Talk:Michael Noer (editor)

Untitled
Does anyone have a list of other things this person has written besides his misogynist articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.197.175.219 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like the wiki says, people have failed to actually address the points raised by the article, and you're no different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.84.74 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, we don't need the polemic - this guy's words speak for themselves. Time to tone it down a bit. EdC 22:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to trash semi-notable people, it's not encyclopedic what editorials some journalist wrote that got blogged some places. 207.170.200.19 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the ensuing controversy motivates the publisher (a major magazine) to quickly pull the article (and another one by the same writer as well) off their site, I'd think it would be. --Soultaco 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this guy even notable enough for his own Wikipedia entry? Seems like it violates a couple things in WP:NOT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.106.170 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What does it violate? I don't see anything in your link that would apply to it. This page might become a battleground, at which point it should be edited, blocked or removed by someone more familiar with Wikipedia than, well, anyone who's commenting anonymously like us. But that hasn't happened yet; it's a Wikipedia entry about a semi-public figure who's attracted some attention. If topics like [] are worth pages, then a real-life controversial author certainly is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.144.208 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 August 2006

Why is there political correctness that keeps removing the observation that the criticism of his article has ignored the point of his article?

possibly because that's a discussion on the article, not the person who wrote it. 69.251.60.112 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Blatant POV, irrelevance, etc.
How has this not gotten some kind of label?

"The article attracted a great deal of controversy among readers and bloggers."

This is quite non-specific. More over, the controversy is mentioned yet instead of noted what exactly it was about, it just goes over Noer's article and says "there was controversy". That is just redundant.

"Corcoran’s rebuttal was intentionally absent of any scientific basis, but rather a personal reflection intended to dull Noer's article in the face of controversy."

Not only does this not make any sense but it is POV. It does not reflect her actual criticism, not any at all in fact, and it decides it was only to dull the controversy.

"However, we never heard from her supposedly "happily married" husband, an interesting footnote to a subject on the benefits to males in this sort of arrangement."

This just instigating. The "supposedly" is POV as is "interesting" and the suggestion that the piece she wrote was only about how it should benefit males.

"It contained all of the study names and academic references that gave Noer's article teeth."

POV whether or not that artciel had teeth is up to the reader. Whether the citations count as teeth is up to the reader. Whether it has any substance and if that should be symbolized as "teeth" or "legs" or "an edge" is up to the reader.

"In the face of female reader complaints, Forbes later apologized to readers:"

POV. "Complaints" is emotive.

I'm changing it a bit and adding some citations and links. NeoApsara