Talk:Pamela Geller: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
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

Template:Pbneutral

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most definitely. It is quite possible that SalahuddinSmith is also a sockpuppet. Arjuna (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 05:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]