Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 8

Archive
Someone want to archive this page? I'm gone for the weekend, or esle I would. Cheers. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark) 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Claims of Support for Domestic Terrorism???
I deleted this POS POV page vandalism.


 * Please don't refer to passages as a "piece of shit". --kizzle 00:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't. POS = 'Partisan Opposition Slime' in the circles I travel. Perhaps, in your world, where it's acceptable to vandalize articles on the President of the United States with photos of a pierced penis, it means something else...Big Daddy

Coulter has frequently criticized the government's handling of suspected domestic terrorists. She described David Koresh and the Branch Davidians as "harmless American citizens" even after investigations found them to be involved in multiple instances of murder and child rape. Likewise, she berates the "unprovoked government assault" and "murder" at Ruby Ridge. Similar views were expressed by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh as justification for his action, and Coulter has since stated that, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." These statements have led Eric Alterman, of The Nation and MSNBC, and other critics to suggest that Coulter supports domestic terrorism. Alterman calls her a "terrorist apologist" and "ideological comrade" of McVeigh. Big Daddy 23:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted the sneaky deletion of sourced material by POV-pusher who lacks even the most basic level of willingness to adhere to the norms of behaviour in this community. Is this what he means by 777? Guettarda 00:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"POV-pusher" is a personal attack and slanderous.So is most of the rest of your nonsensical comment accompanying your nonsensical and illegal revert of my edit. Kindly desist. Best Regards, Big Daddy 00:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Altered this utterly POV POS that Guterarda, illegally reverted. Please don't change my reverts again. Thanks and Best Regards. Here is the corrected version.

"Coulter has frequently criticized the government's handling of suspected domestic terrorists. She berated the "unprovoked government assault" and murder at Ruby Ridge [9]. Regarding Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, Coulter has joked, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." These statements have led far left wing critic Eric Alterman, of The Nation to call her a "terrorist apologist" and "ideological comrade" of McVeigh. [10]Coulter has said these overheated expressions to her sarcastic comments from her idealogical opposites come because they are "clueless."

It will later be completely removed. The source for the claim that Ann called McVeigh 'innocent' mentions no such thing. Big Daddy 00:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleting sourced material and calling it vandalism is unacceptably decietful. Threating your fellow editors for saying so on your talk page is unacceptable. Acting like you own the article shows that you have no concept of how Wikipedia works - much like ignoring an RFC against you. Calling another editor's work a "piece of shit" (thanks kizzle, for translating that) is unacceptable. My reversions were correct under Wikipedia policy. To suggest that my actions were "illegal" is laughable, but it's far more of an attack than calling sneak-deletion on POV grounds vandalism. So I was right on the 777, huh? Guettarda 01:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Introducing material that doesn't support a slanderous charge in order to slime a conservative? I'm shocked that someone so objective would disagree with my rightful decision to correct this unfortunate situation provoked by a page vandal. Please don't aid and abet page vandalism as you have. Thanks and have a great evening! !!!! Ps Your post also contains about 3 personal attacks. I'm wondering if you could perhaps become accustomed to expressing your opinions without lowering yourself to such unsavory tactics. I wish you well Big Daddy 01:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * See a spade, call it a spade. Guettarda 01:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, you called me a 'white supremicist' because you disagreed with my edits. I appreciate your candor in confessing to these vicious personal attacks in violation of all the principles of Wikipedia especially Jimmy Wales stated desire that we build community. Now, will you follow that confession with genuine heart-felt repentance? I am believing you can and support you all the way in this regard. Good luck! Big Daddy 01:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Big Daddy 01:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Dude, you're hilarious. Go answer the concerns expressed in your RFC.  And stop posting misleading edit summaries.  Guettarda 01:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, someone said you're an administrator? Could this possibly be true? If so, I understand you will be judged by a much different (and far stricter) standard for your malfeasance this evening. I'm speaking of course of your documented defense (and reinsertion of) what's now been established as unsustainable smears and propaganda (by the very sources used to support it.) Not to mention the slanderous accusations of page vandalism you leveled against me, for simply trying to restore this page back to Wikipedia standards. The one incident that will likely get you banned however is smearing me as a white supremicist merely for following Wikipedia protocol. But I do wish you good luck in whatever consequences you'll inevitably have to face. Cheers! Big Daddy 07:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I never "smeared" you, I just asked a question about the origins of your unusual name. It only takes a yes or no answer, which you have yet to give.  I have no clue how your choice of username is "only following Wikipedia protocol".  As for my charaterisation of your edit as "slanderous" - hey, I was using a standards template which has been around since at least December 2004.  By the way - thanks for supplying yet another example of your typical behaviour here.  Guettarda 15:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's calm down guys. In fact I just discovered--from reading the quoted sources you added the article no less--that Coulter stated at the time she made the McVeigh comment that it was a "joke". She was joking. Let's not take jokes, however tasteless you think they are, so far out of context. No wonder you had so much trouble finding a source calling her a "supporter" of terrorism; your inability to do this was puzzling me greatly indeed.


 * Back to trying to use "support" in there, let's keep the paraphrasing of critics' statements very close to the original, and if that gets disputed, please find a compromise. That is fair isn't it? As you could always just quote the critic directly. Especially given the vehemence of some authors here and the controversial nature of the subject. Multiple people object to using "support", including myself. That's a pretty good indication that even if you revert-war us away, others will feel the same way down the road and remove it so what's the point of fighting?


 * I also reworded the beginning of criticism and removed stuff that's repeated in more detail elsewhere in the article, as its already too long. As for David Koresh and Randy Weaver, first of all they are not terrorists. Secondly, they are not the subject here. And thirdly, probably half the country would criticise the gov't's treatment of them, including for example much of Congress and the FBI itself. I'm assuming you are unfamiliar with the stories as wikipedia is very light on them, so let me point out that Coulter's views on those particular points are not at all controversial. 67.124.200.240 07:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Coulter did not say that the 'blow up the New York Times building' comment was a joke. Other people have CLAIMED she did, but she didn't. See quotation of the conversation further down the page.
 * That you object to the word 'support' is irrelevant. You can't exclude a fact just because you don't like it. And it IS a fact that Coulter is accused of supporting McVeigh... If the article said, 'Ann Coulter supports Timothy McVeigh' then MAYBE you could remove it (though I'd argue that is a perfectly accurate description of her actions), but what is going on here is that even the mention that some people BELIEVE Coulter supports McVeigh is being removed... and that is improper.
 * Randy Weaver IS a white supremacist. David Koresh WAS a murderer and rapist. There is a difference between criticizing how the government handled these individuals (which >I< do) and saying they were "harmless American citizens" who the government went after "unprovoked" and "murdered"... which is what Coulter and McVeigh said. You may think those views are "not at all controversial", but I assure you that you are mistaken.
 * --CBDunkerson 15:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Good response! I wonder though if speaking rationally to people so clearly irrational when it comes to Ann Coulter will work. You see what it's gotten me so far! lol! Thanks again though. But, do keep an eye on this page. It appears the "She loves McVeigh" crowd aren't even trying to be fair. It sure would be nice if they extended some of the good faith towards Ann they demand that others have of them, wouldn't it? Big Daddy 07:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up this piece a little further, removing scare quotes around the word joke which I have been instructed by Hipocrite is not acceptable use in Wik. I also cleaned up the spelling and correctly labeled Media Matters as liberal. I am also happy to see that my characterization of that KOOK Eric Alterman as 'far left wing' was removed (and apologize for it's inclusion) so long as it's understood that this kind of characterization must also be removed from the Bill Clinton article and every other article where it is found. I'm in the process of effecting that change this weekend.

