Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 12

message: in the link it sayes,anal sex and fisting ,not anal fisting.Someone made a creative reading.--87.65.137.22 20:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberals and sexuality 

message: I removed the google cache link reference from the article  because the link goes to a google error page that doesn't tell us anything. The current page on Delta Gamma's website is , and doesn't mention anything about Ann Coulter. Either (a) she was never a member of the sorority (or "women's fraternity", as many "sororities" are actually called) or (b) they removed her from the noteworthy members page on their website because of all the controversy she's involved in (which is plausible; I know of another unnamed greek letter organization that took similar steps a couple of years back when Bill Clinton was impeached). I left the text there and changed the reference to the 'citation needed' tag. Dr. Cash 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, she definitely is. It used to work, but I guess they removed her from the page. You can still see her in the "From the Pens of Delta Gammas" in this pdf. (Page 29 of the publication, page 16 of the pdf) The cached link used to work, but I guess no longer. Hope this helps. --LV (Dark Mark) 13:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I figured she was a member. Just trying to find references for stuff and clean-up the existing ones. Not surprised that Delta Gamma seems to have 'downplayed' her membership a bit, considering all the controversy she's involved in,... Dr. Cash 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A tiny bit of discussion is also above. Not much help, but thought it wise to have a note to that talk as well. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, you two! Thoroughly and rationally discussed, and I cannot detect your points of view about Ms. Coulter. Lou Sander 12:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delta Gamma Membership

message: Since the publisher and syndicate could have fired Coulter, the insertion by Malber of the word "naturally" - as in "they naturally have defended Coulter's work" or words to that effect - is pure POV assserted as fact.  No way!  Knock it off. ____G_o_o_d____ 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Naturally?" 

message: I restored this heading over the Colleges stuff, the Jersey Girls, and the bombing the Times stuff. Those three have been pretty heavily discussed, and are widely agreed (IMHO) to be past or present controversies (follow the link, please), and to be notable, either because of repeated student uprisings, or especially strong reaction by public figures, TV folk, etc. 
The various topics covered in the next section (I called it "Other criticisms," but maybe there's something better) either do not represent controversies, or are maybe not highly notable, or both. 
All this stuff has been thoroughly discussed up above. Though there may or may not be consensus about it, at least all who read this page can have an understanding of the rationale behind these things. Lou Sander 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable controversies 

message: It looks like several people seem to want to add the following reference from The Raw Story to the 'plagiarism' section:
:Brynaert, Ron. "More examples of 'possible plagiarism' from Coulter's 'Godless' book." The Raw Story. July 10, 2006.
To me, I don't think this particular reference follows the guidelines of reliable sources, as this is a very controversial and politically motivated publication, and relatively new as well, being founded only in 2004. What do others think? Personally, I would much rather see a more conventional source mentioned for the particular area that is being referenced. Dr. Cash 17:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at the part of the article in question, and I don't know enough about The Raw Story to have an opinion one way or another about them. If they are anything higher than absolute garbage, I would NOT be strongly opposed to including them as a reference, on the grounds that we should try to give all opinions fair exposure. But I would BE strongly opposed to putting their rants (or anybody's) into the article itself (or paraphrasing their rants in rant-like words, etc.). Lou Sander 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about Raw Story, but the information in the article looked sound and the WP article on RS makes it seem like a solid news organization. Gamaliel 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm assuming this is in regards to the plagiarism section. If so, it's important to include this to illustrate who made allegations of plagiarism. Raw Story gives evidence to their allegations, so it's not just a "liberal" rant. It also backs up the story from the NY Post so it doesn't look like just one person is making allegations. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Raw Story: Acceptable Reference?

message: The words "Rush", "Limbaugh", and "miniskirt" should be kept paragraphs apart at all times. It sickens me, and makes me desire to end it all.
:I'll admit, those two words used in the same sentence are a bit scary,... hehehe. I definitely do not EVER want to see the REAL Rush Limbaugh in a mini skirt (the goggles really will do nothing there)! But given the context in this case, I think it helps the article to have a comparison to not only Rush Limbaugh but also Michael Moore, as both are particular well known for their highly critical views. Dr. Cash 20:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rush

message: I don't really love "controversial" in this paragraph. Although it DOES describe her, IMHO lead paragraphs in encyclopedias don't include adjectives like that. She's an "author," and that belongs in there. She's a "bestselling author," and that probably belongs in there, just because it focuses a little better on what kind of author she is. (Not "struggling," or "science fiction," or "academic," for example.) "Controversial," etc. comes out throughout the article, but maybe it could be explicitly covered in a mild, factual sentence or two immediately following the "Media career" heading. 
I'd be VERY much in favor of removing "former litigator with the Center For Individual Rights" from this paragraph, too. Reasons: 1) Yes, I know it's an accurate statement, and it isn't unimportant, but it's not what she's noted for rignt now; it's a fairly minor chapter in her past. 2) It IS mentioned later on, in the "Education and early career" section of her Biography. It belongs there, and it's not notable enough also to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Lou Sander 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the lead paragraph again, I'm thinking that the rest of the paragraph adequately conveys the idea of "controversial" -- the stuff about polemecist, Moore, and Limbaugh do it pretty well, IMHO. And I still think the "former litigator" stuff needs to be deleted. Lou Sander 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your second point but not your first.  I think it's been adequately demonstrated that controversy has been foundational to her success and noteability.  Maybe she is intelligent, persuasive, and original enough to have succeeded without courting controversy.  But she has chosen a different path in life and I think it's important to state that in the introduction.  --ElKevbo 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "controversial" is fine. I was the one who added it (probably back) a while ago. It describes her perfectly. Regarding the former litigator stuff, to quote Bread: It don't matter to me. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ElKev and LV -- I'm not saying it isn't warranted or isn't important -- it just seems that it's a bit unsuitable in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article. Most such sentences are dry and factual, no matter how heroic, evil, or controversial the subject. They just say "AAA is a B, C, and D." Babe Ruth's first sentence doesn't mention home runs, for example. Also look at Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh, and even Adolph Hitler. The first sentence is short and limited to basic facts. Then the other stuff is brought in. In fact, the Michael Moore lead paragraph might be a good model for the Ann Coulter one. Lou Sander 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see your point.  I would understand if you or someone else removed the adjective for the sake of consistency with other articles.  I still don't agree with your point but you've provided clear evidence that I am in the minority (I would probably support changes in those other articles but I am positive that such change would not be consistent with the consensus of other editors).  --ElKevbo 22:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an article about somebody even more polemical than Ann Coulter, and every bit as well-known. I kind of like the way the lead sentence just presents the facts as they apply today. (No historical stuff about jobs held many years ago, for example.) No adjectives except where absolutely necessary. The sentences immediately after the lead maintain a similar tone and content. Who is this controversial person? CLICK HERE to find out. Lou Sander 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead paragraph 

