Talk:Instapundit/Archive 1

NPOV
I removed the NPOV complaint, because the person who put in here failed to mention what the issue was, and there doesn't seem to be any problem with the article. user:TimShell

I've noticed that this article and the Little Green Footballs one are fairly negative and looking for bias, while the article on Daily Kos isn't. There should be more on that site's failings as well. user:Mtnerd


 * I agree. Could you write about Daily Kos's failings, please? Andris 04:21, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't read the Daily Kos, but all internet sites, including this one, play to their audiance to an extent. That can't be helped, but people should be aware of that. Mtnerd 04:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Kos has been known to make particualrly inflammitory statements on his blog. His most notable came after the two civilian contractors were brutally killed and dismembered in Fallujah, saying "They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

Wingnut?
If the mild-mannered Glenn Reynolds is a "wink nut", then wouldn't it be fair to describe extremists like Markos Zuniga as "moonbats" or some such?

Agreed, Reynolds is anything but a wing nut.

I think it was "wingnut," and Glenn is certainly not one of those. While I'm sure it is more than tempting for the junior highers out there to post cute little slurs against famous blogs, such does a disservice to the usefulness of this Project.

Unsigned - Undated

Who's responsible for this adolescent pejorative? Will it be removed?

TomPollard 00:06, 7 Jan 2005 (EST)

puppy smoothies?
I don't get it.... the sentence doesn't really make sense (at least to someone who hasn't heard those popular jokes), regardless of whether it's true. Could somebody clarify that?

Its a joke started by the guy who runs the IMAO blog that claimed (he wasn't being serious) that Glenn Renyolds drank puppy smoothies as a evil energy drink. Renyolds took this in stride and plays along with this inside joke. ScottM 20:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FrankJ made the joke as a satiric attempt to point out how others defame Glenn and then get a lot of traffic in the insuing discussion. Link to the original puppy blender article

Actually, all of the defamatory Reynolds "quotes" you see on other blogs are the result of FrankJ's original "filthy lie" about puppy blending. The Alliance of Free Blogs -- with their eagle logo(s) and motto: "Instapundo Delende Est" -- was started as a result of FrankJ's post, as well, during the "Blogwars" of August '03. The various Reynolds "quotes" were written, of course, by the individual Alliance members. (And, yes, it's a joke and Glenn gets it. Most Alliance bloggers read Instapundit daily, and Glenn ocassionally takes a swipe at FrankJ fer fun.) Glenn Reynolds DOES have a nickname for having influenced and inspired so many bloggers, however, but it ain't "The Puppy Blender"; it's "The Blogfather". --Tuning Spork, 25 Jan '05

I don't read instapundit, but a quick search of their site reveals relatively little conjecture about puppy smoothies. So, in good humor, I removed it. --Modemx 06:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The photo is actually photoschnappes
The 'I had an abortion' t-shirt is a photoshop job by Allah - http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/000775.html I almost feel bad pointing this out since it's such a funny picture!
 * As Reynolds would say, "Heh." --Frank J. Fleming 19:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adding an edited picture seems a bit juvenile. ...As with the 'puppy smoothies' mentioned above, this is an in-joke that Glenn plays along with. The inspiration for that one was a 'celebrate diversity' t-shirt featuring a variety of handguns. For reasons unclear to anyone but the easily offended, this resulted in some people accusing Glenn of racism. The 'abortion' t-shirt was photoshopped by AllahPundit to mock the people making those accusations... juvenile, maybe, but it's his website.

the "Repuglicans"
it's really amazing that this hasn't been removed... since when is a encyclopedia supposed to have political bias?


 * I've fixed it - and another that had been missed. -- sannse (talk) 22:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What about the Wingnut comment?

If LGF can be described without using such pejoratives, why not a relatively moderate site such as Instapundit?

"such Democratic platforms as civil unions, abortion rights, and stem cell research."

the "stem cell research" should be clarified a bit. I was going to suggest "embryonic stem cell research", but Republicans support that too and Bush funded it for existing lines. They just don't support taking new fetus' and using THOSE for embryonic stem cell research.

I would also suggest that we don't use blanket statements for either the Democrats or Republicans in either case, since the "platforms" sited above are hardly universally accepted or rejected by either party.

