Revision as of 12:16, 12 January 2004 editRabauz (talk | contribs)87 edits comparing Coulter to Carl Schmitt← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:47, 13 April 2004 edit undo141.156.238.162 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Ann Coulter may be a polemecist, but that doesn't mean the wikipedia page should be devoted to criticism of her. Al Franken is a polemecist too, but his page does not look like this. Someone did come out of the woodwork to fix the page (me) but my changes were reverted within by others within minutes. | |||
Let's get rid of the silly "Criticism of Ann Coulter" stuff and have a plain old encyclopedia entry about her. Why is that so scary/difficult? | |||
--] 14:47, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:47, 13 April 2004
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.
- Liberal? Misplaced Pages is an establishment mouthpiece. Look how fast the "we need to execute people like lindh" quote got vanished, as a for instance. The Three Mile Island link to Secret Fallout lasted all of four days. For more, see its attempt to defend fluoridation. Lookit the knots it gets into trying to make something important of the patent boogeyman Osama bin Laden. Look at how every bit of George Soros' hypocrisy is (validly) on the George Soros page, whereas all uncomfortable facts about Jarge Shrubya and Poppy are relegated to Bush family conspiracy theory, lumped in with less reputable claims (old technique, that) and irrelevancies like Perle's nickname is "Prince of Darkness". =p -- Kwantus 02:22, 14 Dec 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. 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)
C'mon, isn't there at least one Coulter admirer here? This has become so anti-Coulter that random conservatives visiting WP will probably dismiss the whole encyclopedia as a commie hippie liberal plot... :-) I daren't get a copy of the books myself, my wife might catch me... :-) Stan 02:18, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Well, I won't hold my breath. Her books are absolutely dreadful, shrill, overwrought rants against liberals. I can't imagine how one would defend her in a sane, rational way. In other words, I agree with user:J.J. above. Well, perhaps someone will materialize out of the woodwork some day... -- Viajero 04:47, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This woman is just an US Carl Schmitt
Rabauz 12:16, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ann Coulter may be a polemecist, but that doesn't mean the wikipedia page should be devoted to criticism of her. Al Franken is a polemecist too, but his page does not look like this. Someone did come out of the woodwork to fix the page (me) but my changes were reverted within by others within minutes.
Let's get rid of the silly "Criticism of Ann Coulter" stuff and have a plain old encyclopedia entry about her. Why is that so scary/difficult?
--141.156.238.162 14:47, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)