message: There is a section on this in the Ann Coulter article. It is about as long as the combined sections on her Books and Columns(!). It consists of six quotations collected from various places, complete with eleven references and some attempts to put some of the quotes into the immediate context of the times and places they were made. I'm sure nobody did it on purpose, but this section appears to have been put into the article with the specific intent of defaming the author by painting her as a "racist" and a "bigot." There is no other reason for it to exist, or for it to be so huge. If it is a "perfect example" of anything, IMHO, it is a perfect example of how an encyclopedia can advance a non-neutral point of view while appearing to "follow the rules." Unintentionally, of course. Lou Sander 19:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, to see much more neutral coverage of a person who, unlike Ann Coulter, has "racist" and "bigoted" themes as key aspects of his political philosophy, see Louis Farrakhan and anti-semitism. Note the lengthy discussions of his controversial words. Also note how some of them are notable due to unanimous censure by the U.S. Senate, as opposed to the personal opinions of a few encyclopedia editors. Lou Sander 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything in that section that is untrue? No, there is not (which means, by definition, it is not defamation). Then why does it make Ann Coulter look like a racist? Because she has said plenty of racist, bigotted things. So if that section of the article doesn't portray her in a good light, then she has no one to blame for htis but herself. By your own logic, it's defamation to collect all her anti-islam quotes in a single place.  Raul654 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Raul.  Neutrality is not born from simple positive/negative 1:1 ratio but from representativeness and accurate context. --kizzle 05:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, If there is a racist side to someone (not saying that there is) it needs to be mentioned, by your logic Lou, quoting any statement a person has made which casts a negative light upon him/her is not done, and that simply is wrong! If she has such views about Musims it should thus be mentioned, otherwise do we not lose neutrality?Pubuman 15:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coulter on Arabs and Muslims

message: About 50 words in her "Education and early legal career" are devoted to describing this organization:
She later became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, D.C., a nonprofit conservative/libertarian public interest law firm dedicated (according to its website) "to the defense of individual liberties against the increasingly aggressive and unchecked authority of federal and state governments" by means of "aggresive litigation and publicity."
I propose to improve the article by putting a period after the "Center for Individual Rights" link, deleting the rest of the paragraph, and moving some of the CIR material to the CIR article. 
My justification is to shorten the Coulter article by moving some not-highly-notable details elsewhere, where they can be accessed with a click of the mouse. Lou Sander 02:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. We probably don't need much in this article for the Center for Individual Rights anyway, especially if there's an existing article for that. Links work fine. Dr. Cash 02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been here for two days without objection. I think it is pretty non-controversial. I'm making the change. (Actually, the CIR article already has all the stuff that's in this sentence, except for some things that are no longer on their web site, which was the source for it.) Lou Sander 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Cash, as far as I know the CIR material was added some weeks ago when the intro included the claim that Coulter was a civil rights advocate, by way of a source.  As can be seen, the article has changed a great deal in that short time.  Kasreyn 04:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Center for Individual Rights (CIR) 

message: This just popped up 5 minutes ago on AOL (undated, but this is the first I've seen it). Some sort of AOL book person did a three-page interview with Ann Coulter. It also has an unflattering picture. For those who might be interested, CLICK HERE Lou Sander 06:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  That was a great interview.  Maybe it's just my crush, but I didn't think the picture was unflattering.  Lawyer2b 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Very Recent Interview 

message: This article, and the discussion is a long, long way from being neutral.  It's almost impossible to see an unbiased and objective profile of Ann Coulter in these pages.  Someone needs to move all the partisan stuff to the controversies section, and try to balance out both sides.Landroo 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a rewrite 

message: The lead paragraph is not as smooth as it could be. Right now it says:Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is a conservative American syndicated columnist, author, attorney, and conservative pundit who frequently appears on national television and radio, and who often speaks on college campuses and at other events.Staff Writer. "I love to pick fights with liberals." The Daily Telegraph. July 7, 2002. Retrieved on July 10, 2006. As a political pundit and self-described polemicist,Aloi, Daniel. "Conservative pundit Ann Coulter '84 to speak May 7." Cornell University Chronicle. April 17, 2006. Retrieved on July 10, 2006. she has been referred to as "the Republican Michael Moore," and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt."Wood, Gaby. "Lethally blonde." Guardian. June 11, 2006. Retrieved on July 11, 2006.
I propose to rewrite it as follows:Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American author, columnist, and pundit. She frequently appears on television, radio, and at public and private gatherings.Staff Writer. "I love to pick fights with liberals." The Daily Telegraph. July 7, 2002. Retrieved on July 10, 2006. Known for her polemical style and conservative views, she has been described as "the Republican Michael Moore," and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt."Wood, Gaby. "Lethally blonde." Guardian. June 11, 2006. Retrieved on July 11, 2006.IMHO this is an improvement because it's shorter and more direct, especially in the first sentence. The words syndicated, attorney, colleges, and national are no longer in the lead, but they are well-covered later in the article. The Moore and Limbaugh stuff isn't highly encyclopedic, but it sums her up very nicely, IMHO. Lou Sander 15:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with an earlier editor who stated that "Rush," "Limbaugh," and "miniskirt" should never be in the same sentence, I think your rewrite is fine.  The only slight hesitation I have is in the removal of "lawyer."  If she doesn't define herself with that label, isn't viewed that way by others, and is not active in the profession then I see no problem with removing it for the sake of brevity.  --ElKevbo 19:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two days mentioned here, and no objections. It seems pretty non-controversial, too. I'm going to make the change. Lou Sander 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Paragraph 

message: The heading "Biography" is misnamed, because it really only covers her life before her media career. The subheading "Education and early legal career" is descriptive, but it's kind of out of place under the not-so-descriptive "Biography" heading. 
In looking around for a better way to head this material, I looked at several articles, including the one on Michael Moore. His life before he became famous is covered under the heading "Early life," and it weaves very well into the article. I think it would also do so here. 
In the Ann Coulter article, I propose to rename the "Biography" heading as "Early life," and to delete the subheading "Education and early career." I believe that doing so will improve the flow of the article, especially its headings. Lou Sander 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been here for two days, with no objections posted. It also seems pretty non-controversial. I shall make the change. Lou Sander 01:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Biography," etc.  