Id use conservative and liberal in place of republican and democrat unless you're talking about actually party candidates and supporting them. and the "wingnut" comment definitely goes. He's popular for a reason, many people share his moderate libertarian views listed above.

Insulting the people you disagree with lends credence to all of the critics of wikipedia.

Meaning of "pundit"
This word has been used for decades (since before there was an Internet) to describe someone who writes about politics. The laughable etymological assertion in this article -- "the word 'pundit' is now a common key word for bloggers in the political interest. Arguably originated by Instapundit." -- should be removed unless someone can provide support or attribution for this alleged argument. JamesMLane 02:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the ubiquitous use of the suffix "-pundit" in blog names was inspired by Reynolds. This is certainly a true assertion.

Protected?
Why is this entry protected, exactly? Hipocrite 17:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete?
I have to second the notion that this article is useless. What's here that can't be gleaned directly from the source, which is just as close to any Internet user as Wikipedia? Can anyone think of a scenario in which this article might be more useful than a visit to Instapundit or a search for "Instapundit" or "Glenn Reynolds" on Google? I don't see how this article adds to Wikipedia or human knowledge at all. Danlovejoy 16:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You could use the same argument against numerous articles. There are expansion possibilities and I really think it's acceptable for it to be here.  Put it on VfD if you object to it. violet/riga (t) 16:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV - 1st paragraph
I'm cutting this "Because of his wide-ranging authority and influence in the blogosphere, Reynolds is sometimes called the BlogFather." There is no cite and "wide-ranging authority" is clearly POV. I would not object to the blogfather bit if it were credibly cited.--FNV 03:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Restored. I got the citation by googling for "blogfather" and picking the first useful hit. Feel free to add a better citation. CWC (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

other changes
I have added some citations to the criticism mentioned. Also included an allusion to the criticism of Reynolds' use of the quip and link type posts (meaning he can later claim he wasn't endorsing the content of extremist or violent sentiments even though he adds a great deal of attention and traffic to such sites when he links to them). The ongoing battles between him and Glenn Greenwald deserve some attention, especially considering Reynolds is a law professor and Greenwald a lawyer who blogs extensively on legal issues.

I don't object to a reference to the blog getting a lot of traffic, it's clearly true, but it needs a cite and the phrase "in the world" was a bit much. He has a high traffic political blog. I doubt though he gets vast international coverage, not everyone is that interested in US politics.--FNV 03:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

More changes made 25-Jul-2006
I've made the following changes.
 * 1) Restored sentence about "... sometimes called the BlogFather", with an easily-found citation, as explained above.
 * 2) Removed "Critics have expressed skepticism over his views " because (1) that links to something Reynolds wrote and (2) well, that's what critics do.
 * 3) Removed "accused him of promoting extremism while claiming deniability through his minimalist comments and link-only posts", which referenced this and this, because neither link says anything about minimalist comments or link-only posts.
 * 4) Created sections titled "Political stances" and (as per WP tradition) "Criticism and controversy", moved stuff there and expanded them.
 * 5) Removed link to Glenn Greenwald claiming that Reynolds is no longer a libertarian; see below.


 * I have redeleted the "wide ranging authority" bit which is clearly POV. He's a law professor.  Leave it to the reader to decide how "wide ranging" his authority is.  My objection as stated above to that phrase stands.  I left the blogfather bit because it is now cited. --FNV 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald is a far left blogger (see http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/) with a history of feuding with Reynolds (and just about every other non-lefty blogger except Andrew Sullivan). See for example, , ,. Greenwald is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards (and perhaps not by any standards, really), especially on (1) what libertarians think about Reynolds and (2) anything whatsoever to do with Reynolds. Citations from Greenwald are not acceptable (except for statements about Greenwald's own views or actions).

