![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Could some liberal brace himself and find even one pro-Ann Coulter external link, just to preserve the neutrality and good name of Wikipedia?
The "External links" section could use improvement, but the NPOV policy doesn't call for the wholesale deletion of links to sites that some editor disagrees with. The guideline found in Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to is:
The external links in this article would benefit from better descriptions. Also, the list of links is long, and some pruning might be in order. "Some pruning" does not mean leaving in all the pro-Coulter links and deleting all the others. In addition, one technique that's often used is to have subsections within "External links", such as "Pro-Coulter", "Anti-Coulter", and perhaps "Other" (if any of these links aren't readily characterized as Pro or Anti). Does anyone see a problem with subdividing the links list in that fashion? JamesMLane 14:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Further to the above, some of the sorting decisions by Equinox137 seem wrong. I've moved http://www.stopanncoulter.com/ from the "Pro" to the "Anti", and improved one description, but there's still a lot to be done on this section. Right now, though, I have to knock off. JamesMLane 14:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The MySpace link is still bad. I hate to delete it without talking to somebody, but the last two edits have been pointers to invalid groups. I did a search on MySpace and found the group, but it says it's an invalid group ID when you try to go there. I'm inclined to just delete this until somebody verifies it's resolved. Syberghost 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
She definately has a very prominent Adam's Apple. It is the way that you can tell that the pretty woman who is trying to pick you up is a Dude. Ann Coulter, who was she in high school? Anybody have a picture of her younger (more manly) years?
Grove, Lloyd (2002-09-06). "Mystery of the Ages". Washington Post.
sorry I was a little drunk when I posted that ann was an intersexual
Yow! I never paid much credence to the story, but those new pics today, she really does have an adam's apple! Gzuckier 20:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Wait a minute...so is Ann Coulter a dude? CoolGuy 03:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
does she have an adams apple? I don't think she is male but found this image on the internet and yess she has an adams apple. 71.28.250.92 00:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC) http://www.rawilson.com/images/coulter.jpg
commentator
The use of the word "demonstrates" in reference to Coulter's arguments indicates that she has successfully proven her points. The use of the word "claims" indicates that she has made the arguments, but does not imply that they have been proven (or disproven). Therefore, "demonstrates" is POV, while "claims" is more NPOV. Cheers, - Willmcw 21:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
The point is that we are not here to determine the truth. All we are doing is summarizing the verifiable information about the article's subject in an NPOV manner. We can report what she says, but we can't say whether it is true or not, or whether she has succeeded in proving her assertion. - Willmcw 03:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
off topic, i know, but what is the deal with that photo on the time cover? looks like she has pointy tentacles instead of legs. Is this some sort of subversive poke at her by the 'liberals' at Time (haha)? Yike! Gzuckier 17:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It appears to be the perspective of the camera that gives the appearance you mention. Not sure where you have seen tentacles that resemble pointy shoes, but I'll leave that to you. I figured that this was fairly obvious, but since it bears mentioning in your opinion, I'm happy to explain it to you. plain_regular_ham 18:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to post both the birthdates on her voter registration form and her driver's license? Doing so makes her look dishonest about something as simple as her birthday (making that section lose NPOV, IMHO) when it could have been something as simple as a clerical error on either document. Equinox137 14:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ann Coulter a neo-conservative?! No! Absolutely not! Her pal Sean Hannity is a raving liberal compared to Ann. She can make the occasional lucid point, but then make some way "out there" statement that destroys her credibility. The Timothy McVeigh/New York Times comment, for instance. GeorgeC 06:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
One editor wanted to replace "often including the use of insult humor" with "often including the usage of insulting humor", in the lead sentence. There is a subtle difference, which explains why I think the first is better. "Insult humor" implies a particular and categorizable style of humor. Which is what Coulter uses: it's a highly stylized and deliberately designed humor. "Insulting humor" can refer to humor that insults even though it's not intended to or planned to. It also implies by the non-familiar phraseology there is a lack of style or method involved to the humor, which is not the quality that makes it particularly characteristic of Coulter's.
Another editor wanted to add "vitriolic" to "commentator with a reputation for criticism of liberal politics through provocative polemics". "Vitriolic" is redundant in supplying meaning to the sense of the phrase "provocative polemics". Besides, whenever she applies any "vitriol" broadly, it's done for a cheap laugh. 64.154.26.251 21:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I think she is just a nasty person in the mold of matt drudge, she gives the consertive movement a very bad name, with her nasty self.
