Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 17

message: The argument over the fifth estate and C-SPAN interviews has been continuing for some time with no end in sight. I propose we take this to mediation. Please indicate if you agree or disagree. Sixth Estate 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Anynobody 05:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:RfC comes first. Lou Sander 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. However, RfC rarely generates any response these days. We can do mediation now and save time if everyone agrees to it so, do you agree? Sixth Estate 07:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed to mediation knowing about WP:RfC, because I believe we are past the point where new comments would really do any good either way. Unless somebody finds a really great way to to prove/disprove the arguments on both sides, the debate will continue. As I understand it, except for some anons, all but one of the editors think some mention of the Fifth Estate interview merits inclusion. Hypothetically we could end up with an all against two situation or be right back at the current situation with RfC. I'm willing to accept being wrong, but we need some kind of authority and not more new comments. Besides, a couple of new editors joined the discussion over the past few days and I thought this accomplished the point of RfC to put in new perspectives. Anynobody 08:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If we must. I think it's obvious that it should be included. See Time, ect., but if comments add nothing more, we must do something more binding on the issue. Cool Hand Luke 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Others have investigated these charges, with equivocal results.[61]
This does not reflect what the authors of the cited source wrote.  
'CJR checked out a sample of forty alleged errors — some backed by footnotes and others not — and found that nineteen were either accurate or could generously be considered fair comment and criticism. (Though some of the latter were hyperbolic or oversimplified to the point of absurdity — "Liberals have been wrong about everything in the last half-century," for example.) If a number of those nineteen would have raised the eyebrows of any good fact-checker, the remaining twenty-one would not pass without major debate.'
Suggest the following change: "Others have investigated fourty randomly selected charges by Coulters' critics, and found about half of them justified.[61]" - i.e., some charges are (thought to be) justified, while others are not.  Equivocal means that you cannot come to a clear conclusion, and that's not the case here. --Rolibaer 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy 

message: The unstructured discussion has obviously dengenerated. Please use the below structure for discussion regarding the Canada issue. No threaded discussion. Not helping. Make concrete proposals only - no politics. Not helping. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can reach consensus without the minority of editors who oppose such admitting that consensus has gone against them - "standing aside," in formal terms. It's not clear their  concerns have been adressed, yet. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about a single editor. All the other editors on both sides of the issue are in agreement. Sixth Estate 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, Hipocrite, Ramsquire's version that reached concensus was proposed specifically to remove the kind of editorializing Lonewolf is trying to re-insert. This is just re-hashing the same debate again. --kizzle 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that consensus and unanimity are two different concepts. We should certainly discuss with Lonewolf and try to convince him of the consensus position but one person cannot veto consensus. Sixth Estate 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structured Canada Discussion 

message: I've been away. I don't know if this is the place for me to post this, but it looks like it might be. Sorry if it isn't. Also sorry if it's a great wall of text. This stuff isn't simple. 
*1. Coulter is constantly accused of lying, plagiarizing, etc. This fact is notable.
*2. In quite a few cases, maybe/probably most, responsible people look into the accusations and find them to be untrue, unimportant, etc. This fact is notable.
*3. There is a tendency for editors to include all the details of all the accusations in the main article, and NOT to include the other side, or to diminish its importance, etc. This fact is regrettable, but understandable due to the inflammatory nature of much of what she says.
*4. The amount of article space devoted to these accusations & responses is pretty large. I think undue weight is given to them. 
*5. The Canada business is mainly notable because Internet people seem to have picked up on it as some sort of argument Coulter lost, or some sort of egregious error she made, etc. 
*6. When you look at the facts of it, there is much less than meets the eye. Coulter said, almost in passing, "Canada sent troops to Vietnam." The host picked up on it as though someone had demeaned his country. The discussion was mostly/exclusively the host saying that Canada sent NO troops and Coulter politely saying she thought he wasn't right. (That is a little bit different than if she had insisted that Canada HAD sent troops.)The "outspoken comments" that the narrator identified were NOT from Coulter. They were from the host. 
*7. The facts of Canada in Vietnam are: a) she was officially neutral, b) there is lots of citable evidence, scholarly research, etc. that she actually helped the U.S. c) The Canadian government, including perhaps some of its crown corporations, has an extremely strong interest in upholding the claim of Canadian neutrality in Vietnam, no matter who may challenge it. d) Neutral or not, Canada actually did send troops to the ICS and ICCS or whatever they are called. They went to Vietnam and Indochina, which is a collective term that includes Vietnam. 
*8. For whatever reason, some editors will not accept 7d. No amount of denial, or claims about the troops' mission, or opinions about what Coulter "really meant," or demand to see the troops referred to as "troops" can change the facts of 7d. No amount of insistence can make the fact that Canada sent troops irrelevant to a discussion most of which involved the host's strong insistence that she didn't. 
* Good Cop 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Good Cop

