Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 10

message: [www.coulterwatch.org] made by American conservatives against Coulter. --66.234.203.32 18:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unable to find the site. Are you sure it isn't hyphenated or something? My browser is returning a 404. Kasreyn 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative criticism of Coulter - where?

message: Could someone change the main photo to something more appropriate? Using the image from the cover of her Slander book looks ridiculous and unprofessional. That photo belongs in the section dedicated to the book, not in the main Ann Coulter page. How about a simple picture of Ann and Ann alone? Sloopydrew 10:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what she is know for, a writer. It is not anymore out of line as other authors on wiki. Dominick (TALK) 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do all of her photos/covers show a very large portion of her body.  Nothing says "I'm a serious journalist" like a blonde woman in tight, skimpy black clothes.  Anything to sell a few more books, I guess.   Cacophony 19:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to go on officially on the record and say that I have absolutely no problem with photos of Coulter showing her body in skimpy black (or otherwise) clothes.  If there are any extras that anyone have that can't be used, I'll send you my email. ;-) Lawyer2b 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cacophony, most of the photos show her body because they are publicity photos from Ann Coulter's reps, or covers from her books.  In other words, these are the photos that she's making available for fair use. --M@rēino 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Photo 

message: Removed this descriptive term. There is no such thing officially recognized as a "constitutional lawyer." Also, the article only briefly mentions her law degree and makes no mention of specific studies in constitutional law. Wjbean 22:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Constitutional" lawyer 

message: For some reason we're awash in anon vandalism. I can't even do a compare, by the time I'm done figuring out what I need to fix more vandalism has been added. There are half a dozen different anons vandalizing at once. Kasreyn 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an easy one. Look what the cunt's done now: Anti-liberal US writer calls 9/11 widows "witches". --Nelson Ricardo 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm well aware.  I just don't know why they all come to Wikipedia.  :P  Kasreyn 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To any admins reading this, we need an sprotect. 

message: Notable information had been removed (such as the fact that she is a bestselling author), summary information about her nature as a polemecist was blanked, and POV attacks were missed by other editors. I'm going by the admonition to be bold on this one. Kasreyn 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted back to LV 

message: I added NPOV to this article. Why is it that FOX News seems to be a target of choice? This article is about Ann Coulter, not FOX News. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.79.43.137 (talk • contribs) . 
:I don't understand what you mean. FOX News is mentioned only in the context that they host Coulter. If you wonder why few media outlets other than FOX are mentioned, it's easy to explain. FOX is just about the only media outlet that will still touch her. Most won't publish her or give her airtime. Fortunately for Coulter, FOX is far enough to the right to consider her acceptable, for now. Kasreyn 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the NPOV tag. I just read the article for the first time and didn't find any problems with the mentions of Fox news. Please illuminate us on your problem more before adding it back in. -Quasipalm 00:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Where do you see that word in the article?  I've searched for it and I can't find it.  Please tell me where it is in the article so I can immediately remove it.  Kasreyn 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refer to [WP:CIVIL].  No constructive purpose is served by making offensive comments towards other editors or groups of people on Wikipedia talk pages.  We are here to improve the article, not to attack others' views or make a political "point".  Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What purpose does such speculation serve?  Wikipedia's no original research policy would preclude us from adding it to the article.  How about we focus on ways in which we can improve the article?  Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for topical discussion.  Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Latest News
The Clinton comment is a very serious charge against the former president and should be recorded as an unsubstatiated remark unless someone has a citation to a rape indictment. Nope, didn't think so.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .
:I've already commented on this & am waiting for a consensus of viewpoints.  I agree that Coulter's remarks have the purpose of misleading, since she begs the question on the alleged rape.  However, a way must be found to note the context of her remarks which is NPOV and which does not introduce original research.  Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to say since it just happened, but I believe that in a few weeks, we'll look at this and see the coverage is warranted. --kizzle 00:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As in, you feel this one's gonna blow up in her face as bad as the crack about calling for the death of an Associate Justice did? Good thing I don't watch TV, I can avoid all the meaningless furor... Kasreyn 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is notable...maybe even her worst episode yet. I saw her repeating the same on Tucker Carlson. And, in this case Ann was not "joking". She was asked in a very straightforward manner about her comments and she stood by them unflinchingly. There was no laughing from either side or humorous feel to the piece. The controversies section is getting long, but I guess controversy is her thing. I think we could expand on the bibliography a little, I can't tell what the books are about and how they were received. There should also be something about her numerous relationships, especially considering her complaints about premarital and homosexual sex and her wearing that cross all the time. Justforasecond 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: get over yourself, vandal. ward churchill calls all 9-11 victims "little eichmans" who deserved what they got and progressives rush to his defense as a victim of mccarthyism (a term rendered meaningless by the venona revalations). ann coulter critisizes specifically four 9-11 widows for cynically transforming their berievment into political hackery for profit and she's expected to feel shame. the unbelievable gall of you people. in the meantime the nytimes spent three op-eds marginalizing the largest organized group of 9-11 widows and relatives because they opposed eric foner's designs on the wtc site.71.201.70.152 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 Widows 

message: Here's my writeup with up to date information. I guess some of it could be merged with the previous information: 
 
Coulter suspected of felonious voter fraud in Florida 
It is claimed that Coulter had registered to vote using her Palm Beach Realtor's address while waiting to complete the purchase of her $1.8m home. In February it is claimed by a poll worker that she illegally cast a vote after being told that she was in the wrong voting district. She became belligerent and still cast her vote. 
 
She also claims to live in New York City but records from New Canaan, CT show she was registered there and cast an  absentee ballot in 2004 the same time.  
 
In response on the Fox News Show "Hannity & Colmes" on June 6, 2006 she called all the reporters who wrote about the case in Palm Beach and Palm Beach Election Supervisor Arthur Anderson "retarded" and "I think the syphilis has gone to their brains". 
 
Coulter has hired a criminal defence attorney to defend her in the Palm Beach case. 
 
