Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 11

Creationist
In her new book she goes on about how Creationism is the correct "science". That would make her a creationist would it not? -- Archeus

All creationists fall into two overlapping classes. They are either fools or liars. Coulter, is, without doubt, a deliberate, public liar on this subject, since it is very hard to believe someone as well-educated as she is supposed to be would get the subject so wrong, unless with malice aforethought. For refutation of any and all of her published opinions on evolution see almost any reputable scientific web-site. 85.210.98.125 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC) G. Tingey.

I'm glad you aren't allowing any of your own bias to leak into your remarks. As to if she's a Creationist or not, the answer would be she is. - Temillion


 * Hey, I'm pretty open-minded on evolution vs. creation, but my faith in the liberal scientific community was shaken by one of her recent chapters: Proof for How the Walkman Evolved into the iPod by Random Mutation. Its main thrust wasn't to promote creationism, but to show how liberals cling with herd-like religious fervor to Darwin's theory, and how they react when it's challenged. Post-publication, they have reacted as she predicted. Doesn't that move her viewpoint a tiny bit closer to "theory?" Lou Sander 01:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If by "theory" you mean some sort of theory on the behaviors of the thin-skinned and how best to manipulate them, then yes, Coulter may indeed be a theorist of some note. :P  As a firm supporter of the theory of evolution, it always upsets me when people allow themselves to be provoked by challenges to it.  They miss the entire point of science, which is to always be challenging yourself.  When some people, including those Coulter mocks, hear of a challenge to evolution, they foolishly try to squelch it, to shut the person up.  When I hear of a challenge to evolution, I dare them to bring their best shot, because I don't think creationists have a real case to make.  Some of my fellow evolution supporters like to constantly make snide comments about the mental cowardice of those who feel the need to believe in a creator, but I have a bigger problem with so-called supporters of science who don't have the mental courage to give an opposing view a fair hearing.


 * Don't get me wrong, though... I have studied the so-called Intelligent design theory in great detail and have concluded, like most scientists, that it is a work of unmitigated bullshit.  However, at least I read it first.  Kasreyn 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

legal correspondent for HE?
When does Coulter write seperately for Human Events? I don't think she does seperate work for Human Events. Perhaps she does, but I did not find it anyhwere. Perhaps her HE column ended up going into syndication once she hit the big time. Or perhaps she writes occasional pieces for HE. Or perhaps I am wrong and she DOES write additional pieces for HE. 136.215.251.179


 * I looked, and I agree that she doesn't seem to write separately for them. I've sent them an email inquiry about it. If they answer, I'll do the right thing in the article. Lou Sander 14:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you RTFA, you'll find out that her column is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate, and appears in a wide variety of publications, Human Events being just one of the many. Read through some of her columns listed in the 'references' section, and you'll find that her column appears in many publications (Jewish World Review, WorldNetDaily, and even her own website). Dr. Cash 18:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * I did it with this edit. I also removed because it doesn't discuss Ann Coulter. &mdash;  getcrunk   what?!  16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... It says, "This page was last updated on: June 13, 2006." So they took her off... can't imagine why. :-0 I'll try and scrounge up another source for it. Good catch though. -- LV (Dark Mark)  16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


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


 * And this pdf, the DG publication, has her listed "In the News". It's page number 16 of the publication, page 29 of the publication. Hope this helps some more. -- LV (Dark Mark)  16:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the cached ref; PDFs make my computer run slow. &mdash; getcrunk   what?!  17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough... just trying to provide multiple sources. :-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The garbled Notes have been fixed. Thank you. Lou Sander 21:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


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

Jersey Girls?
The article says that the 9/11 widows Coulter criticized are known as the Jersey Girls. If I am not mistaken, Coulter refers to them that way, and it is not a universal term. If someone knows differently let me know, otherwise I'll make the edit to reflect that. Ramsquire 22:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here ya go..., , ;-), , , , , , . Just the first bunch of Google hits (minus one www.jerseygirls.com that seemed to be talking about some other type of girls from Jersey. ;-) Not that I looked though...). Hope this helps. -- LV  (Dark Mark)  00:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And this is why it is a good thing Wiki has a talk page. I had only heard people who opposed the women viewpoints refer to them as the Jersey Girls, so I was afraid it was some perjorative term for them.  But since it does seem to have widespread use across the board, I have no quarrels. Ramsquire 23:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersey girls is also a term for women with teased hair who have atrocious accents and a frequent need to visit the clinic. Rich Doctors For Choice 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, however, you wouldn't be suggesting that Wikipedia engage in POV editorializing by using such terms without attribution, right? :)  Kasreyn 09:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's pronounced "Joisey Goils." Lou Sander 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Coulter and Madonna
I have read that Coulter is provocative, self-confident and sexy, (and to many outrageous and annoying) like Mrs. M. L. Ciccone-Ritchie. I would add that unlike Ciccone-Ritchie, Coulter is coherent, intellectual and supportive of a truly uplifting culture. Perhaps the article should mention this Madonna comparison. 136.215.251.179


 * I'd say no. Not a notable comparison. Maybe if it was widely discussed. Any sources? -- LV (Dark Mark)  14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the Lord (click on "LV"). Interesting, but not notable. Lou Sander 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just passing through. Anon, that's one hilarious comment, even if it's not tongue-in-cheek. That's it. &middot; j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Position of the bibliography within the article
Archived Talk pages have briefly discussed this, and there's some current discussion on user talk pages. Here are the issues (doing my best to get 'em right): Probably there's a good solution, maybe by a text description of her works high up in the article, plus a bibliography (with ISBNs, etc.) at the end. Based on my understanding of past discussions, the text description, if any, should be brief in its descriptions of the books, an should include links to the separate, more detailed, articles on the books themselves. Lou Sander 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Bibliographies are usually at the end of articles
 * Those bibliographies are usually lists of books used as references or in creating another work. They usually include formal bibliographic information such as publisher, year, ISBN, etc.
 * This bibliography is a list of Coulter's books, which is a somewhat different thing
 * Some sort of list or discussion of Coulter's books belongs high up in the article, since her books are arguably her main claim to fame
 * I think you are confusing a reference section with a bibliography section. A reference is for all information used in the article. A bibliography section is a list of books (or articles) written by the subject. By its nature, it should be near the end of the article. The article should start with the person's bio, followed by discussion of the work, with a list of their work at the end. --Asbl 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, a bibliography can also be a section of works cited. They are sort of interchangable. But as there is no other section detailing her books, it should be near the top. The rest of the article would make no sense if the books were not laid out. References to Slander, Godless, etc. would be very confusing to readers. -- LV (Dark Mark)  17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at writing a proper section out of the list. I used whatever information was there. We can rename the section to something like "Coulter's books", "Books", or "Writings" (and include stuff from her columns). Thoughts? -- LV (Dark Mark)  21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like LV's result. I'm strongly in favor of calling it something other than a Bibliography, since that word is understood by many to refer to a listing of sources. I like the idea of "Coulter's books" or, even better, "Coulter's writings." But if it's "writings," there's the challenge of how to include her columns (plus, somebody has to do it). Maybe a brief discussion of their general nature, followed by a link to some sort of archive of her columns, would work. Since she's a controversial writer, Wikipedians should have an easy way to get to her actual writings (so they can be inspired by them one way or another, so they won't say foolish things about them, etc.) Lou Sander 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * She appears to have an archive of her articles so I don't think it would be difficult at all to include them in a "Writings" section.
 * Incidentally, I don't really think we need to prepend "Coulter's" to any section title. The entire article is about her, after all.  --ElKevbo 22:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * GMTA! I thought the same thing after I posted the above. Lou Sander 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all combined, and it's looking pretty decent. I think there should be lines skipped between each book, and I'm not excited about all those ISBN numbers interrupting the descriptive wording. Lou Sander 02:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're right... Perhaps we should flesh out some of the book's paragraphs. That way they can be separate paragraphs, but would past editorial muster. Should we list the books with ISBN at the bottom? Might make it more readable. Kind of duplicates the work though. Thoughts? -- LV (Dark Mark)  02:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Liner notes from the books could provide some "fleshing out" material. So could some published reviews. I dunno about the ISBNs. All I know is they seem out of place right now. Lou Sander 03:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Controversies section
A lot of this section is devoted to matters that are not controversies. I think this needs to be fixed, hopefully after discussion. Point-by-point:


 * Introductory paragraphs. Except for the kente cloth stuff, this is all about controversies. It's been a while since "citation needed" was added to the assertion that the kente stuff is controversial, but so far nobody has provided one.


 * 4.1 Speeches at college campuses. All well-sourced controversies. The proof of the pudding is in the thousands of rowdy students.


