Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 19

message: This is a long article.  For me, it is overly long for the subject.  It seems to me that how it got that way is by a disproportionate coverage of trivia.  For example, I am puzzled as to why the sections 
NASCAR coverage and Canadians fighting in Vietnam are each over 300 words.  It looks to me as if the contributors to these sections, in trying to make the point that Coulter is sloppy with fact-checking, end up inadvertently sending the opposite message: "All we can come up with over her huge output is a tiny handful of trivial errors from years ago."
Despite surprisingly resourceful efforts at rehabilitating her error, Coulter did, in 2005, make a mistake over Canadians in Vietnam.  In 2001, Coulter did misrepresent the NY Times's NASCAR coverage.  Are these, at the encyclopedic level, worthy of 300+ words each?  It seems to me that Joe Average Pundit regularly and frequently slips up to a far greater extent than this without such a fuss.  If we're dealing with a special case, we should explain what's different here.  As Samuel Johnson didn't say: "Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a Coulter and a Franken."
It seems to me that we can make the point in about 100 words that Coulter has been accused of carelessness and has made errors of fact. Nat 09:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A sense of proportion 

message: I notice that there is not one in-line reference from any of her own books. Is this because she is only a blonde TV commentator and nobody has actually bought any of her books? Maybe she bought them all herself... --andreasegde 23:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If any of her quotes are appropriate to support important article points, please feel free to add.207.69.137.10 12:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be wary of WP:SELFPUB. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, secondary sources are preferred.--ZayZayEM 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: At least 40 (nos. 70-110) of the 110 references for the article (i.e. 36.36%) is dedicated to the "Controversy and criticism" section. And if you include the "Legal and professional disputes" section (which is just another "Controversy and criticism" section with a different name), that means 52 of the references (47.27%) are about controversies and criticism.
Nope.  No bias there. Jinxmchue 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.  Reference are obviously more needed when someone makes a controversial statement.  The line "Coulter is the author of five books. All have appeared on New York Times Best Seller list." is unreferenced - and it should be - but it is not the end of the world.  Critical unreferenced statement are removed - or a referenced is found.  Jon513 07:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a reasonable and legitimate counterpoint. Please note that wide variety of sources are used to verify most of the material in tehse sections. And as mentioned, this is preferred for anything controversial. Please look beyond simple percentages.--ZayZayEM 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: She gets all of her attention through controversies though, so it kind of makes sense. --Ubiq 22:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grownups read her books. Good Cop 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that means there are a lot of dumb grownups then. --Ubiq 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What wit, what humor... Algabal 09:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy-handed on the "controversy" section refs 

message: I'm noting a number of citations appearing in the lead that simply shouldn't be there by design. As per Lead, the first few paragraphs of the article are supposed to be an overview of the article, and not introduce new information to the article, which is specifically what is happening when there are citations in the Lead. I would suggest that a re-evaluation of the Lead take place, to make sure it is acutally representing the article body. Those new bits of information currently in the Lead  (with citations) should be incorporated into the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reintegrated the the citations into relevant parts of the article, removing them from the Lead. The Lead might need more work in providing a better and more accurate overview of the article. Let's try to avoid offering up statements that require citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in the lead and applying [[WP:LEAD]] 

message: All the crazy back and forth in the section containing the Canadian soldiers in Vietnam needs to draw to a close. Perhaps both sides could meet here and hammer out your differences, instead of playing Duck Duck Goose with all the low-grade edit-warring. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Canadians-in-Vietnam question

