Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 11

message: When does Coulter write seperately for Human Events? I don't think she does seperate work for Human Events. Perhaps she does, but I did not find it anyhwere. Perhaps her HE column ended up going into syndication once she hit the big time.   Or perhaps she writes occasional pieces for HE. Or perhaps I am wrong and she DOES write additional pieces for HE.  136.215.251.179
:I looked, and I agree that she doesn't seem to write separately for them. I've sent them an email inquiry about it. If they answer, I'll do the right thing in the article. Lou Sander 14:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you RTFA, you'll find out that her column is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate, and appears in a wide variety of publications, Human Events being just one of the many. Read through some of her columns listed in the 'references' section, and you'll find that her column appears in many publications (Jewish World Review, WorldNetDaily, and even her own website). Dr. Cash 18:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  legal correspondent for HE? 

message: Why is this woman described as such in the Ann Coulter article? What is the source for granting her that august title?  And why do we care who her roomate was? Its not like Cohn is someone people will recognize - and even if they did, why would the name of a college roomate  be noteworthy in a bio?   136.215.251.179
:I agree.  I suppose I never even paid much attention to it before, as so many other issues were being debated so hotly, but there doesn't seem to be much that's notable about it.  If no one objects within a few days, I'll remove it.  Kasreyn 11:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please DO remove it. And at the risk of starting another all-consuming debate, I'm compelled to point out that Ms. Coulter's yester-year litigation work for the Center for Individual Rights, while marginally more important than the identity of her law school roommate, isn't notable enough to be included in the lead paragraph of her Wikipedia article. Lou Sander 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cindy Cohn: Civil rights adovcate? Roommate from yester-year? So what?

message: Notes 1-8 in the main article are kind of flaky. #3 doesn't work if you aren't registered with the NYT. A bunch of others could use plain text explanation, with the URL hidden. I'd do it, but I still lack the skills. Lou Sander 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have a go with it, but it is quite a bit of work getting them into the right format, and since I would enter about 20 edit conflicts in the time it would take me to fix 'em, I think I'll pass now. I wonder if a  tag would even do any good... --LV (Dark Mark) 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I did it with this edit. I also removed  because it doesn't discuss Ann Coulter. — getcrunk what?! 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... It says, "This page was last updated on: June 13, 2006." So they took her off... can't imagine why. :-0 I'll try and scrounge up another source for it. Good catch though. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Addendum. See the cached version of the page for the reference.  Someone wanna add it? --LV (Dark Mark) 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And this pdf, the DG publication, has her listed "In the News". It's page number 16 of the publication, page 29 of the publication. Hope this helps some more. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the cached ref; PDFs make my computer run slow. — getcrunk what?! 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough... just trying to provide multiple sources. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The garbled Notes have been fixed. Thank you. Lou Sander 21:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a WP policy on links to the NY Times? Registration is free and most current events articles are provided free to the public with registration. Should it be added to the ref that free registration is required? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of such a policy (but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist!).  But I don't see why we would need to specifically note this anymore that we need to specifically note that one must purchase or locate a copy of a referenced book or journal article.  Just because something is referenced doesn't mean that it will necessarily be easy or even possible for everyone to verify the citation.  It would be nice if that were the case but it's simply not practical.  --ElKevbo 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody fix the Notes section? 

message: The article says that the 9/11 widows Coulter criticized are known as the Jersey Girls.  If I am not mistaken, Coulter refers to them that way, and it is not a universal term.  If someone knows differently let me know, otherwise I'll make the edit to reflect that. Ramsquire 22:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here ya go... , ,  ;-), , , , , , . Just the first bunch of Google hits (minus one www.jerseygirls.com that seemed to be talking about some other type of girls from Jersey. ;-) Not that I looked though...). Hope this helps. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And this is why it is a good thing Wiki has a talk page.  I had only heard people who opposed the women viewpoints refer to them as the Jersey Girls, so I was afraid it was some perjorative term for them.  But since it does seem to have widespread use across the board, I have no quarrels. Ramsquire 23:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, however, you wouldn't be suggesting that Wikipedia engage in POV editorializing by using such terms without attribution, right?  :)  Kasreyn 09:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pronounced "Joisey Goils." Lou Sander 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jersey Girls? 