message: I found this bit on the FAIR website:
*Kurtz's account of a 1997 debate on MSNBC's NewsChat show (10/11/97), when Coulter was a paid MSNBC contributor. According to Kurtz (Washington Post, 10/16/98), "Coulter was debating a disabled Vietnam vet when she snapped: 'People like you caused us to lose that war.' (She says she didn't know the guest, appearing by satellite, was disabled.) That ended her MSNBC career." 
It's notable because I always assumed she was deliberately dissing a disabled vet. As if to say she blamed disabled Vietnam veterans for losing the war - as opposed to blaming "people who express opinions like that" (whatever that was would be interesting to know, too). 
A Wikipedia article about a controversial person is always better when the views of supporters (or fans) are balanced with the views of critics. Readers want to know WHY supporters endorse a public figure or their ideas - as well as why critics condemn them or their ideas. --Uncle Ed 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is precisely why we must include examples of what they have done to earn such praise or criticism; in Ann Coulter's case, the things of which we must provide examples are her polemics, rants, and pithy one-liners.  Kasreyn 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO.  What we must provide are sources that claim those "polemics, rants, and pithy one-liners" are somehow noteable.  By selecting our own quotes without providing evidence of their noteability, you only insert your POV into the article by assuming the quotes are noteable.  --ElKevbo 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Period. Dot. Bingo. We need to show that the specific remarks are notable. We need to explain their signifigance, not just say "Hey, see what she said here??" Context is key. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That fact that that comment ended her tenure on MSNBC makes it, on its face, relavant for inclusion in this article. Raul654 17:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why losing a job or assignment is notable at all, unless you're Dan Rather, with a 15-year tenure as a top-ten journalist. There are four (4) such incidents, covered at length, in this article, complete with quotations from each side. Other than in the Ann Coulter article, I don't recall seeing anything like that in this or any encyclopedia. (See Terrell Owens) Lou Sander 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To use your own example: "He also caused considerable controversy with a comment to the effect that he "wasn't the guy who got tired in the Super Bowl," the remark apparently directed at Donovan McNabb" - Owens shot off his mouth, and lost his job. Coulter shot off her mouth, lost her job, and it all belongs in this article, even by your own example. Raul654 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More trouble with her mouth

message: I am not an Ann Coulter supporter, but isn't there a policy of neutrality?  Most of what we see here is the latest dig against her. There's got to be a higher standard than that.
:Please point out these "digs" at her.  I look at the article and mostly what I see is Coulter's own mouth getting her in trouble.  Kasreyn 06:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly what I see along these lines is editorial glee over the insertion of polemical Coulter quotes, and a lot of "look what this awful person said now." (There's also a lot of "see Ann get fired.") Gleeful editors defend it on various grounds, but no other encyclopedia, and not even this encyclopedia, with the exception of its treatment of Coulter, does anything like it. Lou Sander 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree only that it isn't happening anywhere else on liberalpediawikipedia.  Please see Bill O'Reilly controversies for another example. Lawyer2b 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editiorial glee?  Please WP:AGF.  I'm not on a mission to destroy Coulter, nor am I jealous of Coulter, nor am I secretly in love with Coulter (which also has been accused of me), nor am I "bristling at having my atheistic outlook held up for display and ridicule."  It's truly sad that you Lou, along with others here, resort to assuming we're all out to get Coulter when people disagree with you.  Note that I don't go claiming you have a crush on Coulter (even though you admitted it) or that she's the only (slightly) attractive conservative out there, or that you just like Coulter because conservatism today is falling apart due to it being hi-jacked by extremists and she makes you proud to be a conservative, or any other attempts to attack your motivations rather than your arguments when you insert such obvious peacock terms as "insightful and hard-hitting commentary". I'm sick and tired of such comments as "Editorial glee" and "Bristle at having their atheistic outlook" because they stifle productive discussions by assuming motivations on the part of their co-editors that truly aren't there. --kizzle 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: kizzle: 1) I try very hard to assume good faith, and I don't think that anything I've posted shows that I don't. Example: In "Coulter on Arabs & Muslims" (above), I said "appears" and "unintentionally" to emphasize that I'm not throwing stones. Maybe I should have left them out. 2) somebody else said the "atheistic," stuff, not me. 3) thanks for your opinions on conservatism, etc. 4) I don't edit much for substance. But somebody had put "sarcastic" and "abrasive" in the lead (which IMHO is a bad place for colored words like that), and I felt the need to add some balance. I think the whole sentence is gone now, which is a big improvement. 5) I call "editorial glee" as I see it. It seems as though there's delight on this page when another not-highly-notable Coulter quote, firing, etc. gets into the article. 6) IMHO, there is quite a bit of unsuitable material in this article. When I carefully specify what it is and why I think it doesn't belong, not many respond to my reasons. Those who do say stuff like "she said it, didn't she?," and defend its truth. The truth is not an issue. Whether this stuff belongs in an encyclopedia, presented as it is, is the issue, IMHO. Lou Sander 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Assuming that your co-editors take "editorial glee" in quoting Coulter is lacking WP:AGF. 2) True, this message wasn't directed solely towards you. 3) Those aren't my opinions on conservatism, I was trying to come up with some juicy ad hominems to demonstrate my point. 4) Agreed.  5) It's both wrong and lacking WP:AGF to assume that because someone wants to add a Coulter quote, that they take pleasure in doing so in order to make Coulter look as bad as possible.  This is the crux of the argument of my previous post. 6) Debates over encyclopedic appropriateness and selection of suitable material are commonplace, but accusing people of personal motivations to "get" Coulter because they disagree with you is wrong.  I couldn't have said it better myself, Whether this stuff belongs in an encyclopedia, presented as it is, is the issue, and not the suspected motivations ("editorial glee") of your co-editors. Once again, I'm not out to get Coulter, I'm not jealous of Coulter, I don't have a secret crush on Coulter, I'm not intimidated by Coulter's arguments and thus want to make her look bad, I just think that this article would be better served by the inclusion of quotations worked into the prose of the article to demonstrate both her views and act as samples of her writing style. --kizzle 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: kizzle: 1) I'm not assuming. I remember one editor saying "if it walks like a duck..." in some sort of gleeful context, and others that I can't cite right now. I will watch carefully for glee or its lack in the future. If I don't see any, I won't mention any. 2) OK. 3) On re-reading, I see it. 4) GMTA. 5) OK, but when I make specific arguments for removing some of this stuff, they are often answered with straw men or other non-sequiturs. Maybe I'm not being clear enough. 6) While I believe I see a certain non-neutrality in this article, and while I think that for some reason many are blind to it, I try hard to avoid accusing anybody of anything, and I believe I succeed. If anybody feels accused by me, let me know and I'll apologize. Lou Sander 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, I think I just took offense, as one of the people who generally disagree with you on this page, that you assumed that I, along with other people who disagree with you, somehow want to make Coulter look bad just because I think paragraphized quotes should stay in rather than for the reasons I state. Lets continue to work together (and disagree) on helping make this article better without assuming ill intent on either party.  Of course, I will abandon any of my arguments and praise your awesome intellect and debating skills for backstage passes to Rusted Root ;) --kizzle 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Lou, perhaps people are reading too much into it...  the anon did not say whether these supposed "digs" were occurring on the article page or the talk page, so I assumed the anon meant actual instances of failure to maintain NPOV in the main article itself, which I don't see.  It goes without mention that this talk page includes a lot of POV material from both sides (why, I seem to recall Lawyer2b mentioning here his desire to marry her ;).  As long as such material remains 1.) on the talk page and 2.) under control so it doesn't disrupt constructive discussion, I don't see how it's a problem.  The anon still hasn't replied as to what these "digs" are in the main article, and I'm beginning to think that's because they're unable to actually prove it.  Cheers, Kasreyn 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of "More trouble with her mouth" (above) there are some examples of Wikipedia descriptions of people losing their jobs. Read them and see if you see any special treatment of Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 04:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of anyone claiming that the write-up on the Arizona firing is POV.  I haven't even heard you say that.  What I have heard people say is that reporting on such firings is not notable, or that NPOV Undue Weight is violated thereby.  To my mind, this does not equate to a "dig".  Kasreyn 04:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Needed 

