Talk:Georgie Anne Geyer

Controversy vs error

Hi FCYTravis,

I think several imortant points were lost in your edit.

• The quote is beyond any reasonable doubt false. What we have is that Islamic Association for Palestine, who are by no means a credible news organization, cited a broadcast on Israeli radio that never occured.
• Also, it is important that she used Islamic Association for Palestine as a source without mentioning it.

I did keep the new section title though. Akvak (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The correction re-attributes the information, but does not retract it. We cannot state as a flat fact that the information is false. The only source for it being false is an article published by an organization which is arguably just as biased as the IAP. However, I have modified my version to included CAMERA's assertion that the quote is fabricated.

I don't disagree with you that it's almost certainly false and fabricated for propaganda purposes; however, we don't have an independent source saying that. FCYTravis (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you lost a few neuances here. What do you think about the present version? btw, Camera is of course a biased group, and its opinion should be taken with caution. However, Camera is a widely known organization, and has a reputation to maintain. All in all, I think they are a reliable source for pure facts as described in Wikipedia:Verifiability, and they are already quoted in for example the Hamas article. --Akvak (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hearts Afire

Because Georgie Anne Geyer threatened to sue Linda Bloodworth Thomason and Harry Thomason and because the Thomasons and Geyer are living persons, Wikipedia cannot present Geyer's accusations (that the Thomasons misappropriated her life story.) as fact. After hiring an attorney to sue, Geyer then decided not to continue the suit. Geyer's accusation was never adjudicated or shown to be the case. The Thomasons deny the claim.

It would violate Wikipedia policy on living persons to present Geyer's claim as true or accurate in the absence of hard information to support it. I hope that any Wikipedia contributors who were insistent on doing so will rethink their position. Wikipedia must treat Geyer's claim and the Thomasons' denial equally. 72.66.7.192 (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"If there are two sides to a story then a Wikipedia article should give both, without giving preference to either."

By this reasoning, the Wikipedia article on climate change should present denial of anthropogenic climate change without giving preference to affirmation of anthropogenic climate change.

Some of the reasoning used in Wikpedia to suppress accurate information and to propogate far right viewpoints and opinions that are just plain wrong is truly bizarre. Something should be done to change this. ---Dagme (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's one version of the now-deleted material.[1] Here's another.[2]

If there are two sides to a story then a Wikipedia article should give both, without giving preference to either. "John says the car is orange, while Sally says it's yellow." See WP:NPOV. That said, there are more than two opinions in this matter, and they might not have equal weight. Whatever we say must be well-sourced. Oddly, none of this is mentioned in the Hearts Afire article.   Will Beback  talk  10:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing the section entirely was the best thing to have done, thanks! And thank you for protection, it was sorely needed.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 November 2012

Books

• Waiting for Winter to End (Journey Through Soviet Central Asia

76.21.32.66 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - thank you. Begoon ^talk 13:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Bombing

When the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was blown up in 1995, Geyer immediately published an opinion piece stating that it was the work of Islamic fundamentalists.

This fact should be included in the article, but I know that Geyer's defenders would demand a citation and "authoritatively" remove it.

Geyer was a right wing bigot, pure and simple. The article should reflect his. ---Dagme (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)