Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 9

Anti-liberal, not conservative
She doesn't espouse conservative views. She attacks liberalism (using no facts) and that's all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.234.203.32 (talk • contribs) 21:22, June 7, 2006.

Conservative criticism of Coulter - where?
This article has a few statements that maintain Coulter takes criticism from conservatives, but there are no quotes or cites to back this up. A link to a Washington Times article is mislinked to the Smoking Gun link about "Al Pieda." If there are conservative critics, they need to be cited along with her numerous liberal critics.Rebochan 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly criticized her, which may be mentioned on this page.

If we are not labeling the NY Times as liberal then we are not labeling the Washington Times as conservative. Both or neither. Labeling either is a matter of opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeldpalmer (talk • contribs).


 * That's very interesting. You seem to be making a statement that we shouldn't include claims calling any particular organization "liberal" or "conservative" without backing it up.  However, your labelling VVAF as "liberal" shows of what material your stance is made.  Isn't labelling VVAF "liberal" a matter of opinion as well?  Or is your opinion worth more than others'?  Respectfully, Kasreyn 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

[www.coulterwatch.com] 

Back to the quotes
Wherever they wind up (and I still say someone more experienced like Kate should be able to make a call as straightforward as that) I object to this opening sentence: "The following quotes are examples of Ann Coulter's flamboyant and often inflammatory polemical style, for which she is well-known."

I object because this ignores the fact that Ann's comments are MOST notable because they are Laugh your A$$ off funny! I'm adding a few more quotes to this section to demonstrate that she's a very clever & funny writer in addtion to being a provacateur.Big Daddy 18:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh-oh. Here we go again. We have already had this discussion many times. PLEASE read the archives and use the talk page before making any additions or deletions to the quote section. Thanks. -- Lord Vold  e  mort  (Dark Mark)  21:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, y'all know my opinion on this one, but there is no strict policy on this score and my inquiry on the Village Pump made it clear that there are varying views. So until a policy can be made for it (which may never happen), it'll have to go by consensus on individual articles.  Since there's a consensus on the section as it stands currently, and especially because it was the result of long, hard negotiations, I'm inclined to leave it alone for now.  I am thinking, though, of drafting a policy proposal in this arena soon. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The quotes aren't going anywhere. If you want to help out, do something about the vandals and edit warriors.   The policy to quiet a pure vandal down for even a breif period of time is wwaaayyy too onerous.  The edit wars just go on and on rehashing the same nonsense for years.  For instance, the quotes on the Ann Coulter page! --155.91.28.231 19:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the irony! That sentence is in there at the demand of Rex, the most firebreathing, flesheating, hellacious conservative POV warrior of all time, with 3 arbcom judgements against no less. (Not to insult you big guy, but you're just not in Rex's league; he's a hall of famer.) I thought the sentence actually improved the article, one of Rex's few decent points. But, I'm glad to take the sentence out, if it will make BD happy. I'm not too worried about it at present, since I suspect we'll find this page much more congenial in a couple weeks to a month holy shit, it only took 3 hours .... However, I am heartened that you are willing to listen and defer to more neutral and experienced editors such as Katefan0. I trust you'll show the same deference when her opinion differs from your own? Derex @ 21:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

btw, you could always just edit the sentence to somethink like "flamboyant style, which some see as humorous, and others as inflammatory". but, I don't want to stand in the way of you wholesale zapping anything you find imperfect. Derex @ 21:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me as is. I guess we could add "shrill" to the preface....--71.112.11.220 04:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Coulter is an extremist hate monger, unworthy of any serious discussion. If you are conservative and actually read or listen to her idiotic temper tantrums you are an embarrassment to conservatives worldwide. Coulter is conservative hate rhetoric for white trash losers with IQs of approx 20.

