Talk:Instapundit

message: Can anyone tell me why "bubble" is in quotes? It's not over here. Their use in this article could be construed as implying that, as a concept, this is a usage peculiar to Glenn. Clearly not so, if there's a Wikipedia entry dedicated to the idea. A google search for "higher education bubble" excluding Glenn Reynolds and Instapundit yields 1.43 million hits; requiring either of those terms reduces the number of hits to .25 million. Obviously Reynolds is a small contributor to a real discussion of a real issue whose legitimacy seems called into question by this odd use of scare quotes. Since the quotes add nothing but potential confusion, I recommend they be canned. 
The same is true for "Mainstream Media." The link on that phrase, oddly, is to an article on media bias (when there's actually an article on Mainstream Media sans scare quotes -- again, common usage), while the scare quotes seem to relegate "mainstream media", as above, to some peculiar use by Reynolds. Yet I don't see scare quotes around "mainstream mass media" on the Noam Chomsky page. 
It's almost as if the writer of this section wished to marginalize Reynolds, and figured objectivity in a Wikipedia page would be a good vehicle so long as s/he could deliver a wink or two with the scare quotes. ;-)     --rasqual (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quibbles 

message: I think it might be worth adding a section to the article on quotes from Instapundit that have become part of the conservative lexicon. It is part of the style of his blog that certain comments are used over and over, and eventually I see people using them elsewhere as well-known idioms. Examples: "YOU WANT MORE TRUMP? THIS IS HOW YOU GET MORE TRUMP!" "WHY ARE DEMOCRAT-RUN CITIES SUCH CESSPITS OF CORRUPTION? - where "cities" and "corruption" is replaced by whatever the story is about. "THEY TOLD ME THAT IF I VOTED FOR (Republican presidential candidate) I WOULD SEE (terrible result) - AND THEY WERE RIGHT! (pointing to a story about where a Democratic president or politician did just that)." "FASTER, PLEASE (about some life-extending discovery)." "HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE (about some fascist thing by a college)." "Think of them (i.e., the media) as Democratic operatives with bylines and it all makes sense."
There are many more, and by now you see them all over the conservative blogosphere (google one of them). One of the reasons that Instapundit is notable.MikeR613 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising this issue! Yes, I believe the addition of this subsection is questionable under both WP:OR and WP:TRIV. Proper referencing would be to a reliable source that discusses the widespread imitation of Reynolds' catchphrases and verbal tics amongst his fellow bloggers. ARK (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't think it's trivial, but I haven't seen a good article about it. Problem. I'll see what I can find.MikeR613 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotable quotes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Instapundit. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022183358/http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/podcasts.php to http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/podcasts.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added the ad template because it's obviously all-positive... only thing missing, just near the quotes perhaps, are trumpets heralding how a probably has-been blog is still, somehow, the best ever. Seriously... years ago there were neutrality concerns above, although I haven't looked at how it was written back then, but it really doesn't seem any better... if any article has just positives, no criticisms (surely there are some people, somewhere, who were critical, especially with those nonsensical quotes, unless the blog wasn't really ever that prominent...) - it is entirely one-sided now, which is why I think the ad template should stay until this is rectified. 92.10.157.151 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds like it was written by the blog