Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 14

message: She is far from self-described as a public intellectual. She was heavily covered in a book about public intellectuals a few years back. she was definitely in the top 100. I think the author was Posner or Poser or something like that. Good Cop 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that too.  By the way El Kevbo, I think you are the one who asked for a citation?  The "public intellectual" comment comes from the Time magazine cover story piece by Cloud.  Except it's not a direct quotation.  Cloud says something like "Coulter sees herself as a public intellectual". 216.165.199.50 05:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think I was the one who requested a citation.  I cleaned up the intro and noticed that phrase was not cited.  Thanks!  --ElKevbo 19:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the statement from the same Cloud article already cited in the article or a different piece?  I'm just trying to track down the necessary bibliographical information to cite the assertion and double-check it.  --ElKevbo 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's the same one 64.154.26.251 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Intellectual 

message: Somebody needs to rewrite the "Registration and Voting" stuff, since it's outdated and based on innuendo. Somebody could/should get in big trouble over it. Wikipedia says Coulter "is under investigation." The source of this is a gossip column (see its URL) that says officials are "reportedly investigating." I wouldn't want to explain the difference to a judge in a libel case. The next part says the officials gave her 30 days to explain. That was seven months ago (>210 days). Yet this "encyclopedia" still says "is". The judge would have a fit. Not to mention that the cited source is no longer available unless you pay for it. I'm not paying, and I don't trust that it says what Wikipedia says it does (see above for the reason). Also, what does the minor age dispute in the third paragraph have to do with alleged improper conduct in registration and voting? Good Cop 01:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What did you think of my fix, Good Cop?  Any suggestions would be welcome.  Let me say this, though, the articles (the free ones) form a coherent story.  I also read somewhere that Coulter got legal assistance from somewhere.  But there was no "allegation" in this episode yet, just an investigation, and I changed the article to reflect that. 216.165.199.50 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't be bothered checking through the history but from memory, there was a dispute as to whether the was born in 1961 or 1963. Given when she first voted, if she was born in 1963, she would have been breaking the law in the US. I believe this was the relevance between the age dispute and voting Nil Einne 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it's still in the article. Basically, she registered to vote in 1980 supposedly. But it's unclear if she were born in 1963 or 1961. In the US state where she registered to vote, the voting age is 18. Therefore, if she were born in 1963, she would be 17 at most in 1980 and would have broken the law if she voted (and I guess if she registered to vote) Nil Einne 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registration and Voting / Innuendo and Libel 

message: It turns out that if this DemocraticUnderground.com quote is correct, The dialogue between Allan Colmes and Ann Coulter reported by Editor & Publisher about wishing Timothy McVeigh to go to the New York Times building, namely: 
:[Colmes] asked her if she wanted to take back the earlier statement that Timothy McVeigh should have bombed The New York Times office, especially if reporters were inside.  She responded, "No"...
was made up out of whole cloth!
Watch this Youtube video if your ISP can carry videos.  Allan Colmes asked her nothing of the sort; instead he attacked her, accusing her of making the statements on the basis of being a closet liberal!
If you can't watch it, here is my summary of the exchange:
:Alan Colmes mentioned Salem's claim, and said to her that remarks like saying "Timothy McVeigh should have bombed The New York Times building" were "laughable happy satires, right?" then said he now realized that Coulter was "actually a liberal who is doing this to mock and parody the way conservatives think." She responded, "Well, it's not working very well if that were my goal. I think the Timothy McVeigh line was merely prescient after The New York Times has leapt beyond -- beyond nonsense straight into treason, last week," Coulter replied (referring to a Times report that revealed classified information about an anti-terrorism program of the U.S. Government involving surveillance of international financial transactions of persons suspected of having Al-qaida links). Alan Colmes continued in this sarcastic vein when he responded, calling her remarks "great humor", and that it "belongs on Saturday Night Live. It belongs on The Daily Show."
The "account", if you can call it that, even contains the made-up detail that Colmes said "especially if reporters were inside."
And whoever included the "account" apparently plagiarized large sections of the E&P article, then went on to make "improvements" like having Salem "saying" Coulter was a brilliant satirist, rather than "suggested".  [This may have been the work of a later editor, 64.154.26.251 09:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lol