The criticism section
Hello there fellas, I was searching for some comments about Coulter and her plagiarism and I didn't see any. So before I make any changes (which will be after I type up something significant) I just wanted to see if everyone either A. Heard of her plagiarizing or B. Would just erase what I wrote just because they disagree with it. I have heard this on the radio several times and here is an article about it after googling it. http://whyareweback.blogspot.com/2005/07/ann-coulter-writes-like-jeff-gannon.html Please take a look. DyslexicAnaboko 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That source doesn't look real reliable to me. I'd evaluate it well, as it will likely be challenged. --DanielCD 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if someone reverts your additions without good cause (ie just because "they disagree with it" and not because it's unsourced or POV), then I will definitely be reverting *them*. Disagreements amongst editors should be handled on the talk page and not with revert wars.


 * And no, I have never heard of a credible report of Coulter engaging in plagiarism. Why would she need to?  It's not like hateful rants are hard to write.  -Kasreyn 05:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult. Since my work on another case of right wing plagiarism was "reliable" enough for two Congressmen to cite it in a letter to the GAO http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/304829.htm I would think it's good enough for Wikipedia but if you prefer you can link to the article I worked on for Raw Story about it (though my blog entry is more comprehensive) http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/coulter_caught_cribbing_column_720.htm I back my work up with links so it certainly should be "reliable." Ron Brynaert http://whyareweback.blogspot.com

To reply about the plagiarism: The source may not seem credible, but I know what I have heard, of course there will be that one person that says, "Don't believe everything you hear." but I know this is true. Like I said before, I will do my research first and I suppose submit it here first so other can review it before I make a wiki edit. I know she has plagiarized because she has done it more than once and she gets her sources from very old books hoping no one will realize where she got it from. Obviously you can tell I have a huge distaste for this woman. That link I provided above I agree is not too credible, it is just so you can get a feel for what I am talking about. Does anyone have any sources they do trust that they would want me to use? I would appreciate it. I will not get to this right away I am a busy college student. I will do this in my spare time. Thank you for your responses. DyslexicAnaboko 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The link to the actual Ann Coulter article: here. -- LV (Dark Mark)  04:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There were several additions to this section that resulted in a revert war which which only ended when one side was bullied off the page (in a mess that got sucked into an arbitration before being brushed aside from it for being meritless). Now that that is over let's not forget that the section is still not in a concensus state. In particluar, the following problematic statement started it all:

Crinkley old bitch 138.88.176.73 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Coulter "expressed what some consider to be support for" terrorists.

There is no source provided that uses the word "support". The closest thing is "apologist" which is already present in the article anyway. Of course the same source also says she "joked" when she said it, so paraphrasing him all the way to "support" is a stretch. Someone needs to either find a better source, or else I think the fairest resolution is a direct quote of the source provided.

Also, the allegations of racism/anti-feminist views sections contains no actual allegations of aynything by anyone, except possibly Coulter herself, making the titles not only inflammatory but misleading. 67124etc 05:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Setting aside the 'spin' on recent events... There are people in the world who don't like Ann Coulter. Indeed, there are rather alot of them. This is an inescapable fact... and unquestionably a large part of why she is noteworthy at all. Somehow that fact and the reasons behind it WILL be included in this article. And that's the problem I have with this page. If the reasons people criticize Coulter are paraphrased that text is removed with claims that her intent is being distorted. If exact quotations are used they are removed on the grounds that there are too many quotations. If partial quotations are worked into the text with explanations of what might be considered wrong with them we get nonsense about how it is 'original research' to claim that someone might be offended by Ann Coulter saying women are not as bright as men (which silliness I see you have repeated above) - rather than it falling under the category of 'common knowledge' / 'complete obvious'. Any way it is presented some yahoo comes along and yanks it out on the flimsiest of pretexts.


