Talk:Holocaust Memorial on Miami Beach
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Daniel Pearl Controversy
Is this section of the article wholly necessary? I can’t find any information on the reporter cited criticizing the decision to put Daniel Pearl in the memorial. I suppose what I mean to say here is this: just because some reporter asserted stated his opinion doesn’t make it automatically relevant, unless perhaps the reporter has the appropriate credentials needed to make his opinion significant enough to warrant its own section.
If there is no real controversy or debate concerning the decision, the section should be removed, if there is, and then there should be more information listed.
Furthermore, there are no citations or footnotes in the article to back up the claims of the section.
This needs to be addressed.
Thanks, -Tyler B Crawford, FL
- The article is here (the person who added it did not link to it properly). If this is indeed the only criticism (an opinion column in an Israeli newspaper), then I would agree that it certainly does not deserve a whole 'controversy' heading. It does seem possible, though, that this may have elicited other comment, so it deserves further investigation. In either case, discussion of the inclusion of Daniel Pearl's name should remain, as it is highly unusual for a Holocaust memorial to do something like this. I think that the link to the Haaretz column, if retained, should be included only in a cursory manner, until it can be demonstrated that an actual controversy existed in Florida (which the columnist seems to actually say didn't exist).--Pharos 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)