nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 156:
Line 156: + + + +
→Ann Coulter is not a source: Don't go overboard
HoG, I'm glad she's not that important to the article. I think she'd be a fine "See Also," but her flame-job in Godless is hardly fact.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 08:31, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
HoG, I'm glad she's not that important to the article. I think she'd be a fine "See Also," but her flame-job in Godless is hardly fact.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 08:31, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:As an Australian, I know next to nothing about Ann Coulter, although I have heard of her in recent times and realise that she is on the conservative side of the fence.
:Personally, I don't like absolutely ruling anybody out as a source; some sources need to be treated with a lot more caution than others, but each case should be considered on its merits. If someone has a ''specific'' issue with using Ann Coulter (i.e. for a specific reference), that should be raised, but to suggest that we should "pull all material cited to her" simply because "[s]she's not an academic" is going overboard.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 11 May 2007 (EDT)