Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 18

message: Based on the recent edits adding the contentious category and 'see also' (see archive 17) I'm thinking another sock may have raised its head. RJASE1  Talk  20:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already filed another check request, although I'm not familiar with what they want exactly (feel free to help add evidence). It seems especially clear to me that Jill is GeorgeBP. Some of the others are more into vandalism, and some just want a "faggot" section, so I'm not sure. Could be socks of two or more people. Not a lot to work off of. Any ideas about which are connected? Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, GeorgeBP was the one I was thinking of - the Jill edits were identical. RJASE1  Talk  21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gods, I do what Jossi suggested last time and AN/I is like "the editors there have WP:OWN issues". Admins suck. (with notable exceptions) Back to the war.Kyaa the Catlord 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppets back? 

message: Exactly how does her quotes on the political/comedy/commentary program Politically Incorrect relate to her notability? Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, they were covered in multiple other sources such as the Guardian. JoshuaZ 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And? Why are these quotes notable to her? She makes a lot of off-hand remarks, especially ones where she's "joking", as shown by the Guardian's "she said laughing". Honestly, four words, huge out of context quote, does not meet the wikistandards. Why we're discussing an edit made by an indef blocked vandal is beyond me, in the first place.... Not everything should be included. Wikipedia is not wikiquote, if you want to have nearly naked quotes without framing them in how they relate to her notability, put them on wikiquote. Kyaa the Catlord 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My sentiment is that this particular quote isn't that notable.  Reproduce coverage from more mainstream coverage like NY Times, WaPo, etc., and you may change my mind, but the Guardian quoting a Bill Maher interview.... ehhh. --kizzle 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The first "source" seems to be some wingbat blog as well. Kyaa the Catlord 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's documented in the Time article. I never knew Ms. Coulter's personal religious practices were of such import.  Is it encyclopedic and NPOV to expound on Ms. Coulter's religiosity at such length? To give the issue about 5 times the amount of weight as the voting irregularities issue? - FaAfA (yap) 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm game for cutting the hell out of her religious views section. Kyaa the Catlord 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, what? How are her  religious views not notable? She's been very loud about what they are and has made clear that they influence her decisions deeply. The section isn't that long in any event. JoshuaZ 15:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to pile on Kyaa the Catlord but how can you ignore a prominant American saying that islam ought to be replaced by Christianity? Especially when there are fundamentalist Muslims out there who point to remarks like that and say we are trying to eliminate Islam. Muslims in poor countries without access to independant sources may actually see her as the embodiment of everything we as Americans stand for if that's what the propaganda says. I'm not saying what I just said should be included in the article, but given the state of the world today how can her religious views don't matter? Anynobody 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, this is not covered, nor was it covered, in her personal religious views subsection. Kyaa the Catlord 09:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with the way Kyaa trimmed it. JoshuaZ 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I wasn't aware she was a suffragess

message: I know that people are complaining about the number of sources for her remark against John Edwards, so here are a number of sources that show how notable it is and also helps to verify the infomation. dposse 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think notablility will fade.  It's a current event.  Last year at the same conference, one of the sources pointed out she used the slur "raghead".   It's essentially a sentence today as part of a larger paragraph.  I suspect this will fade into a sentence or part of a sentence as time fades.  Unfortunately a real time encyclopedia seems to emphasize the immediate.  I think this is just the nature of the beast and simply needs to be as concise and neutral as possible given the amount of detail that people want for current events.  The hard part is not to do an injustice to the subject.  --Tbeatty 04:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As  an aside, it would be interesting to have a moratorium on all but the most basic current events for 6 months on BLPs just to see what would happen.   Or maybe have a biography section and a current events section.  I suspect that most biographies of contemporary controversial figures need to be rewritten every 6 motnhs or so because they become a jumble of random events, quotes, and tidbits.  --Tbeatty 04:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Possible, but irrelevant at the moment. This is getting a lot of coverage. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not paper. If someone gets to be sufficiently controversial we can always split the controversy off to another article and only have the major ones on the main article. At this point Coulter's article is short enough that we dont need to worry about this at all. JoshuaZ 05:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with JoshuaZ. The notability of these comments may or may not fade, but it certainly deserves a place in the article now because Wikipedia is niether paper nor a crystal ball. We often must trim articles to avoid undue weight. At any rate, it's rare she provokes such a response from prominent Republicans. For this reason, if I were in the prognostication business, I think her Edwards remark might become one of the classicly-repeated Coulterisms. Maybe right up with converting them to Cristianity.Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the difference between an encyclopedia and a tabloid newspaper is? Lou Sander 13:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR come to mind. But I do get your point. And people are right that she will probably not be terribly notable in the distant future. But we're not editors of a paper encyclopedia in the year 2100. We're editors of a non-paper encyclopedia in 2007, and this article is being fed traffic from people searching google in conjunction with her latest attack. Trying to omit tabloidish New York Times stories before they're X days old underserves our readers and is quixotic at best. Incoming readers view it as an omission and add it in whether we take the hundred-year view or not. It's better then to make such coverage accord with N, V, and NOR. We'll trim for undue wieght later when we have better perspective, but lacking the future wisdom of August or 2100 is no reason to leave cited stories out. Cool Hand Luke 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not an advocate of perpetuating stereotypes (or hatred) but I can't deny the fact that it made me laugh a little when reading it for the first time. Laughing is natural though. What can ya do? --Ubiq 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't get it. Is that what John Edwards sounds like? Nil Einne 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's a stereotype of gay males, that they talk  with a lisp. like this: lisp -> lithp --Ubiq 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that took ten seconds. Kyaa the Catlord 05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources for the "faggot" remark 