Big Daddy 10:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

To summarize my general feelings about the inclusion of this piece: What a horrific load of nonsense! I will admit it's a lot fairer than when it first appeared as basically page vandalism. But (and these next comments are ONLY directed to people who are able to see the forest for the trees) this back and forth between the Wall Street Journal and Eric Alterman and back to the Al Franken by way of the Right wing news just makes this piece laughable. And when any Wikipedia article gets reduced to a farce as this one will remain with the inclusion of this kind of claptrap ...it reflects poorly on all of us...Big Daddy 09:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the meandering tit-for-tat arguments makes for a rather unreadable, pointless, and massive article by normal writing standards. I'd much prefer a short sweet article that only hits the major points history would care about. But bloat is apparently the inevitable result with wikipedia rules when it comes to articles on controversial topics, and I don't see much that can be done about that.


 * I'm not familiar with the concept of "scare quotes". I meant them as depicting a bona-fide quotation of someone's words, which I added because I was afraid someone would remove the word (let's watch and see) declaring a characterization of a statement as joked inherently pov, when it is in fact a referenced quotation of both Ann and the critics describing the statement.


 * Back to the section, I looked into that blog and am pretty sure it needs to go. I don't know who the hell August Pollack is and apparently he is nobody important whatsoever, clearly not meeting the standards of wikipedia for including a blog. What's left should probably be made into just an Eric Alterman section then, but I there may be more that the Ann-supports-terrorists gang will want to cram into there, like marginally relevant criticism of Koresh and Weaver. 67.124.200.240 10:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Meandering tit-for-tat lol! That nails it, doesn't it? I was informed by the editor hippocrite that 'wikipedia doesn't use scare quotes' in referencing my use of "" around certain words. I had never heard that expression before either. I also got in trouble tonight for adding the words 'far left' to my description of Eric Alterman, but if you go to the Bill Clinton article (and undoubtedly countless articles about controversial democrats) you'll find they use those terms to describe conservative critics all day long. The reason I bring up the Bill Clinton article is that I thought those editors did a superb job of narrowing all the nutjob accusations down to one succinct paragraph. I call it the 'Clinton Model' and am in the process of implementing it at Karl Rove's page and then here etc. Check it out and see if you don't agree. It is possible. Take care and thanks again. You're great! Big Daddy 10:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Specious Paragraph
I've removed this paragraph for the following reasons (stated below):


 * Coulter however, on the occasion noted had just given the appearance of having praised the New York Times (Coulter, August 2002), an institution which she had held up as an archetype of liberal bias in her book Slander, and was presumably making use of a kind of "slash-and-burn" humor to cover up or at least qualify her praise. Indeed, one of her most well-known critics, comedian Al Franken, helped introduce this brand of humor to television, and Coulter's use of it against those he sympathizes with politically, may help explain his particular dislike of her.

1. No cited proof of Coulter having praised the Times, or having "given the appearance of having praised" them, whatever that means.


 * You need to check the reference section to get the cite.

2. "Presumably making use of..." is an editor's presumption, not fact. It's actually an attempt at apologia, and not a very good one.


 * Coulter is a satirist. It can be reasonably presumed that a satirist is using satire when a pretext for comedy arises (in this case the conflict between her own persona as the conservative attack dog in high heels and her praise for the Times).

3. Psychoanalysis of Franken is presumption as well.


 * Okay, but then was it you who erased the linkage of the same brand of speech used by a widely-known opponent and herself? That's simply a fact.

Almost the entire paragraph is speculation. Eleemosynary 12:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Elee, rather, it's stating the obvious. 64.154.26.251 14:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I looked at various references linked in the article and was unable to find the one where Coulter supposedly 'praised the Times'. Therefor I am removing this convoluted 'her call for terroristic mass murder was to compensate for having accidentally said something nice' bit.  I am also removing the deliberate misrepresentation of Alterman's 'blow up the Wall Street Journal' quotation... what the author left out is that Alterman wrote that and two other similar quotations (in his anti-coulter article I have cited repeatedly) as paraphrases of what >Coulter's< statements would look like if she were calling for the murder of conservatives rather than liberals. He was paraphrasing Coulter herself, not expressing personal views. The misrepresentation in this article is the equivalent of claiming that Wiesenthal wanted to kill Jews because he once quoted Nazis saying THEY did. --CBDunkerson 15:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the reference. It's in the "Coultergeist" article:


 * I told her I usually read The Times before bed, because it depresses me.
 * "Oh, it totally gins me up, it works like coffee," she said. "I read it like a wolf."


 * So you see, she praised them.


 * Furthermore, CB, you are jumping to conclusions by saying she "call[ed] for terroristic mass murder". Coulter said she regrets McVeigh didn't GO to the New York Times building, not that he blow up the building.  How can we infer she didn't mean the latter?  She admits she likes to taunt liberals further on in the interview:


 * She said she "takes joy in liberal attacks. It’s like coffee.  I mean, usually when I write up a column, I know what’s going to drive them crazy.  I know when I’m baiting them, it’s so easy to bait them and they always bite.  That is my signature style, to start with the wild, bald, McCarthyite overstatements—seemingly—and then back it up with methodical and laborious research.  Taunting liberals is like having a pet that does tricks.  Sit!  Beg!  Shake!  Then they do it."


 * Ann Coulter is not a screeching reactionary?


