Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 9

message: Wherever they wind up (and I still say someone more experienced like Kate should be able to make a call as straightforward as that) I object to this opening sentence: "The following quotes are examples of Ann Coulter's flamboyant and often inflammatory polemical style, for which she is well-known."
I object because this ignores the fact that Ann's comments are MOST notable because they are Laugh your A$$ off funny! I'm adding a few more quotes to this section to demonstrate that she's a very clever & funny writer in addtion to being a provacateur.Big Daddy 18:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-oh. Here we go again. We have already had this discussion many times.  PLEASE read the archives and use the talk page before making any additions or deletions to the quote section. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, y'all know my opinion on this one, but there is no strict policy on this score and my inquiry on the Village Pump made it clear that there are varying views.  So until a policy can be made for it (which may never happen), it'll have to go by consensus on individual articles.  Since there's a consensus on the section as it stands currently, and especially because it was the result of long, hard negotiations, I'm inclined to leave it alone for now.  I am thinking, though, of drafting a policy proposal in this arena soon. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes aren't going anywhere.  If you want to help out, do something about the vandals and edit warriors.   The policy to quiet a pure vandal down for even a breif period of time is wwaaayyy too onerous.  The edit wars just go on and on rehashing the same nonsense for years.  For instance, the quotes on the Ann Coulter page! --155.91.28.231 19:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the quotes

message: Has anyone here read , a critique of Wiki articles which was mainly right on the button (but nicely replied to later by David Gerard)?  I don't care that someone biffed a pie at Coulter, but as we have an article about her I 'd like to see something about her personal life -- husband/s, kids, etc. Moriori 23:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure she's married. I don't know how much more personal info there is on her that's not in the article. Her favorite colour? You got me. Oh well. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ann Coulter doesn't have a husband or kids, or even a long-term boyfriend. Nor has she been in a divorce.. She's in her 40's though, I guess you could add a mention of that. But as far as Ann's personal life goes, there's really nothing to say. Mr. Tibbs 19:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why am I not surprised?  -Kasreyn 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The pie think is a very small part of the article. Ihavenoheroes 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So she had a pie thrown at her -- woopdedoooo

message: I just randomly cut it off at certain sections to create archives 7 and 8. If someone objects, feel free to alter it. --Woohookitty 11:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I archived a bit

message: I reverted this addition:  Hatred of Ann Coulter has led some partisans to accuse her of being transgendered. Opponents have taken as evidence of this the fact that she is unmarried and without children. A website has even been made to unfairly promote this abuse, called Strap On Veterans for Truth. Another website, called Encyclopaedia damatica published the following false information:What is most dramatic is that Ann Coulter used to be a man. S/he had male to female surgery at a young age. The typical hormone therapy was incomplete in her case. She has no breasts and features typical of women who take testosterone steroids. Watch "her" adam's apple bob up and down on her throat when she talks on Fox News.The Humor section of About.com has an image that purports to show an Adam's apple on Ann Coulter's neck.
:1.  Hatred of Ann Coulter has led some partisans to ...  This assumes a conclusion we cannot without violating NPOV. If you want to cite someone saying this accusation is being made out of spite, feel free. But we can't state it as a fact.  If you want to quote someone saying Coulter's transgendered, we can discuss its addition. If you then want to quote a rebuttal, that would be the proper way to do it.
:2.   When publishing corrections, newspapers don't reprint the incorrect material.  They simply fix it.  In that same vein, there's no need to regurgitate a paragraph of such vicious speculation, particularly when the surrounding text is asserting that it's false. 
· Katefan0(scribble) 03:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm - don't forget that ED is a parody site.  Guettarda 03:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeesh!  Even more reason not to reprint it. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Tangential: tapuach adamah in Hebrew really means "apple of the earth" (as in soil, ground, etc.) and means potato (as in pomme de terre). Which brings up the relationship between the name given to the first man, and the word for earth; as in being made from the dust of the earth. Gzuckier 04:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I object. Just because it might be offensive to someone doesn't mean we should remove discussions here.  Talk pages are a record of discussions, consensus and non-consensus.  There were no personal attacks on other editors, therefore other editors' comments should not be removed.  They'll be archived in good time, though. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and respect your objection. I found it to be low and unfounded slander, talking about it spreads it. I hate when pundits take pot shots at politician's children, I abhor people speculating without proof on a persons sexual proclivities, and I detest people saying someone is not a man/woman, unless they have some thing solid. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 15:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not notable satire. As I said it is a poisonous slander to suspect a woman is a man with not a shred of proof. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 22:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but suppose somebody sees it elsewhere, and looks here to find out is there any evidence for it? And finds either a statement that none has been provided, or..... nothing. Just mentioning that somebody calls you names doesn't cast disfavor on you, it may well cast disfavor on them. When this was just an odd mention or two on Usenet, big deal. But it seems to have become more "notable", not the same as true. Gzuckier 04:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree from a personal perspective that this particular situation is base.  But just because something is rumor doesn't automatically disqualify it from being notable enough for inclusion... I take no position personally, but it is a question that should be answered.  Some speculation gets so widely discussed in the public street that not mentioning it would be tantamount to censorship (i.e. rumors that Richard Simmons is gay -- pretty widely circulated).  The question is -- does this meet the same threshold?  Is it well enough known that people would find it curious if some discussion of the issue weren't present? · Katefan0(scribble) 23:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Just some thoughts.  As a libertarian, even though it hurts my wittle feewings how she talks about us, I'm still a huge Ann Coulter fan.  Even got her to autograph some books one evening.  :-)  I think the "discussion" of the transgender derision is appropriate for this page.  There shouldn't be any topic we can't discuss....Regarding putting a mention of it in her actual article, it's obviously intended as an insult and has no factual basis.  When would it be appropriate to include something like that in someone's article?  Only if it became so talked about that the fact that "something so ridiculous was being talked about all over" was in itself news.  An example, might be the urban legend that was popular at one point about Richard Gere and gerbils.  But I don't see that mentioned on his wiki page.  I also totally disagree that this transgender insult has taken on some prominence in public discourse. What mainstream media is mentioning it? - Lawyer2b 02:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: People speculate on lots of things.  However, uninformed speculation for the purpose of insult isn't encyclopedic or noteworthy.  And she doesn't have a comparatively pronounced Adam's Apple.  By Wikipedia's own definition, the Adam's Apple is the laryngeal prominence, which is not particularly pronounced on Coulter.  She has a fairly pronounced thyroid cartilage, but no more so than say Torri Higginson.  Many very skinny girls do.  Some people who don't know what they're talking about think that's the Adam's Apple, but they're simply mistaken.  Instead of letting them turn that into an offensive insult in somebody's page, we educate them.  As for her allegedly-misogynist statements; do her statements against blondes indicate that she hates herself, too?  I rather doubt she'd be willing to get a sex-change operation but unwilling to take the giant leap of not bleaching her hair anymore.  They're jokes.  She's a polemicist.  You might be offended by the jokes, and she means you to be offended; but they don't necessarily indicate anything about her personality other than a feeling that offending people is a good way to make them think.  There is no actual evidence that she's transgendered; just a combination of uninformed speculation and anger.  Present Ann's writings and let them speak for themselves as to her character.  If people want to draw from them the conclusion that she's (insert speculation here), then let them.  Now, if you have eyewitness testimony or photocopies of plastic surgeon bills from a reputable source, that would be Wikiworthy. -Syberghost 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section reverted 

message: Would anyone be interested in adding a small section, or note, about Coulter's influence in popular culture.
The character Ainsley Hayes on The West Wing (TV series), played by Emily Procter, is at least in part based on her, and I wondered if this was relevant enough to the article. If not, I don't mind.
Daydream believer2`
:Seems relevant enough to me. Maybe as a part of that section we could throw in Coulter's general disdain for and ignorance of popular culture: "Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down". Salon: "Who would have guessed that she doesn't have a clue about American culture? She is under the impression that "Forrest Gump" is a recent flick. She only first saw Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Wonderful Life" last year. Like a perpetual grad student, Coulter's favorite books are the pages of pre-Commie Russians.". Sidenote: just found an interesting biography of Coulter:  - Mr. Tibbs 21:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Coulter in popular culture 

message: Can the criticism section be a criticism section? Listing a bunch of satirical quotes doesn't do anything for an article. It seems daily someone adds another old quote, that masquerades as a critcism. If I listed all the ones she has said, I can fill an entire wikipedia.
The Quote section is full:  
Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of a wiki is that anybody can edit it.  It's completely counter to the whole philosophy of Wikipedia to throw something like that up there.  If you want to put an advisory saying that the current state of affairs was arrived at through consensus and to please come to the talk page before making changes, that might be better. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right.  Removed. -71.112.11.220 19:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't add that comment. Shall we now move the multitudes of quotes, and post actual criticism? Maybe it is just me, but bad criticism of anyone I like or that I do not like, is infuriating. I think the truth goes beyond the arguments, and if one side puts out a bad argument, it lets BOTH sides down. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 23:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps rename the section "Criticism & Controversy", to be more accurate. Or here's a crazy thought, "Praise & Criticism". Not that last one would solve your problem but wouldn't that just be the neutrallist thing ever? 67124etc 06:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Praise and criticism might be interesting.   I haven't seen much praise of the woman so far. -71.112.11.220 19:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As an afterthought, if we do end up adding that some conservatives praise Coulter, it also must be mentioned that some conservatives object to Ann: : Bill O'Reilly: "Well, I threaten him because I see through him, I know what he is. But even the conservatives have said that your rhetoric is so over the top, you may be hurting your own cause." - Mr. Tibbs 21:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course feel free to add any stuff you got if its from a good source. Noteworthy commentary is way more interesting than just quotes. Not that I personally object to piles of quotes, but others do. The way I see it, style goes out the window on political pages, but as long as it stays factually accurate it's still useful as an encyclopedia. 67124etc 03:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment was removed now it is replaced. Shall I move the quotes there, and see how it works? Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 22:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes out of Control 

message: Just so you know, I somehow didn't realize that I was altering a quote when I revised the article this morning. I can't see how that escaped me. - ElAmericano 23:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  Maybe you hadn't had enough coffee yet. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 23:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And re-reading my edit summary I see it could have been interpreted as harsh, but I meant no harm. See ya. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental Revision 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of the pie being thrown at her?
Dklangen 06:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pie?

