Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 6

message: So... the article on Coulter has morphed from a collection of quotes into a collection of pictures. 
Maybe the article on Paris Hilton can become a collection of her quotes. Symmetry. Gzuckier 01:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fascinating 

message: well, on to a new topic; that gun pic is unsourced (and up for deletion) plus it looks more like an outtake from the dukes of hazzard than anything you'd typically associate with Coulter, and the resolution isn't good enough that she's really absolutely identifiable, it could be any skinny chick with long blond hair. I'm just saying. Gzuckier 16:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point.  Eh, I'm neutral on this one.  It does characterize her right-winged-ness, I suppose, but you have a point with the low-res and lack of clarity. --patton1138 18:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I thought it was a nice pic also. Actually I think its from her web page. Still too small and grainy though probably. Check this one out I found randomly on the web somewhere http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/104031.jpg might be fake but... keith 21:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the gun pic 

message: http://www.e-skojec.com/images/coulter.jpg 
http://www.overspun.com/images/Coulter.Alien.jpg
:Notfree images. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  new photo of her 

message: And making Ann even more off the mark, Canadian special forces were fighting in Afghanistan beside the US, and even won a US Presidential award in 2002. Maybe Ann confused Vietnam with Afghanistan. They almost rhyme. Gzuckier 09:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Canucks in Afghanistan

message: Does there HAVE to be three block quotes in italics under the Canada and Vietnam War section?  I don't think it's that aesthetically pleasing, nor do I think those kinds of quotes should be used as often as they are in such a small amount of space.  Is it possible to remove two of them into non-italicized, non-block quotations?  Because for one thing, block quotes aren't supposed to be used unless the quote is at least four lines long anyway.  The first two quotes don't even qualify then.  And why must we write exactly what they said when someone could just click the link and watch exactly what was said?  Is there any way we can fix this part?  I just don't think it looks good, or that it reads very easily.Stanselmdoc 14:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took care of two of the short block quotes, simply by using quotation marks.  No content was changed.   paul klenk talk 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Would anyone mind??

message: The whole part on Canada and the Vietnam War....what's the point of that again?  I keep reading over and over the section on that...and I don't see any connection between what it says, and controversy.  In fact, the only thing it seems to prove is that Coulter said something that was wishy-washy correct, and whoever wrote it is seeming to harp on the fact that she could be considered wrong.  Where's the controversy here?  I see no controversy.  Did her comments raise controversy?  Or was this just a "LOOK!  LOOK!  ANN COULTER MADE A MISTAKE!"  section?  If it's the latter, it should be removed.  We can all agree that everyone makes mistakes, so why that particular mistake?  If she DID raise controversy, we should put in a sentence about how it made people angry, or who specifically got mad at her, who demanded an apology, blah blah blah...that's controversy. Stanselmdoc 21:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this section even notable? She said something that wasn't that controversial, and she turned out to be partly right. I agree. Why is this section in here? Give it a couple of days, and if there are no objections, take it out or trim it down and put it somewhere else. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 22:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: how can one get the point across that she plays fast and loose with facts without going into all the minutiae?   this is clearly a case where she didn't know what she was talking about but insisted she did, and then came up with a ludicrous justification for her misstatements.  can we agree to cut it down but keep the spirit of it?  i think paul klenk was working on the same passage Archier 00:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This happens again and again. A while back, this article contained mention of her statement in her book that the NYTimes didn't even mention Dale Earnhardt's death until a snooty article on an inside page days later; when in fact it was first page headline news the next day. With references. This too was deleted because "it was so pointless" and "it wasn't 'that' controversial". The result after all such demonstrations of her talent for verifiable fantasy are removed is that the truth or falsity of her statements appears to be a matter of opinion, rather than something that can be factually quantified. Could you be any more POV? Gzuckier 01:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can chime in here because, as in the case where I corrected the smear that she said she wanted ALL Muslims to be converted etc, I am in possession of the facts in this matter that have been obfuscated by Ann's enemies. Coulter received the NY Times on her front porch (or whatever) every morning. The early edition of the NY times (the PRINT edition) did NOT have anything on Earnhardt on the front page. Later editions apparently did. It is ABSOLUTELY the case that papers change their front pages from early to late editions. The NY Times is no exception. That is her claim and it seems legit. And keep in mind, this was merely one tiny 'for instance' in an overall picture she was trying to paint that the New York times holds rural Americans in little regard. There are DOZENS of instances like this. The paper has a long and sordid history of portraying rural Americans in a bad or 'country bumpkin' light.  Coulter didn't need this Earnhardt story as some sort of 'crucial lynchpin' lest her entire theory fall apart. The only reason it BECAME a big story is that little nitpicking critics scoured EVERYTHING Ann writes for ANYTHING that might not check out. These critics are the real story. Why they are animated by this INCESSANT and OBSESSIVE desire to diminish Ann in any and every way possible is an important line of inquiry I think this article should address.Big Daddy 13:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  After 100 million liberals pointed the "innocent" mistake out to Ann and her proofreaders did she promptly issue a retraction and apology?  --Archier 21:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only place there are 100 million liberals is Ann Arbor population 100,000. I should know - I live there. But to your point, no she explained what I just told you. I'm sure you want your pound of flesh out of Ann (thought I'm equally as sure you don't think she can afford to lose much more) for every perceived 'horrible' mistake she may have made. But, like me, she sees the bigger picture. Bush ain't meeting with Sheehan and Ann ain't apologizing to the likes of Media Matters or counterpunch.com anytime soon. Big Daddy 07:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only place there are 100 million liberals is Ann Arbor population 100,000. haha.   Thanks for the levity.   When you slander someone accidentally and then 100 million Ann Arbor residents point it out, a retraction is in order.     Just more Coulter distortions/misrepresentations/innocent mistakes. --71.112.11.220 17:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I have no problem saying that sometimes when she is on talk shows, she says some things before checking her facts to make sure they are entirely correct, but really, name one commentator, conservative or liberal, that doesn't. During debate, many things are said that turn out to be not 100% accurate. I just think that this section is way too long to get the point across. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the point of this again?

