This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nancy Ammerman 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 |
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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
she's written a new book 2 years ago -- see http://www.bu.edu/sociology/faculty-staff/faculty/nancy-t-ammerman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.236.168 ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
None of the material added to this article is biographical. It all belongs in the article on Waco. What belongs here is the date she was born, her academic credentials, lists of books she's written, etc. Cheers, - Willmcw 19:30, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this entry is entirely too fixated on her Waco report, which I'm sure she would say is just a small part of her work. As I noted in my edit, she has never focused on cults/NRMs. I've added a little bit of the other material you suggested, but the article remains heavily unbalanced in its Waco focus.
I have to ask, though, what information in the article needs to be verified? What specifically is being disputed or doubted? The article pretty much consists of summarizing Ammerman's report, and from what I can tell, it says the things that the article ascribes to it. Many would disagree with her interpretation of Waco, but since the article is about her report's perspective rather than what "really happened," it is not necessary (for purposes of this entry) to verify that what she says is true, just that she did say it. It could be said that relating her conclusions, without saying much about the perspective of those who dispute her report, is inherently biased, but that is a POV issue rather than a verifiability issue. -- WacoKid 04:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nancy Ammerman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nancy Ammerman 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 |
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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
she's written a new book 2 years ago -- see http://www.bu.edu/sociology/faculty-staff/faculty/nancy-t-ammerman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.236.168 ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
None of the material added to this article is biographical. It all belongs in the article on Waco. What belongs here is the date she was born, her academic credentials, lists of books she's written, etc. Cheers, - Willmcw 19:30, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this entry is entirely too fixated on her Waco report, which I'm sure she would say is just a small part of her work. As I noted in my edit, she has never focused on cults/NRMs. I've added a little bit of the other material you suggested, but the article remains heavily unbalanced in its Waco focus.
I have to ask, though, what information in the article needs to be verified? What specifically is being disputed or doubted? The article pretty much consists of summarizing Ammerman's report, and from what I can tell, it says the things that the article ascribes to it. Many would disagree with her interpretation of Waco, but since the article is about her report's perspective rather than what "really happened," it is not necessary (for purposes of this entry) to verify that what she says is true, just that she did say it. It could be said that relating her conclusions, without saying much about the perspective of those who dispute her report, is inherently biased, but that is a POV issue rather than a verifiability issue. -- WacoKid 04:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nancy Ammerman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)