Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 2

message: (Text temp-moved to Ann Coulter/criticism)
The criticism section consisted of several passages of text of the form:
* Coulter says this, but the reality is this.
This essentially makes Wikipedia endorse the POV that Coulter is wrong. Which obviously violates our policy. 
It would be fine if any number of named critics each were quoted as saying they disagreed with Coulter. Or if we merely summarized the views of these critics.
For example:
* Al Franken says Coulter misinterprets stuff, takes quotes out of context, etc. (Here are a few examples he gives from Lies and Liars.)
* Somebody (but say who, please) gave a rejoinder to her "liberal idle rich" remark, asserting that Republicans are just as rich (richer?).
* Rush Limbaugh says she goes too far (need source for this)
I'm not sure what to do with Franken's crack, "...hysterical right". Is this a criticism? Or just name-calling? Should it go first, as a kind of intro to his arguments? If Franken is asserting that the right is "hysterical", what does he mean by this? Is he dismissing ALL right-wing criticism of liberals? (Right wingers are crazy, they just can't see the truth.) 
Where to go from here:
Any part that can be salvaged can go back in, properly sourced and cast in neutral language. Nothing of the form Coulter claims this but is clearly wrong can go back, unless attributed to a source: e.g., Some people contest Coulter's claim that liberals constitute an "idle rich". These people argue that.... 19:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Hard to argue that Canada's not participating in the vietnam war, or the voting habits versus income structure of the us are merely matters of point of view. Therefore I returned ann's disagreement with the common reality on these topics to the article. Gzuckier 04:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Gzuckier 18:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass delete of criticism section

message: We should try to figure out the main point (or points) that Coulter's critics make. Near as I can tell from superficial link-following, is that they make the following case:
#Coulter plays fast and loose with the facts.
#Coulter's sloppiness with the facts is egregious.
#Coulter makes up stuff which is clearly, obviously false.
#Her claim about Canada having "sent troops" to Vietnam is a typical example of her pattern of distorting history.
#Therefore, she should be dismissed as a shrill, nonesense spouting mean-spirited bitch.
(This is only a first draft, maybe I could leave out the b-word, eh? But I think I've captured the gist of the argument.)
Now how shall we characterize this?
* Coulter's critics rightly charge her with being sloppy with details or outright lies; the Canada thing proves that these critics are right
* Coulter's critics claim that she is sloppy with details and even indulges in outright lies. They cite the Canada thing in support of their claim.
* Coulter's critics are trying to discredit her with claims that she falsifies history and refuses to accept correction; she'll lie right to your face. The Canada thing shows that these critics are wrong, and are engaging in exactly the sort of tactics she rightly accuses them of.
I'd call the first, siding with Coulter's critics; the second, taking a NPOV; the third, siding with Coulter. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:38, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Hooray for Uncle Ed! You surely put it right there, din't you? She's a mean-spirited bitch allright, KEEP THE CURSE WORD'S FOR FUCK'S SAKE, they spice up the argument! Screw that driveling wench Ann Coulter! Oh, and please LET ME ADD: Don't you fuckin' think of wanting to add more "unbiased" gleeness about her, being positive is impossible! There's like, TOTALLY nothing good about her. Being utterly negative is the only option, permanently, for a neutral stancepoint is out of the question! Perhaps she should not be WRITTEN to as this and that, but trying to dig up positive facts is second to zero. THERE IS NOTHING BUT ILL THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THIS CUNT. And I will -NOT- pardon my language!--OleMurder 10:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Main point that her critics make