 * 4.2 Investigation of alleged voting irregularity. This is an important item, but not a controversy. It should stand by itself. BTW, her 30 days is up. What happened?
 * 4.3 Coulter on domestic separatists. Not a controversy. Modestly notable, perhaps, (or perhaps not) but where to put it?


 * 4.4 Coulter on Arabs and Muslims. Not a controversy, just a list of not particularly notable quotes. It says they are controversial, but it doesn't provide justification. Danish cartoons are controversial. This stuff isn't.


 * 4.5 Coulter on women. Another bunch of sub-notable quotes with no evidence of a controversy.


 * 4.6 Coulter on Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. It's a joke, not a controversy. The author even says so. Get rid of it or move it to the Jokes section.


 * 4.7 Coulter's role in Paula Jones-Bill Clinton controversy. It's about a controversy, maybe, but it's hardly an Ann Coulter controversy. Like the voting irregularities, it's important and ought to stand by itself.


 * 4.8 Coulter on the four 9/11 widows known as "the Jersey Girls". Like the college speeches, a well documented and well sourced controversy.
 * 4.9 Coulter and Christianity. Not a controversy, but a series of points about one of her animating beliefs. Important, but belongs elsewhere.

That's it. Does anybody out there agree with any of this? Lou Sander 03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. Her opinions are so out of the mainstream, that her opinions in and of themselves are controversial. If you would like to add the critics' response to sub-sections that are lacking, go ahead; but please do not move or remove the useful information. --Asbl 03:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully submit that book of opinions #5 being #1 on the NYT best seller list, and books of opinions #1-#4 having done well on that list as well, are indications of being in the mainstream, both now and over the past few years. I'm not about to remove any of the stuff that's in this section now, except maybe the joke. In fact, I try hard never to remove anything unless many seem to agree with doing so. That's the reason I put all the stuff in Talk. Lou Sander 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lou, I hate to disagree with you because I think we agree politically, I like your edits, you discuss things on the talkpage, and most importantly you said something nice to me on my userpage. ;-) However, I'm sure if Charles Manson wrote a book it would be on the NYT's bestseller list and you wouldn't argue that his opinions are mainstream, would you?  Be that as it may, while I disagree with the bus he's taking, I'm on board with Lou's destination.  I agree Coulter has some radical opinions that are totally out of the mainstream, but if her wikipedia entry doesn't present a documented argument directed against her for holding that opinion, then it isn't being presented as a controversy, it's simply a mention of her opinion on a topic.  And isn't it unbalanced if her only political viewpoints that get mentioned are ones that are radical?  Unless critics' responses are added to her mentioned opinions (thereby presenting them as truly controversial), shouldn't her opinions be removed? Lawyer2b 05:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. 84.etc has already been successful in removing some of the comments of critics of Coulter.  We had them before.  We can't use that as justification for further removals.  If we need x to keep y and x was removed some time ago, we shouldn't remove y without first discussing whether it would be better to simply restore x.  Kasreyn 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The woman makes outrageous remarks, every one of which is controversial to some, but obvious truth to others. Some of her remarks are so controversial that, for example, student riots ensue. To me, the latter merit being in a "controversies" section, but the former do not. All I'm proposing is to put the notable controversies into the "controversies" section, and to put the other stuff elsewhere. (Please carefully read what I said at the start of this section.) Sometimes Kaseryn's "controversial" quotes are Lou Sander's "boldly speaking truth to power" quotes. Lou Sander 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The solution is to expand on the controversy surrounding her radical opinions, not to whitewash them. --Asbl 05:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Radical?" Sounds POV to me. (I don't think her opinions are radical at all. Neither do a lot of book buyers. Please try hard to understand us.) An encyclopedia should try hard not to label something as a "controversy," then to solicit further opinions that it IS a controversy. Jesus fucking Christ, Asbl, can anyone honestly call a retelling of her religious beliefs a "controversy?" Lou Sander 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Asbl. Lou, there is such a thing as keeping an article encyclopedic by good and careful trimming.  I understand and support that idea.  In this case, though, you're proposing that we go too far.  Coulter's opinions are wildly beyond the mainstream.  You are essentially proposing that we trim all her non-mainstream or outrageous comments.  This would result in an article that would misrepresent not just who Coulter is, but also what others think of her.  "Evidence of controversy" in several cases was removed by 84.etc's editing spree.  "Jokes" are what Coulter calls some of her remarks; are we to implicitly support her characterizations of her remarks by titling a section "Jokes"?  Clear structural bias.  The article was more NPOV the way it was a day or two ago.  Also, Lou, I'm curious why the information on Coulter's political campaign on the Libertarian ticket was removed.  I've been watching this article for months, and I've seen the description of her remarks get milder and milder, until today she merely "troubles" some.  I hardly know what to say to that.  You honestly think that's all she does?  Kasreyn 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your point of view that Coulter is out of the mainstream. I hope you appreciate mine that she is not. Both of us, and all of us, should guard against our legitimate points of view coloring our edits in an encyclopedia. Maybe the description of her remarks has gotten "milder" because the editing community believes that's the right direction. And why do the comments of critics of Coulter so easily and numerously get into an article about Coulter? (We don't put polish jokes into the article on Poland. At least *I* don't.)


 * "Proposing that we trim all her outrageous comments?" Gimme a break. Please read my suggestions again, and show me where you think I propose such a thing (as opposed to moving them outside the Controversies section). The problem is that things which only Joe and Mary and their friends think are controversies are listed here as controversies. For example, isolated outrageous remarks.


 * On the political campaign, I didn't know it had been removed. Somebody relabeled it as a "fling at public service" or something like that, which I thought was inappropriate for a self-admitted "spoiler" effort. I didn't change it, though. (I'm bold, but not about editing controversial articles.)


 * As for "troubles," I'm pretty sure I was the one who put it in there, replacing an overlong, badly-worded phrase or two. I never liked the word that much, and more recently I changed it to "grates." I hope you like that word better.


 * As for "jokes." Do I understand you as disbelieving a joke-teller when she says she is telling a joke? Do I further understand you to then advocate putting her joke into a "controversies" section. Lou Sander 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether Coulter is not part of the mainstream is something that can be sourced, and was, previous to the arrival of 136.etc/84.etc/goodandevil/whatever other names he has, if I remember correctly.


 * As to the comments of Coulter's critics, I'd say that when she says something that sparked controversy (i.e. notability standard passes), then we should quote both her and her critics, and if she then defended her statement, we should quote that as well. I will agree that when I first came to this article, it was over-heavy on criticism, but I feel that's already been taken care of and then some.


