|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Expect bigots with agendas to show
Expect some people with political agendas to show up here any minute now, chomping at the bit to remove the mentioning of her "most embarrassing interview of all time." As this is the thing she is now most famous for, we probably ought to leave it in, even though it's going to ruffle feathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I am surprised that Wikipedia desires to play useful idiot to a weblog. You could consider linking to the original content, which your blog-buddy misrepresents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:25CD:98F9:3174:7117:D1DE:252A (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Aslan's book might have been scholarly in the sense that an English teacher tried to do history, but it is a mass market book of biblical criticism produced by a creative writing professor with a degree in Sociology that he secured for a dissertation on Muslim Social Movements. http://creativewriting.ucr.edu/people/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:25CD:98F9:3174:7117:D1DE:252A (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting way of preempting the whole argument of whether or not something belongs by calling someone a "bigot" before they do anything. Since this incident happened a short time ago, and hardly qualifies as a life-changing event for the subject of the WP:BIO, it would probably be best to give things a little time to simmer down, then find a way to add a short mention of the event if it seems warranted. As it stood, that additiion nearly doubled the size of the article, and that is completely out of line. Do not add it again. SeanNovack (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
SEanNovack, I didn't add it in the first place. I notice that some other IP user also assumed I did and said I have a "blog buddy" that misrepresents the interview or something; I don't know -- I only know that I watched the entire interview, and everyone's right, it's ridiculous. Not that that is the point. The point is that she is known to the majority of the world only for this one thing, and I'm sure some people will be scrambling to make sure no mention of it is made here (even though it certainly will warrant a line.) Please don't assume I have changed the article in any way, and maybe check the history to confirm that someone does before accusing them of making a poor "additiion" (SIC). Or is it amateur night? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
unreferenced material removed
"Democrat writing about Republicans" quote is not quite accurate and should be fixed or removed. The quote was about Democrats writing about how _Reagan_ was not a _good_ Republican. At the least ellipsis marks should be added for the deleted words and brackets put around the added letter, per standard style rules
Not actually. Here's the actual video of her saying literally what the quote says exactly: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Poorly written sentence
During the interview Green, in an attempt to explain why she thought Aslan, a Muslim, shouldn't have been writing a book about Christianity, she also said, "Why would a Democrat want to promote democracy by writing about a Republican?"
The she before also said needs to be deleted, since Green has already been identified in the same sentence as the subject of said, despite the rather the lengthy parenthetical explanation between the subject and the verb. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Cause and Effect
The article contains this statement:
As a result, Aslan's book sales skyrocketed, beating J. K. Rowling's book for the top spot on Amazon the next day.
Can we attribute the sales increase ONLY to the interview?
I'd suggest: "The resulting media coverage of the interview is believed to have fueled book sales. The next day, sales of "Zealot" rose to No. 1 on Amazon.com, displacing J.K. Rowling's [insert book name]."
From what I understand, the book was at No. 4. Moving three positions hardly constitutes a "skyrocket."
"Many news sources"
The following sentence should be reworded: "After the interview many news sources pointed out that Aslan misrepresented his credentials seemingly in an attempt to discredit Green's questioning". The cited "news sources" are The Blaze, The Daily Caller, Frontpage Magazine, and the Free Republic. None of these are news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the whole line because there are WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues: "Out of the 4 referenced used, 2 of them did not mention Alsan's credentials, all 4 did not link it to discrediting Green, and the last one is a posting." Zhanzhao (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)