message: While I think this may have been of use a week ago I think it may be counterproductive now. We basically have a consensus and there's no point in re-opening old arguments. Sixth Estate 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can reach consensus without the minority of editors who oppose such admitting that consensus has gone against them - "standing aside," in formal terms. It's not clear their  concerns have been adressed, yet. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about a single editor. All the other editors on both sides of the issue are in agreement. Sixth Estate 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, Hipocrite, Ramsquire's version that reached concensus was proposed specifically to remove the kind of editorializing Lonewolf is trying to re-insert. This is just re-hashing the same debate again. --kizzle 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that consensus and unanimity are two different concepts. We should certainly discuss with Lonewolf and try to convince him of the consensus position but one person cannot veto consensus. Sixth Estate 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on above process

message: This article looks like it was written by Coulter herself, or by her personal fan-club. I can't believe nobody has thought to point out that she's obviously [contrary to WP:BLP].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.122.5 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Restored, but w/o BLP violation.  The opinion of bias in the article is fair enough. -- Lonewolf BC 06:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slightly biased?

message: Is there a single person here who doesn't agree with the fact that Ann Coulter is a racist islamophobic? Calling them ragheads, saying the US should invade their countries and convert them to christianity... I mean, she's as much a racist as Hitler is. It's a fact. Any objections? GeorgeBP 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you provided doesn't really match up with the line you're attaching it to - you state "She often makes racist remarks about muslims, calling them ragheads." - the source refers only to one incident, which doesn't really qualify as "often". The lead paragraph is probably not the best place for this assertion, either - it's already addressed in this section. I understand you want to emphasize this particular issue, but please try to maintain WP:NPOV in this article - it's always hard with a figure this controversial. RJASE1  Talk  23:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ooooh, you lost already. Godwin's law is invoked! :P Kyaa the Catlord 23:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: George, it's not our job to make conclusions for the readers as you suggest.  All we can do is simply quote her more notable comments, the "raghead talks tough" and "camel jockey" being among them, and let the reader come to the correct conclusion. --kizzle 00:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The lead is fine as it stands. Kyaa the Catlord 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Kyaa, I'm not surprised to see that you've already been accused of being a islamophobic. GeorgeBP 01:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Muslims a "race"? RJASE1  Talk  01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at racism in the Wikipedia, you will see racism against muslims and jews. If anti-semitism is a type of racism, so is islamophobia. But if you prefer, I have no problem with changing the word to prejudice or bigotry. You still haven't answered whether or not the paragraph I wrote had any problems. GeorgeBP 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Semites" are a race. Islam is a religion. There are Semitic muslims, Asian muslims, Indian Muslims, African/Black muslims and gringo-muslims! Islamophobia isn't a type of racism, its a fear of Islam. Kyaa the Catlord 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I have no problem with changing the word to prejudice or bigotry. And muslims ARE an ethnic group AND a religion, just like jews. GeorgeBP 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. A Muslim is one who submits to Allah, not a race of people. You should learn more about Islam. Kyaa the Catlord 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter, I've already said I can change the word to prejudice or bigotry and you still don't agree with it. GeorgeBP 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear George, please follow WP:NPA, accusing me of being islamophobic is uncivil. Kyaa the Catlord 01:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it. Someone else did. All I said was that I wasn't surprised. Apparently, you're quite sensible about it. GeorgeBP 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm terribly amused by people who label others. Its whacky fun. Kyaa the Catlord 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny to hear that from a Coulter lover. You must roll on the floor laughing every time you see her. GeorgeBP 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I enjoy laughing at Ann, yes. How does this help improve the article? Kyaa the Catlord 02:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You tell me, you're the one who mentioned it. GeorgeBP 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You describe her opinions as racism, as would many others, with some justification, but still, calling her a racist is an opinion, not a fact.  --rogerd 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some" justification? She called muslims ragheads. She said the USA should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to christianity. She said news magazines don't kill people, muslims do. If that's not racism, prejudice or bigotry, I don't know what that is. It's a fact, not an opinion. Are you going to argue that calling Hitler a racist is debatable? GeorgeBP 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these allegations are discussed in the article. The lead is no place to make allegations. A lot of Coulter's more inflammatory statements are exaggerations which are taken at face value by people with an agenda. Kyaa the Catlord 02:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really??? You DO think that? That saying she is prejudiced, bigot or racist is an allegation? That calling muslims ragheads, saying they, as a people, killed 3000 americans, that they should be forcely converted to christianity, you think all that is just an intellectual "exageration"? What does THAT say about YOU? GeorgeBP 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what it says about me, I'm not the subject of this wikipedia article and your obvious attempts to attack me are failing. Kyaa the Catlord 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not attacking you, buddy, I just want you to make a little reflection about your own personnal feelings. And you seem to be pretty sensible about it, I wonder why... If Ann Coulter would say the same things about black people or jews, would you still say it is an exageration that is taken at face value? GeorgeBP 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:DFTT. RJASE1  Talk  02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't want to get into this too much but note that she has made comments that are widely considered anti-Arab racism (indeed in her anti-Muslim sentiment she usually doesn't appear to consider the difference between Muslims and Arabs). Nil Einne 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: There are people here who seen fanatically intended in removing any new information that could harm the already harmed reputation of Ann Coulter. I've just written a paragraph that is properly sourced, including her own quotes. She said women shouldn't have the right to vote. I've put this information there. How is it POV?
:The first one is a quote from a web page dedicated to finding Coulter's embarassing quotes.  It's a partisan source, is by no means notable, and you can't rely on it quoting her in context.  The second one is at least from a real source, but it's still partisan, and seems to be an editorial, not a news story.  The idea that a single rhetorical flourish means that she is genuinely opposed to the idea of women voting is a POV. Ken Arromdee 20:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are there to show that she did say that, not to judge what she said. The two quotes are also in her Wikiquote page. Google this: "It would be a much better country if women did not vote" "Ann Coulter". You will see that she DID say that, which is what the paragraph is implying. It does not judge what she said, only informs it. Oh, and I'm so sick of people referring to her quotes as "intelectual exagerations" and "rhetorical flourishs". Every time she says something stupid, people come with these arguments. It's ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.167.168.130 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's right to vote 

message: Please read WP:3RR, Thank you. --Dual Freq 04:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind, I'm going to copy this to the 3rr noticeboard. Thanks Dual. Kyaa the Catlord 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Within both groups you will find Ethnic Muslims and Ethnic Jews, you will find both are religions. Submitting to Allah is Islam, but it is also a classification of a group of people. Somali are Ethnic Muslims. Cleary the bigger issue is what do you call this statement "Islam is Evil", or "Jews are Evil", "Muslims are Evil". Critic isnt the correct cat for these kind of people. That is the bottom line. hatred against a religious group is a form of racism. dont mangle lingusitics to mask reality. and the term antisemitic rarely refers to hatred of Arabs and Ethiopians. If ann is so uneducated she doesnt know the difference between Arab and Muslim, we must then judge only what she says, Arabs are Christian as well so she must be talking about Muslims in general. 
--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 15:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pokemon guy keeps repeating his so called consensus when in fact there is none. And he doesn't bother to refute the arguments in this page, he just keeps reediting the article. GeorgeBP 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pokemon guy, the DualFreq, the Ramsquire, the Cool Hand Luke, the RJASE, the Rogerd do not count towards consensus apparently. Its ok though, this category is being discussed formally regardless. Kyaa the Catlord 00:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyaa, you don't seen to understand the meaning of the word. Consensus means an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. Me, HalaTruth, Cool Hand Luke and Anynobody agree that islamophobia is pertinent to Coulter. So, care to discuss this, or are you too busy watching Pikachu and friends? CuriousDog 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: George--That usually happens when an edit violates BLP.  We are supposed to remove it first, and then have the discussion.  As your attempts have been deemed to violate BLP, it will be continuously removed.  If you attempt to keep re-inserting it, you will be blocked for violation WP:3RR. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is what i c as 1/2 truths, yes editwars are bad, yes controversial content is best left off until a verdict is reached. But from my perspective this woman is a very racist person. so why play games with a cat that fits her stance. this is not little annie we are talking about.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "From my perspective" means "In my opinion..." Check that POV at the door! Kyaa the Catlord 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Computers dont edit here humans do, everything on this site is a opinion. a pov. Is it fair to say she is a bigot--yes. We should blow them up, funny when my boy in iran said that all hell broke lose. he got pasted as an antisemite, funny thing Arabs are Semitic. Ahh we should call her Anti-Semitic.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NPOV. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam and Judaism

