Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 13

message: I've been on wikibreak for some weeks until recently, so I'm just noticing some of the changes that have been made.  The lead image is the most eye-catching one.  I'm curious as to the reasoning for its replacement of the previous lead image; it's fairly grainy and not particularly recent, unless I'm mistaken.  Kasreyn 08:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, other one looked better. --kizzle 00:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another agreement.  The only potential reservation comes from the Fair Use rationale of using the book cover in an article not specifically about the book.  I am comfortable making such a fair use defense but I don't think that it's standard practice in Wikipedia to claim fair use outside of the article which is *specifically* about the object at hand (the book, in this case).  But it was certainly a much "nicer" (higher quality & better aesthetics, IMHO) photo than the current one.  --ElKevbo 04:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree the other photo was better.  And, FWIW, I think the Al Franken article displays covers of his books in his main article despite there being separate articles about them and I think that's fine.  Lawyer2b 19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In defense of the image, this particular one was cropped for the thumbnail head shot on her site. It may not be the glam photo that Coulter fans want, but she seems to like it. This photo also resolves the debate about using the book cover, as that image has been moved to the discussion of Slander. If you don't like this image, take another promo image from the photo section of her web site. I like the one with her and Al Sharpton. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top image? 

message: I know that one or more administrators have expressed strong opinions that Ann Coulter lacks integrity (e.g. "makes shit up"). I respect that point of view, and I assume the good faith of all who hold it, and of all who work it into the Ann Coulter article. But do we really want this article to "speculate" that Ann has Marfan Syndrome? Is the cited reference, a blog that also says "She is, however, a pathetic excuse for a human being, and Adam Carolla of all people, bitch-slapped her," really the sort of "high quality reference" that WP:BLP refers to in saying "Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives?" And is it really a Minor edit to put this material into the Background, early life, and education section? I say NO to all three questions, but I don't want to step on any toes by reverting the edit. Lou Sander 04:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call Lou.  I removed the information.  The minor edit was a minor edit but it imediately followed the addition of the new material which may have caused the confusion.  Go--ElKevbo 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for deleting the Marfan material. And there wasn't any confusion about the Minor edit. The edit was at 23:28, 26 Aug 2006 by Fluffbrain. She made a minor edit to the first few words of the section, then inserted the Marfan stuff much further down, where a casual reader wouldn't see it. It's pretty hard to assume good faith for stuff like that, but I keep trying. Lou Sander 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good removal. --kizzle 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marfan Syndrome 

message: Book covers can be used under the "fair use" guidelines to illustrate the articles about the books themselves only. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL, but reading the template for book covers, I see the wording "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". It does not say that the article must be exclusively devoted to the book, only that the article 'discuss the book in question'. Well this Coulter article discusses her book(s), so I would think the reduced resolution cover image is, ahem, covered under fair use. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, Crum375 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I believe you're correct. I think what the fair use guidelines are trying to say is you can't use the cover to illustrate something on the cover. So e.g. you couldn't use the cover of a book featuring Ann Coulter to to show Ann Coulter. Provided the cover is there to in context about the book it's fine... Nil Einne 20:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book covers 

message: First off, I either hate Ann Coulter with all my heart or I think she's the greatest living American author, depending on whether you disagree with my suggestion here or not.  I just wanted to get that out of the way, as I'm sure my personal motivations will be brought up.  Now, to my actual suggestion:  the plagiarism section as it stands is way too much.  Not too much as in the material shouldn't exist somewhere, but on a biography page we really really shouldn't be devoting so much space to these claims.  It's not that these claims do not meet WP:V or are not sourced properly, but do we need to take 8 paragraphs on her bio page?  For the whole passage about Slander, I'm going to move it off to the Slander website.  Book-specific charges should be placed on each book's individual article.  What should remain, ideally, is a 1-2 paragraph section (like it was before) that is equivalent of what's left when a daughter article is split off and a summary para remains.  Blah blah iAuthenticate, blah blah Coulter's publisher's defended her, blah blah something else, and that's it.  If we really want to keep all this here, I think a daughter article is quite necessary at this point, but I would much rather place the book-specific info on each book's page, as it makes much more organizational sense. What do other people think? --kizzle 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism Part Deux 