message: Coulter is single and lives in a home in Palm Beach, Florida, that she purchased for $1,800,000 in 2005.  Prior to moving to Florida, Coulter resided in New York City.  She owns houses in New York and Florida.Lisberg, Adam. "Florida officials investigate why Coulter voted in the wrong precinct." New York Daily News. June 8, 2006. 
I moved this here because I am not really sure that is notable.  I generally have not seen property value and dating status listed in WP:BLP unless it is somehow relevant to a larger fact.  Especially since these are tagged with both "fact" and "failed verification" tags. --Rtrev 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. It's personal information, none of which applies to Coulter's notability. Lou Sander 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not advocating for inclusion, but the PB, FL home price and location was cited with a PB Cty tax link, which can be located with very little difficulty if someone feels this needs to be included. I think it was probably originally included to "prove" her residency for the voter fraud paragraph / section. Someone may have removed the link for WP:BLP reasons since it included her actual home address. The source was added by an anon,  --Dual Freq 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well other parts are not verified and had fact templates that were added back and removed a few times by a new editor. Dominick (TALK) 03:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Info

message: Umm....... Ann Coulter's mother is of Lebanese descent, so why is it always getting deleted when i write it??? left unsigned, by Jimmo bobo 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, her mother's descent has nothing to do with Ann Coulter's notability. Lou Sander 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: More to the point, that claim needs to cite a source.  But neither the claim nor the editor making it ought be taken seriously, considering the latter's editing history (under 144.136.152.17 ) of adding unsourced and highly doubtful, if not patently false claims of Lebanese ancestry -- Berber, in one case -- and briefer history  of other vandalism to two of the same articles, under "Jimmo bobo". -- Lonewolf BC  22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanese Mother 

message: Outstanding issues: 
The claim that Coulter is a bigot by CAIR still needs support. Kizzle found 1 additional article to help source it but the article was written by someone who's neutrality is in question.
The claim that Coulter is a bigot by CAIR may be giving undue weight to a tiny minority opinion. This view seems to be only found on partisan websites, and as above, the single source that Kizzle has uncovered.
The claim that Coulter is a bigot may be better expressed already by the article and adding this potentionally libelous one-liner should be weighed against the rest of the article for inclusion. Is it redundant? Does it add anything to the article that isn't already there?
Kyaa the Catlord 07:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved material from the terrorism subhead to the columns subhead. CAIR et al are complaining about what she's written for the most part. Kyaa the Catlord 08:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued concerns, continued

message: Raphael1 added in more duplicate information, information already contained in the article. I'd remove it (again), but I'll let someone else have the fun this time. This is starting to become boring. Will someone please let him know that the material he readded is already contained in the article beside me, he does not seem to listen.... Kyaa the Catlord 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated material 