message: One of the involved editors has been blocked for violation of the WP:3RR rule. I can see that other involved editors believe that reverting each other to death is a useful device. It is not. Editwarring accomplishes absolutely nothing. I am placing this article on my watchlist from now on. Any further editwarring will surely result in the article being protected, at best, or at worst other editors getting dinged for 3RR violations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although none of the editors involved in removing the misused category for BLP/ATT/V/OR/NPOV rationales have broken 3RR, I'd like to remind the admin of the following phrase from WP:BLP: "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply." I'd also point out that a 3RR report was placed nearly 30 hours prior to the blocking of GeorgeBP and untouched by admins. A checkuser has shown that GeorgeBP was using sockpuppets to hide his breaking of 3RR, but he was not blocked at that time either. A report was placed on the BLP noticeboard nearly 12 hours ago in relation to the misuse of this category. We have tried to discuss this to death on this talk page and on the category talk page. It is all swell and happy and sweetness and light to come here and give us a nice warning, but damnit, please take care of problems before they escalate like this! Thank you, I'm just a bit frustrated right now. Kyaa the Catlord 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyaa if you are frustrated it is best you lie down and rest for a little. because your frustration clouds your reason, then your poor reason clouds GeorgeBP and the cycle goes around. I think defending something bad would make me tired and frustrated as well.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bless you Hala, bless you. This is today's moment of zen. Kyaa the Catlord 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, unfortunately the two were incorrect and BLP trumped them. Period. Kyaa the Catlord 16:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was referring to you, Kyaa. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I refer you to WP:NOT a soapbox. I'm frustrated with the lack of handling of this case by the admins of wikipedia, there were numerous attempts made to have intervention taken to avoid this, thousands of kb of attempts at discussion on this page and that of the category. Lecturing us for handling the situation as best we could due to a seeming lack of interest in the problem resolution process by the admins of wikipedia is questionable. Kyaa the Catlord 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your support. :P Kyaa the Catlord 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It was posted at the BLP noticeboard. A check user was requested and fulfilled which returned confirmed and likely results for all referred socks. No blocks were done on the checked sock puppeteer or his socks. No admins stepped in on the BLP request. The lack admin actions resulted editors punting as best they could and, in my case at least, a loss of faith in admins as a whole. And your responses are only verifying my feelings. Kyaa the Catlord 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd also refer you to the CfD discussion which shows that there is a likely consensus that the use of this category IS a BLP infraction in cases like this. Kyaa the Catlord 17:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but editwarring is still not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you see a case where a user is blocked for 3RR but the socks are not, let me know and I'll block the socks. I will not initiate admin functions related to this article though because I'm much too involved with it. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will be more than willing to block any confirmed SP accounts that have been involved in disruption. Just drop me a note in my talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sockpuppets that have been confirmed by WP:CU have been blocked accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And be sure to document any harassment. Sooner or later your new "fan" will say something stupid. Anynobody 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editwarring