message: *Trivial question:
:What's a constable in the Connecticut sense?
*Other question:
:Why is there so little of her personal life? I do not want to be prurient but we would understand less about Charles Darwin if we didn't know he was married to a believing Christian woman who was saddened by his work, and we would less fully understand Queen Victoria's life if we did not know of her relationship with Prince Albert? Where's the detail?
Avalon 23:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except I'm not sure how much more info there is on her. She is not married, has no kids, etc. We mention where she's from and some of her personal life, but I am not sure what else we can say. What would you like to see? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Life

message: Thought I might ask why there's no paragraph on her newest book, How to Talk to a Liberal.  Anyone mind me writing one in, or someone else?  Is there a reason it's not mentioned?
And how long is it going to take for people to understand the difference between controversy and criticism?  There's a HUGE (I think too long) section on the Paula Jones controversy, and then a section called criticism.  THEN, under that section, there's a billion other sections titled "controversy"!  How does that happen?  Can someone perhaps explain to me (since I've been missing for a while) if there's been a consensus on this or something?  
And why is there even a huge section about Al Franken's book?  I realize he's criticising her in the book, but it's not just about Coulter, it's about many "Lying Liars" and I doubt every one of their pages has a huge section about Franken's book on it.  I don't mind a mention, but it is HIS book, shouldn't the majority of it stay on HIS page?
Oh, and I plan on making a slight edit to the books section.  Books are written about in the present tense, not past, i.e., "the book made a case" becomes "the book makes a case."
Anyway, cheers. Stanselmdoc 15:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2004) doesn't have a summary here is because there's an entire seperate article about the book, and that article has barely any content. The whole Controversy-Criticism thing came about as the result of a long arguement earlier on this talkpage: . The previous version was "Allegations of..." instead of "Controversial statements regarding...". And the reason theres a section about Al Franken's book: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them is because a large amount of that book is about Ann Coulter, with another large segment about Bill O'Reilly. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why's there no paragraph on her new book?

message: Saw this on Yahoo news.. 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20051124/cm_ucac/newideaforabortionpartyaidtheenemy
I am not sure how they get thier news. Does she submit to them? or they take from a feed? —preceding unsigned comment by 195.212.29.67 (talk • contribs) 09:06, November 25, 2005
:This article also appears on her site and on Jewish World Review's site.  I am sure that Ann gives yahoo (and others) reprint (or should I say repost) rights. --Rogerd 16:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing for Yahoo news?

message: Phiwum edited 09:25, 23 November 2005 (revert very strange edit. How can Coulter have two birth years?)
If you read the article, you will see the sentence, "A minor controversy started when the Washington Post reported Coulter had a Washington D.C. driver's license with her birthdate listed as December 8, 1963, two years after her actual birthdate."
So it's a factually incorrect original edit that misrepresents the facts, but I wouldn't exactly call it strange. 207.172.155.74 23:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Thanks for the explanation.  I missed that comment in the article.  Phiwum 09:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: re

message: This is an interesting theory, but unless you can come up with actual documentation (i.e. someone criticizing Coulter as such), this is personal opinion and so violates the NPOV rule. I hate the bitch, too, but there's no need to descend to her level.
Kiddre 14:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coulter as performance art?

message: Not at least alluding to it is like not mentioning Bob Dole is missing an arm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.93.122 (talk • contribs) .
: Almost exactly like not mentioning Bob Dole's missing arm, isn't it?  Good point. 
: But even if Dole did have a missing arm, your opinions about Coulter's appearance are not notable. Phiwum 12:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And more importantly, they're POV. Some people may think she's entirely femme looking and gorgeous. Your opinion is not a fact. Pacian 05:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Remember, it's hard for anyone to discuss her without personal bias creeping in.  Coulter enrages many people with her political rhetoric.  Enraging people is how she makes a living.  Enraged people have a tendency to say unkind things, and continuous repetition of things can make them seem more true (the echo-chamber effect).  I agree with Phiwum and Pacian that it's not appropriate to repeat slander on wikipedia.  It reminds me of Republican partisans who - I'm not kidding - went around saying John Kerry looked "French".  The truth is, there is no one "right" way for a woman to look womanly, or a man to look manly, or whatever.  And it's certainly way too damn subjective to be NPOV.  -Kasreyn 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ann Coulter self-identifies as a "gyne-American" and it would be a form of bigotry to deny that on the basis of one or more aspects her physical appearance such as an enlarged Adam's apple, akin to saying super-thin model Kate Moss is really a teen-aged boy.  Ruby 18:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it notable how manish looking she is? 

message: Ann Coulter is a guerilla right wing terrorist (to use her people own language). 
By focusing on her sucess in the american media through the sales of her various publications, Wikipedia is underminding who she is as a person. 
She has endorced terrorist attacks, within the United States ("My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building. ")
I could go on, if need be. But I hope that this will be corrected. 
To possibly read. 
"Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American syndicated columnist, bestselling author, and television pundit. Her commentary has earned her a reputation as a strong critic of social and political liberalism, to the point of endorcing terroist activities agianst her political opponents. Her speaking and writing style is provocative, aggressive, and in most cases offensive, with heavy use of sarcasm, and hyperbole. Through her carrer in the media she has been very vocal in her stance of American Imperailism, cultural hegemony, and coersive international relations."
It is very hard for me, or for anyone versed in Ann Coulters oppinions to view this artical as impartial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.96.4 (talk • contribs) .
:What is funny is that some conservatives that have come by this article think it is biased against her. Guess that shows that it is getting pretty NPOV. Thanks for your opinion. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this article started as a openly hostile article, sceptical of her contributions. It approaches NPoV, but I would agree it isn't there yet. I think it is funny that a lot of people think Wikipedia is a place for activism, (cuts both ways) present the facts plainly, and the truth will speak for itself. Dominick (TALK) 15:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I figure, start with one sentence and flesh it out. A one sentence summary of Ann Coulter would have to state something like she is aggressive towards "liberals", and therefore the whole article truly ought to reflect that. Yet that is exactly what Ann supporters want removed as "POV". Apparently that doesn't take into account the other contriubtions of her well-rounded character, which are still waiting to be posted here. Instead we just neuter the article. Gzuckier 15:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This page definetly reflects who Ann Coulter is, a liberal hater. It also correctly reflects her nonsensical remarks. Good job on this article! - JedOs   16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "liberal hater" like that's a bad thing.  Ruby 15:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All you need is love. Derex 15:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My dearest Ruby, she dislikes dykes as well. Dan 00:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page does not accuratly reflect who Ann Coulter is. 

message: Is this section necessary?  The whole thing can be reduced to the fact that they probably are secretly in love or something.  Both of their arguments back and forth are little more than semantical games and media whoring.  I don't think it adds anything except to say the two bicker like an unhappily married couple. -- Jbamb 13:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about a seemingly happily married couple? ;-) Although this has been discussed a couple of times in the past, we can start it up again if you want. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often wondered about that marriage, but you notice that they don't rip each other apart like Al and Ann do.  The point is that the bickering between Al and Ann doesn't seem to add much to this article. -- Jbamb 22:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Franken 

message: This article really needs to be edited to take a world view.  There are many American concepts used, which need to be defined.  Especially "liberal."  Thanks, --sansvoix 09:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  World View 

message: Where is the source that says that Coulter was "booed off the stage" at a University of Connecticut event?  I read a contrary report at Free Republic that says she ended the speech she had prepared early, but that she continued on stage with a question and answer session.  The reference hyperlink in the article that is supposed to link to this alleged story points to a blank page.  216.119.139.143 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification of news report requested 

message: The "Controversial statements about minorities" section definitely needs some cleaning up. Basically, someone lumped her statements about Arabs in foreign countries, Arabs here, and blacks together under the category of "minorities." Certainly, we can't call Arabs in the Middle East a minority. This needs to be separated out into two sections. - ElAmericano | talk 23:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversial statements about minorities" section 

message: I don't know why there's a section on Coulter's "communication style", but if it must be there, it should be re-written.  The paragraph on Canadians in Vietnam seems muddled, unfocused and hard to interpret.  If this is supposed to be an example of being loose with the facts, can we state it more clearly and succinctly, without forty-seven caveats and counterclaims?
Or give a more compelling example.  Or something.  As it is, this paragraph is a mess. Phiwum 12:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 47 pages of prior discussion might shed some light on that. chocolateboy 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You're not wrong, but... actually, let's just leave it at you're not wrong :-) chocolateboy 21:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is/was she really a man or not? --SpeedyCar 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, right... and she was also a turtle and a fish, and once she was a blue dragon. --DanielCD 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messy paragraph 