I would like to discuss the following recent addition:
Plagiarism allegations
Michael Chapman, a colleague of Coulter’s at Human Events, complained to the magazine's editors in late 1998 that much of her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors had really been written by him and another writer for an abandoned book project, later partially published as an article in the magazine in May 1997, which concluded that Clinton's behavior didn't meet the eponymous standards for impeachment, contrary to what Coulter's book says. He claimed all she did before submitting it to publisher Regnery Gateway was make some cosmetic changes of phrasing.
Chapman sent a letter of complaint to the board of the Phillips Foundation, which publishes HE. The matter was not discussed outside the conservative movement until a 2001 article in The Boston Globe whose publication Coulter had threatened to sue to stop. The paper's media critic, Alex Beam, reviewed both Coulter's book and the unpublished Chapman manuscript and found many similar passages.
Coulter has denied ever knowing Chapman, despite the two having written for the magazine at the same time and frequently attending the same editorial meetings.
(Michael Chapman, a colleague of Coulter’s at Human Events, complained to the magazine's editors in late 1998 that much of her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors had really been written by him and another writer for an abandoned book project,)
(later partially published as an article in the magazine in May 1997, which concluded that Clinton's behavior didn't meet the eponymous standards for impeachment, contrary to what Coulter's book says.)
(He claimed all she did before submitting it to publisher Regnery Gateway was make some cosmetic changes of phrasing.)
(Chapman sent a letter of complaint to the board of the Phillips Foundation, which publishes HE. The matter was not discussed outside the conservative movement until a 2001 article in The Boston Globe whose publication Coulter had threatened to sue to stop. The paper's media critic, Alex Beam, reviewed both Coulter's book and the unpublished Chapman manuscript and found many similar passages.)
(Coulter has denied ever knowing Chapman, despite the two having written for the magazine at the same time and frequently attending the same editorial meetings)
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) is a book by bestselling right-wing author Ann Coulter.
The book is a collection of columns written by Ms. Coulter on varied topics, such as liberalism, war on terror and the media.
In the book Ann Coulter sums up liberals in one sentence:"Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States. "
Has the above info all been merged?
-- Uncle Ed
(talk) 17:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Could some liberal brace himself and find even one pro-Ann Coulter external link, just to preserve the neutrality and good name of Wikipedia?
The "External links" section could use improvement, but the NPOV policy doesn't call for the wholesale deletion of links to sites that some editor disagrees with. The guideline found in Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to is:
The external links in this article would benefit from better descriptions. Also, the list of links is long, and some pruning might be in order. "Some pruning" does not mean leaving in all the pro-Coulter links and deleting all the others. In addition, one technique that's often used is to have subsections within "External links", such as "Pro-Coulter", "Anti-Coulter", and perhaps "Other" (if any of these links aren't readily characterized as Pro or Anti). Does anyone see a problem with subdividing the links list in that fashion? JamesMLane 14:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Further to the above, some of the sorting decisions by Equinox137 seem wrong. I've moved http://www.stopanncoulter.com/ from the "Pro" to the "Anti", and improved one description, but there's still a lot to be done on this section. Right now, though, I have to knock off. JamesMLane 14:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The MySpace link is still bad. I hate to delete it without talking to somebody, but the last two edits have been pointers to invalid groups. I did a search on MySpace and found the group, but it says it's an invalid group ID when you try to go there. I'm inclined to just delete this until somebody verifies it's resolved. Syberghost 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
She definately has a very prominent Adam's Apple. It is the way that you can tell that the pretty woman who is trying to pick you up is a Dude. Ann Coulter, who was she in high school? Anybody have a picture of her younger (more manly) years?
Grove, Lloyd (2002-09-06). "Mystery of the Ages". Washington Post.
