Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 1

message: I'm not sure it's really proper to have a critisizm section that's longer than the original article.  I may be wrong, but just wanted to say my thoughts.--ArcticFrog 13:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: (untitled)

message: There is no reason for this text, as phrased, to be included:
"Coulter has been identified as a fundamentalist Christian, but told interviewer David Bowman, "I don't think I've described myself that way, but only because I'm from Connecticut. We just won't call ourselves that." She does not usually argue from a religious point of view, but she says she admires Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson"...
"Identified....?" It sounds like a police line-up...
Rex071404 15:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I object to this snide comment about Ann's faith 

message: 'Rape' quote should stay out. The Internet sources which I found are all 2nd hand (hearsay) and do not cite a 1st hand source such as a bona-fide transcript which can be read on line. 
Also, that particular quote is gratuitously inflammatory. There is no need to intentionally quote something that serves only to the fan flames of religious and sexual indentitiy politics the way including that quote does.
Additonally, the overall tone of the Ann_Coulter is already so harsh against her that including this is mere piling on and adds a stink of too much POV tone overall.
For example, there are some who suggest (and claim to be able to document) that Hitler was among other things, an astrological reading, vegetarian, self-loathing bi-sexual. And yet, regardless of those points, there is enoguh in the public record about him to paint an accurate and rightly adverse picture with out talking up those points.  
The Colter 'rape' "quote" I want stricken is along those same lines, It's inclusion serves no purpose other than to stir up gratuitious acrimony.
Rex071404 20:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, are you suggesting we censor Ms. Coulter?  She has every right to her point of view that God wishes us to rape the earth.  Just because you are uncomfortable with her views does not mean that the Wiki should suppress them.  The Wiki's job is to report on what is, not what you would prefer to be.  I also fail to see why you feel that her advocacy of earth-rape would provoke animosity anyway.    67.180.24.204 00:07, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a primary source to cite if you like the quote so much. Sam [Spade] 00:11, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough Sam, here is a column by Ms Coulter with the quote: "God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping".  Having properly sourced it, and thus satisfied Rex's objection I will put it back in the Wiki.67.180.24.204 01:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text:  Now that you have sourced the quote correctly and I was able to put the entire quote in, not just the excerpt you previously had, it's obvious that this quote is satire. Therefore, since several others on that page are also, I created (2) headings under "Quotes" of "Commentary" and Satire". Please help me bold face those headings. I don't know how to yet. Rex071404 08:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you tell when it's satire from her? She's so far out of touch with reality, it's almost impossible to tell when she's being straight or not!!
No editing the quotes. Let it stay. --Arbiteroftruth 07:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter 'rape the earth' quote 

message: Rex deleted the following paragraph (arguing this is not a Franken vs Coulter article):
"Al Franken also claims that while a newspaper's editorials are its official position, Ann Coulter takes sentences anywhere in the New York Times to represent its official opinion. If a New York Times book-review asks people on both sides of an issue to give their opinion, Ann Coulter will represent any quote she finds offensive as the official position of the newspaper."
If the point is simply that Franken personally is critical of Coulter, I agree with Rex that this should be deleted.  However, the overall section title is "Criticism of Coulter".  Certainly, if it is true that Coulter intentionally misrepresents the views of others, that is a fundamentally important and valid criticism.  The point that Franken is the messenger is then secondary.  I think the paragraph should be restored.  Thoughts?67.180.24.204 15:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franken's deleted criticism 

message: These are not synonyms, and franken meets only one of the many definitions of "liberal", but meets all of the definitions of "left wing". Sam [Spade] 21:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam: I fear your right wing politics are clouding your view on this one.  You are implying that Franken is left wing internationally?  That would put him in the same class as anyone from Social Democrats to Parliamentary Socialists to Direct Action Anarchists.  Which isn't the case.  Franken is actually a Democrat.  Democrats are not "left-wing international" (regardless of what the Republicans call the Democrats).  Here's an example.  In his latest book never does Franken come out against the Iraq war.  He just attacks what he thinks is the mismanagement of the war.  This puts him closer to John Macain than say Noam Chomsky.  I think that you are taking a very monlithic view of the left, and not only that but confusing the international left with just the American left.  Democrats, the closest thing we have to a leftist group in power would be considered moderate or conservative in Europe.  I personally find Franken to be a bit conservative on some issues.  But then again most people don't have political sensibilities that are as finely tuned as mine.  Peace out.  StoptheBus18 21:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: The problem is that its misleading to non-americans, but whatever, I'm not going to fuss about it, some progress is better than no progress. p.s. what makes you say I'm right-wing? Sam [Spade] 22:00, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Liberal]]/[[Left-wing]] 

