Talk:Reuel Marc Gerecht
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled edit
Dear Mr Gerecht, your Article in the WSJ about CIA work needed in Syria, I think is correct. The CIA needs to help the Free Syrian Movement to prevent more bloodshed to innocent cilivans. Shipments of RPGs, Canadian fired antitank rockets, M2 browning 50 cal guns, and M16s, plus medical kits and food. Some SFGs to assist infantry platoon and company training would also be helpful. Please put me om your blog list ericpalmer@suddenlink.net, thanks Eric Palmer
Untitled edit
this Wiki entry includes ad hominem attacks, and overlooks providing substantiating links (ie Bernard Lewis' supposed objections to Gerecht and his viewpoints).
needs editing.
75.68.171.230 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Removal of bogus & libellous hoax edits edit
Holy crap. Doesn't anybody have this page watchlisted??!!! That was some of the most blatant garbage I've ever seen in Wikipedia that wasn't immediately deleted by the first editor to come across it. It sat there for 2 entire weeks -- and it would still be there if I hadn't stumbled on it, purely by chance. Unbelievable. Cgingold 03:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Isn't this supposed to be a definition appearing in an "encyclopedia"? Then why does it include a value judgment? Take for instance the remark about the subject being "hawkish" on Iran. When definitions include personal value judgments, the whole idea of objectivity goes out the window. If such a remark were even relevant, why isn't it attributed to a source? Put into quotation marks? It is stated as fact. That undercuts the credibility not just of this entry but of Wikipedia in general, and it ought to be monitored, though I wonder if most who are involved know the difference.JessWestTx (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Us centric language edit
The term "living abroad" is not suitable and underspecified for this Lemma and Wikipedia in general. You mean "outside the United States". Please also add a birth date and a credible biographic source. Otherwise this Lemma is a deletion candidate. --Rebentisch (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)