 * "The American people don’t think so. I speak for them."
 * 64.154.26.251 17:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So I see... you are quite content to state your a dubiously strained interpretation as fact. Doesn't it seem rather more likely that she was saying that the Times pisses her off... gets her worked up?  The whole rant about how they printed TWO photos of poppy Bush throwing up in Japan immediately after that doesn't sound like 'praise' to >me<.--CBDunkerson 17:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you'd bother to read the references in the article, in this case the Booknotes interview, you'd learn Coulter uses the New York Times as her favorite comic foil in ridiculing liberals' use of it as a quasi-religious totem of intellectual authority. Her joke about McVeigh is really targeted at intellectuals who believe they can appraise among the quality of journalism in newspapers and consider the Times as being the best newspaper in the country.  Her book Slander (with considerable success) attempts to undermine the credibility of the Times, and so, as an inside joke to those who understand what she had done, she makes a crack about supporting literally undermining the Times building and on top of that, supporting such an action for the sake of egotistical self-dramatization--which is another thing she also baits unwitting liberals who don't get the satire into believing she does.  That's why she was so excited about saying the quote:  she was killing two birds with one stone. 64.154.26.251 18:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

-

I changed this paragraph - "In August 2002, Coulter made the inflammatory remark that "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." Melik Kayan of The Wall Street Journal described the statement and others she has made as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop". [6]

Still, many critics were not amused, such as Eric Alterman of The Nation and MSNBC, who called her a "terrorist apologist" and "ideological comrade" of McVeigh. [7]. Coulter went beyond commonplace criticisms of the government's handling of the Branch Davidians [8] and Ruby Ridge [9] incidents to actually claiming that they were "harmless American citizens" subjected to "unprovoked government assault" and "murder". McVeigh made similar criticism as justification for his bombing [10] [11]. Alterman further writes that "Coulter may routinely call for the murder of liberals, of Arabs, of journalists, of the President, among many others."

To this "In August 2002, Coulter joked that "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." Melik Kayan of The Wall Street Journal described the statement and others she has made as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop". [6] Some liberal critics insist she was serious, such as Eric Alterman of left-leaning The Nation, who called her a "terrorist apologist" and "ideological comrade" of McVeigh. [7].

The stuff I edited out was for the following reasons:

Eric Alterman is NOT of MSNBC. He may have spoke on MSNBC but so has David Duke.


 * Eric Alterman is on the MSNBC payroll and writes a regular column for them... as stated in his Wikipedia entry, his bio, the MSNBC site, and virtually any other source you might care to check. If you actually did care. --CBDunkerson 17:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It was a joke and it will always be a joke no matter who super-sensitive PC people want to make it otherwise. Their hypersensitivites are NOT the baseline at Wikipedia.Big Daddy 16:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Saying Coulter went beyong commonplace criticism is a value judgement that is NOT backed up by the sources. The editor conflated comments from two incidents and suggested she was talking of Koresh when she was talking of his victims as 'innocents.' If we follow the tortured logic of the author of this section, anyone who claimed innocents were killed at Waco was calling Koresh 'innocent' which is nonsense.

This whole 'was not amused' business is poor writing and not encyclopedic.

I removed this line "McVeigh made similar criticism as justification for his bombing" because it's a smear. As has ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT in here, over half the country (dems and rep) criticized the government's handling of Ruby Ridge and Clinton/Reno's inept bungling of Waco.

Finally,it's one thing to give Alterman a rebuttal line, but when he ventures out into suggesting Coulter ROUTINELY calls for the murder of presidents, it's not Wik-worthy.Big Daddy 16:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"Only Joking" re McVeigh
Coulter is quoted as saying she was "only joking" about the McVeigh quote. Can anyone provide a link? If not, the quote should be removed. Eleemosynary 13:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For one source, John Cloud said in :


 * As to the New York Times quote, our package has a whole list of outrageous quotes from Ann Coulter. It's called "What Did She Say?" and we have a whole list of them. The New York Times quote she said to another reporter, George Gurley. She said at the time that it was a joke.


 * from this I don't interpret saying "Later" in the article as accurate unless you know something I don't. 67.124.200.240 13:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, 'John Cloud' is incorrect. The conversation as reported by Gurley ;


 * Coulter - "Is your tape recorder running? Turn it on! I got something to say."
 * Coulter - "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
 * Gurley - I told her to be careful.
 * Coulter - "You're right, after 9/11 I shouldn't say that," she said, spotting a cab and grabbing it."
 * Coulter never said it was a joke... just that she shouldn't be saying it right after some other terrorists blew up a building in New York. --CBDunkerson 15:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all someone should link to The NY Observer article from which the quote came to provide context and assure those incessantly worried that she wasn't joking that in fact she was. Secondly, although in the spirit of compromise and collaboration I left this in albeit edited more succinctly, I want to be on the record as objecting to any paragraph dedicated to this funny remark being in the coulter article. I will remind you that Howard Stern said he wished Oprah and Jennifer Aniston were drowned in Katrina as just one tiny example of how this kind of joking goes on everywhere in the media circa 2005. Finally, none of this will make sense to the irrational Ann haters (like Eric Alterman)who's only objective is to poison her reputation by twisting every joke she makes into some sort of religious fatwa. Big Daddy 16:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My explanation of Coulter's joke was so good, I decided to include it again in this context.


 * Coulter uses the New York Times as her favorite comic foil in ridiculing liberals' use of it as a quasi-religious totem of intellectual authority (see Booknotes interview in External links for examples). Her joke about McVeigh is really targeted at intellectuals who believe they can appraise among the quality of journalism in newspapers and consider the Times as being the best newspaper in the country.  Her book Slander (with considerable success) attempts to undermine the credibility of the Times, and so, as an inside joke to those who understand what she had done, she makes a crack about supporting literally undermining the Times building and on top of that, supporting such an action for the sake of egotistical self-dramatization--which is another thing she also baits unwitting liberals who don't get the satire into believing she does.  That's why she was so excited about saying the quote:  she was killing two birds with one stone. 64.154.26.251 18:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like justification for saying Eric Altermann is of MSNBC. Legit documentation, not just a guest spot as a talking head 4 years ago. Otherwise it's coming out. Also, I'd like to point out that he's a liberal cause...well...he is. Big time.Big Daddy 20:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Back on joking: You can't prove a negative. Trying to do so is original research anyway. Cloud is a legitimate source who works for one of the most prestigious newsmagazines there are, has been there for over 8 years, and wrote the famous cover story on Coulter. And both Cloud and Alterman said Coulter was joking. I will put that back some different way when the editing calms down. 67.124.200.240 23:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Cloud said that Coulter was joking. That is true. However, it is also only his opinion and not the fact you suggest. Cloud also said that Alterman uses the same sort of rhetoric as Coulter. That's an outright lie. As I explained previously, the example Cloud quoted was not a remarkably similar statement... it was Alterman PARAPHRASING what Coulter's diatribes would look like if she were calling for the mass murder of conservatives rather than liberals. You should have addressed the stated reasons for its removal before putting it back in. It's a clearly false claim. --CBDunkerson 02:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And Coulter was doing an impression of self-centered New York sophisticate who self-dramatically sweeps away logic in order to get her way in order to point out she had already got her way (undermined the New York Times) through sheer force of her intellect. Except she pulled her punch and only said she wished McVeigh would GO to the New York Times building because she knew liberals would try to frame her using the exact same tactics you are using.  64.154.26.251 03:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * She's a super genius!! --kizzle 03:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please. Coulter didn't mean McVeigh should blow up the Times building? Only go there? So why would she want MCVEIGH to go there? Why did she link her statement to 9/11? Why did she later say he should make sure the editors and publishers were still inside.
 * This is simply bad faith. --CBDunkerson 03:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand satire that's fine. But if that's the case it doesn't leave you apt to judge the statements Coulter makes as a professional satirist.  You should present the information you want included in the article to those more familiar with her writings and the kind of writings they are, and they can help decide whether they are fitting for the article or correspond to any sort of reality about Coulter.  Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an experiment in democracy.  64.154.26.251 04:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved part of your addition here:

''He makes this claim based on the 'Wall Street Journal' quotation of Alterman above. However, what Cloud leaves out is that Alterman was, in fact, paraphrasing Coulter herself. He substituted conservative indicators for liberal ones specifically to show that no one on the left was making similar statements calling for mass murders. ''

I don't believe this is an accurate description of the content of the sources. Cloud does not say his "same kind of debate" quote has anything to do with the wsj quote by Alterman. Further, Alterman does not say he is paraphrasing Coulter in that quote, but that he is making a point. 67.124.200.240 03:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * He says that Coulter made statements "in language identical to that above". So yes, he says that he was paraphrasing Coulter. --CBDunkerson 03:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not paraphrasing, it's copying its semantic structure. Perhaps you should retake English 101.  64.154.26.251 04:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources, fully cited arguments, and context defending Coulter got removed (oops)
please be more careful in your revert warring, and discuss removal of sourced facts on the talk page. I wasted several hours digging up those counter arguments and including them and don't appreciate them being blown away like that. If you don't like my wording, the re-word it, don't remove it. I note that the section now contains 100% Coulter-bashing and 0% Coulter-defense. Someone who didn't assume good faith would call such one-sided deletions vandalism. At best they are a mistake which must be corrected. 67.124.200.240 23:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to mention a tag-team Quintuple revert. And on the last two reverts no explanation at all was given for reverting.  64.154.26.251 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the CRITICISM section. It's SUPPOSED to be negative. As to defense... the 'she is only kidding' bit appears several other places in the article and the rest of the defenses (i.e. 'Coulter said she was joking', 'Alterman wanted to blow up the Wall Street Journal') are provably false... as explained earlier on this page. --CBDunkerson 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I understand why your contributions here are so...um...misguided. It's NOT SUPPOSED to be negative. It's supposed to fairly expose BOTH sides of the story. Even in the criticism section which is not another term for spewing out all the hatred you can think of for a columnist you have personal animus for. Look at this edit he made (in red below)  before it gets rightfully deleted. As long as you continue to INSIST she supports Tim McVeigh, no one...(got it?) NO ONE will take you seriously. Now, you may be well intentioned, but you just come off as...well, If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to SMEAR Ann Coulter unfairly...

Still, many critics were not amused, such as left wing critic Eric Alterman of The Nation and MSNBC, who called her a "terrorist apologist", though Alterman agrees that Coulter was joking, saying "Coulter jokes about McVeigh blowing up the Times". [13] Alterman also calls Coulter an "ideological comrade" of McVeigh, referring to Coulter's strong criticism of the government's handling of the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. Alterman further wrote that "Coulter may routinely call for the murder of liberals, of Arabs, of journalists, of the President, among many others." But in attempting to make a point accusing The Wall Street Journal of hypocrisy, Alterman wrote something similar. He writes "My only regret with Osama bin Laden is that he did not manage to kill every member of the Wall Street Journal editorial staff", before quickly pointing out that he did not mean it. John Cloud argues, "Eric Alterman and Ann Coulter engage in the same kind of debate". He makes this claim based on the 'Wall Street Journal' quotation of Alterman above. However, what Cloud and the anonymous user insisting on including this quotation leave out is that Alterman was, in fact, paraphrasing Coulter herself. He substituted conservative indicators for liberal ones specifically to show that no one on the left was making similar statements calling for mass murders. [14] Ethically bankrupt individuals then proceeded to misrepresent these quotations as the very sort of 'leftist hate speech' which Alterman had created them to show the non-existence of.

Wow, huh?Big Daddy 03:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Big Daddy, I thought you were putting us all on to make a point. Wow is right.  Not only does he seem to be attacking Ann Coulter, but a wikipedia user who seems to get in the way seems to get hit with collateral damage. 64.154.26.251 04:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to put you on. These ann-haters write stuff, I couldn't make up if I tried. lol! Big Daddy 07:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * those quotations are present in the cited sources, relevant to the section topic, and not present elsewhere in the article. I should point out that I clearly added neutral context for the Alterman quote, and find your insistence of its removal rather ironic. 67.124.200.240 02:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And we should just ignore the fact that they are proven lies? --CBDunkerson 02:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I should add what is there will have to be pared down. The Michael Moore page contains one page of criticism with rebuttals in all but one or two paragraphs and it's 36 kilobytes long.  The Coulter page contains three pages of criticism with some rebuttals (plus mostly negative accounts of relations with the media) and it's only 39 kilobytes long.  64.154.26.251 02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Clinton page is a good model for how to treat the kind of utter slime some people seems hell bent on poisoning this article with. Hmmm...Criticims of Clinton and Moore are short and sweet. Criticisms of Rove and Coulter are a mile long. How could this be? Big Daddy 03:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I will soon be bringing the 'Clinton Model' to Ann's Column. What we'll do is pare down all these cheap shot attacks into one neat and concise paragraph and make it clear what the political orientation is of the majority of the attackers are and what they're real motivation is. Ps Also will be reinstating my reasonable, clearly defended, logical and explicitly documented before the fact edits and continue to do so ad infinitum undeterred by anonymous multiple-reverting page vandals. Just thought everyone would like to know.Big Daddy 00:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Took out this line "However, he provides no evidence for this claim." since he doesn't have to. It's his opinion and duly noted as such. What proof could he proffer anyway? DNA evidence of a joke? Also MSNBC and Eric Altermann do not belong together. Big Daddy 07:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to put it back in again. Proof of Alterman's employment at MSNBC was already posted above. More proof - . --CBDunkerson 08:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

msnbc.COM, maybe. There's a big difference. Big Daddy 08:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

A gentle note
Hi all -- I know that Ann Coulter invites a lot of strong feelings on both sides, but as a casual observer of the article I've begun to see edits here recently beginning to veer off toward the land of Bad Behavior. Please, everybody, take a deep breath, go do something else for a few hours on this lovely Sunday. Get some fresh air. Watch a movie. Just don't worry about Wikipedia for a while, then come back some other time and take a crack at it. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Kate, you bring calmness to an heavily inflamed situation, thank you :) enjoy your sunday! --kizzle 17:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Franken Re-write - Do not remove
Franken states that Coulter treats any comments found in The New York Times as reflecting the official opinion of the newspaper, although many of the comments Coulter cites are from opinion pieces. Franken calls Coulter's statement in her book Slander "If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments...They call everything stupid." hypocritical because in the same book she describes others in a similar derogatory fashion. Thank youBig Daddy 00:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Big Daddy, I just wanted to say I'm sorry you are being harassed by Kizzle and his accomplices and had to redo the section after they reverted all your recent contributions for the sole purpose of imposing a make-believe "sanction" on you unauthorized by any administrator of Wikipedia. I clicked the edit button on that section to fix it myself when the edit box revealed that you had already fixed it. 64.154.26.251 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow! Is that what they are trying to pull? Do you have any proof of this, it would be very interesting to see.