message: This section is way too heavily weighted with Franken criticisms. One or two of them need to be removed, and maybe some different ones added. --The_stuart 18:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: #If you think the quotes only show her "bad side" please add some quotes that you feel show her good side, rather than just deleting the quotes. 
#If you think the quotes show her "bad side" because they are out of context, please add the context to clarify, rather than just deleting the quotes. 
Thank you. Gzuckier 14:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Gzuckier and kizzle direction to editors is that they want to keep in their POV.  Their solution is that the other side add its POV to provide balance.  Perhaps that is the only solution.  But it is a little like the MAD principle, Mutually Assured Destruction where the solution is to throw more nukes to solve a problem.  In any event, quotations will have to have sources to provide the context that is demanded here.
--Noitall 00:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I like how you say Gzuckier and I are trying to inject our POV and then come up with the same exact solution. --kizzle 01:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I may agree with the solution you stated because I generally prefer not to delete, even if it is blatant POV.  I suppose I assumed that you had a POV because you demanded that I solve the problem instead of assisting with it yourself.  I could be wrong on my assumption.  --Noitall 02:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: How is including Coulters own words, verbatim, POV? The only way this could be POV is if the quote was out of context. Or if the quotes only demonstated one side of her position. The proposed solution in these instances is to add the context thereby removing the POV and adding more quotes thereby giving a fuller picture of what she actually says thereby removing the POV. How is that a POV solution?--198.93.113.49 13:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "EDITING ANN COULTER: FAQ 

message: From the paragraph:
Coulter is quoted in an article in Newsday as saying that the media are biased to the left because Republicans don't have the wealth to start media outlets, while Democrats do. That Republicans are rich, she says, "is one of the stunning lies that Democrats have been able to palm off.... Liberals really are the idle rich." In Slander, she writes that "liberals have absolutely no contact with the society they decry from their Park Avenue redoubts." Critics such as Joe Conason, author of Big Lies, point out that Coulter herself is a rich woman from an affluent background, and that she does not similarly dismiss Republican politicians because of their wealth. Coulter's position is further undermined by the Gallup poll, which found that "regular voters in the two higher-income categories prefer Republicans by an average of about 15 percentage points, while the two lower-income groups support Democrats by an average of about 23 percentage points. The crossover point appears to be at an annual income of about $50,000 a year".
I dont think the Gallup poll is relevant. She is saying that democrats, because they are rich (richer than republicans), are not in a position to represent the lower or middle class, while the poll shows that they are statistically supported by that group. More relevant would be some stats showing that republicans are richer than democrats, and that they recieve a lot more funding. Mir 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  small incorrectness 