message: Would somebody who knows how please do it? Lou Sander 10:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's time to archive this section 

message: Four items that have been discussed and deleted many times have just been restored to the article. They are the "troops in Canada" stuff, the "swimmingly" stuff, the "Adam Carolla non-interview" and a three-year-old book review. You can see the details HERE, though there may have been some changes since. 
The ancient book review is, as Dominick said when he deleted it, a "pointless opinion that sits on its own." In addition, it applies to a book that has its own article, which is a better place for it.
The other items have been discussed to death, and I believe there is consensus, especially on "troops in Canada," that they do not belong in the article. There are many reasons to delete them, including that their relevance to Ann Coulter's notability has not been clearly demonstrated. That fact alone, plus their apparent agenda-pushing nature, possibly/probably puts them into the category of malicious edits to the biography of a living person.
The Criticisms of Ann Coulter article was set up to receive material like this, and it needs more well-sourced items. These would be valuable additions, and would not be seen as malicious.  
None of these four items legitimately belong in the Ann Coulter article. I say they should be removed until someone shows reasons for including them, which reasons must be stronger than the pages and pages of discussion that have led to their multiple removals. Editors who care about them should consider moving them to the Criticisms article.
What say all of you? (Do like this, if you'd like...)
delete -- their relevance has not been clearly demonstrated Lou Sander 00:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four candidates for permanent deletion 

message: This section remains a stub. It only includes mention of one book review. I think it would be better if this were in the individual book article if it isn't already there. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed mention of the review. A link to the review WAS in the individual book article, and still is. What was here was a misleading snippet from a long and thoughtful review. (Um, if he couldn't stand to read the book, how could he write a long review of it?) Lou Sander 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asbl: Lou, Crum, and I are all opposed to including this passage, as the review is available from the individual book article.  Please refrain from reverting or re-inserting further. --kizzle 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Book reviews belong with the books to which they apply, and should appear there as links to the full text. Misleading negative material should be removed per WP:BLP and many others. Lou Sander 22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Reviews 

message: I've removed the following paragraph:
:In her book, Godless, Coulter claims that "there’s no physical evidence for evolution", and goes on to state there's "no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record." Critics claim Coulter's arguments against evolution do not appear to have any scientific basis  .
Firstly, the inline citations are from a pro-evolution blog, and are questionable per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Secondly, someone else's opinions on her opinion of evolution is irrelevant. All that's important in a bio article is to state her opinions on relgion. Criticism of her writing belongs in the criticism section/article. IMO, this isn't notable criticism. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we just wiki-link her advocacy of intelligent design, readers can click on the link if they want to know what the status of intelligent design is in the scientific community rather than rebutting it on a per-proponent basis. --kizzle 04:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views 

message: If it is relevant to this article that a single reporter states she atttends a certain church and brings guests (and why is that importantor even relevant?) then it is certainly relevant that the officials of that church state they do not know her and and she is not a member.  This looks like an obvious attempt by Coulter fans to rehabilitate her, since she frequently claims her Christiainity is the reason she makes her living attacking liberals. I found no Discusion refuting the citings of church officials. I added the balancing statement, assuming that someone has prevented the irrelevant citation from being removed. - getterstraight
This should be put under personal life:
Borcehr's "presentation points out the recent TIME Magazine profile of Coulter which implies that she is a member of Redeemer Presbyterian, an evangelical Christian church in New York, and yet the ministry at the church never seems to have heard of her!
The Redeemer church, "whose non-political stance is well-known, disavows all hateful and hostile speech," according to Borchers' presentation, had to "Google" her name to figure out who she was! Apparently Coulter is not a member of that church at all!"
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1940
- Rako
:The reliable Time magazine reported some facts about her church attendance. Those facts are notable in a section about her religious beliefs. Her religious beliefs are part of her notability, since she proclaims them and since her book Godless is essentially about religion. It is NOT notable that a muckraking web site can't verify what Time reported, or that an opinion columnist has something to say about Coulter's religious beliefs, church membership or church attendance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. The Time stuff belongs here. The other stuff does not. Lou Sander 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: WP:BLP is an official policy. It's kind of long, making it hard to understand unless you read it carefully and repeatedly. 
Here is the policy in its official nutshell:
Here are some key points taken verbatim from the body of the policy:
*Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. 
*The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view. 
*Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. 
*(For non-public figures such as family members): Editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. ...Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source. 
*In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ... 
*If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. 
*The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. 
If we all follow the policy, we shouldn't have much trouble. Lou Sander 05:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just ripped your above edit and placed it into another article's talk page with similar issues.  I couldn't have said it any better than you did it.  Ramsquire 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ram, but I didn't do any more than any other editor should do: Find worthwhile material from elsewhere, and repeat it with minimal, neutral editing in Wikipedia. Lou Sander 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be a template. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --kizzle 23:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of Living People 