message: A couple of anons have removed the following paragraph from the referenced section, citing "POV," but not explaining themselves. IMHO, it does not express any editorial point of view. It is a fair, properly sourced summary of some of the author's prior writings about factual inaccuracy, and it provides context and balance to the other material on the subject. It includes links to Wikipedia articles about the specific assertions she makes (except for the one on anorexia), so readers can draw their own conclusions about them (and about their citation here). 
Most or all of the other Coulter quotes in the article are notable in great part because of their shocking nature (e.g., the Philander Smith rat poison joke). This one is a serious comment about a serious matter:In Coulter’s book Slander, she wrote that "Books that become publishing scandals by virtue of phony research, invented facts, or apocryphal stories invariably grind political axes for the left. There may be publishing frauds that are apolitical, but it’s hard to think of a single hoax book written by a conservative." She goes on to discuss discredited books by highly praised liberal authors Rigoberta Menchu, whose award-winning autobiography was to a great extent an invention; Michael A. Bellesiles, whose anti-gun book Arming America was found to be based on fraudulent research; James Hatfield, whose Fortunate Son was recalled by St. Martin's Press; and Naomi Wolf, whose book The Beauty Myth claimed 150,000 annual deaths from anorexia, when the actual figure is about a hundred.Coulter, Ann. "Slander." 2002, Crown Forum Publishing. pp. 108-113.I propose to put it back in, prefaced by the words "In 2002, Coulter herself wrote on the topic of factual inaccuracy," and less the part about Naomi Wolf and anorexia. Lou Sander 13:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, Lou.  At least someone here is actually reading her books!  :-)  Lawyer2b 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With no objections here in almost two weeks, I made the change. Lou Sander 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter on "Plagiarism and factual inaccuracy" 

message: Coulter's ideas and arguments are often overshadowed by her over-the-top style, which is definitely one of her trademarks. To those who don't read her work, or who read it and react emotionally to it, her style is her only trademark. (It is as though Stephen Hawking had the coprolalia variety of Tourette's Syndrome -- it might be hard not to focus on his swearing.)
I'm thinking that we need a specific section on "Polemical style," where it can be discussed, where outside writings about it can be cited, etc. Right now, the discussion of her style is scattered throughout the article and, IMHO, often overshadows the substantive content of one section or another. The proposed section would allow a lot of this to be concentrated in one place.
I think the section should be either before or after "Religious views."  Lou Sander 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can one simply think that Coulter's trademark is not presenting meaningful arguments or does that belief necessarily imply an emotional reaction or lack of reading if we disagree? Lou, if you do not think that Al Franken has a trademark of worthwhile ideas and arguments, does that necessarily mean that you haven't read it or that you just reacted emotionally to it rather than simply disagreeing with it? BTW I'm all for a Polemical Style section, just as long as we watch the peacock and weasel terms. --kizzle 02:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemical Style 

