Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Conservative criticism of Coulter - where?

[www.coulterwatch.org] made by American conservatives against Coulter. --66.234.203.32 18:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

[www.coulterwatch.com] [1]

Yeah, crazy like a fox. Here's why.

I'm in the middle of reading "Godless" & I think people have been mislead about Ann's (obvious; deliberate) disarming tactics. She's embracing the classic "style over substance" philosophy and reversing it on her enemies. Her basic stance is that liberals only think/listen according to subjectivism; therefore, she delivers objective opinion wrapped in vitriol, all the while exploiting subjective thinking liberals (and others) to sell her book.

In short, she wants her opponents to panic so she can take 'em down easier on the facts. THIS IS KEY: If they're too busy wringing their hands about her delivery, she doesn't have to engage in real debate. You never wonder why she's so calm on TV?

Furthermore, she believes liberals pre-judge without all the facts at hand (like in her book), which she also exploits (to promote her book) by interviewing libs on H&C who are afraid of her book. She's won before they even get out of the makeup chair. She certainly has the upper hand as long as she can distract her opponents with style and subjectivism. I really think I have her figured out with this. I've read two of her books, most of her columns, and a recent NYT article about this very same thing appears to back me up.

This new conservative philosophy/tactic needs to be analyzed in a NPOV fashion. Maybe someday it'll get it's own name (Coulterizing, or something). Like her or not, she's taken media confrontaion and "weaponizing words" to a new; innovative level.

-PJ

No, you're really, really wrong here. If it this is her intent, it's probably the most foolish tactic I've ever seen. In order to take them down easier on the facts, you have to get people to listen to you. If you lead them to believe you're hateful, vicious and mentally ill, they're not even going to listen. She doesn't come out looking like the winner. The liberal doesn't HAVE to debate her. Just sit back, let her talk, and she destroys her own position. Either that, or she's not TRYING to win, just to be controversial and sell books, in which case she's succeeded brilliantly.

Transsexual?

Since there seems to be an astonishingly large number of sites claiming Coulter is a transsexual (run a search anywhere - you'll immediately see what I mean), I felt a sub-section should be added at least mentioning this possibility.

I tried my hardest to stress that most of these speculations are Internet-based and that there was no evidence to support their claims. I feel the section should be included, however I do not want the reader going away thinking Coulter is a transsexual, only that there are a large number of rumors suggesting this.

I maintain that this section should remain in the article, if only because there are a relatively large number of sites mentioning this possibility in regards to Ms. Coulter compared to other celebrities - however, if there are any NPOV issues with specific wording or anything else in this section, or if someone feels it can be cleaned up, please feel free to do so; however I ask that the section be kept no matter what changes are made.

By the way, I see absolutely nothing wrong with gender reassignment surgery, in case anyone wondered. ChildOfTheMoon83 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't feel that internet rumor and speculation on such an offensive subject is relevant or notable, no matter how widespread the rumor. Kasreyn 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Moonie, since you yourself point out there is absolutely no credible evidence for it, if the rumor were to be mentioned at all, why would you think it deserves an entire section? In the section you added, you also created a whole bunch of original research in violation of policy which I'm glad to see someone else had the good sense to remove. Good job, trying to fill it up, though. Next, why don't you go ahead and set up the "George Bush IQ" controversy section? I'm sure there are even more websites that mention that. Listen, I'm going to WP:AGF and believe that rather than you knowing the rumor is a garbage insult and were simply attempting to have it promininently included that you are really just an idiot. And please return the favor and assume good faith me with that I don't mean that as an insult. I see absolutely nothing wrong with being mentally retarded in case anyone wondered. Lawyer2b 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon now, L2b. No need for personal remarks, no matter how uninsulting you meant them. If anything, it still violates WP:CIVIL. Let's rise above this. Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I apologize to User:ChildOfTheMoon83. Lawyer2b 14:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

you shouldn't, you were absolutely correct. moonbutt wasn't attempting anything more serious than simple junior-high level insult, yet you get a warning from the edit cop for responding in kind. its apalling to see the way the mod community uses these officious little codes to enforce a double standard that way. -AB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) .

Me, an "edit cop". The difference was that Moony made a comment about Ann and her article (however wrong or dishonest that may be), whereas L2b mad a remark against an editor. If you look at my contribs, I think you will find that I am no leftist, Coulter-hater. We use the policies though to encourage a better community to help the writing of an encyclopedia. Making personal comments about other editors does not contribute to that goal. Thanks for your input though. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a picture of her at 8 years old from the documentary "Is It True What They Say About Ann?" where's she's clearly a little girl (unless crossdressing started abnormally early) badmonkey 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Coulter likes to make outrageous statements I believe this entire section should be included. Let her take her medecine. Besides, has anyone looked at her jaw line? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

Please refer to WP:NOR. It is not our place to further internet gossip and speculation based on subjective criteria. We are editors of Wikipedia, which means our personal opinions count for exactly nothing. Nothing can be added to an article which is not notable and verifiable. This topic is a waste of our time. Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• The whole thing, as far as I know, started as a joke in a series of The Boondocks comic strips. If someone could track down the actual dates that those strips originally ran, then I think this would be worth noting, maybe in a section titled "vitirol and retaliation against Ann Coulter." --M@rēino 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Photo

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)

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)

She's known far less for her writing than she is for her varied comments made on different television programs, during speeches, and as a talking head. Only a small subset of people known her first and foremost as a writer. Regardless, the entry is for Ann Coulter, not Slander and should reflect as much.--Sloopydrew 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

She's had four books on the NYT bestseller list. Many of her TV appearances are in the context of book promotion.

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)

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)

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)

"Constitutional" lawyer

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)

Changed Some Stuff

Got rid of the controversial statement stating her books were false just because of a citation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.25.2 (talk • contribs) 16:10, June 7, 2006.

To any admins reading this, we need an sprotect.

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)

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)

Oh, I'm well aware. I just don't know why they all come to Wikipedia. :P Kasreyn 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey look it's the crew of dumbshits. Show respect for women motherfucker. MrEnforcer 19:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back to LV

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)

NPOV

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)

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)

Is the word cunt POV? 24.8.6.242 06:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Do you have any further NPOV issues with this article, 24.79.43.137? You haven't replied to my comment regarding FOX News, which is making me wonder whether the NPOV tag you added should remain up. Kasreyn 06:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatives do not seem to be able to handle the fact that Colmes called her the devil on Hannity and Colmes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

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)

I think Ann migh really be a liberal. What self-respecing conservative would go so far out of their way to be that hated by Replulicans and Democrats alike? Maybe she is trying to drum up sympathy for liberals. 'Oh, look at how mean and crass the conservatives are... They play dirty!" Or perhaps she is just mentally ill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.153.203.4 (talk • contribs) .

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)

9/11 Widows

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)

The way to include her remarks and keep it NPOV is to call them unsubstantiated which is what they are. There is no charges, no indictment, no grand jury investigation. I did not call them made up which is what they likely are I called them unsubstantiated which is completely neutral and factual. Until and unless legal action is taken, these remarks are unsubstaintiated. If not then I should be quoted as calling her the whore of babylon. I have much more substance to those claims than she has to this rape accusation.

Could we please add the latest news story where Ann Coulter is criticizing 9/11 widows? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/07/entertainment/e070803D31.DTL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BaliPearl (talk • contribs) 12:59, June 7, 2006.

This section is overly long. I don't feel it's notable enough to warrant the level of detail it's been given. Perhaps a trim back to simply the main two or three lines of the quote (regarding "enjoying their husbands' deaths" etc.) The entire article should not be turned into a "look what Coulter's done now" noticeboard every time she says something astonishingly foul. We can't afford to, because she does so practically every day. New comments must be kept in proportion to the old.

P.S. Admins, we need sprotect now! Kasreyn 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have changed the name given to the ladies from the "Jersey Girls" that did not have a citation to the name Ann gave them: "The Witches of New Brunswick", which has a citation. I used the same article from CNN as the Clinton quote later in the section. The two footnotes are 11 and 14... I'm not sure how but is there any way to combine the two footnotes, as they are the same? User:StoopidEmu 05:33, 2006-06-08 (UTC)

StoopidEmu, I removed the reference to "The Witches of New Brunswick" altogether. The section already covers the relevant quotation from the book, and I'm not thrilled with including the second quotation in that section either. This article is already too big - if we stopped to include every outrageous remark that Coulter has made, we'd break the web. lesmana 09:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's remarks are an important insight into her thought process. BTW how does Clinton criticism appear here. This is about Coulter and her ridiculous comments. She is an outrage and a bully. She is a chickenhawk who has never been held accountable for anything she has said or done. Support of her shows you condone her behavior.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) 15:25, June 8, 2006.

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)

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)

Coulter suspected of felonious voter fraud in Florida

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)

Attire

If she's a conservative, why does she dress so skankily? Also, does her being a blonde explain why she has no idea what's what in our country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.90.97.254 (talk • contribs) 12:41, June 8, 2006.

My thoughts exactly about her attire. She does not exemplify modesty. --Facto 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Griffin was on the Today show this week after Coulter, asked why Coulter was wearing a cocktail dress at 7am. Gzuckier 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? It's not really encyclopedically notable. My personal opinion, though, is it's some sort of shallow "see, Republican girls are prettier" nonsense. Of course, how someone can be pretty when there's always a snarl on her lips and venom in her tongue is beyond me. Kasreyn 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is encyclopedically notable (wiki

in their articles. It used to be in the article as a matter of fact but someone claimed use of term "short" as in "short skirt" was POV. Justforasecond 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

all you have to do is take two steps outside of progressives' stereotypes of non-progressives and suddenly they have nothing clever to say. indeed, their bs breaks down completely: present them with a gay conservative, they reflexively spew the most vile homophobia imaginable. present them with a black conservative, they start making "sambo" jokes. if they lose an argument with a conservative jew, they scramble to rewrite the protocols. for very long, conservatives misapprehended progressive hate, believing it to be simply a discrete hate against a narrowly-defined majority. the truth of the matter is that progressives hate everything which is not them so hotly that it makes their minds morally flexible, like a steel girder under a white hot flame, allowing them to bring a high degree of connivance to the practice of hating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) .

The author of this abusive comment, who was blocked in April for vandalism, has been warned at their talk page to not disrupt Wikipedia with this sort of thing again. Kasreyn 17:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kasreyn. Justforasecond 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting comment. Perhaps a little projection going on. Bill Clinton should be impeached for a blow job but Dan Burton who fathered a child in an extra-marital affair is the picture perfect conservative congressman with "real" family values. Then has the audacity to call Clinton a scumbag for his affair, Come on. Further, he does some freaky experiment with a .38 and a watermelon to "prove" hillary killed Foster. Republican nut cases gone wild. The Republicans claim to be God's prophets. Why can't they handle criticisms of their hypocrisy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

"...i shouldn't have to read or hear anything which is critical of progressives..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) .

How does this help to improve the article? Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

i see no evidence on this page that anyone here is performing in the interests of improving an encyclopedic article. i suppose by reminding justforasecond that their expectation that this article be a monopolar bashfest is unrealistic may remind them and the others editing to keep their biases in check.

Has anybody seen the trash that is worn at most media awards shows? Compared to what I see Hollywood celebrities wearing to movie premieres or the Oscar ceremonies, what Ann wear is rather mild. Why not stop with the attacks and sticking to things that matter, like facts and not opinion. Mushrom 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see any award recipients claiming to be disciples of God claiming their writings are inspired by Jesus. When one make such a claim one is open to crticisms of their attire which does not represent the writings they claim to prophesy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

I don't understand. How does claiming divine inspiration make one's attire more notable? Many people who dress more provocatively than Coulter claim to be Christians. It would definitely be original research for Wikipedia to declare that celebrity x's clothing is demure enough that she can be called a Christian, but celebrity y's clothing is too risque and she is therefore not a Christian. All we should say is, "celebrity y self-identifies as Christian", or "critic z says celebrity y does not behave in a Christian manner" or possibly "critic z says celebrity y's attire is un-Christian", but this last is not particularly notable, in my opinion. Note how each example is cited from an outside source. Ideally, Wikipedia does not make statements; it reports the statements of others. Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Anne Coulter is not about facts and opinions - conservative or otherwise - she is an entertainment character in the media spotlight who makes outrageous statements and waits for the fallout. As such, discussion about her "uniform" appearance (the short skirts, all-day-cocktail-dress, etc) is not POV but rather description of her outward persona, a la Dame Edna. CMacMillan

You hit the nail on the head MacMillan. Coulter's short skirts and long hair are part of her persona. If a friend of mine doesnt' know who Coulter is, I say "you know, that awful blonde republican woman that wears the short skirts" and they inevitably respond "oh yeah, i know her" Justforasecond 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

is it possible for an honest person to say they trust the capability of the authors featured on this talk page to produce NPOV contibutions? --AB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) .

Please stop making personal attacks against other editors, either singly or as a group. It is unproductive and is not tolerated at Wikipedia. Comment on the content of others' remarks, not on the contributor. Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

its an honest question. its not at all a personal attack, but i see you've gone to the trouble of redefining "personal attack" to mean oblique criticalism of groups in reference to the pertinance of their contributions. i mentioned before that this officious wielding of acronyms (W:NPOV, W:NOR, etc...) is a tool to enforce the biases of the person citing them. it's perfectly legitimate to question the ability of the contributors here to create npov product, considering that according to these editors, she's a "cunt" and a closet transsexual who's blondness negates her apparent intelligence. the article is evidently fruit of this poisoned tree, considering that there are debatable elements presented as fact. the south africa "quote" (its not a quote, but presentred as if it were one) is an item which coulter contends is a creation of the person who wrote that piece. her "bomb the nytimes" quote was from a conversation walking down the street, and an abuse of confidence to begin with, but nothing like that appears in the article. instead the tone of the article is indistinguishable from what one would find in a david brock dossier. i invite you to compare to the article on ward churchill, who has suggesting that mutiny and fragging are qualitatively better alternatives to conciencious objection. [[2]]

I actually find Ms. Coulter attractive. I enjoy it when she wears skimpy clothing. Maybe she's doing it for me. Lawyer2b 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to get past the horns, but maybe thats just me. Anyways, I don't think that her attire, being relatively common, is important enough to mention in a biography.

• The trivia section of the article has a link to an article where she sort of addresses this issue. Her attire might eventually warrant a longer section, if it attracts more news. Her being blonde will never warrant any speculation about her intellect; you should know better. --M@rēino 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel

This article is rife with weasel words, "some say", "critics say", etc...needs to be fixed Judgesurreal777 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

'Be bold  :) Kasreyn 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The words "some say" and "critis say" do not appear in the current version of the article. I read through specifically looking for such comments and did not see any. If you could highlight any that I may have missed then please do so, if not I propose the tag is removed from the article. Adam777 14:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, read it again. Here is a list of sentences that I find to be unsourced or biased.

• "She has made statements about the religion of Islam that some consider discriminatory and commonly supports the positions of other Christian conservatives."
• "Since that time Coulter has been unfailingly critical of the Libertarian Party in her writing."

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."

• "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, while others consider it biting satire"
• "Critics also accuse her of hypocrisy and double standards, and argue that, since she has such strong conservative bias in her comments and writing, she is willing to misrepresent sources and facts to support her case."

• Just because some loony professor says its true, doesn't mean it is true, needs a real source or should be removed.

  It's really not that loony...almost anyone will agree with that point. There are numerous websites which literally list clear lies that she puts in her books which are not even close to true.

• According to a 2002 report in the UCLA Daily Bruin, Coulter has suggested that she supported apartheid in South Africa. The Bruin printed: "In response to a question on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miss Coulter said she supported the government of Israel for the same reason she supported apartheid in South Africa, because they were surrounded by "savages".

• "The case went to court after Jones broke with Coulter and her original legal team, and was summarily dismissed."
• "This echoed the sentiments of an August 2002 Newsday article, in which she argued that the media are biased to the left because Republicans don't have the wealth to start media outlets, while Democrats do."
• "Conason said Coulter's criticism is blunted by pre-assumed opinions, making many of the conclusions she draws irrelevant to the actual nature of her arguments."

There, these need to be fixed, either unsourced, biased or both. Judgesurreal777 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So, what constitutes a critic? The word "critic" isn't supposed to be in the article? Does that mean that every time "critic" or "supporter" appears, we should have a specific person instead? Stanselmdoc 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "detractor"? Rsm99833 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

most of them can just be gotten ride of, and replaced with what people actually said. Others rephrased. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at what is being done, good work, keep going Judgesurreal777 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay Im new to Wikipedia but why are the last four examples cited as 'weasel words' - they may (and do) require a substantive link but I dont see them as 'weasel words', what, if anything is biased about them. Adam777 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the word "critic" is in all cases a weasel word. But in the context given, it tries to make a statement by saying "Critics also accuse her of..." without telling us which critics or giving a source. This is 'weaseling' out of responsibility (that is, the responsibility to provide a specific source). The same applies for "Some find her presentations...". Who are "some"?

In the last four bullets of User: Judgesurreal777's post, (if I could offer my interpretation) there appear to be no weasel words, as I understand them. However, no specific sources are given. It's just some vague reference to a 2002 report from the UCLA Bruin. Is the reader of the article seriously supposed to check manually or search online (if that's even available) all articles from that paper from 2002? This reminds me of numerous occasions in college when people would say something like:

"Yeah, MAAAAN. There's an article in the New York Times about it (GW Bush conspiring with transsexual aliens to plan 9-11 so that he could kill as many black people as possible (or some other such nonsense)). You should really read the newspaper."

Or, on other unfortunate occasions:

"Yeah, like, dude, I heard that like, black people have an extra muscle in their legs. That's why they like, run fast...(insert additional racist blather). Naw, man, it was in the Journal of like, the American Medical, uh, Associates (sic)."

After days of searching online and the library (giving them the benefit of the doubt, as I also try to do on Wikipedia (mind you, this was only in situations similar to the first quote)), I could find nothing remotely resembling the story that was described to me.

That's why I think a specific source is preferable. Also, feel free to let me know if my interpretation of "weasel words" or "weaseling" is incorrect. Thanks. Ufwuct 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Whoever decides to remove pictures without explaining those changes on the talk page, please stop. Puckmv 04:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Kasreyn 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Free advertising for Ann Coulter

It is incredible that someone has placed free advertising - by obvious means - into an encyclopedia. Even one cover jacket of a book currently for sale is inappropriate - it is obviously there for commercial purposes. Coulter's whole style is to make outrageous comments, show herself in tight fitting outfits on jacket covers, and sell books. It is outrageuos that someone is facillitating this and helping her by placing multiple jacket covers of her books on here.