message: According to the Time magazine story, she was born in NYC. Excerpt from Time magazine cover story: "Ann Hart Coulter was born in New York City on Dec. 8, 1961. That's according to her Connecticut voter registration." I've never seen any other source explicity say she was born in Connecticut, they likely assumed it since she grew up there. Just for simple factual accuracy I've changed her birthplace in the first paragraph to NYC. --Fallout boy 19:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: I respect your right and desire to write about Ann Coulter.  She is a hot topic.  But if you want to write about your topic well, you need to understand that topic.  Some of you do not understand her, or care to.
Some of you are completely missing the point about her style.  (This is what she is counting on, by the way, and she'd probably call you "stupid liberals" for it.  She knows by saying this she will get you mad.  That is what she sets out to do -- get you angry.)  She makes heavy use of hyperpole, sarcasm, and satire.  I know you think you know what those words mean, but you do not seem to understand why Ann, as a writer and speaker, uses them, or what effect she intends these qualities to have, or how she uses them to illustrate her points.  
The secret to understanding Coulter is: What point is she actually making with this style, not Why is she saying such "hateful" things.  
Stop blathering on and on about how hateful she is.  How racist.  How mean-spirited.  You are falling into her trap.  You are looking only at the surface, and no further.  Try a little harder and try not to take this her so seriously.  When you do, you fail as a writer.    klenk 06:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Message To Liberals 

message: Many of you are very threatened by anything negative that is said about Coulter.  Stop worrying about it.  It is what she intends.  She is a good writer, a self-described polemicist, and knows exactly what she is doing.  I'm not saying I agree or disagree with her views -- only that she is a good writer.  Many liberals don't even read her pieces, or if they do, they don't work hard to understand them.  They just react to them.  That's not the fault of the writer, but the reader.  Be better than that, and be ready to write thoughtfully about what she says.
Treat her as a worthy subject, warts and all, and don't worry whether what you write makes her look good or bad.  Just make sure it's accurate, balanced, fair, insightful, and artfully written.  Yes, an encyclopedia can be artfully written.  It doesn't need to have a plonking style.  When you read the article and see a plonking style, just fix it.  
There is no liberal cabal at WP.  There are people on both sides.  Some are better writers than others, some are better at hiding their bias than others.  Stop complaining and just dig and and do the work.   Make the article better.    klenk 06:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Message To Conservatives 

message: I edited this whole section It was HORRIBLY written (no suprise - hateful rage does tend to impinge upon people's intellectual capacities)
called Jonah Goldberg a 'she' (liberals have always had a hard time with that gender identity stuff) and basically just didn't make any sense.
Also, and I'm sure much to the chagrin of the liberal editors here, I took out most of those nasty vicious ad hominem attacks that you guys just love to smear Coulter with (even in her encyclopedia entry.)
Here's the re-write. 
"When the editors of the National Review Online, the website of a well-known conservative magazine that carried Coulter's syndicated column and to which she was a contributing editor, wanted to discuss making changes to a piece written in 2001 directly after the September 11 attacks in which her friend Barbara Olsen had been killed, Coulter went on the national television show Politically Incorrect and accused NRO of censorship, claiming her pay was only five dollars per article.  National Review Online then dropped her column and terminated her editorship.
Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor, explained that, despite widely circulated media reports to the contrary, "We did not 'fire' Ann for what she wrote.... We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty." .
Ann Coulter was contracted by USA Today to cover the 2004 Democratic National Convention, but was ironically replaced by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review Online'after a "disagreement over editing" (Memmot, 2004). Her one and only  article from the convention began "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston", and referred to some female attendees as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons". The newspaper did not print the article, but Coulter published it on her website. (Coulter, July 2004)
Coulter has appeared several times on Bill Maher's former ABC debate show "Politically Incorrect".   Maher has referred to her as "a friend" although she typically is used as the 'token' conservative and forced to fend off political attacks from Maher and three other more liberal guests.   
Coulter has been the subjects of frequent protests, especially when speaking on college campuses where she commands speakers fees in excss of $25,000. On one occasion, she was physically assaulted with a pie. .
 