message: Coulter has said she likes to read anything written by humorist Dave Barry (Coulter, January 2004).
This doesn't seem like a particularly relevant piece of information. Or, at the very least, it's in a very odd place. It doesn't seem like it's relating to anything around it.--Hbutterfly 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, looks kinda out of place. Besides, without knowing who Dave Barry is, it practically says nothing. --DanielCD 19:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if you do know who Dave Barry is, it has meaning, and after all it is linked to Barry's entry. --syberghost 20:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. But the rest of us who don't know who he is should go wanting? Proper writing would include a bit in the sentence as to who he is and why he is important. The link doesn't compensate for that, and "humorist" is too general. --DanielCD 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the distinction is that Dave Barry differs from Ann in two striking ways:  he leans, as far as I've ever been able to tell, perhaps slightly to the left on the political spectrum (calling to mind Hunter Thompson's unlikely friendship with Pat Buchanan), and also unlike Ann, he is almost unfailingly polite and civil.  -Kasreyn 10:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for him; I prefer polite. As far as the sentence is concerned, someone just add something that tells what the attraction is. That's what's being alluded to here, and I don't want to have to go read the Dave B. article to find it out. If her attraction to this material is important anough to be in the article, it deserves some elucidation. At this point, I'm considering removing it on grounds of relevance, as it needs the relevance made plain. --DanielCD 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  random statement 

message: I learned just now that "Mann Coulter" is an insult to Ann Coulter (like Slick Willy was to Bill Clinton).  I believe Mann Coulter should be mentioned in this article, but I'm not really sure how best to fit it in.  DyslexicEditor 14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've discussed this before. Please read the talk page archives. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's a lot.  Have any idea which one of the large archives it is?  DyslexicEditor 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is something about this in almost every archive... just look around, it's all there. Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not found.  I searched for both "mann" and "man c" and found not a thing.  DyslexicEditor 03:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mann Coulter" is a personal remark by some people who think she is a transexual and it has been discussed in almost every archive. Perhaps not the exact insult, but the subject matter. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mann Coulter 

message: There is a rumor on the net that Ann Coulter was born a man or is still one. Is there any truth to this? In hindsight this certainly makes sense. Thanks.  --Costoa 13:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any truth to it? You would have to run a blood test to be sure, but it isn't going in this article. Please see the thread directly above this one. And why would it "make sense"? You don't think women can be tall, aggressive, and bombastic? That's a little sexist don't you think? Or were you referring to something else? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we post a notice somewhere that we've been over this, so people will stop wasting time and discussion space on it? --DanielCD 15:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: She is kinda hot.  I hope she's not a guy.  DyslexicEditor 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The DyslexicEditor wouldn't care for a little Lola? ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 01:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, take her out and see... You might get a surprise... kinda like a fortune cookie, only with the potential for a lil' nookie... --DanielCD 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dude or Chick? 

message: Coulter called Arabs "ragheads" that is racism. 
listen to her yourself if's about 4 minutes and 20 seconds into her rant.
http://www.bradblog.com/Audio/AnnCoulter_CPAC_021006.mp3
132.241.245.49 04:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obviously a racist remark, Grazon. But how does that justify the addition of :Category:Persecution, :Category:Racism, and :Category:Prejudice and discrimination to this article? Do you believe that everyone who has used a racial slur should be listed in these categories? Don't you realize how useless and ponderous it would make the category system? What if we added everyone who's gone to a sporting event to :Category:Sports? Should we add everyone who votes to :Category:Politics? It doesn't make any sense. Rhobite 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh.  Maybe that's because Arabs are Semites?  ;)  Splitting hairs, I know.  I'd say Coulter's problem is with Islam, not with people who are ethnic Arabs.  There are plenty of ethnic Arabs who are Christian, for instance, or Atheist or whatever.  Ethnicity doesn't define a person's religion.  -Kasreyn 13:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note. In cases regarding categories, the preferrable thing to do in controversial situations is "do no harm". The categories are meant to help people find material, not label material. We don't know if the woman's serious about many things she says anyway, as she's often sarcastic/cryptic (and this may be an understatement). As such, it could be adding POV to put her in such a category. She's primarily an entertainer. She uses such statements primarily for their effect, not for their primary meaning (though that doesn't excuse them). Yea, she says racist things, but people aren't going to go to :Category:Persecution to look for her. --DanielCD 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Articles most likely to be vandalized doesn't exist, but it would make for interesting perusing. --DanielCD 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Take it from me, we'd have to pop Sexual Intercourse, Eminem, Paris Hilton, George W. Bush, and Prussian Blue in that category, too.  It's a daily struggle on those ones...  -Kasreyn 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does it take? 

message: "However, Eric Alterman of The Nation and MSNBC.com, and many other critics were not amused. While writing that "Coulter jokes about McVeigh blowing up the Times", Alterman still found the joke offensive, calling Coulter a "terrorist apologist" and "ideological comrade" of McVeigh due to their similar statements about the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents. [12]" I'm not sure exactly what is trying to be said. I'd edit it, but I'm just not sure. The bolded section is what I'm not clear on.209.189.130.6 18:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's supposed to mean "Although Alterman knew Coulter was joking, he still found the comment offensive."  If it's not that, I have no idea.  I'll change the second "joke" to "comment" (reads better, hopefully less confusing), but the sentence is still vague and needs a rewrite.  --Marco Passarani 20:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I ended up rewording it.  Hopefully I didn't change the intended meaning of the sentence.  Anyone who wants to rewrite it further go right ahead. --Marco Passarani 20:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: User:Bachs; if you're going to tag this article as controversial, you should state just what element of it you think is controversial. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the "disputed" tag unless someone can explain why it is necessary at this point. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: controversial tag

message: Don't readd this link; it is pure trash: http://www.hoolinet.com/StrapOnVets/tabid/278/Default.aspx
No information here is of value so I removed it. It might serve as an example for the Satire article (but probably not, as satire is most often a constructive endeavor, and nothing I can see here is constructive). But other than having her name in it, it really has nothing to do with her. 
If fact, I don't think I'd call this satire. It's more like childish shit-slinging.  --DanielCD 01:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: link