message: I discovered that the bit about Coulter on Hardball was lifted directly from Media Matters for America and removed it. Sorry. Kyaa the Catlord 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 5 tags on this one person around 1 statement he made. so 2 rules in place? y dont you guys bring the arguments used here over there.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "y dont you guys bring the arguments used here over there" Probably because Coulter is arguably a political satirist and Ahmadinejad isn't.  Don't vandalize other talk pages because you lose arguments on other pages.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How did this user vandalize anything here? --Ubiq 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: i though the tag system got deleted

message: In the section on negative reaction to her column, the article implies Coulter was dropped from the Shreveport Times and supports this with citation #40.  She was not dropped and is still a weekly column to this day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkrell (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed from list. I'm trying to check the other papers, but not having much luck. Kyaa the Catlord 06:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shreveport Times Citation 

message: I attended Michigan Law School at the same time as Coulter, one class ahead of her.  I was on the Law Review and served on the executive board my third year (her second).  She WAS NOT ON the Michigan Law Review.  Would/could somebody edit the article so that it is accurate on this point?
There were several other law reviews at Michigan at the time, and she might have been on one of them.  I don't know.  I vividly remember her starting the Federalist Society at Michigan during her first year and that was her claim to fame around the school.  
Amk49709 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a serious problem. We seem to have a reliable source that says otherwise. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have no choice but to go with the reliable source. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking in more detail, I can't find the claim in the source given, so I've removed it. JoshuaZ 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind. Found it. JoshuaZ 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will call michgan shortly to confirm the 1988 and 1987 mastheads. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's on the masthead of vol 85 No. 1 (October 1986) as an associate editor, "Ann Coulter of Connecticut". She became an article editor by vol. 86 No. 5 (April 1988).Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work, all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Coulter NOT on Michigan Law Review 

message: Well, apparently Lonewolf doesn't like the tiny amount of trimming, I did to religious views a week ago. Anyone else? If not, I'm taking it back out.Kyaa the Catlord 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the additional details add in any useful fashion. I'm fine with the trim. JoshuaZ 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going ahead and retrimming. I left this article alone for 24 hours to see if anyone would flesh out their rationale for inclusion. Kyaa the Catlord 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, as of 7 March, the deletions concerned were not done "last week" but "the day before yesterday" (5 March) and (somewhat more extensively) "yesterday"  (6 March).  I restored the material within a few hours, both times -- not that it should matter who restored it.I restored the material because long-standing content has achieved consensus, and so it ought not be unilaterally deleted, without discussion or at least a note on the talk-page giving a rationale.  Also, the likelihood of the deletion being overlooked, because of the vandalism-storm, seemed overly great.  So foremostly I meant to ensure the deletion did not pass un-noticed, and was at least mooted somewhat.As for content, the part that was commented-out seems to be more-or-less covered elsewhere, so I think it is no loss.  The bit about quoting scripture at the beginning of "Godless" seems insignificant.  The part about church attendance seems worth mentioning. -- Lonewolf BC 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious views subsection