Cheers, CWC (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your POV on Greenwald is nice, but totally unsubstantiated. Nothing Greenwald talks about is "far left" at all if you read the blog in any detail.  He insists the constitution be obeyed.  How extremist.  His history of feuding with Reynolds is significant as his blog is also influential and widely read, and he is a widely read author.  Fair point that my cites didn't properly back what I wrote - but the Media matters quote of Reynolds demostrates his extremism which is absent from this entry.  Reynolds did write some very objectionable war-mongering stuff and I think it is not encycopedic to exclude it.  Also the point that Reynolds links to violence inciting posts but doesn't comment deserves mention as it can be seen legitimately as a craven way of endorsing extremism but leaving an "out" of deniability.  Greenwald has made that point and it deserves mention.--FNV 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Seems that Reliable Source is not so clear cut in ruling Greenwald out:
 * "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym."
 * Greenwald meets these criteria: He has a book published and on the NY Times bestsellers list, as well as Amazon.  He is in his area of subject expertise: ie blogging and more specifically, Reynolds whom he follows in detail and he writes under his own name.--FNV 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, "wide-ranging authority and influence" is pretty bad, so I've rewritten it.
 * Greenwald is not a professional researcher. His blog posts are not within his area of expertise (law and, allegedly, sock puppeting). He is not a professional journalist, much less a well-known one. So he meets none of the criteria in the first sentence of the extract from WP:RS.
 * If Greenwald says anything in that book about Reynolds, we can quote that as long as we explain the background (long-standing conflict, Greenwald getting his followers to email Reynolds en masse, etc).
 * "He writes under his own name." Except, it would seem, when posting gushing pro-Greenwald panegyrics as blog comments.
 * FNV, please read WP:BLP very carefully if you have not read it recently. (Actually, all Wikipedians who edit articles about living people need to study that new policy closely.)
 * Does anyone have a link to someone other than Greenwald saying that Reynolds endorse violence-inciting posts by linking to them?
 * BTW, Instapundit is one of the major political blogs in the English-language world. Cheers from Australia, CWC (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, ThinkProgress and James Wolcott, Editor of Vanity Fair have such statements; Now linked in the article, along with Greenwald - who is a professional researcher and expert on the subjects being discussed - what credentials would you accept for one to be an expert on politics and blogging?  He's a blogger with a high traffic site.  The sock puppet stuff is an unproven and denied accusation.  What definition of "professional researcher" are you using?  He's a full time blogger, author and a lawyer who mostly blogs about legal issues - he butts heads with Reynolds on that ground quite often and thus had branched out into other criticisms of Reynolds.  Lest we forget this is a page about a blog, I think criticisms from other prominent blogs is not out of line.  There's a ton more stuff ripping into Reynolds but I wouldn't link to it for respect of Wiki Policy and Guidelines.--FNV 17:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS Cheers from Canada.--FNV 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with FNV that the idea that Greenwald is a "far left blogger" is shall we say an interesting POV. I imagine it would come as news to the editors of the American Conservative (a magazine to which he has contributed).  ;) Admittedly, he is strongly anti-Bush, but surely we can all see the difference between pro-Bush and conservative these days.  G'day from the United States. Crust 14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Insults
I deleted the following sentence:


 * He has been called "Instacracker" , "tediously reactionary"  and "Glenn 'no bit of right-wing sliminess is beneath me' Reynolds".