message: Coulter only discusses evolution in her book Godless. Her ideas about evolution are discussed at length in the article on the book. I don't think it belongs in the main article on Ann Coulter -- to keep it here opens the door for many other fairly minor topics from her books.  Lou Sander 13:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, would have no problem to move it there - but wherever it is, it needs to be NPOV-balanced. Crum375 13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been extreme fighting about that in the article on the book. We really don't need that here. Lou Sander 13:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for keeping it in it's own article. Mentioning it and mentioning that it is disuted is enough. Exanding it when it has it's own article does not seem a good idea to me. Jefffire 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter on evolution 

message: (I took it upon myself to separate the following general material from the above stuff on A&M. I hope nobody minds. Lou Sander 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree with what Malber says, but there was a LOT of talk about Controversies several weeks ago, and I want to try to find it before saying much more. Lou Sander 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a nutshell, WP:BLP requires that a 'Controversy' section talk about the controversy, not how outrageous an editor thinks a subject's comments are. That's not to say that negative controversy doesn't belong, but if there is no citable controversy it doesn't belong. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: This was discussed recently (visible in archive 6) but I think it needs to be brought up again. The current lead photo IMHO needs to be replaced. While it's a photo released on her website, to me anyway it's highly unflattering and makes her look like she's anorexic and is much worse IMHO then the Time photo (which despite her objections, is decent enough, it's quite clear that it's distorted so it doesn't give her an unflaterring look). Her site has several others to choose from . We could take one of the ones with her and someone else and get wikipedia to only show her as the thumbnail... The photo is one of the best in actually showing her and at a decent size (perhaps that's why she looks so unflattering? who knows...) however I personally believe it would still be better to use another photo for the lead. Perhaps this one? . What do you all think?Nil Einne 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the current picture from her Web site. I am not sure why we would want to change it. Crum375 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current one was chosen because it's the one she uses for her headshot thumbnail on her site. It's obviously one she prefers. Of all the pictures from her gallery, it is the one IMO that looks the most professional. Feel free to choose another one if you like, but it has to be justified as FU. I particularly like the one with Al Sharpton ;-) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo again 

message: This recent edit would seem to be major vandalism, described as a minor edit to "link Mel Gibson." What's going on here? Lou Sander 14:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody fixed it. Thanks. Lou Sander 19:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Vandalism 

message: I've requested that the semi-protection be lifted. It's been in place for at least six weeks now. eaolson 14:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: I've been on wikibreak for some weeks until recently, so I'm just noticing some of the changes that have been made.  The lead image is the most eye-catching one.  I'm curious as to the reasoning for its replacement of the previous lead image; it's fairly grainy and not particularly recent, unless I'm mistaken.  Kasreyn 08:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, other one looked better. --kizzle 00:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another agreement.  The only potential reservation comes from the Fair Use rationale of using the book cover in an article not specifically about the book.  I am comfortable making such a fair use defense but I don't think that it's standard practice in Wikipedia to claim fair use outside of the article which is *specifically* about the object at hand (the book, in this case).  But it was certainly a much "nicer" (higher quality & better aesthetics, IMHO) photo than the current one.  --ElKevbo 04:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree the other photo was better.  And, FWIW, I think the Al Franken article displays covers of his books in his main article despite there being separate articles about them and I think that's fine.  Lawyer2b 19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In defense of the image, this particular one was cropped for the thumbnail head shot on her site. It may not be the glam photo that Coulter fans want, but she seems to like it. This photo also resolves the debate about using the book cover, as that image has been moved to the discussion of Slander. If you don't like this image, take another promo image from the photo section of her web site. I like the one with her and Al Sharpton. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top image? 