Someone named PuckM calls this crticism nonsense, but provides no reasoning. What is the basis of multiple Ann COulter book covers on a Wikipedia article? David Paulson

I would also support the assertion that there are far too many book covers on this page. It really does feel like a book promotion, whatever the intent is. I think all but one of the three book covers should be removed. Wikipedia is not an outlet for ads. Also, I think there are concerns with fair use when we post this many book covers in an article not fundamentally about her books. Irongargoyle 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

David Paulson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.29.7.173 (talk • contribs) 00:56, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

It is common to show book covers in wikipedia. See To America: Personal Reflections of an Historian or Armies of the Night, or The Power Broker --rogerd 05:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not common to show multiple, politically motivated, shock value book covers. Show me another example in this realm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidpaulson (talk • contribs) 01:15, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

Al Franken. Boo-ya. Lawyer2b 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

*grins* Kasreyn 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity is best known for his show on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes. However, his main image is of his book, Deliver us from evil. Mr. Paulson, please reconsider your statements before entering them into a discussion. Puckmv 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Hannity's is one of the only book covers that bothers me. Am I the only one who noticed that Hannity, displaying his typical subtlety, added a photoshopped halo around his head? Kasreyn 19:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The controversy of her books is not relevant as a criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The fact that it is notable, and is covered in the national media, and will likely sell well, is. There are many notable books with which I don't agree. That doesn't make them less unencyclopedic. --rogerd 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What is shocking about the book covers? All I see is a gangly blonde woman staring fixedly at me. That's not shocking. A picture of an aborted fetus on the cover of a pro-lifer pamphlet, now that's shock value. What you are talking about is a book that is only shocking once you open the cover. Well, so what?? All we're showing is the cover, not a scan of page whatever where she calls liberals devil-worshippers and so on. You're not making any sense. Kasreyn 08:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

personal attack and response removed Justforasecond 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed Franken article and those book covers should also be removed. These sites look like advertising - especially understanding they will attract the politically motivated. Also rogerd misses my point - which I undermined myself when I said multiple book covers were not common. If they are, that is too bad because it degrades these article with crass commercialism. I would like to hear some cogent rationalization for them - which I do not find in this discussion yet.Davidpaulson 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)DavidPaulson

Anonymous.23 butterfly/Rove comment has no relationship to what my criticsm of papering an encyclopedia with covers of controversial books for sale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidpaulson (talk • contribs) .

actually, you directly stated your belief that the book cover images were included by agents of coulter seeking to pervert the article to her ends. "It is outrageuos that someone is facillitating this and helping her by placing multiple jacket covers of her books on here." that's paranoid. see W:Don'tBeParanoid.

Actually, Don'tBeParanoid, I said it was outrageous that someone was facilitating her book sales by including three jacket covers in an ecyclopedia article on her - whether they do so intentionally was not specified. My opionion is this practice does help sell books, is a perfect tool for someone who sells books based on controversial outrageuos content, is not appropriate for a neutral reference, is not justified just because the books "are notable" (Hemingway killed himself with a firearm, a picture of his messy corpse is notable but would never be inclued in the Encylopedia Bittanica, Colliers or Encarta) and finally - could well be placed there by someone with the intention of increasing book sales. IF you honesty believe that could not be a purpose for papering the article with her on-sale books, that is an conclusion that says something interesting about your experience. And finally. do not forget that Just because you are paranoid, does not mean they are not out to get you. Davidpaulson 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)DavidPaulson

I'll have a run at it... Coulter, Franken, et al. are notable. They author books that are notable. In the author's article, the books are discussed. Having images of things help do the job of an encyclopedia (to best explain or descibe something). Therefore, since the books are notable, images of them are perfectly acceptable, as they show the book. I picture it like I would picture an inventor's article... it would be perfectly fine to have images of all of that inventor's inventions (noting the article length guidelines within reason) on that inventor's page. The same would hold true for an artist and her paintings. Notable paintings would be fine on her article. Seem okay? (Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that is a shallow analysis. An encylopedia is not a catalogue of detail, and one can comprehend the nature of an author's works much easier from a well written summary than one or three jacket covers. On the other hand, if this article were to point out, as part of a pattern of Coulter's style or behavior, that she consistently appears on her book covers in short skirts and a leering gaze, then the jacket covers would be appropriate to illustrate that unusual style. Conversely, if a rule of a publication is to not insert content which has the primary or a major affect of commercial gain of th esubject, then prohibiting jacket covers seems to me to be well justified. Does that make sense You Know Who? (and no, I do not know who). Davidpaulson 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)DavidPaulson

Well, no. That doesn't make any sense at all. You ask, "Why not, LV?" Well, because you are not understanding the concept of what we do here. There is no "rule of publication" that prohibits Wikipedia from including stuff that has the major effect of commercial gain of the subject. If it does have that effect, that's not really our fault anyway. If in doing our job of describing and explaining, we show an object, and that object has the effect of gain for the subject, it is not our job to automatically remove it. Notice we have logos of corporations all over WP? Notice we have pictures of purchasable real-life items all over WP? No, we don't advertise for or against something, but having a notable book cover in an article is not advertising. Advertising like that would be, "Hey everybody! This book is awesome! Go buy it today! Quantities are limited, so you better hurry." Simply showing a book cover is not advocating it purchase. It is simply using an image to explain something that we talk about in the article. You seemed to have skipped over the painter/inventor analogy. By simply showing a painting (which could perceivable be bought or sold to the artist's gain) or an invention (which could perceivably be bought or sold to the inventor's gain), we are not advocating for the gain for either the painter or the inventor. By showing the book (which could perceivably be bought or sold to the gain of the author), we are not advocating its sale; we're merely showing the work. As I note, you like to seem to play coy, and that's okay. I got plenty of time to help a newcomer understand what WP is all about. Thanks! --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the book images, the entire article seems like an advertisement. Few other articles have large block quotes (such as those you might see in a magazine article in large bold print, to emphasize key quotes), and while that's obviously not the case here, one can only make such a determination after reading the article in its entirety. Additionally, and more importantly, is the entire article's length and bredth. I didn't do a word count, but by PageDowns, I get 15 screens for this article. In contrast, Al Franken's page is 7 screens, Jon Stewart's - 6.5, Henry Kissinger's - 15, Henry Ford - 14, Montana - 14. I realize there is always a desire to provide a comprehensive overview, and people in the spotlight are more apt to draw contributions, however Ms. Coulter hardly seems to be larger than (or equally as large as) the above examples, in either importance or public exposure. Anyway, I don't know what the WP policy is on such things; I'm just presenting my opinion on how the page appears to me. --192.231.128.66 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good point. I also think that this article is too long and not very encyclopedic. I think the controversies section can be summed up in the following way: "Ann hates liberals (especially the Clintons), arabs, muslims, black "savages" in South Africa, Charles Darwin, the New York Times, 9/11 widows, gay people and basically anyone else who is not a christian conservative. Oh, and she thinks Women (except for Paula Jones - who she thinks is a hero) are stupid and she might have committed voter fraud in Florida." Hmmm... that seems to sum it up rather well actually. This is just a joke so no one get mad. CogsBT 05:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the books (I'll get to that later), I find it difficult to chime in that the entire article is an advertisement for Coulter. Did anyone realize that basically 3/4 of the entire article is on her controversy and criticism? If anything, the article would seemingly promote anti-Coulter feelings, not pro. So I wouldn't call it an advertisement FOR her, nor really an advertisement at all.

The book covers aren't encyclopedic? Ehh...I'm tempted to agree that having MANY book covers on a page about the author isn't the most encyclopedic thing. One is excellent, two maybe. (But perhaps wikis should remember that it's difficult to find pictures we can have rights to, as well.) After all, many other authors don’t have many book covers of their works on their pages. But I agree with You Know Who that a point can be made that they are relevant to the article, not advertisement. The inventor analogy makes great sense in this instance. Stanselmdoc 17:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The other problem is, if we remove the book covers, what is there to replace them with? It's hard to find fair-use images of Coulter that everyone can agree on. We've tried it before, and there were constant fights over whether this image or that image was unflattering or whatever. It was all very subjective. These are fair-use and you'll never hear a peep of discontent from the Coulterites over them, since they're clearly photos of how she wants to be seen. I trust our readers are bright enough that a few pictures of Coulter smiling in leotards will not unduly influence them. Cheers, Kasreyn 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I see many images of music CD's when I surf through the random articles. I don't see any difference between showing images of a music group's CD's and showing images of an author's books. I think both are entirely suitable here. Lou Sander 15:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Most authors of note, regardless of their politics (or lack thereof), have their book covers displayed. The short reason is that copyright laws make them extremely easy to upload and use, and book covers are also images that everyone, regardless of their feelings about the subject, can agree are images that are related to the subject. That's really the end of the discussion, unless you want to generate a meta-wiki discussion restricting all book covers for all subjects.--M@rēino 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of books Treason and Slander

This section BARELY contains any criticism of these two books. Does this bother anyone? I think the section should be removed because the contents don't seem particularly important and don't seem to flow with the rest of the page. Thoughts? Irongargoyle 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of those two books should be moved to their respective articles: Treason:_Liberal_Treachery_from_the_Cold_War_to_the_War_on_Terrorism

and Slander:_Liberal_Lies_About_the_American_Right

--Facto 22:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Facto Puckmv 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Puck, agreeing with Facto.  :-) Good call. Lawyer2b 00:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unhappy with recent deletionism

As I've noted on the "to do list", several of the claims which are somehow unsourced were definitely sourced as recently as a few weeks to a few months ago. I'm flabbergasted to hear that, apparently, those sources have vanished. Other claims which are said to need a "real" source do, in fact, have a real source but could do with greater specificity.

I'm disappointed that outright deletion has taken the place of adding cite tags and enlisting other editors in finding sources. Kasreyn 02:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NB: I was looking at Lawyer2b's recent version when I wrote that. Kasreyn 02:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you disagree with something I did? Lawyer2b 02:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Specific Problems

Why was Joe Conason's criticism from Big Lies removed? (It has since been restored.) It provides an example of a critic attacking Coulter for hypocrisy and double standards, which would answer issues raised about sourcing of the statement that critics find her statements hypocritical. What I see here is 1.) a source backing up claim x being deleted and 2.) someone claiming that instances of claim x should be removed because there is no source.

Albanaco's "minor" edit was in fact a revert and probably not appropriate. There was some interesting material that had been added, such as the note on the congressional reaction to Godless, and the remarks by Andrew Sullivan. I would much prefer to see an edit that combines the best of lawyer2b's version with some of the details which have been removed. Kasreyn 02:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And to lawyer2b: I'd say the only problems I had with your edit were that Conason's remark was not merely a critique of her books but also spoke to the overall criticism of "hypocrisy" and therefore is still a useful source for this article (since some have pointed out we need good sourcing for the accusation of hypocrisy); and that when the other material was removed to the articles on her books, no links were added in the criticism section (such as, "This section is for criticism specifically of Ann Coulter. For criticism and information on her books, refer to the articles on them.") Kasreyn 02:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. My bad. I will find a good home for Conason's remark in her main article. As an aside, you and I were independently coming up with the same compromise vis-a-vis a mention of her books in the controversy section.  :-) Lawyer2b 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - What a pain in the ass. I hate fucking endnotes. They add extra work to moving things from one article to another. (sigh)

I'm with you there. I prefer inline sourcing on the web, endnotes in printed material. Kasreyn 03:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

False prophets is simply a link. people can draw their own conclusions if they wish to follow it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

Criticism of her books section

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)

• I hate the way liberals use this page as their own personal attack add, this place is a regular cabal of leftism--Libation071404 02:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wow, I've never heard that on Wikipedia before... ¬_¬ I can only advise you to refer to WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL and try to calm down. No one here's out to "get" anyone. Paranoia is unproductive and usually comes to grief here. Kasreyn 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Hail Mao Tse Tung. --kizzle 06:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

    ?? Kasreyn 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

    • • Just trying to satisfy the accusations of the liberal cabal. Its better than trying to respond with reason. --kizzle 07:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

        Heh. Yeah, I'm thinking of starting a counter on my userpage: "Number of times this user has been accused of being part of the liberal / homosexual / jewish / east coast / elitist / imperialist cabal / agenda / conspiracy: x." If I had started such a count when I first came here, it would surely be in the twenties or so by now. Kasreyn 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

1) I'm not saying "that criticism should not go anywhere else". I am simply saying

a. Any detailed criticism of her books ought to go on their respective articles.

b. Her main article ought to only contain a summary of criticism of her books.

2) If you think my summary was too vague and think it should summarily mention "why" they were , please feel free to add to it. I'm not saying the summary has to be vague, just that it should be a summary.

3) I hope I'm making it clear that I'm not married to the summary as written. In the spirit of cooperation can I ask that, should you not like the summary, instead of simply reverting (pardon the pun) to putting back the detailed criticism that you, instead, improve the summary?

4) - Apparently we're both not doing a good job actually reading what the book criticism section contains. The first paragraph that mentions Slander, as far as I can tell, contains no criticism at all and merely describes her point of view in and outside the book. Lawyer2b 14:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [3] 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)

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)

I'm glad you approve the summary. No apology is necessary. Everyone makes mistakes like that.  :-) Lawyer2b 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And now all text has been stripped from the book criticism section, nothing is left but a link. If this is going to be the case, it should be moved to See Also. But I don't think it should. A short overview of some of the more common and/or notable criticisms of her books is appropriate. Her books speak to her character and are the primary reason she is notable enough to merit her own article. I think they deserve at least a passing mention. The Bibliography does a decent job of summarizing each book, but critical response (and praise, assuming there is any) is worth mentioning.

P.S. We still need some explanation of Coulter's views on McCarthy in the main body. That See Also link looks awfully lonely. Kasreyn 05:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Coulter on Willey

I understand why POV explanations of her quotes have been removed, but this allows them to stand without context. Since the intended purpose of Coulter's one-liners is to mislead, we risk aiding and abetting her purpose.

Case in point: "Before criticizing others for being 'mean' to women, perhaps Hillary should talk to her husband who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick and was groping Kathleen Willey at the very moment Willey's husband was committing suicide."

What Coulter wants the reader/listener to think: Clinton raped women, one of whose husbands committed suicide in horror over the crime.

Fact: Clinton was not charged with a crime in either case. Tripp's testimony destroyed Willey's credibility. And Edward Willey committed suicide because, due to his admitted embezzlement, he had debts he was unable to repay. People kill themselves over debt all the time.

So, is there an NPOV way we can add sourced context to the quote - being careful to avoid weasel words, or must we simply hope the reader will follow the links to Accusations of rape against United States presidents and Kathleen Willey and figure it out themselves? Kasreyn 17:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you bring up a good point. An article is supposed to be NPOV and a person's article can't be NPOV if it effectively serves as a platform to promote their views. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

clinton beat the rap because of his class and skin privlege. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.70.152 (talk • contribs) .

What did his skin have to do with it? Every U.S. President in history has been white. Clinton is white. Willey is white. How did he use "skin privilege" to beat the rap? Kasreyn 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

pics from ann?

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)

the book covers are a little bit overwhelming and do smack of advertisement. could someone send a feeler out to ann to see if she'll donate a photo or two to the public domain? (jimbo??) the one in front of mccarthy's tombstone and the one with a rifle are both pretty good, and she's got some more glamorous ones as well. Justforasecond

personal attack and response removed Justforasecond 18:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well she might like to hear from someone willing to give her some positive attention.... Justforasecond 18:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

More apologism

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)

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. [4] Lawyer2b 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

POV tag added by 24.15.75.90

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)

here's a nice pic maybe we can get rights to

[5] —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)

This is pic shoul be added at the top.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) . Wr

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)

• We cannot "get" the rights to pictures. See the help pages on images and copyrights for more details, but the short answer is that Wikimedia doesn't have the staff for all the legal negotiations that would be necessary. This has nothing to do with Ms. Coulter, it's universal policy. --M@rēino 21:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Worked for Sen Spencer Abraham R-Michigan

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)

Moved comment from To Do

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)

NPOV of Coulter's remarks re: liberalism from "Godless"

I'm concerned about our presentation of Coulter's remarks regarding her belief that "liberalism" is a religion. We've just recently removed a great deal of criticism and discussion regarding her books, including Godless, to the specific articles for those books. Now we are adding claims made in those books. If counter-claims - ie., criticism from what I will for the moment indulgingly call "the other side" are to be added, no doubt someone will move them over to the criticism section of the book in question. This presents a question: how much material from, and criticism of, each book should we include in this article, and how much should go in the articles on the specific books? Given the unbelievable frequency of edits to the article, most of which are by POV-pushers on both sides, it would be wise for us to decide on a good rule of thumb which can be applied in a fair way. Otherwise, the laudable attempt, recently made by lawyer2b, to move information pertaining to the books to their respective pages, will be reduced to incoherent chaos. Exactly how much of the material in her books is so notable, in speaking to her character, that it deserves to be related in this article, and which items are more book-specific and should be left in those articles? I'd really like to hear as many different opinions on this as possible. Thanks, Kasreyn 01:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the positive feedback. For what it's worth, I think with only limited exceptions any claims or quotes from her books should go on their respective pages and not in her main entry; the same with criticism regarding them. I think exceptions should be limited to things that are cited to support a general description of Coulter, her behavior, or her views. Lawyer2b 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that, though a small sampling of quotes of her writing style would also serve a useful purpose here. My concern is to preserve a balance between reporting her views and those of her critics while avoiding another round of content creep. Kasreyn 09:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Coulter's belief that liberialism is a religion. That definitely IS her belief, and she has written a book to expound, explain and justify it. From what I can see (and I have sampled the book at Borders), the justification is done carefully by clear, point-by-point exposition of liberalism's relationship to various aspects of religion, e.g. sacraments and priesthoods. She provides many examples and many footnotes to advance her argument, which is a controversial one.

For good or for ill, her bombastic style tends to induce strong reactions in unsympathetic or unconvinced readers (sympathetic and convinced ones, too). This style is common in 21st century dialog, and can be seen in the work of Ward Churchill, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Danish cartoonists, and others. In my observation, Wikipedia does a pretty good job of reining in the POV's of the unsympathetic and unconvinced. Considering the strength of those POV's, this is truly a miracle. Lou Sander 13:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, after posting the above comment, I re-read it in the context of the others under this heading. As often happens, a better understanding of the other stuff resulted. I am in favor of moving all material having to do with Godless to the article on Godless, except for a short, NPOV explanation of the book and its contents. Short = one to three sentences, maybe. The same goes for Coulter's other books. Lou Sander 13:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

On further review of these comments and the article, it becomes apparent that multiple spaced re-readings are required for a new participant to understand some of these complex matters (at least by ME, they are). If the basic question is "what should be in the book articles, and what should be in the author article," I'm thinking that, as of right now, the main (and maybe only) item that needs to be moved to the article on its book is "Coulter and four 9/11 widows." The other controversies seem not to be book-related, while this one definitely is.

I advocate the principle of putting material about the contents of a specific book into the article on that book, while keeping in the main article enough specifics about the book itself to let readers determine their potential interest. In the Bibliography entry for Godless, "A book critical of liberalism" doesn't quite do it. (Something like "An argument that liberalism is a religion" would be better.) For How to Talk to a Liberal, the words "A collection of columns" are enough. Lou Sander 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter and Paula Jones References

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)

• Why is the IRS harassing Paula Jones?, Human Events, Jan 23, 1998
• Supreme Court ruling has no impact on Paula Jones, Human Events, Jul 17, 1998
• It's official: Clinton's a liar, Human Events, Apr 23, 1999
• Immaterial girl, Human Events, Mar 26, 1999
• Now apply NOW law to Clinton, Human Events, Nov 6, 1998
• Carville meets his match,Human Events, Oct 9, 1998

big daddy 777's revenge

with the talk of librel cabals etc i can't help but be reminded of our old pal big daddy 777. maybe he's haunting the place.

big daddy, we hardly knew ye

Justforasecond 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're too right... I've been reading some of the links on Kizzle's talk page and going over the history of Big Daddy's downfall. His attacks read like the way Bill O'Reilly treats "guests" (read: punching-bags) on his show. Amazing that an editor that abusive didn't get banned long before. I was stunned at the dozens, if not scores, of corroborative links presented at the RfM. Were people just startlingly patient with him, or did a previous attempt to ban him fail somehow? Regardless, very sad, and funny in a twisted sort of way.