Refs: http://www.nydailynews.com/06-08-2006/news/gossip/story/424613p-358230c.html 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198549,00.html 
 
--Costoa 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter suspected of felonious voter fraud in Florida 

message: Whoever decides to remove pictures without explaining those changes on the talk page, please stop. Puckmv 04:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Kasreyn 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Antaeus: I think that criticism that is directly related to her books should go on their (the books') pages.  Since you admit that the criticism is more relevant on those pages, at best in her controversy section why don't we have a sentence stating something like "Coulter's books have also been controversial and have met with both strong support and criticism" ? I just think its a mistake to have EXACT duplicates of criticism in both her main article and her books' articles. Lawyer2b 02:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that criticism that is directly related to her books should go in the articles for those books. But I disagree that the obvious corollary is "that criticism should not go anywhere else", especially since that very point has been discussed in detail at WP:POVFORK. Your proposed summary, simply informing us that Coulter's books have been "controversial" and "have met with both strong support and criticism" and completely avoiding any mention of why they have been so subject to criticism, is simply not adequate. If we were to say "well, a vague summary is adequate here, since there's a different article where a true summary of the different positions on the issue would be more relevant", then we are really just saying to every POV pusher out there "Hey! If there's something that you want to marginalize any discussion of, just make a new, ultra-specific article which is clearly where that discussion is most relevant! Then use the fact that it's 'most relevant' there, to justify minimizing it everywhere else!" If you're telling me that the article on neither book has any more detail than this article does ("EXACT duplicates of criticism") then that says more about the sad state of the book articles than of a need to be even more vague in this article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth I'd like to point out that Lawyer2b has been very polite and willing to listen to problems with his edits and make fixes.  I hardly think he's a POV pusher.  And Feldspar's example of marginalizing important information might hold water if non-notable articles were created in order to do so.  However, Coulter's books were already each notable in their own right (most of them being best-sellers) and already had their own articles, so the comparison isn't accurate.  There's no need to duplicate information as long as we wikify (ie., link) and organize correctly.  Kasreyn 17:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sincerely appreciate the positive feedback, Kasreyn, and I think your assessment of the comparison is correct and important to note. Lawyer2b 18:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Lawyer2b, please take a closer look at the very few edits that I have made to the article.  You accuse me of "simply reverting ... to putting back the detailed criticism", but what I have in fact done is simply to restore two references to verify a particular statement that was made -- namely, that one of the reasons Coulter's books are controversial and have attracted criticism is because they are accused of distorting and misrepresenting the facts.  Now, I would like to believe that you simply became confused, and mistakenly attributed some edits that were made by others to me:  I fail to see how saying 'Coulter's books have come under criticism for allegedly distorting the facts' is too much detail to go into at Ann Coulter.  However, from your example above of what you think would be an adequate summary, I cannot be sure that this is the case.  Please clarify. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to be offensive so "accuse" is a bit stronger of a word than I would use; it just appeared to me that as part of this edit  you added back the entire criticism section I had removed.  Am I reading it wrong?  Btw, what's your opinion of the criticism summary now? Lawyer2b 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're reading it right; I'm looking at the the diff for my edit and it did a lot of things that I have no intention of doing.  I would have sworn on a Bible that my edit merely re-inserted two references to support the statement that Coulter has been accused of distorting facts.  The only way I can figure it happened is that I obviously had to go back to a previous version to get the references that had been removed, and though I would have sworn I then edited the current version, it must not have been the current version after all.  Sorry!  As for the criticism section as it is now, it looks satisfactory to me; it doesn't try to rehash the entire debate (which, as you correctly point out, belong in the respective articles for those books) but it does provide an adequate summary of what the debate is about. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you approve the summary.  No apology is necessary.  Everyone makes mistakes like that.  :-)  Lawyer2b 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of her books section 

message: I think Ann is really a liberal. No self-respecing conservative would go so far out of their way to be that hated by Replulicans and Democrats alike.  She must be trying to drum up sympathy for libera  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.153.203.4 (talk • contribs) .
:Again, this speculation serves little purpose as it would be original research to include it.  Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt Ann cares enough to deal with Wikipedia right now, she's under a little heat for her actions. --kizzle 05:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well she might like to hear from someone willing to give her some positive attention.... Justforasecond 18:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt Ann cares enough to deal with Wikipedia right now too; she's busy trying to figure out a way to spend all the money she's making from her newest book.  :-) Lawyer2b 04:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pics from ann? 

message: I've removed a statement from the section on the 9/11 Widows statements.  Not only was it unneccessary - it was clearly noted above that Coulter was referring to precisely four women - it was also POV speculation and an attempt to apologize for Coulter's remarks.  This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Furthermore, if "Jersey Girls" is added to the title of this section, which I don't particularly dispute, it must be indicated that this is a term applied to them by Coulter rather than by Wikipedia, as to call a woman a "Jersey Girl" can in some cases be meant as an insult.  Kasreyn 05:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least with regards to the 9/11 widows referred to as "Jersey Girls", the name does not appear to be used perjoratively nor by Coulter alone.  An article on commondreams.org (certainly no friend to Coulter) declares the women are referred to by that moniker in Washington, D.C.  Lawyer2b 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you're right, but whether an insult was intended or not, we can't allow the appearance of it.  For instance, when black rapper x in a rap track calls a friend a "nigger", no one is foolish enough to think he is using it as an expression of contempt.  Yet it would not be appropriate to include a list section in that rapper's article called "Rapper x's Niggers", because it risks the appearance that it is Wikipedia that chose to use the term.  When a term that could be offensive is used, it should be clear that Wikipedia is quoting someone else.  Maybe it's just me being overly sensitive, though.  I consider it only a minor problem, but when a person who happens to be a personal friend of one of the foursome, who happens to feel the term is a put-down, comes on this talk page, you can be sure they won't feel it's minor at all that Wikipedia joins the world in calling their friends "Jersey Girls".  Kasreyn 09:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might think I'm being cold-hearted but I think your appeal for clarity is much more persuasive than for sensitivity. Lawyer2b 12:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More apologism 

message: 24.15.75.90 apparently feels the article violates WP:NPOV enough to merit a POV tag.  As I'm sure he is aware, use of the POV tag requires explaining the reasons for adding the tag to be detailed on the talk page.  24.15.75.90, please post as soon as possible in order that we might know what is POV about the article.  Thanks, Kasreyn 05:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag added by 24.15.75.90 

message: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gzuckier (talk • contribs) .
Yeah, I forgot to sign in my liberal excitement at tearing down a great American.Gzuckier 17:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the commentary from the site that went with the photo. And I'll be, it does look like her. Maybe there does need to be a tranny section :D badmonkey 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  here's a nice pic maybe we can get rights to 

message: Michigan is the only state w/ a sizable Arab and Muslim population and Abraham hismelf was of Lebanese Arab Christian descent. It is notable that Coulter worked in his senate office for two years yet articulates such incendiary anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Very remarkable.  Take Care! --65.184.213.36 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worked for Sen Spencer Abraham R-Michigan 

