Talk:Maggie Gallagher

Quotations

Thanks, BCorr. Yes, those are quotes by Gallagher. --Uncle Ed 17:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moved quotes

Moved quotes off main article per Wikipedia is not a repository for quotes. Consider either turning these quotes into encyclopedic content or consider adding them to Wikiquote. (Quotes have been commented out).

Gay marriage

Gallagher is opposed to ALL forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples, not just same-sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.19.251 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hoo, boy, some gay marriage advocates are really pissed at Gallagher. This is badly in need of an NPOV rewrite. --KJJ 23:55, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have to be a "gay marriage advocate" to point out that Gallagher is on a payroll, supports polygamy, and lectures people about their children having problems if they don't get married ASAP even though she herself was a single mother (by choice) for 10 years? Sorry, I don't see it. This is the truth about Maggie Gallagher. --JamesB3 15:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Gallagher's views but I think this article is biased. it can properly include facts, such as her acceptance of payola. It can properly include unfavorable opinions, if properly attributed and worth reporting. Such things shouldn't be censored. Nevertheless, the overall presentation needs to be more objective. JamesMLane 16:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see the "asshole" comment. I can see why that had to go. I don't think the rest is a problem. --JamesB3 13:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think something needs to be included about her support of Stanley Kurtz's thesis that gay marriage leads to the decline of straight marriage. Gibbsale 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Double standards section

I'm deleting the Double Standardds thing entirely. I can't see how this is neutral, or ever could conceivably become neutral. --Nick 17:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Cmon guys, wikipedia presents the facts, it doesn't draw conclusions for people. Especially like this, man. --Nick

We present the facts, including facts about opinions. We shouldn't adopt an opinion but we can report it. We have to make clear that that's what we're doing, though. I think the material should stay in, with proper NPOV treatment, although I don't think it deserves the prominence it had, coming immediately under the TOC. It seems, however, that the link to the criticism is incorrect (links to the current version of the page instead of to the older entry that criticized Gallagher). I'll hold off restoring it until I have a chance to find a valid link. JamesMLane 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Euthanasia/Assisted suicide issues

I added some on the euthanasia issue as that's a concern where I for one sympathize with her position and it seems significant in her columns. I wanted to add elements of her life history to be more fair, but I will admit I'm perplexed by how difficult it is to track down anything about her as a person from online sources. I consider Dworkin to be loathsome, but I thought her statements about her kind of humanize Ms. Gallagher in a way. --T. Anthony 07:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What made you think she needed to be humanized? She's a very funny, brilliant woman with sharp, strong opinions. Simplemines 14:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As a person

Does anyone know anything about her as a person? Like the year she was born or who her parents are? I feel like right now this article is way too waited to just quoting her and therefore is likely to stay in dispute forever. It'd be good if we could say something about her career, life, education, etc.--T. Anthony 06:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand why people dislike her but this article is still not very good. It's mostly just her more outrageous quotes and scandals. Does anyone even know what year she was born?--T. Anthony 11:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I know her. What do you want to know about her? That she was articles editor of National Review in the late 80s? How about that what drove her to become a conservative was an unintended pregnancy while she was in college, and her refusal to have an abortion but bring the baby to term and raise it on her own. Her first and strongest view was being against abortion. That's part of the reason why she is such a strong advocate of marriage (seeing as how the father of her child was another Yale undergrad and scarcely able to fulfill any fatherly duties.)

I'd add more, but seeing as how this is just my POV, it really doesn't have much to do with the article in terms of putting it in (how would you footnote it? That I said so?)

FWIW, the article isn't very good. Lots of stuff missing, and some of it is online (like who her husband is.)Simplemines 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