message: The Jones suit was not "summarily dismissed," as the Coulter article falsely claims.  It was dismissed on April 1, 1998, almost four years after it was filed on May 6, 1994, and after extensive discovery, including the deposition of President Clinton, which later touched off the expansion of Independent Council Starr's jurisdiction, and eventually led to a referral to Congress and the first impeachment of an elected President in American history on counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Before the case got to stage of the Clinton deposition, it had already been to the Supreme Court, where the court issued a historic ruling that the District Court may take discovery in a civil case against the President based upon alleged acts before the President took office.  All of this important context is not conveyed by the outright false statement that the Jones case was "summarily dismissed."
The article contains the additional demonstrably false statement that the Jones case was settled for $850,000 "in exchange for Jones' not appealing the decision."  In fact, the settlement was reached on November 13th, 1998, several months after Jones' lawyers filed an appeal of the District Court's dismissal on July 31st, 1998.  In the interim, oral argument on the appeal was heard by a panel of Eighth Circuit judges on October 20, 1998.  The settlement occurred while the appeal was pending a decision by the Eighth Circuit.
All the facts above are back up by the Washington Post time-line of the Jones civil suit, found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/timeline.htm
Bcrago77 09:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Summary judgment is a term of art that has nothing to do with how long the case persisted (being delayed by interlocutory appeals), and the district court judge did eventually grant the motion for summary judgment. I think it's been incorrectly changed to "summarily dismissed", and you're might that this gives readers the wrong impression.  The article simplifies all of this which creates a highly misleading picture. Would appreciate it if someone fixed this. I shouldn't theoretically have enough time to correct it now.Cool Hand Luke 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some changes based on the above discussion.  If they are incorrect, please feel free to make additional changes. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter Article Falsly Says Jones Suit "Summarily Dismissed." 

message: someone...I'm supposing an ann coulter fan like myself, has just redirected her page to uncyclopedia!...and that is true vandalism I'm afraid!...83.79.148.111 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been worse cases of vandalism to this article. One single act of it doesn't necessarily warrant its own section on the talk page. Alleging that whoever did it was an "ann coulter fan" isn't really necessary either. Just try to focus on improving the article in what ways you can. --Ubiq 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Or you could actually establish a user account... RJASE1  Talk  05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism it is, but I must say, not a bad idea, linking to Uncyclopedia for this nutcase. 82.176.196.155 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a true act of vandalism! 

message: First of all she also needs a section on positive reactions from publishers!...quite frankly this woman is worth some serious gold, and I'm sure many a publisher would like to have her, and in that vein I think we need some statistics on how much money this little lady is making! With all those bestsellers!, someone got some stats on number of books sold and how much they go for!...I might not vote for a chain smoker, but I just might hire her to write a book for me as its gonna be worth some serious bucks!...I think the smoking thing does belong in here, I have heard on some blogs maybe she has stopped? we need mention of the current status of her smoking yet just a sentence or two...I also think we need a section summarizing her views, with quotes from her on all the main policy issues...& sections of background and personal life should be expanded...currently there is a lot of coverage on this page about some of the controversial things she has said, I think thats OK, people on all sides want to know about these things, (plus some may actually like what she has said, and others may not) I just think for a little more balance it needs to be more clear that the bottom line is this little lady is worth a fortune and is a brilliant entertainer/writer, she has made a good living with this character she has created of "ann coulter" and as I'm not one to remove things that are valid and true that other editors to wikipedia have contributed, my proposition is not to shrink this article down to bring more balance, but instead to beef up some of the other sections like background & personal life, and create a couple new ones such as 1-"positive reactions from publishers" 2-"number of books sold and earnings/book price" (plus other salary type figures if possible to find), 3-"stances on the issues" 4-"positive comments about Ann from other notable people"  -83.78.136.13 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are not suitable references. Find something that meets WP:ATT Kyaa the Catlord 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Should anything with claims to being an encyclopedia bother to mention something so trivial? "Though more common in men, some women have Adam's Apples as well."--quote from current Wikipedia article. Marieblasdell 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I don't think you're going to get a lot of agreement on including a sentence about her adam's apple and that some people think Coulter's a guy. I think that's the one of the only points Lou Sander and I agree on. --kizzle 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention of an Adam's apple in this article would be trivial, and would not satisfy requirements for a BLP. --Ubiq 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have nothing to do with the "criticism and praise" thing. Please get your facts straight. Her viewpoints are best described as "conservative". Her style may be described as "provocative" but again, that's a fairly descriptive word. Not Dilbert wanted to change it from "conservative viewpoints" to "provocative viewpoints" and has done so many times without bringing it up on the talk page. He/she would need to get a source to attribute that word to Coulter's style. Just because you say it's "obviously true" doesn't make it so.--Ubiq 09:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  improvements to the article 

message: Just read about the gay porn star Matthew_Sanchez star of such family fare as Donkey Dick and  Glory Holes of Fame 3, who was awarded the Jean Kirkpatrick medal of honor at the confererence where Ms Coulter made the 'faggot' remarks.  WOW! CPAC's Gay Porn Star There's a pic of the two together as well. I think this should be in the article for the dichotomy provided. All agreed? Holy CRAP, Batman! I'd never even heard of a 'Dirty Sanchez' before! (I must lead a sheltered life!) - FaAfA (yap) 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Michele Malkin's already written about it twice (like Ms. Coulter she did have her picture taken with the gay porn star and creator of the perverted sickening (IMHO) sex act named after him, The Dirty Sanchez) Let's see how it plays out in the next few days so we don't fall into recentism. Malkin and the Gay Porn Star- FaAfA (yap) 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How could you forget/omit Jeff Gannon?! - Free FaAfA ! (yap) 04:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Matt Sanchez / Rod Majors gay porn star to 'faggot' remarks? 