message: The most amazing thing about this article is the fact it is full of what Ann Coulter says yet any criticisms as some say or some believe are removed as NPOV. How can publishing what she says but disallowing what others say or believe about her be neutral? She is given the only voice. That is not neutral  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .
:Please refer to Avoiding Weasel Words.  Claims such as "some say" or "some believe" are not verifiable and therefore not encyclopedic.  If a specific, reliable source can be found making the claim or statement, then that source can be cited and quoted.  Otherwise, to include statements prefaced with "some say" or "some believe" is original research, which is not accepted at Wikipedia.  Thanks, Kasreyn 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved comment from To Do 

message: Ann Coulter wrote a lot of articles related to the Paula Jones case for Human Events during the Paula Jones period. I have listed the one I have found below for someone with more knowledge to choose the best ones. (I was barely a teenager when this all occured and I have never heard of Human Events before.)--chemica 03:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Coulter and Paula Jones References 

message: I'm sorry to revert you, but I think the citation needed tag must remain.  Originally the section only mentioned Coulter's direct quote, which as you pointed out, is perfectly well sourced by Godless.  However, very recently someone added the section of text saying "who pushed for the 9/11 Commission, were critical of US security policies, hinted that George W. Bush was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and supported John Kerry for president in 2004.", which is a claim regarding not Coulter, but the four widows.  Since Coulter has already said such venemous things about the four widows, I hardly think we can consider Coulter or her book a reliable source on them.  Coulter may indeed have made such claims in Godless (or not, for all I know), but we need a third party to report on that, which is why I added the cite needed tag.  My guess is that whoever added the claims was repeating hearsay and had no particular source.  If you can find one, please do.  Best wishes, Kasreyn 08:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit (and this one) were fine points and spot-on-well-done. Lawyer2b 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the compliment.  :)  Kasreyn 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Feydey re: sourcing 

message: Why is this under the "see also" section?  Why is this present in the article at all?  When has Ann Coulter ever expressed that she subscribes to racialism?  In the absence of a quote directly linking her to this belief, it must be deleted. Stanley011 03:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, I think we are in agreement on this one link (Racialism).  I noticed nobody has put it back in.--WilliamThweatt 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right; it would certainly be original research for us to point out that her statements regarding people of Arabic descent are, indeed, racialist by definition.  It's not our place to insert original research, which includes any act of editorial synthesis, including such obvious ones as this.  Of course, were a notable, reliable source to comment on her racialism, then it would be appropriate to include.  :)  Kasreyn 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racialism

message: Does anyone know, whether she is married and has children?
Thanks and greets from Martin
:no to bothGzuckier 17:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could she be married?  She hasn't met me yet. Lawyer2b 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!!  I like the way you think.  Kasreyn 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears Bill Maher had sexual relations with that woman, Ms Coulter, but this info has been stricken from the article.   Justforasecond 00:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? --kizzle 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd heard that myself, but I thought it was only a rumor.  Not since the unlikely friendship between Hunter Thompson and Pat Buchanan have my eyebrows climbed higher.  Apparently sometimes, partisans may find they have more in common (ie., both being partisans) than they have political differences.  Kasreyn 04:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one which I cannot possibly understand to this day is Mary Matalin and James Carville...  what the hell do they talk about at dinner? --kizzle 04:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever seen K Street?Homey 04:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I wish, gotta netflix that next, though I have seen the War Room which is fascinating to see them against each other. --kizzle 04:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Tagged? Why would she be tagged twice? --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 04:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: O.O ...  dies laughing  Kasreyn 05:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private life 

message: This material was originally removed to the article on Treason by lawyer2b, and I did not protest then.  I've come to see that as an error.  Coulter's columns are not part of that book, and so her effort to exculpate McCarthy is not entirely contained within discussion of the book.  As a matter of categorization and notability some mention belongs in the main article on her.  I've restored the material, but taken the liberty to rewrite and trim it down to a smaller, more manageable paragraph.  I'm well aware that in its current incarnation it lacks appropriate sourcing.  I'm asking other editors to help me find them, rather than deleting the content.  Kasreyn 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even without the citations, I am in complete agreement; it should be in her main article. Good call. Lawyer2b 23:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man this page sucks now without any controversy.  C'mon, there's liberals and conservatives here.  We should be accusing each other of pushing our own POV and/or being in a cabal.  You guys suck out all the fun. --kizzle 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harmonious bipartisanship is boring indeed.  ;)  Kasreyn 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthy 

message: I have removed the section beginning "Outrageous remarks of this sort are nothing new for Coulter" as well as two other sentences that constitute original research.  The paragraph on "outrageous remarks" is editorializing and speculation which is not based on a cited source.  The first single sentence removed makes an unsupported assertion about the Jersey Girls' claim being nonpartisan as well as an unsupported assertion about Republican tactics.  The second removed sentence postulates a negative factual claim, which is problematic to source and functionally unencyclopedic.  Furthermore it is still original research, as the lack of statements regarding denomination in the book has not been noted by a third party outside Wikipedia.  Kasreyn 13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV / OR sections removed 