This article has more information about the alleged pay scandal than it does on Ms. Gallagher's actual accomplishments -- the things about her that make her notable and worth doing a biography of. This seems to me to create a question about NPOV. Also, much of the pay scandal section has no citations. I would suggest that this section be shortened and that any uncited material be deleted. I have added some biographical information to the rest of the article. SCBC (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am about to remove the following from her biographical section: "Maggie Gallagher was spawned in the basement of St. Aloysius Church in Lake Oswego, Oregon, the offspring of an alcoholic carny from a passing carnival and a secubus from the 7th ring of Hell." Cbflagginc (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No wait, it gets better - I just realized that the entire section reads: Maggie Gallagher was spawned in the basement of St. Aloysius Church in Lake Oswego, Oregon, the offspring of an alcoholic carny from a passing carnival and a secubus from the 7th ring of Hell. She attended Lakeridge High School under court order as the local school board did not usually admit livestock as students. She later worked as a janitor at Yale University, (Gallagher claims she was enrolled as a student) where she belonged to the Party of the Right in the Yale Political Union. She was run out of Yale in 1982, with a forged B.A. in Religious Studies. A former sex worker, she is now the common law wife of an undocumented alien and raising two sub-human children in Ossiningcorrectional facility Sing Sing, in OssiningNew York.[1] Nice...so what non-bigoted, optimally tolerant proponent of gay marriage wrote this? Perez, aren't you busy enough with your own blog? Stick to drawing crude illustrations over pictures of closeted male celebrities, and leave the biography writing to people who know how to actually WRITE. Cbflagginc (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay...so it wasn't the basement of St. Aloysius Church. It was behind the dumpster in the KMart parking lot. So sue me. Maggie Gallagher deserves any potshots she gets. Her personal tragedy (an unplanned pregnancy and disapointment in the baby's father) hardly offers justification for her self-righteous trampling of the rights and desires of her fellow American citizens. Also, sorry, but it's factual: she is a cow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.25.60 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

self-written, anyone?

Anybody else get the notion that this article was written by Maggie, or at least a PR rep of hers? It seems presented in a manner akin to a public announcement of issue stances and responses, rather than some basic form of biography. 24.98.225.16 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I can only speak for myself, but I contributed several portions of this article and I can tell you that I am neither Maggie Gallagher nor a PR rep of hers. Before I revised it, this article largely consisted of a bunch of quotations and some lengthy discussion about a "controversy." I don't think that anything I've contributed is POV or inappropriate. The article could certainly use expansion, however.

SCBC (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the person was being insincere. Wikipedia is mostly socially liberal so she's not going to be liked here. I think if this fails to say she's a corrupt bigoted witch than it's going to be seen as written by her or POV. Personally I think it should seem sufficiently negative. It has a controversy section. It also makes sure to include a quote of hers that sounds like a defense of polygamy and in the Anglosphere doing that generally gets you branded a nut.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gallagher v. Srivastav

She writes as Gllagher and is known as Gallagher - shouldn't we just keep her full name in the lead and keep her article under the name she uses? -

Oops, now I see this. Indeed I agree. I found 9 Google his for Srivastav (two of which are Wikipedia) and 130,000 plus for Gallagher. According to MOS:NAME, the most commonly used name is the article name, not necessarily the topic's "true" name. —EncMstr (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the move-back. - Schrandit (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The section on beliefs.

I've made an attempt to cite everything in this section, as part of recreating it. If you object to any part, particularly if you've already removed it, I would appreciate it if you explained your reasoning here. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:NatGertler removed the specific mention of Terry Schiavo's parents, but I'm not quite sure why. The article I linked to shows that she supported the parents' view that Terry should be kept alive no matter what. I don't think it's WP:OR to notice that, even if she didn't mention the parents directly, she supported them. If you really think it's WP:OR, I suspect one of the other articles you can find using this search is more explicit. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your sources are not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Townhall.com is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS. The Conservative Chronicle and Catholic Education are self-published sources. Please read WP:SPS. The burden of reliably-sourced proof is on the person adding or restoring text, not on the person removing text. Please read WP:BURDEN --Dr.enh (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed Schiavo's parents because they aren't referred to in the source, and they aren't particularly relevant to the topic at hand; it's what she believes, not whom she agrees with. I'll dispute Dr.enh on the applicabilty of the Townhall material, because it's Gallagher's own writing and people are considered appropriate sources for their own beliefs. The Conservative Chronicle and Catholic Education I have not investigated for RS concerns, but I should note that the CC material is just a copy of her syndicate bio, and thus is best viewed as hype. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think that, as it stands, it's quite clear what her views are, so digging up a specific mention of Schiavo's parents and then including them wouldn't really improve anything. Really, I just wanted to know why, and you answered that quite clearly, which I appreciate.

I agree that Gallagher writing about herself is always a WP:RS about what her stated views are. While I understand your concern about trusting a syndicate bio, particularly if it puffs her up, I think we avoid relying on it for that sort of thing. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)