message: I have twice removed the following from the intro:
:"...and perhaps most famously as an "inconvenient bitch" by chat show host David Letterman. "
First, there is nothing supporting the phrase "most famously" in the cited source.  Second, it's clear from the video that Letterman used the phrase "Inconvenient Bitch" not so much as a direct reference to Coulter (as in "She is an inconvenient bitch") but as a play on the title of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."  To characterize it otherwise is misleading and dishonest.  Finally, I don't think it really adds anything to the intro except length, something of which the intro certainly doesn't need more.  --ElKevbo 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was the "Inconvenient Bitch" then if not Coulter? Yes I realize it's referring to the Gore movie but you're saying he wasn't referring to Coulter? --kizzle 03:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly he was referring to Coulter.  But it's also clear that the phrase was selected as a play on the Gore movie and not necessarily because Letterman truly feels that Coulter is, indeed, and inconvenient bitch.  He's a comedian paid to make jokes and, I would argue, not particularly well known for the depth of his political or historical knowledge other than that necessary for his comedy.  That someone would argue that a joke made in Letterman's Late Show monologue belongs in the introduction of an encyclopedic biography beggars belief.  --ElKevbo 03:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it doesn't belong in the article, I just think he did mean it, especially given his choice words to Bill O'Reilly. --kizzle 05:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: kizzle: Inserting the Letterman quote is done with what I would call "editorial glee." It's not notable, it is demeaning to the subject of the article, editors are persistent about inserting it, and they insert it in the lead section of the article, where it absolutely doesn't belong. Q.E.D. Lou Sander 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could be right, but I try to not guess my fellow co-editors motivations on the matter and simply discuss or revert if I disagree. For instance, I have advocated including information that puts Coulter in a negative light, I have been quite persistent about it, and while I think it might be notable, you do not.  Does that make my actions fueled by "editorial glee"?  My point was not that you were wrong, but to indulge ourselves in guessing motivations on the part of co-editors rather than the merits of their arguments (of which there exists absolutely none in the people who are trying to insert the Letterman quote in the beginning) leads us down a dark road. Is it fair for me to assume everytime we disagree that it's because you have a crush on Coulter?  Don't play that game and just revert or state your grievance on this page. --kizzle 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't usually revert. I DO state reasoned grievances, as above. I don't question the motivations of editors, I just see them gleefully doing, IMHO, edits that have no merit (=ain't no valid arguments for 'em). I told you I'd report the next time I saw glee, and I did it. I don't play games, and I don't have crushes. Lou Sander 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance, I have advocated including information (Arab section) that puts Coulter in a negative light, I have been quite persistent about it, and while I think it might be notable, you do not.  Does that make my actions fueled by "editorial glee"?    Does someone who is insistent on putting in information that is negative necessarily take pleasure in doing so?  I just don't think such observations on editor's motivations for their editors should even be a factor here.  And btw, I don't think you have a crush, I was being hypothetical. --kizzle 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Blumby keeps reinserting it. On the other hand, I am not positive any of those quotes are notable enough to include in the intro. They give it a nice flair, but I'm not 100 percent satisfied with them. Oh well. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LV: I'm not excited about those quotes, either. They would fit well into the "Polemical style" section, proposed immediately above. Lou Sander 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My $0.02:  I was never satisfied with the removal of the simple, one-word description "controversial" which used to be in the intro.  It was simpler and far more NPOV than some of the stuff we have now, and if I remember correctly had pretty firm consensus.  Even Coulter's supporters are willing to admit that she is indeed controversial, and sources describing her as such are dime a dozen.  I say, kill off the Letterman quote, kill off the hyperbolic "Rush in a miniskirt", and go with a more NPOV "Coulter, a self-described polemecist (source) has been described as controversial (source)" etc.  Kasreyn 03:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I very strongly believe that encyclopedias do not use words like "controversial" in the lead paragraphs of articles about living human beings. I also believe that such words are infrequently, and very judiciously, used lower down in the body. If others believe differently, it would be very helpful to have some references to other articles. IMHO, the article on Michael Moore has a suitable introductory section. So do Rush Limbaugh, Malcolm X, and Maureen Dowd. In Dowd, note the section on "Writing style." Lou Sander 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My 2 cents: I'd much rather have "controversial" applied to both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter than to neither.  Why, Lou, do you believe "controversial" does not belong in the lead paras of an encyclopedia entry? --kizzle 04:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more than a belief. It is, in my experience, a fact. The examples of controversial people other than Ann Coulter are typical examples of how controversial people are handled. If I am mistaken, I will be happy to be shown some examples. I can't find any, but some might possibly exist. Lou Sander 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is a "fact" that "controversial" does not belong in the lead paras of an encyclopedia entry?  That seems to me to fall under the classification of a belief or judgment rather than a statement of fact.  I agree you've found a discrepancy between Ann Coulter being described as "controversial" while Moore is not.  What you haven't refuted is why they shouldn't both be addressed as "controversial". --kizzle 06:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like having "controversial" in the lead. Simple, accurate, verifiable. ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So according to your logic, saying Coulter is "controversial" is tantamount to "vandal-like words into articles, or to spray paint naughty words in schoolyards, or to shout insults at people in special education classes"?  I think not.  I must ask again for you to provide a justification beyond that of "It just isn't done", as it is almost begging the question at this point.  I'm all for describing Michael Moore, Al Franken, Malcolm X (as long as it was "controversial at the time", cause I don't think he's creates too much controversy these days) among others as controversial... while I didn't like Farenheit 9/11, I like Michael Moore as a person and I'll still describe him as controversial.  Contrary to your assertion, it is, as editors of this article, what we would like to place in this article.  Due to the way Wikipedia works, each page is written by a different group of editors, and thus uniformity is not its strong suit.  It could be that there was never a discussion on Michael Moore about the word "controversial" in the lead, or that we think that their discussion's conclusion was wrong.  Even still, a concensus on Michael Moore does not equate a concensus on Ann Coulter, which is why WikiProjects exist.  Maybe you would like to start a WikiProject about the word "controversial" and whether it should be outlawed from any article's introductory paragraphs in order to establish such a precedent of uniformity that you may rely upon, but until then, citing other pages runs into the problem of what I just proposed: given the disparity, why can't we make both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter say "controversial" in the lead? I'm sorry I must ask this again, but so far besides an incorrect use of precedent, you haven't stated why on this page (as well as possibly on the other pages you cited) it shouldn't be used in the lead paragraphs. As LV said, It's "simple, accurate, and verifiable." --kizzle 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article looks like a hit piece. I can't find another. Lou Sander 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to address any specific points I made? Most importantly, why both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter shouldn't be described as "controversial" in the lead? --kizzle 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Lou, I can't agree with this.  You are equating good-faith POV disputes to bad-faith vandalism.  Additionally, the article on Jerry Springer does not appear to be the bastion of clinicality you seem to think it is; it describes his show as a "tabloid talk show" in the very intro, a description that (while I feel is accurate) is certainly no less subjective than "controversial".  Kasreyn 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is why I prefer "controversial"; a lot more notable people have called Coulter "controversial" than have called her an "inconvenient bitch"; plus, the "bitch" quote is taken out of context from a joke; "controversial" is not.  Kasreyn 22:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Kiz and others, there isn't enough time to answer all the minor arguments about "controversial" and the other stuff. I assume the good intent of everyone, and this article reads like a hit piece. I've looked at articles for many other controversial people, and I don't see that tone there. I've even provided links and a description of the tone. And yes, anyone can put anything they want into Wikipedia. And yes, a group of people can decide to put any tone they want into an article. I just don't find the tone of this article anywhere else in Wikipedia. As a mother once said when looking at a parade, "Look! Everyone's out of step but my son John." She's entitled to her opinion, of course. Lou Sander 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate that given the disparity you rightly pointed out, that you never had time to address the "minor argument" as to why both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter could have "controversial" in their intro paragraphs. --kizzle 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Letterman comment

message: Before I add it, I wanted to check: is her very brief phone-in on The Adam Corolla show worth any notation? Here's the URL for additional information: http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/08/adam-carolla-hangs-up-on-coulter/ Rsm99833 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, funny but probably not notable IMHO :) --kizzle 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief Apperance on Adam Corrolla

message: Okay, so I've been gone for a little while doing my own thing, and today is the first day I've had a chance to look at this article in a long time.  I have to say, it looks SO much better than it did just a week ago.  It's not necessarily 100% perfect, but hey, how many wiki articles are?  I want to applaud all of the editors who made good changes after heavily discussing them on the talk page.  I just think you all deserve a pat on the back. Stanselmdoc 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How dare you sir force your POV on us!! Just kidding...Thanks :) --kizzle 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What this article looks like now

message: I archived all sections with comments older than two weeks.  Please feel free to move sections back into the active discussion if I accidentally archived it and you wish to resume the discussion.  --ElKevbo 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 11 created