message: I think that's appropriate.  StoptheBus18 21:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that its misleading to non-americans, but whatever, I'm not going to fuss about it, some progress is better than no progress. p.s. what makes you say I'm right-wing? Sam [Spade] 22:00, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Meelar's change

message: StoptheBus18, on an edit summary, seems to think we should presume that everyone knows how many died on 9/11. I disagree. The Barbara Olsen quote should have the context of  "3,000 killed" included. Most High Scool Sophomores today, were only 11 years old back on 9/11. Most of them certainly don't know the #'s. Time passes quickly and context is important. Also, withholding the truth from people is a form of intolerance. "No tolerance for intolerance" Rex071404 23:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with truth.  It has to do with relevance.  To quote the numbers killed on 9/11 is irrelevant.  This is about what Ann Coulter said not 9/11.  This site isn't for high school sophmores.  Learning is pro-active, we are not here to baby people if someone doesn't know how many people we're killed on 9/11 they should read the 9/11 article.  How poignant that a right winger should talk about witholding the truth while we have still not found one fucking WMD. StoptheBus18 01:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes but people know that more than Olson was killed.  You say 9/11 everyone knows what your talking about.  It crosses into justification by adding the thousands.  StoptheBus18 03:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Er, but Barbara Olsen was alredy mentioned above in the article as a friend who was killed in 9/11. Putting it here again would constitute an undue emphasis of that fact. Fuzheado | Talk 04:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  3,000 killed 

message: There are too many quotes on this page.  Wikiquote was especially designed for the purpose of collecting a person's quotes and should be used instead of people larding up the article with excessive quotes.  The greatest number of quotes on this page should be enough to rehearse quotes that have been especially controversial and to give the readers a flavor for the kinds of things that Coulter says.  
Many people seem to think of this article as an opportunity to try to embarrass Coulter by being careless about providing the context in which the quotes were written.  Or they are so biased by their antipathy towards Coulter that they are unable to provide a fair context.  I think we should watch to see if this is another faulty rationale for adding a quote, as opposed to writing a well-planned article.
:The point of the quotes should not be too embarrass Coulter.  Lord knows, she would have keeled over dead long ago if she were capable of that emotion.  The point should be to illustrate her rhetorical style.  After all, basically she's famous for being outrageous.  For example, the quote about the NY Times editor just pulled was an example of ad hominem.  That's why it should be included, not because it's about the NY Times.  Maybe there are too many quotes.  But they should be evaluated by how they contribute to the understanding of her fame, rather than by the subject matter alone. Maybe it would be productive to itemize each quote by propaganda technique.  But for now, I'm going to put back in the 'editor' quote, on the grounds it illustrates a rhetorical technique.Wolfman 03:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many quotes 