message: I have read that Coulter is provocative, self-confident and sexy, (and to many outrageous and annoying) like Mrs. M. L. Ciccone-Ritchie. I would add that unlike Ciccone-Ritchie, Coulter is coherent, intellectual and supportive of a truly uplifting culture. Perhaps the article should mention this Madonna comparison. 136.215.251.179
:I'd say no. Not a notable comparison. Maybe if it was widely discussed. Any sources? --LV (Dark Mark) 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the Lord (click on "LV"). Interesting, but not notable. Lou Sander 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coulter and Madonna

message: Note #17, on Al Franken, links to a Wikipedia article. Did I read somewhere that this isn't something we do here? Is there a better citation somewhere? Lou Sander 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper citation? 

message: Lou tried to change the title of the "Hobbies" subsection to "Deadhead."  I reverted the change.  I agree that "Hobbies" is not a very good title.  But I don't like the title "Deadhead" as a don't think that's a term familiar to everyone, particular to international readers.  It could have unintentional negative connotations (or denotations, for that matter) for those people who don't know about the Grateful Dead.  Would "Grateful Dead fandom" be an acceptable title?  --ElKevbo 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do we know any other of her hobbies? I tried to find a source for her "reading anything by Dave Barry", but was unsuccessful. I definitely like "Hobbies" better than "Deadhead". Do we even need to have two separate subheadings under the section? --LV (Dark Mark) 22:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember guys, this was moved out of a trivia section and placed in the biography section. It is therefore borderline superflous. Perhpas we can take it out of the biography, and ressurect the now defunct trivia section. --Asbl 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Trivia section was removed for a reason. The article is too long, or at least Wikipedia keeps telling me it is. Hobbies are not notable. People keep warring over this non-notable, doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia, subsection. Delete it. Lou Sander 01:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not like it really matters, but I don't even see the point in HAVING this mentioned.  Why is it encyclopedically necessary?  How many real encyclopedias tell us what bands Oscar Wilde or John Donne or Samuel Johnson were fans of?  Is it really that important?  And even if it is, why does every one sentence piece of information on this page get its own heading?  ONE SENTENCE IS NOT A PARAGRAPH!Stanselmdoc 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I agree with Stan, only not so emphatically... one sentence is not a paragraph. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I relocated the Grateful Dead material to a new "trivia" sub-section, and shortened it as well, as per space considerations.  J.R. Hercules 17:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I undid your change as we had removed the Trivia section (a few weeks ago?) for good reason.  I'm sure we're all open to revisiting the issue but I think the reasons for which we deleted the section are still very good reasons.  --ElKevbo 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if you summarized those "very good reasons" in your response to my comment, otherwise I have no idea where you're coming from. As it is, the discussion regarding the trivia section is pretty lacking an in-depth rationale for removing the section. So why did I move and trim the Grateful Dead information? Because it looks extremely odd to have such a trivial piece of information concerning a subject located at the very beginning of an article, not to mention unwieldy due to it nearly being a paragraph in length. The reader wants to get right into the meat-and-potatoes of a subject; they don't want to be sidetracked from the very get-go with humorous and flimsy anecdotes; those are for later -- much later. J.R. Hercules 03:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I deleted the trivia section and moved the Grateful Dead reference back to biography. Trivia sections as a whole are generally frowned upon as un-encyclopedia, as they merely tend to just be conglomerations of non-notable, unreferenced information. For the sake of this article, since it's fairly controversial, it's also a bad idea to have the trivia section since it would tend to provide a very easy place for vandals and conspiracy theorists to insert crap. The Grateful Dead part is somewhat notable, though, since it does say something interesting about Ann Coulter that is a bit unusual for someone as conservative as she is; Deadheads are generally more associated with the marijuana-smoking, 'hippie' crowd, which tends to be a bit more liberal. I also located a much more suitable reference for this as well. Dr. Cash 18:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on killing the Trivia. It has been in and out several times, and IMHO most people think it should be OUT. I also agree that her being a Deadhead is notable enough to be included, and pretty much for the reasons you stated. I didn't check your reference, but there was a very recent interview about her Deadhead stuff, and it was very enlightening. It was formerly one of the references on the Deadhead stuff, and I think it still belongs there--it was unbiased and covered things very well, IMHO. I don't know how to find it and restore it, though. Lou Sander 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadhead

message: The article keeps getting longer and longer, and it seems to me that some of the sub-sub-sub-headings are unnecessary. 
In the very long Controversies section, some paragraphs now have their own sub-sub-headings. Even some single sentences now have their own sub-sub-headings. If we are going to put headings before every single item or thought, we should do it for the whole article, not just for one sub-section under Controversies. If you are in favor of having all these headings, which section should be the next to get them? If you are NOT in favor of having all these headings, which should be the first to go? 
This user is NOT in favor of having all these headings, and thinks that those under "Speeches at college campuses" should be the first to be deleted. Lou Sander 02:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you. I think they improve readability and help summarize the long article. --Asbl 02:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that I disagree, I just don't think that's the problem with the controversies section.  As stated in the previous discussion above, I think the problem is the general outlay and presentation of it.  Half of it isn't even controversies - it's just a list of things editors themselves call controversies.  If we work to fix the general outlay of things, the sub section headings may actually just disappear on their own.  I plan on working on it, but I have to take a pseudo-break for a while.  I have school work to do. Stanselmdoc 18:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Headings? Inconsistency in Headings? 

message: Why was this section pulled into an archive?  It most certainly is current.
Plagiarism claims in today's New York Post. So charges are not just limited to the blogs anymore (Raw Story and Rude Pundit, for example). The NYP article refers to three instances of "textbook plagiarism" in Godless as well as "verbatim lifts" in her weekly columns. The claims are made by John Barrie, creator of iThenticate and CEO of iParadigms -- putting his company and software on the line! Why is a conservative newspaper the first print media I've seen attacking Ann Coulter with plagiarism charges? Anyone bold enough to add a plagiarism section yet?  	--Richard 23 07:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pharos, you are a light in a sea of darkness. Lou Sander 10:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the deal with the title, "Liberal critics allege plagiarism"?  "Liberal" should be removed, unless one can demonstrate otherwise.  --George100 10:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose.  What I'm more interested in is why you removed mention of the alleged plagiarism of the History Channel.  (You seem to have left the source, though.)  I'm also curious as to what your reasoning is for considering "Dealing with Hecklers" to be a fair and NPOV section heading.  I would agree that the previous heading was also inappropriate, though, so I've taken action to render the section heading NPOV.  Kasreyn 11:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new UCONN heading. On plagiarism (and voting irregularities), I don't see how there is controversy enough to put them under the Controversies heading. (Please look at the link, which provides a helpful definition.) Both these notable matters relate to accusations of wrongdoing, but there aren't any notable active arguments about them. Coulter is remaining silent about them, and her supporters aren't arguing that she's innocent. Where's the controversy? Maybe "Allegations of wrongdoing" would be a section into which they could be put. Lou Sander 12:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  I wouldn't mind that.  If, as you say, there's no real public furor going on, I don't see how we could call them "controversies".  I suppose I merely assumed that any point one side makes about her would be instantly and fiercely rebutted by the other.  Perhaps some issues just fly under the radar?  Kasreyn 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people want to say nasty things about her. Some of 'em just want to show off by mimicing her outrageousness; some are offended by her dismissal of what she calls their religion (see odium theologicum); some just hate her; some disagree with her but aren't very articulate, etc. Given that situation, I think that we all need to work hard to insure she gets a fair shake. Just because Nellie hates her doesn't mean there's a notable controversy. Lou Sander 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Cyde.  I don't see how the liberality of the sources (which itself I don't dispute) is notable in this context, unless you are wishing to imply that the allegations are solely politically motivated.  But I don't think we're in the business of implying things with section headings.  Kasreyn 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 136.215.251.179 is a known disruptor and sockpuppet (click on user's ip); disregard his/her statements. J.R. Hercules 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's 136 who is disregarding my (and Cyde's, and most others') statements...  Kasreyn 13:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism Allegations 