message: ... not saying it should go in... discuss. btw, is this the type of "insightful and hard-hitting commentary" that you were referring to, Lou? --kizzle 20:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One wonders if she likes the taste of her own foot, because it forever seems to be placed squarely in her mouth. Raul654 20:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeebus! Where does she pull some of this stuff from? Dr. Cash 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe she dreams it up sipping on a pina colada on a yacht in the Caribbean or a private jet flight to her house in Palm Beach?  Who cares?  It works by pissing off liberals something fierce!  More!  More!  Hoo-rah! Lawyer2b 01:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, thank you for wiki-linking all those terms, lawyer, I had no idea what a private jet or a yacht or even a pina colada were!  I'm going to go down to the bar tonight for some research on pina coladas, I'll report back with my findings ;) --kizzle 04:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could say, "I'm going to do some research on my yacht or private jet," but I would be lying.  (sigh) Lawyer2b 23:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I care because comments like that dumb down our country. --kizzle 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks with strong points of view about the subjects of encyclopedia articles, like judges with strong points of view about cases before them, might want to consider recusing themselves from working on those articles/cases. Just a thought. Lou Sander 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can all handle ourselves, yourself included. --kizzle 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If your thinking is correct, how is it that fisting and anal sex are cited as the examples of Coulter's opposition to the liberal point of view? (And they're properly cited, of course. Or maybe they aren't.) Res ipsa loquitur. Lou Sander 06:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because other editors may have different ideas as to what should be included that may stem from something other than strong points of view, such as varying opinions on notability, due weight, etc. that may not have to do with strong feelings for Coulter.  Cash, who stated "Jeebus!" above was the one initially trying to remove the Arab section, is he unfit to edit this page?  Once again, you might want to try spending less time determining the intentions of your co-editors and more time on suggesting changes. If you do, I'm sure you'll find agreement to your proposed change. No comment on my original question? --kizzle 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your original question is, IMHO, unworthy of comment. Lou Sander 11:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pity.  It was a serious question. --kizzle 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kizz, I would agree with Lou because it seemed to me that your original question was obviously rhetorical. Lawyer2b 23:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to re-affirm the seriousness of my initial question.  I don't see the difference between my example and "camel jockey" and "It would be better if women didn't vote" arguments or calling the 9/11 widows "harpies" or where any of these examples consist of insightful commentary... call me a blind liberal I guess... :) --kizzle 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ugh 

message: Raw Story, key plagiarism accuser of Ann Coulter (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Associated_Press_reports_on_Coulter_plagiarism_0708.html), uses language eerily similar to WBAL's 'previously published story'. By their own standards, Raw Story has plagiarised WBAL's story. Judge for yourself: 
WBAL: Al-Maliki was interrupted briefly by a shouting demonstrator wearing a pink T-shirt that read, "Troops Home Now." The young woman was lifted from her seat by officers and carried out of the House visitor's gallery, while al-Maliki paused and grimaced in irritation. 
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/9578227/detail.html 
Raw Story: As Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki spoke to the U.S. Congress, he was interrupted by an anti-war protester. The protester, a woman wearing a pink shirt that read, "troops home now," was quickly restrained and removed from the room. 
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Protester_disrupts_Iraqi_PM_address_to_0726.html 
Here is the timeline - according top their own standard, Raw Story has plagiarised WBAL's story: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=%28gallery+AND+pink%29+AND+%28%22raw+story%22+OR+wbal%29
(most recent stories appear on the top of the list - which means WBAL published first)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by  84.146.234.34 (talk • contribs)  20:46, 26 July 2006
:And this excuses Coulter if she plagiarises how? Okay, so even if we say that what you say is true, does that make it okay for Coulter as well? --LV (Dark Mark) 21:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, that's way more words that are different than Coulter's passages, second of all, LV's point. Third of all, I don't believe any of them (Coulter or RawStory) are examples of plagiarism. --kizzle 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The president of her syndicator had a very astute point when he said something to the effect that there are only a certain amount of ways to rewrite a short sentence.  I think plagiarism as an offense originated with the stealing of ideas, not that someone used the same 7 words as someone else to describe a  cross submerged in a bucket of piss. Lawyer2b 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Coulter's comments regarding publishing scandals being a left-of-center phenomenon are indeed irrelevant to the question as to whether she did plagiarize.  They are included simply as Coulter's notable thoughts on publishing scandals which many thought this was. Lawyer2b 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Coulter's opinion on factual inaccuracies in published books is notable, especially in a section regarding her books' supposed factual inaccuracies.  I also disagree that the section is too long.  That there are 50% more words defending Coulter alludes more to the lack of detail the article provides to the charges against her.  As a huge Coulter fan, I personally think the substance of the plagiarism charges should be expanded in the article.  Why don't you add some specific examples?  :-) Lawyer2b 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: Those that want it included:
#
#
#
Those that don't want it included:
#--kizzle 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information is true (you have the video to prove it), relevant (it certainly belongs under controversies), and referenced (you have the videos, again), you have to have good reasons to remove it -- you can't call it "gossip" if you have the video showing she said what is alleged. --Asbl 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Because it happened" and "Because it's true" doesn't justify inclusion in an encyclopaedia.  You still haven't provided a rationale for this section.--WilliamThweatt 02:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot "because it's relevant". What other reasons are needed to include anything? Please note that WP:NOT does not state that "Wikipedia is not a collection of facts". --Asbl 02:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply saying "because it's relevant" doesn't make it relevant.  I'm still waiting for your rationale. And, I was paraphrasing WP:NOT, but if you insist on a direct quote: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."--WilliamThweatt 03:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What about "Because I feel it should be in the article?" That seems to be a common rationale, though IMHO an invalid one. Lou Sander 02:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You're forgetting notability. There's a vague line between notable and random, I think Arab section is quite notable, especially given the press reaction to the "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" per Cash's explanation above a few sections, but the Bill Clinton part is just not notable, at least IMHO it's too new to gauge notability, and only the blogs really picked up on it anyways (besides Hardball).  If we're still talking about it a few weeks from now like the Jersey Girls thing, then we'll re-visit the issue. --kizzle 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about that paragon of reasons for inclusion, "Because I feel it should be in the article, and in addition I feel it's notable, and I have a citation for it, and it certainly wouldn't be on/in _______________ if it weren't notable. Controversial, too. And I feel very strongly" about it." Lou Sander 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I feel it should be in the article" is a straw man, issues of notability, citation are indeed criteria of inclusion in pages.  Precedents on other pages, as we've discussed before, are not valid arguments.  Whether a fact is controversial is irrelevant as well.  As for if you "feel very strongly about it, if you have solid reasons to back up your argument besides just a simple assertation, then that's fine... or were you using a straw man again? --kizzle 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To include it shows such a pitiful understanding of what belongs in an encyclopedia that it embarrasses Wikipedia in the eyes of the world. (And yes, out of six billion people in that world, it's always possible to find a few who disagree. You can even find one or two officials of the company who feel it belongs.) Such a section not only shows bad judgment and tone deafness on the part of those who would put it in, but demonstrates an unmistakeable negative point of view in the article. There is more, but it is unproductive to say it in front of those who will reflexively disagree with it. Lou Sander 12:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "The fact that she repeats her baseless allegations against Bill Clinton certainy makes it notable."  Repetition of a phrase is a weak criteria for establishing notability.  The Bill Clinton part is just not notable, at least IMHO it's too new to gauge notability, and only the blogs really picked up on it anyways (besides Hardball).  If we're still talking about it a few weeks from now like the Jersey Girls thing, then we'll re-visit the issue. --kizzle 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That would all be well and good...if the section in question had anything to do with impeachment.--WilliamThweatt 14:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She's still blabbing about Clinton on talk shows. Perhaps it would be better to advise her that the topic is not notable. Gzuckier 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A person's "blabs" are not suitable things to put in an encyclopedia article about the person. That's kind of obvious, but I guess it needs to be pointed out from time to time. Lou Sander 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not that obvious.  Clinton's "blab" of "It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is" will be forever remembered and is part of understanding when people refer to a "Clintonian" definition of something.  It's not that "blabs" are unwelcome in an encyclopedia, it's that they generally are not notable, but there are some exceptions, of which the appropriateness of these exceptions in an encyclopedia is directly correlated to the amount of news cycles and popular references they receive beyond the original mention. I hope that clears things up. --kizzle 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't that particular "blab" uttered during his deposition and while under oath?  Or am I misremembering it...?  It seems that a comment or allegation made under oath is by many measures "automatically" more noteable than a similar comment or allegation made under different circumstances.  It's certainly not an ironclad rule but it makes some sense to me.  --ElKevbo 21:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't misremembering it... I guess it depends on what the word "blab" means ;) Still, while I agree quotes under oath are "automatically" more notable, the direct correlation stated above still applies, along with my point that just because something is said as an aside (definition of "blab" I assume) it doesn't disqualify itself from inclusion in an encyclopedia, but must be weighed. --kizzle 00:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So, we're talking about the Bill Clinton section of the "Notable Controversies" section, right?  That I can understand removing.  But it would help if there was clarification at the top of this Talk section.  The whole time reading I was thinking about the Paula Jones controversy (which absolutely deserves to stay in).  Her talk against Clinton is definitely frequent and substantial (it's what helped to launch her career), but couldn't there just be a mention of her disgust of him somewhere else in the article?  Like, under the PJ section?Stanselmdoc 17:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about the "latent homosexual" charges, I'd much rather wait a few weeks and see if the phrase was covered for more than one news cycle, like the rest of the notable controversies. --kizzle 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Clinton section 