message: kizzle, are you kidding or serious? If you are serious, you make my argument for me in that Ann Coulter is no Jack the Ripper and the fact that you cite him as an exemplar to measure Ann against betrays what you think of Ann. 
Even so, since some here don't seem to understand why I am being so firm on this, let me explain. 1st, please understand that the objective here is to make a better encyclopedia. That said, here again is my thinking:
* I find the tone too anti-Coulter-ish and generally snotty. I have a large circle of acquaintences and they all view politics, etc the same way I do. This means that people such as myself, would not and do not like the tone of this article. 
* This Wiki is not a "radical" agenda driven information store. Rather, it is on the cuting edge of a new type of knowledge - egalitarian, equal access, joint venture. If this article so offends my perspective that I resent it, how is this Wiki going to attract and retain readers and editors who think like I do?
* And don't be so quick to brush that aside - any society-wide idea (as the concept of Wiki is) will nessecarily need to draw from all aspects of society - and make room for them.
* I have no interest in sexuality or biology, so you don't see me camped out at say the "clitoris" page, jumping in  with both feet to the fight over photo/graphic, do you?
* It's axiomatic that conservative thinking persons who follow politics are going to take an interest in Ann Coulter's page. But if you insist on a page that offends my sensibilites and succeeds in driving me away, how then does this Wiki benefit from my "cross-polination"?
* Don't be so quick to compare conservatives to Jack the Ripper. Neither in jest nor for real. It's offensive and it sets a premise which precludes real dialog.
That said, here is why the quotes must be reduced and why those who say no, are wrong:
The stated reason the pro-quotes crew wants all those quotes is to clearly, forcefully and on a dose-of-her-own-medicine basis, hang those harsh words on Ann's neck like an Albatross.
Well guess what? That's exactly what makes Ann obnoxious - she rubs peoples faces in things in a harsh manner. 
So now, the anti-Ann editors think that the just consequence of that is to rub my face (the reader) in endless streams of harsh commentary? How does that make sense?
Sounds to me like that is a defacto concession of POV. And if it's not, why stop with what we have now? Let's put in 500 nasty Ann quotes - after all, since we have cast aside the goal of making the article open and accesable to all, who cares how many people our article offends...
Rex071404 (also, read this) 00:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, somehow "I have a large circle of acquaintences and they all view politics, etc the same way I do," isn't a very convincing argument here. Also, you have not answered the question, "Would Ann Coulter find this list of quotations unbalanced and unfair to her position?" I'd be interested in your answer. Fuzheado | Talk 00:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: No, I have not.  It's not wikipedia's job to avoid offending your tender sensibilities.  The job is to report on why this woman is important.  She's darn sure not noted for her intellectual conributions to conservative thought.  She's noted & rich & famous for being obnoxious & outrageous & unapologetic.  Anyway, why do her comments upset you of all people; she intended them to upset me.  I'll bet she'd be lobbying for more quotes if she were on here; that's the whole purpose of them, to attract attention.  As to an RFC, that would be fine with me (that's nothing formal like mediation is it?) Wolfman 06:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: pity, i thought your comment was sheer literary genius.  and now you tell us you didn't even craft that ironic chestnut purposefully. Wolfman 14:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  She's not Jack the Ripper 

message: The NPOV tag has been on this article for a week.  In those seven days, only Rex has objected to this article, and he has not specified any problems with it beyond "it smells" and "too many quotes".  While he has found plenty of time to argue here, he has not made a single edit to the article to correct this supposed POV tone, or any edit to the article at all.  He has not identified a single quote for deletion from the list of quotes he claims is far too long.  He has simply demanded others make corrections for him without specifiying what corrections need to be made.  This seems to be bad faith, and unless Rex is willing to be a collaborative editor and work with others to eliminate any supposed problems he sees, I don't see any reason to keep the tag beyond the stubborness of a single, non-participating editor.  Gamaliel  17:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gamaliel, please keep your argumentative innuendo to yourself. That said, I am going to follow your suggestion and make edits beginning now. But remember - you insisted that I edit. Rex071404   19:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, Rex.  You've never needed my prompting to troll before. Gamaliel  20:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text:  Please, no harsh words - I don't call you a "troll", please reciprocate. Also, I see you have adopted my lead by going with a smily variant too. Thanks for the compiment. Also, see note your talk page, re: "protect" error. My oversight - I apologize. Rex071404   20:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, you're not a troll, you're a friend to all children, whatever. Just don't expect sunshine when you act snide ("Oh, you forced me to edit Gamaliel, so whatever crap I put in this article is all your fault...").  Golden rule, buddy. Gamaliel  20:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing NPOV tag 

message: I actually think Rex found a pretty good quote, but I agree that we spent so much time removing quotes that I don't think it should be added.  Take a quote down before you put that one up, if at all.
:It's just another flippant remark and is completely of the moment. In a couple of months nobody is going to know what it means, and Coulter is wrong because Rather (like the rest of the media) did broadcast plenty of stuff that the SBVT made up without a second thought. And it's on the Wikiquote pages for both Coulter and Rather. It does not need to be in the Wikipedia article.
; I told this group some time ago, that if they did not pare the list down enough, other quotes would follow. Rex071404   23:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, you made a threat that you will enact unless you get your way? Lyellin 00:01, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Lyellin, your snide comment does not deserve an answer and frankly, I am tired of your over-the-top antagonism. Until you desist, I am ignoring you indefinately. . Rex071404   00:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Rather Quote 

