Talk:Progressive stack: Difference between revisions
Ironlion45 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
It died when the corporate/political money backing the OWS movement dried up because it had ceased being an effective political tool for leftist politicians. [[User:Ironlion45|Ironlion45]] ([[User talk:Ironlion45|talk]]) 01:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC) |
It died when the corporate/political money backing the OWS movement dried up because it had ceased being an effective political tool for leftist politicians. [[User:Ironlion45|Ironlion45]] ([[User talk:Ironlion45|talk]]) 01:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
Mmm. I think it's worth linking this page to [[Genetic fallacy|"genetic fallacy"]] or [[Circumstantial ad hominem|"circumstantial ad hominem"]], as they are both committed in some way here, and they're both integral to these peoples' debating style. [[Special:Contributions/108.7.207.22|108.7.207.22]] ([[User talk:108.7.207.22|talk]]) 11:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:27, 27 October 2014
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Why is Sue Gardner's personal opinion of the progressive stack concept relevant? She is the Wikimedia Executive--that's all well and good. But what makes her opinion of this subject relevant enough to be included in this encyclopedia article?
I challenge this inclusion, because I don't consider it notable, but more to the point, it is a self-published source! (Self-published sources for citations are largely against Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources)
If it cannot be defended, I'm going to remove it. I mean no offense. 71.162.106.224 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
So this
Is how the Occupy movement died, lumbering and wheezing under the weight of its own political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.12.140 (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It died when the corporate/political money backing the OWS movement dried up because it had ceased being an effective political tool for leftist politicians. Ironlion45 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Mmm. I think it's worth linking this page to "genetic fallacy" or "circumstantial ad hominem", as they are both committed in some way here, and they're both integral to these peoples' debating style. 108.7.207.22 (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)