message: I'm not sure how my statement got turned into an adams apple debate and is she a woman debate...but here it is again...sorry for my hypocrisy kizzle for just posting the same exact thing but calling you out for it
First of all she also needs a section on positive reactions from publishers!...quite frankly this woman is worth some serious gold, and I'm sure many a publisher would like to have her, and in that vein I think we need some statistics on how much money this little lady is making! With all those bestsellers!, someone got some stats on number of books sold and how much they go for!...I might not vote for a chain smoker, but I just might hire her to write a book for me as its gonna be worth some serious bucks!...I think the smoking thing does belong in here, I have heard on some blogs maybe she has stopped? we need mention of the current status of her smoking yet just a sentence or two...I also think we need a section summarizing her views, with quotes from her on all the main policy issues...& sections of background and personal life should be expanded...currently there is a lot of coverage on this page about some of the controversial things she has said, I think thats OK, people on all sides want to know about these things, (plus some may actually like what she has said, and others may not) I just think for a little more balance it needs to be more clear that the bottom line is this little lady is worth a fortune and is a brilliant entertainer/writer, she has made a good living with this character she has created of "ann coulter" and as I'm not one to remove things that are valid and true that other editors to wikipedia have contributed, my proposition is not to shrink this article down to bring more balance, but instead to beef up some of the other sections like background & personal life, and create a couple new ones such as 1-"positive reactions from publishers" 2-"number of books sold and earnings/book price" (plus other salary type figures if possible to find), 3-"stances on the issues" 4-"positive comments about Ann from other notable people"  -83.78.136.13 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have some interesting ideas.  Why don't you paste some specific proposed edits to the talk page?  For example, if you want a positive reactions from publishers section, why don't you write one and put it here for us to see?  I'm not against the idea of such a section. --kizzle 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The proposed section reads rather thin to me. For starters, a pat on the back for book sales isn't really noteworthy praise, even from a felow news personality. I like the quite from Zeifman. The Ryan quote is good, but needs more context. Why is he saying it "hurts *but* she's one of the clearest thinkers..."? Is that a typo? Her own statements are given enough time in this article already, I think, so we probably don't need more. The idea of a positive comments section is good, but we have to be careful not to "over-balance". That is, we don't want to make it seem like half of the public comments about Coulter are positive if it's a much smaller percentage (is it? I'm honestly not sure.) -Harmil 06:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see it as being controversial, quite the contrary. I see it as being far too trivial to be worth mentioning. Marieblasdell 02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please try and improve this article with more info besides just controversial remarks 

message: The following sentence has been a low-key point of dissension for a while. 
Known for her controversial[3] style and unabashedly conservative/provocative views, she has been described by The Observer as "the Republican Michael Moore", and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt".[4]
I'm in favor of dropping the disputed part of the sentence entirely. I think it's redundant in either version. We've said 'conservative' in the lead paragraph, so it's pointless to repeat it, and the comparisons to 'Republican Michael Moore' and 'Rush Limbaugh' reinforce it. I don't think there's enough difference between 'controversial style' and 'provocative views' to justify including them both, expecially considering the nature of the rest of the paragraph. After all, what does provocativeness provoke? It provokes controversies.
 
In my suggested version, the second paragraph reads:
Known for her controversial[3] style, she has been described by The Observer as "the Republican Michael Moore", and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt".[4] Coulter has described herself as a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and makes no pretense to be "impartial or balanced".[5]
I think that gets all the points across well, with a citation for everything, but since this has been a low-key edit-war, I thought I'd post here before changing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marieblasdell (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. I made a minor grammatical change, but otherwise your version looks fine.  I reverted because (quite apart from the fact that the change was made either with a misleading edit summary or none), as you point out, "provocative" doesn't mean "conservative", and was redundant given the presence of "controversial".  Repetition within a sentence strikes me as being objectionable in a way that repetition within sentences isn't. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong support. Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page finally. I agree with both of you wholeheartedly. The edit warring was starting to bug me a bit.--Ubiq 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial, provocative, conservative? 