I suppose if he were still around I'd already have been labelled a member of the cabal and instructed to "shut up" in the manner of his mentor. Little would he know that my credentials don't even make me worthy of being the cabal's towel boy. :P Cheers, Kasreyn 09:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who was his mentor, pray tell? :-) Lawyer2b 12:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he really needed a mentor though a couple editors did try to "help" him (i.e. exploit his awful behavior). I don't think he was around for that long, he was just extremeley prolific. Justforasecond 15:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that only the editors who never had a single discussion with BigDaddy criticize those who had to deal with him. --kizzle 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. You'll never hear such criticism from me. From what I've seen in the page histories, everyone who ever had to talk to that guy deserves a Bigdaddy777 Campaign medal. :P Kasreyn 07:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was curious too. Then I looked at User:BigDaddy777. badmonkey 15:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the King of Shut Up, naturally. Kasreyn 23:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this woman getting such a huge amount of attention here at Wikipedia? I would say this article is biased in her favor!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.59.203.122 (talk • contribs).

Point to where the bias is and let it be addressed . Lawyer2b 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to try and answer Kasreyn's question about why BigDaddy didn't get banned sooner. There was some waffling by the filers of the RfC about BigDaddy.[6] Mainly because they were bending over backwards to try and get BigDaddy to play nice. I made a little summary of the whole BigDaddy saga one time, might be interesting read now: [7] -- Mr. Tibbs 09:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read your summary and I came in at the tail end of his tenure but, as someone who was sympathetic to Bigdaddy due to his political beliefs and shared perception of substantial liberal bias on wikipedia, I agree with you. His incivility was to such a degree that I would have banned him much earlier. Lawyer2b 17:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that part of it is that community bans have gotten more common. BD wasn't a vandal, he had some decent contributions to the Ann Arbor article, and, I suspect, that most of us who felt the brunt of his wrath were relatively inexperienced (I had never filed an RFC, for example, or even participated in one). He also had a few supporters, and a few apologists. A lot of new users come in spoiling for a fight, and then settle down - I suppose I was a bit naive, and figured that he was an intelligent enough person to figure out where "the line" was, and would settle into being just short of a troll. He probably did eventually, under a new user name... Guettarda 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And even I, as someone who tried to reform and partly defend BD, got fed up rather quickly. Once that happens (people who try to defend you turning against you), I am not sure there is much hope. Hey, it happens. There is only so much someone can take. :-) --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Guettarda BD did do some vandalism: [8]. Thats nothing compared to the other things he did though. I don't think he has a new user name though, because he leaves me and other users little notes occasionally about "PHASE II"[9]. That and his writing style is so distinctive I doubt he could fly under the radar "LOL!". Who remembers that phrase? And whatever happened to the picture of himself User:BigDaddy777 put on his user page? -- Mr. Tibbs 06:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To Feydey re: sourcing

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)

That edit (and this one) were fine points and spot-on-well-done. Lawyer2b 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment.  :) Kasreyn 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

POV!

please clean this article of liberal POV that is very strong in this article and it should be balanced not POV----Fellow-edit 22:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of restoring the See Also links to Joseph McCarthy and FOX News. (See lawyer2b? I don't like to do I-told-you-so's, but the material on McCarthy should have been kept in the main article.)

Suffice to say that Coulter has openly stated that McCarthy is the American politician she most deeply admires. This is no secret, it's her own words. FOX News also deserves its link, seeing as how the vast majority of her televised appearances are under its auspices, perhaps because no other network will give her airtime anymore.

These quibbling details aside, what in specific do you feel demonstrates a liberal POV in this article? Kasreyn 22:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have again reverted it, please don't reinstate it again----Fellow-edit 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, could you please be more specific in what exactly needs to be cleaned up. Thanks. --Dcflyer 23:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I note that you haven't responded to my specific explanations for the inclusion of the links. Do you have any reason for removing those links? I have been polite enough to provide you my reason for including them. Perhaps you could return the favor.

P.S. That's 3RR for me today. Other editors, take note. Kasreyn 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been so amusing...I almost hesitated to intervene. User:Fellow-edit, please explain how including these two links make the article POV. Better yet, I'd really like to hear your reasoning regarding how removing the links makes the article less POV. Also, it is common practice to provide logical reasoning and discussion before changing the status quo that has been reached by a consensus of editors.--WilliamThweatt 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Fellow-edit, even though I am a self-identified Ann Coulter fan and someone who perceives quite a bit of liberal bias on wikipedia, I don't find much (any?) bias in this article. I am certainly open to the idea that I am mistaken (I have missed bias before) and so am very interested to hear specifics from you on the talk page so that they might be addressed. My (and others') politics notwithstanding I wish to see NPOV articles and will fight hard for that. Lawyer2b 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also just like to emphasize that wikipedia is supposed to be edited by consensus and discussion. This has been going on quite well on this article lately and I have found just about everyone very civil, open to admissions of error, and focused on making the article as good as it can be and NPOV. You would benefit from taking advantage of this spirit/climate by participating in a discussion to see your points addressed as a community. It will certainly result in less reverts. Lawyer2b 01:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

After Rex/Merecat/Kizzle, BigDaddy, and other "persecuted" conservatives, I just want to say what a breath of fresh air it is reading your comments Lawyer. You are a shining example of how conservative editors gain respect on Wikipedia. --kizzle 01:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While I am libertarian with conservative values, thank you very much for the positive feedback. :-) Lawyer2b 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits to the "see also" links, Racialism, absoultely had to go; it's simply wrong, good call on that one. I don't see how a POV argument can be made regarding Joseph McCarthy or Fox News, however. Am I missing something there? Lawyer2b 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree...she is a regular contributor to Fox News, I don't see why that's POV. --kizzle 02:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. There's nothing POV about a "see also" link to Fox News or Joseph McCarthy. However the "Racialism" was misplaced. While I do identify more with the "Reagan Conservative" Camp, I am not particularly a fan of Ann Coulter's style. However, none of what I've heard from her or read in her books/columns has anything to do with "race". If one wants to write a "Culturism" article, though, that would be a different story. Her observations are based on American Culture vs. (fill-in-the-blank)'s Culture, not on race.--WilliamThweatt 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fellow-edit, not to beat a dead horse but you still haven't posted anything specific on what precisely in the article violates NPOV. The onus of detailing the problem rests upon the person identifying that problem, in this case, you. I for one would like to hear it. Kasreyn 09:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Racialism

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)

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)

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)

Private life

Does anyone know, whether she is married and has children? Thanks and greets from Martin

no to bothGzuckier 17:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How could she be married? She hasn't met me yet. Lawyer2b 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! I like the way you think. Kasreyn 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Source? --kizzle 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Have you ever seen K Street?Homey 04:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

O.O ... dies laughing Kasreyn 05:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For a moment I thought this was a talk page amongst encyclopaedia editors.

McCarthy

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)

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)

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)

Harmonious bipartisanship is boring indeed.  ;) Kasreyn 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

POV / OR sections removed

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)

NPOV

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

• "Bestselling" is not POV. It refers to the New York Times bestseller list. This is journalistic convention going back decades. --M@rēino 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Infobox"

Is this a subst-ed template or just hand-coding? Any why is it needed? "Species: Human" -- getcrunkjuice 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's not very encyclopedic. It's rather silly to go listing her species - what, was it in doubt? Her "notable allies" are listed, without any meaningful explanation of why they were chosen. Her age is an issue over which there has been some dispute; is there a source for the figure of 45? "Ms. Right" fails to credit Time Magazine, and I don't know if that qualifies as an "alias". Does she go by that, or is she merely called that by some? There's a difference. Her occupations and the claim to fame are uncapitalized. Does Coulter even practise law anywhere anymore? How is it her occupation? I would say her occupations are Author, Pundit, and Lecturer (in about that order). Also, it says "notable relatives", but what is notable about them? Why is it worth listing their names? So she had parents, we all do.

Simply put: that infobox needs a lot of work. Kasreyn 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I killed it. This is an encyclopedia, and the infobox was just not good. "Species"? "Allies"? "Claim to fame"? Let's try and be serious here. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You did it before I could. I didn't notice who originally placed it, but I don't think they were serious, I think it was a joke/vandalism. Anyway, most everything in there needed either explanation as to notability or sources. Now that you killed it, bury it.--WilliamThweatt 17:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It was Facto, if I recall correctly. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with giving celebrities an infobox? See Britney_spears. --Facto 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the concept (in my opinion), but the execution was flawed. See above. Kasreyn 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Middle East as "Swamp" mention

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)

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)

Coulter on African Americans

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)

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)

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

I am deleting the kente cloth stuff. Reasons: Incorrectly cited. Unencyclopedic spelling and grammar. Not indicative of a Coulter view of African Americans, and taken totally out of context -- it is a minor illustrative comment from a column critical of folks who see the Confederate flag as a sign of racism (see for yourself here). Lou Sander 04:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

All reasons for improving. Not reasons for deleting. --Asbl 04:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wow

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)

"Current event" tag

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) 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I concur as well. Also, I thought {{blp}} was warranted here, so I placed it at the top of this talk page.--WilliamThweatt 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why nothing on plagiarism?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with it probably being the other way around as well, LV. But from someone who doesn't particularly dislike Coulter, I have no problem with something being added, as long as it's sourced and sounds encyclopedic. Stanselmdoc 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

Media

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)

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)

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)

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. [10], [11], [12]. How is that not notable? IrishGuy ^talk 00:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Uncited statements

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)

I know it doesn't, but I think that policy should apply to all articles, period. Lawyer2b 05:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

"FOX News's"

I can't for the life of me understand why, but all reference to FOX News keeps disappearing from the article. Example. This is taken to ridiculous lengths, such as removing mention of FOX News from an image caption, which I worry may violate Fair Use restrictions on our using the image. (For Fair Use, don't you have to cite the source plainly?)

I just don't see how mentioning a TV station that gives Coulter the majority of her broadcast time is "singling it out". I don't see why we say "the CBC's 'the fifth estate'" but it's somehow POV to say "FOX News's 'O'Reilly Factor'". I would like to get some opinions from other editors. For all I know, maybe this has been discussed and a consensus reached. I for one feel that mention of FOX (in an NPOV manner) is notable and therefore definitely should be in the article. If someone writes "Ann Coulter on FOX News, where they regularly advocate eating babies", then that would be POV and I'll be the first to remove it. But just mentioning FOX alone surely can't be POV. Kasreyn 04:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. --kizzle 04:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

An unbiased article will treat all networks the same way. But to try to use "Fox News" as many times as possible in the article seems to be a rather transparent POV ploy to somehow paint Ann's popularity as attributable solely to a right-wing Fox-News cabal. Fox is the number one cable network in the country where Coulter lives and works - and writes about. The network names are not helpful to most likely readers (USA Americans) and the reader can click on the title if he is unfamiliar with the program. The names of CBC programs, however, are not well-known to most USA Americans - and USA Americans are the most liklely to read this article. Also, the photo of Coulter on TV has a large "Fox News" logo on it. There is no need to include a redundant Fox reference in the caption. This is basic neutral copy-editing 101. 136.215.251.179 10:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Americans are the most likely to read the article, but just because Coulter is an American political pundit doesn't mean no one else will read it. She regularly insults people of other nations in her commentary; I don't find it unreasonable to imagine that an Arabic Wikipedia reader might want to read her article to figure out why she's always calling him a "camel jockey", etc. But come on. Over-repeating it is one thing. Removing every mention of the word "FOX" except from the References section is extreme. Most of Coulter's appearances are on FOX. It is noteworthy to include mention of the network to which she owes so much. Kasreyn 10:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the source to claim that Fox deserves special mention that other networks do not recieve? If you can source that Fox has played a role that other netowrks have not, cite the reference and add some text about it in the article. Otherwise it is unsourced POV to treat Fox differently. And as I noted above, the caption is redundant given the clear Fox News logo in the photo itself. 136.215.251.179 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed at all to mentioning Fox News. I am opposed to the POV singling out of Fox News for repeated mention. The facts are that all the networks invite Coulter to appear on TV. Again, CBC is mentioned only because the most likely readers might not be famliar with the show "fifth estate". But for the US networks, the mentioon of the networks simply clutters up the article unnecessarily. If the consensus is to list netowrks, then that should be done in a standard manner under uniform criteria. Singling out Fox News is simply POV unless there is some sourced and unbiased basis to do so. 136.215.251.179 13:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: what do you mean, "singling out"? You removed every single mention of FOX News in the article's main body. You could have left one, and that wouldn't have been "singling out" by any reasonable standard. Where is the dividing line, in your opinion? Kasreyn 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think she's on Fox news a lot because she's just such a FOX. :-) But seriously, I haven't noticed the channel being mentioned too much. 136.215.251.179, can you point to a version you think did that? Lawyer2b 05:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem was that the article contained copious unusual and unnecessary references to Fox whenever at all possible - but in similar contexts other networks were not mentioned. That's all. Fox should simply be treated as other networks who have Coulter appear on their shows. I simply removed all unnecesssary network references - not just the Fox ones. If the article would be a better article by mentioning networks, then lets add them in. But doing so will clutter the article up - and NOT make it a better article. 136.215.251.179 12:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would very much like to see the version containing what you perceived to be "copious unusual and unnecessary references to Fox". You may have been right but I won't know until I am literally "on the same page" as you. If at all possible, post a link to the edit right before you removed the references. Lawyer2b 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This version of the article has an axe to grind about Coulter and Fox - and of course that point is an unsourced opinion appearing twice in this version of the article as a fact. That is what drew my attention to the matter. If a network is noteworthy for some reason in an article about Coulter, then the notewirthiness needs to be sourced - and no network should be singled out unless there is some unbiased reason to do so. 84.146.200.250 05:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Ann Coulter: frequent guest on FOX News. Would that suffice? I do feel it's noteworthy. Kasreyn 06:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, those don't suffice. Not in the least. I will assume you are joking.84.146.244.68 09:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would you think that? And why do those sources not suffice? Two are neutral, one is fairly liberal, and one is decidedly conservative. Seems fair enough to me. I could go on, as these were the fruits of a mere five minutes' Googling. I'm curious what other editors think about the notability of this, as well. Kasreyn 17:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You have listed links to blogs and to sources that do not verify as factual the information you want to include in the article. 84.146.238.140 18:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So essentially you're going to hold common knowledge hostage until some source publishes a peer-reviewed scientific paper entitled "Frequency of Ann Coulter appearances on FOX News relative to appearances on other shows: A Preliminary Study"? Do we need Harvard's imprimatur on this? I feel you're raising the bar arbitrarily high on this one. Kasreyn 19:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is common knowledge. I have seen her on many netowrks and have seen written accounts of her on many networks. I have also seen liberal critic blogs and pundits opine that Fox sucks and Coulter is nothing but a product of Fox. That, by no means, equates to common knowledge that Coulter is on Fox more than other netowrks. This is the kind of info that has to be sourced. 84.146.238.140 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And another note: one of the links you listed above as a source is a website that simply cut and pastedthis Wikipedia article. Perhaps somewhere someone has catalougued her TV appearances in an unbiased fashion. If so, then find that source and we can add that info. Otherwise it is POV to say anything special about Fox. Something that might be worth noting is that Coulter has cited the still young FoxNews network as an example of unbiased media that allows conservative and lberal ideas to be presented on its shows in a balanaced fashion - unlike all the other networks that for decades have blatantly favored liberal talking points. 84.146.210.202 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As for your sources:

frequent--> This is a republican blogger who made a passing assertion. Not a source to use for verification. And the author does not even claim that Coulter is on Fox any more than any other network - she simply notes that she has seen Coulter on Fox.

guest --> This website notes that Coulter was on shows that appear on HBO, CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Does not verify your assertion that she is on Fox any more than any other network.

FOX --> This link is simply a website that copies and pastes what is in the Ann Coulter Wikipedia article. Not even a valid source.

News. --> This website notes that Coulter is a frequent guest on MSNBC, CNN and Fox. Does not verify your assertion that she is on Fox any more than any other network.

Summary: No one has posted a link to any source that could verify that Coulter appears on Fox more frequently than other News networks or that would justify some special mention of Fox without similar mention of the other networks on which she appears. 84.146.232.145

And another thing...seriously, I also note that Coulter's critics seem to think that Coulter and NBC's Today show are in bed, so how can anyone justify the wikipedia article singling out FoxNews? 84.146.245.199 18:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"3rd time in 8 months" (Article) does not equal "Coulter and NBC's Today show are in bed" (You)...besides that I'm not sure I follow your logic. You assert that since MediaMatters produces a piece attacking Ann Coulter for her comments directed towards the Jersey Girls, that this article shouldn't display the term "Fox News"? --kizzle 18:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. You must not be folloing the discussion. There is no sourced basis for the article to assert that Coulter appears frequently on FoxNews but fail to likewise assert that the same is true about CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc. No one has found any objective article or other objective source that meets wikipedia source standards to verify such an assertion. In other words, there is no basis for the article to single out Fox News. Its pretty simple. Not sure why you have mischaracterized the crux of my argument. 84.146.245.199

I was just reading your last line, which is the argument I was repeating. So you don't have any qualms about removing "Canadian Broadcasting Company" from before mention of the fifth estate, as it is currently the only television program in the media section that mentions its network? --kizzle 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. I won't scold you again for asking questions that have already been answered :o) I have explained why elsewhere in talk why CBC should probably be mentioned. In summary: Coulter is USAmerican. Article readers will largely be USAmericans who are not generaly familiar with CBC programming. Thus the basis for the clarification and reference to the network. So, I don't think the CBC reference is biased or POV, and it helps most people who are likely to read this article. I have no qualms about mentioning FoxNews or any of the other netowrks. I just think adding the networks will clutter the article up without adding any substnative benefit to the article. 84.146.245.199 19:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes by anon under IP's 84.146.213.157, 84.146.221.123, possibly 71.137.242.62

Hi. I wanted to discuss this here because it seems more like a real discussion to use the talk page, plus edit summaries are too limited.

A few points I want to raise follow. The removal of the POV/NPOV tag is not appropriate. Above in the section on NPOV (the lowest one) you'll see that I asked about removing the tag, and Lou Sander indicated he still has problems with the article on NPOV grounds. You should probably discuss why you feel the article is NPOV with Lou, since as far as I can tell the editor who originally added the NPOV tag has moved on.

The removal of the quote from the Tucson paper also bothers me. The Arizona Daily Star is, as you can see from the discussion on it above, a conservative paper. The article already has loads of liberal criticisms of Coulter. Since conservatives criticize Coulter less frequently, I'd say any individual conservative criticism is probably more notable than a criticism from an equally influential liberal. Why do you feel the quote should be removed?

A critical editorial from an influential paper widely described as conservative (Wash Times) is already quoted in this article (...her style is not universally admired among those who share her political philosophy. Arnold Beichman reviewed her book Treason in the Washington Times, which is known for its conservative editorial stance, and wrote that he'd "tried to read Miss Coulter's book and failed. Life is too short to read pages and pages of rant."). The point you want made is already in the article. It seems pretty normal that an encyclopedia does not include quotes from minor figures about minor incidents that are not all that noteworthy. If her column was being dropped by a substantial number of papers, then this AZ Star thing might be worth more than a passing generic reference. That one smaller paper dropped the column in 2005 is not very significant, though mentioning it in passing is fine. People can click on the link if they want details. Because the E&P sentence makes it clear that there has been no loss of subscribers to the column since June 2006, there is no contradiction. In fact, the reader is informed after reading this section that her column has a very stable subscribership despite all the controversy (one small paper dropping the column is just not significant). 136.215.251.179 09:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You also changed "Since then, according to Editor & Publisher magazine, she "hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients..." to "According to Editor & Publisher magazine, she "hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients...". This is a significant change in factual presentation with no change in sourcing for the sentence. The second phrasing seems to make the paragraph self-contradictory; how could she have not lost any of her clients, if earlier in the paragraph we detail her losing a client?