message: Given that there have been seven distinct occasions, the word "occasional" sounds like were making excuses for her. I dont want to start another war over this word, so let me just say that I will:
#Support if any other editor would make an argument to remove the word "occasional"
#Insist on the word's removal once the number of droped syndications reaches 10.
--Asbl 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, two of the examples listed are not drops in syndication.  The USA Today and National Review gigs were not examples of syndicated work.  Second, ignoring that, the Shreveport Times did not drop her -- it only says they were considering it.  Thirdly, and perhaps most important is the consideration of time.  These six drops happened over a course of 5 years.  While four happened since late 2005, as a group (which you really seem to like viewing them as) she's averaged once per year.  In my book, that's occasional.  Lawyer2b 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Occasional drops in syndication" sounds like it describes the evidence accurately. I like it, with the exceptions noted.—ptk★fgs 21:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Occasional drops in syndication"

message: Before we get into an edit war here, saying that "Ann Coulter has been identified as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the country" and making the reader go into the footnote to find who actually identified her is wrong.  That's quite a bold statement, and I'm fine with including it, lets just attribute it to who actually identified her in the lead rather than some floating head.  On a side note, Lou, I take offense to your edit summary "rvv" calling my re-insertion of mention of Posner into the lead as vandalism.  We may disagree strongly on issues, but it doesn't mean you have to resort to calling my edits vandalism. --kizzle 22:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed this quote from the intro of the article. It is clearly the POV of one person and does not fall within wikipedia's NPOV rules. Dr. Cash 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a quote, it is a statement of fact. Please explain how mentioning something positive from a scholarly book from Harvard University Press is "clearly the POV of one person" and does not fall within Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Also please discuss such deletions here before you make them. Lou Sander 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, thank you for the apology for calling my edits "vandalism", it's all good, no worries. --kizzle 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ehh, either way, Lou put that up there because he felt it counter-balanced the "Rush Limbaugh in a Mini-skirt" comment, which I don't see as negative (except when I visualize it in my head).  I agree, put it somewhere else than the intro. --kizzle 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 Intellectuals quote 

message: While I'm at it, I was wondering if anyone would be against putting a picture somewhere in the middle part of the article.  there are three pictures up at the top right (frankly, i think for aesthetic purposes one of them should be moved left), but then there's none at the middle.  i thought maybe finding a picture of Coulter giving a talk at college like this one or this one might be nice.  But it depends on copyrights I suppose.  And really, if people object to having so many pictures.  I mean, there's four all together, but maybe one of the top three could be moved lower or something? Stanselmdoc 19:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: another picture?

message: Pray tell, User:Asbl, what is the "point of view" that saying she is in "numerous" publications take? Lawyer2b 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the edit summaries, "numerous" = a lot, which (by definition) is subjective. What might be a large quantity for one person may be a small quantity for another. Therefore, we must either post the actual number, or use NPOV language. --Asbl 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "More than 100 publications". --kizzle 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sufficiently large. In fact, if that is all we have, we will have to remove the sentence all together, as the 7 publications would represent 7%, which is not insignificant. Although, the word insignificant is also POV, in my opinion, it must be < 1%. --Asbl 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reject your argument in its entirety. 100 newspapers = numerous.  (insignificant = <1%) = ridiculous. --kizzle 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but calling over 100 newspapers not numerous is just flat-out wrong. --kizzle 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Everyone's entited to their own opinion, so long as it does not conflict with Kizzle's". --Asbl 02:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we're clear. </sarcasm> --kizzle 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why it says approximately 7%. The USA Today did hire her, and after she submitted the article, they dropped her (read the article). --Asbl 02:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I did RTFA, that definetely doesn't count as dropping, nor is it part of the initial over 100 count, which is highly unscientific.  Calculating a percentage against "over 100 newspapers" is just plain irresponsible. What do other people think? --kizzle 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerous = POV? 

