User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2

Eva Braun

Gwen, does it matter if the source is a Holocaust denier or not? The information that I added supports other references about Eva. Igor Berger (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Add this source here. Igor Berger (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To put it simply (since he has been very much otherwise discredited), if someone told you there was no holocaust, how could you believe anything else they said without confirming it elsewhere? Irving is a wholly unacceptable source on Wikipedia, editors familiar with his work will not form a consensus to cite him anywhere. Moreover, the wording of your edit implied she was not free to leave which is not true. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think anyone could leave Hitler of their own free will? read this. I was trying to show that she was a play child for him and nothing more, and she assumed that position. She was not a Nazi, but a kept toy for Hitler. If you think you can write that in better words please do. My addition was reverted by another editor. Igor Berger (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand you are trying to help but you might read Wikipedia:Original research first. If you want to characterize Braun as a "play child" you must find a reliable secondary source which uses those exact words, likewise if you want the article to assert Braun was not free to leave. Either way, I don't think the sources on Braun support the conclusions you wish to include in the article. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think her article asserts the two already. I was just adding additional words to that assumption. So I will leave it as is, because to find the exact words as I have written them that would be plagiarism. Thanks Igor Berger (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Matalie Wood

 £ THE couple was" is ungrammatical. CanOfWorms (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The couple was is grammatical, please see this item about collective nouns. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That reference says this:"When the collective nouns couple and pair refer to people, they are usually treated as plurals" Using 'was' is umgrammatical. Read your own reference! CanOfWorms (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This reference is more clear, both usages are ok, which is why I didn't comment on your latest revision. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A Shamrock for you

A belated Happy St. Patrick's Day to you! Postoak (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

It's been a pleasure working with you on the article. If you could use a hand with anything at some point, don't hesitate to call on me. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Tokyo in World War II

Gwen, I am trying to add a criticism section of USA firebombing of Tokyo, as per WP:DUE with regards to NPOV. I found some relevent sources but not sure what would be WP:V. Can you please take a look at the sources that I have found and advise me. Talk:Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II#Criticism_of_Firebombing. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One or two of the sources look ok, I'm sure there are more to be had though (see the talk page). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a look. Would you like to try to give it a go? You are very objective in your writing, and I would prefer not to have reverts. Igor Berger (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I must say in the meantime though, the narrative as it is, along with the horrific pictures, must already be stirring up critical thoughts in the minds of many readers (and I'd say, those who don't have critical thoughts would likely not be swayed by a criticism section). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Hummus

Recently you reverted an edit of mine to the Hummus article stating that "homos" "is not a supported spelling".

I'm rather new to Wikipedia editing and it'd be nice if I could get some guidelines on how determine whether or not something is "supported" etc... as I've seen the "homos" spelling numerous times in the past.

Thanks!

GeneralChan (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for asking about this. "Support" means a verifiable source which is also reliable. If you can find a verifiable and reliable source which asserts that homos is a noted, alternate spelling of hummus, we can put it in the article. You may not find this support though. Hummus has an alternate spelling hommos (Greek) which is often mis-spelled as homos, so the spelling does show up in Google searches. A hint as to whether this spelling has any meaningful, notable support is to look at dictionary entries for homos. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

:D

Thanks for the nice comment - good wikistress alleviator, that. Mr. IP (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

William Desmond Taylor

Hey, don't become an edit warrior on something that clearly violates policy. The link provided is NOT a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. Have you even bothered to read the material the site is referencing? It can be found here: http://www.public.asu.edu/~bruce/Taylor84.txt Regardless, this is an unsolved murder. In accordance with WP:NPOV we should not be providing reader's with "our conclusion". Your own source clearly states there is no motive or evidence. This is speculation and theory - nothing more. We should be presenting FACTS, not opinions. Cleo123 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your reading of the sources, your interpretations of WP:V/WP:RS and your use of the phrase edit warrior. Moreover, your remark Have you even bothered to read the material the site is referencing? doesn't seem civil to me (to answer you though, I have thoroughly read the referenced sources, many times). I reverted your first edit because it was clearly a wide misreading of the sources. I reverted your second edit (your revert) because you had wholly ignored both my request that you take your concerns to the talk page, along with the mistake you made in referring to one of the sources.

As for Your own source, it is not "my own" source. As for clearly states there is no motive or evidence, the source also says Gibson probably did murder Taylor. As to your wording This is speculation and theory, I'm not aware of any speculation or theory in the article narrative, which describes what reliable sources say about what happened, the suspects, Gibson's later dying confession and the officially unsolved state of the murder.

As to your use of the phrase calm down (your original title for this section), please do not try to speculate on or characterize my emotional state, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to take it to the article's talk page. I was in the middle of making a post to the talk page when you reverted my edit. The fact that you could not wait a couple of minutes so that I could post an explaination on the article's talk page tells me that you are behaving in a somewhat impulsive and emotional manner. As for my alleged "wide misreading of the sources" - I'd appreciate an explaination for that bold and melodramatic statement. (civility?) I have not "misread" anything. Indeed, in my initial edit, I quoted YOUR source which states there is "no motive and zero evidence" to suggest that she murdered Taylor. Moreover, she was never even a suspect in the police investigation. Why are you trying to label someone a murderer in the opening paragraph of an article about an UNSOLVED murder?

As for the "source" - it IS your source since you are the one reinserting this information into the article with THAT source. The source, in question, is by its own admission a summary of information contained in the Taylorology newsletter. Since when are private newletters and self identified "fanzines" considered reliable sources on Wikipedia? She "PROBABLY did kill Taylor"??? You don't see that as speculation and theory? Are you kidding?

Please take the time to read the link to the original material that is "summarized" in the circular unreliable source you've provided more carefully. Although Bruce Long's site may be a good repository for transcripts of original newspaper articles on Taylor, his personal opinions and speculation should not be quoted as "fact". If you can provide reliable NPOV sources for this material, I am completely open to its inclusion in the article. However, I think it is reckless and irresponsible to label someone a "murderer" based on speculation found in a newsletter. This person may be dead and unable to defend herself against allegations made 30 years after her passing; but Wikipedia does not give you free license to trash her memory. This lady has a daughter and grandchildren, who should not be victimized by your carelessness!

Provide sources - reliable sources - or I will delete it all. And BTW - this theory is not at all "widely held". the majority of books on the subject point to Shelby and/or Minter. Cleo123 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think it would have been more helpful if you had done this on the article's talk page before making edits to the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Honestly, I didn't think the edit I made was so "bold" as to predicate a talk page discussion. To my mind, I was removing inadequately sourced potential libel. I am glad, however, that there is an open discussion now. My appologies for any miscommunication on my part. I do not object to the information's inclusion in the article as long as it is properly sourced and presented in a neutral manner. Honestly, I'm a little bit concerned that Wikipedia may have been misused to promote "Taylorology" and Bruce Long's theories on the murder. My own research indicates that Long may be trying to promote a book, that contradicts King Vidor's research as presented in A Cast of Killers. I'm sincerely worried that Long and/or his supporters may be hijaking Wikipedia for promotional purposes - ie. to establish credibility. We can't allow someone to do that at the expense of someone who is dead and unable to defend herself. It just strikes me as unethical and wrong.

I will continue to try and research this. Please, understand that my only wish is that the articles on this subject matter be balanced, neutral and fair. Cleo123 (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While your edits are clearly in good faith, your posts seem to show a lack of understanding and knowledge of the sources. I think it would be more helpful if you would revert your edits, do a lot of reading and then bring any suggestions suggestions to the article talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)