Troubling aspects of the artiicle as it exists right now 

1) I believe if Eric Altermann is to be accorded the prestige of being associated with msnbc.com, it should be noted that he is a blogger for msnbc.com. I say that because I found conservative columnist and author Michelle Malkin referred to as a blogger in another article and I do believe that's meant to diminish the value of her statement. So, again, yes. We HAVE to see the forest for the trees. No one article in Wikipedia exists in a vaccum. There has to be a baseline standard and I reject any argumentation that suggests implies or directs that if 'I don't like that article, go change it.' Instead, one way or the other (and I don't care which way) liberals and conservatives have to be characterized by the same fair measuring stick.

2) This is new. It's from Conason: "Conason goes on to point out that Coulter's critical nature is blunted by her pre-assumed opinions, making many of the conclusions she draws irrelevant to the actual nature of her arguments." Wow! That seems a little unfair just hanging out there like that. I propose either eliminating it or...and I hate this approach as much as the next guy...scotch-taping a quote after that which refutes this obvious cheap-shot.

3) This is old. The McVeigh section, as should be no surprise to anyone who's followed my work here, is troubling. Let's start with this quote: " She was willing to characterize members of the Branch Davidians at the Waco compound as "harmless American citizens" [6] even after the survivors of the raid and subsequent immolation of the group by their leader were convicted."
Well, some Waco compounders were convicted of something or another. But the fact is that there WERE mostly innocent victims of David Koresh in that compound. It's unbalanced to just add the tag line about conviced Davidians without acknowledging what I GUARANTEE you Ann was referring to, which were the overwhelming number that were innocent. 

This quote is also troubling: "Timothy McVeigh made similar criticism as partial justification for his bombing." Well, McVeigh had LOTS of reasons for his bombing. But who cares what a madman thinks? And if you do, then I understand he also had some uncomplimentary things to say about the Bible. Therefore, if we are to include this in Coulter's section, I say we include it's compelement in Bill Maher's article. It would go something like this:
"Naher has frequently criticized the Bible calling it a 'bunch of fairy tales' and claiming 'God doesn't write books.'  Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh made similar criticism as partial justification for his distrust of Christianity, though the Bible has been widely criticized throughout history."

Whady'a say?

(Much more on this section later.)

4) Racism is not the same as being anti-Islamic terrorists that want to kill Americans for supporting Israel etc. To title Ann's comments on Islamic Radicals as allegations of racism seems dishonest to me.

5) Did Ann really say that ALL  women are "not as bright" as men'?
Some editor in Wikipedia wants us to think so. I say this quote be taken out until we get confirmation of her whole statement in context. Now, I know for a fact that Ann is only half-joking when she argues women should not be allowed to vote so she is far from imune when it comes to suggesting she holds less-than-boilerplate-feminist views. But this quote supposedly out of H & C seems like it's probably another smear. Again, if proven wrong, I'll gladly man up and stand corrected. But, unitl I'm proven it wrong, it should be excised in my view. 

More later...