You left off the rest of the sentence! See above. (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, in June of 2006.)136.215.251.179 10:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the sentence isn't relevant to the issue of how many papers, if any, have dropped her column. The previous version makes it clear her column was dropped from one paper and since then, has not been dropped by any others. The version you changed it to says her column has never been dropped by anyone, which is directly contradicted by the sentence that begins the article. "Since" limits the clause to only events occurring later in time than the referenced event. Kasreyn 10:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources we have do not verify what is in your version (that since the AZ star has dropped the column in 2005 no one else has). We know 2 things from the sources, and those two things are accurately presented in my version: 1) an AZ paper dropped the column in 2005, and 2) E&P has reported that since the 6 June 2006 release of Godless, no paper has dropped the column. We know nothing about the time in between. My version is accurate and does not overstate what can be verified. Information in your version cannot be verified. 136.215.251.179 10:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, my version? The previous version is the product of the work of many editors, most of whom are probably asleep right now.

Additionally, the version you edited does not include the word "since" anywhere in the paragraph under discussion, so I don't understand how the version you edited "accurately presents" that "since" the release of Godless, no paper has dropped the column. You have to have a "since" in there for it to mean "since". The paragraph still contradicts itself. Kasreyn 11:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I will add the word since for clarity. 136.215.251.179 11:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... where's the "since"? Still not seeing it. Kasreyn 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the phrasing to "due to" the swirl of controversy about her new June book. 136.215.251.179 11:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You also changed, in the section on the IU speech, "and referred to a man with an effeminate voice who asked a question..." to "and referred to a male critic with an effeminate voice who confronted her with a sarcastic question as...". Nowhere in the article does it state that the man was a critic, that he made his remark in a confrontational way, nor that his remark was sarcastic. The previous version merely stated the very few facts the article related: he was male, he had an effeminate voice, and he asked a question. If you feel his question was insulting and thus "deserved" Coulter's response, a possible solution to suggest would be to quote his question. It would be wise to avoid quote creep, though.

The article refers to "gay boy" as a protester (making the word "critic" appropriate) and it is most apt to describe this critic's rhetorical question that suggested Coulter (a free speech and gun rights activist) might support a dictatorship as clearly sarcastic:

During her question-and-answer session, Coulter responded to both fans and protesters. One comment that drew strong audience reactions came from a young man who asked her if she didn't like Democrats, wouldn't it just be better to have a dictatorship? Coulter responded with a jab at the way the student talked. "You don't want the Republicans in power, does that mean you want a dictatorship, gay boy?" she said.

136.215.251.179 09:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it is still original research (not to mention POV) for you to add the claim to the article that it was sarcastic. That's not what WP is about. I'm aware of the quote, I've read it several times. And he probably was being sarcastic. But it's not our place to say that. As for "critic", I'd say it would be more appropriate to just go ahead and call him a "protestor", as it's what the article calls him. Kasreyn 10:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You may think different phrasing is better, but it's not original research. The bottom line is that the man who asked the question needs to be protrayed accurately - as a man who opposes Coulter and asked a very barbed, insulting and confrontational question ("since you hate Democrats you must be in favor of an American dictatorship, right?" or words to that effect). Coulter responded in kind - with a barbed insulting answer. The reader should walk away with that understanding. If you want to try some other wording, great. But it needs to accurately represent what happened: someone engaged in reparteee with Coulter, and she responded in kind. Readers can draw their own conclusion about whether they find this to be an appropriate tactic. 136.215.251.179 11:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not really how it works. If we want readers to "draw their own conclusion", we could quote exactly what he said, and then the readers could decide if his remark was sarcastic or deservant of Coulter's reply. But we can't simply make a pronouncement that comment x was or was not sarcastic, unless we have a third party claiming it, in which case we cite the claim that the comment was sarcastic to a third party... it doesn't come from us. Kasreyn 15:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The student article used as a source is shoddy. It paraphrases the "gay boy" and then directly quotes Coulter's response. Not all that fair, really, since the author tries to paint Coulter's response as over the top - but we don't know if the "gay boy" simply recieved a portion of what he dished out. By doing so the author makes it difficult to understand what really happened. I have made an attempt at sticking to what we know from that shoddy article without inserting POV. 136.215.251.179 15:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Kaseryn, good changes to this section (removing a few editorial words of mine).84.146.238.140 19:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you mind showing where the Washington Post column in particular was described as a gossip column? Because I searched that page for the word "gossip" and didn't find it. "Opinion" I did find.

If you click on the phrase "gossip column" you are taken to this link, which makes it clear that the WaPo's "Reliable Source" column is a gossip column. I also explained this in my edit summary. BTW, if you do a little research, you would soon discover that Lloyd Grove is a gossip columnist, not an actual news reporter. 136.215.251.179 09:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I see. Thanks for answering that one. Kasreyn 10:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that a citation is still needed on the quote including "torture as a televised sport", so removal of the citation needed tag strikes me as counterproductive.

It also appears that your edits removed the following sources:

From the quote regarding women voting: [this Guardian source which supports the claim.

From the section on Rahm Emanuel's criticism of Coulter: this House.gov source which supports the claim.

I did not deliberately remove this. 136.215.251.179 09:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have been mistaken as to the women voting source; sorry about that. However, it does appear that the Rahm Emanuel source was removed by 84.146.213.157. Was that you? (I'm a little confused by all the IP addresses.) Kasreyn 10:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of restoring the second Rahm Emanuel criticism, with source, and something of a rewrite. I feel that if it's notable enough to mention that there was a criticism, it's notable enough to provide a quick synopsis of what that criticism was, which I have done. With ElKevbo ever vigilant for WP:LIVING violations, removing a source is essentially the same thing as marking a claim for instant deletion. Kasreyn 16:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, several claims were restored to the Trivia section which have been around, unsourced, for months. These include the Chris Rock and Dave Barry claims. Unless you have a source for them, do not restore them. They've been around forever with cite tags on them, and their time is up.

136.215.251.179, would you please explain your reasoning for removing the Emanuel and Roemer criticisms? I'm not alone in thinking them noteworthy. Kasreyn 08:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to your reply. Kasreyn 07:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Two sections above I am dealing with the removal of the paragraph that deals with hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients. Also, I put in the source for Rahm Emanuel most recent criticism (the one you noted) and it keeps disappearing. If it is sourced, it should stay. Period. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. IrishGuy ^talk 08:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also curious, though mostly amused, about your reorganizing the television shows in order of "popularity". And lo and behold, every right-wing show is more popular than every left-wing show. In fact, liberal shows are clearly shown by this arrangement to be just one step away from being Canadians. :P Is this based on ratings data or have you, perhaps, performed surveys door-to-door? Kasreyn 10:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My rationale: Today and Tonight are major network shows that draw a larger audience than cable news shows. Fox's cable news shows H&C and O'Reilly are the most popular on cable news. Then the other cable news shows are listed. Finally, the CBC show is listed last since it deserves special mention of its source (as previously discussed above) but should not be the first show listed as it is an anomoly. 136.215.251.179 10:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the CBC looks really weird at the front of the list. I'm still not sure about the relative popularity of certain shows... one might note that, likely being classified as comedy, The Daily Show might not be considered a "cable news show", and as such your source (whatever it is) on H&C and O'Reilly's popularity might not be taking the Daily Show into account. But then, I really don't know, I'm just guessing... to my mind it wouldn't make much sense to call the Daily Show a cable news program, but then to my mind it also doesn't make much sense to call H&C or O'Reilly "news" either, so... Kasreyn 16:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

TO ALL NEW EDITORS

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just wanted to say this is an excellent section. Good job starting it, M@rēino. :-) Lawyer2b 05:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotations section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

1. "Taxes are like abortion, and not just because both are grotesque procedures supported by Democrats. You're for them or against them. Taxes go up or down; government raises taxes or lowers them. But Democrats will not let the words abortion or tax hikes pass their lips." - Her syndicated column, 2/21/2002

2. "The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that's the Biblical view."[41].

3. "I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly". — MSNBC March 22, 1997

4. "Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." — (from Slander, pp. 5–6; published June 2002)

5. "The Times was rushing to assure its readers that 'prominent Islamic scholars and theologians in the West say unequivocally that nothing in Islam countenances the Sept. 11 actions.' (That's if you set aside Muhammad's many specific instructions to kill nonbelievers whenever possible.)" — How to Talk to a Liberal, 2004.

6. "The tolerant liberal suddenly becomes very intolerant when their official religion is challenged."— June 06, 2006 [46]

7. "Ozzy Osbourne has his bats, and I have that darn "convert them to Christianity" quote. Some may not like what I said, but I'm still waiting to hear a better suggestion." - (from Treason, published 2003)

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)

Oops, never mind. Now I see. Kasreyn 09:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these are the quotes I think could be included. Doesn't mean I'm willing to exchange other quotes for them or anything, I just made my picks. Stanselmdoc 13:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

In all the articles I've edited I have always been a proponent of keeping the "quotes section" out of the article and leaving them to Wikiquote. I feel the same way about this one. What about just putting this box in a section like "Writing and speaking style", for example:

and moving all the extraneous quotes there?--WilliamThweatt 21:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, William, that's always been my stance on authors throughout all of wiki as well. I don't care for a difference between "non-inflammatory" authors and "inflammatory" authors. Coulter is an author as much as Twain is an author. And I don't think either of them should have quote sections. But unfortunately, not enough people agree with us. That's why I proposed cutting the section back down to where it used to be. Stanselmdoc 15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If no one else seems to be concerned, I'm going to cut and link and see how it goes. Thanks! Stanselmdoc 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! See Wikipedia:Quotations for a related proposal. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting issues

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)

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)

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)

Um, her party is in power. Homey 08:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

USA Today

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)

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)

Addendum: Yep, I was correct. See here. But really, I don't know how common this type of thing is.

[13] [14] --kizzle 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We Americans, just loooooooooove the outrageous. LOL Lawyer2b 06:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ann coulter, jersey girl

yeah, the despite is pov. I still think it's worth somehow connecting her insistence that you shouldn't use the death of your husband to push a POV with her use of the death of a friend to push her POV, though. But we must do it in a NPOV way. Gzuckier 18:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What? Someone admits they might have accidentally pushed their POV? Are you sure this is Wikipedia??? ;-) But seriously, I'm not sure it is exactly the same... Coulter mentioned Olson to criticise the airport security (Did she? I am just taking your word for it here.), while she criticises these widows not because they voiced their opinions on the matter, but rather that they voiced their opinions on matters other than this. She criticises them for speaking out on other issues, and the fact that, IHO (in her opinion), liberals bring out these types of people as their spokespeople because it "is wrong" to criticise them because of their loss. She claims that once you start talking about other subjects, you open yourself up to criticism. And that's what she's doing. She claims they are using their husbands' deaths as a political tool for purposes other than anything to do with their husbands' deaths, and how absurd it is that people should not be able to criticise them because they have suffered. I think that's basically her view of things. I know it might not make sense to people, and maybe I didn't do a good job of trying to explain it. Oh well... --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The specific point of the Godless chapter in which the Jersey Girls are mentioned is to critique the technique of using grieving people as spokesmen, then illegitimately claiming their grief as a protection against criticism. The point is illustrated, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion) by the outcry that has been triggered by Coulter's use of the Jersey Girls as examples. There few if any responses to her assertions about the technique, but many responses to her criticizing the grieving widows. Lou Sander 18:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The specific point was to be controversial. Think about it, what criticism would Ann want to leverage against these widows? They haven't guided national policy, (cutting taxes on the rich, ignoring warnings about al qaeda in the us, sending the us on a pointless trillion dollar escapade). and aren't notable in any way other than being 9-11 widows. Is Ann whining that she can't call these ladies corn-fed pie wagons? Cause she sure hasn't said what criticism she would direct at them if they weren't widows...

Yes, Ann is a controversial polemecist. She uses polemics to make points. The specific point here is that grief-stricken people can be used as sockpuppets, or as useful idiots, or even as pure-hearted advocates, in such a way that their opinions are prevented from being discussed because it's so cruel to discuss the words of a grief-stricken person. It's a propaganda technique. Or if you prefer, a rhetorical technique. The proof of its power is the wild response to Coulter's criticism of the Jersey Girls' arguments and of the technique. Lou Sander 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How delightfully ironic! "How dare you criticize these widows by saying we're using their victim status to not allow them to be criticized! Can't you see they're widows and are not allowed to be criticized?" Lawyer2b 21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Ann talking about criticizing the widows or the widow's opinions? After seeing her interviewed twice I haven't heard her mention their opinons....and as for criticizing them personally...well, why? As far as I know 9-11 widows aren't making national policy. 66.91.168.132 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil rights activist?

Ann is many things, but is this really one of them? It doesn't seem like it to me. Lou Sander 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Read a little farther down in the article. Stanley added this, iirc. She's done legal work for an organization (the "Center for Individual Rights") that self-describes as civil libertarian. (I don't know how recently, ie. whether it overlaps with her career as a bile manufacturer, or whether it's in her past) The organization apparently focuses on "freedom of speech", "individual rights", "limited government" (complete with denunciations of the "modern welfare state"), etc. A quote from the linked page: "CIR would not think twice about representing a white male who had said something politically incorrect."

I think the confusion arises because the most popular perception of a "civil rights activist" is in the mold of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and is mixed up with a lot of, essentially, liberal and progressive cultural notions. In the more basic sense of the word, a "civil rights activist" could be seen as anyone who defends a civil right, which freedom of speech definitely is. I personally feel that "civil rights lawyer" would be more appropriate, unless someone can show how Coulter has been an "activist" for civil rights. In general, looking over the CIR's information page, it appears they do good work. There are several cases listed in which they definitely appear to be engaging in what I'd certainly call "civil rights activism". However, I can't seem to find, on CIR's website, where Coulter is said to be affiliated with the organization. There are reprints of some of her articles on law, but I don't see anything that states "Coulter is a member of CIR" or "Coulter has done legal work / represented clients for CIR". Stanley, could you make it more clear how Coulter is affiliated with CIR? Kasreyn 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the edit. It was not Stanley. Unless that is his IP and he forgot to log in... --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake. Thanks, LV. Kasreyn 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you go to CIR's web site and search on her name, you'll find a few articles. One of them talks about CIR as "my old law firm." There's no doubt that CIR is a civil rights law firm. It seems as though Ann Coulter was once an attorney there. I'm thinking that activists and attorneys are different animals. I don't have a seriously strong opinion about it, but it seems to me that "civil rights activist" doesn't apply very strongly to Ann Coulter. (Though it applies more strongly than I thought it did before this discussion took place.) Lou Sander 01:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, she does speak out in defense of free speech and gun rights, although I don't know if those would qualify her as an "activist". I guess I don't really have any strong feelings on the matter. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since discretion is said to be the better part of valor (and Wikipedian boldness, I suppose), and since there IS a case for "civil rights activist," I'm going to discreetly refrain from editing it out. (Just think -- Al Sharpton and Ann Coulter, members of the same category!) Lou Sander 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:People without real jobs? ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

State Department lists CIR as a civil rights law firm. CIR also refers to itself that way. [15] [16]

Yes, but being a staff attorney at a civil rights law firm doesn't make one a "civil rights activist." I'm cool with using the term about Ann, but IMHO it's a bit of a stretch to do so. Lou Sander 13:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to substitute "advocate" for "activist". She has done that as a lawyer, adn certainly as an author and pundit. 136.215.251.179 13:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you have made an excellent suggestion, and one that is likely to be acceptable to all. Unless it has already been done, I'm going to change "activist" to "advocate." Lou Sander 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

84.146.200.250 06:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

American Civil Rights Institute (Ward Connerly's organization) needs an article. --George100 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody needs to deal with the "citation needed" tag that has popped up in the first paragraph of the article. After discussion, many agree that it is appropriate to call Coulter a "civil rights advocate," but someone is questioning it. I lack the technical skill to provide citations, the knowledge of what is an acceptable citation, etc. Lou Sander 03:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The trouble is, we are still missing a link which directly and uncontrovertibly shows Coulter worked for the CIR. There are two links in the section that mentions the CIR, but one is merely to the CIR's info page and the other doesn't seem to mention Coulter at all. Could we get a better source? Kasreyn 06:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

136.215.251.179

136.215.251.179, I am asking you for a second time to discuss the changes you are making to the article here. Please provide your reasoning for removing the Emanuel quote and removing the Roemer cite.

Additionally, I have reviewed both of your sources on the Jersey Girls. Neither of them uses the word "partisan". You claim it is partisan "by definition". Fine. I can point to a good number of Coulter's remarks and note that they are hypocritical by definition. Yet it is not appropriate for me to add such a statement and in fact I have a history of reverting people who add such claims to this article. Please explain why you have a special exemption from WP:OR and WP:NPOV as regards the nature of what is and isn't partisan. Kasreyn 09:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WaPo news article clearly reports that Jersey Girl Bretiweiser's activity is partisan. [17] 136.215.251.179 09:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me; good source. But why didn't you hunt that one down the first time I objected? It's as if you think ignoring me will make me go away. Talk to me. You'll find me quite reasonable. But edit summaries are not an appropriate place to carry on a discussion over the article's content. I've resorted to them because you don't comment on the talk page often, but it's not appropriate.