message: I know that one or more administrators have expressed strong opinions that Ann Coulter lacks integrity (e.g. "makes shit up"). I respect that point of view, and I assume the good faith of all who hold it, and of all who work it into the Ann Coulter article. But do we really want this article to "speculate" that Ann has Marfan Syndrome? Is the cited reference, a blog that also says "She is, however, a pathetic excuse for a human being, and Adam Carolla of all people, bitch-slapped her," really the sort of "high quality reference" that WP:BLP refers to in saying "Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives?" And is it really a Minor edit to put this material into the Background, early life, and education section? I say NO to all three questions, but I don't want to step on any toes by reverting the edit. Lou Sander 04:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call Lou.  I removed the information.  The minor edit was a minor edit but it imediately followed the addition of the new material which may have caused the confusion.  Go--ElKevbo 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for deleting the Marfan material. And there wasn't any confusion about the Minor edit. The edit was at 23:28, 26 Aug 2006 by Fluffbrain. She made a minor edit to the first few words of the section, then inserted the Marfan stuff much further down, where a casual reader wouldn't see it. It's pretty hard to assume good faith for stuff like that, but I keep trying. Lou Sander 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good removal. --kizzle 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, good removal.  It occasionally makes it onto the Marfan syndrome page.  I've removed it, but it would be nice if some others would keep an eye on that page as well.  --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 11:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marfan Syndrome 

message: Book covers can be used under the "fair use" guidelines to illustrate the articles about the books themselves only. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL, but reading the template for book covers, I see the wording "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". It does not say that the article must be exclusively devoted to the book, only that the article 'discuss the book in question'. Well this Coulter article discusses her book(s), so I would think the reduced resolution cover image is, ahem, covered under fair use. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, Crum375 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I believe you're correct. I think what the fair use guidelines are trying to say is you can't use the cover to illustrate something on the cover. So e.g. you couldn't use the cover of a book featuring Ann Coulter to to show Ann Coulter. Provided the cover is there to in context about the book it's fine... Nil Einne 20:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book covers 

message: First off, I either hate Ann Coulter with all my heart or I think she's the greatest living American author, depending on whether you disagree with my suggestion here or not.  I just wanted to get that out of the way, as I'm sure my personal motivations will be brought up.  Now, to my actual suggestion:  the plagiarism section as it stands is way too much.  Not too much as in the material shouldn't exist somewhere, but on a biography page we really really shouldn't be devoting so much space to these claims.  It's not that these claims do not meet WP:V or are not sourced properly, but do we need to take 8 paragraphs on her bio page?  For the whole passage about Slander, I'm going to move it off to the Slander website.  Book-specific charges should be placed on each book's individual article.  What should remain, ideally, is a 1-2 paragraph section (like it was before) that is equivalent of what's left when a daughter article is split off and a summary para remains.  Blah blah iAuthenticate, blah blah Coulter's publisher's defended her, blah blah something else, and that's it.  If we really want to keep all this here, I think a daughter article is quite necessary at this point, but I would much rather place the book-specific info on each book's page, as it makes much more organizational sense. What do other people think? --kizzle 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism Part Deux 

message: Would somebody who knows how please do it? Lou Sander 10:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's time to archive this section 