On 8/28/05, Coulter's syndicated column was dropped by the conservative newspaper "Arizona Daily Star"  because, in the words of David Stoeffler, the publisher and editor of the Star, "We've decided that syndicated columnist Ann Coulter has worn out her welcome. Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives."    
"
...Real Time with Bill Maher (who has joked about their sexual relations)...
even though it's just an aside, i think this adds useful, valid information to the article, and also says a lot about coulter's tolerance if she puts up with it. if it's rewritten to convey that he's speaking wishfully or something like that (and that she's in on the joke), i think it should be in the article. their on-camera chemistry is pretty good, and (IMO) noteworthy. SaltyPig 09:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Salty, I remember during the 2004 Pres. campaign, a lady who dated Kerry blogged about their sexual history.  It was never refuted by him.  Should we go add it to the article?  I did a search on Kerry's page.  The only mention of sex was Middlesex County.  What do you say?    klenk 09:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: as i suspected, you apparently think that anybody criticizing coulter is a "democrat" — like i give two shakes what anybody says about john kerry the walking turd/idiot/tyrant. "oooh, don't put something bad about kerry in his wikipedia article!" but to answer you anyway, if john kerry meets with the woman repeatedly on TV, she jokes about it regularly, and he laughs back regularly... yeah, i'd say that's noteworthy. from what i recall, coulter was cool with it. have you seen their interaction on the show? they get along well. my reason for suggesting its inclusion is that i think it's a positive comment on coulter amid the usual polemical angle people usually assume she grinds all day. but whatever. really don't care that much about it, though i do think you're too sensitive about it being a smear of her. it's not. BTW, your apparent analogy between what i wrote and the kerry example... wow — not so rigorous. SaltyPig 10:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: here it could be made encyclopedic (not as it was tried), and same at kerry's. completely different situations, but can be added properly both places. in kerry's case, it should be mentioned as a major aspect of the campaign PR equation, assuming they get that detailed. SaltyPig 16:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: alright, i moved it out of the top section and included it in the media relations section.--71.112.11.220 18:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bill maher sexual relations jokes 

message: Honest to goodness, this article will never get over the quotes section (which shouldn't even be in there to begin with).  I thought we were doing amazingly well when it was down to six quotes.  SIX!  That's a huuuge amount for an author to have (frankly, it's too much), and PLENTY of information to educate the reader as to how Coulter writes.  Now, there are ten quotes.
The following quotes are examples of Ann Coulter's flamboyant and often inflammatory polemical style, for which she is well-known. They cover a wide variety of topics and are often meant to be ironic, they each demonstrate Coulter's style of stating her views strongly.
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations by or about:
Ann Coulter
    * "The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view."[16]
    * "I am not anti-gay rights, I am pro-not-hallucinating when I look at the Constitution."[17]
    * "Consider the intriguing diary entries of British jihadist Zeeshan Siddique, . . . captured last April in Pakistan . . . . His diary is a sort of Plan-a-Jihad journal, (There's also talk of publishing his diary under the title "Hello, Allah? It's Me, Siddique.") If you made a movie of this bumbling nincompoop's misadventures, you'd have to call it "Dude, Where's My Car Bomb?"[18]
    * "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." - on the 9/11/01 attacks, From her syndicated column We should invade their countries September 13, 2001
    * "I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly." - MSNBC March 22, 1997.
    * "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." - [19] May 17, 2003.
    * "Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children." - How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), 2004
    * "Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." - (from Slander, pp. 5-6; published June 2002).
    * "The Times was rushing to assure its readers that 'prominent Islamic scholars and theologians in the West say unequivocally that nothing in Islam countenances the Sept. 11 actions.' (That's if you set aside Muhammad's many specific instructions to kill nonbelievers whenever possible)" - How to Talk to a Liberal, 2004.
    * "Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster." [20]
Okay, cool kids, here's the call to arms.  If no one else votes on what quotes should be removed, I'm going to remove what I think should be.  Can we at least get it back down to six quotes?  I vote removing:  * "Consider the intriguing diary entries of British jihadist Zeeshan Siddique, . . . captured last April in Pakistan . . . . His diary is a sort of Plan-a-Jihad journal, (There's also talk of publishing his diary under the title "Hello, Allah? It's Me, Siddique.") If you made a movie of this bumbling nincompoop's misadventures, you'd have to call it "Dude, Where's My Car Bomb?"[18]; * "Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster." [20];  * "Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children." - How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), 2004; * "I am not anti-gay rights, I am pro-not-hallucinating when I look at the Constitution."[17].
Please, everyone, can we stop the quotes madness before it gets too large again? Stanselmdoc 05:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the reduction of the quotes section, as well as your choices of quotes.  Thanks for seeing that this article does not get out of control.    paul klenk 05:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's fine. Be bold! Also a hidden note about inserting more quotes. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation Section