Talk:Tanya Gadiel

Revert to restore unsourced claims.
You reverted this article to restore a variety of unsourced claims (for example, that the "rank and file membership" were opposed to Tanya Gadiel, or that she claimed she was going to lose her baby). Even if accurate, I can't see how these are relevant.

I suspect I know more about this issue than you do, and that you have a certain political point of view that you are pushing. Your hostility is evident in the heading.

But I am not going to argue. Wikipedia is a great concept, but editors like you have discouraged me from taking part. Jeendan 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything in this article was very widely reported in the press at the time. A search through a newspaper database reveals that a substantial proportion of the press ever written about Gadiel was written about that very bitter preselection dispute, which is why it is prominently featured in this article. Rebecca 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it was a bitter preselection, but statements by the Borger camp that their opponent doesn't have "rank-and-file" support should be considered as claims, not verifiable fact.


 * Anyway. Sorry if my comment above was a bit aggressive - I'd remove it but then your response wouldn't have a context. I just get a bit tired of the endless Wikipedia flame wars (not from you) on political articles, and your edit was the one I got snappy about (and thank you for the subsequent edit post-this response).


 * Thanks. Sorry if I was a bit terse as well. :) Rebecca 04:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)