message: Four items that have been discussed and deleted many times have just been restored to the article. They are the "troops in Canada" stuff, the "swimmingly" stuff, the "Adam Carolla non-interview" and a three-year-old book review. You can see the details HERE, though there may have been some changes since. 
The ancient book review is, as Dominick said when he deleted it, a "pointless opinion that sits on its own." In addition, it applies to a book that has its own article, which is a better place for it.
The other items have been discussed to death, and I believe there is consensus, especially on "troops in Canada," that they do not belong in the article. There are many reasons to delete them, including that their relevance to Ann Coulter's notability has not been clearly demonstrated. That fact alone, plus their apparent agenda-pushing nature, possibly/probably puts them into the category of malicious edits to the biography of a living person.
The Criticisms of Ann Coulter article was set up to receive material like this, and it needs more well-sourced items. These would be valuable additions, and would not be seen as malicious.  
None of these four items legitimately belong in the Ann Coulter article. I say they should be removed until someone shows reasons for including them, which reasons must be stronger than the pages and pages of discussion that have led to their multiple removals. Editors who care about them should consider moving them to the Criticisms article.
What say all of you? (Do like this, if you'd like...)
delete -- their relevance has not been clearly demonstrated Lou Sander 00:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four candidates for permanent deletion 

message: This section remains a stub. It only includes mention of one book review. I think it would be better if this were in the individual book article if it isn't already there. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed mention of the review. A link to the review WAS in the individual book article, and still is. What was here was a misleading snippet from a long and thoughtful review. (Um, if he couldn't stand to read the book, how could he write a long review of it?) Lou Sander 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asbl: Lou, Crum, and I are all opposed to including this passage, as the review is available from the individual book article.  Please refrain from reverting or re-inserting further. --kizzle 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Book reviews belong with the books to which they apply, and should appear there as links to the full text. Misleading negative material should be removed per WP:BLP and many others. Lou Sander 22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Reviews 

message: I've removed the following paragraph:
:In her book, Godless, Coulter claims that "there’s no physical evidence for evolution", and goes on to state there's "no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record." Critics claim Coulter's arguments against evolution do not appear to have any scientific basis  .
Firstly, the inline citations are from a pro-evolution blog, and are questionable per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Secondly, someone else's opinions on her opinion of evolution is irrelevant. All that's important in a bio article is to state her opinions on relgion. Criticism of her writing belongs in the criticism section/article. IMO, this isn't notable criticism. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we just wiki-link her advocacy of intelligent design, readers can click on the link if they want to know what the status of intelligent design is in the scientific community rather than rebutting it on a per-proponent basis. --kizzle 04:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views 

message: If it is relevant to this article that a single reporter states she atttends a certain church and brings guests (and why is that importantor even relevant?) then it is certainly relevant that the officials of that church state they do not know her and and she is not a member.  This looks like an obvious attempt by Coulter fans to rehabilitate her, since she frequently claims her Christiainity is the reason she makes her living attacking liberals. I found no Discusion refuting the citings of church officials. I added the balancing statement, assuming that someone has prevented the irrelevant citation from being removed. - getterstraight
This should be put under personal life:
Borcehr's "presentation points out the recent TIME Magazine profile of Coulter which implies that she is a member of Redeemer Presbyterian, an evangelical Christian church in New York, and yet the ministry at the church never seems to have heard of her!
The Redeemer church, "whose non-political stance is well-known, disavows all hateful and hostile speech," according to Borchers' presentation, had to "Google" her name to figure out who she was! Apparently Coulter is not a member of that church at all!"
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1940
- Rako
:The reliable Time magazine reported some facts about her church attendance. Those facts are notable in a section about her religious beliefs. Her religious beliefs are part of her notability, since she proclaims them and since her book Godless is essentially about religion. It is NOT notable that a muckraking web site can't verify what Time reported, or that an opinion columnist has something to say about Coulter's religious beliefs, church membership or church attendance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. The Time stuff belongs here. The other stuff does not. Lou Sander 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: WP:BLP is an official policy. It's kind of long, making it hard to understand unless you read it carefully and repeatedly. 
Here is the policy in its official nutshell:
Here are some key points taken verbatim from the body of the policy:
*Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. 
*The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view. 
*Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. 
*(For non-public figures such as family members): Editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. ...Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source. 
*In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ... 
*If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. 
*The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. 
If we all follow the policy, we shouldn't have much trouble. Lou Sander 05:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just ripped your above edit and placed it into another article's talk page with similar issues.  I couldn't have said it any better than you did it.  Ramsquire 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ram, but I didn't do any more than any other editor should do: Find worthwhile material from elsewhere, and repeat it with minimal, neutral editing in Wikipedia. Lou Sander 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be a template. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --kizzle 23:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of Living People 