 * I don't care HOW the criticism is included. I just find the ongoing efforts to exclude it entirely tedious. --CBDunkerson 11:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * *applause* Derex @ 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not referring to quotes of Coulter's, but of critics. Attributing the criticism to some unknown ephemeral weasel makes it difficult to defend against. Consider the following counter-agrument which is equally verifiable to the argument itself: Critics say Coulter supports terrorists, but critics actually don't say that because they agree Coulter is joking. or how about this counter Plus supporters argue that those critics are hypocrites. Would you prefer that "paraphrasing" of Cloud? Or how about we put our personal opinions in as counter arguments in the form of "common knowledge"? What makes your opinion so special that it gets to avoid the rules? Multiple people right here have disputed its veracity, therefore it isn't common knowledge. Simple as that. If its so completely obvious it should be easy to find someone stating it, name them so they can be examined. And let's not forget the hack and slash pruning job that Elee and others recently did to this article removing any pro-coulter statement that wasn't sourced, quoted, and officially notorized. This subject isn't being treated fairly. 67124etc 19:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't you propose a specific change? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 19:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For a start, the phrase "expressed what some consider to be support for them" needs to go unless a source can be provided. We have both critics and supporters quoted as saying she was joking when she uttered CDBunkerson's favorite quote, so if you are going to include a argument that disagrees with those sources it needs to be named as well. Then readers can judge the veracity and political bias of that critic for themselves. Alternatively, the waco/ruby ridge stuff and the McVeigh stuff can be separated (as has been tried in the past before being reverted), and people can claim she supported the former all they want. If you just want to reword it into some different weasel-words, phrases like "made controversial statements regarding them" are grossly overused but at least neutral. 67124etc 05:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is just as ridiculous as always.  You can start at the first paragraph "Her conservative commentary has earned her a reputation for strong criticism of social and political liberalism."   Well, someone managed to skip a weasel term here, but earned a reputation from who?   Wiki is lacking in guidelines for articles like this.   There is AGF -- but everyone seems to be acting either to promote one view or another or, worst of all, promote wikiquote.   As long as the policies are unchanged and as long as this woman is in any collective memory this thread will continue.
 * BD is right about the criticism section, it is full of unsubstantiated statements using "critics", "those on the opposite side" and "supporters".

''many of which infuriate those on the opposite side of the political spectrum, inviting much criticism. Coulter's supporters often suggest that many of her comments are taken out of context, that Coulter is only joking, or that she is engaging in hyperbole, though Coulter refuses to apologize or back down when responding to the controversies about them, apparently enjoying the consternation they cause to her opponents. Supporters also argue that she uses satire to illustrate her points and for intentional, if controversial, comic effect. Critics also accuse her of hypocrisy and double standards, and argue that since she has such strong conservative bias in her comments and writing she is willing to misrepresent sources and facts to support her case.'' --155.91.28.231 22:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That you would even pretend that sentence about, "Her conservative commentary has earned her...", is controversial shows the impossible standards which are being applied to this page. Heck, I had assumed that was written by one of her FANS.  Isn't that what you LIKE about her?  Coulter describes HERSELF as conservative.  She proudly proclaims her strong criticism of liberals.  Yet you treat this as 'NPOV'?  The nonsense about how, 'you have to quote someone saying that some people dislike what she said about women being less bright than men so we can put in five paragraphs about how stupid that person is and why they should be ignored', is equally absurd.  NOBODY can tell me that it is controversial to say that Coulter's statement that 'women are not as bright as men' makes people angry.  If you REALLY believe that's a shocker then I invite you to go up to your wife, girlfried, mother, sister, or any other woman and tell them that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they aren't as bright as men.  Think they'll be angry?  Please, go ahead... you can verify for yourself.  It's like refusing to accept "The Sun is bright" in an article unless you can quote an astro-physicist saying so... and then have 'Dim Sun' proponents post a bunch of stuff about how the astro-physicist is really evil and knew the bright Sun comment was a joke all along.  Ditto the whole, 'it does not count if she was joking' defense.  Yeah... so long as she thought it was FUNNY it's all good, right?  If you believe that then I invite you to go to an NAACP meeting and start telling 'coon jokes.  Hey, so long as it's a joke what could be wrong about it, right?  So Ann said that she wanted a terrorist to murder a bunch of people at the New York Times building... she was ONLY funnin'!  Tee hee.  And that one about returning all the blacks to slavery?  Oh man, what a side splitter!
 * Clarification for the tone deaf - there may have been a note or two of sarcasm in that last section. --CBDunkerson 10:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact if you can't find sources to back your claims about the brightness of the sun you have no business editing encyclopedias. This is not supposed to be a source for "truth" but for verifiable facts. Why don't you leave such hard stuff like editing contentious articles to people willing to put in some effort if you don't want to bother with annoying things like rules?
 * As for the allegations subsections, many people throughout history have said things that might potentially make some other people angry. It does not mean any significant degree of anger or allegations or controversy of any kind actually ensued. 67124etc 12:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, the rules? Let's see... Common knowledge.  That's a 'rule', and it directly contradicts your 'friendly suggestions'.  In short, if a fact can be EASILY verified without checking sources it doesn't need to be sourced.  If this were NOT the case then every article in Wikipedia would be short dozens of source links. NO ONE can honestly tell me that they doubt Coulter's statements about women not being bright enough to vote are controversial... I note that you haven't even tried. Your insistence of 'verification' for facts you clearly KNOW to be true is 'gaming the system'. --CBDunkerson 12:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting guideline, but did you actually read it?
 * ==When to seek professional help==