message: Adjectives like "sexy" "best selling" define POV language. I would also suggest the added "infobox" is somewhat juvenile. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would she be famous if she wasn't a bestselling author? Right now it says "Claim to fame: author". I didn't know all authors were famous. --Facto 08:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Define best-selling. Is x number of books best-selling, or is it x+1? How many books has she sold? Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While not universal, a lot of people consider a book (and therefore its author) "bestselling" if they have appeared on the New York Times bestseller list.  Coulter has on more than one occasion.  I think it's at least a reasonable description. Lawyer2b 11:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Bestselling" is, by the Wiki's own reckoning, merely an acknowledgement of popularity of a book or author. While the term may, to some, appear to connote some kind of positive view of the person or thing, it's merely a succinct way of saying "this person has sold lots and lots of books." While "sexy" is, in my view, definitely POV, "bestselling" is not. I don't believe she's been on the "New York Times Sexiest Authors List," but the "New York Times Bestseller List" she has frequented. Lemonsawdust 05:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the problems you cited have been fixed.  Are there any further NPOV issues with the article?  The tag's not meant to be permanent.  Kasreyn 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of think that, in the Controversies section, the words "Some find her presentations, both published and spoken, to be biased, offensive, inflammatory and claim them quite often full of misinterpreted facts that put her credibility in question" isn't neutral. I put something in there about "others" not finding her presentations that way, but somebody took it out. It's surely true that "some" are, for example, offended by her presentations. But what about the rest of us? Lou Sander 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I thought the part saying that she's called the Middle East a "swamp" was a bit misleading as this was in reference to the metaphor "Drain the Swamp" and noted that in the article.  "Drain the Swamp" is not an offensive term and even Noam Chomsky used it in an editorial prior to the Iraq war.  While Coulter's said a lot of crazy, hurtful things, this isn't one of them and I wanted that clear.  She's sometimes said "clean up the swamp" or variations, but to my knowledge hasn't gone any further to turn it into an actual insult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.113.152 (talk • contribs).
:Look, do a little research.  A Google search quickly reveals that the entire phrase as commonly used is, "Drain the swamp, and there will be no more mosquitos".  The metaphor has two possible meanings I can see.  One, put forward by prominent leftist Noam Chomsky uses it to mean: address the root causes of terrorism and no new terrorists will be recruited - a sentiment I couldn't agree with more.  The other version harkens back to Mao Zedong and refers to killing off or deporting a civilian population in order to deal with guerillas within.  Sort of like burning a house down to kill a flea.
:So which is it?  Is Coulter aping the pacifist Bush-bashing intellectual, or the mass-murdering communist tyrant?  Either way, it certainly doesn't look very good.  Kasreyn 05:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I personally think she probably meant "swamp" as simply part of a "drain the swamp" analogy, it is not overtly clear from the cited source.  Unfortunately, being familiar with Ann Coulter, however, I'll bet if she was asked if she thinks the (Arabic) Middle East is a "swamp" she would say yes; if for no other reason than to be polemical. As a side note, I totally disagree with your second paragraph's conclusion.  If someone "apes" a disreputable figure by simply using a phrase of analogy they also used, I wouldn't say that automatically "doesn't look very good".  Their meaning, which you address in your first paragraph is paramount. Lawyer2b 14:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle East as "Swamp" mention 

message: I would like to mention that the portion of How to Talk to a Liberal quoted in this section has been taken horribly out of context from the rest of the chapter in which it was stated.  Chapter 8 of How to Talk to a Liberal is talking about the Confederate flag's many other meanings that have nothing to do with slavery.  In the quote shown here on Wikipedia, she is simply making a point about how even if the Confederate flag's history does have portions of being associated with slavery, why is it the main symbol seen as offensive when other symbols, such as the African kinte cloth, which can be seen as having just as much history associated with slavery, are worn with pride by the same people refusing to allow others to display the Confederate flag.  I don't want to go editing the article myself without seeing what feedback I get here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.245.254 (talk • contribs) 
:My response is keep it. The fact is most Aemricans probably dislike the comment, especially African Americans. That's why we have a page on her and her bile, because it's notorious and covered by ther media. User:Green01 3:40, June 17 2006, (UTC)
::User:12.219.245.254, while I don't think what she says is bile, I agree with a lot of what Coulter says and I agree it should be kept as well.  It is a view she has regarding African Americans.  You should feel free, however, to add more to the section regarding her views . Lawyer2b 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the context is as you say, by all means please provide it. It is one thing to allege that kinte cloth is a symbol of slavery, and another thing to compare kinte cloth and the Confederate flag as textiles which have many connotations including slavery. If Coulter did the latter, readers need to know that. Lou Sander 15:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto Lou. --kizzle 03:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All reasons for improving. Not reasons for deleting. --Asbl 04:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I improved it.  And the quote definitely is NOT from Godless; I bought the book just to make sure (my distaste for rants is exceeded by my distaste for disinformative citations). I also provided a link to the original source of the kente cloth stuff. Lou Sander 06:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor asserts that the kente stuff created controversy. I can't find any such controversy, and nobody has responded to the "citation needed." If the controversy isn't notable and sourced, what's the quote doing in the Controversy section? In the article at all? Lou Sander 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter on African Americans 

message: She is so fucking crazy is not even funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.57.2.252 (talk • contribs) 
:You mean, so fucking crazy hot!  Lawyer2b 04:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: I'm removing the current event tag. Was it placed there because she has a new book currently out? Regardless, I think it's redundant, all articles about living people are documenting a current event.
Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I believe it was put on more for her comments on the 4 9-11 widows, but I'd say it is fine to be removed. --LV (Dark Mark) 13:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur as well.  Also, I thought    was warranted here, so I placed it at the top of this talk page.--WilliamThweatt 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current event" tag 

message: Why is there no section on Coulter's plagiarism? I see a single external link to it with no mention in the article, filed under the criticisms sector. If I add this section, will the apologists remove it, even if it's documented and cited? Eh, probably, but I'd like some help to add it anyway. Any takers? Professor Ninja 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a criticism.  Please assume good faith in the motives of editors (they are not necessarilly apologists if they disagree on placement).  The discussion is at Talk:Ann_Coulter/Archive_4#Plagiarism_Allegations. Rkevins82 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read the archives, and I don't see a cogent arguement in there as to why they're lacking. As to the apologists, they're here, vocal about the apologism, and eager to remove things. That's not good faith, it's incredibly bad faith. I can't assume goodness where I see ungoodness (how's that for Orwell?) demonstrated in people. This article is a hotspot for anons to come along and just zing something out to conform it to their pro-Coulter view, while registered users try to make a fair article. Professor Ninja 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, I feel it is the other way around. It is much more likely for an anon to come in and place anti-Coulter comments and have them removed by registered users. But that's really beside the point. But I would say write up a blurb, make sure it's sourced, and I imagine most won't have a problem with it (as long as it is done in an NPOV way). Just my opinion. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  We spend much more time reverting anti-Coulter vandals than pro-Coulter vandals here.  It's no more a reliable source than Google, but it does seem to show a certain...  statistical preponderance of people who really don't like her.  Kasreyn 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope I come across as an unabashed Coulter luster admirer yet one who wishes a truly NPOV article about her except for the fact that she's hot, but I digress.  After a brief reading of the archives regarding the charges of plagiarism I concur.  So long as everything is adequately sourced and NPOV, the standard for anything to be included, it should be.  Lawyer2b 21:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why nothing on plagiarism? 

