Talk:Pamela Geller: Difference between revisions
Epeefleche (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
However, I don't see why 'holy site' statement was deleted; it is significant, identifying the Dome of the Rock for readers and showing the magnitude of Geller's claims. Epeefleche's ''per the ref'' statement isn't relevant to the deletion. I suspect it was just reverted because that was easier than editing, but let's all respect each other's efforts. Again, if someone can make a reasonable argument for including the 'Temple' statement, I won't oppose adding it to the 'holy site' statement. [[User:Guanxi|guanxi]] ([[User talk:Guanxi|talk]]) 19:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
However, I don't see why 'holy site' statement was deleted; it is significant, identifying the Dome of the Rock for readers and showing the magnitude of Geller's claims. Epeefleche's ''per the ref'' statement isn't relevant to the deletion. I suspect it was just reverted because that was easier than editing, but let's all respect each other's efforts. Again, if someone can make a reasonable argument for including the 'Temple' statement, I won't oppose adding it to the 'holy site' statement. [[User:Guanxi|guanxi]] ([[User talk:Guanxi|talk]]) 19:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Version B is what the RS ref says -- not the OR version of Guanxi. We follow the RSs. Not Guanxi's OR, or POV. Geller argued version B, not version A.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 20:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:40, 23 October 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pamela Geller article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Pamela Geller appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pamela Geller article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
Infobox
"Objectivism" isn't a political movement, but a philosopy, and it's already mentioned in the article's lead that Geller subscribes to it. For those reasons I don't think it's appropriate or needed in the infobox field for "political movement", and have reverted that very recent additon. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Whitewashing
Alterdoppelganger (talk · contribs) has come in with no edit history to completely whitewash this article to remove any possible criticisms of Geller. Their edits read as if Geller herself were writing this article, using weasel words and non-consensual edits. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Most definitely. It is quite possible that SalahuddinSmith is also a sockpuppet. Arjuna (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
criticism section
after this whole park51 saga and most of her comments and statements on her atlas shrugs blog, i believe the article needs a criticism section . since she is now a notable person and almost a household name among most americans ,she must be held accountable as much as other notable figures and have some of her statements put here so people can have a clear image of what she stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanschagrins (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Atlas Shrugged
Atlas Shrugs is a reference to the title of the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugs (the blog title) only by derivation is a reference to philosophies espoused or perceived in the novel. Please refrain from characterizing the novel's contents when making what should be a simple reference to a work of literature. The sentences that follow detail Geller's interpretation and application of Rand's Novel and philosophy relative to the blog, characterizing inspirational qualities not in evidence suggests bias regarding Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and/or Pamela Geller. A clear and objective voice without bias should be maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.175.15 (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Dome of the Rock
We're looking at two versions:
- A) Geller has opposed other mosques and argued that the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, one of the holiest sites in Islam, should be removed.
- B) Geller has opposed other mosques and argued that the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which was built on top of the Jewish Temple, should be removed.
It once said 'holiest site' (or something similar) and was changed at some point to 'Jewish Temple'. I looked for a discussion on it and found none, and changed it back to 'holiest site' with this reasoning in the edit comment: what it was built on (or how it was built, etc.) isn't relevant here; it's status in Islam is. Epeefleche reverted my change with only this comment, per the ref.
I'm not sure what that comment means; I didn't say it wasn't true, so having a reference isn't an issue; I just don't think it's relevant to Pamela Geller. It definitely should be in the Dome of the Rock article. But I could be convinced to include it here, if someone can provide a reasonable rationale of how it's relevant to Geller.
However, I don't see why 'holy site' statement was deleted; it is significant, identifying the Dome of the Rock for readers and showing the magnitude of Geller's claims. Epeefleche's per the ref statement isn't relevant to the deletion. I suspect it was just reverted because that was easier than editing, but let's all respect each other's efforts. Again, if someone can make a reasonable argument for including the 'Temple' statement, I won't oppose adding it to the 'holy site' statement. guanxi (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Version B is what the RS ref says -- not the OR version of Guanxi. We follow the RSs. Not Guanxi's OR, or POV. Geller argued version B, not version A.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)