Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 5

message: There needs to be a separate section for her racist views against Muslims, blacks, and Hispanics
:What racist views?  Ann simply opposes the politically correct victicrat mentality perpetrated by their self-appointed spokespeople.
One doesn't need to be a genius to know about her racist views. She repeatedly supports racial profiling, which only affect Muslims, hispanics, and blacks. Calling her "politically incorrect" is a nice way of saying that she is a racist.
What about Asians? It's tiring how many Asian-Americans are just passed off as the passive, "controllable" (ie. "harmless" and "nerdy", and keep to themselves) minority. Being of Asian descent, I actually took it as a compliment- and take great pride!- that I got thoroughly checked and screened at the Dulles airport in Washington a few years back. Le Anh-Huy 07:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a separate section on her Racist Views

message: Folks, the page has been protected while you work things out here. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 03:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAGE PROTECTED 

message: Okay, it seems pretty clear that there is no real consensus on whether to keep or to remove the quote section. That just means we need to buckle down and find a compromise that everyone is relatively happy with.
There are some underlying issues that I think need to be addressed first: crazyeddie 05:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that counts as "No", I took the liberty of moving your comment. Go ahead and put it where you want if you disagree. crazyeddie 05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Not much, but hopefully it will settle the issue of whether or not this issue is a NPOV matter, which might demuddy the watters a little. We can move on to more actionable things later.crazyeddie 05:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, you're assuming I understand it. Or even read it for that matter :-) If we decide the basic idea is sound, we can bang out the details later. crazyeddie 05:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: ditto, i'm not really clear on what the proposal is.  i'm also think that we should avoid providing an interpretation of the various quotes, other than as examples of her style.  i suppose a few of the comments have received quite widespread media attention, especially the 'kill all the muslims' kind of quotes. so those might deserve a place in the text with some context.Derex 06:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote section poll(s), take two

message: Some people are throwing around the notion that the quote section is inherently POV. It seems to me (assuming that the quotes aren't selected in order to support one POV or the other), that a quote section is absolutely NPOV. I think we might be seeing an example of the hostile media effect here. To see, let's have a strawpoll on this issue, and, in the spirit of scientific inquiry, let's also state our individual POVs on the subject of Ann Coulter. For the record, let me point out that "NPOV" doesn't stand for no point of view. NPOV is achieved through fairly and accurately representing all POVs. If you think Mrs. Coulter is Evil Incarnate, say (anti-). If you think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread, say (pro-). If you truly think you're neutral, or you don't wish to show your hand at this time, say (undisclosed). I'll start off.
Also, in case I haven't made it clear, let's consider this question independently of whether or not to keep the quote section. For example, I don't think this is an NPOV issue, but I do think the quote section should be removed, or at least severly prunned, for aesthetic reasons. crazyeddie 05:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that counts as "No", I took the liberty of moving your comment. Go ahead and put it where you want if you disagree. crazyeddie 05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Not much, but hopefully it will settle the issue of whether or not this issue is a NPOV matter, which might demuddy the watters a little. We can move on to more actionable things later.crazyeddie 05:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this an NPOV issue?

message: # No. (anti-) crazyeddie
# er.. anti.... I think including quotes can't be NPOV, as long as they are correct and not taken out of context, and that deleting them is mostly POV. What does that come under? Gzuckier 05:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that counts as "No", I took the liberty of moving your comment. Go ahead and put it where you want if you disagree. crazyeddie 05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No, the inclusion or removal of the quote section is not an NPOV issue.

message: * There has been one poll and it did not resolve anything except that there is no consensus.  I have written about the POV and hypocracy here and on the William J. Clinton page.  In all my effort, however, I can not make the blind see.  --Noitall 05:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
* Fuzheado | Talk 05:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much, but hopefully it will settle the issue of whether or not this issue is a NPOV matter, which might demuddy the watters a little. We can move on to more actionable things later.crazyeddie 05:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''NOT PARTICIPATE'''''

message: A while back, Tony proposed that we make an extra effort to use Coulter's quotes in the main text of the article, in order to provide evidence for or against the POVs under question. For example, we could provide a quote for each bullet point in the "stated views" list in the criticism section. He suggested it as an alternative to the quote section, but let's consider this proposal independent of whether or not we keep a seperate quote section for now. crazyeddie 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, you're assuming I understand it. Or even read it for that matter :-) If we decide the basic idea is sound, we can bang out the details later. crazyeddie 05:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: ditto, i'm not really clear on what the proposal is.  i'm also think that we should avoid providing an interpretation of the various quotes, other than as examples of her style.  i suppose a few of the comments have received quite widespread media attention, especially the 'kill all the muslims' kind of quotes. so those might deserve a place in the text with some context.Derex 06:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony's proposal

message: # Yes. crazyeddie 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, you're assuming I understand it. Or even read it for that matter :-) If we decide the basic idea is sound, we can bang out the details later. crazyeddie 05:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony's proposal sounds like a good idea.

