This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American Thinker 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 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2007 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
I've just removed the {{ notability}} tag which user Will Beback ( talk · contribs) recently added. My reasons:
I'll try to work the relevant info into the article in the next week or so. Cheers, CWC 16:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
My attempts [1] [2] to remove the loaded and ideological language from this article have been reverted twice now by User:Pudge MclameO. The existence of the State of Israel is under no threat, and saying that one of the topics of the website is "...Israeli State existence and survival..." implies the opposite. User:Pudge MclameO's edits should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 21:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's not turn this into something it isn't please. No POVs are being argued. It's just representing the sources as how they are shown. If we want to use a direct quote from the source that's fine, or we can simply try to make it as close to the source as possible without needing a direct quote. This is very basic and simple Wikipedia mechanics and policy. tyvm Pudge MclameO ( talk) 22:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I think the way the description is phrased is misleading for the reader. I don't think it suggests that Wikipedia considers the State of Israel to be under threat, but it certainly gives the impression that Wikipedia has chosen to describe the website as an "Israeli State existence and survival"-related website, which doesn't have much substance as a categorization. Those particular words are part of a mission statement by the site, and if it is mentioned it must be made clear that it is their choice of words. For example, "As part of their presentation, the magazine notes the right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel to be of great importance to them"—— frankie ( talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
So, this is a satire site right? I just feel we should probably mention it. Because if its not a satire site, it appears to be...well, deranged. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/the_illusion_of_obamas_bin_laden_raid_situation_room_leadership.html I can think of no other word to describe this. 74.132.249.206 ( talk) 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
How is this "criticism"? Some would call it "being influential". The only way it can be considered criticism is if the writer disagrees with raising a public outcry over this particular issue. Without passing judgement on the right-or-wrong of the thermostat issue (which would get us sidetracked), I would respectfully suggest that this Headline does not represent a neutral point-of-view but instead hints at the author's disagreement with the American Thinker website's position on the issue , and should either be amended to reflect a neutral point of view or deleted altogether. -- Insley ( talk) 22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Presently we cite What are all those voting-booth zombies waiting for? , an old op-ed from the Orlando Sentinel, which only mentions AT in passing. I don't doubt that AT is conservative, but we need a RS to actually say so. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 02:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American Thinker 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 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2007 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
I've just removed the {{ notability}} tag which user Will Beback ( talk · contribs) recently added. My reasons:
I'll try to work the relevant info into the article in the next week or so. Cheers, CWC 16:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
My attempts [1] [2] to remove the loaded and ideological language from this article have been reverted twice now by User:Pudge MclameO. The existence of the State of Israel is under no threat, and saying that one of the topics of the website is "...Israeli State existence and survival..." implies the opposite. User:Pudge MclameO's edits should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 21:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's not turn this into something it isn't please. No POVs are being argued. It's just representing the sources as how they are shown. If we want to use a direct quote from the source that's fine, or we can simply try to make it as close to the source as possible without needing a direct quote. This is very basic and simple Wikipedia mechanics and policy. tyvm Pudge MclameO ( talk) 22:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I think the way the description is phrased is misleading for the reader. I don't think it suggests that Wikipedia considers the State of Israel to be under threat, but it certainly gives the impression that Wikipedia has chosen to describe the website as an "Israeli State existence and survival"-related website, which doesn't have much substance as a categorization. Those particular words are part of a mission statement by the site, and if it is mentioned it must be made clear that it is their choice of words. For example, "As part of their presentation, the magazine notes the right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel to be of great importance to them"—— frankie ( talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
So, this is a satire site right? I just feel we should probably mention it. Because if its not a satire site, it appears to be...well, deranged. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/the_illusion_of_obamas_bin_laden_raid_situation_room_leadership.html I can think of no other word to describe this. 74.132.249.206 ( talk) 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
How is this "criticism"? Some would call it "being influential". The only way it can be considered criticism is if the writer disagrees with raising a public outcry over this particular issue. Without passing judgement on the right-or-wrong of the thermostat issue (which would get us sidetracked), I would respectfully suggest that this Headline does not represent a neutral point-of-view but instead hints at the author's disagreement with the American Thinker website's position on the issue , and should either be amended to reflect a neutral point of view or deleted altogether. -- Insley ( talk) 22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Presently we cite What are all those voting-booth zombies waiting for? , an old op-ed from the Orlando Sentinel, which only mentions AT in passing. I don't doubt that AT is conservative, but we need a RS to actually say so. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 02:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)