Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
14,697
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 309:
Line 309: + + + + + + + +
→Style and substance
::Please submit a [[writing plan]] for this article, because a lot of what you said about the [[Paula Jones]] case is valuable. Just stop using it to tear down Coulter, and it can all go back in. Can you do that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:14, 13 January 2010 (EST)
::Please submit a [[writing plan]] for this article, because a lot of what you said about the [[Paula Jones]] case is valuable. Just stop using it to tear down Coulter, and it can all go back in. Can you do that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:14, 13 January 2010 (EST)
:::No that wasn't my intention at all. Like I said in the Statements section, she makes controversial statements and admits doing so; out of context, they may seem inappropriate, in context they are found to prove a point about the harmful or foolish activities of her targets. I wouldn't necessarily mention the statements I used, but they were included by another Conservapedia contributor in the quotes section, so instead of kicking them out the back door, I confronted them directly. My first response was to undo the damage the out-of-context quotes may have caused by providing context.
:::Likewise, my coverage of the name-calling of John Edwards. Can you tell me anywhere on the internet of any news report where Coulter's minor use of a schoolyard taunt to prove a point about the censorship of criticizing gays was weighed against the prior months of intermittent harassment she received ''from'' persons apparently preoccupied with promoting some gay agenda at her speeches? And that after she had already stated she was not interested in the gay rights issues for or against?
:::As it stands in the original version, the material that she is "as bad (or worse) than any specific political opponent" is still present in the quotes section and the footnotes. In my version it states that her confidence in making statements found to be controversial is "vindicated later by a rehearsal of the facts available to conscientious scrutinizers of the content of her speech," and then one example case is explained--the quote she came up with on the spot in order to change the subject of her would-be interviewers back to her book, and her later use of that quote to point out the activities of the ''New York Times'' were dangerous to United States national security.
:::Before I began writing for this article, I spoke to an administrator named [[User:TK]] whom I asked if I could move the material I wrote for the Wikipedia article over to Conservapedia. He saw the Paula Jones section which I wrote and then asked me to proceed. Could we please consult with him before removing my sections entirely? I agree that my writing isn't perfect, but I think it has to do with clarity rather than any kind of issue of fairness. Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 13:11, 13 January 2010 (EST)