message: An anon editor continues to remove this passage: On August 28, 2005, Coulter's syndicated column was dropped by the Tucson newspaper Arizona Daily Star. David Stoeffler, the editor and publisher said, "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." Since then, according to Editor & Publisher magazine, she "hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients, or the support of her syndicate, Universal Press Syndicate," despite the swirl of negative press that has accompanied the release of her latest and most controversial book, Godless.
He/she removes the bulk and instead writes that a one small paper dropped her as if to make it inconsequential. The quote illustrates why the column was dropped and it is sourced. It should stay.IrishGuy talk 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is accurate and adaquately sourced, but I have been tempted to remove the piece in the past myself. The reason being notability. And I'm not trying to dispute the veracity of the newspaper's claim, so let's not discuss now. My question is, How notable is the Arizona Daily Star dropping a column? Is there a reason we document this (seemingly to me) minor paper dropping a column, but not any other papers adding or dropping a column? Does anyone have any circulation numbers of the Daily Star? I would appreciate any comments. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only thing that could make the event notable is that the newspaper said she received criticism from conservatives. If she is published by 100+ newspapers, then one dropping her almost certainly isn't notable. Lawyer2b 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As she is carried by numerous papers, when a conservative paper drops her citing reader complaints, it becomes notable. When it happened, it made national media and spread over the internet. , , . How is that not notable? IrishGuy talk 00:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the three sources you just provided don't really prove "national media" or even "spread over the Internet" since they are three left-wing sites. I am not criticising you here, but are there sources in any of the major news outlets? Any main newspapers or news networks? Is the Arizona Daily Star a conservative newspaper? Forgive my lack of knowledge here. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not from Arizona, but from what I have gathered it is known to be a conservative paper. I could be misinformed on that, though. Huffington's columns are syndicated nationally in various newspapers. The other two sites, while admittedly left-wing, were simply to illustrate that this is known outside of Arizona. I would have liked to have found a right wing source about it...but I must admit, I am not shocked that it isn't really mentioned in right wing sources. Being dropped from a paper (whether large or small in circulation) isn't really something to crow about. :) IrishGuy talk 01:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is kind of why I was surprised that we covered it like this. ;-) I'll hunt around a tad for other sources (to see if it's notable). --LV (Dark Mark) 01:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. I simply did a quick google search and grabbed three hits that weren't from Arizona (there were a good many hits that were, but that wouldn't necessarily illustrate notability outside of Arizona). There may be more, and better, sources elsewhere. IrishGuy talk 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media

message: Just a friendly reminder that WP:LIVING (linked to at the very top of this page) is explicit about the necessity of only including properly cited statements in the biographies of living persons: "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule."  I don't particularly care for Ms. Coulter or her views but she, like everyone else, deserves to be represented by factual information and not innuendo and rumors.  --ElKevbo 00:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it doesn't, but I think that policy should apply to all articles, period. Lawyer2b 05:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually does but it isn't really enforced as a workable policy in anything but the most extreme cases, particularly those under the pervue of WP:OFFICE (See the Jack Thompson (attorney) article for an example of this).  WP:V explicitly states that "any edit lacking a source may be removed."  As Jimbo has said, this should be particularly true for biographies of living persons: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."  I think it's not only a legal issue but also one of respect for our fellow human beings.  --ElKevbo 05:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited statements 

message: If you are new to Wikipedia, please, read WP:WELCOME before editing this article.  Among other things, you should know that the following edits are least likely to succeed on a high-traffic, high-controversy page like Ann Coulter:
* Deleting references, or information like "Fox News" that indicates the source.  They are almost always useful.
* Using terms like "commentators say" or "liberals find."  Instead, you should name the exact person or organization, and include a book, TV, or web cite to prove it.
* Adding something because it's funny.  If you must share a joke, put in on the talk page, but really, Wiki isn't for that sort of stuff.  (Yes, there's a WP:BJAODN page, but posting something just to get on that page is considered vandalism
* Removing evidence of a verifiable factual event because it casts the subject in a good or bad light.  Our Neutrality policy is all about reporting events straight, not cleansing history; if the event is presented in a straightfoward manner and you're still annoyed, you probably have a problem with the event and not with the article.
* Adding or removing pictures or entire sections of text without requesting comments first.  There are a lot of considerations that go into maintaining a good article, and a major change on a high-traffic page should get feedback.  We're better when we work together.
*Making dozens of edits in rapid succession.  The show preview button can help you with checking your edits before you post them.
Thanks, and happy editing! --M@rēino 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, remember to treat references to all TV networks in the same manner - otherwise it is POV unless there is some sourced and unbiased basis to single a network out for special treatment.  136.215.251.179 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, you will find that advocates of a neutral POV will challenge inclusion of insignificant trivia (or rumor-mongering and mountain-out-of-a-molehilling of bloggers with an axe to grind) in encyclopedic articles such as this one.  136.215.251.179 14:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are good points -- style should be consistent, trivia should only be included when it has some relevance to the rest of the article (such as putting the subject's public life in context), and print media is almost always more reliable than blogs. --M@rēino 18:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to say this is an excellent section.  Good job starting it, M@rēino. :-) Lawyer2b 05:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TO ALL NEW EDITORS 