message: I'm interested in seeing a sandbox version of such a proposal before I vote either way. --kizzle 05:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:ditto, i'm not really clear on what the proposal is.  i'm also think that we should avoid providing an interpretation of the various quotes, other than as examples of her style.  i suppose a few of the comments have received quite widespread media attention, especially the 'kill all the muslims' kind of quotes. so those might deserve a place in the text with some context.Derex 06:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe

message: There is no reason why that picture should be up. For crying out loud, if you can't put your bitter hate aside as well as your idiocy, DON'T COME HERE!
No reason or purpose for it. Quit being an asshole. Whoever put that up ought to be banned.
:Nazi pic?  What Nazi pic? Guettarda 23:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Picture 

message: This is one of a number of articles that I'm unprotecting today because they've all been protected for a ridiculously long time.  I won't be involved in editing here for a while because that would lead to a conflict of interest. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: NPOV or not, at 42K the article is too darned long. Is there some reason the quotes haven't been moved to Wikiquote? That isn't enough but it would be a start. Tualha (Talk) 01:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, for reasons of length and consistency, I tried to shorten the article.  I removed a lot, and tried to copyedit as much as I could (there were a whole lot of "which"s in the article).  I especially removed large amounts from the Al Franken section, because if people want an extensive explanation of his commentary on Coulter, they can check out the article for his book.  This article is on Ann Coulter, not on her critics.  I also removed some paragraphs that I felt didn't need to be in there, because it was basically reiterating statements that could be made in about two sentences.  I was aiming for concise, removal of bias, and still NPOV.  If someone has a question about the removals, I'm more than willing to discuss.Stanselmdoc 13:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: What's the deal with this Canada/Vietnam War section?  At the very least, the way it's written is certainly not "criticism" of Coulter.  It's more like "controversy".  And from my point of view, it doesn't seem to prove any point of serve much of a purpose, nor do I really think it had any lasting impact on Coulter.  What does it prove?  That she's been wrong before?  Well, I think we can all agree she's been wrong at least once before.  So my question to everyone is, can I remove it, or at the very least, move it out of the "Criticism" section and into a different one, like the Paula Jones 'controversy'?  They both seem to be controversy, not criticism.  Thanks!Stanselmdoc 13:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, originally the statement about her being accused by critics of being just plain wrong about an easily verifiable fact was supported with a few examples; for instance that the new york times didn't print anything about dale earnhardt's death until a week later. But they all got chipped away as being too trivial too mention. For whatever reason, rather than chip away at her "blame Canada" statement, somebody decided to argue the case. Now it has a life of its own, without any connection to the rest of the article. Gzuckier 14:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone Mind This Being at Least Re-Named?

message: I took out the bit about blowing up the New York Times because it appears at least two other times in the article, including later in the same paragraph.
I removed '(supposed)' because there is no supposition involved.  The sentence says that Coulter has stated this.  She has.
I removed '(jokingly)' because it is a POV opinion and the passage already specifically says that some claim Coulter is only joking with these comments... that BELIEF is included and should not then be re-inserted as 'fact' in the conflicting opinion.
Finally, I removed 'their leaders' because while Coulter DID only advocate killing Muslim leaders she suggested converting ALL of them to Christianity.  As written the sentence indicates she wanted to kill some muslims and convert others... true.  As revised it had indicated that she wanted to kill some muslim leaders and convert others... false - she said to kill them all.
--CBDunkerson 10:36:44, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
:<sarcastic voice>Gee, isn't it too bad we can't insert the actual quotes here for the readers to see for themselves, instead of trying to describe the quotes accurately but using other words.</sarcastic voice> (Note: not aimed at you, CB) Gzuckier 15:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted a few 66.215.152.129 changes

message: There are not NEARLY enough photos of Coulter on this page.  Don't you people read Free Republic?  Many leggy photos of Ann are obligatory whenever and whereever she is discussed.
Fix, please.
Paul Klenk 21:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos, photos, and more photos, please