 * As for jokes, no, you don't understand me. I am saying that calling a section "Jokes" is inappropriate because it implicitly accepts Coulter's characterization of her remarks.  Putting Coulter's remark on Justice Stevens under "Jokes" implies that Wikipedia agrees it is a joke.  Putting it under a section called "Death Threats" would be equally biased, in the opposite direction.  Putting it under a section called "Coulter on Justice Stevens" is NPOV because it does not imply that any of the various characterizations of her remarks is "right"; it lets the reader decide.  We can, and in fact already do, note that Coulter calls her own remarks jokes; that is as far as we can go.  Kasreyn 00:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears no one was listening when I said the above. To put the remark about Stevens in a subsection labelled "Joke" is to insert a structural bias in favor of Coulter's characterization of her remark.  This is POV.  If it weren't a WP:POINT violation, I would retitle the section to "Death Threat against etc." to demonstrate how structural bias works.  I have altered it to "Remark", which is NPOV.  Please, whoever changed it, do not do so again unless you have a good reason.  I'd love to hear it.  Kasreyn 22:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Controversial statements are one thing, controversies are another. The strong reactions by broadcasters and lawmakers to the Jersey Girls statements, and Coulter's in-your-face responses are a notable controversy. So are catfights with auditoriums full of rowdy students, covered by newspapers and involving multiple ejections by ushers. Tasteless jokes about Supreme Court justices, while offensive to some, aren't controversies. Neither are religious beliefs, statements ridiculing women, or hyperbolic epithets about turban-wearers. Lou Sander 08:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't know what everyone else is talking about, but I think you're right, Lou. There's a difference between significant controversies and presenting them in an encyclopedic manner - and listing a bunch of quotations that many people consider controversial and many people don't.  Also, maybe if Charles Manson wrote a book it could be on the best-seller list, but 5?  All 5?  All five of Coulter's books have been on the best-seller list.  Oh, and her widely-read column.  I would argue that she's on to something mainstream there.  So while I'm not against keeping things in the article, many subsections in the Controversies section desperately need clean-up.  It's not about listing quotations - if you want to list quotations, it should be in wikiquote.  BUT actually about writing specific people who have found her statements controversial would constitute a controversy.  Also, one could argue that EVERYTHING Coulter says is controversial, so why don't we just write EVERYTHING about her and that anyone can think of and everything she has said under the "controversies" section.  Otherwise, we're not being very encyclopedic, since we're not fully expounding the immense controversy of this controversial woman: we're just picking and choosing which controversial subjects to list under her controversies. Stanselmdoc 13:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw my two cents in here. The Charles Manson and Coulter comparison does not serve to make the point or, clear anything as regards book sells versus agreement or disagreement with mainstream thought. It is a bad analogy. While Manson's book might reach the bestsellers list out of society's morbid curiousity. Coulter is not a criminal so people could hardly be motivated to buy her books for that same reason. No one is guessing at what Coulter's politics are when they buy her books, either they are buying because, they want to know more or, they're buying because they already knowing they want to read more. Obviously, Coulter could not have sold five bestsellers if the majority of mainstream society could not relate to her politically - I do not think anyone would disagree that Coulter's books are political. I don't know why an encyclopedia entry on Coulter has to catagerize her as mainstream, radical, or controversial. Just state the facts and let the reader make up their mind if she's any of those, if the so, desire. To describe her as popular with the book buying public is accurate, irregardless of going into the reasons why people buy her (since an encyclopedia shouldn't claim to know the impossible to know) It would be fair to say that Ann Coulter would not be able to engage a majority of book buyers to buy her work if she were not popular with them for whatever reason. I hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.131.45.44 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sooo...Is it okay if I try to clean up the "Arabs and muslims" and "Coulter on women" sections to make them NOT a list of quotations? Writing the quote doesn't prove it's controversial.  There has to be some reaction to it - so I'd like to go looking for some statements or reactions to her quotes, but I don't want to put in the effort if people are going to go against it anyway.Stanselmdoc 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do! I agree that the current layout and composition is very poor and would love to see someone with the time and motivation improve it.  --ElKevbo 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a "Controversies" section and a "Controversial statements" (rename it as you wish) section? The first would include firestorms, riots, etc., while the second would include whatever people found controversial. Lou Sander 15:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm amenable to that. But that doesn't remove the necessity for better clarifications of the quotes already listed.  Some of them just read "Coulter once said this:...." which doesn't qualify it as a controversial statement.  Sorry to the editors who want to put it in because they believe it is controversial, but it'd be great to actually find some source saying "and when Coulter called muslims this....blah blah blah...I was so angry and..."  <-- THAT qualifies as something to be written.  Oh, and can we remove the bullet points of them?  It looks so tacky and it's hardly encyclopedic; wouldn't it be better if it were all separate paragraphs? Stanselmdoc 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Even better, IMHO: "Notable controversies" for the firestorms, and something else for the rest of the stuff. Lou Sander 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, considering no one else has chimed in on this subject, I guess I'll call it my leave to start doing what I think should be done. If people disagree, they can discuss it on the talk page.  I'm going to start with removing the bullet points. Then I'm going to look up sources for the controversial quotes, and if I can't find any source that says the quotes actually sparked controversy, it's gone. Stanselmdoc 16:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! The more I look at this article the more I go insane!!!  This wiki is getting REALLY frustrated with editors' ideas that any kind of quote they think works constitutes noteworthiness.  Not to mention the relative impossibility of finding sources for things that weren't even controversies!  I changed my mind. I think I'm going to present this again in a discussion down farther on the talk page, to see if more people will notice. Stanselmdoc 16:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Media career section
Rather than her "Career" section describing what should be, by any account, an illustrious career (increasing popularity, readership, TV appearances, etc.), it instead reads like a "bad things that happened to Ann in her career" section, as if the only things that are notable are when she was either fired or her article was dropped by a newspaper. Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b 11:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * POV? There's no POV here. Just move on and look at the rest of this proudly uncensored article. By the way, do you know that this homophobe once said "gay boy?" It says so right here in the article, and it's sourced. And no, there's no elephant in the middle of the room. Wow! Look at those tusks! Maybe we could get Jumbo to poke her in the eye with one. ;-) Lou Sander 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (If you want to see a truly balanced article, take a look at Godless.)


 * Hahahahahahahaha I think I just peed myself laughing. And that's bad because I'm at work.  You two are both refreshingly amusing. Stanselmdoc 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad the ironic "Stan" seems to have appreciated the Horatian satire in my comment above. It might help people appreciate the less nuanced Juvenalian satire in Coulter's work.


 * I just re-read the Media career section, and overall it's pretty fair. The firings are notable, and they appear after several paragraphs of the kind of thing "Lawyer" wants to have in there. The last paragraph is pretty horrible, though. It used to be much fairer and more accurate (after much work and discussion), but a possible POV-pusher reverted it, without discussion, to its pre-discussion form. The editor it quotes was new when he said what he said, and he left a few weeks later, citing personal reasons. His dropping Coulter's column isn't notable at all, and his remarks, IMHO, are notable only because they're a hyperbolic attack on Coulter. The piranhas need their bits of meat, no matter how old or small. Lou Sander 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Years of schooling, and I still don't know why you called me ironic. For the life of me, I hinted at no irony in my statement - mere exaggeration. About the peeing part, not about the "refreshingly amusing" part. ; ) But...for my opinion, I'm kinda leaning toward maybe some rewording within the Media section. I don't think it's really POV; however, I do think that it would be great if we could mention when she was hired for NRO instead of presenting it like "oh yeah, and she was reprimanded by this group she worked for but we forgot to tell you about" hahaha. Also, there's a whole lot of internal links there, and all the blue kinda looks messy. Is it possible to remove some? Stanselmdoc 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I said "ironic" because as I understood you, there was "a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says, and what is understood." I thought you were saying stuff was funny, while meaning that it wasn't. My bad, and sorry about the "Stan." All that blue does make things look messy, but the links are often helpful. I'm thinkin' that the "satan," "corn-fed" and "hippie" links might be more trouble than they're worth. All the blue in the names of the TV shows is majorly distracting, but some readers might not be familiar with the shows. (Coulter readers, for example, only watch Fox News, the 700 Club, and the country music channels.) Lou Sander 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hahaha it's okay, I forgive you. And on the contrary, I think I'd rather wrap my entire body in duct tape and have it ripped off as fast as possible than watch the 700 Club.  Can we remove April 25 as well?  I wonder if there's a way to expand or move things around in order to spread out those show links.  Any ideas???Stanselmdoc 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Political Activities
I think that Coulter's voting problems belong under Political activities. Another editor thinks they belong under Controversies. What do YOU think? Lou Sander 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A view from the "other editor": Voting is a civic responsibility, not a political activity. --Asbl 21:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I edited the lead sentence in the current "Political activities" section to remove "voting" as I don't see voting as a noteable political activity.  Accusations of voting irregularities belong in Controversies, IMHO.  --ElKevbo 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, agree. It's not a "political activity" as such. It is a controversy. -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur with Asbl, except that voting is both a responsibility and a privilege. Voting irregularities are a matter for the controversies section, if included.  Kasreyn 22:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly respect your opinions, but at this point I don't see any rationale for them. That may be blindness on my part, of course, or maybe you just feel they are valid, without any need for rationale. I teach critical thinking at an inner city postsecondary school, and I like to give my students real-world examples. I'd like to use your opinions as one of them. It would help if you could shed some light on: 1) The grounds on which you believe that voting is not a political activity. 2) The grounds on which you believe the voting issue is a controversy and belongs with the other items currently under that heading. Any help you care to give will truly be appreciated. Lou Sander 03:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Kasreyn, but my point of view is that the "Political activities" section of this article is for extraordinary political activities. Everyone votes (not really, but they should!) so it's not noteable.  Not everyone is publicly accused of voting irregularities and so it best belongs in "Controversies."  I certainly see and understand your point of view.  I just happen to think mine is better. :)
 * Off topic: The idea of an entire class dedicated to critical thinking is a bit silly. It should be pervasive throughout the entire curriculum.  Wishful thinking, right? :)  --ElKevbo 17:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For the life of me, I can't see why a literate, thinking person would call the voting stuff a controversy under even normal circumstances. Words have meanings. This one means, very briefly, this. Controversy is also a special subject with Ann Coulter, since she specializes in controversial remarks that might cause it. Some of those remarks, such as the Jersey Girls stuff, spark very notable controversies. Others don't. The voting stuff, IMHO, has nothing to do with controversy (= debate, discussion, strife). That's why I'm so interested in learning why people think it does.