message: I feel that this section is unncessary.  Anyone who's read this far into the article has already been treated to many of her satirical and polemical statements, and importantly, they're presented as they relate to specific subjects.  I propose that all of these quotations are moved to Wikiquote, and that all we leave behind is the transwiki box urging readers/editors to find/post Coulter quotes there instead. --M@rēino 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahahaha.  Excellent point, good luck getting it done.  A year ago I proposed the same thing, and fought vigorously, only compromising to get it down to 7 quotes.  Now look at it.  A year later - and the quotes have changed, there's loads more, etc.  If we want to go through the debate again, believe me, I'm all for it.  I'd love to see the quotations section removed.  That's what we have wikiquote for.  But I don't think the proposal will go over well with many other people.  Unless, of course, a passing year has brought other editors to their senses. :)Stanselmdoc 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree and support the motion.  This is a long article and anything we can do to shorten it while retaining the important, accurate information would be desirable.  --ElKevbo 16:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the proposal. Neither of the outspoken pundits Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh have Quotations sections. Howard Dean has a "Controversial quotes" section, but no "Controversies" section. Ann Coulter shouldn't be the only outspoken person with sections on Controversies AND Quotations. I also believe that when one looks open-mindedly at both of those sections, one sees a bias in favor of the views of the "Critics (who) find her presentations, both published and spoken, to be biased, offensive, (and) inflammatory." Lou Sander 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  Well, I've noticed that there is a recurring quote creep problem with the article.  Yet at the same time I feel a certain amount of Coulter's commentary - though not an overkill amount - is notable.  After all, these soundbites are her stock-in-trade.  I'm definitely not the first person to point out that making outrageous statements is her meal ticket.  In fact, I believe we have sourced statements from her critics pointing this out in a couple places in the article.  I've also tried to find more "positive" quotes from Coulter, but have mostly come up empty.  I added the one mentioning "Ozzy Osbourne has his bats", as I found it a very unexpected (and welcome) moment in which Coulter acknowledges the existence of (if not the merit of) these criticisms, ie., the quote shows she knows she goes overboard sometimes.  I'd like to request that that one at least stay.  I'm not a fan of Coulter, but I was impressed that she said that, and it speaks pretty fairly to the subject matter of the quotes section itself.  In particular, the "stick a fork in the head", "ethic of conservation", Time "rushing to assure", and "building a wall" quotes don't seem to work very well.  Most of them are confusing due to lack of context.  How about removing these ones?  Kasreyn 17:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be amiable to a compromise involving removing some quotes but retaining others as being particularly noteworthy or representative of her views.  --ElKevbo 17:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, as I said before, it would be relatively impossible to get the quote section completely removed, because too many people think the section itself helps to represent her inflammatory nature.  (Though when the section was brought up before, I maintained the stance that many quotes can be added into the text of the article without creating a completely separate section. Which, when you look at the article, editors actually did - they just forgot to remove the quote section.)  If we want to knock some of them off, I agree, but don't be surprised in a month or two when people put more on, hahaha.  And you'll be constantly finding other quotes that "accurately represent" her style, so it might be difficult to choose only a few.  Though, like I said, I'm not opposed at all to cutting it down or out. Stanselmdoc 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We haven't discussed anything for a day or so, but I thought I'd give my thoughts on which quotes I wouldn't mind keeping in the quote section.  The seven below I chose because a few of them show Coulter touching on more than one subject (so it encapsulates her views even more), some of them are more current than others (making them - to me - more important), and a few of them are priceless quotes that have continually spurred Coulter to where she is today.  I took out the quotes that seemed to be repetitions of the same viewpoints as other, better quotes.  I also took out ones that I thought could be included in the article somewhere as opposed to iterated in the quote section.  Let me know what your thoughts are. Stanselmdoc 17:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you saying those are the ones you want to keep, or those are the ones you want to delete?  Please sign your posts.  Kasreyn 07:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, never mind.  Now I see.  Kasreyn 09:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am totally without an opinion on this matter.  :-) Lawyer2b 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations section 

message: Since Coulter has raised some rather 'interesting' points, I wonder if she has ever explained or anyone has ever asked her or otherwise pointed out the obvious conclusions from her points somewhere that we can reference, for example
:Coulter has stated that women are "not as bright" as men[34], "have no capacity to understand how money is earned"[35], and "shouldn't be in the military."[36].
Has she ever explained or anyone ever asked her why she doesn't just shut up, since clearly I'm smarter then her? Or for that matter, has she offered to give up her money since she clearly has no idea how to earn it so she must have stolen it or something?
:On a few occasions Coulter has suggested that the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed. In a 14 February 2000 National Review Online article she wrote, "If this ticket doesn't close the gender gap, it's time to repeal the 19th Amendment."
:In a February 2001 Politically Incorrect episode, Coulter argued that banning women from voting would ensure Republican presidents would be elected, and that "[women should] all have to give up their vote." [21]
Does she vote?
18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your points are indeed interesting.  That Coulter is so ridiculously self-contradictory makes my argument that she is simply a polemicist all the more strong.  Her job is just to say outrageous things, piss liberals off, make conservatives laugh, and get publicity to sell her books.   While she may believe most of what she says, I don't think she believes it all. Lawyer2b 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When one is a polemicist, it doesn't follow that one's arguments are weak. IMHO, her job is to speak truth to power. Lou Sander 22:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, her party is in power. Homey 08:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I misspoke. She speaks truth to Democrats, and they hate it. Just like Dr. King used to do, back in the sixties. Lou Sander 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree - she is unsurpassed as a polemicist.  I think you could sum up the goal of polemics as being to get people to challenge prevailing paradigms by making bold criticisms of those paradigms.  Thats what she aims to do - and she does it well. Every time people boil-over and carry on in reaction to her comments, she has succeeded!  I think that she wouold conclude that as a result of her book and Hillary's criticism of it (and the attention that garnered), widows, victims, veterans, and disabled people (etc.) will never be given a free pass again as spokepeople for whatever tragedy - real or imagined - a political party wants to highlight.  The 9/11 widows are useless now as an anti-GOP prop. Useless. That is what polemicists aim to do, and she has done it.  She does keep making the point that her over-arching polemic point - that liberalism is a religion - has so far been ignored. 136.215.251.179 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Lou Sander, I agree with much of Coulter has to say and agree with you entirely.  Btw, nice job co-opting that hackneyed liberal expression they're so proud of. :-)  136.215.251.179, you were much more accurate and eloquent in describing what Coulter does than I. Lawyer2b 21:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ann Coulter: winner of the sacred-cow-burger cookoff!84.146.200.250 03:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting issues 

message: :Coulter contracted with USA Today to cover the 2004 Democratic National Convention, but was replaced by Jonah Goldberg after an editing disagreement. She wrote one article that began, "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston...", and referred to some (unspecified) female attendees as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons." 
I find this rather bizzarre. I don't read the US media much and couldn't care less about things like the DNC but I find it hard to think someone would actually sign someone such as Ann Coulter to cover such an event. Other then the fact that's she so extremely opposed to the people behind what she's covering in general that it's just not funny, there's also the fact she doesn't appear to have any journalistic standards whatsoever. I appreciate that a media organisation might sign up someone who is somewhat critical of what he or she is covering to provide an edge but I wouldn't expect them to choose someone who is so extremely critical and I would expect that person to at least have some sort of idea of journalistic standards. If the USA Today was Fox News or some sort of similar or worse publication I might understand but this does not appear to be the case. Is this normal practice with the US media? I assume she wasn't the only person covering it for the USA Today at the very least? (not counting her replacement I mean) Nil Einne 19:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on the other extreme, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but didn't USA Today have Michael Moore as a correspondant to the Republican National Convention in 2004? McCain calling him a "disingenuous filmmaker", and all that jazz... --LV (Dark Mark) 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Addendum: Yep, I was correct. See here. But really, I don't know how common this type of thing is.
  --kizzle 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We Americans, just loooooooooove the outrageous.  LOL Lawyer2b 06:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA Today 

message: I know, . But really, since last night, there have been a lot of little changes and I don't know where to start. Have you seen the new intro? I think it looks terrible. Maybe I'll come back later, but please, before making huge changes, PLEASE discuss them on the talk page. This is especially true for the few anons lately that tend to make a series of a lot of edits in rapid succession. Just thought I'd say something. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I guess it was one edit. This edit made a drastic change to the article, IMO, not a good drastic change. I reverted back a few. I will try and go back to see if any of the subsequent edits still fit, and replace accodingly. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding that one edit, it represents a sort of laundry list of points which I am discussing with the user above...  so far we don't seem to be seeing eye-to-eye, and there was something of a revert war between us the other day.  If you feel the edits were not good, perhaps you might wish to weigh in on the above discussion?  Cheers, Kasreyn 17:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding those "few anons", you might be interested to learn that several of them appear to be the same person.  Just FYI.  Kasreyn 17:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks awful... 