message: I made a number of, what I consider, compromise edits and LonewolfBC has repeatedly reverted them away. I've made requests to him on his talk page to be careful when reverting and to discuss major changes on this discussion page before making them. He has blatantly refused to discuss anything (see his talk). Honestly, if LonewolfBC has a personal problem with me, fine, but bullying my edits away is dirty pool. Kyaa the Catlord 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's helpful when you avoid antagonising editors. For example, calling LonewolfBC's edits vandalism when they clearly weren't was not likely to be helpful. Also, as far as I can tell, you're the one who made the major changes which LonewolfBC felt were illadvised and therefore reverted. Generally speaking, when you make major changes to an article, which are disputed, it is up to you to explain why you made the changes and why you felt they were necessary rather then the person disputing them to explain. I'm not saying LonewolfBC has handled this well, simply pointing out the best way to handle tricky situations Nil Einne 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read this talk page? I've been discussing changes for days. Kyaa the Catlord 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's discuss those changes:
1 In the section about Coulter's religious beliefs, I added an OR tag to the unsourced statement that a particular writing stirred controversy.
2 In that same section, I increased the size of the quote to give context.
3 I moved the section about CAIR throwing a hissy fit over her columns from the "terrorism" section to the columns section.
4 I removed the duplicate material related to the 911 Jersey Girls, which has its own section and was terribly out of place.
5 I hid the image since there is a content dispute regarding it and it had been totally removed previously.
Why Lonewolf's reverts are bad form:
The above quote is from help: revert. Is there a dispute? Yes. Were my edits in good faith? Yes. Was there valid information? Yes. Should he have "improved the edit rather than reverting it?" Oh hell yes. Kyaa the Catlord 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I looked at the edits. I decided that they were bad. Yes, you've been talking about making assorted edits, but I don't see that you had consensus for the ones you made. Indeed, you had every reason to believe that they would be contentious. One factor that figured in my decision to revert was that your behavior has become indistinguishable from that of a troll, both in editing the article and in talking about edits, here. The big hullaballoo you are now making, with its emphasis on trying to cast Lonewolf as the villain of the piece, rather than calmly discuss the edits, is typical of this troll-like behavior. If you are sincere, you need to take a good long wikipedia-break, to try to regain some perspective. If you are a troll, you need a permanent one. Anyhow, my interest is in useful editing of articles, not in wrestling with trolls or folk who act like trolls, so I'll not step into the ring with you, though I am ever ready to sit across the table. -- Lonewolf BC 19:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Lonewolf's reversion. I don't personally see any reason to move the the CAIR thing. And the stuff that was added, well was unnecessary. In terms of your dispute with Lonewolf, I won't go any further except to repeat what I said before. Try to avoid antagonising other edits. Perhaps lonewolf has not handled this well, I won't comment on that. But Lonewolf's edits were obviously not vandalism. BTW, I'd in fact visited Lonewolf's page and viewed your attempt to sort this out beforehand. I note in your oldid you failed to include the edit you made where you gave Lonewolf a vandalism warning here. I'm going to assume good faith here, and guess that you did this by accident but in the future, try to make sure you include the entire exchange, not just part of it. Nil Einne 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may agree with Lonewolf's reversion, but per the help file for reversion, his choice to revert was a bad choice. His choice to revert again after being asked politely to discuss his proposed changes on the talk page was starting a classic revert war which is seriously frowned upon by wikipedia and most neutral wikipedians. Kyaa the Catlord 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh come on now

message: I commented out the Passion thing for now here. Reason is quite simple. Although Ann's comments are likely to be offensive to many, it's important we establish they were controversial or at least noteable which we haven't. As another editor remarked (somewhere in the archives now I guess), Ann has said a lot of stupid things. You only have to read a bit of what she says to know this. However it's not up to ask to compile all the stupid things she's said. When a specific thing she said has attracted controversy, then we can mention this. The fact that you and I find this comment offensive is irrelevant (this will probably apply to most of her comments) in the absense of evidence it was controversial or noteable. Nil Einne 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who's been fighting to get this removed since its original inclusion, I simply wish you good luck. (You're going to need it.) Kyaa the Catlord 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coulter says many things that tend to be inflammatory to some readers. There is no room to repeat them all. IMHO, we should specifically mention only those that have caused fairly notable and widespread controversy. When we mention them, fairness requires us to do a lot more than just repeat what she said; for example, we need to provide a fair description of the context in which she said them. Some editors are not able to do that, others are. Lately the former seem to be pretty active in this article. Lou Sander 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love you Lou. Marry me.  What I meant to say was that I grow weary of your anonymous sniping of editors on this page. If you were complaining about an editor currently active on the talk page, I'd hope you'd come out and leave constructive criticisms rather than whining intimations. --kizzle 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please observe WP:CIV, Kizzle. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 08:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I'm asking from Lou, though I did withdraw my previous unproductive comment. --kizzle 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyaa, thanks for your continuing efforts at pest control. It helps us all in our continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Lou Sander 13:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great example of constructive criticism. --kizzle 00:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this snarkiness necessary? Your continued feud with Lou is becoming dull and is innappropriate for a talk page. Kyaa the Catlord 07:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas "pest control" is entirely appropriate. Good point. --kizzle 07:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes two to tango, but since you went out hunting for more partners, I imagine this is more of a line dance now. Kyaa the Catlord 08:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Passion thing 