message: Coulter only discusses evolution in her book Godless. Her ideas about evolution are discussed at length in the article on the book. I don't think it belongs in the main article on Ann Coulter -- to keep it here opens the door for many other fairly minor topics from her books.  Lou Sander 13:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, would have no problem to move it there - but wherever it is, it needs to be NPOV-balanced. Crum375 13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been extreme fighting about that in the article on the book. We really don't need that here. Lou Sander 13:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for keeping it in it's own article. Mentioning it and mentioning that it is disuted is enough. Exanding it when it has it's own article does not seem a good idea to me. Jefffire 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm concerned that the intelligent design advocate category remain.  It would seem a bit out of place to have the category here without at least noting in brief that Coulter has chosen to voice an opinion on the subject.  Perhaps, for sections removed to the articles on her books, we could create a small section (perhaps entitled "Other Views"), which would quickly and simply note such things as, "In Godless, Coulter advocates the concept of Intelligent Design", or some such simple sentence.  Otherwise, the category would appear at first glance to be unfounded, and then we'd have editors removing the category.  Kasreyn 00:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All this stuff is amply covered in the article on the book, and the book is the only place where Coulter mentions it with any emphasis. (Therefore that's where coverage of it belongs.) Even in the book, evolution/intelligent design only comes up by way of one point in its numerous arguments: 1) MAIN POINT OF THE BOOK: Liberals besmirch religion, but their core beliefs amount to a religion themselves. 2) SEVEN MAJOR ILLUSTRATIVE POINTS: Here are their sacraments, holy writ, martyrs, clergy, churches, doctrine of infallibility, and cosmology. All are amply illustrated and expanded on. 3) ADDITIONAL ILLUSTRATIVE POINT: There's also their creation myth: Darwin's theory. The mythical nature of the liberal creation belief is illustrated by casting doubt on its authenticity, much support for the doubt being shown by the work of intelligent design advocates. A subordinate point is that if anyone doubts the liberals' creation myth, they brand him/her as a crazy religious kook. As she predicts, many have pounced on the creation myth stuff, usually implying that he/she's a crazy religious kook or intelligent design freak. She isn't really even advocating intelligent design -- just detailing it as an opposing view to the liberal creation myth. Lou Sander 02:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With Kasreyn's concurrence, I've removed the "Coulter on Evolution" section, mentioned evolution vs. creation in this article's material on Godless, and referred readers to the Godless article for details, of which there are many in that article. (It took me two edits to do it. Sorry if confusion ensues.) Lou Sander 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter on evolution 

message: (I took it upon myself to separate the following general material from the above stuff on A&M. I hope nobody minds. Lou Sander 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree with what Malber says, but there was a LOT of talk about Controversies several weeks ago, and I want to try to find it before saying much more. Lou Sander 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a nutshell, WP:BLP requires that a 'Controversy' section talk about the controversy, not how outrageous an editor thinks a subject's comments are. That's not to say that negative controversy doesn't belong, but if there is no citable controversy it doesn't belong. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: This was discussed recently (visible in archive 6) but I think it needs to be brought up again. The current lead photo IMHO needs to be replaced. While it's a photo released on her website, to me anyway it's highly unflattering and makes her look like she's anorexic and is much worse IMHO then the Time photo (which despite her objections, is decent enough, it's quite clear that it's distorted so it doesn't give her an unflaterring look). Her site has several others to choose from . We could take one of the ones with her and someone else and get wikipedia to only show her as the thumbnail... The photo is one of the best in actually showing her and at a decent size (perhaps that's why she looks so unflattering? who knows...) however I personally believe it would still be better to use another photo for the lead. Perhaps this one? . What do you all think?Nil Einne 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the current picture from her Web site. I am not sure why we would want to change it. Crum375 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current one was chosen because it's the one she uses for her headshot thumbnail on her site. It's obviously one she prefers. Of all the pictures from her gallery, it is the one IMO that looks the most professional. Feel free to choose another one if you like, but it has to be justified as FU. I particularly like the one with Al Sharpton ;-) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo again 