 * Check the edit history of Talk to see it. 64.154.26.251 06:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind childish pranksters and page vandals ultimately will not prevail at Wikipedia. Just ask Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. He may be ready to crack down on such nonsense. It's sad to see how fast Kizzle has discredited himself, but please provide any supporting evidence you may have. Take care. Note: I also cleaned up the convuluted tit for tat McVeigh section. Here's how it looks now:

Criticism of statements regarding radical separatists
Coulter has frequently criticized the government's handling of radical separatists and expressed what some consider to be support for them. She was willing to characterize members of the Branch Davidians at the Waco compound as "harmless American citizens" even after the survivors of the raid and subsequent immolation of the group by their leader were convicted. Likewise, she berates what she calls the "unprovoked government assault" and "murder" at Ruby Ridge. Years earlier, Timothy McVeigh made similar criticism as partial justification for his bombing, though the government's handling of both incidents has been widely criticized. 

Shortly after the publication of Slander, Coulter joked, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." to interviewer George Gurley. (Coulter, August 26, 2002) John Cloud, a staff writer for Time magazine later wrote, "She said at the time that it was a joke".Melik Kayan of The Wall Street Journal described the statement and others she has made as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop". 

Many liberal critics, such as Eric Alterman who writes for The Nation and blogs for MSNBC.com, criticize Coulter's use of humor. Alterman called her a "terrorist apologist" and an "ideological comrade" of McVeigh, because of Coulter's strong criticism of the government's handling of the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. Alterman has written "My only regret with Osama bin Laden is that he did not manage to kill every member of the Wall Street Journal editorial staff", before quickly pointing out that he did not mean it. Time's John Cloud remarked that "Eric Alterman and Ann Coulter engage in the same kind of debate." Big Daddy 01:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This extremely POV edit has been completely reverted. Hollow cries like "do not remove" are especially non-Wiki, and will be ignored unless (of course) if an administrator makes the request. Eleemosynary 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Page vandalism by Elemosynary reverted and reported. Big Daddy 01:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

A page vandal loses his wings.

Everytime this gets reverted until the authorities step in, I will be making even more concise edits to remove even more of the distorted POV inherent in this piece. I'll also make it a much better written piece. I'd call that a win:win:win.

Here's the latest version, please respect it's nPOV.

Coulter has frequently criticized the government's handling of radical separatists and expressed what some consider to be support for them. She characterized members of the Branch Davidians at the Waco compound, which included children as young as eight, as "harmless American citizens"   Likewise, she berates what she calls the "unprovoked government assault" and "murder" at Ruby Ridge. The government's handling of both incidents has been widely vilified by across the political spectrum. 

Shortly after the publication of Slander, Coulter joked, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." to interviewer George Gurley. (Coulter, August 26, 2002) John Cloud, a staff writer for Time magazine later wrote, "She said at the time that it was a joke".Melik Kayan of The Wall Street Journal described the statement and others she has made as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop". 

Many liberal critics, such as Eric Alterman who writes for The Nation and blogs for MSNBC.com, criticize Coulter's use of humor. Alterman called her a "terrorist apologist" and an "ideological comrade" of McVeigh, because of Coulter's strong criticism of the government's handling of the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. Alterman has written "My only regret with Osama bin Laden is that he did not manage to kill every member of the Wall Street Journal editorial staff", before quickly pointing out that he did not mean it. Time's John Cloud remarked that "Eric Alterman and Ann Coulter engage in the same kind of debate."

Starting Anew
It's been quiet today, so rather than making big changes to the article while various people are out I thought I'd archive all of the older stuff. Anything which was active within the past two weeks I left here.

I've got a suggestion to try to clean this up a bit. Would it make sense to have a 'background' section (the current top sections mostly unchanged), a section of criticism, and then response to the criticism? Basically the same information, but organized into three areas to reduce the great amount of duplication and choppy structure in this article. Quotations and footnotes could remain largely as is, though I'd hope to work most of the quotations into the article.

As a start / example I'll strip the criticisms (and associated defenses) out of everything down to the 'Books' section and move them to 'Controversy'. Let me know what you think. If people agree we can then work on splitting 'Controversy' into 'Criticism' and 'Support' or somesuch. --CBDunkerson 22:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I took it a step further and removed all the OT name-calling and bickering. Talk pages are for discussing the articles - there are lots of other places to discuss user conduct.  If I removed any text discussing the content of the article, my apologies, and feel free to restore them.  The other material doesn't belong here.  Guettarda 22:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand, Dunkerson. You want to create three parts: History, Criticism, and Support?  That's what I got, is that right?  If so, I don't see why not.  It would certainly make for a cleaner article.  And I think it would be great to work the quotations INTO the article instead of having a separate section for them. Stanselmdoc 14:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I particularly agree with doing away with the "quotes" section. It's too easy to cherry-pick uncontextual quotes that potentially serve to unbalance the article, and besides which, that's what Wikiquote is for. It's fine to have some quotes incorporated into the text of the article at appropriate places to give a flavor of the person's speech, but a laundry list of quotes IMO is not a good idea. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 22:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the general idea Stanselmdoc. Might need to be refined, but assuming we all agree with the premise that it is appropriate to include the both the reasons people criticize Coulter and why they defend her I think the general idea could help. Still waiting until some of the involved parties get back this evening to comment before implementing. --CBDunkerson 22:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled onto this article for the first time, and I have to say that it is very choppy in its current form, and seemingly trying TOO hard not to be POV. I think that the re-organization that was just mentioned would help make this article much more interesting, informative, and readable.


 * Do not remove the quote section.  A lot of work and debate has gone into building a fair, balanced, verifiable set of quotes.   Quotes are just about the most verifiable, NPOV piece of information that can exist in type.   Some POV editors have been pushing for their removal for quite some time.