message: Er, even if you think "raghead" is offensive (I certainly do) it's not necessarily "racist". Please discuss before reverting again. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's racist, just like gook or burhead are racist. what's not racist about it? 132.241.245.49 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at the format of the headings; 'Controversial statements about women', 'Controversial statements at Philander Smith College'.  Regardless, just leave them in a consistent style. ~ PseudoSudo 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What "race" is the victim? The problem is the ignorant comment by Coulter can refer to Arabs, Sikhs, or folks of different races in Asia. So for consistency, for accuracy, and for NPOV's sake, controversial is sufficient. Her quotes are strong enough for people to figure out what she's all about. No need for the inflammatory label.  -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: However, if some other organization or person, specifically a reliable source, has called Coulter's commentary "racist", I don't see how it would violate wikipedia policy on OR or NPOV to include a quotation.  What's important is that we not invent allegations.  -Kasreyn 10:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Editing the article full of your POV with a promise that you'll document "later" is BS.  Document allegations, and include them NPOV, or I'll revert you. -Syberghost 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The future tense was only because I was bringing my point to the talk page before I made the edits. If you'd bother to read, you'd see I added my source to the page which you reverted. Before you throw a fit and accuse of POV editing, take the time to read and comprehend. If to an objective person the use of the term 'rag head' is indeed racist, to NOT include those allegations here is in fact POV. Who here things 'rag head' isn't racist? Amibidhrohi 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think there is an implicit problem with automatically deeming anything "racist". My guess is that she says things to raise ire and spark reaction. I think there needs to be some driving force behind a comment to really make it "racist". It may well be controversial or offensive, and still not be racist. It is like Chris Rock using the word "nigger". Just using the word itself may not be racist. I think Coulter is just using these words to get a reaction. She knows people will take offence and react and get her more publicity. It would be another thing if she truly felt this way. It is her job to piss people off. That's how she makes her living. She won't get much press if she writes something like, "People from the Middle East are bad" than she would if she writes, "Those towel-heads spend their time covering up their women, while they turn around and fuck their camels." Now the second thing here would be racist, if that's what she truly believes, but how do we know she just isn't using these words to get a reaction? That's why I am more than happy to call them "controversial statements" and let the reader decide for themselves if they qualify as "racist". We don't need to be drawing reader's conclusions for them. But like Rhobite said below, you are more than welcome to find Coulter critics saying she is racist and write something like, "Because of these remarks, some critics have deemed Coulter a racist. " Oh well, like I said, this is just my opinion. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not 'deeming' anyone racist. And what you think does not matter. I'm not adding original research. Listeners and readers of her material HAVE taken her statements to be racist, and that is what the sources I am quoting state. If you want to give Coulter every benefit of the doubt, that's your right. That's your POV. But she has voiced support for killing Arabs, she has used racial slurs in reference to them. It's unlikely someone would make a career out of saying these things if one didn't believe the essence of what those comments say. If people have understood her to be a bigot and a racist, the entry should state that people have understood her as such. To NOT include that information is POV. Amibidhrohi 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right, except the argument you make against me doesn't make sense. You say it doesn't matter what I think, but then you say that "listeners and readers..." Well guess who listeners and reader are... people like me. Anyone can start a blog and spout their ideas, and you think that warrants their inclusion in the article, but if I say something, it doesn't matter. What makes my opinion worth less than a random blogger out there? The article already states people think she is racist, but to label her as racist is forming people's conclusions for them. We don't do that here at WP. We report facts and let the reader decide. --LV (Dark Mark) 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who is labeling her a racist? My edits don't include the adjective 'racist' to describe Ann Coulter herself. She has made racist comments, tons of them. Those individual comments are racist. And yes, your opinion matters less than the average person out there. When a Wikipedia editor injects his own opinion in the form of an entry, that's original research. I don't need to tell you about that, do I? In your case you're using your own opinion of Ann Coulter to censor verifiable information. BTW. dismissing her comments as 'sarcasm and hyperbole' is POV. That line should be removed. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim she has some strong hate issues when it comes to Arabs and Muslims, amongst others. There's nothing to support those views aren't genuine. Amibidhrohi 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I think what you just said is very odd. To answer your first question, you are trying to label them racist. Remember that section header you keep trying to insert? But I digress. So why, in your opinion, would labeling her comments as sarcasm and hyperbole be POV, but labeling them racist and bigoted not be POV? You are creating a double standard. You say that my opinion does not matter, yet you continue to push your opinion into the article. What is wrong with labeling her remarks as controversial and letting the reader decide what to make of them? Why do we need to label them "racist"? What does it accomplish besides painting Coulter in your POV light? See you tomorrow, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's very simple. There are a large number of people who find her comments to be racist. Those critics include both those who allign themselves with the 'right' and the 'left'. The fact that people hold that view must be represented here. My edit to the entry doesn't have the entry itself stating she's in fact racist. They point to the fact that OTHER  people do see her as such. To simplify the point further for you, nowhere in my edit does it say or directly imply 'Ann Coulter is a racist". Since the information added merely intends to point the reader to how many others view and recieve Coulter's commentary, the addition of such information isn't POV. It's simply factual. To CENSOR that information because in YOUR mind you've determined she doesn't really mean it all, THAT is POV. The difference between all that and the 'sarcasm and hyperbole' phrase is that an editor on Wikipedia made the judgement that her speeches were sarcastic. The entry itself is stating that her comments are sarcastic. If the comment read "her comments are seen by so-and-so to be sarcastic.." (ie if they pointed to other sources where others found her comments to be sarcastic) that would be acceptable. This entry is effectively an endorsement of Ann Coulter and an attempt to advertise her in the best light possible. On the 3RR crap, my last several edits were in response to criticisms (albeit disingenous) to what I posted. My last edit was meant to add sources other than the blog previously cited. I'm reverting back to the last edit I made, since you cannot make present a credible justification for excluding it. Amibidhrohi 04:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Amibedhrohi.  If the "racist" claim is cited is is superior to the uncited "sarcasm and hyperbole".   Furthermore, it doesn't require any analysis to conclude she is making racist statements.  Chris Rock use of the n-word, as ridiculous as it sounds, is not, because of not least his ethnicity, racist by American tradition.   Coulter has no such defense for her use of "raghead", "old arab", etc.  Justforasecond 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. As I've said, I feel LV is being disingenuous. He's pretending to be more clueless than he actually is. I didn't bother responding to that Chris Rock analogy because the answer was so obvious. As a rule in urban street talk, black people can say "the N word" while white people cannot. Chris Rock exploits that weird rule and turns it into humor. Surely you can see the difference it would make if instead  on some occasion, on stage, Trent Lott or Bill O'Reilly referred to black people as "niggers". Amibidhrohi 07:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, Senator Robert Byrd has done exactly that at least three times on record, including one not all that long ago, but you can only think of two Republicans , who haven't done that, for your example.  I think this is telling. Syberghost 21:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Answered on Amib's talk page. --LV (Dark Mark) 12:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh...don't call LV "clueless" -- I've seen enough of these discussions to know most of the time no one gives in, but namecalling cements that certainty. Justforasecond 16:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it... I didn't. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is very simple - just attribute the racism accusation and then you can add it to the article. Rhobite 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also mention that blog links, such as "The Conservative Voice", aren't ideal references. Can't we find anyone notable who has accused her of racism? Rhobite 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And let right-wing devotees like you run the show? I'm not pushing an agenda. There's a whole host of people who find her commentary racist. The article must reflect the existance of that review of her views. Period. To censor that information makes the article POV in her favor. If you read my talk page, even LV acknowleges I'm 'probably right'. Now, how about you justify your position of censoring that information? Amibidhrohi 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is flagrantly against its subject.  Amibidhrohi, you can turn this into a political war all you want, but I hope you realize that your rabid attitude is not changing any minds or shedding any light on the subject.Giles22 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Lay off the personal attacks. This article is about Ann Coulter. Alot of people find Ann Coulter's comments racist. My edit implies 'some people find ann counter's comments racist", citing 7 sources that back that statement. Explain how that is political? Is the NPOV thing to do to censor that fact?  Amibidhrohi 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be very careful how you characterize this here.  It is not necessarily "censoring" a "fact" when the nature of the fact itself is in dispute.Giles22 19:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't mind Giles.  He doesn't speak for others.  Justforasecond 19:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact is that there are people who consider Ann Coulter's remarks racist. That is what the edit states, nothing more. It doesn't state that she is in fact a racist, since that would be editorializing. The only bit of information that is certain is that there ARE people who find her comments racist. Alot of people. That fact is supported by 7 sources. How is this disputable? If it's disputable, I'd like to hear the content of that dispute. I'd like to hear the arguements against adding this information. Syberghost only reverts the article without actually stating his reasons; I'm guessing it's because he has none.  Amibidhrohi 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave reasons multiple times. Why haven't you read them? I'm guessing it's because you have, and don't want to admit you're wrong. Labelling sections 'racist' instead of 'controversial' is why I reverted you.  Putting conclusions that are not universally-shared into the top of the article is why I reverted you.  I will keep reverting you as long as you do that without seeking consensus here.  So far, you haven't sought consensus; you've yelled at people and tried to enforce your view because you're pissed off.  You have a right to be pissed off; you don't have a right to turn Wikipedia into your own personal tool for venting.  At least, not within the articles; feel free to continue to do so on the Talk pages. - Syberghost 19:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist vs. controversial 

message: I read the article on Anne...good job at the beginning--but at the end, the paragraphs got to be a bit POVish...
I'll now suggest some edits be made and they are as follows:
1. "[The book] Slander claims that many American journalists have ties to the Democratic Party and are extremely liberal, which biases their reporting. Coulter argues that George W. Bush has faced a difficult and unfair battle for positive coverage in the media from the moment he decided to run for president, and that a similar battle for fair coverage has been waged by practically every Republican presidential candidate since Calvin Coolidge." 
The problem with this paragraph is that it needs to go with the article about the book "Slander"--NOT with the article about the author! It's talking about what the book says so therefore, that paragraph needs to go where it belongs.
2. "David Daley, who wrote the interview piece for the Hartford Courant recounted what followed (need to add "and you can find the interview piece at (link)." 
There is no need to paste the article at all--just link to it and let the folks read it from there.
And for coherancy, cut out the paragraph that starts with "According to the Coulter Watch website."
3. Cut out everything else afterwards. Trivia section needs to be provided with its proper links or removed (in other words, it needs to kind of have the format of the "Quotations" section. Making the statement--then providing the link.) Leave the Quotations section and edit the reference section accordingly.
There is no need to continuously bring up what the critics have to say. If the reader wishes to examine what the critics have to say further, then he or she will do so via an encyclopedia or internet resources.
4. The book reviews section can go. You already have a critical section on her--we need to be fair and balanced here. A little time for those who approve of her and a little time for those who disprove.
5. And finally, for the "Interviews" section, rename it "Randomly Selected Interviews" or something to that affect. If you're going to have a section named "Interviews", you must list every single interview she has ever done.
Everything should at least be fair and balanced now...
--JJ
:Ok, I'll bite...
:First off, what makes you think that quotes from a pundit's writings are not relevant to the article on the pundit herself?  The entire reason why Ann Coulter is noteworthy enough to merit a Wikipedia article is due to her statements, opinions, and writings.  Wikipedia has a duty to show why she is worth having an article about.  By your standards, everything she has said in a book should be confined to the articles on those books.  This is nonsense; quotes from her books serve an important purpose in helping this article explain - neutrally and fairly, since we use her own words - who Ann Coulter is.
:Secondly, whether an interview is worth merely linking to, or quoting from and linking to, is an editorial decision that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis.  I can't believe you would suggest that Wikipedia cease quoting from all articles it links.  You definitely couldn't mean that, so my question is, what criteria are you using for deciding that interview isn't appropriate to quote from - and why have you not stated your criteria as justification?
::then he or she will do so via an encyclopedia or internet resources.
:Absolutely hilarious.  This IS an encyclopedia, AND an internet resource.  And if  you're one of those who thinks Wikipedia isn't a "real" encyclopedia, then by all means, quit wasting both our time here, and don't let the door hit you in the backside as you leave.  Still here?  Good.  So since you agree Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I guess we'll let them look up the critics right here, won't we?  :)
:You're also mistaken in your remark about "a little time" for each side.  The reason quotes from critics vastly outweigh quotes from supporters is that critics of Ann Coulter vastly outnumber supporters.  It's as childishly simple as that.  Let me put this simply:  It is not a violation of NPOV to report the truth.  It is a violation of NPOV to deliberately misrepresent the balance of public opinion to create a false appearance of balance where in reality there is none.  If your theory were correct, then the article on the Holocaust should have exactly the same amount of links to holocaust-denial websites as it does to holocaust-information websites.  Want to go there and try making that change, and see how fast an admin blocks you?  Didn't think so.
::If you're going to have a section named "Interviews", you must list every single interview she has ever done.
:More patent nonsense.  Nowhere on Wikipedia has there ever been such a rule, and no admin would be insane enough to enforce it.  Readers of Wikipedia are bright enough to know that "Interviews" means "Selected Interviews", because of course this encyclopedia didn't write itself, did it?  Someone had to have selected them.  And please, don't be insulting.  No one here selects interviews at "random", so that label makes no sense at all.  If you're so desperate to underestimate our readers' intelligence, then fine, call the section "Selected Interviews", but it'll probably be reverted within a month for stylistic reasons.
:In any case, keep in mind that an article on a polarizing subject like Coulter - a person who deliberately attempts to create as much controversy as humanly possible - is going to automatically generate NPOV issues, and that therefore it's best to remember to assume good faith of your fellow editors.  Cheers, -Kasreyn 11:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think there is value in ensuring that the charges of racism remain in the Criticism section, because if not they'll continue to be inserted in other sections.  While I appreciate the irony of turning an article about a polemicist into a polemic, I think we can maintain a balance between having a good NPOV article and still including all significant criticism. -Syberghost 14:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh.  Glad I'm not the only one who caught that.  The question is, Freudian slip or subtle trolling?  YOU DECIDE.  :P  -Kasreyn 05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...Some things need adjusted in this article... 

