![delete section break mac 10.13.3 delete section break mac 10.13.3](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cDNvpYGIl_4/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's now been merged back into the main article. Bryan 07:06, (UTC)Īnother month passed without comment. Articles shouldn't be split along lines of POV like this. This text has been "temporarily" moved to Ann Coulter/criticism for a month now, are there any further plans to work on it? If not, I'm going to merge it back into the main article. That conclusion should only come from the mouth of a critic. I'll even help you! But please just avoid having the article say outright (or even imply) that Coulter makes many mistakes and refuses correction. I have no objection to making it easy for readers to check the facts about any specific example of Coulter's alleged sloppiness with facts. It is this point on which I urge you to help me make the article neutral. There is, as I believe you will agree, a dispute between Coulter herself and the "anti-Coulter" crowd about how accurate her remarks are. The important issue is that Wikipedia articles should remain neutral and avoid taking sides in disputes. But it also supplies an easily-checked reference so that the reader can make up their own mind. If we put it like this, the Ann Coulter article neither supports nor condemns the view that Coulter made a mistake and refused to accept correction. For example, on a talk show she made reference to "Canada not sending troops to Vietnam" and refused to agree with the interviewer's rejoinder that "Canada had indeed sent troops to Vietnam" (see Canada and the Vietnam War). On several occasions, other commentators and writers have taken issue with Coulter's handling of historical facts.It's better to couch it in terms like the following, which I propose to add to the article: The point is whether Wikipedia may support the POV of the anti-Coulter crowed that Coulter distorts facts and refuses to concede error.
![delete section break mac 10.13.3 delete section break mac 10.13.3](https://www.easeus.com/images/en/screenshot/mac-backup/resource/create-backup-2.png)
Nobody here is disputing whether Canada participated in the Vietnam War. Therefore I returned ann's disagreement with the common reality on these topics to the article. Hard to argue that Canada's not participating in the vietnam war, or the voting habits versus income structure of the us are merely matters of point of view. Nothing of the form Coulter claims this but is clearly wrong can go back, unless attributed to a source: e.g., Some people contest Coulter's claim that liberals constitute an "idle rich". Is this a criticism? Or just name-calling? Should it go first, as a kind of intro to his arguments? If Franken is asserting that the right is "hysterical", what does he mean by this? Is he dismissing ALL right-wing criticism of liberals? (Right wingers are crazy, they just can't see the truth.)Īny part that can be salvaged can go back in, properly sourced and cast in neutral language. I'm not sure what to do with Franken's crack, ".hysterical right".
![delete section break mac 10.13.3 delete section break mac 10.13.3](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71puity-9qL._AC_SS450_.jpg)
The criticism section consisted of several passages of text of the form: (Text temp-moved to Ann Coulter/criticism)
![delete section break mac 10.13.3 delete section break mac 10.13.3](https://mrmacintosh.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Mojave-to-Big-Sur-Upgrade-Problem-2-1-1024x706.jpg)
1 Criticism Discussion (see also Quotes Discussion).