So, about Emanuel and Roemer? Kasreyn 09:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Kasreyn's self-description. He/she is reasonable. (sigh) How I wish all liberals were ridiculous. It makes it so much more easy and fun to win an argument. Lawyer2b 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it really make a good article to quote all of her critics? Clinton tried to whack Coulter very harshly; Coulter fired back very effectively. That is quite newsworthy. That other people also criticized her is factual. But the details are not important. The Clinton quote sums up the criticisms made by all parties, and if people want the specifics they can click on the sources to read them. I hope you can agree that an endless parade of quotes that berate Coulter as mean would not make the article better. Longer? Yes. Better? Not really. And think about it, do we really want the article to catalogue all quotes made by supporters and critics of Godless? 136.215.251.179 10:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 136.215.251.179 on the point made immediately above. The Ann Coulter article sometimes seems to me to be a venue for quoting every prominent critic. It is one thing to point out that her work is controversial and polemical, another to quote polemical snippets from that work (often out of the larger context of the point they are illustrating), and yet another to give voice to numerous examples of the response to the snippets by critcs, which are often polemical as well. IMHO, editors should work hard to put Coulter quotes in context and to minimize the over-citing of critical responses to her work. Lou Sander 12:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that being criticised on the floor of Congress would be notable. She's not in Congress so to be criticised on the floor would be fairly rare. And since the criticism fits in the section just fine, I guess I'd say keep. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version ("Former Clinton Administration staffer [26] and now Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) criticized Coulter on the floor of the House, [27] and Tim Roemer, a member of the 9/11 Commission and a former Democrat Congressman, also condemned Coulter's statements.[38]"), with links to the details pretty much covers it to the degree it should be. Any more is overkill. 136.215.251.179 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is good. But I find myself wondering why Coulter's critics are so heavily quoted in an article on Coulter, and sometimes why they are quoted at all, except in their own articles. IMHO if her words are quoted, that should pretty much be the end of it. There ought to be a strong and specific reason to quote someone who responds to what she said; one such strong reason might arise if the response is from someone mentioned by name in the original quotation. If Coulter notably said "Lou Sander is an xxx," and Lou made a witty response in some notable way, the response might deserve space in the encyclopedia. Otherwise, it wouldn't. Lou Sander 00:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is sort of the same discussion that had been had a year ago, when the talk about removing her "Quotations" section occurred. I argued that many of Coulter's quotes could simply be added into the context of the article instead of having an entirely separate section. In the same strain, it appears (a year later) that the article has moved from talking about the criticisms of Coulter to literally just listing any and all criticism (with quotes) that can be found. I agree that in general, most quotes can be edited out of articles and simply cited. In a legitimate encyclopedia, quotes are rare. But I've always been too scared on this page to try to make changes because, typically, ten minutes later it's back to the way it used to be. Any suggestions? Stanselmdoc 13:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have sometimes refrained from making changes, and for the same reason. You work hard to craft text that is fair, reasoned, and calmly stated, and somebody deletes it. That's life in the Wikiworld. Still, there ought to be ways to make rational improvements to controversial articles. Maybe posting the edits here for comment, before actually making them, would work. Lou Sander 13:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

More on quotations

This is currently at the head of the Quotations section:

The following quotes are examples of Coulter's polemical style. Some view these quotes as hyperbole or satire, while others take them more literally:

Does one really need to provide citations for obvious facts? Isn't it enough to provide links to hyperbole and satire? IMHO this article would be much less controversial if readers and editors were more aware of the point made here, and of the existence of the figures of speech to which it links. Lou Sander 13:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

find a link for it and put it in. i don't view them as hyperbole or satire...seems more like insults and attacks ("pie wagons", etc). 66.91.168.132 16:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I view them as hyperbole and satire. You view them more literally. Each of us has a lot of company. If you are saying that it requires a reference to establish that as a "fact," I do not agree. I think the point is obvious. Lou Sander 18:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

One of her quotations got her mentioned in the Raghead article. She must be really bad to be the only person named in the article. Or at least someone who added her to it thought so. But they cited it with a blog, so that's OK right? --Dual Freq 19:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see... One could say that "some view her as a really bad racist; in fact, of 6 billion people on our planet, she is the only one whose words are cited in an article about a really bad racist word," and if he or she cited your remark above, it would be OK. I think I see how it works. But I think it ought not to work that way in an encyclopedia. Lou Sander 19:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd add that someone thought it was worth mentioning her on that page, I guess I should have put a sarcasm tag in front of the really bad sentence. I concur with the hyperbole point you made, I'm not sure a fact tag is needed for the hyperbole / insult point. --Dual Freq 21:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that your mentioning Ann Coulter in an article about Ragheads isn't showing her to be a "bad person"? you could also see that as a REALLY HUGE SYSTEMATIC LEFT WING BIAS in writership of wikipedia that it would be there at all, but you people wouldn't see it that way no doubt—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So play nice and help fix it. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.110.201 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure how I would see the mention of Coulter, but I definitely see your comment as a failure to assume good faith. How about you try it sometime? It might do wonders for your stress level, and you seem very angry for some reason. Best wishes, Kasreyn 03:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks awful...

I know, {{sofixit}}. 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)

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)

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)

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)

I also put all discussion of Chrisitanity in the one pre-existing section on that topic, and simply made mention that she is a Christian in the opening. She defines herself that way, has been profiled by Time as one, and she states that being a Christian fuels her writing. 84.146.238.140

Regarding syndication of her column: most relevant fact is that she has over 100 subscriber newspapers and none of them have dropped the column due to the hullabaloo about Godless; a minor fact that probably does not deserve any mention at all is that one small Arizona paper (not even the largest in the state) in 2005 dropped the column citing complaints from readers who claimed to be conservatives. My edit simply fixes the problem that the main pont was buried by the minor point. It is silly to keep discussing this. Its neutral encyclopedic editing 101.84.146.238.140 19:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersey girls

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)

Isn't this POV?

I've just re-read the whole article, and overall I'm pretty happy that the current version is worthy of an encyclopedia. Except for the material mentioned below, I think it (currently, at least) does a pretty good job of sticking to the subject, (which is Ann Coulter, not the opinions of her critics). If Ann says something outlandish, it's presented as it is, and readers can decide if it's funny or offensive, figurative or literal, hateful or tough love, etc. Occasionally, when a notable critic says something notable, his or her words are reproduced (I don't love this, but if it's kept to a minimum I don't mind it too much.)

This sentence from the Controversies section has been in there for a long time, and every time I read it, I see it more and more as a slam against Ann by editors who dislike her work:

Some critics find her presentations, both published and spoken, to be biased, offensive, inflammatory and claim them quite often full of misinterpreted facts that they claim put her credibility in question.[10][11] Coulter prides herself on the copious footnotes in her books which she claims back up her statements.[12]

Here's what I don't like about it:

• The use of "Some." This can be a rhetorical/propagandistic technique designed to make the writer appear unbiased, lending a false air of neutrality to the sharp or hurtful words that follow. IMHO, that's what's going on here.

• "...biased, offensive, inflammatory and claim them quite often full of misinterpreted facts that they claim put her credibility in question." Though sources are provided, the words themselves were put in by editors, and they are not unbiased, NPOV words.

• "(Footnotes)...which she claims back up her statements." Any author's footnotes are put there to back up his or her statements, or to clarify them. To add "...which she claims back up her statements" is to add a point of view to the fact that she uses footnotes. (The POV is that her footnotes are unreliable, or false, or misleading, or filled with lies, or whatever.)

Surely we can note that a person's work is controversial without demeaning that person or advancing the agendas of her critics. Lou Sander 19:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lou, in prinipal. We should change the initial "Some..." to just what is supported by the citations (ie Columbia Jounalism Review and Al Franken). As for the adjectives used, the "full of misinterpreted facts" is used by the CJR and Al Franken accuses her of "...biased, offensive and inflammatory". As for the last sentence, I recommend leaving off the last clause, which is, as Lou points out, almost redundant. It suffices to say that "Coulter prides herself on the copious footnotes in her books." Of course she "claims they back up her statements"...that's the purpose of footnotes...by including footnotes an author implies that they back up her statements...to point that out is redundant and accusatory.

Also, in reviewing the citations to this section, I became aware of another problem. The citation for Al Franken's book wikilinks to the article on his book. Since Wikipedia articles can not be used as sources, I think this is inappropriate. The reader might view the article itself as the source and not the book. The book should just be cited per accepted formatting and not wikilinked.--WilliamThweatt 20:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement, W.T.! I still want go a bit further, though. Yes, the citations support the negative words. But why are those negative words in there? (Sort of like the chicken and the egg, I guess -- which came first, the mean-spirited POV criticisms in the article, or the citations that support their being there?) Should the article on Poland include properly-cited Polish jokes? I don't think so. Should the article on Evolution include properly-cited fire-and-brimstone sermons from fundamentalist preachers or properly-cited anti-evolutionary arguments by creation scientists? Nope. Should the article on Ann Coulter include properly-cited insults from Al Franken and others? You be the judge, but I say no.

Somehow we should find a way to say that her remarks are found by her critics to be offensive, or not properly sourced, or whatever, without using the emotion-laden words of those critics. If the critics are notable, they've got their own articles in which their words can appear. Lou Sander 21:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Lou Sander. Your examples are very thought provoking. 84.146.210.202 06:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jam Bands Greateful Dead Article

Great find! It seems authentic, but is there any way to authenticate this is not just a clever blogger? I am sure this will be widely reported even if it is not a real interview (thats the internet for you). The Ken Starr part seems over the top..... It certainly gives detractors something to think about. I love her comment (in the article cited) that deadheads act like true liberals - not like hypocrites. 84.146.210.202

Coulter's own website has linked to this interview and vouches for its authenticity. 136.215.251.179

Christian in lead...

I removed "Christian" from the intro. While it may play an important part in her writing, it really didn't fit there. It said (in effect) "Coulter is a conservative Christian pundit." This makes it seem as if she comments on religion primarily. Since she is a pundit on left-right issues, "conservative pundit" makes the most sense to me. She is a conservative. That's the important point. Who knows if she is a "conservative Christian". I see quite a difference. I don't have a problem if you want to work her being a Christian into the lead, just not there. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord V, I made the change.84.146.210.202

Much better. Thanks. Perhaps you should get an account. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain, but I think he already has one. Kasreyn 19:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody put "outspoken Christian" into the first paragraph. I don't think this is a proper characterization. Her Chrisitanity is a minor theme and is mentioned further down in the article. (So are some doubts about church attendance, etc.) She's no more an "outspoken Christian" than she is an "outspoken thin person."

I agree with Lord V that 84.146.210.202 ought to think about registering and getting an account. So many anonymous editors have very little to contribute, are vandals, etc., and sometimes all those numbers look the same to me. ;-) Lou Sander 13:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree entire with LV's edit and point. Lawyer2b 15:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time following this. The current lead says that she is an "outspoken Christian." Do people agree with this? She is outspoken, and she says she is a Christian (though many doubt it, citing poor church attendance, etc.), but I don't see that she is an "outspoken Christian," in the sense of calling others to be saved, thumping the New Testament, etc. Lou Sander 16:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

She often refers to Christianity and biblical values in a very positive vein in her columns. And of course we have her new book Godless, which overtly advocates Christian values and morals. We have the Time interview during which she actually brings the reporter conducting the interview to church. We have her clearly declaring her strong Christian faith at a speech she gave at a public university (When a young, conservative woman asked how Coulter could stand the awful things people said about her because of her stand on abortion, she hesitated, messed with her hair, and said: "Well, it's the same way I don't care about anything else: Christ died for my sins and nothing else matters."). And we have her own statement that Christianity fuels everything she writes. These are all examples of her speaking out as a public figure about her Christian faith. 84.146.245.199 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I stipulate that what you say is correct. I don't think that makes her in any way an "outspoken Christian," and I think it is a huge stretch to claim that it does. Much of what she says is outspoken, so there are numerous examples of her specific brand of outspokenness. Before agreeing that she's an outspoken Christian, I'd like to see some of her outspokeness as a Christian that is comparable to her outspokenness as, for example, a critic of the Jersey Girls. Further, I'd like to see something showing that her Christian outspokenness has been sustained over time, as has been her outspokenness about liberals, for example, or Bill Clinton. (And do his regular church attendance and very large Bible make HIM an "outspoken Christian?" I don't think so. Lou Sander 18:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind... I see now that Lou is arguing not against calling Coulter a Christian but an "outspoken" one. It doesn't seem very important to me, but I do feel that this is a stretch which smacks of POV. Why do we need the extra verbiage? Kasreyn 19:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

She has been pretty consistent for at least a few years. She often, though not always, explains and defends Christian culture, beliefs or ideals in her writing and speeches. And she does so in a way that makes it clear that she ascribes to them. Not sure where your reluctance is coming from. Coulter has been consistent. I will agree she should not be labeled a "Christian writer" or "Christian columnist", as her writing often leaves out Christian arguments and rests on secular arguments. But she is unabashed, overt, and outspoken about her faith. Unlike Coulter, Bill Clinton, to whom you compared her, always made tangential or oblique references to biblical beliefs but was very careful to never really explain in any detail his beliefs so we have no idea what he thinks about Jesus or what he believes about Jesus, yet he loved photo-ops with his bible or at a church. We have no reason to think that Coulter does similar photo ops, carries a bible for show, or refuses to explain her Christian beliefs in detail. No similarities. She can be criticized for seeming harsh and mean-spirited (and thus in the eyes of many not very Christian), but that is a totally different argument. 84.146.245.199 19:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

84.etc has made her an "unabashed Christian," which is a big improvement over "outspoken." I still, however, don't see Christianity as a big part of who she is. Except for commenting on Godless, or when asked about her religion, she hardly ever mentions it. Yeah, she's pretty open about it, and she claims that it underlies all her work, but IMHO it's a little much to put it in the introductory paragraph of an article that discusses it elsewhere. But if somebody wants it in there, who am I to rain on their parade? (Also, IMHO, she's much more a "bashed" Christian than an "unabashed" one. Tee hee hee.) Lou Sander 19:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

One thought. It might be a good idea to clarify Coulter's involvement in the Presbyterian Church. She is a member of the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America, not the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA).

Arizona Star, the smaller statewide paper in AZ

Kasreyn, Lord V and Lou Sander, I would like your input here. (Previuous discussion here). The article discusses Coulter's media career and mentions syndication of her weekly newspaper column. In 2005 one paper, the Daily Star (#73 in the nation - Sunday circulation of about 170,000, mid size paper at best) got a new editor and that editor re-organized the editorial page. He mentioned reader complaints as his reason for dropping Coulter, and added a line in his opinion piece (that may or not be sarcasm) that he is simply doing what conservatives have requested (rather disingenuous claim, at best). In any event, even assuming this editor was honest: so what? Does it belong in an encyclopedia aritcle about Coulter? Why? One paper, last year, reorganized its editorial page and dropped Coulter. Guess what? At about the same time last year, the Stars and Stripes (daily circulation about 140,000) the paper for military service members deployed around the world, re-organized its editorial pages and added Coulter and places it opposite Arianna Huffington's column. Should that be in the article too? This fact can be sourced. The industry's own paper (Editor & Publisher) has noted that Coulter has good circualtion that has not been negatively affected by the media buzz - often negative - about Coulter (most recently about her new book). First, how is the AZ Star matter even worth a mention in this encyclopedia article, let alone a quote from the silly editorial that announces Coulter's column being axed last year? Second, if worth a passing mention, it seems that it should NOT take prominence over the fact that her syndication is high and stable (not in jeopardy or dwindling) and conservatives are not abandoning her (5 NYT best-sellers, and Godless debuting at #1). I will be adding the Stars and Stripes information post haste in the meantime as long as the editors here think the editorial actions of mid size papers are worthy of mention in this article. 84.146.210.202

Well, if I recall correctly, this piece was originally in there to show a mention of her style of writing (that's why the "shrill" quotes were in there to begin with), not the fact that someone dropped her column. Since it got moved to a different section, in my opinion, it has become non-notable. I don't think it is terrible in the article, as it does give some insight into her style, and readers' reaction to her, but the simple fact that the paper dropped her is a bit non-notable. This is my opinion. Anyone else? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also note that the current article does appropriately contain information that even some conservatives do not appreciate her style (the review of one of her books by the Washington Times is quoted: Although she is in constant demand on the US lecture circuit, [18] and has had a string of best-selling books, her style is not universally admired even among those who share her political philosophy. Arnold Beichman reviewed her book Treason in the Washington Times, which is known for its conservative editorial stance [19][20], and wrote that he'd "tried to read Miss Coulter's book and failed. Life is too short to read pages and pages of rant."[9]). 84.146.210.202

Thanks for soliciting input. Here it is:

Newspapers drop columnists all the time; it's a part of doing business. When objectionable content is stated as the reason, dropping a column, comic strip, etc. sometimes becomes a minor current event that gets a bit of press. IMHO that's what happened with the Arizona paper. The minor current event is still minor but no longer current. It did NOT mark or portend a watershed, or notably affect Ann Coulter's career, or anything notable like that. Nowdays, its main notability is as ammunition for Coulter's critics.

I think most encyclopedias would handle these matters by using words like those in bold below:

Coulter's outspokenness generates controversy, and in fact that is one of her purposes. (If it isn't a purpose, she at least revels in it, or encourages it, or whatever. Whatever is the case, state it in appropriate words and include a reference to support it. Since the article is about Ann Coulter, it might even be appropriate to quote her own words rather than putting them a reference. Don't forget references to support the fact that she's controversial. Also don't quote, in an article about Ann Coulter, any strong words from people she pisses off.)

This has caused her to lose some supporters in the media, but overall her support remains strong among those who publish and broadcast her work. (Show references to NRO Online and the Arizona newspaper. Try hard not to quote them directly, since this is an article about Ann Coulter, not about the people she offends. Coulter opponents will challenge you to find references to support "her support remains strong." Bestselling books speak for themselves, but try hard to find a reference.)

It's interesting to me, and maybe a weakness in Wikipedia, that it's hugely easy to find and cite a reference documenting that somebody dropped Ann Coulter's column once, but hard to find and cite explicit references to her huge importance as a contemporary commentator and cultural icon. Some things are so obvious that they don't lend themselves to references. Lou Sander 15:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is some more input. Two months after dropping the Coulter column and using strong words to justify his action, the newly-hired David Stoeffler stepped down from his position as editor and publisher, citing unspecified "health and personal issues." IMHO this is further justification for removing his words from an article about Ann Coulter. But I see that a few people keep wanting to put them back in. Lou Sander 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything that has been said here (and am very pleased to see this calm, collegial discussion about such a contentious and polarizing article!). Further, those "few people who keep wanting to put them back in" need to learn to participate in the collegial consensus-building process in Wikipedia (i.e. participate here on the Talk page about this topic). --ElKevbo 19:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would probably qualify as one of the people who keep wanting to put the quote back in... I don't know where Lou got the "few" from, since there seem to be two or three who put it in, two or three who remove it, and a whole lot of editors who don't seem to care one way or the other about the quote! But as you'll see, I've discussed this quote a good deal with 84.etc. here. I agree with one point LV has made: it was originally cited as an example of conservatives who disagreed with Coulter (ie., conservatives writing in to call Coulter shrill, mean-spirited, and bombastic). It was later moved to a section on circulation of her columns, where it is less notable. I feel the solution isn't to delete it, but to move it back where it originally was. Kasreyn 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Kas, I'm not entirely convinced that people who call themselves conservatives and ask an editor to get rid of Ann Coulter are REALLY conservatives (maybe they are saying that just to seem more credible). Neither am I entirely convinced that the new editor who dropped Ann and left two months later was being truthful when he asserted that the comments came from people who called themselves conservatives. To me, both those things lack the ring of truth.

On the other hand, the quote from the Washington Times guy who couldn't stand Ann's ranting IS from a conservative source, and it illustrates the point that the editor is making (that Ann's style isn't universally admired, even by those who might admire her ideas). The quote from Arizona "conservatives" is second-hand, and questionable. And the guy who made it left the paper shortly thereafter, after a very short tenure. Not the stuff of encyclopedias, IMHO.

And BTW, I still think that nasty words from Ann belong in her article, but that nasty words from critics who were not directly attacked by some specific nasty words do NOT belong in her article. We are here to tell about Ann, not about the frustrations, displeasure, offended feelings, etc. of those who disagree with her. Citing them, encyclopedic; quoting them, not. IMHO, of course. Lou Sander 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Also to Kas: To me, two or three IS a few. No offense intended. Lou Sander 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets be clear Kasreyn: it has NOT been deleted. The information about the AZ Star remains in the article and no one has been deleting. The issue has been whether the fact is worthy of a quotation from the editor, etc. - and only very recently has become whether it belongs in the articel at all. 84.146.245.199 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As I noted in the previous conversation, the rewrite states that 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. In the previous discussion I provided links to show that when this happened, it WAS noted in various other sources as it is a conservative paper that dropped a conservative commentator for being too bombastic. How is that not relevant? IrishGuy ^talk 21:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some reasons why I think the Arizona quote doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about Ann Coulter:

• Refer to the incident if you must, but please don't quote negative, emotional language from a critic. (Ann's negative, emotional language is fine to include. That from her critics isn't, unless there's a specific good reason such as a slandered person responding to one of Ann's slanders. We don't put Polish jokes in the article on Poland, or bombastic creationist sermons in the article on Evolution. The same principle should apply here.)

• The incident was a minorly newsworthy current event in August, 2005, but it is no longer current. All it was was one newspaper dropping Coulter's column. It wasn't the first of a stream of newspapers to cancel her, it wasn't a major event in her career, etc. It was an isolated event, or "the exception that proves the rule." All that made it newsworthy was that a newspaper column was cancelled because of its content, and a guy used strong language in talking about it.