--155.91.19.73 22:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I am a completely NPOV editor, and I say they should be removed. In fact, if nobody else objects I plan to do just that, and move them instead to Wikiquote, then place a link within the article to Wikiquote. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 02:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Haven't we been over this a dozen times already? Do all the previously laboriously argued out and grudgingly hashed out decisions have no influence? Gzuckier 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * i object. this has been debated repeatedly for over a year.  just because you sincerely try to be npov does not mean that your edits necessarily are, are you perfect?  does your instant opinion trump the probably hundreds of hours that have been spent on this topic?  at least do us the courtesy of going back through the archives and responding to the various arguments before you decide to reopen this can of worms.  sorry if my response seems intemperate, but i feel pretty strongly that some deference is due to the long and considered debates of the past year. Derex 04:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Seriously, as my first post ever a year ago was about this topic, people need to go back and read the archive before just throwing that out there. --kizzle 09:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa, calm down. There's no way I'm going to go back and read through every archived post before suggesting changes to an article when the archives are as lengthy as the one here, but if something I've proposed has been the subject of significant debate, I'm glad to comb back through it for the pertinent information once someone's told me that it's there.  The only thing anybody said when I first raised the issue was an anon who insinuated that I was biased for even wanting to do such a thing, which is ludicrous.  I never said I'm perfect, but to have that be the response to a genuinely good faith suggestion was a little offputting.  I can see now that it was a touchy subject and I have no desire to set off another edit war when everybody else seems happy, so let's consider it dead and buried. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 12:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kate, please go right ahead and do just that. The quotes unbalance the article, and anyone reading this article gets the idea Miss Coulter is not going to talk about fluffy bunnies when she speaks. Dominick 12:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * ok, i very nearly panicked, because that issue has been such a lengthy nightmare. i understand now that you have no knowledge of the background.  the phrase 'completely npov editor' threw me a bit, as it sounds like a claim that your edits are necessarily correct or neutral.  now, i don't think you meant it that way, but rather that your intent is neutral. Derex @ 23:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I'm glad that I've assuaged your concerns. ;) Not at all... the one thing I know about myself is that I always have room to learn.  I only meant that my suggestion was made in good faith, not to grind some kind of POV axe, which is what the anon was suggesting. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 02:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In this same vein, I should tell y'all that I've opened up a topic to gauge opinions on the subject of having quotes in articles in general (this is now the second article I've come upon where it's been an issue -- seems to be resolved for now, but apparently only after an extensive fight). You can find it at Village pump (policy) if you care to stop by. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 02:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally could care less whether quote lists are used or not. I suppose listing them here does steal the thunder of wikiquote, but its a style argument for which I don't have a opinion about either way.


 * As a more important style issue, I doubt keeping the criticism and support separate is viable, people will constantly be dropping by to slip in counter-arguments to statements. Not to mention it sounds more like an article about a trial than a person. What about breaking it down by source? Interview statements go in "media relations", column articles go in a "columns" section, and book stuff goes in individual sections for each book. The vague generic criticism can go in a vague generic section like "what people who just plain love and/or hate her have to say" or whatever. 67124etc 05:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The NPOV page advises against separating out the pro/con sections

''Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into a separate section.''

I would defer to KateFan's judgement on this matter as I agree with User:67124 that it's more of a style rather than substance issue. Although I think the underlying point is that the quote section has heretofore been used as kind of a dumping ground for Ann's more outrageous quotes in what appears to be an attempt to confirm her detractors portrait of her as an out of control nut-case. So, if I had to come down on this tiny controversy, I'd say either remove all the quotes to WikiQuote or simply add some quotes that seem more trenchant and insightful to counter the obvious attempt at caricature. There are some more important lingering POV issues with this article (although I still maintain it's vastly improved over what I stumbled upon less than a month ago.) I've addressed those concerns below. Ps It shouldn't surprise anyone that I agree with User:67124. After all...we are the same person :) Big Daddy 21:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. It just invites too much trouble if you ask me, particularly for something that's, in the end, redundant. But I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest in this particular article that was only settled through careful compromise.  In terms of the issue in general, there isn't much guidance in WP's policies on this particular score -- WP:NOT is closest; it says:  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information [...] Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. But this only really speaks to an article that only consists of quotes, something like Ann Coulter Quotations, which isn't at all the subject at hand. I'm thinking about trying to come up with some sort of policy brainstorming on this issue; the pump discussion indicates to me that it would at least be an interesting exercise. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A waste of keystrokes. The quotes aren't going anywhere, they are legitimate encyclopedic content. Even attempting to remove them smacks of POV. If you want to press a new policy, something about trolls/vandals would be good. It's too hard to get rid of the greifers at this point....(and I don't mean bigdaddy777) --155.91.19.73 21:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting they be removed, I'm suggesting they be placed in Wikiquote, which can easily be linked to any article. Be careful of what you are insinuating, and remember to assume good faith. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This will sound like a false analogy, but I don't really think it is. We can link _anything_ from here.  We can link to her fox news bio.  We could link to a new yorker profile of her.  We of course do that, but we don't leave it at that &mdash; we write our own stuff.  Just because wikiquote exists as a resource doesn't mean that quotes can't be a useful part of an article.  For example, here, we have the option of choosing and including a few different quotes that illustrate distinct elements of her style: sarcasm, hyperbole, personal attack, metaphor, whatever.  Or particularly well-known quotes.  Or controversial quotes.  It's highly doubtful that wikiquote is organized that way, or even should be ... it's ideally an exhaustive collection, probably chronological.  My point is that here we have the ability at least to add value beyond wikiquote, even in just a quote list.  Selective quotes can be a way to introduce POV, but they can also be a way to introduce quality.  Sure, we could toss a few words of context around them to make them part of the text.  That strikes me as artificial.  But you know that's what is going to happen.  Ban quote lists, and wikipedians will simply work around it by adding some fluff "context".  Maybe that would be a better way to do it, but it's not obvious to me.  I haven't been following lately ... is the particular selection of quotes included here currently a source of conflict? Derex @ 00:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * TOUCHE, PREVIOUS EDITOR: the word "insinuate" usually requires some lack of assuming good faith--but I'll presume this was just poor word choice on the part of an unknowing newbie.  These quotes are legitimate encyclopedic content.   Putting them off in some rarely visited sister project would make certain that few users ever see them.  It's deletion just like "placing" things in the Recycle Bin project is deletion.   Its smacks of POV more than the neverending moving of content to positions of less and more prominence in articles.  --155.91.19.73 23:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 "The quotes aren't going anywhere "Wow! Bold talk from someone who speaks anonymously. Again, I defer to Kate's judgement. But if Mr 155.91. etc is right and they must stay, then I will introduce additional quotes that will portray her in less than a 'crazy nut' light. Big Daddy 21:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I know this is a late comment, but if editor 155.91.19.73 is reading this, I would love to hear an explanation as to how a quote section is "legitimate encyclopedic content," and then an explanation as to why this keeps getting brought up anyway, when he/she could just read through the archives. Then, if he/she would still like to argue about a quote section belonging in wikipedia, I'm more than willing to go through it all over again. Stanselmdoc 16:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Why
Why can't you Americans see that this woman is fake? I've heard dozens of quotes that begin with: Liberals are ..., or, Liberals think this and that, or, Liberals don't... . How can this woman know that? She is conservative isn't she. Like that recent remark she made on the Hannity & Colmes show: "who doesn't wants to be sexual abused by a firefighter?". This woman is giving the conservatives a bad name. Regards, Geograaf 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We thank you for your opinion. Many Americans do think she's fake. On the other hand, many Americans happen to believe the same things as she does. I have a hunch that conservatives think Coulter gives them a good name. A bright, attractive woman not going with the new-feminism; Conservatives relish it. A goofy-looking, misinformed hate-monger; Liberals can't stand her. Either way, I think it makes for good television, but that's just me. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark) 20:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. I think that conservatives are nuts to support this, already 44 year old, woman. Of course she's pretty, but she has a very uninformed, and distorted opinion. Like that remark she made about the Vietnam war. Did she realy think that Canada sent troops? Boy even kids know that Canada didn't sent troops. Geograaf 14:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What would her age have to do with her writings and her punditry. She isn't a reporter, she is a commentator. This is off topic as this is not directed towards making this article better. Thanks for your comments. Dominick 15:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutly right of course. Well it is nice that you thanked me for my comments. On the dutch Wikipedia I would have been blocked by now so you guys are nice. However I did do a good thing. I did help on the dutch version of the article on this person. Regards Geograaf 21:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, it's just about impossible to get blocked here for comments on talk, unless you are being absolutely vicious Derex @ 23:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well Derex if you got the impression that I am liberal your quite wrong. I happen to be a conservative so please don't talk that way. Geograaf 20:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Waitaminnute! Whats this I read about her on the Dutch site!