message: Ann Coulter makes sweeping and provocative statements. She seems to court controversy. It's hard to tell just how serious or "satirical" she means to be.
Did she really literally mean that she advocates the domestic terrorist bombing of the New York Times building in Times Square? According to "E&P Staff", she:
:"refuted the notion that she is only joking" 
However, in addition to this interpretation they quote her at length:
*"No, I think the Timothy McVeigh line was merely prescient after The New York Times has leapt beyond -- beyond nonsense straight into treason, last week," Coulter replied.
*"This is great humor," Colmes replied, sarcastically. "This belongs on Saturday Night Live. It belongs on The Daily Show. "
Note that the Editor & Publisher article characterizes her tone as speaking "sarcastically". 
Note further that they quote hes as saying "This is great humor".
This would seem to contradict E&P's own view, in which they cite her as denying that she is only joking. Perhaps she is being half-serious, or using sarcasm and exaggeration to make a serious point.
Satirist Jonathan Swift suggested (in apparent seriousness) that the Irish Famine could be solved via what he called A Modest Proposal: to wit, that the British should literally eat Irish babies. 
I submit that an essential aspect of satire is to blur the distinction between straightforward serious assertions and obvious joking. In fact, the Wikipedia article about Swift's Proposal states:
*This is widely believed to be the greatest example of sustained irony in the history of the English language. [and]
*The satirical intent of A Modest Proposal was misunderstood by many of Swift's peers (emphasis added for talk page), and he was harshly criticized for writing prose in such exceptionally "bad taste". He came close to losing his patronage because of this essay. The misunderstanding of the intent of the satirical attack came about largely because of the disparity between the satirical intent of the cannibalistic proposal and the sincere tone of the narrative voice.
I think we should hestitate therefore to characterize Coulter as "refuting the notion that she is only joking". That should not be the POV of the article but perhaps of E&P magazine. --Wing Nut 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coulter's style

message: Notes and References goes crazy halfway through. Somehow it is interfering with editing, at least in the Controversies section. Lou Sander 13:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. Thanks. (Is it appropriate to remove sections like this when the technical, non-content-related problem has been fixed? Seems to me it ought to be.) Lou Sander 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something bad is wrong here 

message: Now that we've agreed to write about Barrie's research, what can we do with this blog entry?
:One of the pieces of the Coulter plagiarism puzzle must be tossed. It was always the weakest example. For this passage: "A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil," Coulter does cite an August 24, 1982 Washington Post article by Jay Mathews that reads, "The worst -- and most mysterious -- break occurred on Feb. 15, 1978, when someone, in an apparent act of sabotage, blew a hole in the pipeline near here that spilled about 550,000 gallons of oil." 
Is this one of Barrie's examples? Did the NY Post article even give any examples? (Or just assert "He found a 24-word passage"?) 
Anyway, these things usually end with either an apology (and correct citation) by the publisher - or for egregious cases, a withdrawal of the book, possible what Liberal (non-Wikipedian!) opponents hope for. Sometimes it goes to court - which would drive up book sales, hmm... Anyway, it's breaking news. --Wing Nut 14:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged plagiarism

