Talk:Allahpundit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Horrible comments

"as described by radical, violent, xenophobic, extremist Muslims," this is disgusting. I'm deleting this shit, and I'll babysit this article and delete it again whenever you try to re-add it. Fucking asshole.

This was to distinguish these views from those of Muslims who aren't radical, aren't violent, aren't xenophobic, and aren't extremist (e.g., every one of the dozens of Muslims living in the U.S. that I myself have met). I could see how this might be misinterpreted by someone who wanted to assume the worst, though in the call for deletion, no one mentioned this, so I'm pretty sure few people misinterpreted it. I changed it to better reflect my actual meaning, but Twisket could have responded to this in a different manner. Calbaer 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Header

I know some will question the importance of this page. I believe that the links will offer an indication of the importance of this topic circa 2004. Unfortunately, the rapidly changing nature of the blogosphere means that Allah Is in the House is quickly being forgotten; I hope this page will help to preserve the essentials of this now-defunct blog. Calbaer 03:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The blog is still defunct, but the blogger is now the head contributor on [1]. And people are still putting AfDs on the article without first checking on that this has already been discussed (first AfD) (aborted AfD) (second full AfD). C'mon people: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for AfD, PROD, or other forms of nuking. Calbaer 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Highlighting sources

I'd be grateful if someone would take the time to reformat the sources so as to have a references section. Maybe that way lazy and/or biased folk will be less tempted to again try to delete the article. And thanks to those who took time out of their Christmas holiday to defend the article. I suppose, this being a blog originating in America, where Christmas is often family/vacation time (especially for right-wingers), we need to watch out that other Christmases don't greet us with more stealth AfDs. Calbaer 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete links to dead websites

http://allahakbar.blogspot.com/ and http://allahpundit.com/ have both clearly been abandoned. I recommend that the links pointing to them be deleted. (Naming them without making the names clickable makes total sense, though.) Malatinszky 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, archive.org links can be used. For now, I'll just delink. Calbaer 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by User:JzG

User:JzG keeps removing the Free Republic link of the page, citing a User:JzG/unreliable sources, the user's own personal hit list, which is not exactly a Wikipedia policy or guideline. However, even if we were to accept that Free Republic wasn't a reliable source for facts about the external world, it is undeniable that it is a reliable source for the statement that the Allah Is in the House blog has been cited by top conservative blogs, of which Free Republic is one. I have attempted to note that in my reverts, but the user has so far refused to address this point. I hope that by bringing this to the talk page, the user will discuss this here, rather than continuing to revert (in this case violating WP:3RR: [2] [3] [4]). Calbaer (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Problem solved: Free Republic is now blacklisted to to extensive link abuse. It is, and always was, an unreliable source. You'll note that my unreliabel sources page gives an extended rationale for this removal. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You are still in violation of 3RR, and you have not pointed to a policy or guideline or any official Wikipedia document that supports your claim. Your own web page does not constitute a "blacklist," so if you are referring to something else, please link to it. And, again, even if I were to accept that it is a unreliable source for facts about the external world, it is a reliable source for what has appeared on the site itself, a point you have repeatedly failed to address. Calbaer (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not really relevant. The link was to a copy on Freep of a copy on a blog of a copy of in another blog of an abstract of something, with a bit of polemic against Mary Mapes wrapped round it. If ever you see anyone reverting crap like that in the future, please help them out. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that how blogs work? They comment on other people's work? I don't see the problem here. The point of the link is not to show that Free Republic said anything useful, but to show that they cite Allahpundit's work. However, I suppose a cite to the book Free Republic cites would be useful, too. Calbaer (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

4 reverts is in violation of 3rr, 2 reverts is not and if it were you would also be in violation of 3RR as making a fresh edit, which was the first alleged revert you refer to, can in nio sense be considered a revert. Lets just work on getting a better article, to be honest it was in pretty poor shape, bad grammar, badly constructed,a nd this si surely far more important than complaining about the removal of a spam site. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, JzG did three reverts (removing information is undoing an editor's contribution, and thus a revert), but you're right that JzG didn't do four, and thus didn't violate 3RR, contrary to my original statement; my mistake. Nevertheless, my original point — that the link doesn't violate what JzG claims it does, only the user's own homemade list, where rationales are quite vague and seem politically motivated — remains. And my reason for keeping the link remains unaddressed. Although you may view the web site as a "spam site," it is one of the leading blog sites, and, because of that, its linking Allah's site is something to note here. (By the way, if it's most notably a "spam site," why is the work "spam" absent from the Free Republic article?) Granted, now that Allahpundit has a far larger reach on Hotair.com, this link isn't necessary to establish the subject's notability, but it is useful for those who might want to see where Allah's first site fits into the early-to-mid-00s blogging ecosystem, of which the Free Republic was a major part, like it or not.

Also, since you seem to be working on the article's formatting, I don't want to give the impression that I oppose all changes. I just don't like references being removed for spurious, personal, or political reasons. It does not seem like a coincidence that this link was removed by the same user who made the third unsuccessful attempt (second of those that weren't aborted) to delete this subject from Wikipedia. Calbaer (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That is actually a misunderstanding of 3rr, I suggest you review the policy, at the very least you would have to find the original insertion and if it was longer ago than int he last day or 2 it would not be included as even a part of a 3rr, that is why one needs the link for what is reverted to in the 3rr violation page. I don't know about the article history but am following Guy's efforts at removing unreliable sources and hope my own edits here are to your liking. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So far, so good. Calbaer (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)