message: It is impossible to have a fair and balanced article about Ann Coulter. She is simply to polarized. If your not a fan, you probably regard her as crazy. There really isn't any middle ground with her. Most conservatives love her, liberals hate her, and even most moderates consider her way to far to the right for their tastes. Since Wikipedia attempts to give facts without opinions, the fact that almost all of her statements are deemed false by some makes keeping the article nuetral impossible. She allegedly lies, so Frankenh points it out. She claims Franken lied about her 'lies,' he claims she lying about his lying about her lying. See how impossible it is to stay nuetral? Both sides seem to work by a different set of facts, not just opinions. Which set of facts i think is reality is irrelevent to this, but I find it hard to keep my bias out of my evaluation of the article. Two sets of facts can't both be true, but by taking a side Wikipedia apparently is no longer nuetral. See the conflict? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikifan999 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the same thing can be said about Michael Moore. There is no middle ground with him either.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.3.76.232 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with neutrality in this article and discussion 

message: I know she def. disagrees with scientific concensus on evolution. Why is this not mentioned in the article? Seems pretty important, both from the framework of those against and for these views... Let the real truth set you free! Does she not make a critical stance on evolutionary theory in her Godless book? This should at least be mentioned on such an important article of a women who influences millions on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.208.20 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 April 2007
:Yes, evolution denial saturates Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Last several chapters detail her position in depth. I agree that it deserves at least a short mention here.Cool Hand Luke 04:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not talking about a famous, influential person who happens to have a private view about evolution.  Coulter devoted nearly one hundred pages expressly to the subject in her book.  Godless has sold something like 200,000 copies to date. Therefore, she has notably written about creationism and it deserves a passing mention.  We don't treat Richard Dawkins any different. Cool Hand Luke 08:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the "minority christians who embrace evolutionary origins" was Pope John Paul II. In fact, most American Christians do support the theory of evolution.Jhobson1 17:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Denial of Evolution by Natural Selection, Darwinism, scientific method, etc...

message: That was my original question, and it seems we've gone on lots of different tangents.  As has been noted before, The Ann Coulter article is significantly longer and more extensive than those of people who are much more notable and more accomplished.  I don't really want to argue bias, however it is clear that this article has become mired in minutiae and is really nothing more than a glorified WikiQuote.  I propose it be shortened significantly, with many of not most of the "controversial" quote discussion removed. Yes, it's clear that Coulter is an agitator and a provocateur, but I think instead of detailing each instance of her offending someone a more general statement could cover several instances.KyuzoGator 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly see whre you're coming here. If you read this, you would see that shes a notable columnist/controversial figure, but looking at it, it does seem a little bloated. However I would have no idea what could be cut/should in any case. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I'm glad this article is so large.  I had no idea who Ann Coulter was and now I know just about everything I'd ever care to know about her. How do people like this wind up being taken seriously? I can't believe that somebody this bigoted, obnoxious and self-righteous is taken seriously by anybody within the field of politics.  I had my conservative brother read up on her and even he thinks this woman is an embarrassment to his beliefs.  I've never heard him say that about any legitimate conservative commentator. I would like to add that this is a decent article: well-written, referenced and detailed.  Good job to those responsible for its creation, maintenance and the bulk of additions.Gamer Junkie 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Coulter notable enough for an article this extensive? 

message: Ok i was listening to "real time" with bill maher and he claimed on that show to have "been with" her i'm not sure if this was a joke or its serious but considering how many times shes been on his show and the fact that he refuses to say a bad word about her i think its relevant considering hes not exactly a neo-con..
does anyone have anymore info on this or maybe its just not relevant, even tho her being with bob gucionne is...
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curefreak (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sourceable to my knowledge, and a passing remark by Maher (I saw the segment) doesn't count. --kizzle 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: On the adam's apple issue.  This is from the WP article Adam's apple:  "A prominent laryngeal prominence is commonly considered a male secondary sex characteristic though this is more of a perception than anything pointing to scientific fact since not all males have large laryngeal prominence and there are quite a few women who do."  :-)Steve Dufour 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boyfriends? 

message: Are radio shows public appearances? Just the opposite, I believe. Good Cop 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it there because there was only that one sentence under the subheading of 'radio', and she doesn't have her own radio show (and probably won't, given her controversial status). If you consider the fact that radio consists of the 'public airwaves' controlled by the FCC, one can count that as a public appearance. Alternatively, you might move the radio appearances to the 'television' section mentioning her appearances on talk shows, and rename that to 'television and radio'. But I don't think the radio bit alone is enough to warrant it's own section entirely. Dr. Cash 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Appearances 

message: Just read this article for the first time - and the Howard Kurtz para made no sense to me until I clicked through to the Washington Post link. Maybe it should be changed or even deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveoldroad (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 April 2007
=== coulter replies to faggot comment ===
I added on two videos from H&C and O'ReillyMatthew Sanchez 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)." Reference the show name and air date, do not link to copyvio's on YouTube or any other site. --Dual Freq 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Kurtz 