 * ''Certain kinds of claims should most definitely not be left to common knowledge without citations.


 * ''Controversial claims.
 * ''Facts about which Wikipedians themselves cannot form a rough consensus.
 * Claims in areas of fact or opinion about which there is known to be controversy. This includes political and religious ideas'.
 * ''For a sampling of controversial topics, see List of controversial issues.
 * ''Untested facts or arguments
 * ''Original research that presents reports based on your own experience, or your own ideas, theories, or arguments, even when these are based on established facts, are not allowed, according to Wikipedia policy.
 * ''==Weasel terms==


 * ''When reporting claims and opinions, so-called "weasel terms" tend to crop up, like "some believe", and "others claim", which should always be avoided. Replace the weasel terms with names of people, institutions, or publications, and cite the source of your claim. See Avoid weasel terms.
 * There is clearly no concensus. The issue is clearly controversial. You are clearly using your own arguments. And it is clearly weasel worded.
 * I'm not gaming the system. I am trying to work within it to resolve a problem. I think these claims are nothing but blog-quality tripe that not even Eric Alterman would stoop to making. Please prove me wrong. 67124etc 23:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 67124etc, so are you trying to say that Ann Coulter's comments regarding women's suffrage and slavery are not self-evidently controversial? Because there's quite a lot of evidence that they are, Ann Coulter even refers to her own statements as such: "I am a polemicist. I am perfectly frank about that. I like to stir up the pot. I don't pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do." Also there is clearly quite a lot of consensus on that issue. The only people pushing your POV was BigDaddy, and now you alone. However if you want to put it to a vote, go ahead. - Mr. Tibbs 05:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh "controversy" by it's very definition, requires at least two parties. The quotes are self-evident with what or whom, themselves? As far as "I am a polemicist" goes, we need contemporary confirmation that she still believes this, if we are going to aim for neutrality in our edits. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Great idea! let's replace the phrase "allegations of ..." with "controversial statements regarding...". You know I have this feeling I've done that at least twice already. Anyone else like this compromise?
 * btw you are side-stepping the far more contentious "allegations" where apparently someone called the subject a racist and supporter of terrorism. That kind of stuff requires sources no matter how stacked the discussion page is with Coulter-haters. 67124etc 06:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Something like, 'Controversial Statements Regarding Women' instead of 'Allegations of Anti-Feminist Views'? Six of one, half-dozen of the other to me. As to the racist and pro-terrorist accusations being less firmly grounded... true. Those cases aren't as extreme / clear cut... yet I'd say that it is still clear that her statements have been controversial and led many people to make those accusations. I'll try to change the headers to this sort of phrasing. --CBDunkerson 11:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think an effort to increase verifiability as 67 is doing is always appreciated. --kizzle 07:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. Do you have a citation for that? From a reliable source? :] --CBDunkerson 11:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I added some bits about racism and terrorism that will hopefully clear some things up. - Mr. Tibbs 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