 * Off topic: The course I teach was formerly called logic, and used a logic textbook. It was renamed critical thinking, and has a sort of pre-logic textbook. I have some theories about CT, as the experts in the field call it. If you look at the people in the CT field, they tend to be from schools of education, community colleges, and other places that are wonderful for what they do, but are not thought of as centers of intellect, high SAT's, etc. My theory is that CT courses are aimed at, and are helpful to, mostly students that aren't in rigorous courses at traditional universities. This is borne out by my current experience with my students, who don't naturally grasp the nature of argument in the sense of using facts to support reasoned conclusions. Some of their eyes light up when they see how that is done. So it's not that they can't do critical thinking on their own, but that life hasn't given them the tools to do it. Their sense of argument is fighting with the bill collector or the baby's daddy or someone who disagrees with them, and that's about it. Lou Sander 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like "rhetoric" than logic or critical thinking. It used to be a staple of formal education but at some point (perhaps due to specialization i.e. majors, minors, etc.) it fell by the wayside.  Now we spend effort and energy trying to infuse back into the curriculum in topics like "Information Literacy."  --ElKevbo 05:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, a little bit. But mainly CT just teaches students to think before they speak or act, and to argue by supporting their assertions with evidence. It also studies fallacies, which helps the students to identify weak/false/misleading arguments. And thinking about it, the subject isn't really so far off topic. Ann Coulter spends a lot of energy making logical arguments and pointing out logical fallacies.


 * Even this discussion started with a request for justification that the Coulter voting matter is a "controversy," and that voting isn't political. I'm hoping to show my students the critical thinking behind those assertions. So far what I see is "it's so because I think/feel/say it's so," which I suppose is a kind of appeal to authority. There's also a bit of argumentum ad populum, when an editor says "it's so because Tom, Dick, and Harry and I say it's so." And I don't remember the name for it right now, but the voting comments have a lot of "Socrates is not a man. He is a human being, and a Greek, and a dead white male, so he definitely isn't a man." I remain hopeful that I'll see some sound arguments for both the things I inquired about (especially that voting isn't political). Lou Sander 12:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that voting is an inherently political action. But I don't think it's a significant political action in the context of an encyclopedia.  The issue is present not because Coulter voted but because she is alleged to have screwed up when registering.  If it was accidental, then I don't think it even deserves mention.  If it was intentional, then it deserves mention not in a political context but in a criminal or controversial context.  --ElKevbo 01:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I respect you for understanding that voting is political. I originally put it under the political heading when I was grouping stuff there and I only had two really obvious political activities. The voting stuff was off by itself, or maybe in the Controversies section, where I thought it definitely didn't belong, at least according to Wikipedia's definition of controversy. (Far from actively arguing about it, Ms. Coulter is even declining to answer letters.) Since voting is the quintessential political activity, I put it under that heading. I won't be surprised if someone makes up a "Felonious acts" section and puts it there. I will then avert my eyes. Lou Sander 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Widows Controversy
I just added back the sentences about the Lauer interview and the criticism from Emanuel and Roemer. Before I added it back, there were 3 long paragraphs describing what she said, another describing how she was responding to the criticism, and only one 2 sentences about what the criticism actually was. The Lauer interview is notable because that's really the begining of the controversy. Emanuel's criticism is notable because of what he said and where he said it, not just because he criticized her. Roemer's criticism is notable because of his status as a member of the 9/11 commission and also because he told people not to buy the book out of respect for the widows. Maximusveritas 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO you did the right thing (explained it well, too). That whole section does a pretty good job of laying out Coulter's views, presenting the criticism, and presenting Coulter's response. I don't see any reason to delete any of the criticisms, provided that Coulter's response to them is given as well.


 * I think the title of the section is too long and too awkward, however. Most of its words are repeated in the first sentence below it. Maybe somebody can come up with a better one.


 * Also, there probably should be a sentence about the Lauer questions or comments that Coulter thought were "testy." It should go between "...interviewed Coulter." and "She defended her statements..." The present version leaves us wondering. Lou Sander 04:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree about the title and about the need for an additional sentence about the Lauer interview. I tried to come up with a sentence originally, but I couldn't find a good quote from the interview or a neat way of summarizing it.   Perhaps someone else can.  Maximusveritas 04:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I extracted a short quote and wove it into the paragraph. Lou Sander 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Messed up citation
The citation for the voting irregularities stuff is somewhat cockeyed. Clicking it leads not to a citation, but to three references identified only by number. One of them leads to an external article that provides support. One leads to a place where you have to be a member to sign in. Another leads to the entrance of somebody's archive. Can somebody please clean it up? Lou Sander 09:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Two of the three sources are definitely only available to subscribers of the respective publisher/archive. We'll either need to accept that (which is okay with me; we do that all the time with citations from scientific journals) or find alternative sources.  --ElKevbo 17:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The first source is pretty inclusive, and IMHO it would be strong enough to support the stuff that refers to it. The other two could just be dropped. It would also be good if the link to the first one could include more self-description, as most of the others in the area do. One of these days I need to learn how to do this stuff myself. Lou Sander 19:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can expand on the first link. I am loath to remove the other two references without further discussion (it's difficult to reach consensus with only two people).  I may go ahead and remove them anyway to see if anyone screams - file under "bold."
 * With respect to references in Wikipedia: Good luck. It's a big mess of inconsistency.  IMHO, Wikipedia's "let everyone do it their own way as long it's consistent in the article" way of working doesn't work so well with references.  The various citation templates are okay but their display in the article leaves much to be desired.  I try not to get worked up over it; I'm usually pleased as punch when editors make a good faith effort to cite their sources at all.  --ElKevbo 21:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're definitely right about the diversity. In the Coulter article, most of the references contain some plain text describing what they're about. I haven't figured out the different formats, but at least when I look at one of them, I've got some idea of what I'm looking at. Right now, only one reference consists only of a number. Two of them consist only of a URL. The other 50(!) pretty much tell you what they are. I have to say, however, following them doesn't always lead to where they say it will. Lou Sander 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * References which are not what they say they are or which do not support the assertion to which they are attached should be removed AND the assertion also removed (since it's not supported by evidence). --ElKevbo 05:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but personally I'm very reluctant to delete things from this article. Too many people take offense or consider it a personal attack. Lou Sander 12:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Deadhead
Lou tried to change the title of the "Hobbies" subsection to "Deadhead." I reverted the change. I agree that "Hobbies" is not a very good title. But I don't like the title "Deadhead" as a don't think that's a term familiar to everyone, particular to international readers. It could have unintentional negative connotations (or denotations, for that matter) for those people who don't know about the Grateful Dead. Would "Grateful Dead fandom" be an acceptable title? --ElKevbo 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, do we know any other of her hobbies? I tried to find a source for her "reading anything by Dave Barry", but was unsuccessful. I definitely like "Hobbies" better than "Deadhead". Do we even need to have two separate subheadings under the section? -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember guys, this was moved out of a trivia section and placed in the biography section. It is therefore borderline superflous. Perhpas we can take it out of the biography, and ressurect the now defunct trivia section. --Asbl 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Trivia section was removed for a reason. The article is too long, or at least Wikipedia keeps telling me it is. Hobbies are not notable. People keep warring over this non-notable, doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia, subsection. Delete it. Lou Sander 01:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I belive the message was put for technical not style or encyclopedic reasons. Don't give too much attention to the 32 KByte warning. If you use explorer or netscape, then you should not have any problems. --Asbl 02:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not like it really matters, but I don't even see the point in HAVING this mentioned. Why is it encyclopedically necessary?  How many real encyclopedias tell us what bands Oscar Wilde or John Donne or Samuel Johnson were fans of?  Is it really that important?  And even if it is, why does every one sentence piece of information on this page get its own heading?  ONE SENTENCE IS NOT A PARAGRAPH!Stanselmdoc 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I agree with Stan, only not so emphatically... one sentence is not a paragraph. -- LV (Dark Mark)  18:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I relocated the Grateful Dead material to a new "trivia" sub-section, and shortened it as well, as per space considerations. J.R. Hercules 17:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And I undid your change as we had removed the Trivia section (a few weeks ago?) for good reason. I'm sure we're all open to revisiting the issue but I think the reasons for which we deleted the section are still very good reasons.  --ElKevbo 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It would help if you summarized those "very good reasons" in your response to my comment, otherwise I have no idea where you're coming from. As it is, the discussion regarding the trivia section is pretty lacking an in-depth rationale for removing the section. So why did I move and trim the Grateful Dead information? Because it looks extremely odd to have such a trivial piece of information concerning a subject located at the very beginning of an article, not to mention unwieldy due to it nearly being a paragraph in length. The reader wants to get right into the meat-and-potatoes of a subject; they don't want to be sidetracked from the very get-go with humorous and flimsy anecdotes; those are for later -- much later. J.R. Hercules 03:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the trivia section and moved the Grateful Dead reference back to biography. Trivia sections as a whole are generally frowned upon as un-encyclopedia, as they merely tend to just be conglomerations of non-notable, unreferenced information. For the sake of this article, since it's fairly controversial, it's also a bad idea to have the trivia section since it would tend to provide a very easy place for vandals and conspiracy theorists to insert crap. The Grateful Dead part is somewhat notable, though, since it does say something interesting about Ann Coulter that is a bit unusual for someone as conservative as she is; Deadheads are generally more associated with the marijuana-smoking, 'hippie' crowd, which tends to be a bit more liberal. I also located a much more suitable reference for this as well. Dr. Cash 18:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree on killing the Trivia. It has been in and out several times, and IMHO most people think it should be OUT. I also agree that her being a Deadhead is notable enough to be included, and pretty much for the reasons you stated. I didn't check your reference, but there was a very recent interview about her Deadhead stuff, and it was very enlightening. It was formerly one of the references on the Deadhead stuff, and I think it still belongs there--it was unbiased and covered things very well, IMHO. I don't know how to find it and restore it, though. Lou Sander 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Headings? Inconsistency in Headings?
The article keeps getting longer and longer, and it seems to me that some of the sub-sub-sub-headings are unnecessary.

In the very long Controversies section, some paragraphs now have their own sub-sub-headings. Even some single sentences now have their own sub-sub-headings. If we are going to put headings before every single item or thought, we should do it for the whole article, not just for one sub-section under Controversies. If you are in favor of having all these headings, which section should be the next to get them? If you are NOT in favor of having all these headings, which should be the first to go?

This user is NOT in favor of having all these headings, and thinks that those under "Speeches at college campuses" should be the first to be deleted. Lou Sander 02:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you. I think they improve readability and help summarize the long article. --Asbl 02:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not that I disagree, I just don't think that's the problem with the controversies section. As stated in the previous discussion above, I think the problem is the general outlay and presentation of it.  Half of it isn't even controversies - it's just a list of things editors themselves call controversies.  If we work to fix the general outlay of things, the sub section headings may actually just disappear on their own.  I plan on working on it, but I have to take a pseudo-break for a while.  I have school work to do. Stanselmdoc 18:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism Allegations
Why was this section pulled into an archive? It most certainly is current.

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

OK, I'm glad that a plagiarism section has been added but it references blogs and not the New York Post article. That's why I added this section again. I don't feel comfortable with citing the NYP as a source in the main article because I don't really think the NYP is a serious publication but it is print media. I leave it to somebody else to decide whether or not to include the NYP allegations in the article itself. --Richard 23 02:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm... how is the New York Post not "a serious publication"? Although the paper tends toward sensationalism, as a major New York daily it's certainly a more credible reference than some unknown blog.--Pharos 09:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pharos, you are a light in a sea of darkness. Lou Sander 10:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the deal with the title, "Liberal critics allege plagiarism"? "Liberal" should be removed, unless one can demonstrate otherwise.  --George100 10:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the footnote by the word "Liberal". Rawstory and rudepundit were the citations for these allegations of plagiarism. Both are liberal websites. One is a blog, the other a Drudge-a-like. I noticed no other sources in the section I have been editing. 136.215.251.179
 * I suppose. What I'm more interested in is why you removed mention of the alleged plagiarism of the History Channel.  (You seem to have left the source, though.)  I'm also curious as to what your reasoning is for considering "Dealing with Hecklers" to be a fair and NPOV section heading.  I would agree that the previous heading was also inappropriate, though, so I've taken action to render the section heading NPOV.  Kasreyn 11:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the new UCONN heading. On plagiarism (and voting irregularities), I don't see how there is controversy enough to put them under the Controversies heading. (Please look at the link, which provides a helpful definition.) Both these notable matters relate to accusations of wrongdoing, but there aren't any notable active arguments about them. Coulter is remaining silent about them, and her supporters aren't arguing that she's innocent. Where's the controversy? Maybe "Allegations of wrongdoing" would be a section into which they could be put. Lou Sander 12:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm. I wouldn't mind that.  If, as you say, there's no real public furor going on, I don't see how we could call them "controversies".  I suppose I merely assumed that any point one side makes about her would be instantly and fiercely rebutted by the other.  Perhaps some issues just fly under the radar?  Kasreyn 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of people want to say nasty things about her. Some of 'em just want to show off by mimicing her outrageousness; some are offended by her dismissal of what she calls their religion (see odium theologicum); some just hate her; some disagree with her but aren't very articulate, etc. Given that situation, I think that we all need to work hard to insure she gets a fair shake. Just because Nellie hates her doesn't mean there's a notable controversy. Lou Sander 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep "liberal" out of it. Plagiarism is independent of someone's part on the political spectrum. -- Cyde↔Weys 12:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First, the leftwing blog rudepundit was the source for the History Channel item and rudepundit has retracted that allegation noting that Coulter actually did attribute the info to the actual source (WaPo). Second, both RawStory and Rudepundit are leftwing/liberal/progressive (you pick a name - it all means the same thin in this context) websites. These liberal (and always anti-Coulter) websites are the source of the plagiarism allegations. It is both factual and relevant. As is the dearth of "plagiarism" allegations despite 5 best-selling books and several years' worth of weekly columns. 136.215.251.179
 * I agree with Cyde. I don't see how the liberality of the sources (which itself I don't dispute) is notable in this context, unless you are wishing to imply that the allegations are solely politically motivated.  But I don't think we're in the business of implying things with section headings.  Kasreyn 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


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

The partisan source of criticism is notable - especially when the allegations are so minor and from such overtly partisan sources who are on record as being anti-Coulter. If someone wants to source a non-partisan story, then that would be a good idea. So far, the paragraph in question has used partisan links. 136.215.251.179

135.etc
Once again, as before, you don't have consensus for removing the Tucson paper quote. You don't have consensus (as far as I can tell) for saying "Liberals" allege plagiarism even if they ARE Liberals. And you haven't answered my question as to why you removed allegation of plagiarism of the History Channel. Scroll a few paragraphs up to my conversation with Lou, and look at how he behaves. That is how to behave in a collegiate manner here: you listen to what the other guy has to say, you respond in kind, and you wait on declaring victory until he's had a reasonable time in which to respond. Kasreyn 14:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already responded to your History Channel question above (perhaps you did not check for my response before complaining), and in addition I explained the edit in an edit summary at the time I made the change. When people shit on the article, I tend to clean it up rather than wait for a consensus to remove the excrement. Can you imagine if we flushed toilets by committee consensus? Here is the retraction located on the home page of rudepundit under the July 3 entry:


 * Correction: One of the pieces of the Coulter plagiarism puzzle must be tossed. It was always the weakest example. For this passage: "A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil," Coulter does cite an August 24, 1982 Washington Post article by Jay Mathews that reads, "The worst -- and most mysterious -- break occurred on Feb. 15, 1978, when someone, in an apparent act of sabotage, blew a hole in the pipeline near here that spilled about 550,000 gallons of oil."

(NB: Rudepundit does not concern itself with the fact that the History Channel did not credit the WaPo for the information on its website...)

136.215.251.179
 * Ah, I see now. I didn't understand your edit summary or what you meant by WaPo.  There still remain the issues of "Liberals allege" and the Tucson paper.  If you feel upset that I complain a lot, it might be because I have to do a lot of it just to get you to discuss a single issue at a time on the talk page.  It would probably be a more efficient use of our time to handle everything at once.  Kasreyn 14:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's consensus from me on removing the Tucson paper quote. Here's why: 1) It's in the citation. 2) It uses inflammatory words. 3) The guy asserts that conservatives knocked her, but IMHO his assertion is questionable. 4) The guy resigned a few weeks later, under circumstances consistent with being fired. 5) One paper dropping her isn't notable. 6) There's always the suspicion that the quote is in there just because it's particularly hateful (or uses particularly strong words, if you prefer.) Lou Sander 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit to lack of patience. But I won't admit to not earnestly seeking a quality article that fairly and accurately portrays the notable facts. Lou is right on the Tucson thing. During the invasion of the left-wing Coulter haters to this article, of course there was lots of sentiment for highlighting everything negative.  An honest assessment of ONE PAPER dropping a column carried by over a hundred would be that the fact is NOT material for an encyclopedia article on Coulter.  Coulter did not advocate firebombing the editors house and there was nothing else of n ote regarding the actions of this editor. He did not think the column was appropriate for the paper he edited, so he axed it.  Fine.  So what?  There is nothing more to that story.  How can it be considered something of note in the life of Ann COulter?  What is funny is that the continued wide popularity of her column (which is noteworthy on its own) would not have even been added to the article if it had not been for the overzealous editing of the Coulter-haters who wanted to make it seem as if Coulter had her back against the wall.  I laugh at the plagiraism stuff, too, becuase all that is resulting is that people who would never hear of the gross tax-funded art projects or foolish environmentalist fit set off by a weed are now made aware of how right Coulter is on those points! 136.215.251.179

Coulter's style
Ann Coulter makes sweeping and provocative statements. She seems to court controversy. It's hard to tell just how serious or "satirical" she means to be.

Did she really literally mean that she advocates the domestic terrorist bombing of the New York Times building in Times Square? According to "E&P Staff", she:
 * "refuted the notion that she is only joking"

However, in addition to this interpretation they quote her at length:
 * "No, I think the Timothy McVeigh line was merely prescient after The New York Times has leapt beyond -- beyond nonsense straight into treason, last week," Coulter replied.
 * "This is great humor," Colmes replied, sarcastically. "This belongs on Saturday Night Live. It belongs on The Daily Show. "

Note that the Editor & Publisher article characterizes her tone as speaking "sarcastically". 

Note further that they quote hes as saying "This is great humor".

This would seem to contradict E&P's own view, in which they cite her as denying that she is only joking. Perhaps she is being half-serious, or using sarcasm and exaggeration to make a serious point.

Satirist Jonathan Swift suggested (in apparent seriousness) that the Irish Famine could be solved via what he called A Modest Proposal: to wit, that the British should literally eat Irish babies.

I submit that an essential aspect of satire is to blur the distinction between straightforward serious assertions and obvious joking. In fact, the Wikipedia article about Swift's Proposal states:


 * This is widely believed to be the greatest example of sustained irony in the history of the English language. [and]
 * The satirical intent of A Modest Proposal was misunderstood by many of Swift's peers (emphasis added for talk page), and he was harshly criticized for writing prose in such exceptionally "bad taste". He came close to losing his patronage because of this essay. The misunderstanding of the intent of the satirical attack came about largely because of the disparity between the satirical intent of the cannibalistic proposal and the sincere tone of the narrative voice.

I think we should hestitate therefore to characterize Coulter as "refuting the notion that she is only joking". That should not be the POV of the article but perhaps of E&P magazine. --Wing Nut 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

npov-section plagiarism
NPOV can easily be reached in this section by adding no extra information, reporting exactly who and what said what. From a starting point, it is clear that the allegations are mereley allegations, and such must be repeated each time they are discussed. Additionally, "From among her five books and hundred's of weekly columns" is the inclusion of unrelated information to diminish the severity of the accusations - this is a violation of our policy on undue weight. If coulter says "in my five books and hundreds of weekly columns," quote her. Do not put her defence in our mouth. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the sources in that section are reliable, except for the one that asks us to compare two columns, which is origional work. I have rewritten it for the NYPost only. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've restored the section. WP:RS is a guideline, not policy. While blogs and personal websites may be questionable, the information is verifiable by references to the source of the alleged plagarism. If the authors of the sites simply stated that Coulter was a plagarist without giving citations, then they would not be appropriate. But here we have two different sites giving two different examples. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please put back in the information about the NYPost, put your two bloggers in their own section, and tag your section with Not verified. Thanks. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, I am honestly shocked that you are using "guideline not policy" to ignore WP:RS. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If editors must revert the section in question to one with either the two blogs mentioned, one that describes her critics as liberal or one the describes the alleged plagurism as "almost verbatim," please insert the relevent dispute tag - either origionalresearch, not verified or pov-section. Thanks. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Liberal POV warriors - what does including two blogs do for your cause that just including the NYPost article does not more than adequately do. Think about how much stronger your case is with just the Murdoch owned rag as the one alleging plagurism! Kick those bushco cronys where it hurts!
 * Conservative POV warriors - Do you really want all that text there? It's not like you can get rid of the NYPost article, so why let the liberuls link to their loonyleft websites?
 * Editors of the encyclopedia - WP:RS. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing illumination of potentially embarassing career ending professional impropriety with a point of view. Illustrating alleged plagiarism has nothing to do with politcs. Please see plagarism and Mike Barnicle. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm pretty sure I'm not. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rudepundit is NOT a reliable news source - it is a partisan blog. One of its recent headlines notes that "Ann Coulter is a cunt". Sorry charlie - that site cannot be a NPOV source. ANy mention of info from that site will need to have a qualifier that the source is a liberal blog. 84.146.214.111

Rawstory is also not a reliable news source - it is a self-proclaimed liberal/prigressive website that has political aims. Again - it cannot be used as a NPOV source. ANy mention of info from that site will need to have a qualifier that the source is a liberal news blog.84.146.214.111


 * By Coulter's standards, a reference from The New York Times would require a qualifier that it comes from a liberal source. Allegations of plagiarism have less to do with politics or POV and more to do with journalistic ethics, see Mike Barnicle. Thus, the political leanings of the source are irrelevant. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We're not using her standards here. If you can source accusations to the NYTimes, there is no need to qualify them whatsoever. Please review WP:RS. Thanks. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I may be mistaken, but I don't see anything in WP:RS that requires labeling a source as conservative or liberal. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the Reliable Sources applies here. We are not utilizing the blogs to report events that may or may not have occured. We are using the blogs to show that there is controversy as to whether Coulter committed plagerism. The blog has enough references to make the accusation credible. --Asbl 20:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you can only use them as such. Right now, one of the blogs is sourced the following: "Thou Shall Not Commit Religion" was shown to have segments taken almost verbatim from several sources including The Flummery Digest, Jeff Jacoby's 1995 Boston Globe article, and the magazine Counterpoint." One of the blogs (more accuratly, the reader is invited to engage in WP:OR) is sourced the following: "Her sentence is an almost direct copy of one found in an article from the Portland Press Herald. In the same chapter, Coulter references an attack on the Alaskan pipeline. Her sentence is similar to one from the History Channel." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You lost me. Where is the problem? The blog shows the extreme similarity between Coulter's writing and the other writings. --Asbl 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not reliable sources for facts. You yourself said that "We are not utilizing the blogs to report events that may or may not have occured." However, we are using the blogs to that purpose - specifically, the blogs are used to state that "was shown to have segments taken almost verbatim from several sources." Blogs are not WP:RS. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a blatant misquote. I wrote report events that may or may not have occured. The blog shows you Coulter's writing write next to the similar text that was written earlier. Those are certainly verifiable facts, and I suspect you have nothing to debunk them. This is why you are engaging in ad hominem. --Asbl 20:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are right does not make them acceptable for inclusion. The standard for wikipedia is not truth, it is verifiability. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you have truely lost me. As I pointed out in the post above, all those facts are easily verifiable. It seems to me that you are running out of arguments for removing the allegations of plagerism. --Asbl 21:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V does not mean that anyone could do the math to figure out something is true, rather it states that someone else must have already done the research - and that someone else must be a reliable source. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it were reported by Drudge would it be less reliable? -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The drudge report is not a reliable source. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what all the fuss is about here. If there are passages of 24, 25 and 35 words each - word for word identical to someone else's published writings - in some of Coulter's books or columns, what's wrong with saying so? The question is what is the threshhold of "plagiarism"? I'd personally say 200 words. --Wing Nut 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC). personal attacks removed by Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing plagiarism with copyright infringement. Plagiarism is passing off someone else's ideas as your own.  There's no need that the texts match verbatim.  Guettarda 13:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's what I meant: do you still consider it a violation of this web site's rules?
 * If some quotable source (i.e., someone other than a Wikipedia contributor) wants to use these 3 instances against Coulter, it only illustrates her point that liberals don't like to discuss issues but prefer to make ad hominem attacks. --Wing Nut 21:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Review WP:TALK. Talk pages are for discussions of articles, not for engaging in political slapfests. Thanks. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I only meant that I think it would be a service to your readers to include as much of the accusations of plagiarism (and evidence about it) as will fit. Then readers can either see (1) how much of a cheater Coulter is or (2) how much her opponents blow things out of proportion. I mean, isn't it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions, based on the reliable facts presented in this encyclopedia? --Wing Nut 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the amount of plagiarism, please note this quote from John Barrie: "''It didn't take long to find evidence of plagiarism, Barrie said. "After we found three in the book, we called it quits. I think we found four of her syndicated columns that had problems." But the task proved draining, he said -- on himself, not his technology. "After combing through Ann Coulter for a while, it doesn't take long before you want to call it quits. I want to prove the technology, but I don't want to make my eyes bleed." Guettarda 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then the article should say that Barrie found 7 passages (and maybe quote a couple of them?). Also, it should quote Barrie's hint that there are probably more. --Wing Nut 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not reliable sources. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually TPMMuckraker is a reliable source - it isn't a blog, it's written by real journalists. On the other hand, I disagree with WN's interpretation of the quote.  Barrie found a few and quit looking, so the number if irrelevant.  Guettarda 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. Justin Rood, the author, is a real-journalist, and as such that is a WP:RS. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Something bad is wrong here
Notes and References goes crazy halfway through. Somehow it is interfering with editing, at least in the Controversies section. Lou Sander 13:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Noted. Thanks. (Is it appropriate to remove sections like this when the technical, non-content-related problem has been fixed? Seems to me it ought to be.) Lou Sander 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged plagiarism
Now that we've agreed to write about Barrie's research, what can we do with this blog entry?


 * One of the pieces of the Coulter plagiarism puzzle must be tossed. It was always the weakest example. For this passage: "A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil," Coulter does cite an August 24, 1982 Washington Post article by Jay Mathews that reads, "The worst -- and most mysterious -- break occurred on Feb. 15, 1978, when someone, in an apparent act of sabotage, blew a hole in the pipeline near here that spilled about 550,000 gallons of oil."

Is this one of Barrie's examples? Did the NY Post article even give any examples? (Or just assert "He found a 24-word passage"?)

Anyway, these things usually end with either an apology (and correct citation) by the publisher - or for egregious cases, a withdrawal of the book, possible what Liberal (non-Wikipedian!) opponents hope for. Sometimes it goes to court - which would drive up book sales, hmm... Anyway, it's breaking news. --Wing Nut 14:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Justin Rood at TPMMuckraker has compiled a list of allegations  Guettarda 06:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversies Section Cont'd
Above, there is a lovely beginning discussion on the atrococity of Coulter's controversy section (particularly the Muslim, Women, and Confederate flag sections). I would like to clean it up and fix it. Here are my problems:

1. One sentence is not a paragraph. If Coulter created a noteworthy controversy, it has to be able to merit at least three sentences. If you can't think of three sentences to write about a controversy, how can it possibly be THAT notable as to warrant a mention? Everything Coulter says could be argued as controversial, so unless it created a BIG controversy (i.e. the Jersey-girls and the other things listed in her article) it shouldn't be listed as a controversy.

2. Half of the things currently listed have no mention of controversy. Basically the entire "Coulter on Muslims" and "Coulter on women" sections are just lists of quotes that some editors thought were controversial. Well, they might be controversial statements, but that doesn't mean they are a controversy. It means Coulter says mean things, oh nooooo...STILL, unless there is some article out there where some guy says "Ann Coulter said this about women and I'm angry blah blah blah", there is no controversy. If no one has responded to a statement she has said, it's POV for an editor to decide to put THAT quote in her article.

3. Speaking of all the quotes, we have wikiquote for a reason. Now, I'm SURE someone as controversial as Coulter has an excellent wikiquote article. I'm not opposed to finding sources for the quotes and saying, "when Coulter said this ... she made people angry and they ..." In fact, I would like some help in finding sites like that (since for some reason, I'm having trouble finding people who were angry about every quote listed). However, if someone didn't go "WTF? That stupid Ann Coulter!" when he read what she said, and he THEN wrote his opinion down in a news article or some other source, WHERE IS THE CONTROVERSY?? The quote should be removed from wikipedia and placed in wikiquote.

Sorry if I sound angry. I am a frustrated wiki! Stanselmdoc 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly with above. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk pages aren't the place for political commentary, see WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. 196.201.79.242 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of these things aren't, technically speaking, "controversial". That is, they did not spark controversies. Rather they are offensive to liberals, i.e., typical Coulter-style remarks.


 * Every other word out of her mouth is calculated to offend liberals, garner applause from conservatives, or make a point sarcastically. She's the skinny, ugly, female version of Al Franken (or that's how someone talking like Ann Coulter would describe her!). --Wing Nut 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's more accurate to call her the "Skinny, ugly Christian female version of Al Franken." Franken, of course, is the "Chubby, ugly Jewish male version of Ann Coulter." The only similarity between them is the initial letter of their first names, but Al thinks Ann is lye-ing about that, just as she does about everything else. Coulter declines to produce a birth certificate, which is further evidence of her rabid anti-semitism and hatred of men. (And possibly of her illegitimacy. Many of the ideas in her books are illegitimate, so it's reasonable to assume that she is illegitimate, too.) Lou Sander 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly with Stanselmdoc, Hipocrite, and the others, and I think Stanselmdoc sounds logical, not angry. Many of the "controversies" aren't "controversies," and many of the latter are quotations that should be moved to Wikiquote. Lou Sander 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree and would welcome changes to address the issues you have raised. --ElKevbo 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for it Stan. But just go slow as to not throw everything into chaos. Oh, and I believe the term is Wikipedian, not just wiki. A wiki is something totally different. ;-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Her anti-Arab and anti-Muslims statements may not have caused as much commotion as did her comments about the 9/11 widows, which suggests a lot about the feelings towards Arabs and Muslims, but nevertheless, they have angered many people, been condemned by media-watch groups, Muslim groups, and writers, so I can't understand how you did not find anything on this because I found many sources quite easily simply using Google. Examples: http://www.therationalradical.com/diatribes/ann_coulter.htm http://mediamatters.org/items/200410050004 http://www.coulterwatch.com/files/BW_2-003-bin_Coulter.pdf --Inahet 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "What we got here... is failure to commuuuunicate." If we all read the article on Controversy a couple of times, our communication might just improve. Lou Sander 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, and I am only one editor among many, the following subsections, taken individually or as a whole, are the major contributors to the section's current atrocity: 1) Criticism of her style; 2) Domestic separatists; 3) Arabs and Muslims; 4) Women; 5) Confederate flag. The one on Factual disputes isn't an atrocity, but it isn't something to be proud of, either. Lou Sander 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I happened to like the "Coulter courts controversy" line and have refactored the heading to include this. She's a self-described polemicist so it's not POV to say that she actively tries to "stir the pot" (her own words). I've added a lead for this section that justifies this (with a reference). I hope this helps. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks okay to me. I don't particularly care for using the word "Coulter" to begin the section name but that's a very minor issue and I don't have a ready suggestion to fix it.  --ElKevbo 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Implementing these changes, I think we should determine which things are actual controversies (the point of the changes :-)). I'd say, off-hand and from my memory banks, the only real "controversies" are pretty sure the bombing of the New York Times quote, definitely the "Jersey Girls" stuff recently, probably the plagiarism, and perhaps the voting stuff. Other than that, it is just polemic speech that some people don't like, but has not caused real "controversy". Did I miss any? Most of the other stuff may have a place in the article, but perhaps not under the heading of controversy. Thoughts? -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, LV, a looooooong time ago, there were two separate sections: Controversy and Criticism. I think they were merged into one "Controversy" heading, but I could be wrong.  It was over a year ago.  I'm not necessarily opposed to creating a "Criticism" section again and placing the other things in that section, but my main problem is the fact that none of it is sourced or even written well.  I just didn't want to start making changes on it until I'd commented on it on the talk page to see if people were amenable to the idea.  It seems the many people agree things should change a little, so I might get a little bolder. Stanselmdoc 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read these parts of the article many times, and I've thought them over a LOT. It helps to look at the Wikipedia entry for controversy. IMHO, the "Allegations of proper conduct" are exactly that, and should not be in a "controversies" section, because they really aren't controversies. I believe the college stuff, the Jersey Girls stuff, and the New York Times stuff are "Notable controversies" (because of the riots etc. at the colleges and the wide discussion in the media of the other two). I don't bother too much with the material in the "Coulter causes controversy" section, because IMHO it isn't well-written, has a lot of material that isn't presented from a neutral point of view, and is strongly but not necessarily reasonably defended by people who like it.

Also, I'm in favor of heading each of the college controversies with the name of the school, and nothing else. That gets rid of the edit skirmishes that the headings have inspired in the past. And I don't like the unwieldy title on the New York Times allegation. I prefer "Bombing" the New York Times or something similar, using the quotation marks to show it wasn't an actual event. Lou Sander 17:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Accused or not
User 196.201.79.242 changed the sentence "Coulter has been accused of courting controversy." to read simply "Coulter courts controversy." in the Notable Controversies section. I reverted the edit, but the user has simply re-reverted it. I think it reeks of POV. Rather than getting baited into a reversion war, I thought I'd mention it on the discussion page and let some others make the decision. badmonkey 00:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that, short of an explicit quote from Coulter herself stating that she "courts controversy," the statement is by necessity a POV statement and your edit is the correct one to retain NPOV. --ElKevbo 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's POV. Coulter calls herself a polemist. Of course she courts controversy. It sells books. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If we have a verifiable source for that quote then I'd be okay with shortening the sentence and citing the source. --ElKevbo 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * She's skinny, too, but hopefully we don't have to cite references. I'm not at all bothered when someone characterizes her as a polemecist, as controversial, as shocking, or anything else that she obviously is, but fails to quote a source. But when they line up a jillion Muslim quotes, all properly cited, and leave readers to infer that she's some sort of an anti-Muslim bigot, it kinda starts to bother me. I think of it as maybe, just maybe, sneaking somebody's point of view into the article. But I might be wrong on that. Lou Sander 01:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you can find quotes where Coulter talks about her desire to give every Muslim in the world a hug and a flower while standing under rainbows and petting kittens, be my guest - add them to the article. Because I don't really think such quotes exist.  The nonexistence of a positive angle to a particular issue isn't a valid reason to suppress the negative angle, vis-a-vis "undue weight".  Cheers, Kasreyn 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (To Lou) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Raul654 03:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


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

Wow. It went from a sentence in the controversies section to the new title. It may be tongue-in-cheek, clever and even a statement I agree with, but it now reads like a sensationalist headline. As much as I dislike Coulter and her views, controversial articles like this need to be as neutral as possible. Telling the reader what to think of her controversies is wrong, IMHO. They can easily come to that conclusion themselves. Lets stick to the facts and trust the reader to be able to make their own judgements. As for me, I'm not going to edit this article any longer. The opinion war here is too volatile for my taste. badmonkey 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Here is the retraction about the History Channel allegation located on the home page of rudepundit under the July 3 entry:


 * Correction: One of the pieces of the Coulter plagiarism puzzle must be tossed. It was always the weakest example. For this passage: "A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil," Coulter does cite an August 24, 1982 Washington Post article by Jay Mathews that reads, "The worst -- and most mysterious -- break occurred on Feb. 15, 1978, when someone, in an apparent act of sabotage, blew a hole in the pipeline near here that spilled about 550,000 gallons of oil."

I have removed POV commentary inserted by Hercules that is not aimed at a better article. Talk page is not a place for posting anti-Coulter POV editorials. What IS relevant is that Rudepundit has RETRACTED an allegation that the wikipedia article still cites. Your dumbass POV pushing is now exposed for all to see. Botttom line: the wikipedia article now contains retracted material as a source - becuase jackasses who hate Coulter, such as Hercules, do not have any interest in an unbiased article. 84.146.243.10

(Re-insertion of the post deleted by 84.146.243.10)
 * Not so fast. Here's the rest of Rudepundit's retraction, just to make things where they stand more clear:

'While no doubt some will look at this and go "A-ha, all the allegations are false," nothing could be further from the truth. The Rude Pundit stands by, and re-emphasizes, motherfuckers, every other instance of plagiarism in Coulter's work, especially now that it's been backed up by the New York Post. Coulter's plagiarism is at least as bad as that of Kaayva Viswanathan, whose book, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life, was recalled by its publisher.

'Oh, by the way, Coulter does not cite any source for her main point of the example: "Six weeks later, the birds were back." Indeed, Prudhoe Bay is more or less fucked up for the birds. http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/07/late-night-new-york-times-in-smoky.html

J.R. Hercules 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yo, anti-Coulter editors
Your plagiarism section, as has been pointed out repeatedly in the talk section, is all dicked up. Its as POV as it gets. In addition to relying on left-wing blogs, it also contains an allegation that has been retracted by the leftwing blog that is cited as the source (the History Channel allegation is just plain false and ridepundit has even admitted that to be the case). If there was even half of an attempt to fix this section the article would have some credibility. As it stands, it sucks as the anti-Coulter POV oozes from the article. 84.146.243.105
 * Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and we'll get back to you. Thanks. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Note
If you care about the content of the articles, then I suggest you become a registered user instead of contributing via an unregistered IP. That will help us take you more seriously.

If, on the other hand, you don't care about the content of the articles... why are you here? DS 22:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't feed the trolls. --ElKevbo 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No. This article is as biased as can be. Folowing the civility rules has gotten registered level-headed editors like LouSander absolutely nowhere. The NPOV and source rules are being blatantly breached and the leftists here don't give a damn. SO fuck off. I am glad you have to lock down the article. It demonstrates how fucked up wikipedia is in general. I will continue to edit this article until editors start following the content rules. 84.146.223.217


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

Indiana University
Short version: "Gay boy" stinks in the heading. Get rid of it.

Long version: It's pretty clear that the incident at Indiana was mainly notable for the heat that was generated in a large audience. The headline of the cited article is Coulter Splits IU's Crowd. Much of the article is about the disruptions to Coulter's speech, and the accompanying actions of the police. Much of it is about her attacks on public figures and institutions such as Howard Dean, the Democrat Party and the "liberal media." A very small part of the article quotes Coulter's response to three "fans and protestors," one of whom was the "gay boy." A larger part quotes student leaders defending Coulter and deploring the rowdiness of the crowd. The wrapup is six paragraphs discussing people's reaction to the evening's events, pro and con.

IMHO, the Indiana sub-sub-sub section of our article is a reasonably fair summary of the controversy at IU. But its title is improper and should be changed to eliminate "gay boy." No controversy over Coulter's "gay boy" barb is reported in the source, and as far as I can tell from other research, there was no controversy surrounding it. It was just another exchange between Coulter and a boorish heckler. In other words, the word "gay boy" was in no way a notable factor in the activities of the evening, as we all can see in the source. Yet we title it as though it's about "gay boy." Puzzling, eh? Not very professional, IMHO. Also not very indicative that the article is written with a neutral viewpoint.

I think that fairness, truthfulness, honesty, and respect for our readers and our subject all say that the heading of this sub-sub-sub section should be about the "splitting of the crowd" (or like that), which is, of course, what the sub-sub-sub section is about. The same principles say we should abandon the words "gay boy" in the heading. This is not a supermarket tabloid, and those words, though definitely spoken during the evening, were in no way notable to the audience or the IU newspaper.

Others say that the controversy in this speech is about the use of "gay boy." Nothing I see supports that view. It seems to be pulled out of thin air. We can't have a "This is What *I* Think" (TWIT), and "If *I* Think It, It Must RULE" attitude. TWIT isn't good enough. TWIT needs some factual material behind it.

I believe that using "gay boy" in the sub-sub-sub heading is very, very, very improper. Our common interest says we need to send it packing.

Please comment. After all, I may be missing something. Lou Sander 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your analysis is correct. I'd go even further and ask: what is noteable about this speech at all?  I move we remove it entirely.  --ElKevbo 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with both sentiments. This speech is non-noteable. -- Dcflyer 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Proposal: It's notable that Coulter inspires controversies at college speeches. I didn't like all the sub-sub-sub headings when they first appeared, but now I'm coming to see their benefit. They're a bit long, though, since the stuff they head consists of short paragraphs that link to some very good sources. They also tend to create unproductive disputes. I propose that the sub-sub-sub headings just state the name of the school. The material below them will summarize the specific controversy, and the references will provide the details. If the proposal is agreeable, the sub-sub-sub headings would be University of Arizona, University of Connecticut, Philander Smith College, and Indiana University. Then we'd have a section on Notable Controversies, a subsection on Speeches on College Campuses, and several succinct examples, complete with useful, non-objectionable sub-sub-sub headings and solid references that provide the details of each controversy. IMHO, the result would be a subsection that is notable, informative, and presented from a neutral point of view. Lou Sander 14:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Dcflyer; it is an illustrative example of Coulter's public speaking style, in which she hectors and abuses her audience. The speech derives its notability from its ability to describe her speaking style.  Otherwise the argument could be made that any particular sample of Coulter's writings, behavior, speaking, anything is not "notable" in and of itself.  Their purpose here is to help describe the person herself.  Kasreyn 23:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kasreyn that the IU speech is a good example and should be kept, provided it can be reported from a neutral viewpoint. I'm sort of surprised that Kasreyn, a notable advocate of "NPOV," seems only to see one side of the Coulter/audience story. At IU, for example, student disruption of the program is in the lead of the news report; Coulter stops speaking "more than ten times" so that unruly students can be removed by the ushers; one student wears a KKK-like costume and a crudely humorous sign; others act rudely and ask rude questions; Coulter responds in kind. This is hardly, IMHO, a story about Coulter "hectoring and abusing her audience." Neither are any of the others. Lou Sander 23:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)