message: I added on two videos from H&C and O'ReillyMatthew Sanchez 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)." Reference the show name and air date, do not link to copyvio's on YouTube or any other site. --Dual Freq 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  coulter replies to faggot comment 

message: NOFX call her this, I think this should go in the article somewhere. They call her a cunting cunt in their song "You're Wrong" from the Never Trust A Hippy EP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.236.74 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is of no importance in relation to Coulter.  It might be worth noting in the article on the band. -- Lonewolf BC 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it isn't really notable that a pseudo-punk band insults a conservative, hence little independent coverage. In fact, the internets don't even seem to have heard of this song. If it were a well-known man-bites-dog-type story it might be worth a passing mention. Cool Hand Luke 15:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insulted by a Punk band 

message: Folks, are we refraining from adding information about her professional (non-media) legal career? She was a clerk for an appeals court judge, worked in private practice, performed litigation, worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, etc. Is there an issue re-stating this material here because it can be found on her website?
-Ajmastrean 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  All noteworthy biographical information, if properly sourced, should be included in this article.  --202.61.204.15 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It must be from a third-party source - i.e. not from her own Website — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, in this case it doesn't need to be from a third party website. General data should not be contentious at all, so her own website should be fine for the basics. In depth analysis would be... well, it would be better to find somewhere else. But the basic data would be ok. Kyaa the Catlord 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but an independent source would be preferable.  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary sources are always welcome, but primary are kosher as well. The subject CAN be a source afterall. Kyaa the Catlord 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No they can't. See WP:SELFPUB.  That sets out the criteria for when self-referencing can be used.  Unless this is independently verified, it should not be used.  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 05:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you reading that backwards? Raw data about cases handled by her as a lawyer is not contentious, unduly self-serving, we know who wrote it, we're not making claims about anyone but Coulter herself, it is relevant to her notability (her first claim to fame was as a legal analyst during Lewinsky/Clinton). Unless you want to be a dick, there's not problem using the basics from her webpage. Kyaa the Catlord 05:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe I am?  I am just trying to re-iterate that this is an encyclopedia, so we should try to be thorough about how we source information.  I'm sure Ann Coulter's fans don't care, and are happy to accuse people of being a dick, but this is NOT a platform for Ann Coulter's CV - sorry résumé.  It MUST be neutrally verifiable. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 12:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You simply do not understand WP:SELFPUB. We're not talking about contentious material here. Relax and drink some tea, there is no need to get all heated. But hey, if you wanna throw down, I've not gotten into a nice talk page scrap in ages. Kyaa the Catlord 12:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I drink far too much tea as it is.  Maybe that's why I'm getting so tetchy.  For what it's worth, I don't mind it being included, but it is something that should be avoided.  To quote somewhere else "self-publication is a fast-track to non-notability".  Notability/notoriety should not be a carte blanche for acceptance of everything self-generated as being verified.  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 12:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a stretch to call a sampling of her legal career contentious and non-contentious material really doesn't require sourcing, citing her webpage in this case would be a courtesy, not a requirement. Yes, sourcing is GOOD but it isn't always necessary. Kyaa the Catlord 12:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  "self-publication is a fast-track to non-notability"? As I see things, that's a non-issue with Ann Coulter, who's obviously notable. Let's think about things, a moment. If a non-notable person puts information about herself up on a website, who's to know or check or care if it's erroneous? That's why self-pub material is treated with suspicion. Do we really think that Ann Coulter's website hasn't been scrutinized by people who'd just love to find her padding her resume? And we avoid 'self-pub' contentious material because, by definition, it's apt to fall foul of the NPOV issues, right? So, that doesn't apply, either.Marieblasdell 18:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I apologize to Kyaa the Catlord, and thank Lonewolf, for fixing my mistake.) I don't know how that happened!Marieblasdell 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that we can't just cite her own resume, but all of these claims have been reproduced in reliable sources.  I dug up some of the cites myself, so I'm very confident they're correct. Marieblasdell might have a point about people finding any errors she might have on her CV; after all, her two-year birth discrepancy was discovered, and a COA clerkship would be one whopper of a lie. On the other hand, her fictional birthday shows precisely why we can't trust her resume entirely. Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional legal career 

message: While I was looking at the WP:SELFPUB page, I noticed the paragraph that starts as following: "Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people."
Based on that, I'm taking out the "Ann Coulter has been accused by some religious leaders of heresy for her unorthodox views regarding Christianity" paragraph, pending some sort of a cite--at which point we can see whether the persons who said it have any notability as religious leaders, etc. Marieblasdell 18:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor Ubiq. Poor, poor, poor Ubiq. Good Cop 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I really should get with the times and start being more racist, homophobic, and religiously intolerant. Oh, and stupid too. Shouldn't forget that ;)--Ubiq 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heresy? 