message: This recent edit would seem to be major vandalism, described as a minor edit to "link Mel Gibson." What's going on here? Lou Sander 14:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody fixed it. Thanks. Lou Sander 19:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Vandalism 

message: I've requested that the semi-protection be lifted. It's been in place for at least six weeks now. eaolson 14:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: She likes the Grateful Dead?? That is like the biggest hippie band ever! To put things in perspective, I just went into my local headshop the other day and every tshirt either featured Bob Marley, Grateful Dead or Alice In Wonderland. Wtf this is like when I found out Bush listened to the Beatles --insertwackynamehere 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that does seem weird. dposse 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an interview of Ann where she talks about her deadhead experiences. 64.154.26.251 03:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a bit odd; that's why, IMHO, it's notable for the article. Plus, the article itself cites a much more reliable source for her being a fan of the Grateful Dead. So it's not like we're pulling this out of our butts or anything,... Dr. Cash 00:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  grateful dead??! 

message: This person is no better than a right-wing Michael Moore (if politically, she is even on par with him). I've read her hateful, slanderous, completely 1-sided remarks in some of her books, and I'm frankly disgusted.
Zorkael 01:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuck 

message: To support, "In 2006, Coulter refused permission to include a scene featuring herself and Al Franken in a debate in Connecticut in Franken's film, Al Franken: God Spoke," someone felt the need to include the following quote and set it apart thusly:
Not only is this quote highly POV and negative towards Coulter, I question why anything more than the cited reference (let alone a quote, set apart for emphasis) needs to be included.  I am removing the quote but leaving the cited reference.  Lawyer2b 04:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GMTA. A lot of citations are pretty interesting to read, but not worthy of quoting in the article. I thought this one was in that category, but I'm always reluctant to delete stuff, even if it's cruft. Thank you for your boldness. Lou Sander 04:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  What does GMTA mean? :-) Lawyer2b 04:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing POV Quote regarding Coulter Film (non)appearance 

message: In her latest book "Godless," Coulter writes "I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell."  How very 'Christian' of her, wishing amusing horrific pain for the rest of eternity on another of God's children simply because he thinks differently from her.  Hateful woman.  Let's have some more of these extremist quotes for the article. 86.7.208.240 22:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to add material if if you can also support the noteability of the new material.  And "I think it's noteable" isn't a good reason. :)  --ElKevbo 23:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian is she? 

message: Here is a question Coulter answered in an interview she gave to belief.net.
So what do you think really happened? Did God create the world in six days? Did he create each species separately? Did he set a chain of causation in motion? Did he "cause" evolution in the sense that all the species are related to each other but God guided their descent? 
:These are unanswerable questions--except the latter. God did not "cause" evolution because evolution doesn't exist. Thus, for example, He also didn't "cause" unicorns. My faith and reason tell me that God created the world and I'm not particularly interested in the details. I'll find out when I meet my Maker. 
Coulter clearly dismisses biological evolution as a complete explanation of life being on earth, but she doesn't embrace specific creation or intelligent design either.  She claims agnosticism on the subject, but is familiar enough with the issues to write that non-biological evolution (that is, intelligent life arriving from other planets) is a possible agent to explain the history of life on earth (see next question in the interview).
Does anyone else have an opinion on whether these two categories ought to include Coulter?  216.165.199.50 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me she isn't a mainstream person in the development or advocacy of either of these fields. She's a believer, and there are billions of them. She quoted intelligent design only as something in opposition to what she calls the liberals' "religious" belief in evolution. On the other hand, she's a prominent thinker and writer, so whatever she writes has a certain notability just because she writes it. I don't know who else is listed in those categories, what they did to get there, etc. Unless she's got a lot in common with the rest of 'em, I'd leave her out. Lou Sander 18:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with Lou. It's not a focus of her writing. It wouldn't help the category by including her. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Coral Ridge Ministries is practically around the corner from where I live and while I don't see any incompatibility between creationism and evolution I probably disagree with some of their positions.  They do have a lovely church though! Lawyer2b 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocates of intelligent design/Creationists 