message: Judaism is about following the koran and kabala to become a perfected person. And in Christianity we follow a similar idea of following Christ to become like him a perfected priest the same as Melchisidech.
So she said, Christianity is just a fast way to perfect any person as a Jew vs the Judaism procedure which is far slower.
That is what she meant by her remark.
But to any listener it did sound as wildly anti-semetic when
in fact, it was only quick commentary about that far broader 
religious subject of perfecting the individual (same as Masons
claim to be doing with the ancient rites - perfecting an individual
via working the rites). (posted by 76.230.159.228  21:31, 14 October 2007)
:Hmm... you may be on to something here. I found the "FedEx" comment puzzling, but maybe she was saying that Christian belief was a lot easier way to go than Torah study. Andyvphil 12:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And who's to judge the quickest way to perfection? Anne Coulter of course! ^_- Mortello 03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: real perfection

message: The article states that Ann Coulter served as the law clerk to Pasco Bowman at the US Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in Kansas City.  This is an incorrect statement.  The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals is not located in Kansas City, it is located in St. Louis, Missouri.  Bowman may live in Kansas City, but the actual location of the Court of Appeals, where oral arguments are heard, is in St. Louis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebkesq (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He sits in Kansas City, MO. His chambers are there. The Eighth Circuit embraces many states including all of Missouri, and she worked for Bowman in Kansas City. Oral arguments are not always held in St. Louis. Like other circuits, they often hear arguments in cities where each of the judges sit. The clause does not refer to where the Eight Circuit is headquartered, but where Bowman sits. Cool Hand Luke 18:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fairly clear to me. What's the problem? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eight Circuit Court of Appeals is NOT in Kansas City 

message: It seems like some of the sections in the article were misplaced and are subheadings instead of new headings... or am I going blind?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.108.68.40 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting 

message: The first quotation under the section labeled "Comments on Islam, Arabs, and terrorism" is marked "Citation needed", so here's an archive.org URL for her the original article from September 14, 2001: http://web.archive.org/web/20010914225811/http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.124.214 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see it, just do it. I just added your cites as inline links. Not fully Wikified, but better than . Andyvphil 13:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for quotation 

message: Should we mention that it has been speculated that the fictional child torturer Mrs. Coulter is considered to be a reference to Ann Coulter? The Fading Light 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, this is exactly the kind of stuff we should exclude from biographies of living people. See also Mrs. Coulter#Trivia. Cool Hand Luke 18:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree completely. Also, the telepathic mind witches that speak to me through the dust mites in my pillow concur. lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would disagree completely, if it were true. But, as CHL notes, it's not. Andyvphil 13:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were true we wouldn't say that some have "speculated" that the character "is considered" a reference to Coulter. Speculative OR is precisely what we should keep out of BLP articles, not cultural references in general. Cool Hand Luke 00:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It would depend on who so speculated and in what arena. If, say, a serious literary critic had seriously argued for that theory in a serious journal (i.e., if we had a RS) we might very well want to note that Coulter's status as a bete noir of the left had reached the level at which appropriation of her name for a literary character had arguably been counted on, in far off England, to provide overtones of evil. Sadly, it seems to be a myth. Andyvphil 06:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Dark Materials Reference 

message: DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then?, or -- 
COULTER: Yeah. 132.241.246.224 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I dig that she's gone and upset the applecart again. That does not give contributors cause to be adding their personal outrage to the article. Cite your comments, cite them reliably and well, or go off somewhere and cool down. This is not a place for anyone to sopabox. Period. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely she is a comedienne, rather than a serious commentator, is she not? On that basis she might have been cut a bit of slack before she recently went way too far.... Masalai 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We've gone back and forth on your Talk page about this. Please do not pretend that you don't know her current job occupation. If you can somehow prove that her job description dovetails that of a comedian, then we can discuss it. Until then, its a POINT debate. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "It’s by their actions that I judge people" adds Burt Prelutsky in the Jewish author's piece, Ann Coulter's Big No-No. "And in my experience, American Christians are essentially kind, tolerant, admirable people. I did not take Ann Coulter’s statement as an example of hate speech. Frankly, I don’t believe she has an anti-Semitic bone in her body. What I do find bizarre is that so many Jews, who side with the Arabs against Israel and whose children applauded Ahmadinejad at Columbia University, are demanding Coulter’s head on a pike." Doesn't that quote deserve to be added somewhere? Asteriks 15:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, there are a few Jewish authors out there who weren't offended by Ann Coulter's statements. Then, of course, there are some American journalists that believe that Jews are the cause of all evil and Coulter was totally correct to say what she did even when interpreted in the most slanderous way.  We've had this discussion before, and I concede that that opinion should be represented, but I just wanna reiterate that I'm a little leery of seeing op-eds cited because things like that "liberal" statement are so often included when they are spurious and completely irrelevent. Vordabois 20:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter says we should throw away Judaism 

