Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 16

message: So we have two points that are preventing the page from becoming unprotected: College campus speech and Coulter, Canada, and Vietnam War sections.  Good Cop seemingly has abandoned Canada and Vietnam War.  If Lou doesn't respond with his specific objections rather than ad hominems consisting of "you're not getting the big picture here", can we unprotect this page please? --kizzle 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I think my long, detailed rebuttals are wearing them both out, haha. We can request unprotection here if I'm not mistaken. But I'm not quite sure because I've never gone through an unprotection process. You seem like you've got a good grasp of what to do in this situation so I'll let you handle it. But I definitely agree it's time to get this thing unprotected (or perhaps put to semi-protect). --Ubiq 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give Lou another day or so to reply with something beyond an ad hominem regarding the campus speech, then I'll request unprotection on the page you mentioned. --kizzle 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This article was not locked because of Good Cop or even the Vietnam dispute. In fact, I think Good Cop has hardly ever even directly edited the article. It was locked because of a now-banned user's demand for documentation about Coulter's TV appearances and to a lesser extent, over another editor exerting ownership over one clause of the article. It wasn't much of an edit war to begin with, so I've requested unprotection myself. Cool Hand Luke 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never understood why the article was locked in the first place. As long as we all insist on clear demonstrations of relevance to Coulter's notability, there shouldn't be big problems. Lou Sander 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet.  Let's get it unprotected then. --kizzle 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. It's already been done. Cool Hand Luke 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection yet? 

message: I would remove her from this category because Ann Coulter is not a journalist, she is a writer/commentator. As she is not a journalist, she cannot be a journalist accused of fabrication or plagiarism. I just removed Al Franken from the same category for the same reason. She could be in a writers accused of plagiarism category though. Anynobody 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed her from said category for said reasons. Anynobody 00:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism (?) 

message: I'm suggesting we should semi-protect this. There's been a lot of recent edits like this one, "Ann Coulter is a Fascist blow-up doll" amongst other things. Fascist? Probably. But it doesn't belong here. and as far as I know it has nothing to do with Richard Belzer. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 02:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Belzer is the guy who called her that. ~Switch t 04:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protection? 

message: I just realized two new edits by 209.247.22.57 where he basically just removed relevent, contextual information to the section we all seem to have our eye on: "Speeches at college campuses". These are changes that I'm sure very few people would agree on. I think a semi-protect might be in order, as well as an RfAr. I'm also going to see about getting an admin involved to address this user's various vandalism as well. It's been 12 or so hours since the unprotect and we've already got an edit war on our hands. Sad. --Ubiq 11:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one is the removal of the text I quoted above, which does not fit in the area it was situated in. It did not stir a controversy. Heck, that entire section needs to be culled, it is overly wordy. Kyaa the Catlord 11:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, these edits to Ann Coulter do not meet the definition of vandalism.  They even made a coherent edit summary and used the talk page. Protection is not meant to filter out people you disagree with. Blocking a user for two-week old vandalism would be strange also. Cool Hand Luke 13:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes a new and inexperienced editor will jump in and set off edit wars. These guys sometimes don't know how to handle themselves in a social community. Maybe that is going on here. Think about it. 209.247.5.227 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two seemingly valid edits, assuming good faith, is not an edit war in my book. Kyaa the Catlord 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: A Google search for "Ann Coulter" Justice Stevens reveals 100,000 hits, including Fox News, Salon.com, Huffington Post, and Jewish World Review.  A one-sentence mention is not going to violate undue weight here. --kizzle 19:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search for "Ann Coulter" Satan reveals 241,000 hits, so I think we shouldn't let Google's algoriths write articles.  That said, the joke was reported by more reliable sources than most of her humor, so should probably stay. Cool Hand Luke 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, the google test is a major failure when dealing with Ann Coulter. I scanned the first few pages of that search and the majority of them were blogs. The Huffington Post is a blog, for that matter. Kyaa the Catlord 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course a Google search means nothing in itself, which is why I also mentioned the notable news/opinion outlets that it was mentioned on as well. --kizzle 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke 

message: While you are cleaning up the article, pay some attention here. 
How important is the date on her drivers license? WP:BLP says that biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. She explains that she has several stalkers, yet you discuss at length her birthday without regard to her privacy. WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays doesn't mention this exact situation, but it's similar. Why not err on the side of caution and delete most or all of this birthday discussion? (Unless your goal is to show her as a bad person)
There might be something notable about the voting irregularity, but it isn't in the first two paragraphs. She went to vote in a town election (notable?). She went to the right precinct, but they told her she was in the wrong place. She went to the place that matched her registration (wouldn't anybody?) and voted. Later on, a Democrat tried to make something of it, and it still hasn't been settled. The encyclopedia spends three paragraphs describing this. That is more than it spends on her entire film and radio career. 71.245.188.161 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did this one yesterday. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irregularities in Public Registration 

message: Recived my hacksaw today. Comments? Concerns? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit short.  Can we maybe just mention the Today show interview specifically?  That was pretty notable. --kizzle 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone else? I could see "including on the Today show" Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, except that a lot of the citation links don't work any more. Somebody needs to replace them, fix them, or get rid of them. Working links or not, the Jersey Girls stuff is definitely relevant to Ann Coulter's notability; see the "Clear demonstration" section, below. Lou Sander 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jersey Girls