message: Public consensus: Does anyone have an objection to my adding rebuttals to some of Coulter's claims? Specifically her quote, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim." I would like to add cites and reference to the fact that the *VAST* majority of terrorist attacks performed on US soil were conducted by middle-aged white men. I realize this doesn't directly apply to an article regarding Ann, but it would serve to balance the information. What objections/comments do you have to this? Thanks,--Legomancer 04:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't present original research, it would all be sourced - but I see your point on relevancy. Is there a page for specific claims she's made or any real desire for one to exist?--Legomancer 04:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is OR if you're not citing sources that specifically comment on Coulter's claims (like the CBC Vietnam bit).  See WP:SYN. Cool Hand Luke 05:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? It would seem if talker A presents a claim and Talker B had previously refuted said claim then relating the gist of talker B would not represent OR, even if B had no idea A existed. I am soliciting comments because I am trying to preserve the main page. Worst case scenario (as I see it) is I present contradictory information, then somebody presents another interpretation, and so on and so forth until it's 30 pages debating different perspectives of events with no direct address of the topic. I think the information should be accessible, but I concede this might not be the correct forum. I have gotten two responses in short order and both were unequivocally, "no." Both also reinforce my trepidation about clogging the page with content that exists just to refute minor points of the main article.--Legomancer 06:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not a debate chat room, it's an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedia's follow reliable sources, we do not create new research.  You cannot free-associate political arguments back and forth.  Unless you're relying on existing and reliable research on Ann Coulter in particular, it is unpermitted synthesis. Read WP:SYN—what you're talking about (using source B to "refute" source A even though B is not commenting on A) is exactly what we're not allowed to do. Cool Hand Luke 06:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. Note previous comment was an acceptance of not adding refutes. I will, however, continue to verbally spread the rumor she used to be a man. :)--Legomancer 15:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addendum to quotes/article 

message: I think she must be laughing all the way to the bank over all the free publicity WP is giving her. :-)  Steve Dufour 20:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, so should Michael Moore, John Stewart, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Al Gore. Jinxmchue 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Hillary and Barack both have regular jobs.  The others and Ann make their living by saying shocking, controversial things.  The more the things they say are talked about the better for them.  Have a great day. Take time to enjoy the summer.  Or the winter if you live in the Southern Hemisphere. Steve Dufour 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You missed a few of your favourite hate figures out there. At least most of what those guys say is vaguely accurate. This woman just talks out of her rectum in the hope of getting more cash. 195.157.52.65 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between Coulter and Jon Stewart is that, Stewart is a comedian; he says things to be funny. Coulter probably ought to be a comedian, but sadly, most of the time, she's dead serious. Coulter is the exact type of right-wing pundit that Stewart's friend Stephen Colbert tries to imitate and make fun of on his show.Dr. Cash 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, your sense of humor appears to be inextricably locked to your political viewpoint. Don Williams 03:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ann should be pleased

message: The whole section probably should be removed if no wrongdoing was found. Steve Dufour 08:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd say it should be kept, since it still happened, but treated more briefly and dismissively. As it stands, about half the paragraph seems to be devoted to implying that there may have been wrongdoing, which seems more appropriate for a muckraking anti-Coulter site. Marieblasdell 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, there's so much muck that not much raking is required. I'm surprised that this kind of bigotry is accepted as the norm in the USA. Actually, no, I'm not.195.157.52.65 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, we'll keep that section. No wrongdoing was found because they couldn't talk to Coulter and they stopped investigating at the request of the FBI. That is, on its face, extremely fishy, and warrants discussion in this article. Raul654 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be "fishy", but considering that almost no reliable sources covered the FBI intervention, I suspect it's undue weight.  Paragraph should certainly be trimmed.Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that the Palm Beach Post link to the FBI intervention seems to be dead, and a Google search for "Ann Coulter" "John Fitzgerald" Borchers seems to only turn up blogs and people quoting Wikipedia. Is there any source material still available for the second half of the paragraph? And, if there isn't, would that tend to indicate that it's a non-notable event? Marieblasdell 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interests of fairness, it should probably be cut down to a quick mention, something like "Coulter was [...] however [...]". Short and simple.David Fuchs 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you don't like to l-i-b-e-l people, you might want to remove the whole section. Especially if an official of Wikipedia is involved. Especially if you or he or she is aware of the many worldwide jurisdictions into which Wikipedia is piped. DCLawyer 23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Careful, you're awful close to making legal threats. eaolson 02:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  happens a lot when you have to stand up for homophobic xenophobic bigots though.... 195.157.52.65 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to remove the "voter-fraud" section 

message: 'Stop feeding the trolls' applies to them as they exist outside the inernet as well. Why don't people just totally ignore folks like Anne Coulter, rather than constantly feeding them the attentions and arguments they so desperately crave for? I think you'd find that she'd vanish rather quickly if her diatribes went unattended and television appearances were denied to her.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.103.100 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2007
:Good luck with that.  She may be controversial, but you cannot deny the fact that she is a bestselling author. Smaug99 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just ignore her? 

