Talk:American Thinker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Articles for deletion 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)

"Israeli State existence and survival"[edit]

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 21:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough please. Per WP:V I am simply representing what is in the source. Nothing about it saying "Israel under a threat RIGHT NOW" is implied. No one said they "can't survive" or are "fighting to survive". That is a red herring as it does not pertain to the article here, the source used or the context it was added into. To say that they consider- (direct quote from the American Thinker: About Us section of their site, the source being used) "The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us" does not mean they actually discuss such is ridiculous. Making baseless accusations such as "loaded language" which can be seen here is not assuming good faith. The following edit summary for this revert shows me that the reverting editor is not even paying attention to what the article is about. It's an informational article on this particular online magazine. This is not a forum to try and instigate any Israeli (pro/anti) sentiment or Palestinian or anything else remotely related to the Arab/Israeli Conflict. This has nothing to do with documenting past or current threats to the state of Israel. It's very simple-
  • 1) The article is about an online magazine not the Conflict or anyone's current "threat" status.
  • 2) The source used (from the magazine itself) should be accurately represented per WP:V which includes being able to distinguish between a broad statement of "Israel" and a specific statement like made in the SOURCE "The survival and existence of the State of Israel". There a crucial information gap when we use broad language such as to say simply Israel. I'm sure the Hezbollah are "interested" in Israel, but I doubt very much their interest is the same as say the American Thinker's interest. See the problem?
  • 3) This not a place to try and turn this into an Arab/Israeli Conflict editing scene. No one is making any claims for or against anyone in the conflict other than the magazine itself (which specifies its stance) which of course if you refer to number 1 above is what this article is about and we should be accurate in that.

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)

I'm sure the Hezbollah are "interested" in Israel, but I doubt very much their interest is the same as say the American Thinker's interest. See the problem?
No, I don't. Please explain why you are so firmly dedicated to the (poorly written, misleading, fallacious) formulation in the article. Just because a right-wing website describes itself as interested in "Israeli State existence and survival" (a formulation which reflects the website's ideology), doesn't mean that Wikipedia is required to formulate the website's interest in the same way, or in any way. I'm glad that you are not expressing your own ideology with your formulation, but you are inadvertently expressing the website's ideology. Let's minimize that. — goethean 00:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Poorly written can be fixed with editing. "misleading" and fallacious" are false and just plain accusation- see the source please. Again this is a simple matter of using properly what the source used is saying. In fact we do have to represent something honestly from a source if indeed that is what the source is saying per Wikipedia policy. In this case the subject states they are interested in the state's survival and existence. This is what the source is saying. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether or not anyone's "ideology" is correct as your earlier statements about "the existence of the Israeli state is under no threat" implies. We simply state what they say. Altering what a source says in order to downplay or up-play anything is absolutely against policy as would censoring or misrepresenting self descriptor source simply because we think they are wrong which appears to be the case made here. Can you explain why you are so adamant about not being correct in representing the source? And are you saying that in an article describing a company we don't also describe any of the "ideology" that company explicitly expresses? That would be like saying we'll have a Martin Luther article but we can't express his ideology on the church. I am not seeing what form of logic you are following for this assertion. And please stop saying that because we write something or report something that it means we are advocating something. This is just not true and insulting to those who try to write on articles that they do not have a "dog in the race" for. The point is if we use a source, and we have deemed that source reliable, than we must state what that source is saying. We don't "tweek" it for personal use or censorship or anything else. That would just be bad journalism all around. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
We can describe what the American Thinker's ideology is, but we must identify it as their ideology, not as fact. Your formulation fails to do so, and implies that Wikipedia agrees with the American Thinker that the existence of the State of Israel is under threat.
The American Thinker website is reliable only for the beliefs of the editorial staff of the American Thinker. It is not a reliable source regarding the status of the State of Israel. Does the Martin Luther page say that he reported on the earthly activities of Satan? Presumably it does not, because that would imply that Satan has activities on Earth. However, that's what Luther's writings report. Luther's writing are reliable sources for Luther's beliefs. They are not reliable sources for the earthly activities of Satan. Are you with me so far? — goethean 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
And Again this is NOT an article about the State of Israel, Israel or anything else in that category. This is simply an article about an online magazine and the SOURCE says what it says in describing the what that online magazine thinks. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia and this article by making this into something it isn't. "only for the beliefs of the editorial staff of the American Thinker". Well guess what? That's what this article is about. Unless you can show a reason that we should not accurately depict what a source says then you have no basis for this argument. Please take your views on the State of Israel, survival, etc etc to an article that deals with such. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote above and respond to it. — goethean 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Already did. Please stop refusing to see counterpoints. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png 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)
Also, I have serious doubts that it should be included at all. Being that the statement carries such a strong point of view, I think even quoting them about it would become undue weight. That they write about the topic of Israel (which as a topic is no different than politics, or business) should be mentioned in the description, but the rest is simply permeating their particular point of view onto the article — frankie (talk) 19:45, 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. I can think of no other word to describe this. (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That was a rather interesting reference! And, yes, I think that I have found something to compare it with, namely Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. The latter article is placed in a subcategory of Category:Conspiracy theories, and that might arguably be a sensible categorisation for any article about theories of Obama's non-American birth, secret adherance to Islam, or, as here, falsifications of photographs in order to give a false impression that he is acting as a president. JoergenB (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that American Thinker (AT) apparently also adheres to the Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theory as seen by the link to an AT article in the Wiki entry on Agenda 21.
Mojowiha (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism or Influence?[edit]

Writing in The New York Times, Felicity Barringer credited American Thinker with initiating a public outcry over a California plan to require programmable thermostats which could be controlled by officials in the event of power supply difficulties.

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)

Need a better cite for AT as Conservative[edit]

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)