message: The term "Islamofascism" is (in my opinion, intentionally) inflammatory, in addition to being generally inaccurate (as fundamentalist Islam shares very few traits with World-War-II-era fascism).  While to some it may be a "legitimate term to describe a subset", as User:Caper13 claims, it's too emotionally loaded to ensure rational discourse.  It is not used at all within the section, and including it in the header implies that Ms. Coulter limited her statements to the jihadists, undercutting the controversy surrounding the statements within the section; the controversy is precisely because her statements do not differentiate between violent, fundamentalist Islamic groups such as al Qaeda and peaceful Muslims. --Benjamin Geiger 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO the article might be improved by addition of an encyclopedic, neutral point of view section on Coulter and Arabs/Muslims. This should NOT just be a childish recitation of things she has said that some A/M's might take issue with. It might include the points that 1) she writes a lot of stuff; 2) none of it mainly deals with A/M (or if you think some of it does, point it out in a neutral way; her airport security stuff is about airport security, not about A&M); 3) she has said some minor things that some find disagreeable ("raghead," "smell bad," etc.) Personally, I don't think her A/M stuff is notable enough to write up. Those who DO might want to try to write it up in an encyclopedic NPOV way. Lou Sander 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like at least some of her "A&M" comments have been heavily reported in the mainstream press. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. She's a writer and public speaker, so what she writes and says seems relevant. Vpoko 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vpoko is probably right about some of her A&M comments being notable, if indeed they were heavily reported in the mainstream press. They're just not notable enough for ME to spend time on. If an A&M comment goes in, it should go in in an encyclopedic and neutral way (which takes skill, time and effort to do, of course). If somebody who cares about the A&M material could discuss it in an encyclopedic and neutral way, it probably would stay in. "COULTER HATES MUSLIMS!" won't make it. Neither will "WALID FOO SAYS COULTER HATES MUSLIMS!" Maybe something like "While A&M have not figured prominently in Coulter's work, some of her comments about them have raised eyebrows" -- then provide some citations. Above all, avoid inflammatory words that make it look like Wikipedia has an opinion. Lou Sander 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Her comments would have to have been highly reported though. Not just some critic commenting "Eeek, look at what she's said now". Otherwise, when it comes to articles about professional commentators, their article will become a collection of quotes surrounded by complaints about how so and so was pissed off by them. Coulter's style is to cut through the noise and to make comments which shock certain readers. I think rather than entering a collection of quotes that are intended to have shock value, it is enough to just note this propensity and style of hers. As for whether she doesnt like Muslims, that is laughable. I would imagine she would answer that she has no problem with Muslims as long as they arent trying to kill people, destroy our buildings, impose islamic law, destroy western civilization, hijack planes, or forcibly convert others. <--the preceeding was an example of the type of comment that is phrased to have shock value, and yet carry what some would consider a normal message at its core. (She is opposed to the fanatics who are waging war). If it is part of her style to do this, it can be noted that those who like her enjoy the over the top comments, and those who dislike her are outraged by them, without creating a laundry list. Particular subjects are then easier to deal with in an NPOV manner. Eg. that because we are at war with an enemy that is predominantly muslim, she favors a wider program of profiling those groups and is less concerned that nonmilitant muslims may be inconvenienced by it, given the potential dangers involved (even though she may have phrased it in a more inflammatory way). Our job is to be NPOV even if the subject isnt. Caper13 23:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One might note that Ann uses the word "islamofascists" in her writings. I'd source it, but I feel that having citations in headers is dumb and makes things look godawful. So I'm being bold and not sourcing it. Neener neener neener. Kyaa the Catlord 06:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Strongly agree with Benjamin. If the term "Islamofascism" is to be included, it needs to have quotation marks around it. WP is not here to lob verbal grenades like that. If it absolutely has to be in the header for some strange reason (rather than, say, a header like "Coulter's writings on Muslims"), then it still must be directly attributed to Coulter to make it clear that it is not WP using this loaded and inaccurate terminology. Kasreyn 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back to what it was a couple weeks ago. The extraneous additions have been purged since then and its returned to its original subject. Kyaa the Catlord 06:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Preemptive: "I didn't do it" [] before you suggest it. Kyaa the Catlord 08:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was researching it myself as you posted this, and came to the same conclusion. Kasreyn 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad Kasreyn :) Although for some reason it's showing up as Lonewolf on my computer, though it's still my comment.  Weird. --kizzle 09:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As best as I can make out, it was Lonewolf restoring your comment. But I don't understand how that nuked the other two (see above). Anyhow, all back now. -- Lonewolf BC 09:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for reverting the vandalism :) --kizzle 09:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Islamofascism" 