So she had a pie thrown at her -- woopdedoooo
Has anyone here read, a critique of Wiki articles which was mainly right on the button (but nicely replied to later by David Gerard)? I don't care that someone biffed a pie at Coulter, but as we have an article about her I 'd like to see something about her personal life -- husband/s, kids, etc. Moriori 23:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure she's married. I don't know how much more personal info there is on her that's not in the article. Her favorite colour? You got me. Oh well. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  15:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ann Coulter doesn't have a husband or kids, or even a long-term boyfriend. Nor has she been in a divorce.. She's in her 40's though, I guess you could add a mention of that. But as far as Ann's personal life goes, there's really nothing to say. Mr. Tibbs 19:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised? -Kasreyn 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The pie think is a very small part of the article. Ihavenoheroes 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I archived a bit
I just randomly cut it off at certain sections to create archives 7 and 8. If someone objects, feel free to alter it. --Woohookitty 11:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

New section reverted
I reverted this addition: ''Hatred of Ann Coulter has led some partisans to accuse her of being transgendered. Opponents have taken as evidence of this the fact that she is unmarried and without children. A website has even been made to unfairly promote this abuse, called Strap On Veterans for Truth. Another website, called Encyclopaedia damatica published the following false information:"What is most dramatic is that Ann Coulter used to be a man. S/he had male to female surgery at a young age. The typical hormone therapy was incomplete in her case. She has no breasts and features typical of women who take testosterone steroids. Watch 'her' adam's apple bob up and down on her throat when she talks on Fox News."The Humor section of About.com has an image that purports to show an Adam's apple on Ann Coulter's neck.''
 * 1. Hatred of Ann Coulter has led some partisans to ...  This assumes a conclusion we cannot without violating NPOV. If you want to cite someone saying this accusation is being made out of spite, feel free. But we can't state it as a fact.  If you want to quote someone saying Coulter's transgendered, we can discuss its addition. If you then want to quote a rebuttal, that would be the proper way to do it.
 * 2.  When publishing corrections, newspapers don't reprint the incorrect material.  They simply fix it.  In that same vein, there's no need to regurgitate a paragraph of such vicious speculation, particularly when the surrounding text is asserting that it's false.

&middot; Katefan0(scribble) 03:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm - don't forget that ED is a parody site. Guettarda 03:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeesh! Even more reason not to reprint it. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 03:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

And the fact that everyone has an "Adam's apple" (excepting those in freak accidents, of course). It is not a trait solely owned by men. It is the larynx (voice box for the uninformed). Generally, the larger the larynx is, the lower the voice. Coulter has a fairly low voice for a woman, so you would assume her larynx to be relatively larger. Does this prove she is/used to be a man? Of course not. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The male bump, or Adam's Apple...Not something you'd see on a  woman's neck - 3DogSound

DEFINITION: Definition of Adam's apple

Adam's apple: A familiar anatomic feature in the front of the neck that is due to the forward protrusion of the thyroid cartilage, the largest and most prominent cartilage of the larynx.

The thyroid cartilage tends to enlarge at adolescence, particularly in males. Enlargement of the Adam's apple is considered, like pubic hair growth, one of the secondary sexual characteristics.

Origin of the term: It is usually said that Adam's apple takes its name from the biblical story about Adam, Eve. the serpent and the apple. A piece of the forbidden fruit stuck in Adam's throat and created the anatomic Adam's apple. So the story goes. However, it may be wrong.

Adam's apple in Latin is "pomum Adami." This may have been a mistranslation of the Hebrew "tappuach ha adam" which also means male bump. Between Latin and English there's many a slip.


 * Tangential: tapuach adamah in Hebrew really means "apple of the earth" (as in soil, ground, etc.) and means potato (as in pomme de terre). Which brings up the relationship between the name given to the first man, and the word for earth; as in being made from the dust of the earth. Gzuckier 04:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Alternate term: The medical term (which is rarely used) for the Adam's apple is "prominentia laryngea" (prominence of the larynx) http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2137