message: There should probably be a mention of the fact that Ann has made a career off of effectually continuing Barbara Olson's life where it was left off. Without this information, people might operate under this misaprehension that Ann is an 'original', instead of realizing what a truly horrible person she in fact is. How do we propose this information gets integrated? 24.46.123.100 13:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual way. Find a reliable source that makes the appropriate point, and add it to the article. Then see if other people agree that it's accurate, and worth including. Personally, I'm not sure what connection there is between them, other than their both being female conservative commentators. I notice that Coulter got her first book published several years before Olson died, so the first part of her career, at least, was achieved without the benefit of Olson's death. Marieblasdell 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you were a lot more polite than I was thinking of being. I guess I cannot mention the conservative cloning machine, the telepathic mind witches from Mars, the vast, right-wing conspiracy, and of course the Horrifying Truth™ behind Twinkies. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Bull.  I am a leftist; many of my friends and co-workers would call themselves leftists; and I never once heard any of them cheer the death of Barbara Olsen or anyone else. 74.130.83.210 (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes. Inflammatory generalizations. I'm sure some "leftists" response to Olson's death was "good riddance" (after all, there was a MediaWeek columnist who suggested, in a column, that Coulter do everyone a favor and kill herself -- I kid you not) but attributing an actual death wish to "leftists" is uncalled for. The business about Olson as an excuse for Coulter going "over the top" in her "kill all their leaders" statement appeared at the time of her falling out with NR, and assumes something not in evidence, namely that she did go over the top. For those of us who think it's vintage Coulter -- angry, allusive, smart, biting -- the idea that she needed an excuse is just stupid. Andyvphil (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter's Connection to Barbara Olson

message: I'm a bit uneasy about this. What is the connection of WikiWorld to Wikipedia? It's an editorial cartoon (note the dragging knuckles) and could easily be interpreted as expressing Wikipedia's editorial position. I'm generally a strong anti-deletionist... but I think maybe a disclaimer is in order in the template. Andyvphil 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the cartoon unsourced? If sourced, it constitutes a verifiable, reliable opinion by a noteworthy political cartoonist. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. If that's what it was, it probably would not merit inclusion in the article; plenty of cartoonists more notable than ours have satirized Coulter. I'm generally wary of inter-wiki links being used to take an end-run around BLP. For example, I don't see why wikinews articles should be linked more prominently than actual reliable sources. That said, I think the comic is small enough that it's not hurting anything. Cool Hand Luke 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I hadn't considered that, Luke. If there are better sources of editorial cartoons re: Coulter, then they should be substituted. We cannot give undie weight to inster-wiki links when there are more noteworthy sources to be had. If we do, its a slippery slope. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's sourced here, but I don't know how Greg Williams' opinions became either notable or "reliable" (whatever that means). Rather less notable and no more verifiable than this image, I think -- if Maxim agreed to put it under Creative Commons licencing, would you put it in the article? Suppose the monkey arms were on a caricature of Barack Obama (or Clarence Thomas) rather than Coulter? It is interesting that the placement on the page is so obscure -- was that the result of an earlier discussion? The image dates from July... Andyvphil 13:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiWorld illustration 