Haar conservatieve commentaar gaf haar een reputatie voor haar stevige kritiek op het sociale en politieke amerikaanse liberalisme.
 * I think her hair is just fine if you ask me! Dominick 01:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It certainly is Dominick. She's hot for an 43 year old. Geograaf 20:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wel dear conservative (Which i happen to be too :-) ) Because i've worked on the article i'll translate it for y'all. It means: Her conservative commentary gave her a reputation for large critism on the social and political liberalism. Of course this sentence sucks in translation so don't attack me on that will ya. Geograaf 20:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I also found it on your own page. It is adopted from this sentence:Her conservative commentary has earned her a reputation for strong criticism of social and political liberalism. Geograaf 20:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Troubling aspects of the artiicle as it exists right now
1) I believe if Eric Altermann is to be accorded the prestige of being associated with msnbc.com, it should be noted that he is a blogger for msnbc.com. I say that because I found conservative columnist and author Michelle Malkin referred to as a blogger in another article and I do believe that's meant to diminish the value of her statement. So, again, yes. We HAVE to see the forest for the trees. No one article in Wikipedia exists in a vaccum. There has to be a baseline standard and I reject any argumentation that suggests implies or directs that if 'I don't like that article, go change it.' (Although, once we decide which way to go across the board, I'd be happy to change the other article.) Instead, one way or the other (and I don't care which way) liberals and conservatives have to be characterized by the same fair measuring stick.

2) This is new. It's from Conason: "Conason goes on to point out that Coulter's critical nature is blunted by her pre-assumed opinions, making many of the conclusions she draws irrelevant to the actual nature of her arguments." Wow! That seems a little unfair just hanging out there like that. I propose either eliminating it or...and I hate this approach as much as the next guy...scotch-taping on yet another quote which refutes this obvious cheap-shot from Conason.

3) This is old. The McVeigh section, as should be no surprise to anyone who's followed my work here, is troubling. Let's start with this quote: " She was willing to characterize members of the Branch Davidians at the Waco compound as "harmless American citizens" [6] even after the survivors of the raid and subsequent immolation of the group by their leader were convicted." Well, some Waco compounders were convicted of something or another. But the reality is that there were mostly innocent victims of David Koresh in that compound - especially young children. It's unbalanced to just add the tag line about conviced Davidians without acknowledging what I GUARANTEE you Ann was referring to, which were the overwhelming number of innocent victims in that massacre.

This quote is also troubling: "Timothy McVeigh made similar criticism as partial justification for his bombing." Well, McVeigh had LOTS of reasons for his bombing. But who cares what a madman thinks? And if you do, then I understand he also had some uncomplimentary things to say about the Bible. Therefore, if we are to include this in Coulter's section, I say we include it's complement in Bill Maher's article. It would go something like this: "Naher has frequently criticized the Bible calling it a 'bunch of fairy tales' and claiming 'God doesn't write books.' Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh made similar criticism as partial justification for his distrust of Christianity, though the Bible has been widely criticized throughout history."

Whady'a say?

(Much more on this section later.)

4) Racism is not the same as being anti-Islamic terrorists that want to kill Americans for supporting Israel etc. To title Ann's comments on Islamic Radicals as allegations of racism seems dishonest to me.

5) Did Ann really say that ALL women are "not as bright" as men'? Some editor in Wikipedia wants us to think so. I say this quote be taken out until we get confirmation of her whole statement in context. Now, I know for a fact that Ann is only half-joking when she argues women should not be allowed to vote so she is far from imune when it comes to suggesting she holds less-than-boilerplate-feminist views. But this quote supposedly out of H & C seems like it's probably another smear. Again, if proven wrong, I'll gladly man up and stand corrected. But, unitl I'm proven it wrong, it should be excised in my view.

More later...Big Daddy 21:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the transcript, Hannity & Colmes, Sept. 23 2004. Apologies for the length:

HANNITY: Let me go to Ann.

I think one of the -- I think the defining number was in the NBC poll. Sixty-eight percent of all respondents say Bush and Cheney have a message and know what they will do if it's elected. Only 36 percent think that they have any clue what John Kerry is going to do, now that John Kerry is, you know, the puppet on the string for James Carville.

COULTER: Right. Right. And -- and in the Fox/Dynamics poll, when asked who would handle terrorism better, the numbers were pretty stark: 51 percent for Bush, 36 percent for Kerry.

HANNITY: Does that -- does that answer the gender gap issue, the security mom issue you and I were assessing before -- before...

COULTER: Yes, I'm so pleased with my gender. We're not that bright. And generally, even landslide...

HANNITY: I'm glad -- I'm glad you said that.

CADDELL: I'm glad I didn't say that.

COULTER: No, Pat will back me up on that. Landslide people who are Republicans...

CADDELL: No, no, no.

COULTER: ... are -- split the women's vote. I mean, when -- when Reagan won a landslide, he was splitting the women's vote and then just overwhelmingly won among the men.

HANNITY: With men.

COULTER: Now what's stunning about the numbers, and this is true of a lot of the polls now, is Bush's winning among my gender. So apparently, women that were not as bright don't want to die any more than men.

HANNITY: Oh, stop. The women -- you're going to get us all in trouble.

Pat, let me throw up some numbers on the screen. Quick numbers. Quick states. I think key states in the race here.