It's just a list of insults with little or no further content. As a general matter, I don't think we need that in Wikipedia. This is not intended as a slam against Steve Gilliard or Maxspeak or whoever. If someone wants to summarize their substantive criticisms of Instapundit that would be great.Crust 14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see CWC has put all this back in the article and added more in a similar vein. My issue is not that these insults aren't documented, it's just that I don't think they help the reader understand the issues involved.  Even if we do end up including some name-calling, I think there is way too much emphasis on it to the point of drowning out the substance.   Look for instance at this sentence in the current version:
 * James Wolcott, who depicts as Reynolds as (among other epithets) "Instadunce" and a "publicity-whory" bib-wearing "rube", alleges that Reynolds promoted violence by treating a blog post by Tim Blair.
 * This is mostly a list of insults from Wolcott and is inappropriately particularized in two ways: it suggests that only Wolcott makes such criticisms (rather than many [mostly left of center] bloggers) and it suggests that critics allege only one instance rather than a pattern.
 * This issue is not specific to Instapundit. Look e.g. at the Glenn Greenwald article.  In the discussion of alleged sock puppetry, we link to Ace.  Should we add that Ace recently wrote "What a f[*]cking little sh[*]t of a c[*]nt!" This clever commentary wasn't even directed at Greenwald; rather he was addressing a fellow conservative blogger who initially questioned the evidence for sock puppetry.  Should we also include this kind of material in the Greenwald article?  I vote no for that article and I vote no here.
 * To be honest, my issue here may not be entirely encyclopedic in that this is a feature I dislike about much (most?) of the political blogosphere on both the left and the right: all the (what I consider) puerile name-calling. To me the issues and the substance of what people are saying is what is important and I try to ignore the rest.  No doubt others disagree.
 * As an aside, with a little help from Google, it looks like the more popular insult is "Instahack" not "Instacracker". ;) Crust 15:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I argue that the insults are the issues involved. Yes, this is puerile name-calling; that's the whole point. What I wrote is true, well-cited and does not rely on out-of-context quotes. Lots of people really despise Prof Reynolds, and have repeatedly expressed that feeling in their writings. I say that the article should mention those people, list some of the silly things they have said about Reynolds, and give links to the articles and posts in which they said them. I intend to work very hard to ensure that this happens. (BTW, I've just started on http://tbogg.blogspot.com. Digby is next.)
 * A major weakness with what I wrote is that I only listed left-wing bloggers. I'm almost certain some far right bloggers have attacked Reynolds, but I don't have the stomach to read their blogs at the moment.
 * If you think I've picked on Woolcott too much (whose exegesis of Tim Blair's post was laughably inept, BTW), then why didn't you remove some of the insults I have accurately quoted, not the whole bloody thing!
 * I've restored most of the deleted material, except for "bib-wearing" (which is pretty revealing in a man so fond of name-dropping).
 * BTW, "Ace" was writing about Greenwald, but on IRC, not on a blog. I assume that he later agreed that Patterico could post the log of their IRC session.
 * "Instahack", huh? Hadn't noticed that. "Instacracker" used to be popular, but died out a couple of years ago.
 * Cheers, CWC (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * CWC, thanks for the reply.
 * Whatever else it is, the name-calling of Reynolds is not "the whole point". At best it is a different point.  You think that Reynolds is a particular victim of insults.  My view is that he gets approximately his fair share of insults for a major political blogger; the phenomenon is sadly near universal (again, "sadly" may be my POV; perhaps others enjoy this kind of stuff).  Fine, we have a difference of views.  But this shouldn't drown out the other point that he is criticized for implicitly endorsing extreme views that he links to.
 * On "Ace": click on the link I gave and read again. His elegant characterization of "What a f[*]cking little sh[*]t of a c[*]nt!" does not refer to Greenwald. It was directed at conservative blogger Kevin Aylward and/or his coblogger Paul; for added classiness he posted it as a comment on Aylward's blog.  Here is an extended quote (though there is plenty more; apologies for profanity):

This is the sort of joint you're running here, Aylward? You just let your cunt of a coblogger pull shit like this?

Well, it will be on my site, cunt. I would have let it lie here, but as you are determined to bury the evidence against you, I'll need to give it a fuller airing.

What a fucking little shit of a cunt!
 * Do you think we should make a similar edit to the Glenn Greenwald article to include Ace's insults? Indeed, should the criticism section there be dominated by a list of various content-free insults that have been lobbed in attacking Greenwald?  (As I said, I think the answer is no there and no here.)  Crust 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, what is IRC? Crust 16:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See IRC. ;-)
 * More importantly, I reckon this version of the artice is very, very good. Great work, Crust. Thanks also to FNV. (But — there's always a "but", isn't there — I would suggest replacing the word "puerile" with something milder, but I can't think of anything.)
 * I'll see if I can find some far right bloggers insulting Reynolds, to balance that section. (BTW, there's a good reason for picking Brian Leiter: read this, and remember that he's a philosopher as well as a lawprof — in particular, a Nietzschean.)
 * And yes, I should have clicked on that link to Ace. I jumped to the conclusion that it was another puerile IRC conversation involving ACE that I saw recently. I apologise.
 * One of the interesting (and, IMO, admirable) things about Reynolds is that he generally tries for civil relationships with people from all sides of politics. (I'm not saying he always succeeds, just that he makes an attempt.) That is way too rare, especially in political blogs, and the growing incivility worries me. See Clay Shirky's prescient speech/essay "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy". I once even found a politically moderate blog busy slagging off all the non-moderates! (I've forgotten its name, sorry.) I'm still sorting out my thinking here, but that's why I see this civility business as important. For one thing, if all you know about some political viewpoint is that your favourite blogs trash it a lot, you are never going to learn from it — but history teaches that valuable insight and good ideas come from all parts of politics.
 * Cheers, CWC (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, CWC.
 * On civility, all I can say is "hear, hear".
 * On the word choice "puerile", I agree with you that it's probably not NPOV (even though it reflects a POV that you and I happen to share). I hesitated before putting it in the article, but like you I couldn't think of a better word.
 * On Ace, it looks like that kind of vitriol is par for the course from this guy. Sad.
 * I've never heard of Shirky or Leiter before now; I'll have a look.Crust 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't there be rebuttals to these criticisms (slurs is a more appropriate word actually)Septa sequera 12:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Blogs inspired by Instapundit
What criteria are being used to warrant inclusion in that list? In the external links we already link to a page of 100's of them, so why are these few (but growing) allowed a place of prominence?