message: Coulter's latest controversy is covered twice in the article.  The first mention is in the Religious views section, and then in its own section.  One section should be deleted, where would the editors here like the deletion to take place?  My preference would be to remove it from the religious views section. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the comment is about religion or religious views, it should remain there, as sections are meant to corral like-statements. Unless its something like announcing that she is in possession of a nuclear bomb, and will be detonating it unless the Democrats surrender Congress, it shouldn't get its own section. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So should I delete it from the controversies section, and merge any additional details into the religious views section?  On another note, I think we may be reaching a point to where a spin-off article may be necessary.  It seems like she gets into these controversies every other month or so. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, what's in the controversies section belongs there. You could perhaps prune some of the recitation of the controversy from the religion section, leaving the statements of views, but it's not a high priority in my view. Andyvphil 13:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 1of3's edit comment did explain the reversion. Nor do you seem to have read what I wrote immediately above. Clearly there is material in this incident for both sections. Just deleting what is in the Religious Views sections is merely lazy. Andyvphil 22:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to ignore your first two sentences and the lazy comment, because clearly I don't think 10f3's "explanation" is sufficient, and you are not in a position to tell me what I have read.  I asked a question, and you have responded that there is sufficient room to have it in both places.  It's not how I would handle it, but since I seem to be in a minority, may I suggest putting the quotes in the religious views section, and trimming out the show information (specifically the Date, and Channel) from the lead in the controversies section with a quick summarization.  As an example of a less redundant lead, "Coulter was embroiled in a controversy for stating that Christians are perfected Jews while a guest on CNBC's the Big Idea..." with the rest of the section remaining the same.  Just so everyone is clear, I have never called for the outright deletion of any of the information section.  I am only asking that if it is going to be covered in two sections, it doesn't read as identical information and the sections complement each other better. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No one said that the repeition could not be improved upon. In fact I said it could, just that it wasn't a high priority. But just deleting mention of the incident from the Religious Views section, as you did, was lazy because, as 1of3 said, it was clearly revealing of part of her religious views. And your proposed lead misstates the basis of the controversy. She was not embroiled in controversy for saying Christians were improved Jews. She was accused of anti-Semitism by the host for saying all Jews (and Buddhists) should become Christians. And the slur got undeservedly approving attention. Andyvphil 23:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the redundancy is a high priority for me as it affects the "readability" of the article.  Also, you will notice that I didn't "just delete" the info.  I've been attempting to discuss it here and have specifically asked editors for their thoughts on fixing it? Secondly, I am not giving a proposal of what the lead should read, it's an example of the format it could take.  Admittedly, I could have been more clear, but I have no opinion on how to phrase the actual controvery. I would only suggest that it take the form of one or two sentences. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ann Coulter's Latest Controversial Statement

message: Well, "Ann Coulter" claims that she's quitting the media or something on her home page I am betting it's a hack and it is probably worthwhile to wait until tomorrow afternoon at least, but hey just wanted to drop the source.--Mr Bucket 07:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a hack.  As if the text of the supposed letter, as a whole, leaves any doubt that it is a hoax, look at the bottom where the hacker taunts the website admins.  Also, change the "214" in the URL to "215", to see some more comments from the hacker about the website's security.  The hacker has somehow slipped these two pages into the "Archive" of Coulter's columns, but into two of the otherwise empty spaces that will be used for upcoming columns.  The slots below "214" are empty back to "211", which yields the article currently on the website's homepage, and then the older articles go back in sequence from "210" on back.  The "Archive" directory page does not show anything above the "210" article.-- Lonewolf BC 08:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know. The last thing we need is to spend time on false claims. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Resignation" 