sorry I was a little drunk when I posted that ann was an intersexual
Yow! I never paid much credence to the story, but those new pics today, she really does have an adam's apple! Gzuckier 20:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Wait a minute...so is Ann Coulter a dude? CoolGuy 03:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
does she have an adams apple? I don't think she is male but found this image on the internet and yess she has an adams apple. 71.28.250.92 00:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC) http://www.rawilson.com/images/coulter.jpg
commentator
The use of the word "demonstrates" in reference to Coulter's arguments indicates that she has successfully proven her points. The use of the word "claims" indicates that she has made the arguments, but does not imply that they have been proven (or disproven). Therefore, "demonstrates" is POV, while "claims" is more NPOV. Cheers, - Willmcw 21:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
The point is that we are not here to determine the truth. All we are doing is summarizing the verifiable information about the article's subject in an NPOV manner. We can report what she says, but we can't say whether it is true or not, or whether she has succeeded in proving her assertion. - Willmcw 03:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
off topic, i know, but what is the deal with that photo on the time cover? looks like she has pointy tentacles instead of legs. Is this some sort of subversive poke at her by the 'liberals' at Time (haha)? Yike! Gzuckier 17:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It appears to be the perspective of the camera that gives the appearance you mention. Not sure where you have seen tentacles that resemble pointy shoes, but I'll leave that to you. I figured that this was fairly obvious, but since it bears mentioning in your opinion, I'm happy to explain it to you. plain_regular_ham 18:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to post both the birthdates on her voter registration form and her driver's license? Doing so makes her look dishonest about something as simple as her birthday (making that section lose NPOV, IMHO) when it could have been something as simple as a clerical error on either document. Equinox137 14:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ann Coulter a neo-conservative?! No! Absolutely not! Her pal Sean Hannity is a raving liberal compared to Ann. She can make the occasional lucid point, but then make some way "out there" statement that destroys her credibility. The Timothy McVeigh/New York Times comment, for instance. GeorgeC 06:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
One editor wanted to replace "often including the use of insult humor" with "often including the usage of insulting humor", in the lead sentence. There is a subtle difference, which explains why I think the first is better. "Insult humor" implies a particular and categorizable style of humor. Which is what Coulter uses: it's a highly stylized and deliberately designed humor. "Insulting humor" can refer to humor that insults even though it's not intended to or planned to. It also implies by the non-familiar phraseology there is a lack of style or method involved to the humor, which is not the quality that makes it particularly characteristic of Coulter's.
Another editor wanted to add "vitriolic" to "commentator with a reputation for criticism of liberal politics through provocative polemics". "Vitriolic" is redundant in supplying meaning to the sense of the phrase "provocative polemics". Besides, whenever she applies any "vitriol" broadly, it's done for a cheap laugh. 64.154.26.251 21:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I think she is just a nasty person in the mold of matt drudge, she gives the consertive movement a very bad name, with her nasty self.
I would like to discuss the following recent addition:
Plagiarism allegations
Michael Chapman, a colleague of Coulter’s at Human Events, complained to the magazine's editors in late 1998 that much of her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors had really been written by him and another writer for an abandoned book project, later partially published as an article in the magazine in May 1997, which concluded that Clinton's behavior didn't meet the eponymous standards for impeachment, contrary to what Coulter's book says. He claimed all she did before submitting it to publisher Regnery Gateway was make some cosmetic changes of phrasing.
Chapman sent a letter of complaint to the board of the Phillips Foundation, which publishes HE. The matter was not discussed outside the conservative movement until a 2001 article in The Boston Globe whose publication Coulter had threatened to sue to stop. The paper's media critic, Alex Beam, reviewed both Coulter's book and the unpublished Chapman manuscript and found many similar passages.
Coulter has denied ever knowing Chapman, despite the two having written for the magazine at the same time and frequently attending the same editorial meetings.
(Michael Chapman, a colleague of Coulter’s at Human Events, complained to the magazine's editors in late 1998 that much of her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors had really been written by him and another writer for an abandoned book project,)
(later partially published as an article in the magazine in May 1997, which concluded that Clinton's behavior didn't meet the eponymous standards for impeachment, contrary to what Coulter's book says.)
(He claimed all she did before submitting it to publisher Regnery Gateway was make some cosmetic changes of phrasing.)
(Chapman sent a letter of complaint to the board of the Phillips Foundation, which publishes HE. The matter was not discussed outside the conservative movement until a 2001 article in The Boston Globe whose publication Coulter had threatened to sue to stop. The paper's media critic, Alex Beam, reviewed both Coulter's book and the unpublished Chapman manuscript and found many similar passages.)
(Coulter has denied ever knowing Chapman, despite the two having written for the magazine at the same time and frequently attending the same editorial meetings)
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) is a book by bestselling right-wing author Ann Coulter.
The book is a collection of columns written by Ms. Coulter on varied topics, such as liberalism, war on terror and the media.
In the book Ann Coulter sums up liberals in one sentence:"Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States. "
Has the above info all been merged?
-- Uncle Ed
(talk) 17:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)