I'd like to pare it down, and I suggest that if none exist, some agreed criteria exist for inclusion on this list. One thought that occurs is only other blogs or bloggers that have wiki pages on them should be on the list. Or ditch the list format and have a paragraph describing the "-pundit" phenomena among bloggers. Ideally, cut the whole section as other parts of the article already discuss how influential Reynolds is, and having a link to a site of 100s of them should satisfy the requirement.

In any case, I think it needs to be rationalized so we can manage it and prevent every -pundit blogger from stealth-editing their blog onto this page.--FNV 13:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. That section was added in October 2004, when it was a significant and interesting fact that many people had started blogging after reading Instapundit (and often used similar names). Times have changed, blogs are more common, and who inspired who to start blogging is no longer very interesting.
 * So I endorse FNV's suggested rule:
 * Only blog(ger)s notable enough to have their own article on this Wikipedia should be listed.
 * and suggest putting something like this before the list:
 * Because of Instapundit's early prominence among political blogs, many bloggers use the suffix "-pundit" in blog titles.
 * What do other people think? CWC (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Crust 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I did a wiki search on all the ones I deleted to confirm they don't have wiki pages. I also included a hidden comment for editors detailing the rationale and criteria for inclusion on that list.--FNV 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it too. Thanks for doing that! --Daniel11 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit for April 2,2007 Drudge Report
I wish I could have linked directly to the section of the Drudge_Report entry in wikipedia which I referred to. I'm new to all these footnotes and stuff, but I gather there are plenty of people who will double check.

DavidWeisman


 * There's no point to linking to one of Drudge's "flash" reports, because he puts them at URLs like http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm, then takes them down and puts something else at the same URL. (Websites should not do this, BTW.) I've added some information about the incident, noting that Insty has updated his posts but John Amato has not updated his crooksandliars post (the irony, the irony ...). Cheers, CWC 10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Removals
Weblogs are not reliable sources, all blog based sources about Instapundit, not from Instapundit are being removed. If comments from Greenwald or Wolcott are that noteworthy, then a WP:RS will republish them some where else. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that this requires a reliable source. I think it is important to mention some of the criticism that exists. The criticism is real and these sources prove that: they are the criticism. Having said that, I don't believe the insults by Wolcott belong here, that is just a personal attack without explanation. --KarlFrei 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything requires a reliable soure, and when its about a living person, it requires extremely reliable sources. This policy is non-negotiable. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain this to me. The statement is "There is criticism of Instapundit, and it is as follows." The cited sources clearly prove this statement since they ARE the criticism.
 * This is completely different from writing "X is true" and then referring to a (possibly unreliable) website that says "X is true". No facts are in dispute here. Nobody can argue that the criticism does not exist. --KarlFrei 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The source any any material in any article has to be from a WP:RS, this is a policy, and there is not wiggle room. Since these criticism are abour Reynolds, they also fall under the WP:BLP policy. Please review both of these. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Media - public companies
Mainstread Media is not a "Private Sector" - those are publicly held companies! This article should be deleted, it just promotes a blog, duh! LeeCorrie (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Private sector" can also mean "not part of any government". The article is supposed to describe the blog, not promote it; the thing to do with overly-promotional articles is to fix them, not delete them. This is one of the most notable blogs in the world, so Wikipedia should have an article about it. Cheers, CWC 05:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First Citation
The first citation claims that instapundit is "one of the most widely read political blogs" and cites Technorati, but Instapundit as a stand-alone blog no longer appears on Technorati, or it does but is very, very far down the list.