message: User 196.201.79.242 changed the sentence "Coulter has been accused of courting controversy." to read simply "Coulter courts controversy." in the Notable Controversies section. I reverted the edit, but the user has simply re-reverted it. I think it reeks of POV. Rather than getting baited into a reversion war, I thought I'd mention it on the discussion page and let some others make the decision. badmonkey 00:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that, short of an explicit quote from Coulter herself stating that she "courts controversy," the statement is by necessity a POV statement and your edit is the correct one to retain NPOV.  --ElKevbo 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it's POV. Coulter calls herself a polemist. Of course she courts controversy. It sells books. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have a verifiable source for that quote then I'd be okay with shortening the sentence and citing the source.  --ElKevbo 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She's skinny, too, but hopefully we don't have to cite references. I'm not at all bothered when someone characterizes her as a polemecist, as controversial, as shocking, or anything else that she obviously is, but fails to quote a source. But when they line up a jillion Muslim quotes, all properly cited, and leave readers to infer that she's some sort of an anti-Muslim bigot, it kinda starts to bother me. I think of it as maybe, just maybe, sneaking somebody's point of view into the article. But I might be wrong on that. Lou Sander 01:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, if you can find quotes where Coulter talks about her desire to give every Muslim in the world a hug and a flower while standing under rainbows and petting kittens, be my guest - add them to the article.  Because I don't really think such quotes exist.  The nonexistence of a positive angle to a particular issue isn't a valid reason to suppress the negative angle, vis-a-vis "undue weight".  Cheers, Kasreyn 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: (To Lou) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Raul654 03:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kase And Raul654, I understand your point of view that Coulter is anti-Arab/Muslim, anti-Woman, and anti-domestic separatist (I infer it from "walks like a duck," etc.). I just wish you wouldn't ask us to infer its validity from a series of sourced but out-of-context minor quotations. I'm somewhat familiar with Coulter's work, and those three subjects are not important themes in it. In fact, she hardly mentions them at all. At best, her words on them are hyperbolic obiter dicta. Coulter's important themes are the flaws in liberalism and the Democrat party. She advances those themes with articulate tightly-reasoned arguments, whose insight and validity underly her importance as an author. Since there's almost nothing in this article about the major aspects of her work, it's particularly unsuitable that there's so very much material about the trivial ones. It's as though the article on Joe Biden consisted mainly of a collection of his controversial quotations, grouped to encourage the (incorrect) inference that he's a fool, long sections about his alleged plagiarisms, and barbs about his baldness and hair replacement. But the Biden article is well-policed by important Wikipedians, and those very sourceable topics aren't even mentioned. That is as it should be, of course, and I wonder why important Wikipedians don't grant the same basic courtesy to Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 01:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accused or not 

message: Neither http://rawstory.com nor http://rudepundit.blogspot.com are reliable sources. Requests that the reader compare and contrast two things to see they are obviously similar are violations of WP:NOR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text attributed to these non-reliable sources should be removed. -- Dcflyer 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pastel boxes for blogs. 

message: Your plagiarism section, as has been pointed out repeatedly in the talk section, is all dicked up. Its as POV as it gets. In addition to relying on left-wing blogs, it also contains an allegation that has been retracted by the leftwing blog that is cited as the source (the History Channel allegation is just plain false and ridepundit has even admitted that to be the case). If there was even half of an attempt to fix this section the article would have some credibility. As it stands, it sucks as the anti-Coulter POV oozes from the article. 84.146.243.105
:Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and we'll get back to you. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yo, anti-Coulter editors 