If you look at Florida, for example, the Quinnipiac poll, 48-43. When you add Nader, it's 49-41. So it's an even bigger margin.

CADDELL: And he's on the ballot.

HANNITY: And Nader will be on the ballot.

CADDELL: He's on the ballot.

HANNITY: In Wisconsin, it's 52-38, as you can see there on the screen. Nevada, 52-43. That's another big change. And West Virginia, which only a day or so ago seemed to be leaning to Kerry, it's 51-45.

I mean, if this holds up, obviously John Kerry -- and Kerry's pulled out of advertising in some states that he was going to try and contest.

CADDELL: Look, I don't understand -- you know, I've never understood the idea of spinning polls. You know, it seems to me that they say what they say and we ought to be honest about it. I watch the campaigns and I'm just -- I just don't -- I don't get it.

The fact of the matter is, look, as I said, structurally, Bush has established the first real lead in the campaign. That's something we should look at. That is not getting any higher right now. If anything, it's coming down a little bit.

The question now is, and that raises the challenge of what is Kerry going to do.

The point of the matter is two things have happened and Ann actually referred to them.

And Ann you're not a pollster. You're not supposed to make these points.

But anyway, the -- one of them is that -- one of them is that -- is that, you know, is that we have the gender gap has closed, which is remarkable.

Now, the -- now the -- Kerry's pollsters said yesterday, Alan, an amazing statement. He thought the gender gap closing was not a problem but an opportunity. And I thought, well, thinking like that will -- thinking like that will get you very far.

COLMES: I've got to get to Ann in the next segment about how she says her gender is not that bright. (My note: They never went back to that subject.)

&middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I man up and stand corrected...Big Daddy 00:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To respond to various issues raised by BD777;
 * 1 - Alterman should be called a 'blogger' for MSNBC.com. I've got no problem with this so long as we similarly change it to calling Coulter a blogger for uExpress.com.

Sorry, Ann is NOT a blogger. That's just dishonest. Her SYNDICATED COLUMNS are on uexpress. (She did suggest one day that she'd blog but it never happened.) My main objection to the use of MSNBC.com in connection with Altermann is that it lends mainstream credibility to him. But he IS IN FACT a blogger on MSNBC.com and that's why I suggested that inclusion. Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 2 - No opinion.
 * 3 - You guarantee Coulter meant ONLY the innocent at Waco? In the context of the quotation Coulter was saying that the government went after harmless American citizens at Waco. If we accept your 'guarantee' then Coulter was claiming that the government was not trying to arrest the murderers / rapist... they were after the innocent children. Which would make her sound like even more of a nut :]. Also, you say that McVeigh offered LOTS of explanations other than things like Waco / Ruby Ridge... such as? Everything I've read calls it retaliation for those. He even timed the attack to coincide with Waco.

To suggest that Coulter meant rapists when she referred to 'innocent victims' is to suggest that John Kerry mean crooks and possibly rapists too when he said 'Osama bin Laden was responsible for the taking of thousands of INNOCENT American lives on 911.' (After all, we haven't checked the rap sheets of the 911 victims have we? It's likely that, amongst 3000 New Yorkers, a few had criminal records and thus weren't really 'innocent', right? Let's face it, this is non-starter. She was referring to the fact that people in that compound that had done nothing wrong were dead because of what she perceives to be a colossal blunder at the federal government level. To somehow twist that the way this article does really isn't very smart. Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 4 - Coulter does not specify 'we should kill only their leaders who are islamic terrorists and forcibly convert only the islamic terrorists to Christianity'... she says these things universally about all Arabs. She groups them all with the terrorists. That is the very basis for the charge of racism - she doesn't differentiate. The whole 'repeal the Emancipation Proclamation' bit doesn't help either.

Sorry, she not only does NOT say all Arabs, she doesn't even say it about ALL Arab leaders. Read the article again. She is VERY SPECIFICALLY talking about people who were REJOICING over American deaths. Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 5 - As already noted, yeah she did.

I was wrong here. Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The only problem is, she didn't say it. The conversation probably went like this:


 * COULTER: I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century.  We don't need any more.


 * Asked how far back in time would she go to start repealing laws, she replies


 * COULTER: "Well, before the New Deal."


 * When asked, "You're talking about the Emancipation Proclamation?"


 * COULTER: "That would be a good start." (meaning starting right after that proclamation).


 * Two things come to mind here. First, as the Wikipedia article on the Emancipation Proclamation states, the Emancipation Proclamation was not a law, but an executive order. (see Emancipation_Proclamation) Secondly James M. McPherson in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Battle Cry of Freedom, noted that after the South seceded, there was a flurry of laws passed in Congress (such as the Homestead Act, federally funded construction of transportation facilities, and an act allowing the government to float the currency without being tied to the gold standard) which was the beginning of a period of activism in the operation of the U.S. Government.


 * The part about converting Muslims has been discussed here before. She was careful to indicate only those people cheering and dancing at the 9/11 events, which killed her friend Barbara Olson.  This fact was removed from this article sometime after May 2005. 64.154.26.251 20:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your interpretations in both cases. There was nothing about 'AFTER' the Emancipation Proclamation stated. As to how careful Coulter was to ONLY want to murder and forcibly convert those who supposedly cheered and danced in the street in celebration of 9/11... in her own words ;

COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?

COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.

COLMES: But you're talking about a group of extremists who misuse Islam and aren't practicing true Islam. But would you like to convert all of these countries to Christianity. Should they all become Christian nations?

COULTER: Yes, that would be terrific.
 * No matter how you dress it up she's still a bigot. --CBDunkerson 20:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with her 'kill their leaders' line. As a matter of fact, EVERY born again Christian thinks it would be a 'good start' if every Muslim were to become a...er..born again Christian! That's their religion. Same with Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and..umm...Macintosh afficinados. Wanting to 'share the joy' does not make one a bigot, not matter how you dress it up.Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * CB, it's possible to refer to a period of time without refering to a particular point in time. Take for instance:  "When's the best time to eat breakfast?  When your alarm clock goes off?"  "That would be a good start."  Everyone who knows the context knows what the person means (hint:  it's not that you should eat breatkfast while you're still dreaming).


 * CB, you also tend to conflate things together. You set up like your going to disprove "that Coulter ONLY wants to murder and forcibly convert those who supposedly cheered and danced in the street" (a sentiment that doesn't match the quotation anyway) and you end up by only proving she'd like to see Muslims as Christians instead, a sentiment shared by a great many evangelical Christians. 64.154.26.251 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! That's what I just said. We are the same person after all, aren't we? :) Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

a man?
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2867

Dating a liberal?
I've seen multiple sources, including the hardline conservative forum "Free Republic" with many threads claiming that Ann Coulter is dating some singer named Rob Ryban who is apparently a liberal Democrat? Has anyone else heard this?