? I think I am right you not like Chinese people and you want to puzzle people? Or maybes you are little man? You not help the world. You not help wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.141.183.162 (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't call me a liar or call me a little man or accuse me of bigotry. I think those statements are contrary to the Wikipedia policy on civility. Disagreements should be confined to the content of the article. I didn't say that what other people think doesn't matter. I noted above that consensus is important. Rather, I am stating that opinions of people with the last name "Lee" don't trump the community consensus and the national varieties of English policy. --JamesAM (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello I am Kang. My friend speak to me about this. I think it to is wrong to use the word <anchors>. To use <presents> makes more sense as this is understood by everyone but <anchors> is not. I support by friend and do not understand why some person would not agree and wish to use <anchors>. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.222.200.158 (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I also say the <presents> is the better word than <anchors> so I will change after I write this. It is word that more people have written here they want so please not change. I also think there is some anti Chinese reason for changing back to <anchors>. Other wise why want to confuse so many? Why want to change back to word many other people do not want. Please do not change from <presents> which every person knows. I think my english is a little better than earlier person so I can tell Mr.JamesAM that he did make lies because this person never changed <anchor> connnected with name which Mr.JamesAm said. The person want the same change as me. This is the change that all the persons want but Mr.JamesAM. Please Mr.JamesAM it is only you want <anchors>. You do not have this page to yourself. You need to think why you keep making this change? It looks like arrogance or maybe cultural imperialism. Both not wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.68.248.91 (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you. Kitty Lee.

Kitty, you should read the prior Talk page posts, because your objections have been addressed (some of them repeatedly). The change isn't my personal opinion. Rather, I'm drawing the well-established policy on national varieties of English; and I addressed the four guidelines of the policy in the first comment here. You state that every person knows the word "presents" in the context of the host of a news program. That is incorrect. As I noted more than once above, Americans don't use the verb "present" to describe what a news anchor does. I didn't know the word was used in such a way until I started using Wikipedia. Americans may think someone who presents is the producer or a commercial sponsor. Either word might confuse some people. So the English variety settles the matter. American English is the proper variety. It was the first variety used and consistency should be maintained throughout the article. Melissa Lee is a U.S. citizen, born in New York state in the U.S. She resides in the U.S., works in the U.S., and is employed by a U.S. news channel. The article is considered a U.S. topic under the policy that uses the American variety of English. It is claimed that whether the word is a noun or a verb is significant. It's not. The articles that use anchor as a noun, also use it as a verb (e.g. Connie Chung) because they're from the same national variety of English. And presenter and present for news hosts are paired up in the same varieties of English. There is consensus across Wikipedia to use "anchor" in such situations. One relatively new IP editor stirred up the situation in this relatively obscure article. What happens here doesn't trump the community-wide consensus. If you don't like the result here, you ought to seek to change the WP:ENGVAR policy or change the policy for all anchor articles at WP:JOURN rather than imposing an idiosyncratic result on this one page. Calling me a liar, a bigot, and a cultural imperialist violates civility policy. Those are unfair and incorrect accusations. Please familiarize yourself on personal attacks. Talk about the article's content rather than insulting people. American English deserves to be treated consistently with other national varieties on English; it should not be relegated to an inferior position. --JamesAM (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I tell you that many people not like <anchors>. You can sees. Now please not change. I happy now see you say <Melissa Lee> is American it was silly to write she Chinese + American because person can not be of two country. Now I change to only have American. Please I say again not change <presents>. I no understand why you angry with Miss.Kitty Lee by say she break law she did not. She only say that what peoples think of why you make changes back to <anchors> And she never did make insults to you. You very puzzle me. You make change that many peoples not want. You write word to puzzles many peoples. You say things not happened this of me when you said I changes of <present> with name when I no change this I change <anchors>. You now say Miss.Kitty Lee insulting you I know this is saying bad names of you. Miss.Kitty Lee no did bad names of you. You make me puzzle of you. But this no matter. I ask NO CHANGE <presents> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.141.183.162 (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You should note what I've explained above. Both "presents" and "anchors" may confuse some people, so the choice between the two is made by following the national varieties of English policy. Furthermore, there is a wikilink to the term news anchor, so any who is puzzled can find an explanation very easily. It's hopeful to repeatedly change an original version that correctly follow the national varieties policy. I'm not angry at Kitty, but she should the civility policy. Calling someone arrogant or a cultural imperialist are insults. Editors should discuss the topic of the article rather than insulting each other. There's no problem with referring to someone as Chinese American - because ethnicity and citizenship are not synonymous. Melissa Lee is an American citizen of Chinese descent. But I can change it to "American of Chinese descent." --JamesAM (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You weres angry at Miss.Kitty Lee because you said she insulted you. But she nevers call you names. I know my english not good, but I study. But I can read Miss.Kitty Lee write that you wanting to use a word like <anchors> with many poeoples wanting other <looks like arrogance or maybe cultural imperialism> is not same as calling you names. I puzzle why you change things a little on this page. You did the same against me. You write I change <anchor> with name but I not. I change <anchors>. Why you do these little changes? If you not like <presents> even though many peoples like and that this writing is not belong to you I change <anchors> now. I look for different word. Please no change. Also I tell you that Chinese is not ethnicity. Chinese is of China, this a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.141.183.162 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I made change to the writings. I go back to it was agree months time ago. Please no no change now. This writings had taken much work to make agree with everybodys. ?Whys somebodys change now? The writings I go back to gave everybodys agree and happy but now one somebody want to go back to bad writings that make little understanding for many peoples and would misunderstand many peoples. I ask please leave this good writing. Thank yous. Xue ZHANG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.141.44 (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)