message: I cleaned this section up - it seems to have been imported wholecloth from the sub-article on this specific incident. It was not well written - disjointed and read as a chronology rather than an article. In addition, previous versions relied solely upon various reporters'/editors' selective quotes from the book.  I have added additional excerpts from the book regarding the Jersey Girls chapter. 84.146.238.140 18:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jersey girls

message: A Christian is a follower of Christ's principles. Ann may call herself what she wants, she is no christian. And who put this civl rights advocate in the opening statement. Who do you think youre Fing kidding?--Lamrock 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's lots of discussion here about "civil rights advocate," and lots of reasons why it might or might not be appropriate. The consensus is that the term applies to Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 00:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a discussion here (above), but it doesn't look like a consensus was reached.  Personally I don't think it is appropriate to call her that.  George100 18:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Zell Miller was a card-carrying Democrat - but not a very good one since he supported GOP positions. Coulter repeatedly empahsizes that she is Christian and that her views and writings are meant to advance Christian principles and morals. It is her chosen religion. That is fact. If you think she sucks at being one, thats nice. 136.215.251.179 07:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The word "Christian" doesn't appear in the lead paragraph of the articles on Pope or Pope Benedict XVI. Maybe somebody can go through all Wikipedia articles and add it to every article about anyone who has strongly expressed a Christian faith. Until that project is completed, maybe we should avoid putting the word in the lead paragraph of the Ann Coulter article.  Lou Sander 08:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a disingenuous argument.  The "Pope Issue" is a red herring as it's inherent in being the leader of the Roman Catholic Church that one is Catholic and thus Christian.  "Christian" is largely a self-identification.  It doesn't really matter if some people (including myself) believe that her actions are contrary to the values and beliefs professed by most Christians.  If Ms. Coulter strongly identifies herself as a Christian AND that identification plays a major role in her life as a public figure then it should be mentioned prominently in her article.  --ElKevbo 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that it necessarily doesn't warrant a mention.  The original point was, why is it prominently placed in the article?  When someone thinks of Ann Coulter, he doesn't think "that Christian woman!"; instead, he most likely thinks "that conservative woman!" or something like that.  While the previous argument with the Pope article may have been weak, it did serve a purpose.  One of the purposes is consistency, e.g. few other articles have the "self description" of what their religion is.  However, someone like Rick Santorum uses his faith heavily in what he does, and facts about it are mentioned throughout his article.  But I would argue that although Coulter is Christian, it's most likely not the primary driving factor behind her career.  BUT, she is quoted as having said it fuels her writings, which is important, and is already quoted in the article.  But to say in the first description of her that one of her primary adjectives is "christian" seems almost absurd.  Like saying Ted Kennedy is Catholic or Salman Rushdie is Muslim.  It might describe who they are, but it's certainly not one of the most pointed adjectives, and doesn't appear in their opening lines.  Am I getting this completely wrong? Stanselmdoc 18:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you're on track.  I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the adjective "Christian" is used in the opening paragraph; I defer to those more knowledgable of Ms. Coulter for that particular call.  I inserted myself into this conversation primarily to ensure that the adjective in question remains a part of this article.  As the discussion does not seem to be about removing it and merely where best to place it, I am happy to fade back into the background and continue lurking.  --ElKevbo 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be in favor of starting to call her "Her Holiness." Also I think she'd look great in a mitre. Guys would line up for miles, just to get a shot at kissing her ring. - tee hee. Lou Sander 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice work on this, and on citing "civil rights advocate." (I think that was you.) You ought to get an account, so we can know you by a name, not just a number. (This isn't the Penn State football team here, and the #$%^& numbers are too long to remember.) ;-)  Lou Sander 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, nothing prevents people from being malicious to an anon user (though of course WP:CIVIL applies to everyone).  However, from what I've seen, administrators seem to be more willing to consider the grievances of a user with an account, which means that an editor with no account who is treated poorly typically will be less successful at getting some restitution or protection.  So if people treat you maliciously, an account would seem to be a good way to get greater attention for your grievances, and protection from whoever mistreats you.  Lou's advice is definitely good:  get an account!  :)  Kasreyn 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An account would also allow you to edit while the article is sprotected, which it currently is.  Kasreyn 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian? Civil rights advocate??? 

message: Ann Coulter used to work for CIR, and continues to ardently advocate in her speeches and writings for civil rights (advocating for race-blind admissions and iring policies, free speech, etc.). 
* US State Department listing of Civil Rights Organizations includes Ann's previous employer, CIR 
*CIR describes itself as doing civil rights advocacy
*her bio listed on the website of her public speaking agency
136.215.251.179 13:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil Rights Advocate Verification

message: I'm pleased to have supported Wikipedia by posting short, hopefully non-controversial articles on three subjects that formerly appeared as red links in the Ann Coulter article:
*Center for Individual Rights
*Libertarian Party of Connecticut (a.k.a. Connecticut Libertarian Party)
*Pasco Bowman II
If I've failed somehow at being non-controversial and NPOV on the Coulter-related articles, you have my heartfelt apologies. (I'm sure you will never question me, since for the past six harrowing years I've been an orphan.) I'm pretty sure that this non-Coulter article is entirely non-controversial, but of course one can never be sure. Lou Sander 17:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Links Fixed 

