Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 8

message: Someone want to archive this page? I'm gone for the weekend, or esle I would.  Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: please be more careful in your revert warring, and discuss removal of sourced facts on the talk page. I wasted several hours digging up those counter arguments and including them and don't appreciate them being blown away like that. If you don't like my wording, the re-word it, don't remove it. I note that the section now contains 100% Coulter-bashing and 0% Coulter-defense. Someone who didn't assume good faith would call such one-sided deletions vandalism. At best they are a mistake which must be corrected. 67.124.200.240 23:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention a tag-team Quintuple revert.  And on the last two reverts no explanation at all was given for reverting.  64.154.26.251 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the CRITICISM section. It's SUPPOSED to be negative. As to defense... the 'she is only kidding' bit appears several other places in the article and the rest of the defenses (i.e. 'Coulter said she was joking', 'Alterman wanted to blow up the Wall Street Journal') are provably false... as explained earlier on this page. --CBDunkerson 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Big Daddy, I thought you were putting us all on to make a point.  Wow is right.  Not only does he seem to be attacking Ann Coulter, but a wikipedia user who seems to get in the way seems to get hit with collateral damage. 64.154.26.251 04:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: those quotations are present in the cited sources, relevant to the section topic, and not present elsewhere in the article. I should point out that I clearly added neutral context for the Alterman quote, and find your insistence of its removal rather ironic. 67.124.200.240 02:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And we should just ignore the fact that they are proven lies? --CBDunkerson 02:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I should add what is there will have to be pared down.  The Michael Moore page contains one page of criticism with rebuttals in all but one or two paragraphs and it's 36 kilobytes long.  The Coulter page contains three pages of criticism with some rebuttals (plus mostly negative accounts of relations with the media) and it's only 39 kilobytes long.  64.154.26.251 02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm just going to put it back in again. Proof of Alterman's employment at MSNBC was already posted above. More proof - . --CBDunkerson 08:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, fully cited arguments, and context defending Coulter got removed (oops) 

message: Hi all -- I know that Ann Coulter invites a lot of strong feelings on both sides, but as a casual observer of the article I've begun to see edits here recently beginning to veer off toward the land of Bad Behavior. Please, everybody, take a deep breath, go do something else for a few hours on this lovely Sunday. Get some fresh air. Watch a movie. Just don't worry about Wikipedia for a while, then come back some other time and take a crack at it. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kate, you bring calmness to an heavily inflamed situation, thank you :) enjoy your sunday! --kizzle 17:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A gentle note 

message: Coulter has frequently criticized the government's handling of radical separatists and expressed what some consider to be support for them.  She was willing to characterize members of the Branch Davidians at the Waco compound as "harmless American citizens"  even after the survivors of the raid and subsequent immolation of the group by their leader were convicted.  Likewise, she berates what she calls the "unprovoked government assault" and "murder" at Ruby Ridge .  Years earlier, Timothy McVeigh made similar criticism as partial justification for his bombing, though the government's handling of both incidents has been widely criticized.   
Shortly after the publication of Slander, Coulter joked, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." to interviewer George Gurley. (Coulter, August 26, 2002) John Cloud, a staff writer for Time magazine later wrote, "She said at the time that it was a joke".Melik Kayan of The Wall Street Journal described the statement and others she has made as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop".  
Many liberal critics, such as Eric Alterman who writes for The Nation and blogs for MSNBC.com, criticize Coulter's use of humor.  Alterman called her a "terrorist apologist" and an "ideological comrade" of McVeigh, because of Coulter's strong criticism of the government's handling of the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents.   
Alterman has written "My only regret with Osama bin Laden is that he did not manage to kill every member of the Wall Street Journal editorial staff", before quickly pointing out that he did not mean it.    Time's John Cloud remarked that "Eric Alterman and Ann Coulter engage in the same kind of debate." Big Daddy 01:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This extremely POV edit has been completely reverted.  Hollow cries like "do not remove" are especially non-Wiki, and will be ignored unless (of course) if an administrator makes the request. Eleemosynary 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Page vandalism by Elemosynary reverted and reported. Big Daddy 01:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of statements regarding radical separatists