• Mr. Stoeffler, a new editor/publisher when he pulled the column and wrote those nasty words, resigned his position two months later, citing "unspecified health and personal issues." The guy is a minor figure who is yesterday's news (as is his action in pulling the column). There's also the chance, of course, that his unspecified issues were job-related, possibly related to his pulling the column and using hard language to justify it. Maybe his readers found him to be shrill, bombastic, and mean-spirited. But then again, maybe he just resigned an important position because he had health and personal issues. Either way, he's no William Randolph Hearst, and his fifteen minutes of fame are over. We shouldn't really be perpetuating them.

Thanks for listening. Lou Sander 00:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the quote is irrelevant. Nor do I see how the employment history of the person making it should in any way factor in about whether or not the quote is notable. Personally, I don't think that pontificating on the possible reasons for someone voluntarily leaving a job is very appropriate. But that is beside the point. If a consensus can be reached about removing the quote, then so be it. But I strongly disagree with the rewording which dismisses the paper entirely. IrishGuy ^talk 02:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I guess you need some 'zonies in here, for context, if nothing else. First of all, the Star is the more liberal counterpart to the Tucson Citizen, and both of those are papers in the most liberal county (Pima) in Arizona... it's (Tucson) the blue counterweight to red northern AZ. With that being said, keep in mind that existing conservatisim in Arizona is McCain-style conservatism, rather than Bush/Rove-style conservatism. So, I have no doubt that southern Arizona conservatives didn't like her column, as it's just not politically in line with their social leanings... They're typically pro gun, pro immigration(!), pro choice(!), small government, big military, big social security(!), big medicare/medicaid(!) (lots of retirees), pro politeness(!), and they favor long, slow, gentle and ponderous political discussions, over heated arguments and firey tempers (it's a heat thing, quite literally, at 110 degrees farenheit, people who actively argue that vehemently are considered borderline). Coulter's aggressive, polemic, style of conservatism and desired policy simply doesn't mesh with their traditional values, or blend of conservatism. So, the paper's change actually *does* indicate that Coulter's style fails to resonate across the whole of the conservative spectrum... whether that's important or not? I dunno. It is an interesting piece of data. Ronabop 03:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone be agreeable to:

On August 28, 2005, Coulter's syndicated column was dropped by the Tucson newspaper Arizona Daily Star, citing reader concerns about Coulter's shrillness and bombast. 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. [18]

It mentions the notable column-dropping incident, briefly gives the reasons for it, links to Wikipedia info about the notable newspaper, references the full text and POV ("mean-spirited") of the comments of the marginally notable former editor/publisher, and states the notable fact that nobody else has dropped her. Lou Sander 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I don't know why the first link in the above proposed paragraph doesn't work, but the second one does. My intention is to keep both links exactly as they are in the current version of the article. Lou Sander 03:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusive version of syndication paragraph

This is fine - except it puts the far less significant information first. The article should first note that her column has not suffered (due to the loudest media controversy about her to date), followed by the rather inconsequential loss of Arizon'as more liberal statewide paper. I will be adding that the Stars & Stripes added Coulter's column in 2005, however. It is just as newsworthy becuase that is the paper for soldeirs who are actually fighting in the Iraq war about which Coulter writes so passionately about.

Here is a version that covers all topics without giving undue emphasis to any of them. It notes the most objectively important info first (no lost subscribers due to the recent rash of press coverage) and then goes on to mention that one smaller paper dropped the column, and the paper serving soldiers in Iraq added the colunm (demonstrating that there is/has been no trend of her column being dropped):

• None of the more than 100 newspapers that carry her syndicated weekly column have dropped it due to the swirl of media coverage that has accompanied the June 2006 release of her latest and most controversial book, Godless, and she enjoys the continued support of Universal Press Syndicate. [19] Even as one Arizona paper in 2005 dropped Coulter's syndicated column citing reader complaints, the Stars & Stripes (the newspaper serving US troops in Iraq) decided to add Coulter's column to it's weekly editorial pages. [20]

136.215.251.179 07:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but I keep thinking that the Arizona incident, though smaller than a gnat in the big picture, was notable enough to some/a few conscientious editors that they gave it additional prominence. The mere adding or dropping a column isn't more than a tiny bit notable, unless there are special circumstances. Stars & Stripes would seem to fit the "no special circumstances" category. Nevertheless, your version puts the important stuff in the lead, followed by two less-important sub-facts. The other version puts it chronologically. I'm happy with either.

Maybe the whole paragraph should start with a summarizing sentence. Something like

Coulter's syndicated weekly column, however, has enjoyed continuing support by those who carry it. None of the more than 100 newspapers that run the column dropped it during the swirl of controversy that accompanied the release of Godless, and Universal Press Syndicate has had no discussions about dropping the column. [13] Even as one Arizona paper in 2005 discontinued the column citing reader complaints,[7] that same year the Stars & Stripes - the newspaper serving US troops in Iraq - decided to add it column to its weekly editorial pages. [14]

Then we'd have two paragraphs about folks dropping her, followed by one showing that dropping her isn't a widespread thing, and reporting a drop and an add. Evenhanded coverage that says it all, IMHO. Lou Sander 13:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian? Civil rights advocate???

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)

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)

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)

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)

Godless reads as a defense of Chrisitan beliefs and morals. It is an unabashed and outspoken polemic designed to highlight what Coulter considers to be the animosity of liberalist theology toward her own Christian beliefs - beliefs shared by many others. The fact that she is a public Christian and that her Chrisitan beliefs are key to her writing and that her writings are infused with her Christian beliefs is not debatable. Though i won't argue that it too is not debatable, I am not sure why including the adjective "Christian" in the lead paragraph is being debated. All Christians are open to criticism for not praticing their faith to the degree that others think they should. I wonder if non-pracicing Jews are described as Jewish in their wikipedia biographies? I will check. 136.215.251.179 08:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I see the point. However the fact does seem worthy of prominent mention in this article (as Coulter does not wear a mitre, has never led any Christian liturgical rites broadcast live throughout the world, and is not universally known as "Her Holiness" - tee hee). Any sugestions? 136.215.251.179 09:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I took it out of the lead and inserted in the first paragraph under Biography. 136.215.251.179

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)

I like to do this anonymously. People have been malicious to me here in the past. T136.215.251.179 15:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

An account would also allow you to edit while the article is sprotected, which it currently is. Kasreyn 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil Rights Advocate Verification

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)

Red Links Fixed

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)

new anon's personal view is that Coulter is not a civil rights advocate

This is a stretch. Why not just mention that she supports an orginisation that supports a limited degree of civil rights for certain individuals: the oppressed whites. It's already mentioned in the second paragraph anyone. Why not leave it at that?

"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly I've never been a fan of the 1st Ammendment." -Ann Coulter (constitutional law attorney) at a republican fundraiser

some civil rights fighter that Ann Coulter.--66.234.203.32 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Her most recent job as a practicing attorney was as a CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATOR. And she currently is an ardent advocate in all of her books and speaking engagements for race-blind policies, civil rights for oppressed Chrisitans, and others. Even the State Department acknowledges CIR is a civil rights firm. Not your brand of civil rights? That's nice. Thanks for letting us know. But it is severe POV to act as arbiter to disallow conservative civil rights advocates to be described appropriately because it makes you itch. 84.146.231.122

To 84 - Did you leave off an initial letter in the last word of the above?

Why did you edit the opening to this topic? Look up the defintion. And don't edit my posts on the talk page. --66.234.203.32 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try to follow the rules and to be civil. Thank you. 84.146.231.122

To curb any future debate, I replaced "civil rights advocate" with the verbatim description directly from the source provided: "litigator for the Center for Individual Rights", where people can then click on Center for Individual Rights to see more about where she worked previously. --kizzle 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to curb debate. It is a sourced fact that Coulter is a civil rights advocate. There has been no discussion or argument made as to why a conservative civil rights advocate cannot be described as such. POV assertions that her brand of civil rights is stupid or misguided or Hitlerian won't suffice as a basis to remove it. If it makes you mad, so sorry. Facts are facts. But don't get too latehred up: no one who reads the article will walk away with the idea that Coulter is Jesse Jackson! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for people who want to emote about Coulter's deficiencies or attributes as a human being. 84.146.231.122 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Way up above on this page, there's a Civil Rights Activist? section. It was started when Ann was described as that. After much discussion, "civil rights advocate" was used instead, and all in the room were happy. But new people of various degrees of thoughtfulness keep deleting "civil rights advocate," and others keep adding it back in. Given the (possibly uninformed) opinions of many that she is NOT a civil rights activist, and the fact that advocating civil rights is a factor in her life, but not a currently prominent (notable?) one, I think we should remove that reference from the introductory paragraph. Mention it elsewhere if you want, but not in the intro. After all, the intro describes her with four other major attributes, each of which is more prominent than her civil rights work.

(IMO, Ann's civil rights work is sort of like Bill Clinton's saxophone playing or Jimmy Carter's Habitat for Humanity work, or Monica Lewinsky's handbag business -- definitely notable, but definitely not something for the lead paragraph.) Lou Sander 20:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lou, can you comment below on the current section on the matter? --kizzle 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Writing and Speaking Style

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)

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)

"civil rights advocate" vs "former litigator for the non-profit public interest law firm Center for Individual Rights"

To curb any future debate, I replaced "civil rights advocate" with the verbatim description directly from the source provided: "litigator for the Center for Individual Rights", where people can then click on Center for Individual Rights to see more about where she worked previously. --kizzle 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Her most recent job as a practicing attorney was as a CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATOR. And she currently is an ardent advocate in all of her books and speaking engagements for race-blind policies, civil rights for oppressed Chrisitans, and others. Even the State Department acknowledges CIR is a civil rights firm. Not your brand of civil rights? That's nice. Thanks for letting us know. But it is severe POV to act as arbiter to disallow conservative civil rights advocates to be described appropriately because it makes you itch. 84.146.231.122

No need to curb debate. It is a sourced fact that Coulter is a civil rights advocate. There has been no discussion or argument made as to why a conservative civil rights advocate cannot be described as such. POV assertions that her brand of civil rights is stupid or misguided or Hitlerian won't suffice as a basis to remove it. If it makes you mad, so sorry. Facts are facts. But don't get too latehred up: no one who reads the article will walk away with the idea that Coulter is Jesse Jackson! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for people who want to emote about Coulter's deficiencies or attributes as a human being. 84.146.231.122 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What you have as a sourced fact is that Coulter was a litigator for the Center for Individual Rights. Describing her as a "civil rights advocate" is slightly different, especially considering she's advocated that women should not vote. Alternatively, we can quote the mission statement opening paragraph by saying "former litigator for the nonprofit public interest law firm Center for Individual Rights". Saying that anyone who ever worked at a nonprofit public interest law firm is a civil rights advocate for life is ridiculous. --kizzle 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not actually read the link: "From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion." 84.146.231.122

I did read the link, as you can obviously see I quoted it when I said "litigator with the Center For Individual Rights". --kizzle 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All parties should be aware of and adhere to the Three Revert Rule. Gamaliel 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com (don't you just hate papers, etc. that start like this), "advocate" means One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender. Based on this I guess I would have to say "advocate" describes Coulter. In her writings and appearances, she defends and supports individuals' right to own guns, free speech, freedom to practice religion (perhaps minus the "convert them" quote ;-)), etc. No, she may not fit the typical "civil rights advocate" role, but I think the terms fit her fairly well. And this doesn't take into account that she used to be a civil rights attorney. Thoughts? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that "advocate" is completely wrong, LV, just why use "advocate" when we can use "litigator" which is much closer in conceptual proximity? Also, is it really a matter of my POV-pushing if instead of calling Coulter a "civil rights advocate" that I quote the mission statement to describe the Center for Individual Rights, provide a wiki-link so people know exactly what kind of organization it is, then source it? --kizzle 20:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right, it is not really your POV. I'm not sure where the anon really got that. To me it seems there are just multiple things to label it. What about "civil rights advocate and former litigator with the Center For Individual Rights."? Then everyone is happy, no? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well put it this way. I admittedly don't like Ann. Whether she is a true civil rights advocate I can make a case against considering her massive amount of quotations on women and Islam. However, there is nothing I can say that can dispute that she was a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights, and by quoting their own description of themselves from their mission statement, according to Wikipedia standards I can't really argue with their characterization as well. "Litigator" just seems way more neutral than "civil rights advocate" which is a peacock term IMHO (though we're still describing the firm as a "non-profit public interest law firm" quoting verbatim from their mission statement). "Litigator" can't be argued with, and was quoted directly. --kizzle 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the question then becomes, did she argue in favor of civil rights in her role as a "litigator" ever. If so then I think semantics aside it should just be listed as civil rights advocate, if it cannot be confirmed, then perhaps leave it as litigator for that group. I figure this is a fair middle ground since she is either a civil rights advocate or not. Also something important to note is that the term is such a blanket term that one does not have to be for everyones civil rights or, even all of their civil rights to be advocating for civil rights in general. While most civil rights movement people would fall into a category of fighting for racial equality, they may not expand that to other areas such as guns or freedom of press etc. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Civil rights advocate" is a peacock term. And just because I played foozball once in my life does not make me a foozball player, nor if I were notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia have it included in my intro paragraph. --kizzle 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont even see why its changed from civil rights advocate in the first place. It seems the original arguments basis is a quote that was obviously not 100% serious. It also seems to be an issue which civil rights or who's civil rights she fights for. Either way in the end she is fighting for someones. Then again if we use such a general litmus test, it kind of opens the flood gate. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a Google search of Ann Coulter "civil rights advocate" does not return any pages (at least in the top 20) referring to Ann Coulter as a "civil rights advocate", and that includes conservativeunderground.com and newsmax.com. A Google search for Ann Coulter litigator however turns up relevant results regarding her tenure with the Center for Individual Rights immediately. --kizzle 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, if you look at this discussion of civil rights terminology to get a better understanding of what civil rights actually encompasses, there is no doubt that almost every piece that Coulter writes involves her explicit or implicit advocacy for civil rights. Its not just about race. Coulter worked for a civil rights firm doing civil rights work. She now writes about civil rights every week and in her best selling books. When she is on TV she advocates civil rights. Apparently some people think only liberals are worthy of the label. But doing so is blatant POV. 84.146.253.82 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Every piece?? True, I think Coulter's "It would be a much better country if women did not vote" is right up there with Martin Luther King Jr's "I have a Dream" --kizzle 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

DaEnforcer, would you care to state why you came out of a 15-day editing lapse to blindly revert a topic which you have never participated in without a message on this talk page, conveniently right after 84 got blocked? --kizzle 22:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say considering her writing I think civil rights advocate is appropriate. Perhaps you can find a million quotes that are what some people see as inappropriate, but as I stated, civil rights advocates dont have to advocate all civil rights. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As a tangential discussion, would you care to provide a few examples of the "oppressed" groups she is referring to? --kizzle 01:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Coulter was involved at all in this specific case, but here is one of the cases CIR has litigated, from their website: [21] Of course, I don't know CIR well enough to know how honestly they report their own doings, but assuming that their story is true then I would definitely consider that a case of standing up for someone who was being oppressed. I'm not sure about "groups", though. CIR seems to take cases on an individual basis. Kasreyn 02:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, from what I can see, it doesn't appear as if Coulter has ever been cited as counsel in any case, civil rights-based or otherwise. But I don't know if this means anything. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to Zer0fault's assertion that he believed "considering her writing" that the term "civil rights advocate is appropriate," not whether she represented an oppressed group in court. What "oppressed" groups does she stand up for in her books or columns? --kizzle 02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may be that she doesn't stand up for "oppressed" groups. That's not what civil rights is about. She stands up for protecting people's rights to own guns, to freely express their religion, to have freedom of speech. But, I don't really give a poo. That's how I roll. What? So late... going to bed. Night all. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, I wouldn't be caught dead with one of her books in my hand. I've read a few of her columns and she rarely seems to be defending anything - she mostly seems to go on the attack. Kasreyn 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been a LOT of discussion of Coulter's civil rights activities. I'm thinking they aren't important enough to consume all this bandwidth and editorial energy. The following is reprinted from "new anon's personal view..." a few topics above:

Way up above on this page, there's a Civil Rights Activist? section. It was started when Ann was described as that. After much discussion, "civil rights advocate" was used instead, and all in the room were happy. But new people of various degrees of thoughtfulness keep deleting "civil rights advocate," and others keep adding it back in. Given the (possibly uninformed) opinions of many that she is NOT a civil rights activist, and the fact that advocating civil rights is a factor in her life, but not a currently prominent (notable?) one, I think we should remove that reference from the introductory paragraph. Mention it elsewhere if you want, but not in the intro. After all, the intro describes her with four other major attributes, each of which is more prominent than her civil rights work.

