| Revision as of 06:42, 18 October 2003 editStan Shebs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users42,774 edits bullet points are taking away key content← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:33, 18 October 2003 edit undoSaltine (talk | contribs)16,408 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| Changing literate sentences into oversimplified bullet points is not an improvement. As a self-admitted polemicist, her claims are likely to have holes, and it's not POV to set the record straight - as long as that's what's being done, and not making counterclaims with unchallenged holes of their own. ] 06:42, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) | Changing literate sentences into oversimplified bullet points is not an improvement. As a self-admitted polemicist, her claims are likely to have holes, and it's not POV to set the record straight - as long as that's what's being done, and not making counterclaims with unchallenged holes of their own. ] 06:42, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) | ||
| *Ehh.. sorry. I thought I integrated all of the content from the paragraphs. ] 08:33, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:33, 18 October 2003
So the neutrality of this page is disputed, but there are no comments here. Anyone care to chime in? Fuzheado 02:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Article lists some of the extreme statementsof a woman who often makes them
Ann Coulter frequently makes extreme statements in her writings and talk-show appearances.
This article appropriately reflects that by quoting some of her extreme statements.
It's not like she rarely makes extreme statements, and this article is un-reflective. Someone could easily add ten more extreme statements she's made in the past few years.
If someone wishes to add sentences to the article about the good things Ann Coulter has said or done, that is fine. It is better than just posting that the neutrality is disputed.
- I agree, so I've removed the neutrality disputed note at the beginning, not because this is the perfect article, but I don't think it goes too far in characterizing her for what she is. After all, she calls herself a polemicist. But I'm willing to hear/see other additions to make this more "neutral". Fuzheado 13:03, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm not nessisarily a fan of Coulter's, but I have read a lot of her stuff. As mentioned, her whole "sthick" is being outlandish, controversial, and sensationalistic. She rarely discusses uncontroversial topics, and she's not exactly the type who has written lots of dry articles on why the free market system is superior to socialism or anything like that. Though a self-proclaimed conservative, her writings lack the didactic or historographical material that is often common with other conservative pundits and editorialists. In other words, I'm not sure what kinda stuff to add to make this more "neutral". user:J.J.
- I put the NPOV disclaimer on... I'm definitely not a fan of Coulter, in fact, I think she's completely brain-dead, but the second half of this article, starting with Franken, is just attack after attack on her positions. Hardly serves to create a positive picture of the woman. Maybe nothing good can be said about her, but she -is- a best-selling author, and surely has some adulators? Graft 20:39, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Wow, this is a pretty harsh bio of Coulter. Not suprised, as Misplaced Pages is generally liberal. I will probably edit it in the future. ~ Anon.
Changing literate sentences into oversimplified bullet points is not an improvement. As a self-admitted polemicist, her claims are likely to have holes, and it's not POV to set the record straight - as long as that's what's being done, and not making counterclaims with unchallenged holes of their own. Stan 06:42, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Ehh.. sorry. I thought I integrated all of the content from the paragraphs. Evil saltine 08:33, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)