message: Why is there no mention of Coulter's Plagiarism?
: What plagiarism is that?  Be bold and put it in.  74.33.26.71 07:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The alleged plagiarism was once in the article. There was extensive discussion of it on this page (now archived somewhere). Basically, people accused her of plagiarism, and upon review by her publisher and other responsible authorities, the accusations were determined to be without merit. Lou Sander 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: What do people think of Caper's upped photo? --kizzle 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at the risk of being too predictable, I like it better Caper13 08:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the Jimbo pic sucked. This one is ok. Kyaa the Catlord 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just say now that we've satisfied policy I'm staying the f away from this debate :) --kizzle 08:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's cropped too tight on the left side. One of the rules from basic photography is that you're not supposed to cut someone's arms off. ;-p But policy-wise, it's fine of course. If consensus is to use this photo I don't mind. The lighting is definately better in this one. —Malber (talk • contribs) 09:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as it's not fair use (CC license means essentially free, right?) I can't see any reason to object.  Looks good.  Kasreyn 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Whew!  Your failure to weigh in thus far had me worried...  I was afraid you were dead or something!  ;)  I'm relieved.  Kasreyn 23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sigh, we've been in to this lots of times. There may be a million photos of Ann Coulter, it's kind of irrelevant. We don't use photos under fair use when there is a 'free' one which does the job. Until and unless you can find a better 'free' image, then this one will have to be it. Frankly, I've never understood why people make such a big fuss about these photos. While I agree Jimbo's one was a bit crap, this one is fine and isn't unflattering. It's definitely far more flattering then the grey dress one we had for ages Nil Einne 11:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new photo... 

message: I propose to delete this stuff, which was recently added to the Speeches at college campuses section:
:On May 3rd, 2005, while Coulter was having a Q&A session at the University of Texas' LBJ Library, a UT student-heckler named Ajai Raj spoke his mind and asked a very crude question to Coulter which concerned sodomy in a heterosexual marriage. Coulter stood shocked on stage and the crowd was likewise stupefied. From an article Raj wrote about the incident, it seems that his plan was simple: to be a jackass. Evidently, Raj and friends had been yelling obscenities at Coulter from the start while holding protest signs at the back of the crowd. His reasoning behind these actions was that anyone could be abrasive, rude and crude, which is what he believed Coulter was doing. Raj also attempted to convey his thoughts that not everyone was intimidated by her and not everyone agreed with her political points. Feeling triumphant, Raj turned to leave the event, making masturbatory hand gestures as he left, and was approached by the police. Raj told them he was leaving and they replied that they were there to arrest him. After questioning why he was being arrested, they handcuffed him and put him in the back of a police car. While in the car, Raj asked them again why he was being arrested and the officers allegedly told him that they didn't even see what had happened (meaning Raj's question and hand gestures) and were just doing what they were told to do.
Reasons: 1) poorly sourced; 2) no clear demonstration of its relevance to Coulter's notability; 3) original research ("it seems," "what he believed," "feeling triumphant," etc.; 4) unencyclopedic; 5) pretty old. Basically, it's a story of some kid mouthing off and getting arrested for it. Lou Sander 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would at best be mildly interesting if we could source that the kid's motivation was to mimic what he saw as Coulter's crudeness (ie., a kind of parody), but even with such a source, I'd definitely say we don't need a huge paragraph on it.  If it stays, it should definitely be trimmed to the essentials.  Kasreyn 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even see a reason why it should stay at all.  --ElKevbo 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it deserves an entire section. just kidding, I say out with it. --kizzle 23:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackass Incident 

message: I wanted to add a few links to articles for people mentioned on this entry, but I don't want to get banned or something. I mean, I don't like Coulter -at all-, but I think this article needs a bit of work in that regard. Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be locked... there is no protection tag on it.  Also, you can't get banned for good faith editing especially considering WP:AGF.  Make whatever additions you want as long as they are reasonable, avoid WP:POV, and have WP:RS.  --Rtrev 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh my bad... I thought it was lifted.  Should probably actually look first eh? --Rtrev 04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Idiot, find citations for any of what you want to include from a notable reliable source and we can begin to discuss whether it may be suitable for inclusion under [WP:BLP]]. Lawyer2b 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think i4 has two points that merit consideration (the anagram phenomenon, and the intensity of the opposition she inspires). I'm thinking that the anagram stuff probably merits a brief mention, and that the intensity stuff should probably be mentioned explicitly, but in a neutral way. We see frequent manifestation of the intense dislike, but we don't really cover the intense dislike itself. Lou Sander 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with noting that Ann Coulter is polarizing (In a NPOV way), hell her style is to intentionally say otherwise reasonable things in an extreme way to both highlight a contrast with another position, to attract attention, and to piss off leftists, but since when is simple namecalling noteworthy?  I really don't see how a bunch of hate filled people making a game out of calling her a C*nt or whatever is encyclopedic. That sort of thing says more about the people who engage in such behaviour than it does about Coulter Caper13 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this locked? 