message: We should point out that Coulter said on The Big Idea that she believed Jews go to heaven but that Christian just have the fast track. This radically changes her beliefs on Christianity if she implies that Jews go to heaven considering Christians generally believe this not to be true. 
Secondly, it should be also noted that Coulter's comment was simply the basic christian concept of "there is no more Jew or Gentile, all are one in Christ". The New Testament states that Christians are the true spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham through faith. She just added "the perfected jew" thing to stir the pot and make it appear controversial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.75.107 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's remember that Coulter's not a theologian and that these comments show her lack of knowledge of her own faith. Seriously, the inclusion of this material really needs some weighing vs WP:UNDUE. Her religious beliefs and especially these dumb ass comments related to such really have very little to do with her overall notability. Kyaa the Catlord 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Coulter said nothing specific about going to heaven, or not going to heaven, or the existance of heaven. She said Christianity is like "FedEx" but what you get in the box, aside from greater "perfection" went unspecified, so far as I recall. I don't think she was very articulate when attacked, but for dumbassness a lot of the comments on this page on this incident far outdo her. Andyvphil 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean the correct belief according to Christianity is that those who have not accepted Christ are "imperfect". --kizzle 08:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, to Andy, Coulter specifically stated that she believed "Jews go to heaven, and Jerry Falwell does to". Watch the entire interview and you will find it there. The Fed-EX comment was that she believed that Christians have the "easier" way to heaven than the Jews. Coulter is using Christians to fuel sentiment against her just so she can then plead that she was right all along. That is her ploy. The Bible does state that Christians are the real Jews by faith; sons and daughters of Israel and Abraham. Coulter could've worded this simple basic Christian concept much better than how she chose to do so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.101.88 (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. I was relying on the MM excerpt as reprinted in various places. Deutch-Coulter is on YouTube or somesuch? Her statement that Jews go to heaven is certainly an example of something that should go in the Religious Views section in addition to being considered for the Controversies section. NB: While I see no evidence that Coulter is anti-Semitic, if Arabs or Muslims had a similarly well-known term they'd definately have a case for applying it. Andyvphil 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see MM cropped the final exchange (last ten or fifteen seconds here) from their transcript. Did't fit with their script, I guess. Andyvphil 08:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Judaism

message: Shouldn't we write about how Coulter's comments are a ploy to rouse attention and sentiment against her. If you really read and listen to all of her controversial comments, they can be interpretated in different ways. Take for instance her "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity". Now ironically while people were upset at these horrid comments, the United States had actually done the first two in Iraq and Afghanistan. She was purposefully trying to stir the pot with this statem in order to then turn it around on her detractors. THAT IS HER GAME. 
It is the same thing with her "perfected jew" comment. She just wants to get an unfriendly reaction out of people left of center, and it is scary to read or hear what people would do to her if they ever had the chance to do anything about her. Point is, her comments always APPEAR anti-semitic, anti-this, anti-that AT FIRST (she does this to show how reactionaty we "liberals" can be). But then she tries to explain them in a way where she thinks they were witty or funny. It would be best to expose this ploy that way so she can be ignored in the future for her unfunny, unwitty comments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.101.88 (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coulter Ploy

message: Something is wrong in the wording of the second sentence but I can't figure out how to word it better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs302b (talk • contribs) 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, now? Andyvphil 08:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it'd be considered a possible mitigating factor--evidence that her 'falsification of residence' was not from a desire to commit voter fraud, but rather, from a desire not to have her true residence a matter of public record, for any crazy person to find.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marieblasdell (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting from the template near the top of this page"Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)" Andyvphil 22:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we put that in (or find a clearer reference that states the same)?  The wording is confusing and isn't explained enough.Cs302b 00:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the ajacency of the prior sentence, the implication pointed to by Marieblasdell seems clear to me, but we -- namely you -- can try to state this more explicitly. It's minor stuff, though, so far, so verbosity will be cut. Andyvphil 01:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be nice to find a reference that states that, but if we just put it in on our own, that'd be WP:OR, (original research), which we're not supposed to add. Marieblasdell 06:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Investigation of possible voting fraud

message: In the Jersey Girls section, should it be noted that she has not commented on Jim Ogonowski?
Also, it is standard procedure to put state of origin in the intro pp.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible addition?