Talk:Maggie Gallagher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Quotations
Thanks, BCorr. Yes, those are quotes by Gallagher. --Uncle Ed 17:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Gay marriage
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)
-
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)