message: *I wanted to add something about an emerging phenomenon, the growth of websites featuring anagrams of Ms. Coulter's name. A Google on her name and anagram returns more than 27,000 citations.
*Additionally, I don't think Wikipedia presents a clear view of the intense partisan dislike Coulter has generated. It is as strong if not stronger than liberal emotions toward the top members of the Bush 43 administration, which is, in itself, quite extraodinary for a talking head.
I attempted to place this section directly under the Private Life heading and it reverted - whether by accident or by some unseen hand keeping tabs on the article - I don't know.
Given the apparent vandalism I read about here, I am including the entire text of the entry for discussion and if somehow it can be worked in properly, I think it merits at least some mention, but I abide by the will of the majority contributors.
The text was as follows:
Liberals, whom Coulter often expresses strong disdain for, have returned the favor and branded her with labels like "bitch" and "Nazi NeoCon". So strong has liberal dislike for Coulter become, she has merited an entry in the satirical Uncyclopedia nearly as lengthy as Wikipedia's own.
Coulter's frequent commentary on homsexuality has been a source for rumors and innuendo that she is either a man or transgendered & on her own sexual preferences, (mostly in regards to an overly large laryngeal prominence). Appellations like "Stan the man" Coulter, "(M)"ann Coulter, & "him/her" are often used by her detractors. Making anagrams from various permutations of her name
*"Ms.Ann Coulter"
**"Menstrual.Con" 
*"Ann Hart Coulter"
**"unclear hot rant"
*"Ann Coulter"
**"unclean rot"
**"real con nut"
** several permutations referencing female anatomy'''''
have become popular enough to spawn numerous websites with little purpose other than to publish these anagrams. A Google search for "anne coulter anagram" returns more than 20,000 citations including both her name and anagrams.
I don't know exactly how many of these include Ann Coulter AND anagrams of her name, specifically, though.
i4 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Idiot, find citations for any of what you want to include from a notable reliable source and we can begin to discuss whether it may be suitable for inclusion under [WP:BLP]]. Lawyer2b 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think i4 has two points that merit consideration (the anagram phenomenon, and the intensity of the opposition she inspires). I'm thinking that the anagram stuff probably merits a brief mention, and that the intensity stuff should probably be mentioned explicitly, but in a neutral way. We see frequent manifestation of the intense dislike, but we don't really cover the intense dislike itself. Lou Sander 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with noting that Ann Coulter is polarizing (In a NPOV way), hell her style is to intentionally say otherwise reasonable things in an extreme way to both highlight a contrast with another position, to attract attention, and to piss off leftists, but since when is simple namecalling noteworthy?  I really don't see how a bunch of hate filled people making a game out of calling her a C*nt or whatever is encyclopedic. That sort of thing says more about the people who engage in such behaviour than it does about Coulter Caper13 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Controvery and Partisanship

message: The primary image of Ann Coulter in this article has been edited. The new image should be removed immediately since, legally, it does not meet Wikipedia's copyright guidelines (it appears to be a hack job from the web site anncoulter.org) and, aesthetically, it represents a heavily cropped and caricatured likeness of the subject.
Looksharp 05:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Coulter image 

message: Just wanted to say Merry Christmas to all Coulter-lovers, Coulter-neutral, and Coulter-hater people out there! :) --kizzle 04:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take a breather. 

message: It seems like it's time to archive this page. Recent archives have included about two months' worth of discussion, and our two months are up. November and December would make a nice archive. Whoever knows how to do it should spell out the dates, as there is confusion about Month First or Day First in some of the recent archives. Lou Sander 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Time?