message: See above dialog and my edit summary for reason. Rex071404   06:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag reinserted 

message: Even though I still don't like the total number of quotes whick make Ann look bad (as I have always stated - I wanted six, maximum), I am ok with the paring down which Wolfman just did. Rex071404   03:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfman's most recent edit 

message: Just thought this was funny.  Why is someone from O'Melveny & Myers LLP editing a page about Ann Coulter?  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ann_Coulter&diff=0&oldid=6886089  AlistairMcMillan 03:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Who? I looked at both pages and neither editor self-identifies as a law-firm employee. Further, why would it be "funny" for them to do so? Are they involved in a lawsuit for/against Coulter? -Willmcw 20:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Melveny & Myers 

message: I haven't seen an article with quotes embedded as well as with a link to WikiQuote. Can't they be merged into WikiQuote? They're overwhelming the article.
:I agree. One or two quotes is fine. Six quotes is a lot. This page has 24! That's plainly absurd. There is already a compendium of Coulter quotes on Wikiquote that includes all of the quotes listed here (and more). This isn't a mirror of that project. I don't see a need for any of them here. -Willmcw 21:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes should be moved to WikiQuote 

message: Well, I am glad to see somebody trying to help me keep my rant from being too slanted, but I had to remove "the settlement her client could have received without the testimony being revealed may have been less than what she could have received with the pressure of publicity.", in that we know what the settlement she did receive with the pressure of publicity was: zilch, when the case was tossed out for being groundless. Hard to imagine she would have settled for less than zero. Gzuckier 21:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Paula Jones

message: Do we need to keep the list of quotes here, or should they only be on Wikiquote? I'm not sure. - Evil saltine 09:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of wikiquote doesn't mean we should purge all quotes from wikipedia. Gamaliel 20:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If articles use quotes, we should leave them there.  Hello5959us 17:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquote 

message: the tone of the page is higly critical..Compare it to oprah winfey where 90% is praise and 10% Criticism...here it seems to be reverse..
The article is hightly left wing biased... unsigned comment from 172.133.224.246
:What specifically is wrong with the article?  What edits would you make to correct this problem? Gamaliel 00:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: well, as far as Jones' testimony, I think you could say from any point of view that a story about some man dropping pants in your hotel room and so on is pretty much lurid. Gzuckier 05:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The antidote for 'bad speech' is not censored speech, but better speech. If those who 'read her works' understand those quotes as being something other than as portrayed, they are free to append 'But in fact what Ann meant was....' to the passage in question. Or, even, simply 'Anyone who read her works know, however, that these quotes are out of context and do not mean what they seem to mean' as presented here, and leave it to the intelligent reader to make up his or her own mind. No? Gzuckier 20:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree here.  Why present the quotes if you're going to right away claim that they may be irrelevant or whatever term you wish to use?  Especially in such volume!  What you end up doing is presenting facts on one POV and virtually saying, 'trust us on this one' for the other POV.  I think it would be better to just not quote out of context in the first place, if thta's what the perceived problem is.--patton1138 04:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly... I must agree, to have every quote currently there followed by a specific disclaimer would be a bit much. In any event, the first step would be for the alternative POV to actually demonstrate how any quote is taken out of context and how it could be interpreted as other than face value, rather than just the bland assertion that that's the case, then maybe we can see whether the consensus is post both povs or yank them as cancelling each other out for that quote. Let the games begin. Gzuckier 05:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Altogether agreed.  With the discussion here; we certainly don't need to have editing wars, argunig the merits of each and every quote in the actual article :-) --patton1138 06:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: Isn't Ainsley Hayes (The West Wing) loosely-based-on/inspired-by/a-chip-off Ann Coulter? 
chocolateboy 13:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ainsley Hayes

message: Substituted at 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment