Changes

Anymore than Al Franken would be an acceptable source.  Please pull all material cited to her.  She's not an academic.  She's a pundit.  Like I said, just like Franken, or Jon Stewart.  No better as a real source.  Thank you.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 01:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Anymore than Al Franken would be an acceptable source.  Please pull all material cited to her.  She's not an academic.  She's a pundit.  Like I said, just like Franken, or Jon Stewart.  No better as a real source.  Thank you.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 01:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:I respect your opinion, but disagree in part.  When Ann Coulter is describing history, she is a source.  When she is interpreting it, she is not (unless her interpretation is either identified as such in the text of the article, or backed up by the likes of Larson, who won a Pulitzer prize for his ''Summer For the Gods'' book on the Scopes Trial.)  Even though I do not agree with you, I am open to reconsidering, especially if others agree with you.  Coulter, unlike Larson, is not a respected historian afterall.  So far, however, I have not injected any of Coulter's characterizations of the Scopes trial that is not shared by other disinterested parties like Larson.  And besides, I think her book is good reading regarding the Scopes Trial, and should be mentioned on a conservative Encyclopedia.  If conservapedia does not wish to honor Coulter with citations, perhaps Conservapedia would want her listed in a '''See Also''' section.  Or perhaps not.  If you remove Coulter as a source (and I am not by any means instructing that you should not), the sentences she is cited on do not require any changing whatsoever.  I would agree that any aspect of the trial on which Coulter is the sole source should be identified as such in the article proper, and not left as an exercise to the diligent reader to determine.  Pending further discussion, or action on your part, I will leave Coulter as a source for the time being.  [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 01:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:I respect your opinion, but disagree in part.  When Ann Coulter is describing history, she is a source.  When she is interpreting it, she is not (unless her interpretation is either identified as such in the text of the article, or backed up by the likes of Larson, who won a Pulitzer prize for his ''Summer For the Gods'' book on the Scopes Trial.)  Even though I do not agree with you, I am open to reconsidering, especially if others agree with you.  Coulter, unlike Larson, is not a respected historian afterall.  So far, however, I have not injected any of Coulter's characterizations of the Scopes trial that is not shared by other disinterested parties like Larson.  And besides, I think her book is good reading regarding the Scopes Trial, and should be mentioned on a conservative Encyclopedia.  If conservapedia does not wish to honor Coulter with citations, perhaps Conservapedia would want her listed in a '''See Also''' section.  Or perhaps not.  If you remove Coulter as a source (and I am not by any means instructing that you should not), the sentences she is cited on do not require any changing whatsoever.  I would agree that any aspect of the trial on which Coulter is the sole source should be identified as such in the article proper, and not left as an exercise to the diligent reader to determine.  Pending further discussion, or action on your part, I will leave Coulter as a source for the time being.  [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 01:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)