message: On a side note, Asbl, please don't put "NPOV" after every edit you make.  Let's just assume we all think that our edits are NPOV and that none of us think we are the bastion of neutrality. --kizzle 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sidenote

message: Please see here for what concensus determined. Asbl, you are the significant minority. --kizzle 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion does not contain sufficient reasons for removal of section. 3 Wikipedians not wanting is not sufficient for removing accurate and well referenced information. --Asbl 02:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, more than 3 (see the very bottom), second of all, just because it's accurate does not mean it belongs in an encylopedia.  You haven't satisfied notability (that distinguishes from every other fucking crazy thing she said). Re-visit the issue in a few weeks. --kizzle 02:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly don't like their viewpoint but I believe Mediamatters is a reputable organization, generally does a very good job documenting things, and can be used as a source.  And besides, if they couldn't be used 95% of the citations supporting criticisms of conservative figures on wikipedia would have be to be deleted. ;-) Lawyer2b 21:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have anything against 'mediamatters.org', though they're not quite as strong as a reference as say, CNN, Fox News, or the New York Times or another newspaper. But the biggest problem with this section is it seems that it really shouldn't just be added to the end when there's a whole extra section earlier in the article dealing with bill clinton, so this seems like it might be related and should go there. Dr. Cash 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, maybe "hatred" of somebody by somebody else doesn't exactly belong in an encyclopedia. Lou Sander 17:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could say something like "Today, Coulter maintains an intense and outspoken dislike for Clinton, even occasionally insulting the former president in interviews."  I don't know.  Something succinct and to the point and in the Paula Jones/Clinton section. Stanselmdoc 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could say it, but it wouldn't be so. Also, encyclopedias don't usually attribute emotions to the subjects of their articles. Nor do they usually repeat or refer to things their subjects say in routine interviews. Lou Sander 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Bill Clinton Allegations section attempt 

message: Why shouldn't she be included in the above category?? She is on record calling Arabs 'Ragheads' and as saying we (USA) should just bomb the whole Middle-East and far worst! Would she not have had to say far less about Jews to be included in Category:Anti-Semitic people?? So if there are no objections I will include her. Yas121 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an objection: Compare her with the other people in the category. She's nothing at all like them. Lou Sander 04:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Anti-Arab people 

message: This section is needed, but what a negative and non-neutral attempt this first effort turned out to be! (IMHO, at least. Others may find it very evenhanded. After all, there is a citation.) Lou Sander 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the sarcasm? --kizzle 15:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Doc, can you point out the section in reliable sources that says Google searches are not acceptable as a source?  The reason I ask is that I see that WP:RS this particular section of it specifically lists a Google book search as being acceptable and nothing leapt out at me during my quick gander at the page that makes me agree with your interpretation.  What am I missing? Lawyer2b 20:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is about how to find good sources -- the idea being that you use google book search to find books on the topic... and then read and cite those. —ptk✰fgs 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The immediate preceding post really answered your question. But the other reason that citing links to google searches in articles is that the google searches are too dynamic. For example, your google search for 'Ann Coulter' this week will very likely produce completely different links in the top 20 results than the same search next week, two weeks later, and even a year later. That's why you need to be more specific when you're citing sources. Dr. Cash 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also add, that the "top 20 results" for a google search changing every week is germane only insomuch as the fact being supported requires it to be in the top 20. The results of a google search can change and still be supportive of fact, q.v. Coulter and "queen of mean". Lawyer2b 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that WP:RS is not the right policy to cite or use here.  WP:V is a more useful policy in this circumstance.  A Google search is simply not (always) repeatable and thus not verifiable.  I also think that in most cases using a Google search itself as a source is or is very close to original research.  --ElKevbo 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is good point.  :-) Lawyer2b 21:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Style and Political Leanings 

message: Did anyone else notice that the image of the book 'slander' is photoshopped to say "Ann Lies About The American Liberal" from the original "Liberal Lies About The American Right"? -Theaterfreak64 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. The image has been reverted, and the person has been warned. Rsm99833 20:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book image 

message: Coulter recently said in a FNC interview that New Yorkers would surrender to 'terrorists' or Iran, if invaded. You can find it at YouTube by searching 'ann coulter new york surrenders' Are we going to put this in notable contaversies? User:Green01 9:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified it is there, and can be cross-referenced via Yahoo-news, and google-news. The remark should be included, but carefully worded.Rsm99833 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, but I would source other places. Look to Google for other sources. This way, the article is neutral, and there's no accusations of bias. Rsm99833 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there any particular reason that this comment is notable? She says many things, and we can't really put all of them into her biographical article. It isn't suitable to do that, either. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or a historical record of everything a person says. If we put this comment in, we should provide the full context of the statement, plus several paragraphs to put it into the larger context of her life and work, as is done when the critical comments of others are posted. For an example, see Robert Byrd. Lou Sander 04:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: First, things are not notable just because a notable person says them. Second, editors who regard a living person's work as "prejudiced bile" might want to consider recusing themselves from editing articles about that person. It's so hard to avoid including that very strong negative point of view. Lou Sander 14:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's notable because what she said is in her area of "expertise". Ann Coulter chooses to be a political pundit and controversial things she says in that capacity certainly should have the presumption of being notable. Can you show how this statement is <I>less</I> notable than others she's made on the subject and which appear in the article? Vpoko 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ann Coulter says a lot of dumb shit.  Are we really going to put in every little thing she says that attacks someone else?  This article is then going to basically be a regurgitation of all of her books and columns dumped into here and then sorted by topic, which would make like an "Ann Coulter Encyclopedia of Ad Hominems and Inflammatory Language" with an alphabetized index of every group she's used inflammatory language towards.  Lets keep the examples that were picked up widely by mainstream press, such as "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" and the 9/11 widow choice remarks, and leave the rest out, otherwise we're going down a very slippery slope. --kizzle 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, you've convinced me. Vpoko 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kizz, your policy, which I hereby dub the "Super Official Kizzle Policy of Ad Hominems and Inflammatory Language", was both eloquently and elegantly stated and seems a sound basis upon which to set many a future precedent.  I should also point out that while you may think Ms. Coulter says some "dumb shit"...she got a "purty mouth." (said like a character from The Deliverance.)  ;-) Lawyer2b 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Touche, L2b, touche :) I am enjoying these debates where it all boils down to how hot the girl is. Lara Logan trumps them all, she's my warrior princess. --kizzle 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter Comment on New Yorkers 

message: This might be OT, but I went to the most Liberal part of New York City to buy her Godless book. It was at a sidewalk book-stand in the Upper West Side, where a man and woman were selling half-price hardcover political books. Of course, less than a handful of the titles on sale there were liberal - Godless was only there because it's a best-seller. 
When I handed him my $15, he refused to meet my gaze and even seemed to step back a bit. He was literally in the gutter, and I had to lean over the table to get him to take my money. 
Anyway, now that I've bought her book I intend to expand the Godless article and correct some of its errors. (I'm also re-reading Slander, so watch out, POV-pushing Liberals! ;-) --Uncle Ed 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a similar situation at Borders. When I talked about the book, the "associate" blubbered something about being a "Christian liberal" and turned red. I don't think she had ever looked inside the book, but of course I might be wrong. Lou Sander 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buying her book

message: Should a request for semi-protection be put into place? Rsm99833 01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be the first time this article needed semi-protection.--WilliamThweatt 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone would be so kind as to put the request in. I'm off work, and on my way to a far-away bar, and won't be able to do it for about two or so hours. ;) Rsm99833 01:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have just submitted a request.--WilliamThweatt 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent anon vandalism