message: I'm not sure how to approach Ann Coulter's work, simply because I'm not sure if she's a genius comedian who's getting one over on everybody, or if she's actually serious. If the latter, we need to have a section on her mental health. 71.68.17.30 01:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilarious or crazy?

message: Currently, this article is getting pretty long; it currently stands at 67 Kb. The longest parts  seem to start with the political activities, legal and professional disputes, and controversies and criticism sections. Perhaps we should move all information pertaining to her criticisms and disputes to a new article; Criticism of Ann Coulter, or something like that? Link to it from here under 'see also'? Dr. Cash 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the school that "criticism" articles are tantamount to POV-forking and should only be done in cases where the criticism of a subject is itself a notable topic.  That said, this might be such a case; hard to believe the number of well-known politicians who have responded to her book-sales-promoting shock speaches. Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article getting a bit long

message: sounds like a PR piece. what's that about. who wrote this some one from her staff? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.222.71.16 (talk • contribs).
: I agree that that sentence comes across as irrelevant fluff information. Marieblasdell 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  her favorite books 

message: *The Media Matters Organization is an organization centered on a political ideology, and therefore violates the neutrality of the article. --SirAndrew1 02:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. As long as the link is adequately labelled as coming from the biased source, we should keep it. Silencing criticism isn't our job and MMfA, despite being comically biased, is a major critic of Coulter's. Kyaa the Catlord 03:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the Media Matters link

message: Sorry to add such a bland topic to this, but in the section about Coulter's age, it points out that the legal voting age where she first registered in 1980 is 18, as if it's unique to that area. Well, it's been 18 everywhere in the United States since 1971, per Amendment XXVI of the Constitution. That phrase just looks dumb and unnecessary, and should be snipped.67.160.141.110 02:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal voting age is 18 in entire U.S. 

message: There should be a way anonymous users (i.e. those who choose not to log in) can edit this (link preexisting text) without leaving the article wide open for vandalism.12.40.34.150 18:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles are semi-blocked so that they can be edited only by registered users. This is to prevent vandalism as some articles are specifically targeted by vandals. So, register an account. You are actually more anonymous with a registered account than without as anyone can WHOIS your IP. --Ezeu 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah. It's definitely encouraged to register ^_^ --Ubiq 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why can't I edit this article?

message: <disparaging opinions of Coulter removed>
This article should be deleted and rewritten to include a basic bio along with some of her political rhetoric. And that should be the end of it. It's absolutely abhorrent what this hack of an article has become. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.241.137 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what specifically is wrong with it?   i think it is funny because every legitimate of criticism is followed by one of her quotes countering the criticism, its like a set-up followed by a punchline. "so this guy walk into a bar, and Ann Coulter says abafdsfdusibkj" (laughter ensues).  Rillio 22:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a Swede and I did not know much about Ann Coulter prior to reading this article ("Something in American media I seem to recall") so I came to this article with a reasonably neutral state of mind id est neither very positive nor negative about Ann Coulter. However, when I read it, she comes across as an absolutely horrid person; a bigoted, prejudiced, intellectually slothful, hateful, hypocritical insult to all Christian conservatives. She may very well be precisely that. Like I said, I don't know much about her and most statements about her seem to be properly sourced. However, hasn't the woman ever said or done something nice? Shouldn't we include that for the sake of some balance? I mean the article on Vlad III (the historical Dracula) mentions that this horrid sadist did fight corruption. -Sensemaker—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.183.79.7 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just created my account, and don't know how most of this works, so I'm sorry if I do something wrong, but the comment just above mine has me thinking that the article lacks any foreign prospective, and that this would be useful for us Americans, to see how she, and thus we, are perceived around the globe.  I know, for instance, that she appeared on BBC, in 2006 I believe.  Romriech 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless those international opinions which you wish to include are published and have been reacted to by Coulter, they are functionally useless in this article.Algabal 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total re-write needed 

message: I suggest putting a See Also link to Michelle Malkin at the bottom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tablizer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links