The traffic to Instapundit.com was plunging before it became part of Pajamas Media, and Pajamas Media in total is only 15th in the current technorati ranking. Unless Pajamas Media publishes how many of its hits come from Instapundit itself, there is no way to substantiate this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.156.52 (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Actually, with the rise of blog at sites like Politico.com, ABC News and MSNBC, not to mention PJ Media itself, I strongly doubt that Instapundit is still "one of the most widely read", so I've changed that to past tense (and removed the Technorati ref). CWC 13:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems somebody did not like your edit, but Pajamas Media has since then plunged to 76th in the technorati ranking... I have made the change again. KarlFrei (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Political Affiliation
We've had a anon editing the article to say that Prof Reynolds is a Republican. He's not. Sometimes he supports Democrats and opposes Republicans; he also often criticizes both main parties. Basically, he's a libertarian — but he has criticized the Libertarian Party.

The individualistic nature of libertarianism results in lots of subgroups and followers who don't quite align with any recognized subgroup, but I would say that neolibertarianism and Libertarian transhumanism are both pretty close in this case. I've edited the infobox to say "political_affiliation=Libertarian transhumanism", citing this post.

Cheers, CWC 13:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the anon who has said he is Republican, because he clearly is. He promotes Republican positions at least 100 times for any time that he criticizes them, and he criticizes Democrats at least 1000 times for any times he has praised them. He has also specifically made numerous fund raising pitches for Republican candidates but never for Democrat or Libertarian ones. You have to be a true believer and not very bright to claim he is anything but a Republican hack. But I will give up this fight. In fact, the label of "libertarian transhumanist" is so laughably bad that it shows the bias of this article immediately and irrevocably to anyone who reads this article. It's especially bad because it's a label Instapundit uses himself (and likely the only place that it has ever been used) which shows just how much of a true believer Chittleborough is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.156.52 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a reference, and even a wikipedia article about libertarian transhumanism, so apparently it does exist. But it is even sillier than I imagined it could be, so by all means, keep the label. It shows how much of a dork Reynolds is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.156.52 (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong article
As well as this article about Instapundit the blog, we have a separate article about the blogger. Some of the content of this article is really about the blogger rather than the blog, and should be moved to Glenn Reynolds. Any volunteers, please? Please?. CWC 13:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's tougher in Reynolds' case, since his blog is so personal, and he writes so freely about his private life--so the two are intertwined to some degree. But you're right: there's a difference between the man and the blog.
 * Certainly the "Other Writings" material should be moved; what else do you have in mind?Scooge (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarity
can someone rewrite this: He tends to favor free markets, although he sees endemic corruption in the "Mainstream Media".?

I have no idea what point was intended, so I can't rewrite it sensibly. As it is I can't see any link between the two clauses. 192.86.100.34 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and rewritten it, I am fairly sure that I didn't lose any meaning in the process (subject to my not being entirely sure what was meant by the mashing together of those two clauses!). I also replaced endemic corruption with systemic bias, since the former is surely not consistent with BLP unless someone has a reliable citation. Scootastar (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous IP editors
I am willing to enter into a discussion. Please explain why we should write that Reynolds is STILL so prominent and one of the most widely-read political blogs. He is currently listed in 70th place or so; anyone who reads this text would assume he is at least in the top 10, if not in the top 5! KarlFrei (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to add? That should take care of it. Kelly  hi! 15:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pajamas Media, of which Instapundit is only a part, is 59th in the top 100 of Technorati . Wikio does not list them in the top 110. Instapundit is 39th according to this website.

I think that whoever wants to claim that Reynolds is still hugely influential and prominent needs to provide sources for that; all I can give is negative evidence. The fact that he used to be prominent is properly sourced in the article. KarlFrei (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Responding to the WP:3O request) The political blogosphere is fluid. Bold claims such as "most widely read blogs" need to be backed up by reasonably current reliable sources. On the other hand, I don't quite agree with this alternative. I think to say it "used to be..." requires a reliable source to say that the popularity of the blog has declined. We shouldn't use original research from rankings to draw those conclusions. For example, some may argue that 59th is still prominent and widely ready. In the absence of any current secondary sources, it is probably best to remove all mentions in the lead of the current popularity, prominence, or otherwise, of the blog. It's not ideal, but I think it's the safest approach and the approach least susceptible to POV. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input! Sounds good to me. KarlFrei (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)