(IMO, Ann Coulter's civil rights work is sort of like Bill Clinton's saxophone playing or Jimmy Carter's Habitat for Humanity work, or Monica Lewinsky's handbag business -- definitely notable and verifiable parts of their lives, but definitely not something for the lead paragraph.) Lou Sander 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, Lou, that sounds like one of the best things anyone has said on this topic today. I think a lot of the deleting of the phrase is due to its appearance in the intro. Besides, that first sentence was approaching critical mass. Kasreyn 03:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Example of Coulter's civil rights advocacy

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)

Why are you thinking "either/or" when this is an example of "both/and"? BOTH her work as a civil rights advocate for CIR and elsewhere, AND her work as a writer demonstrate that she is consistently and very emphatically and loudly advocating to advance civil rights - even for people of color! Your conclusion above is not logical - there has been no abandonment - as the title makes clear, the above is a list of links to civil rights advocacy examples taken from her writing. Besides which you have ignored the fact her writing is often framed to advance civil rights. 136.215.251.179

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)

Straw Poll

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)

Those who believe that Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro

1. 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)
2. I don't like this poll at all. What you're making everyone choose are either of two choices when there could very well be other wordings that might be better. Fully stating "former civil rights litigator blah blah blah" is only giving a biography blip from her resume, it's not describing HER, which is what the intro does. However, if civil rights advocate is too much for everyone to consent on, why can't it just be "former civil rights litigator"? or something MUCH shorter than what is suggested below. That's ridiculously long for what is supposed to be a small description. But in any case, this whole poll is pointless in my opinion because it's too limiting. I don't agree with EITHER choice, but I'm more apt to agree with civil rights advocate than not solely b/c it's shorter. Or why not make something short in the intro, and then expound on it in a paragraph or two on her history as a civil rights lawyer? Idk, that's just my opinion. Stanselmdoc 15:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
3. She may not be a "civil rights" activist in the traditional liberal sense, but I don't see why they should have a monopoly on civil rights. It is troubling to see liberals co-opt meaning of "civil rights" to mean only for progressive causes. MSTCrow 10:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
4. This should be reworded. There is no way in hell that Ann Coulter can be considered a civil rights advocate or activist. Her quotes about African-Americans, homosexuals, Women, and Muslims prove that she is anything but an advocate of civil rights--Wakefencer 10:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who believe that Coulter should not be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro

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[22] [23]"

1. --kizzle 07:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
2. --MONGO 07:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC) No, I don't see any evidence that she is involved as a civil rights advocate in the traditional sense. Clarifying that I don't think she should be called a civil rights advocate anywhere, and I also don't want the former litigator with the 'nonprofit public interest law firm cruft there either.--MONGO 09:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   You might want to erase this message and place your vote below where it says that neither "civil rights advocate" nor "former litigator..." will be used then? --kizzle 09:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

3. --Haizum 07:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC) I agree with this clarification. "Civil rights advocate" is highly vague and potentially misleading, while the proposed change is accurate and still gives credit where credit is due. I particularly like the naming of the specific NPO so context can be readily had.
4. Civil rights, or the rights individuals have as members of a (racial, ethnic, gender, etc.) group, stand in contrast to individual rights, also known as civil liberties. Since the group she worked for emphasized individual rights, she should not be classified as a civil rights advocate or activist. My 2 cents.--Rockero 07:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   You must be unaware that CIR's most notable case was the civil rights case they won at the US Supreme Court against U of Michigan that curtainled race-based admissions policies. The civil rights of blacks and whites and all others to not be singled out due to their color or race was advanced by this civil rights firm. They have won similar cases in federal court, as well. Not everyone's brand of civil rights advocacy, but civil rights advocacy nonetheless. 136.215.251.179

   Exactly, not everyone's brand of civil rights. When we have a clear definition of what the CIR is from their own website I think it makes more sense to use that than simply "civil rights." The NRA could be considered a civil rights org for example, that is, if you are a member like myself =). Haizum 08:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Why the scare quotes around the phrase "nonprofit public interest law firm?" --ElKevbo 12:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Yes. "Civil rights advocate" is a loaded term which should be avoided whenever possible. Rkevins82 15:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Karwynn No way. I don't even think She calls herself a civil rights advocate. I'm astounded by the need for this poll, this seems really obvious, but also by the ridiculous rationale used by some POV pushers to make it not go in there... I agree nonetheless though, she shouldn't be called one. Those people talking about calling her that based on her pro-life stance should call her a pro-life advocate or a right to life advocate or something more specific. However, if this proposed sentence is true and can be fit into the sentence well, then there is absolutely no reason why a fair and objective article would not include this... but without the scare quotes, kplzthx Karwynn 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
7. I don't see anyone claiming she's a "civil rights advocate" solely because of her pro-life stance. I made a pro-life argument below in response to the manner in which Kevin Baas argued his point. He chose one stance and generalized. There are many other stances Coulter has that could be considered a civil rights stance. But as it is, and after thinking about it more and reading other opinions, I'm thinking I'd prefer it to not be in the intro at all. It's too much of a loaded term for this article and I smell years of arguing. But her work in the CIR deserves a mention in the article. And it already is, so I guess I have no point hahahaha. Stanselmdoc 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• nothing, the intro is too bloated as it stands

1. (Doesn't belong in intro. There is plenty of room in article to discuss her "civil rights advocacy") --George100 07:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
2. --LotLE×talk 07:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC). Absolutely not, that's an insane mischaracterization of Coulter. Later: The wording of this poll is confusing, what I mean is that Coulter should not be described anywhere in the article as a "civil rights advocate". Neither should the Center for Individual Rights be mischaracterized as a "nonprofit public interest law firm"; at most as a "nonprofit law firm".

   Why not just call her bitch and get it over with in the first line?136.215.251.179

   Because that would be against Wikipedia guidelines, adding personal ad hominem attacks to her intro paragraph is probably not a good idea. --kizzle 08:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   Note that I wanted to restrict the vote on whether or not it will show up in the intro just to simplify things... the discussion about adding the term elsewhere in the article can be discussed once we figure out the intro, which currently is quite a problem. --kizzle 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Not in the intro, not in the article anywhere. A little pro-bono work means you're an American lawyer, not a civil rights advocate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
4. No, being in favor of certain civil rights does not make someone a 'civil rights advocate'. I doubt there is anyone who doesn't support some civil rights (their right to continue living for instance). A 'civil rights advocate' is someone who works to support (or at least does not oppose) all major recognized civil rights issues... and that just isn't Ann Coulter. --CBD 11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Definitely NOT in the intro, and probably not in the article, unless maybe in the Trivia section. Coulter's civil rights work is not notable, and is not one of her major activities -- it's mostly a job she held a long time ago. Mentioning it in the intro just generates a lot of not-very-productive discussion, a lot of it tinged with POV about "civil rights," what it means, whether Coulter is for or against it, etc. Lou Sander 13:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Ann Coulter is many things, but she sure as hell ain't a civil rights advocate. Doesn't she regularly bash on civil rights advocates? --Cyde↔Weys 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
7. For some reason, people don't realize that this is the section for people who merely don't think it should be in the intro. Take Coulter-bashing to the following section, not this one. With that out of the way: I don't dispute that CIR is technically involved in civil rights litigation. But I don't see particularly good sourcing that shows Coulter actually litigated cases for them. It may well be true, but it doesn't seem to have been a major part of her life or her career, and so it's not worth mentioning in an already bloated opening sentence. Her work for CIR should be mentioned in the article body only. Kasreyn 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   Your analysis is perfect, Kasreyn. Lou Sander 20:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

8. What MONGO says. NOT a "civil rights advocate", and whatever she did with her law degree has little to do with why she's famous, so no, nothing like it belongs in the intro. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• In any case, NOT a civil rights advocate.

1. Popular suffrage is the most basic civil right. She has stated that she believes women shouldn't have the right to vote. That ain't civil rights advocacy. She'd be more accurately characterized as a civil rights opponent. Kevin Baas^talk 13:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   Technically speaking - LIFE is the most basic civil right. Not popular suffrage. You can't vote if you ain't alive! And Coulter does support pro-life issues. So in that case, she could be considered a civil rights advocate. You can't nitpick or generalize per subject with ANY person's biography. You have to go with the generality of what someone stands for. Coulter stands for a lot of civil rights that she believes liberals are trying to take away, so yes, I would call her a civil rights advocate. THOUGH, I still haven't chosen an opinion if that's how it should be worded in the article. Stanselmdoc 14:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   A)Saying suffrage is the most basic civil right is way POV, not something to base a statement in an article off of B)THe quote on WIkipedia says that she thinks women SHOULDN'T vote, not shouldn't be ALLOWED to vote. Like a pro-life Democrat, saying women shouldn't have abortions, but don't want to illegalize it. Karwynn 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   This is what I feared, the popular misunderstanding that civil rights only apply to right of women and blacks. If Martin Luther King Jr. said he was opposed to freedom of the press. Would you remove him from being a civil rights advocate? You can be a computer programmer, without being able to program in every computer language. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   Computer programming analogy: bad analogy, I would argue even a false analogy. If you can program in one language, you can from there pick up other computer programming languages easily, because programming is the concepts more than the language. Perhaps that's where the analogy intersects: in the conceptual aspect of civil rights. Iw ould call soemeone who clearly understands the concept of civil rights and advocates for them a civil rights advocate. If Martin Luther King Jr. said he was opposed to freedom of the press, I would take that as clear evidence that he doesn't understand the concept of civil rights, and I would therefore remove him from being a civil rights advocate. Though I consider your example highly unlikely. Kevin Baas^talk 14:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   • Who added this option? I don't think it's helpful, since many have already chosen one or the other options above. Lou Sander 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   That was me. I couldn't decide between the above two, so I made it so I didn't have to. In that respect it helped me, and it appears to have helped you, but I can't predict how helpful it is otherwise. Kevin Baas^talk 14:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   The more I look at this, the more I think that Coulter's civil rights stuff should NOT be in the intro. It agitates people and faces them with hard decisions. No consensus, no mention. Lou Sander 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Nobody whos spreads propaganda for war should be called a civil rights advocate. Raphael1 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   If you take into the context that many people just do not like her in general, then its pretty clear why they would not want her to be seen as something positive such as a civil rights advocate. The lose arguement being submitted is that since she did not fight for every civil right, she is not an advocate of civil rights. I guess that also means that groups that fight for Lesbian Rights are not civil rights groups because they also do not advocate freedom of gun ownership. Or anyone who speaks out against injustices against african americans but also for gun control is also not a civil rights advocate. For someone to say that it makes more sense to search middle eastern decent people instead of everyone at the airport is not advocating for violating their civil rights, its stating do not violate everyones civil rights because you only really want to violate this group in particular. Martin Luther King supported African Americans receiving some sort of compensation or head start to make up for the years of slavery and Jim Crow, would you then remove him from the list of civil rights advocates since he is asking for African Americans to get more then everyone else? The limitations being put on the Ann Coulter litmus test are more then anyone else it seems, simply because people do not like her. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   Bravo, Zero. I couldn't have said it better myself. There are many proposed "civil rights", and almost no one advocates for every single one. It would be an unfair litmus test to require that a person advocate every single right to be called a civil rights advocate. Kasreyn 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   You seem to have a very distorted view of reality. How can you say, that Martin Luther King was asking for black slaves to get more than White Americans? Do you as well consider the National Party (South Africa) civil rights advocates, because they protected the civil rights of White South Africans? Raphael1 20:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

3. I can't see how someone like Coulter can be called a civil rights advocate when she supports the racial profiling and "egregious discrimination" against Arabs and Muslims in airports.[24] She herself states that the U.S. should have to violate either the civil liberties of all or that of a certain group:

   While I agree with you that she shouldn't be called a civil rights advocate, the general idea of racial profiling is not to limit civil rights, but to increase the effectiveness of securty (regardless of whether or not you think it works, that's what the intention is). Karwynn 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   It's one or the other: Either we take the politically correct, scattershot approach and violate everyone's civil liberties, or we focus on the group threatening us and – in the worst-case scenario – run the risk of briefly violating the civil liberties of 1,000 people in a country of 300 million. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545018/posts]

   Perhaps we should mention in the intro that she "advocates violating civil liberties"? --Inahet 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   Sure, why not plague the article with more POV filth? Obviously not. Karwynn 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

4. If Ann Coulter is a civil rights advocate, then Tommy Lee is The Pope. Pacian 08:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Some changes?

Wow... I had lots of issues wth this article. Mainly NPOV and structurally. I made a lot of (in my opinion) indisputably helpful edits in things like grammar, clarity, antecedent recognition etc., but made even more possibly questionable edits, so please review, but don't just revert completely or you'll lose the grammar stuff that I did too. Also, please take care while reverting - this may seem unilateral, but a lot of the things I changed hadn't been discussed in the talk page, at least I icouldn't find them using Ctrl+F. Also, if you don't see a section or snippet that seems mportant, I probably didn't actually remove it (I removed little) - I probably just moved it. I'm trying to put things together in a more organized, logical format. Also, I eliminated several comments and pieces of quotes that seemed irrelevant. For example, in the "Ann Coulter on African Americans" section (which I deleted the heading for and moved because t harldy sums up her total views on African Americans, but regardless...), it included a couple sentences of her quote that had nothing to do with African Americans or slavery. And on the whole Paula Jones thing, it comments that almost all of Jones' settlement went to pay her attorney's, but if COulter was "unpaid", then that's irrelevant to the subject of the article. People can look up that case on its own article.

So, yeah. Please review, discuss specific changes, and don't just simply revert. Revert with care, because like I said before, some of the stuff was just moved, not actually deleted, but the diff link will look lke it was deleted. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I like most, if not all of your edits. I am a little dissapointed though that you removed the African-American section. I was just about to add another of her comments:

Here's the deal on politics and race in America: Republicans don't need black voters, but they want them. Democrats don't want black voters, but they need them. Blacks have been the Democrats' most loyal voters, typically giving the party upward of 90 percent of their vote. But Democrats ignore blacks. [25]

Oh well, maybe in another life. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I kept most of the material for the section, but I took the heading off and moved it into general controversies. I just didn't feel that such a specific comment was likely to represent COulter's entire philophy regarding Black Americans, but felt stupid titling the section "Views on Slavery Blame and Kente CLoths". I like that quote though; if you want to remake the heading and put that in there I'd be fine with it, although I'd probably search for more COulter quotes on race relations in order to give a more accurate representation of her general viewpoints. If you don't remake the heading, I still like that quote. It certainly seems much more representative of her general views on race relations than the kente cloth thing (which was probably a jokey analogy in the first place) Psycho Master (Karwynn) 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Gay Boy" comment?

Um... I considered taking this out altoghether. I didn't, but I'd like to, but I knew it would cause an uproar. What do you think? Everywhere on Google that I searched for this comment it's fishy. They all link back to the same source, so they aren't independent sources, it's just the one. Also, the quoted phrase has an incorrect comma between two independent clauses, which is something experience tells me it's a misquote. Seriously. I've seen this before, like this one column saying Bush called the Constitution "just a God-damn piece of paper" in his office, and then all the blogs that mentioned it linked to the same article. I really don't think she said this. There would be massive uproar. It would be on the news every time her name came up. No liberal talk show host would mention her without including this comment. If a comment this offensive were made, there would be more articles about it, not just blog after blog linking to the same article. I'm gonna delete it unless significant documentation can back it up. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never liked the "gay boy" comment. It sounds phony. It features hurtful words (shouldn't we avoid hurtful words, even if someone said them?). And please don't take offense, but young people doing serious work might not want to call themselves psycho-stuff. Lou Sander

Yet the name Lord Voldemort goes unchecked...

You bring a good point to light though, people who don't know who "Psycho Master" is would probably find it childish. I just changed my siggy today, maybe I'll change it back :-S I could tell you who Psycho Master is, if you're interested. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hell, I'll do it anyway. It's the title, not name, of a wizard official in Threads of Fate, titled for his extraordinary gifts with psychic magic. Other positions in the kingdom are Doll Master (a guy who can control magical dolls), Trap Master (a guy who specializes in sneaky tricky magic), and Mode Master (a shapeshifter). He's an official in a kingdom based on magical heirarchy. It's not as fruity as it sounds, I swear.

His real name? Karwynn, of course! Psycho Master (Karwynn) 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And don't be fooled by my name... I'm not as young as you may believe. My real name? You may be able to find it back in my history somewhere. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think you were young, just comparing. And in case my comment was ambguous, MY real name is not Karwynn, I meant the (fictional) Psycho Master's name. :-)

Anyway, I'm a-gonna go take the gay boy comment off now. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A Joseph Conrad fan who likes daffodils might choose to call himself The Nigger of the Narcissus, but maybe he could find something better. He could call himself James Wait, and people in the know might get what he was trying to say. Lou Sander 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like hurtful words, Lou, I find it hard to understand why you support Coulter. They're practically the only kind of words that ever come out of her mouth. It would be foolish to try to remove all hurtful words from the article. We'd wind up removing nearly every Coulter quote. :P Kasreyn 21:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to make fun of/ridicule Democrats, and another to do it to gays (people get arrested for it). And for POV pushers, it's GREAT to pin sexual slurs on your targets, especially when shielded by uncensorship. (POV neutralists would grit their teeth and not quote them, IMHO.) Now if we could only find Ann saying "niggard..." Lou Sander 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

She speaks truth to power. Bravely, eloquently and tellingly. She says outlandish things, but she seldom if ever uses racial or sexual slurs (which I understand are especially hurtful to the people slurred). And why is Wikipedia in the business of repeating racial and sexual slurs? The newspapers (and maybe even the encyclopedias) are full of incidents where racial and sexual slurs are involved. It's pretty rare to see someone quoting the actual slur. One reason for quoting them here might be to advance a POV. I can't think of any others, but surely there might be some. Maybe substitute "(expletive deleted)" for "gay-boy," or say that she used a sexual slur. Lou Sander 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Truth to power - no, she speaks insults, distortions, and half-truths. To be biblical she is a bearer of false witness, and a reviler (among other things, I'm sure) --George100 07:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sice my previous quote, I've bought Godless and read about a third of it. Insults, yes, to a degree. Distortions and half-truths, not at all. (Unless you're talking about endnotes vs. footnotes or something like that.) Lou Sander 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. Just because other organizations choose to self-censor doesn't mean anything here, that I'm aware of. You yourself were the first to point out that her words are hurtful. Please don't advocate sugar-coating Coulter here, it would be inappropriate as well as inconsistent with your other statements. If you approve of Coulter so much, and consider her hurtful words justified in that they speak "truth to power", you would surely want them to be reproduced here rather than censored, so that more "truth to power"ing can occur. Kasreyn 11:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn, I disagree that the line is somehow misquoted. You don't make a very compelling case - what, just because the writer might not have gotten his commas perfectly, you theorize he might have completely misheard her? Note that he was writing for the IU Daily Student; he's likely to have been present at the speech. Also note that later in the article, a student is quoted saying "From the 'brown boy' comment to calling that guy 'gay boy,' she was really rude". So for the "gay boy" line to be a misquote, the writer would have to have "misquoted" it twice, including putting it in the mouth of the girl. Unless we postulate a freak coincidence where Coulter mumbled her remark or a microphone glitched, and two seperate people heard her incorrectly in the exact same way.

Or, we can (as lawyer2b has suggested to me in the past) apply Occam's Razor, and risk the wild guess that maybe the writer knew what he was talking about: Coulter called someone a "gay boy" and many were offended. It is noteworthy because it speaks to her habit of answering criticism with ad hominem attacks rather than substantive rebuttal. The quote should definitely stay. Kasreyn 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually her rebuttal was substantive, but with a cheap shot thrown in at the end. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read all of my comment, or just choose to focus on what was admittedly the weakest part? I mentioned the comma thing as one thing that aroused suspicion. There was much more to what I said than that. YOu, however, say it should be left in to show that she only uses ad hominem attacks (a circular and POV claim at best), but your comments say nothing about the veracity of the quote, which was the central problem I had with it. I will be repeating myself here, but since my other comments went unnoticed last time, here goes again...

I should've made my claim plainer: this article "misquotes" her in the sense that it is absolute fabrication, not innocent mistake. I don't care if it's mentioned twice in the same article; they could've easily fabricated it twice. Big deal. This would be one of the most controversial comments ever made by Ann Coulter, but the only place it can be found is in this article and in blogs linking to this article. Doesn't that set off any alarm bells in your head? There would be more than an independent student-run article about this if it were true. There's always local or higher reporters at her speeches - I've been to one, there were people from every local news station. This comment would've been all over the place. Other comments she's made I've Googled and found in several independent sources. I've found more independent sources saying she's a transexual than that she made this comment. This one is only found originally in ONE article; anywhere else, it's accompanied by a link to said article, or just slipped unsourced into a blog. Can you find me any certain documentation that she did say this, other than the one minor article run by students with virtually no accountability?

Occam's Razor's the simple is best thing, right? Well, what's simpler: to say that this article is legitimately and competently written, and that no other news source heard that comment, or that it's fabrication (hardly an uncommon feature of the internet)? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 21:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (By the way, don't take the "be damned" comment offensively, I wrote it with a chuckle)

You are essentially saying that other sources link back to the IU Daily Student. Therefore, IDS is what is called a "primary source". Doesn't the fact that so many other sites, including canada.com (which appears to be a major news service but I could be wrong), chose to carry the link, indicate a certain widespread acceptance of the veracity of the reporting? You are essentially claiming that IDS is an unreliable source. They don't seem to think so.

As for the comment, I really don't think it would have been "everywhere". Calling the Jersey Girls "witches" was much worse. Calling for the assassination of John Paul Stevens was much worse. Calling their opponents gay is just something Republicans do every day. Furthermore, it was reported everywhere - by people who linked to the IDS article. People are lazy; they'd rather link to someone else's writeup than write their own. That doesn't prove anything about the primary source. I think you're grasping at straws to support your personal opinion that Coulter didn't say that. I see no compelling reason to treat IDS as being unreliable.

P.S. on Occam's Razor, of course the simpler answer is that Coulter did say something that is far less hateful than many other things she's said, and that it was accurately reported. To assert a willful distortion is to assume more. In fact, your entire point is based on an assumption of the unreliability of IDS. The point of Occam's Razor is to assume as little as possible. Kasreyn 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out previously that this is a weak source and a questionable story. Can anyone find any other evidence other than this college kid's college newspaper story? AAs others have said, something like this - if it had really happened - would have hit the fan and stunk for months. As it is, I have been unable to find even one reference to any other person who was present and afffirms that it went down the way the reporter described it. And the authro failed to quote the "gay boy" directly. It seems quite unfair that Coulter is criticized for her style (not the strong substance of her comment), and yet we are deprived of any knowledge to know whther she was simply responding in kind to a rude wussy questioner who asked an accusatory an absurd rhetorical question simply to make a point rather than to know Coulter's answer. 136.215.251.179

If you read the last page or two of the source with an open mind, you see that a College Republican official defended the remark on the basis that the gayboy may have been feigning his effeminate voice, as well as other bases. Because the response was quoted in detail, I'm satisfied that the gayboy reference is valid. Maybe Coulter was mocking a mocker, or maybe not. Maybe nobody but Wikipedia picked it up because it's almost universal practice not to print racial and sexual slurs verbatim, regardless of what they are or who said them, even in the most one-sided Drive-by media. The offensive words are typically discreetly left out, or replaced by "a slur" or something similar. It is my strong opinion that the "gayboy" quote is in this article for POV reasons. (If it weren't, her defender's remarks would be in the article, too.) Lou Sander 13:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "almost universal practice" to omit verbatim quotes of racial of sexual slurs; I don't know where you get that idea. It certainly isn't the practice we adopt on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia's not censored. It is POV not to quote Coulter, because then people only have our characterisation of what she said, not what she actually said. Cadr 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Poor, blind Cadr. I get the idea from the near-universal (and I only say "near" on "never say never" grounds) practice of newspapers, television stations, magazines, and responsible non-censored media everywhere of replacing coarse words like "nigger" with "a racial slur" or maybe "the n-word," and replacing coarse words like "cunt," "faggot" or "gay boy" with "a sexual slur," particularly when they were used by those they are reporting on. For them, it's a matter of common sense and simple human decency, not to mention a desire to stay out of the gutter with the cunt-sayers. It's also making the decision not to dignify hate speech by repeating it. Many (but not me) are offended by the explicit versions of those words, and it's better to leave them out. By all means let me know the next time you see one of those words quoted in your local newspaper or on your local TV. Until then, my analysis will continue to be that Wikipedia quotes Ann Coulter saying "gay boy" (rather than saying something like "slur" and linking to the original source) because Wikipedia editors think that demeaning her is more important than common sense, human decency, staying out of the gutter, etc. Also because, like immature middle-schoolers and immature media everywhere, a lot of them like to say dirty words. Lou Sander 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the comment should be removed, a student paper is not a valid primary source. The fact that other papers carried the quote but attributed it back to the student paper prevents them from trouble, they are reporting news that was reported. To say student paper X reported XYZ prevents a lawsuit against them, however them reporting it themselves becomes an issue. I am not sure how many people have worked in a student paper, but I worked for one breifly in college and while there is a standard its no where near required level to be a primary source here at wikipedia. Simply stating it must be true because it cannot be proven false goes against the whole point of verifiability(sp?) here at wikipedia. I also find it hard no other news agency was at the speech or that a transcript of a speech was not created, video or audio. I think if you apply the razor test you would see the simplist answer is that its fake and that is why it cannot be accounted for or substantiated. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Then we can do the same and say "A student newspaper reported that..." Cadr 13:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is does the paper pass verifiability to even be mentioned. Considering all sources point to this source the real questions is; is this source up to standards for inclusion of its material in Wikipedia? I would think not. I also find it odd that some people would vote that Ann Coulters time as a litigator for a civil rights firm is not important enough to mention in the article, however a single comment reported by a student paper is. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think people are against her civil rights work appearing in the article. They (and I'm one of them) are against an old and relatively non-notable job appearing in the first sentence of the article. Lou Sander 14:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The votes are above, some were. The point of the above paragraph however was to state that I do not think that a student paper adequatly reflects a valid primary source. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, I would agree that a student paper is not a very credible primary source. However, in this particular instance, a large number of notable secondary sources refer to the student paper. Notability and credibility are thus easily assured by saying something like "a number of [notable] papers reported that a student newspaper reported that...". Cadr 16:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So, this is like, several people saying the quote is phony or fabricated. Some of the claims for it's veracity don't hold up, in my (not so) humble opinion. So what if the article included a College Republican's defense? That could've just as easily been fabricated too. Referring to the article itself as a support for it's own truthfullness is a circular, invalid argument. These little student papers have no accountability, they're full of bias. I've seen several articles on the Internet like this, where they are the sole source of a ludicrous and outrageous comment, and then that article gets linked to on blogs. These are not news sources linking to it; they are blogs. They are not reliable. Several of these blogs called Coulter a "cold, hateful bitch"; should we put that in there too? Is this a reliable source, one that reports only the most outrageous comments that she (supposedly) made, without hardly mentioning the topics she covered? No.

ANd the question is still unanswered: why can't this be found anywhere else in a news article? Why can all the other comments she makes that are found in this article be found in half a dozen articles on the first page of Google results alone, but this comment can only be found in the one article and blogs linking to it? Do you have an answer to that? So far, you've said neither yes nor no, and I'd like to know whether you can find other direct sources that mention it. Why isn't this found in a CBS, NBC or ABC article? You can bet the local reporters were all there. Why is this the only paper that caught it? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 16:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have sources that say that the report in the student newspaper is incorrect, we have to take it at face value. Alternatively, if you can show that the student newspaper has been wrong in the past, you can cast doubt on the story. Otherwise, you'll just have to swallow this bitter pill.
How do you know that reporters for the local CBS/NBC/ABC affiliates were in attendance? Contrary to your belief, Coulter's every movement is not covered by reporters. I personally have been to many events where Members of Congress have been present and no press (just to make things clear, Members of Congress are far more important than Ann Coulter). --Asbl 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are proposing is in direct violation of WP:Verifiability. The issue is a student newspaper a valid primary source. It is not.

"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."

This student paper is not a strong source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zer0faults (talk • contribs) .

I could not disagree more. The fact that the student run newspaper reported on it is very much verifiable. Has she denied it? Probably not, because that would focus the spotlight on the unfortunate incident, in which it would be her word vs. the word of a few hundred people. --Asbl 16:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Asbl that the source is good. I think that directly quoting racial and sexual slurs is impolite, has POV overtones, and should not be done. Refer to the slur, give a link to it, but don't quote it here, please. Lou Sander 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So long as the slur is quoted in the proper context, I do not see how it can possibly be POV. Excluding it would be POV, as it would be whitewashing. --Asbl 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys seriously stating you feel student newspapers are valid primary sources? That is my issue. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that she would've denied it, even if it was fabrication. She probably hasn't denied it because she doesn't even know about this accusation. Has anyone ever confronted her about this, asked her about it? Not even any of the people who have had her on their show to debate her have mentioned. THat's just further proof that it's completely bogus. By your standards of verifiability, as long as any blog or news outlet is obscure enough to a)not be routinely questioned, because it's not well known and b)not be refuted by famous people, because their accusations do not reach the celebrities is a good source. And I hardly think "taking something unknown at face value" is a step in the critical thinking process. I've commented, perhaps wrongly (I don't think so), why I believe this is not a credible source. You make it seem like I have dismissed this source for no particular reason by telling me to take it at face value, implying that I have nothing substantial to judge it on. I have much to judge it on, even if you believe I ijudged wrongly. You're trying to put the burden of proof on me, to prove that this is NOT a credble source and ordering me around, telling me to "let it die" and swallow the pill. That's not the way it goes. I've given you the respect of a (perhaps unsatisfactory to you, but sill existent) response to every objection you bring up, but you continue to ignore many of my questions. 'd like to hear your thoughts on them. What makes you so sure this is a reliable source? Why didn't this comment show up in other sources? WHy is it just this newspaper, when other comments can be found in dozens of articles? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How is a student paper not a credible source? Just because it's not the NY Times, doesn't mean they don't follow basic jounalistic conventions. I know that when I worked at my school paper we checked our facts and sources just as much as the local paper, etc. Furthermore, a number of more "credible" sources picked up the story as well. This story deserves to be in there.--Wakefencer

For the record, I side with Wakefencer. I disagree with Zerofaults' edit summary on "strong claims requiring strong sourcing", not because I disagree with his logic, but with his premise. Ann Coulter calling someone "gay" is not outlandish or surprising at all - for her. She engages in hateful name-calling as a matter of course; it is how she makes her living. I see nothing special about a sexual slur that makes it somehow so outrageous that it requires stronger sourcing than any of her uncountable other attacks and rants. Such weighing of what constitutes a "strong claim" must take into account the context of the subject in general. Therefore I see no reason why IDS should be considered insufficiently reliable. The section could be debated over notability or other guidelines, but I feel it doesn't fail WP:V. Kasreyn 09:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, Kasreyn, Kasreyn... "Hateful name-calling as a matter of course?" Just not so. Hateful name-calling is done with certain emotion-laden words that we all know, and that often get people into trouble with the legal system (see the Duke Lacrosse story, for example). Maybe YOU see nothing special about sexual slurs, but a lot of legislators, prosecutors, and juries DO see something special about them. So do a lot of gay people, as I understand it. There IS a difference between hateful name-calling and exposing people to hyperbolic ridicule. And "how she makes her living?" Give us a break -- she makes her living by selling books, columns, and speeches that debunk leftist myths, punctuated with outrageous statements intended to draw attention. (The leftists hate it, of course -- both the debunking and the attention.)

BTW, I DO agree that the student newspaper is a legitimate source. As you know, I also think that encyclopedias should not repeat sexual slurs verbatim. To me, it's a matter of simple human decency (to the slurred group, primarily; to readers who are offended by sexual slurs, secondarily; and to the slur-speaker, as an afterthought).

And I feel that it's quite indecent to cover up the hateful comments of important public figures. It merely allows them to get away with it for longer, which results only in more slurs being spread about. You cleanse an infection by lancing it and letting the pus out. I really don't think you want me going to all the trouble to quote some examples of Coulter's endless hateful name-calling which you pooh-pooh. After all, that would require me to quote them and then there would be more slurs visible for all to see. So I suppose you're going to just have to take my word for it: I've never seen any evidence that she can go five minutes without saying something dripping with venom. That being the case, her using the term "gay boy" is not, as one editor contended, so amazingly remarkable and outrageous that one would expect it to have been widely commented upon. One imagines newspaper editors being told "Hey Boss! Boss! Ann Coulter just called someone a 'gay boy'!! Stop the presses!", to which the editor replies, "Yeah, so what? We print the news here." Kasreyn 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If a person uses hate speech in a quote, you can't change the quote just because you don't like the word or words they used. If an article quotes Hitler or a member of the KKK who uses hate speech, to clean up the language they used would be POV, and the same thing applies to Ann Coulter. Calling someone a "Gay-Boy" is very inappropriate, and it is hate speech. However, the fact remains that she said it, and just because it offends your sensibilities or you don't like Ann Coulter looking like the bigot she is, doesn't mean you can whitewash it and take it out.--Wakefencer

I strongly agree with Wakefencer. Kasreyn 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It does fail WP:RS though. A student newspaper doesn't have the same sort of fact-checking that a professional newspaper does. Kyaa the Catlord 09:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no fact checking, no good. Wakefencer, did you work at a high school paper or a clooege one? College papers tend to be much more opinionated and unchecked and political. Do none of the other objections I raise mean anything? If other credible sources picked this up, where are they? I've said it again and again, blogs are not a credible source. Where is this source you are talking about, this credible source that picked it up? I've asked again and again for someone to provide another source for this, and have gotten nothing. I realize I don't have the final say, but all the same, if there are other sources to back this up (not just LINKING to it) it would make the case for the section much stronger. And all this talk about it being not unordinary for COulter to basically be a bitch is debatable, and you're talking like t's clear-cut fact. This is something we need to discuss, not just mandate one or the other. I don't know if I'd say it's a real strong claim myself, but is certainly doesn't have rigid enough support for what it is. I do agree, however, for the so far undiscussed reasons I've already mentioned, that this is the sort of thing that would've been mentioned on news networks. True, Ann COulter may not be followed by natioinal media everywhere she goes (though I'll bet she is), I guarantee the local media would be there. SHe is a celebrity, after all. The comment would've at least gotten out enough to have multiple references to it, instead of just blogs linking to it. WHy are there no other sources? Why, WakeFencer, are you claiming it was picked up by other credible media outlets, but fail to provide links? Why, Kaseryn, are you using the excuse that this is totally unimportant, and then make such a case for its inclusion? (I'm not saying you shouldn't, only that it doesn't click - if it's important enough to be included in a Wikipedia article, it needs stronger support than an unknown student paper with no fact-checking.

From WP:RS: The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Although this is a guideline, not policy, please read WP:RS#Check_multiple_sources and find other sources for this. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing to say that we should keep this in based on the sources credibility. You can keep pretending I'm not actually saying anything about the credibility of the source and say "YOu have no reason to doubt the source!!!" WIth no reference or refutation at all to my claims about the source, or you can look at this fairly and evaluate it according to the WP:RS guideline and the WP:V policy. If you disagree with my evaluation of the source, please explain, rather than just state, your objection, and explain why I am wrong, and not just by saying "It's a newspaper, with journalists, why wouldn't it be true?!" Psycho Master (Karwynn) 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason newspapers are accepted is because of extensive fact checking, however college papers do not have this. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Things always slip through the cracks (see Jayson Blair). College newspapers do not have the resources that the New York Times has, but they operate at the same level of professionalism to cover their campus as the New York Times covers the world. --Asbl 17:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Asbl. All news sources are opinionated and biased at times, if we only accepted unbiased news sources, we'd never be able to get news from anywhere. The right accusses the NY times and CNN of a liberal bias. The left accusses the Fox of having a conservative bias, etc. Furthermore, news sources make mistakes with sources all of the time, but we still accept their news as fact, unless we are confronted with evidence to the contrary, and people didn't stop reading the NY times after the Jayson Blair fiasco. I don't know why we assume that the IDS can't do a decent job of covering an event on its own campus. It's their school after all. I really doubt the NY times or CNN sends a person to follow Ann Coulter around when she speaks, I know I wouldn't want that job. If you don't want to include the Gay Boy episode in the article, fine, but don't take it out because you have something against college newspapers.--Wakefencer

This has nothing to do with bias, it has to do with proper fact checking. Do you honestly believe a student paper is a valid source for attributing a slur in a biographical article on a living person? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a student newspaper is a good source of information about events that take place on those students' campus. If there is demonstrable evidence that the particular newspaper in question sucks (doesn't check sources, has considerable bias, etc.) then please present that evidence. I don't think it's noteable that only a student newspaper was interested in a local campus event. I also agree that it's good policy to have potentially hurtful or damaging remarks supported by multiple sources but that is a slightly different issue from accusing a particular student newspaper of crappy or outright false reporting.

Personally, I think the entire incident should be removed as I don't think it really adds anything to the article. We get it already: Ann Coulter says some stupid and hateful things. --ElKevbo 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty broad statement Zer0faults and I don't think we should paint all college newspapers with the same broad brush. --ElKevbo 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I must admit this discussion is a another example of a question I've wrestling with over at Lani Guinier. To me the bottom-line question is, "When should a 'fact' that is sourced (in this case by a student newspaper), supposed to be included/presented as a FACT, and not prefaced by 'according to...' or 'it was reported by...' which would imply that the 'fact' is not a FACT but simply something that was reported in the source?" Unfortunately, I wish I knew for sure the right answer. My instinct is to err on the side of caution and, when there is legitimate concern for the veracity of the sourced "fact", include a phrase equivalent to "according to". I see it as sort of a compromise between not mentioning the "fact" at all and including it as an unquestionable truth. Opinions? Lawyer2b 04:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your instinct is the right one. I'm convinced that the gay-boy comment actually did occur, and that the student newspaper is a legitimate one. (In fact, it has a Wikipedia article, to which I linked where it was mentioned in the Coulter one.) Assuming the legitimacy of the paper, when you read the article it mentions not only the gay boy comment, but gives some stuff from somebody who responded to it, and who even defended Coulter. To me, that's a pretty good sign that "gay boy" escaped her lips. BTW, a few days ago, the gay boy stuff in the Coulter article had lots of stuff that wasn't in the newspaper article. "With an effeminate voice," for example. Apparently the guy was talking like a fag, but I don't think it's cool to describe his voice unless you heard it, or unless it's described in the newspaper report (in which case you should quote it verbatim, or summarize it fairly, without editorializing). And also BTW, I still think that when a controversial public person, in the context of a hostile animated debate, utters a minor form of hate speech, and it's basically not something he/she does under normal conditions, you give him/her a pass, and don't quote the naughty word in an encyclopedia. Refer to it, and link to it, but don't gleefully quote it in your own work. Lou Sander 04:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Topic?

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)

No, that particular box is for talk pages only (for better or for worse). Cadr 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

COntroversial Time Cover

After releasing the new book Godless on June 6 2006 (666), many feel that Ann Coulter mixes up her claimed Christianity with direct appeals to Satan / Satanism as that book release date.

Also it is claimed this Time Cover Photo is fake (with a nude picture) and to some it appears to surely be fake; but that release date makes one ponder if the "fake" nude picture was put out by Coulter to attract attention.

• Ann Coulter Time Cover with Nude Photo

Somebody please fix this error...

...in the main article's "voting irregularities" section. Too much Wiki-HTML showing. Lou Sander 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thanks! Lou Sander 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

The article is overly long (or at least the Wiki system keeps telling us that it is). Could the Trivia section be deleted? (I vote YES.) Lou Sander 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Trivia has some information about trivia sections. I'm not fond of them in general, if there was a vote, I'd vote remove also. --Dual Freq 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy to which you linked seems to be very clear: No trivia section. I have no problem whatsoever removing the second, third, and fourth trivia items. I rather like the first trivia item, however, as it seems to help round out her character and give her some depth. Otherwise almost the entire article is about her controversial political statements and I don't really think it's fair to assert that those are the sum of her life. However, I freely admit that if we remove the Trivia section altogether I don't have any good suggestions where to put the Grateful Dead blurb. --ElKevbo 03:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like the Dead piece too. Gives some good insight. Perhaps work it into her biography section? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this, to be inserted at the end of Biography when the Trivia is deleted:

Coulter is a fan of the rock band Grateful Dead. In a 2006 interview about her love for the band she discusses, among other things, smearing herself with purple Crisco before a show. [26]

It's brief, keeps the Dead info alive, teases with the Crisco, and links to a very interesting article. Lou Sander 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But you GOTTA include her comment about deadheads being the only REAL liberals. It sort of sums up her constant critique of them, roughly paraphrased as: "If liberals believed their policies, they would all be deadheads - leaving the running of the world to those with the disposition and capability of doing so." 136.215.251.179

Great point, but the article is SOOOOOOOOOOO long, and we need to cut it back. Some great scenes will end up on the cutting room floor. Lou Sander 15:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind the WP:Trivia Link is not a policy. It's not even a guideline. It's just an essay. I don't really care (yet) about the trivia section, I'm just seeing some "the policy says this" stuff, just remember it's not actually policy. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia section has been deleted. There was rational and meaningful discussion beforehand, with little or no dissent. Good work, all. Lou Sander 15:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I misspoke earlier when I referred to it as a policy and I appreciate the correction. I do agree with much of what the essay says but it takes more than "ElKevbo likes it" for something to rise to the level of policy (oh, how different some things would be if that were the case!). --ElKevbo 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)