Talk:Kathryn Jean Lopez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The current version says: Coincidentally, she also shows the most hostility to Star Trek and any references to it; it was under her editorship that the infamous NRO Star Trek Ban was instituted. Lopez would do the same to Arlen Specter in the Senate if given the chance.

She would forbid Arlen Specter from talking about Star Trek on the floor of the Senate? I wasn't aware that the good senator ever talked about Star Trek in the Senate, whether on the floor or in committee. Can the person who wrote that please provide a link to the relevant Senate transcript?

It's allclarified now.

[edit] Photo

Apparently, some very POV poster thinks the picture is an "unbecoming" one "posted by liberals." This is nonsense. In my opinion (and I am a centrist), she looks fine. The photo should stay. Eleemosynary 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The photo, by the way, was taken by me at a National Review party. Someone must have found it on my blog; I don't mind. I'm a conservative, by the way, and don't see it as objectionable, unless Ms. Lopez objects herself.

The latest photo is good. I believe that you are concervative. The photos b4 were no doubt intended to make her look bad, real bad -- the work of libs.

Nonsense. Both photos are unretouched photos of her, and your paranoid, illiterate rant does nothing to change that. Your comments are pathetic, though (unintentionally) humorous. As you failed to sign your comment, it's also clear that you're ignorant, cowardly, or (most likely) both. Eleemosynary 07:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the C-Span photo. Why exactly, don't the wingnuts want anyone to see what Lopez looks like? Are they ashamed?  :)--Eleemosynary 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Some lib has deleted the good photo again, No Doubt in regards to preperation to putting up a Bad photo once more. Libs never give up. Remember that.

LOL at the anonymous vandal, who is as clueless as he is cowardly. Eleemosynary 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think those two photos add anything, but why don't we link to the C-SPAN video which one of them is from? Makgraf 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. If you want to find the link, that would be great. Eleemosynary 06:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The website's search is down so I can give a link to the actual video (so will have to wait till it works again to add it to the main page). You can see the video by going here [1] and scrolling down to "Kathryn Jean Lopez". I just don't see what two photos add by having them in external links. Do they show what she looks like? Yes, but we already have a photo of her. Why is, for example, her fellow NRO editor Jonah Goldberg's external links filled with links to his columns while Lopez's has these links to her appearance. Makgraf 07:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The website's search is back up so I linked to it. It brings users to a page where there's only the one video. Not quite sure how to directly link so it'll download ( rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc082405_scotus.rm ), don't think we should anyway. Makgraf 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources?

• She was a leading blogosphere supporter of the election of Pope Benedict XVI.
• When early exit polls (erroneously) showed Bush losing, she rallied morale in the blogosphere by relaying more accurate information from Bush campaign insiders.
• While the effort was ultimately unsuccessful, it did result in Senator Specter making promises in writing to support President Bush's judicial nominees.
• Later in 2005 Lopez became a leader of the conservative effort to have the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers withdrawn.

According to whom? These are all POV assertions that need to have sources, and possibly attributions. -Willmcw 23:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

They are all falsehoods. Thanks for deleting them! Eleemosynary 07:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Age

It's kinda silly to have ("March 22") as her birthdate. Either we should remove it or put in circa 1975 (because she graduated from CUA in 1997 and she would've likely been 22 then) Makgraf 02:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I put in "probably 1976" because that date was given before and it tracks with the observations above. Makgraf 00:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)