1,148
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 160:
Line 160: + +
→Ann Coulter is not a source
: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.
: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)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
: Is Coulter even needed as a source here? It appears the 2 things that have been attributed to her have also been credited to Larson. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)