message: Looking at the article freshly, what jumps out at me is not an overemphasis on quotes, but that the Paula Jones section is overweight and might do with being moved to Paula's own page. 
: LOL.  You suddenly losing the ability to see the value of a section to the article as a whole that "happened" to be recently changed from presenting Coulter in a negative light to portraying her in a positive light has become a known tactic of your bias.  Present some goofy charge about Coulter, then when someone checks the facts and presents the surrounding context that proves she's innocent of wrongdoing, erase the section it applies to.  You did it with the Quotes section [see article History 21:29 17 Mar 2005], you did it with a part of the Paula Jones section before Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 1#Paula Jones and you did it with the "Liberals as the 'idle rich'" that you renamed "Democrats richer than Republicans" section.  (between lines 29 and 72 with the old version and lines 39 and 82 in the new version) 216.119.136.151
It's not as major a hunk of Coulter's life as it used to be. 
: Why?  Because she's four months older now than since you wrote it (or should I say, plagiarized it? [Gzukier rewrote three paragraphs worth of a CoulterWatch article with four sub-quotes they used, and never cited his source])  Speaking of four months, even if we do find it to be irrelevent at some point, I think we should keep this section at least four and a half months in the interests of fairness and accuracy to correct the erroneous record that has been maintained on this Wiki for that amount of time as well as the Wikipedia clones. 216.119.136.151
Anyway, if anyone can give the particular flavor of Coulter and the controversy re and the emotions pro and con she engenders without quotes, that would be great but otherwise... At least we're at a point where the pro and con forces are each adding and subtracting quotes, so maybe we're nearing balance.
Actually, this might do with a bit more regarding her books (response to the comment regarding the earnhardt section being bigger than the writeup for slander. That might be a good place to get some NPOVness? Gzuckier 06:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're begging the question regarding the Earnhardt section, that being another one of your avoidance tactics that I'm beginning to recognize.  It hasn't been established that the Earnhardt piece ought to be in an article of this size in the first place, much less that we ought to apply NPOV to "rebalance" it.  It seems to me you have some issues with Coulter.  According to Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia now has 500,000 articles.  Don't you think that perhaps your editing skills might best be applied elsewhere? 216.119.136.151 20:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ????????????? That's an odd thing to say from an anonymous source who has never edited anything other than one article. Sudden suspicion: you aren't Ann Coulter herself, are you? That would explain your style of cooperative editing. It's entrapment if you don't admit it. Gzuckier 21:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominem argument.  Let's stick to your introduction of bias and mismanagement of facts, shall we? 216.119.136.151 21:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Is it me, or are you starting to get a bit uncooperative? Gzuckier 20:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that sheer recrimination or do you have evidence to support that?  I remove a piece of the article I removed for a good reason [see History: 22:20, 17 Mar 2005], and your response is to revert and say what can we do to get some balance here--without citing any reason for keeping it. 216.119.136.151 21:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I failed to mention you are also equivocating again between yourself and other users.  There is no evidence of there being "pro and con" forces.  There is just one acknowledged con force-Gzukier himself.  You seem to picture writing Wikipedia articles as some kind of tug-of-war with equal parties on both side trying to manipulate the image of the subject of the article into being liked or disliked, and the sides can be chosen just as wisely based solely on the feelings she engenders (either for the right reasons or through a complete misunderstanding of her motives).  The sides aren't equal and it's not even a tug-of-war.  Instead it's just people trying to maintain an informative and accurate article through cleaning up certain other people's messes. 216.119.136.151 21:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gzuckier continues to engage in POV and weasel word writing. Someone needs to explain to me how the Gallup poll citation in the "Democrats richer than Republicans" section is NPOV. --Bziobnic 22:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebalance

message: Bziobnic is reverting my edits, so lets discuss it here. I added the following (what parts do you have a problem with):
* It should be noted that, at least in theory, left-wing policies which are generally associated with Democrats, benefit the lower income class economically more than right-wing and Republican policies. Some examples of this are progressive taxation laws, public institutions and safety net programs.
* The Republican party on average recieves more funding and has a bigger budget than the Democratican party.
:: Here's the problem: The impact of policies traditionally associated with Democrats is not relevant to a section which is addressing Coulter's alleged inaccuracy in asserting that the "idle rich" are predominantly liberal. The impact of progressive taxation has nothing whatsoever to do with, for example, Ted Turner's political biases. Also, Republican financing is irrelevant unless it can be clearly established that the majority of the "idle rich" are Republican Party contributors. 
::Coulter does not assert that liberal policies benefit the rich nor does she assert that the Democratic party raises more money than the Republican party. These additions are completely irrelevant.
::Something can be totally factual and yet irrelevant. Coulter's accuracy is the issue here. The only relevant content for this section is material that directly addresses Coulter's statement. I still believe that this whole section should be deleted. It is not Wikipedia's role to directly challenge anyone. Links to sites that challenge Coulter's accuracy are the only appropriate method for a Wikipedia article. --Bziobnic 04:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sez who? There is a proscription on 'easter egg' links where the content is not apparent until the link is opened. This is for the benefit of those who are reading a printed copy of the page, rather than viewing it online. A summary of what can be found at the end of the link, with the link being just for reference, is very much in tune with the Wikipedia way. Gzuckier 20:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Wikipedia is also not a place for original research, which is what we have in the rich Democrats section. I believe that this topic is too complicated to be dealt with in the body of the article and therefore external links are appropriate.--Bziobnic 04:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV notice on rich democrats section