message: 71.112.48.244 00:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But she implied that the volume of space dedicated to the Evan & Norman Thomas mistake was calculated to overshadow its partial truthfulness.  In the Time Cloud piece she says she didn't want to reveal her birthdate for security purposes.  Also in the column piece she said had disputed enough claims, establishing the source of the claims as too  unreliable to acknowledge. 216.165.199.50 07:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Franken piece

message: Per WP:BLP, I removed unsourced negative material about an appearance at the University of South Florida. Not only is it unsourced, but neither is it clearly demonstrated to be relevant to Coulter's notability, again per WP:BLP. Lou Sander 12:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it was necessarily negative but it was unsourced.  --ElKevbo 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced negative material 

message: Among other things, the picture of Coulter's first book has been replaced by mein kampf. How distasteful.  I propose that this page, having already been a target of vandalizing, should be locked from anonymous contributions.
Another is "Often compared to Eva Braun, because she's, y'know, the bride of Satan."
That's common knowledge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.193.113 (talk • contribs).
A comment like that, "common knowledge" or not, must be reliably sourced. But I hope you already knew that. - Crockspot 18:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAJOR VANDALIZING 

message: Se made a speech to this school, please don't remove that text.
:If you want to include that incident, you need to clearly demonstrate that it pertains to her notability. One speech out of dozens or hundreds is usually not a notable event. Lou Sander 17:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I thought you were referring to the pie incident.  As for this incident, my guess is that the passage was written by someone who attended the protest, maybe we'll see an article surface somewhere else as it's relatively recent. --kizzle 18:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I'll go back and delete.  Sorry for adding it again, I was about to ask the same question. 131.247.220.160 05:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your general analysis of several of these college student walkouts; most are not noteable.  I completely disagree with an arbitrary limitation of "incidents" in this or any other section or article.  The only criteria for inclusion should be the ones on which Wikipedia is based: NPOV, verifiability, and not original research.  If size in an article becomes an issue then we create more articles.  --ElKevbo 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose we get rid of Philander Smith and leave the others at this time. USF is only notable because it's recent. The Philander phlap is in the past, and wasn't very big at its biggest. It's not so much the size of the article that's the problem, but that some people see fit to include every little protest as a "Notable controversy." It seems to me notable that she inspires opposition on campuses, but that a few examples should serve to illustrate it. Arizona and Connecticut are notable because of the coverage they got. Indiana wasn't ever very notable, and sure isn't notable right now, but maybe it can stay for a while. Lou Sander 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me.   --ElKevbo 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: University of South Florida

message: "The humor of such comments might be tempered by the context that on 1 October, 1910 the Los Angeles Times' offices literally had been bombed; however, although there had been guilty pleas, the actual guilt has been disputed."
< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Coulter&diff=82273129&oldid=82156225 >.
hopiakuta ; [[    { %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  } ;]] 00:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't removed that from the article but I can suggest several possible reasons.  Most important is that I have difficulty seeing where it even fits in with the article as the events are nearly 100 years apart, on opposite sides of the country, and are focused on entirely different newspapers.  Further, the assertion is completely unsourced as its asserted link with Coulter's comments.  I think those are sufficient reasons to remove the statement from this already-long article.  --ElKevbo 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely.  Without a source linking it to Coulter's comments, it is pure editorializing point of view. Lawyer2b 00:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like good thinking to me, too. It's original-research-like for us to link the events. If somebody else makes the connection, it's fine for us to repeat it. Lou Sander 01:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome!  --ElKevbo 03:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do you insist on deleting?: 

message: Hi. I referenced a collection of Ann Coulter's controversial statements and saw that they were deleted.  This was my first edit ever, so I was careful to check that they complied with Wiki requirement (in that each article is well referenced, often have video). 
It seems weird to link to her columns and yet not be balanced by pointing to another well-cited reference that provides commentary on those columns and a number of her television appearances (86 at least). 
The link is here: http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=Ann+coulter 
Sorry if I'm missing something obvious...
--- Greenness
* Other editors removed it twice, thinking it was spam. I edited the description to make it less biased.  It's still there. eaolson 03:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Coulter video collection