Talk:Anne Norton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antisemitism[edit]

There are recent articles about her twitter posts, in particular due to the Israel-Gaza war. Someone should make a reference to that here, in some controversy/criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawerchessread (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled[edit]

Why do you keep deleting the "gay orgies" rumor from the only page where it would be appropriate?--GregRog 13:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue isnt if its appropriate but where its appropriate why are you so uppity about this?-Jacrosse 15:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense...--GregRog 14:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Strauss cult" etc.[edit]

To Jacrosse: please discuss these edits here. I changed the article back to its earlier version because a phrase like "Strauss cult" is clearly POV. Also, there was an unattributed opinion. Thanks for your future cooperation. Hydriotaphia 19:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am new to Wikipedia but very familiar with Anne Norton's publications and with the field of political theory in general. This entry needs substantial editing. Attempts to provide a summary of the substance of her work are deleted while an anecdote regarding a rumor she doesn't believe is insisted upon. Norton is a major theorist of political identity, a leading figure in a reform movement in political science, and in general an intellectual of considerable stature. The entry needs to capture this. Thanks. Annie06 - 5 June 2006

Let me get this straight. We think this woman is notable because she wrote a book in which she says she doesn't believe some rumours about Leo Strauss? Can we really find nothing better than this? DJ Clayworth 17:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I know little about this women and only became involved in relation to another dispute. I removed the "summary" of her work because it was unacceptably pov as well as unsourced, (Please see WP:No Original research for more information on that policy) I have re-inserted the block quote because from the little I know it is the only thing that makes her notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Now if what you say is true that she doesn't believe the somewhat outrageus rumor about the "Straus toga parties" feel free to add context to it, as long as it is properly sourced.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe -- Thanks for the advice on wikipedia matters. No, I'm not Anne Norton (despite the user name annie, the name of my dog). On the toga parties, Norton says she doesn't believe them in the very quote that you reproduce. Following wikipedia courtesies (which I am just learning) I am not going to keep deleting this quotation, but I would urge you to do so. I understand this passage has been the subject of discussion by contributors to Wikipedia, but Norton's profile in the world of political theory and more generally in intellectual culture (New York Times book review, New York Review of Books, etc.) is marked by issues that have nothing to do with this anecdote. Thanks for the pointers on sourcing. If I have the time, I will look up and select from the hundreds available. annie 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the quotation seems inappropriate. If it's the only reason she's famous then that should be stated and sourced. If it isn't then it should be deleted. -Will Beback 21:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one that originally added the quote. In fact I don't believe I have made one original contribution to this article. So really I only know what other editors have said about the matter. If we can find some reputable and reliable source that refers to Mrs. Norton's contribution to her field then we should add them in a npov manner, we might also contact the article's original editors and ask them about the Strauss quote and see if they can provide references about the notablity of the aformentioned quote.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote used to be in the Strauss article, but editors there objected to it and someone moved it here. It seems like some gossip that someone wants to keep visible. -Will Beback 23:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Moshe, you do appear to have been the person who added it. [1]. -Will Beback 23:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aw yes, I remember, I think I moved it from the Leo Strauss article after I read over the conflict on the talk page. People were angry that Jacrosse kept re-adding it there but would not allow it to be added here when this is only place it would conceivably be relevant. When I read the dispute I was under the impression that I was adding it in the same form that it was in before Jacrosse removed it, but now looking over the edit history I see that it was previously in the form of a summary rather than a block quote.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quote finishes "Despite the recurrent rumors—even among Straussians and their sympathizers—I don't believe the toga parties." -Will Beback 00:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have never even read the book and copied the quote exactly as it appeared in the other article so I wouldn't know.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you never read the quote that you copied? -Will Beback 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the quote I copied, but I didn't read what it was copied from, so I missed the part that you just referred to.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That part was in the quote you copied. -Will Beback 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I guess I didn't even read the whole thing then. Kinda funny huh.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be funnier if you hadn't been so insistent one keeping it. Edit warring for something you didn't read fully. It's really kind of sad. But not to worry, we've all overlooked text before. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be insulting. There was a reason I kept it, someone had deleted mention of it when there was previously consensus that if it should appear on wikipedia it should appear here.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that this interchange means we are agreed the remaining sentence in the article referring to rumors should be deleted. annie 14:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anne Norton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anne_Norton&oldid=1209430666"