message: "By your standards, everything she has said in a book should be confined to the articles on those books. This is nonsense; quotes from her books serve an important purpose in helping this article explain - neutrally and fairly, since we use her own words - who Ann Coulter is."
It's not non-sense--any encyclopedian knows that if you pay special attention to going more in-depth about the contents from a book, then create an article about the book and insert that in-depth look about the book WITH the article about the book. If you are THAT desperate for people to see what her book is about, you can even INCLUDE A LINK to the book (with a phrase that goes "For more information, see 'Slander' " or something to that effect.) 
"Secondly, whether an interview is worth merely linking to, or quoting from and linking to, is an editorial decision that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. I can't believe you would suggest that Wikipedia cease quoting from all articles it links. You definitely couldn't mean that, so my question is, what criteria are you using for deciding that interview isn't appropriate to quote from - and why have you not stated your criteria as justification?" 
Hopefully, you read my "edited version" of the Anne Coulter article before changing it back to what it was. Neutral and balanced was all it was. All I did was make it look more professional...leaving out the extras and keeping the necessary stuff that gave the article its professional air.  
"This IS an encyclopedia, AND an internet resource. And if you're one of those who thinks Wikipedia isn't a "real" encyclopedia, then by all means, quit wasting both our time here, and don't let the door hit you in the backside as you leave. Still here? Good. So since you agree Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I guess we'll let them look up the critics right here, won't we?  :)"
I never said Wikipedia isn't a "real" encyclopedia...just because critics exist, doesn't mean that you have to make them the majority of the consistency of the article--it makes the article lose its professionalism. A professional-looking article talks a little bit about the critics and then, the people who applaud the idea brought out by...whoever. It's professionalism at its finest that gives a Wikipedia article its flavor and glow. 
"You're also mistaken in your remark about "a little time" for each side. The reason quotes from critics vastly outweigh quotes from supporters is that critics of Ann Coulter vastly outnumber supporters. Let me put this simply: It is not a violation of NPOV to report the truth. It is a violation of NPOV to deliberately misrepresent the balance of public opinion to create a false appearance of balance where in reality there is none. If your theory were correct, then the article on the Holocaust should have exactly the same amount of links to holocaust-denial websites as it does to holocaust-information websites."
First off, it's the focus that you put on a person (be it negative or positive) that decides how you write about a person--if you were writing about your greatest enemy, you'd hardly say anything good about them. Right? Of course...and if you keep focused only on the negative or only on the positive about someone, then usually you start wearing "rose-colored" glasses. There's a BIG line between telling the Truth and painting the truth the way you want it to look.
...And putting a negative tint in an article on someone isn't going to help matters any either--and you can't justify negativity by putting a label of "truth" on it.  
Lastly, who says that it's popular opinion that everyone hates Anne? Where's your proof? (And just because there are a lot of negative things about her doesn't mean that everyone dislikes her.) Do you have an independant site that can give me poll numbers on this? Or something to that affect? If not, then please...don't go around telling folks that the majority of people dislike her--if you can't prove it.
"Readers of Wikipedia are bright enough to know that "Interviews" means "Selected Interviews", because of course this encyclopedia didn't write itself, did it? Someone had to have selected them. And please, don't be insulting. No one here selects interviews at "random", so that label makes no sense at all. If you're so desperate to underestimate our readers' intelligence, then fine, call the section "Selected Interviews", but it'll probably be reverted within a month for stylistic reasons."
You misunderstood what I said, friend...By "Randomly Selected Interviews", I meant that the writer picked out certain kinds of interviews on Anne (and as far as I know, those interviews are posted there to cast a negative light on Anne.) 
"In any case, keep in mind that an article on a polarizing subject like Coulter - a person who deliberately attempts to create as much controversy as humanly possible - is going to automatically generate NPOV issues, and that therefore it's best to remember to assume good faith of your fellow editors."
"A person who deliberately attempts to create as much controversy as humanly possible"? Really? You know, I hardly know her at all--all I knew is that liberals and democrats didn't like her. However, she shouldn't be causing this kind of hysteria among liberals. 
Al Franken doesn't make me go into hysterics--even though I don't care for what he says. 
"Assume good faith of your fellow editors"?
Well, you know, I've mentioned several edits be made to several editors of various articles--having good faith that they would at least consider what I have to say. Know what happened? They didn't even consider what I had to say! They made excuses for their style of writing and totally ignored me! 
...And this has been a pattern for a while now, and frankly, I'm losing faith in my "fellow editors"--they aren't listening to what I have to say and they leave stuff in the articles that don't even need to exist! 
Of course, if your definition of having faith in my fellow editors means to not question what they have to say and just sit back dumb and mute and let them put anything and everything in their article (in the name of "truth"), then no way will I have faith in them to run me over like that!
Cheers and democracy all de way friend,
--JJ
I know as a general rule one isn't supposed to edit another person's talk page comment, but I really don't think your response, as well written as it is, deserves to be categorized as an entirely separate section. Someone here noted the irony of the entry on a polemicist being polemic. If you hold a handful of feces to a mirror, what will you see in the reflection? Ann Coulter's made a career of bashing and insulting. That's what she does. The names of her book are "Treason" and "Slander". If she wrote a book or two that had more 'positive' messages or tones, we could've referred to them. The entry can only mirror what she actually is and how she is actually viewed. If there's something positive about her that's noteworthy (and noted) that you know of, by all means include that too. Amibidhrohi 02:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Kasreyn by JJ

message: This is directed towards the person who claimed the image replacement was "unflattering".  I personally disagree, but is it really the place of wikipedia editors to try to only use photos of celebs looking their best?  Isn't that kind of like pandering?
Not that I'm saying the other one should be restored.  But isn't it just a matter of personal opinion as to which photo she looks better in?  I think our goal should be to find a photo that shows the subject as they most commonly are, not their "best" or "worst" day.  This is rather difficult to expect, though, since we don't have time to examine that many photos.  I'm only bringing this up to mention that the can of worms you're opening is highly subjective, and arguments could go on endlessly about whether she looks "better" in one photo or another.  -Kasreyn 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if the entry for a person has a top image, that image should be one that is generally agreed to be representative of the person's appearance and, within that restriction, the most flattering image available of a PG-or-better nature.  If discussing a specific event related to that person, unflattering images that are representative of the event would absolutely be appropriate.  I'd say a valid exception to this would be if there is a particular image that is most associated with that person in the public consciousness, but care should be taken to make sure that this doesn't go to far down the road of turning an NPOV encyclopedic entry into a parody.  In other words, we don't have to dig around and find somebody's glamour shot, but there's certainly no POV taken in merely looking for an image in which they look their best doing what they normally do.  In this case, Ann spends a lot of time on TV.  An image of her on TV smiling is appropriately neutral.  Also, there is the principle of discussing major changes and seeking consensus before making them.  Humans are visual creatures, and changing the top image on an entry is therefore a pretty major change, and should be done as a matter of consensus. -Syberghost 14:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't matter if it looks flattering, that other one does not have sufficient copyright info, I believe. The Fox News one is fine. It perfectly illustrates Coulter, so there is no reason to replace at this point in time. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, if someone wants to put up the bucks to purchase the rights to a suitable glamour shot, and then release it into the public domain, please do. Until then we'll just have to live with what we got. My 2 cents worth. --DanielCD 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I remember that Ann posed for a professional photo of herself on the cover of Time magazine.   Presumably a much higher quality image than a screen capture from a TV screen -- maybe we should put that one up?  Justforasecond 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Both the Fox image and the "unflattering" CNN image seem to violate fair use policies.   Removed.  Justforasecond 02:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think that the image everyone is fussing about is unflattering (she is just butt-ugly) anyway it is not as bad as the photo that Ann Coulter, or whoever runs her web site, chose to be displayed on every webpage of anncoulter.com. See [http://anncoulter.org/images/photo.jpg. --Inahet 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: top image 