message: This section currently contains only these few words:
:She is known for her distinctive speaking and writing style. It is often outrageous and heavily critical of certain issues. Her main subject of criticism is American liberals, who are the most frequent topic in Coulter's writings and speeches. [citation needed] Coulter is an ardent critic of social and political liberalism and the Democratic Party.[8] She has written five books of political commentary, all of which have been on the New York Times bestseller list.
:Coulter has stated: "Although my Christianity is somewhat more explicit in this book [Godless], Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism." [21]
It seems to me that it no longer is an appropriate discussion of her "style," and that a lot of it also appears elsewhere in the article.
I propose that this section be deleted, that her "outrageous" side be covered with better wording in other sections (unless it already is), and that the Christianity quote be moved to another section. 
Alternatively, this section needs to be re-done with a description and illustrations of her style, with the stuff about targets and bestsellers deleted, and with Christianity worked into the discussion of style. Lord knows, (in a colloquial English sense, rather than a committed Judeo-Christian sense), Ms. Coulter's style contains quite a bit to talk about. (Maybe it's talked about enough elsewhere in the article, though.)
I can do the work either way, or let others do it, but we really should have some discussion first. Lou Sander 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely agree, Lou!  When I was editing this section earlier, all I could think was "why am I even bothering?  This section is so completely pointless."  I'm in favor of deletion. Stanselmdoc 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing and Speaking Style 

message: Lets face it: Those who have a problem with the term civil rights advocate in the article do so because they do not like the version of civil rights advocacy that Coulter engages in. Coulter is conservative. I think the objectors actually find it annoying to admit that advocating for race-blind policies (and thus against affirmative action), rights for the unborn, and to end un-Constitutional religious discrimination against Christians are all undeniably examples of civil rights advocacy.  Coulter is one of the most prominent civil rights advocates on the right. She is very much like the liberal Nat Hentoff - a journalist who is a civil rights advocate. I am not assuming bad faith, I am simply observing the reaction to this term as applied to COulter.  There is no OBJECTIVE basis to deny that she is a prominent civil rights advocate. 
*Here is a legal analysis Coulter wrote in her regular column for Human Events in which she explicitly engages in civil rights (non-dicrimination) advocacy.
*She makes a case for civil rights in the end of this column.
*Here is another column in which she advocates for civil rights for the unborn.
*And another one.
*Here Coulter advocates free speech in her ownunique way.
*There is overt civil rights advocacy in this column.
*Here Coulter discusses the racism of the left (and racism always touches on civil rights), and also here.
:You do realize you've abandoned your previous argument that defines Coulter's civil rights advocacy as involvement with the Center for Individual Rights and have instead moved to subjectively apply the term to her columns yourself without quoting anyone else calling her a "civil rights advocate", which is striking considering a Google search for Ann Coulter "civil rights advocate" yields no results describing Coulter as such in the top 20 entries at least, and that includes several conservative websites. Unfortunately, you do not satisfy the criteria for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Stick with your original argument. --kizzle 07:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this on your own userpage, you share an IP very similar to the other 84.146 anon here.  Please use only one IP or identify yourself as the same user. As to the substance of your argument, quite simply you are not a valid source to attribute the description of her written work as that of a "civil rights advocate". I had assumed you had abandoned your previous argument since you had not mentioned my previous comments about the matter and simply moved on to describing her work as qualifying her as a "civil rights advocate". --kizzle 08:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of Coulter's civil rights advocacy

message: Before we get into another edit war tommorow and even more sockpuppets start entering the frey, let's get a sense of where people stand on the matter:
:: Gee, you either sent out invites or else all of your like-minded frieds showed up by chance...   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.215.251.179 (talk • contribs) 04:34, June 27, 2006.
:::That's funny, Haizum and MONGO are both conservatives.  Ask Haizum if we're like-minded. --kizzle 08:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh, sorry for capitalizing on a generalization, I missed that it was one, and I'm usually pretty good at spotting stuff like that.  Could you give some examples?  I probably won't change my vote, but I like Ann Coulter and would like to know more about her, since I know so little about her now.  Um, basically what I'm trying and failing to say is that I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious.  Karwynn 17:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha what kind of examples? Of Coulter's civil rights beliefs?  Well, she's basically a product of freedom of speech haha.  She's a proponent of freedom of religion (even if she disagrees with the religion, all the more fun for her to rail on it) and the right to bear arms... idk if that's what you're looking for though.  But at this point, I have the same opinion as you on this subject anyway, so if we're fighting, something's DEFINITELY wrong. :) I'd rather not have Coulter's name connected to what the definition of "civil rights advocate" in today's America means anyway. Back in the day it may have been cool.  Now?? Meeh.Stanselmdoc 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: #Considering all the links above where she is advocating for civil rights, I do not see why 3 words would make much of a difference in the length of the overview. Makes me wonder why so many people are against it considering her articles and work as a lawyer. I think people should also realize if they do not already, that civil rights is not just the popular idea of Martin Luther King and Womens Sufferage. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Those who believe that Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro

message: Of those people who don't want it in the intro, vote for only one choice below (the votes will combine to at least decide whether "civil rights advocate" goes in the intro):
*"former litigator with the 'nonprofit public interest law firm' Center For Individual Rights "
#--kizzle 07:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh, sorry for capitalizing on a generalization, I missed that it was one, and I'm usually pretty good at spotting stuff like that.  Could you give some examples?  I probably won't change my vote, but I like Ann Coulter and would like to know more about her, since I know so little about her now.  Um, basically what I'm trying and failing to say is that I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious.  Karwynn 17:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha what kind of examples? Of Coulter's civil rights beliefs?  Well, she's basically a product of freedom of speech haha.  She's a proponent of freedom of religion (even if she disagrees with the religion, all the more fun for her to rail on it) and the right to bear arms... idk if that's what you're looking for though.  But at this point, I have the same opinion as you on this subject anyway, so if we're fighting, something's DEFINITELY wrong. :) I'd rather not have Coulter's name connected to what the definition of "civil rights advocate" in today's America means anyway. Back in the day it may have been cool.  Now?? Meeh.Stanselmdoc 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Those who believe that Coulter should not be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro

message: There is a "controversial topic box" (or whatever it's properly called) at the head of this page. Doesn't such a thing belong at the head of the main article as well, or at least at the head of its edit page? Lou Sander 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that particular box is for talk pages only (for better or for worse). Cadr 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the best place for it (or something like it) is at the top of the edit page. Something like "Hey, this is a controversial subject. Look at the Talk page before you make any substantive edits." It's not too rational to put "Look on the talk page" at the top of the talk page.  Lou Sander 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Topic? 

message: ...in the main article's "voting irregularities" section. Too much Wiki-HTML showing. Lou Sander 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that will fix it, Lou.  That usually happens when the "ref" HTML-tags are misplaced or improperly closed.--WilliamThweatt 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Lou Sander 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody please fix this error...