Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 4

message: === The External Links ===
Could some liberal brace himself and find even one pro-Ann Coulter external link, just to preserve the neutrality and good name of Wikipedia?
:There are "pro-Ann" links in the article: anncoulter.com, coulterwatch.com, jewishworldreview.com. Of course you're welcome to add any you know of. Christiaan 17:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV 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)

text: I didn't deliberately sort it that way - I goofed. Equinox137 13:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't like this idea of sorting links.  It passes judgement on links - including news articles - and sorts them into two camps when there really are a multitude of views on an issue, reinforces the absurd 'us vs. them' paradigm, and tells the reader what to think about a link before they even read it.  Gamaliel 16:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links Discussion

message: Could some liberal brace himself and find even one pro-Ann Coulter external link, just to preserve the neutrality and good name of Wikipedia?
:There are "pro-Ann" links in the article: anncoulter.com, coulterwatch.com, jewishworldreview.com. Of course you're welcome to add any you know of. Christiaan 17:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The External Links 

message: 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:
:On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV 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)
replies: text: I didn't deliberately sort it that way - I goofed. Equinox137 13:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't like this idea of sorting links.  It passes judgement on links - including news articles - and sorts them into two camps when there really are a multitude of views on an issue, reinforces the absurd 'us vs. them' paradigm, and tells the reader what to think about a link before they even read it.  Gamaliel 16:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: 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)
replies: text: This is a problem which seems to affect women more than men. There was also a dispute about how to treat the disparity in Nancy Reagan's official ages. It should be mentioned, but it would be wrong to imply a sinister, or even vain, motive unless there is some evidence. And even so, women lying about their age is considered to be among the whitest of lies. -Willmcw 20:35, Apr 28, 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)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: 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)
thread_title: Insult humor vs. insulting humor