message: *...if you pay special attention to going more in-depth about the contents from a book, then create an article about the book and insert that in-depth look about the book WITH the article about the book.
But that's the thing, the point of this article is, "Who is this Ann Coulter lady and why do so many people find her noteworthy?"  That is our readers' question.  To answer it, we must provide examples of her writing.  To be fair to her, this sample should come from all aspects of her career, which means columns, interviews, and books.  It's not about going in-depth into the books.  It's about going in-depth into Ann Coulter, the subject of this article.  
*All I did was make it look more professional...leaving out the extras and keeping the necessary stuff that gave the article its professional air.
So to you, removing the entire criticisms section is removing "extras"?  To me, it's partisan bias.  Coulter's importance is almost solely based, as I have said before, on her outrageous (or, if you prefer, bold) comments which are notorious for having offended many.  If Wikipedia fails to report on this, then the entire article becomes a sham.
*A professional-looking article talks a little bit about the critics and then, the people who applaud the idea brought out by...whoever.
I've already dealt with this point.  The reason why the article hosts so many more criticisms of Coulter than praises is because that is the ratio of beliefs regarding her among the public.  The public debate on Ann Coulter is heavily weighted towards criticism of her comments.  Again, for Wikipedia to fail to report on this facet of Coulter (her widespread opprobrium), we would again be failing to report on the truth.
*and you can't justify negativity by putting a label of "truth" on it.
I'm not calling what people have said about Coulter the "truth".  That's just reporting on sources, the proper task of an encyclopedia.  I'm calling the fact that far, far more people criticize her than praise her, the truth.  It's self-evident by the simple fact that far, far more sources of criticism exist than sources of praise.  Unless you'd like to go begging the bias question.
*By "Randomly Selected Interviews", I meant that the writer picked out certain kinds of interviews on Anne (and as far as I know, those interviews are posted there to cast a negative light on Anne.)
Then they certainly weren't random, were they?!!  If they were selected maliciously, then call a spade a spade.  Call the section "Maliciously Selected Interviews" or "Slanderously Selected Interviews", and I'll revert you, and we'll be done with it.  OR, go with the NPOV approach, and call it "Selected Interviews", since to do anything else fails to assume good faith.
*However, she shouldn't be causing this kind of hysteria among liberals.
Ann Coulter has repeatedly claimed that she believes liberals to be the evil scum of the earth, that their sole goal in life is to destroy everything good in the world, and that liberals deserve to be universally put to death.  I am not fucking kidding you, read her books if you don't believe me.  That is her message.  If you don't call that "polarizing", you really shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia for grown-ups.
*Al Franken doesn't make me go into hysterics
Well, Al's just trying to make you go into hysterics of laughter, you see.  ;)  Maybe you just don't find him funny.  Hell, I sometimes find his jokes to be duds as well.  But the difference here is clear:  Al makes it clear as he says something that he intends it as a joke, so you play along in the joke with him, and have a laugh at its absurdity together.  Coulter, on the other hand, merely says something hateful, and then later hides behind the "just kidding" excuse, such as when she publically called for the assassination of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.  So you tell me - does saying "I'm kidding" really put you in the same league with a professional comedian?  Who would have known it was that easy to be funny!!
In general, if you haven't read much of a pundit's writings, I really suggest you shouldn't be editing the articles about them on Wikipedia.  Go read some of Coulter's writings, then come back here.  At the very least, it might give you ideas on better ways to improve the article.  
Cheers,  -Kasreyn 06:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to JJ by Kasreyn 

message: Why was all mention of her recent comments at Indiana University removed?
Can someone please reinstate some of that?
Here's a link to the news story:
-- 3 March 2006
: I reinstated one of the quotes.  -Justforasecond 02:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indiana University Comments Removed 

message: "Coulter is very fond of wearing short skirts."
POV; "short" definition varies from person to person, and all-around unecessary. The remainder of the line in the article should stay about being satirized for vanity, but not this.
**Someone is continually reverting this. I've noticed a lot of those who are against Coulter want to make some point about this in order to make her seem immoral to Christian conservatives. I think this does not belong here. It IS POV.
:Bleh, whatever.  I really don't care one way or the other; I once rewrote the section to try to make it more NPOV.  The fact that she was satirized for supposed vanity, however, might be considered worth reporting on...  and it would be rather odd to include that without including what she was being satirized for...  
:Personally, I find it ironic that people dislike Coulter for her regressive statements in support of patriarchy, but then attack her for wearing sexually liberated clothing.  When exposing hypocrites, it's best to avoid becoming one.  :P
:So fine, whatever, the section on the skirts can be removed if you can find someone else here who agrees with you.  I'm not going to take sides on it.  But whatever is left in the article had better be NPOV.  -Kasreyn 17:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naw, I think it is ironic from Coulter herself. There isn't sexually liberated cloting in the "imagined" patriarchial society she advocates. She never puts forth an example of a patriarchal society where rights are respected because the ideas aren't compatable. Blue Leopard 06:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the skirts are short relative to those worn by other pundits like huffington.  but simpler to just call them miniskirts Justforasecond 16:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Mention of Skirts

message: I am a bit puzzled by how a lot of people are insisting on saying that Coulter belonged to a "woman's fraternity" instead of a "sorority" or "woman's sorority."
According to the wikipedia entry for sorority, "Fraternities are all-male or mixed-sex; the female-only equivalent is called a sorority, a word coined for Gamma Phi Beta in 1874."Giles22 22:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorority is valid. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is, in this case.  Delta Gamma describes themselves as a women's fraternity; in fact, that's what the Wikipedia page on them says.  So if we leave this saying "sorority", we've got a link saying it's a fraternity and then, a couple of words later, an assertion that it's a sorority.  The only fair thing to do, in my mind, is call it what they call themselves; a "women's fraternity".  BTW, Delta Gamma predates Gamma Phi Beta by a year. --Syberghost 17:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right.  See this page of their website. It even says Fraternity would be used instead of the newer "sorority". I think it is definite. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraternity vs. Sorority

message: I should note that it may seem fine and NPOV to say that it's merely an allegation of racism (which is as far as we can go, since (thank god) we don't live inside Coulter's head), but this isn't good enough.  We have to provide some sort of corroboration that there has been an allegation against her of racism, such as a line saying "Coulter's remark was called racist by organization x (link)".  Otherwise the section heading ("allegedly racist statements") would include original research - the unsourced claim that there have been such allegations.  We cannot call Ann Coulter racist ourselves, but we can note that others have done so.  However, what the article currently is doing is effectively saying "someone somewhere called her a racist once", and leaving it at that.  This is original research.  -Kasreyn 09:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then start a section called "allegations of racism" and stop changing the section for quotes about Arabs and Muslims. -Syberghost 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, read Words_to_avoid for guidelines on why you shouldn't feature that word prominently in an article where there is ANY dispute about it, even if you can document sources.  The fact that several people agree with you and several people don't means YOU DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS.  Consensus requires that you take other people's position seriously.  You aren't doing that.  If you persist I will have no recourse but to refer this for dispute resolution. -Syberghost 21:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; I'm glad we could come to an agreement that addresses both of our concerns. -Syberghost 21:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more point on "allegedly racist" 

message: I move the TIme photo that Miss Coulter has publically criticised to criticism and put a picture from the cover of her book there. It seems more NPoV to not use a picture the subject thinks was distorted or manipulated. Dominick (TALK) 14:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't care one way or the other which photo is used, why should we base our choice of a photo on whether the subject likes it or not?  Guettarda 14:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a controversy over Time manipulating the photo. The claim was that such a picture would not have been run on an author that Time editors are allegedly more sympathetic. Running that picture to tweak the nose of someone that some editors find offensive is not NPoV. Dominick (TALK) 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sorry, I must have read your original comment too quickly.  If there is a legimitate controversy, that's fine.  Which brings me to another point - a TIME cover shouldn't be used unless the article is actually discussing the TIME article or cover, in which case moving the image was entirely appropriate.  However, the book cover should only be used where the book is discussed... whatever happened to the FOX News screenshot - or is that only acceptable when the subject is her commentary on FOX News?  Hmmm...doesn't someone have a pic from a press pack?  Promotional material is probably the easiest to justify "fair use"...  Guettarda 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a photo of her on Flickr, and the author is none other than Jimmy Wales. Maybe if you ask him nicely he'll let you use it.--Fallout boy 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Photo 