message: If you care about the content of the articles, then I suggest you become a registered user instead of contributing via an unregistered IP. That will help us take you more seriously.
If, on the other hand, you don't care about the content of the articles... why are you here? DS 22:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't feed the trolls.  --ElKevbo 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: DS, I'm surprised you blocked an unregistered troll for just an hour. You're way too nice. BTW, said unregistered troll is using an IP located in Germany, probably abusing U.S. military base web resources either in person or by proxy. J.R. Hercules 02:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Short version: "Gay boy" stinks in the heading. Get rid of it.
Long version: It's pretty clear that the incident at Indiana was mainly notable for the heat that was generated in a large audience. The headline of the cited article is Coulter Splits IU's Crowd. Much of the article is about the disruptions to Coulter's speech, and the accompanying actions of the police. Much of it is about her attacks on public figures and institutions such as Howard Dean, the Democrat Party and the "liberal media." A very small part of the article quotes Coulter's response to three "fans and protestors," one of whom was the "gay boy." A larger part quotes student leaders defending Coulter and deploring the rowdiness of the crowd. The wrapup is six paragraphs discussing people's reaction to the evening's events, pro and con.
IMHO, the Indiana sub-sub-sub section of our article is a reasonably fair summary of the controversy at IU. But its title is improper and should be changed to eliminate "gay boy." No controversy over Coulter's "gay boy" barb is reported in the source, and as far as I can tell from other research, there was no controversy surrounding it. It was just another exchange between Coulter and a boorish heckler. In other words, the word "gay boy" was in no way a notable factor in the activities of the evening, as we all can see in the source. Yet we title it as though it's about "gay boy." Puzzling, eh? Not very professional, IMHO. Also not very indicative that the article is written with a neutral viewpoint. 
I think that fairness, truthfulness, honesty, and respect for our readers and our subject all say that the heading of this sub-sub-sub section should be about the "splitting of the crowd" (or like that), which is, of course, what the sub-sub-sub section is about. The same principles say we should abandon the words "gay boy" in the heading. This is not a supermarket tabloid, and those words, though definitely spoken during the evening, were in no way notable to the audience or the IU newspaper. 
Others say that the controversy in this speech is about the use of "gay boy." Nothing I see supports that view. It seems to be pulled out of thin air. We can't have a "This is What *I* Think" (TWIT), and "If *I* Think It, It Must RULE" attitude. TWIT isn't good enough. TWIT needs some factual material behind it.
I believe that using "gay boy" in the sub-sub-sub heading is very, very, very improper. Our common interest says we need to send it packing.
Please comment. After all, I may be missing something. Lou Sander 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your analysis is correct.  I'd go even further and ask: what is noteable about this speech at all?  I move we remove it entirely.  --ElKevbo 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both sentiments.  This speech is non-noteable. -- Dcflyer 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Proposal: It's notable that Coulter inspires controversies at college speeches. I didn't like all the sub-sub-sub headings when they first appeared, but now I'm coming to see their benefit. They're a bit long, though, since the stuff they head consists of short paragraphs that link to some very good sources. They also tend to create unproductive disputes. I propose that the sub-sub-sub headings just state the name of the school. The material below them will summarize the specific controversy, and the references will provide the details. If the proposal is agreeable, the sub-sub-sub headings would be University of Arizona, University of Connecticut, Philander Smith College, and Indiana University. Then we'd have a section on Notable Controversies, a subsection on Speeches on College Campuses, and several succinct examples, complete with useful, non-objectionable sub-sub-sub headings and solid references that provide the details of each controversy. IMHO, the result would be a subsection that is notable, informative, and presented from a neutral point of view. Lou Sander 14:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with Dcflyer; it is an illustrative example of Coulter's public speaking style, in which she hectors and abuses her audience.  The speech derives its notability from its ability to describe her speaking style.  Otherwise the argument could be made that any particular sample of Coulter's writings, behavior, speaking, anything is not "notable" in and of itself.  Their purpose here is to help describe the person herself.  Kasreyn 23:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kasreyn that the IU speech is a good example and should be kept, provided it can be reported from a neutral viewpoint. I'm sort of surprised that Kasreyn, a notable advocate of "NPOV," seems only to see one side of the Coulter/audience story. At IU, for example, student disruption of the program is in the lead of the news report; Coulter stops speaking "more than ten times" so that unruly students can be removed by the ushers; one student wears a KKK-like costume and a crudely humorous sign; others act rudely and ask rude questions;  Coulter responds in kind. This is hardly, IMHO, a story about Coulter "hectoring and abusing her audience." Neither are any of the others. Lou Sander 23:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indiana University