message: I could've blocked a few folks for abusing the three revert rule, but instead I'll protect the page. Please come to some kind of resolution here instead of edit warring. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all I was asking for; discussing, then consensus, then edit.  If you want to block me for reverting bad behavior I guess I can't stop you, but I joined the discussion before taking any action. -Syberghost 21:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm currently replacing deprecated . Please drop me a note if this is ready for editing again or  do it yourselves. Thanks. --Ligulem 08:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Ligulem 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If all this is about her having voted in a district where she is not registered to do so, that should be included and cited.  "Vote fraud" is too general, and there's no need to list possible criminal sentences (unless, of course, she is sentenced to one).  Eleemosynary 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I believe that Ann Coulter was also a guest on the radio show "The O'Franken Factor". Shouldn't that be included on her page as well? I know that the show was liberal and that Al Franken is a satirist, but I just want to be sure in the interest of fairness.
:If you've got a link you can cite for this, please be bold and add it.  Also, please sign your posts on talk pages, by typing ~~~~ at the end.  Thanks! -Syberghost 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Coulter on "The O'Franken Factor" 

message: The following paragraph, under "Criticism of Treason and Slander," is unnecessary. It does not tie to Coulter. It seems to try to reinforce her opinions. Factual or not, it does not flow. Just having it in seems PoV to me.
For instance, President Dwight Eisenhower's chief of staff Sherman Adams wrote a memoir in 1961, "First Hand Report" that makes clear the hostility the Republican administration held against Sen. McCarthy. Further, two Republican Senators wrote memoirs excoriating McCarthy. Sen. Arthur Watkins of Utah chaired his censure committee and wrote "Enough Rope" in 1969, sparing no detail in his fury over McCarthy's conduct. Sen. Charles Potter of Michigan sat on the Army-McCarthy hearings and the censure committe. His 1965 memoir "Days of Shame" is equally harsh toward the Wisconsin Senator.
71.132.24.187 20:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPoV 

message: Can anybody verify that the following sentance taken from the "Personal Background" section is accurate. 
:Her mother, Nell M. Coulter, is a member of the New Canaan Republican Town Committee. (Cloud, 2005) Ann Coulter attributes her conservative opinions and acerbic rhetorical style to her upbringing in Connecticut and subsequent life in New York City living with her oldest brother, John, and his law school roommate, Bill Bendix, now a Brooklyn, NY Personal Injury Attorney.
Specifically, the part in bold.  I noticed the part in bold was added by one of the anonymous IPs that have recently been vandalizing this article.  I placed the "citation needed" tag after it, but somebody deleted the tag without comment.  Also, the parenthetical (Cloud, 2005) is awkward.  Is it a reference?  If so can we change it to a standard citation format (footnote)?--WilliamThweatt 02:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been looking at this too.  This seems to verify that her mother is indeed Nell M. Coulter of New Canaan.  I haven't found anything verifying she's on the committee.  Maybe we should just scrap the whole thing for not having citations, unless somebody wants to go all that far back in the history and talk to the person who added it. -Syberghost 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The committee doesn't publish a roster. I can't blame them. Is this something that Ann Coulter has claimed or gossip? I removed some parts of the claim, and left the benign parts. Dominick (TALK) 19:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Background

message: I was just wondering if anyone could provide links to the unnamed NRO and Politically Incorrect articles that the quotes in the "controversial statements about women" subsection of the criticism section are taken from.  Such quotes need cititions in the article body, and if they can't be cited should probably be removed. I'll look for the articles myself, but it would help greatly if someone who already knew the URLs would post them. Thanks. TheKaplan 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements about women and voting 

message: Does anyone want to make an argument for keeping duplicate quotes that appear in the main article? If, after hearing nothing over a respectable period, I plan to delete duplicates.  skywriter 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on Quotations

message: Time magazine has a stated copyright policy:  http://www.time.com/time/reprints/covers/
Time's cover photo of Coulter is used twice on Wikipedia but there's no indication in the photo file that the person/s who uploaded it sought and received copyright permission per Time policy. 
Therefore use of this photo may get Wikipedia into copyright trouble. What is the proper way to proceed?
skywriter 01:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Observation on Possible Copyright Violations

message: In the last paragraph, copy reads
:The judge ruled that, even if her allegations proved true, Jones did show that she had suffered any damages. 
Should this be "Jones did not show"?
Signinstranger 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, absolutely yes. Gzuckier 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paula Jones section

message: "Ann Coulter was busy chastising Jimmy Wales about her Wikipedia entry and finding out from him how to change it." from Fox News. WAS 4.250 13:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to hear her comments on this talk page. Even better if she decided to type them herself. I have a little faith that PoV warriors from the left will act like grownups. A good chunk of this belongs on wikiquote. Dominick (TALK) 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's please move the quotes to Wikiquote. I suspect most of them are already there. -Will Beback 21:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gossip column

message: I understand the desire to have a "counterviewpoint" to her work, but a site dedicated to bashing her? And a blog at that? What makes that site a valid one for WP? --Mhking 17:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a simple PoV fork and blogs are not good sources for wikipedia. It doesn't matter how good it is. Dominick (TALK) 17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you find unverified blogs, by all means mark them up with  templates. Dominick (TALK) 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog Link

message: The last two revisions are unsourced viewpoint. The opposite is true. Coulter has even been accused of plagiarism and that is not yet in this article. (I've been meaning to get to it-- and I will.) That an author uses footnotes is not noteworthy. That an author is accused of getting the facts wrong, as this author has been repeatedly, is news. This is not a public relations site for Coulter. It is already over the top that the page is providing PR (with the photo) for her next book. Skywriter 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is something she touts. The second statement I can't say. It must have been a second edit. I edited the first to make it clearer. It is notable among books of this genre. Dominick (TALK) 18:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second sentence followed a PoV sentence. I merged the two, sort of. Dominick (TALK) 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I didnt place that in the article. It was in there all along. Add a  template. Perhaps you should not take things so personally.  Dominick (TALK) 19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last two Revisions Self-praising her Factualness

message: I'm pretty sure I remember this line differently.  The line as it currently stands reads, In his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, liberal pundit Al Franken pointed out some factual errors and misleading statements in Coulter's books, which were corrected in later editions.
This seems to imply that every error pointed out by Franken was corrected.  I've read "Lying Liars", and Franken's laundry list of Coulter errors and (he alleges) lies is quite long.  I find it very hard to believe that Coulter would go out of her way to fix every statement Franken had a problem with, especially since Franken is, in her words, a godless liberal who hates America.
Does anyone have a source on how many (if any) of the errors pointed out by Franken were, in fact, corrected in later editions of Coulter's books?  Perhaps I'm wrong, and she really did fix them all.  Perhaps I've misjudged Coulter.  But... I doubt it.  Anyone got a source?  Kasreyn 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franken on Coulter books 

message: Why does the article have two book covers at the top? This breaks pattern (very few Wikipedia articles are structured this way, if any) and the images are very redundant - they look almost exactly the same. The purpose of multiple images should be to illustrate different facets of the article, but the two photos of Coulter are practically the same - not like "Michael Jackson in 1984 vs 2004" or anything. I think it is quite unnecessary to have an image of multiple book covers unless the cover of the book is significant in some way. Rexmorgan 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I removed the treason Image. We didnt have a public domain image so a book cover was good. SOmeone removed a good image long ago and used the Time image. I think the Treason image was better, and the Godless book is probably better for this. Since we are Wikipedia it is easy to use the lastest published image. Dominick (TALK) 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Screenshot looks better. Good job! Dominick (TALK) 17:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two images 

message: If there are issues over the site's reliability or notability, please discuss.  Inserting POV descriptions like "rumored" aren't the right way to handle it.  If the site is a poor or unreliable source, it should be removed entirely, not included and impugned.  Kasreyn 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the allegations in Coulter Watch were third party, and taken from transcripts. I put citation templates where facts need primary sources. Dominick (TALK) 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Kasreyn 00:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Coulter watch 

message: I started excising some sources. We should really use primary quotes. I even found a link to Free Republic which is a message board! I also added context. If she says things, then we need to take pains to not take the quotes out of context. Not including the whole invasion quote, or that it was written after the death of a friend, is not good encyclopedia writing. This is a bigger task that I can easily do. I will replace some bad sources with fact templates. Lets make this a fair article. Dominick (TALK) 12:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That is why I questioned the use of blogs in the earlier section. --Mhking 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerous OP Ed pieces are not sources 

message: Does anyone oppose moving the long quote section and some of the long quotes within the article to Wikiquotes? 
I will leave this question up for comment for a few days. Thanks. Skywriter 17:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, especially since earlier consensus showed this to be favorable. (In the archives somewhere) --LV (Dark Mark) 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long section on quotations

message: 209.etc isn't bothering to "defend" himself, being too busy getting repeatedly blocked for egregious vandalism, so I'll only take the time to address 216.etc.
You wrote:
:It should be noted as context to this remark that Coulter often jokes about her overly passionate attacks on liberalism, and also that she likes to ridicule the New York Times as a totem of intellectual respectability for liberals and in fact had done so earlier in the month in an interview with Brian Lamb, founder of C-Span (Coulter, August 11, 2002).
*"should be noted" - POV pushing and editorializing.
*"overly passionate" - POV.  I happen to agree, but it's still POV.
*"Coulter, Aug 11" is not good enough as a source.
*Furthermore, the issue of whether Coulter is joking or not is already being covered in the Quotations section near the bottom of the article.  If you have something to add regarding whether she is serious or not, add it there.
You wrote:
:However, it should be noted as a contextual background to this remark that Thomas often applies makeup to her eyebrows that gives them a thick, dark appearance and that Coulter often jokes about her own willingness to racially-profile Arabs.
*"should be noted" - as above, POV pushing and editorializing.
*"contextual background" - says you.  Original research.
*"often applies makeup" - says you.  Original research.  
*"Coulter often jokes about her own willingness to racially-profile..." - says you.  Got a source for her self-mockery?
In summary, stop inserting original research whose purpose is to apologize for Coulter's wilder comments.  It's not appropriate.  She said the NYT should have been bombed, and she called Helen Thomas an offensive slur.  Ann Coulter did those things, not you.  How about you stop trying to apologize for her?  Kasreyn 20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not.  Kasreyn 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So much for  assuming good faith Dominick (TALK) 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  I don't follow.  Kasreyn 03:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research by 209.152.9.14 and 216.165.199.50

message: Just curious about this fact... I can't seem to find any references to this on the Internet. BTW, I've started to made the inlink links as <ref>s, as per Wikipedia standard.  --  Zanimum 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raised Catholic 

message: Ann has nothing to do with the Venona Papers and also Ned Rice has no relevance. That is why they have been taken out. Puckmv 04:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Links 

message: We had "As an undergraduate in Cornell University's College of Arts and Sciences, Coulter helped launch a conservative newspaper, The Cornell Review, with funding from the Collegiate Network, which in turn receives its core funding from the conservative philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife."
Interestingly, our article on the Collegiate Network does not mention Scaife!  Do we have a source which would show that the Cornell Review was launched with funding from the Collegiate Network in the first place?
It seems plausible to me that the claims are true, although I should point out that this sort of chain strikes me as pretty hackish writing.  She "helped launch" a newspaper (in what capacity) which got funding (how much, was it primary funding, or simply a small grant?) from a non-profit organization, which in turn receives funding from Scaife.  That is a pretty stretched chain whose sole purpose seems to be to imply a connection between Coulter and Scaife which probably does not exist.
So even if the claim did turn out to be true and verifiable, it is not clear to me as a matter of editorial judgment that it belongs in the article anyway.
To be clear, I am editing in this case as an ordinary editor, not acting in any special capacity.  I met Anne Coulter recently and she brought this tidbit up to me as an example of a flaw in the Wikipedia biography of her, and I have to say that I agree with her criticism on this point.
I have not reviewed the rest of the article in any detail.--Jimbo Wales 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have emailed The Review, and will report back with any details they can provide. Although we'll see how much they can. And yeah, the whole thing was pretty hackish... welcome to the world of highly contentious articles, Jimbo! ;-) --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, an email from them should be treated only as a lead, since we need verifiable sources.--Jimbo Wales 16:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course, but if they can provide some primary documentation (perhaps her name on a charter, SAO (Student Activities Office) petition, or some other early Review document) I'd say that would be pretty reliable. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 16:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, to start answering some of these questions, this article simply states she was "[a] founding member of the Cornell Review as well as former editor-in-chief". This one simply states "who founded the Cornell Review". I'll see if I can get any deeper information. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 16:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats part of the problem, conspiricy theory writing has been crepping into articles, and efforts to remove them are met with "censorship" claims. Thanks Jimbo! Sources are supreme. Dominick (TALK) 16:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "courting", boy that is certainly a strange remark. --Jimbo Wales 22:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not really necessary, Xed. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 17:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True though. Nearly all of the articles 'protected' by Jimbo and his associates are about right-wing fanatics – Alan Dershowitz, newsmax.com, Christopher Ruddy etc. We can assume good faith, but lets not be naive. - Xed 17:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dershowitz? Yikes. If you think he's a "right-wing fanatic" you may be showing off your POV quite a bit. This article has not been "protected" either. We do need to remain verifiable and encyclopedic. And it's not naiveté. If you think that's the direction it is going, what direction is it that you think it currently is in? ;-) --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I know a lot about Jimbo's integrity. Or lack of it. While he may support someone like Ann Coulter (who rants on at length about ragheads, camel jockeys, jihad monkeys etc), and share her opinions, I don't think it's right that he imposes his views on Wikipedia. Whenever he starts "editing as an ordinary editor", very soon afterwards his sycophants make sure the article becomes the embodiment of his opinions. The history of Wikipedia is replete with incidences of this nature. - Xed 18:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but did you ever stop and think he and "his sycophants" were correct? I know you have taken issue in the past, but perhaps what they are doing is actually helping WP. This is afterall an encyclopedia, not a blog or diatribe-ranting medium. We just try and explain the topic at hand and give the best possible description of the article's subject. We do not add or remove things willy-nilly either. We have to remain NPOV and especially verifiable. Just because he met Coulter does not mean he shares her views. I would be shocked if he did, in fact. He isn't "courting her", he's trying to make the article better. I can't see why you would take exception with trying to make articles batter, or is that not your goal here? --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 18:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The selectivity about how he chooses which articles to "defend" is notable. All are ferociously anti-arab. I won't pretend this is a coincidence, and I respect your intelligence enough to know that you won't either. So, this leads his interventions to become more and more like a blog or a diatribe, rather than less. Let's not be naive. If Jimbo had met David Duke, and he came onto Wikipedia and suggested Wikipedia should be more sympathetic to the man, would you support him? Let's maintain some integrity, and resist the need to support Jimbo simply because he leads this project. - Xed 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about "anti-arab" (and this isn't really the place to be debating this anyways). Perhaps "Pro-Israel", which is vastly different. And to be frank, sorry Jimbo, I don't really think Jimbo leads this project much. He has some control, but in the vast majority of decisions around here, especially in recent times, Jimbo has had no role. There are many others that have contributed more to the actual content around here. Jimbo plays a role, yes. But an increasingly diminishing one (as it should be, really). He hasn't even touched on Arab-related material in some of the articles he has, as you put it, "protected". If he had wanted a "anti-arab" wiki, he would have formed one; not one based on NPOV. That's the way I see it. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Gee, as far as I can tell, the question at hand here seems to have no positive nor negative connotations for Ann Coulter.  It is a purely factual question.  The idea that my work on this matter, or any other, has anything at all to do with agreeing with the ideas of Ann Coulter, Newsmax.com, Alan Dershowitz, and Christopher Ruddy is laughable in the extreme.  The first clue one might get is that I am in vehement disagreement with all of them.  To make his case, Xed has to blank out almost completely on the facts of reality.  A quick review of my edit history shows me "defending" such notorious right wingers as Jay Rockefeller, Juan Cole, Paul Barressi, etc.  Please.  The idea that I am anti-Arab is so preposterous that I think Xed should hang his head in shame for suggesting it. --Jimbo Wales 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is NPOV, unforunatly NPoV for some editors means thier view wins. Dominick (TALK) 01:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  newsaper founding 

message: * Search for the word "Sheforeign". I don't know what the author intended, so I won't edit or delete that, however irrelevant it seems.
:It was this edit. It was "United States foreign policy", but it got messed up a little. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 15:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typos 

message: I recently refactored this page, but it got mostly reverted. Let me explain. The Fox News screencap is grainy and out-of-focus. The book cover better shows who Coulter is (especially since she is first an author, secondly a Fox News guest). Using the SC in the lead leaves no image for the "Media career" section, and multiple ones in later sections. For these reasons I feel the cover should be in the lead, and the SC should be lower. The list of books should be higher in the article, as this is the main reason she is notable (although they would probably be better suited in some sort of paragraph form, not just a straight list). Some of the "Controversies" mention the book, but we haven't even identified what she wrote before jumping right into critiques of them. I know there is still some refactoring left to do, but thought it wise to discuss my changes here. Thoughts? --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the books should have pride of place; they are the main reason she is notable.  I really don't care about which picture is used as long as the images are all acceptable for our use.  And you're right, it's probably jarring to a reader who hasn't heard of Coulter to be told criticisms of "Slander" or "Treason" before even being told that such a book exists!  Those of us editors who have studied Coulter should keep this pitfall in mind:  just because we know about Coulter is irrelevant.  We must assume our readers know nothing about her, and present the information in a logical order.  Good call, LV.  Kasreyn 00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I couldn't find her on a South Park episode. If no source is given an the next few days, that bit will be removed. Thanks. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 02:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring... 

message: When did South Park lampoon Coulter?  What episode?--69.249.195.232 18:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I couldn't find her on a South Park episode. If no source is given an the next few days, that bit will be removed. Thanks. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 02:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park, Jay Leno claims 

message: If you have reason to claim neutrality stance on this issue, please talk about it on this page. Puckmv 23:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, Puck.  The POV tag was added by an anonymous user who did not explain the reasons on the talk page.  The burden is upon the person who adds the tag to explain the reasons for its inclusion.  Since that anon user 24.15.75.90 did not state any reasons here, the NPOV tag should not be there.  Kasreyn 00:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Statement Revoked 

message: How long are uncited quotes left uncited before they're determined to be unfounded and removed?  Is it true that "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable" or can I just go through every article and write bizarre "facts" with a "Citation Needed" in superscript?  In my opinion, quotes should not be posted until verification can be provided.
Roy Harmon 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I typically give unsourced claims a week, as a courtesy to whoever added them.  Of course, if it's something offensive or obviously loony, there is no grace period; vandalism does not require courtesy in return.  Note that I mean a week from when the cite tag was applied, not a week from when the claim was first added.  This gives other editors a chance to find sourcing; often whoever added the claim has moved on and might never even look at the page in question again.  Kasreyn 04:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited Quotes