I find this discussion very, very inappropriate. We do not go around speculating on the actual sex of any person, in any form. Speculating on the sexual practices of any person, especially when it is motivated as political retribution, is repugnant and highly unethical. People make these accusations against people from time to time, and giving it any credence by claiming "parisans" make this attack is a often used trick. "Some accuse Fred Schlep of devouring unsuspecting children. The claim the proof of a photo of a discarded child's shoe next to a soiled napkin, left in his front yard." If no objections are made, I think this discussion should be removed. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 14:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I object. Just because it might be offensive to someone doesn't mean we should remove discussions here. Talk pages are a record of discussions, consensus and non-consensus.  There were no personal attacks on other editors, therefore other editors' comments should not be removed.  They'll be archived in good time, though. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand and respect your objection. I found it to be low and unfounded slander, talking about it spreads it. I hate when pundits take pot shots at politician's children, I abhor people speculating without proof on a persons sexual proclivities, and I detest people saying someone is not a man/woman, unless they have some thing solid. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 15:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume discussions of Ann's gender to be the results of either some sort of satire (i.e. not serious) or questionable, if serious. On the other hand, they seem to have taken on some prominence in public discourse. How to note that such exists, without giving it undue credibility? Any talented writers? Gzuckier 18:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not notable satire. As I said it is a poisonous slander to suspect a woman is a man with not a shred of proof. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 22:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but suppose somebody sees it elsewhere, and looks here to find out is there any evidence for it? And finds either a statement that none has been provided, or..... nothing. Just mentioning that somebody calls you names doesn't cast disfavor on you, it may well cast disfavor on them. When this was just an odd mention or two on Usenet, big deal. But it seems to have become more "notable", not the same as true. Gzuckier 04:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree from a personal perspective that this particular situation is base. But just because something is rumor doesn't automatically disqualify it from being notable enough for inclusion... I take no position personally, but it is a question that should be answered.  Some speculation gets so widely discussed in the public street that not mentioning it would be tantamount to censorship (i.e. rumors that Richard Simmons is gay -- pretty widely circulated).  The question is -- does this meet the same threshold?  Is it well enough known that people would find it curious if some discussion of the issue weren't present? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just some thoughts. As a libertarian, even though it hurts my wittle feewings how she talks about us, I'm still a huge Ann Coulter fan.  Even got her to autograph some books one evening.  :-)  I think the "discussion" of the transgender derision is appropriate for this page.  There shouldn't be any topic we can't discuss....Regarding putting a mention of it in her actual article, it's obviously intended as an insult and has no factual basis.  When would it be appropriate to include something like that in someone's article?  Only if it became so talked about that the fact that "something so ridiculous was being talked about all over" was in itself news.  An example, might be the urban legend that was popular at one point about Richard Gere and gerbils.  But I don't see that mentioned on his wiki page.  I also totally disagree that this transgender insult has taken on some prominence in public discourse. What mainstream media is mentioning it? - Lawyer2b 02:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Folks, when a woman says ""It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact."", transgendering becomes a perfectly legitimate topic. Slander it is not.

It seems legitimate to me. People DO speculate that she may be a transsexual, and because this speculation exists (and not in small numbers, either), it's legitimate. Add to it the fact that she DOES have a pronounced Adam's apple, a husky voice, and is an obvious misogynist, it brings the question into the realm of possibility.

What a sexist thing to say. Dominick (TALK) 12:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * People speculate on lots of things. However, uninformed speculation for the purpose of insult isn't encyclopedic or noteworthy.  And she doesn't have a comparatively pronounced Adam's Apple.  By Wikipedia's own definition, the Adam's Apple is the laryngeal prominence, which is not particularly pronounced on Coulter.  She has a fairly pronounced thyroid cartilage, but no more so than say Torri Higginson.  Many very skinny girls do.  Some people who don't know what they're talking about think that's the Adam's Apple, but they're simply mistaken.  Instead of letting them turn that into an offensive insult in somebody's page, we educate them.  As for her allegedly-misogynist statements; do her statements against blondes indicate that she hates herself, too?  I rather doubt she'd be willing to get a sex-change operation but unwilling to take the giant leap of not bleaching her hair anymore.  They're jokes.  She's a polemicist.  You might be offended by the jokes, and she means you to be offended; but they don't necessarily indicate anything about her personality other than a feeling that offending people is a good way to make them think.  There is no actual evidence that she's transgendered; just a combination of uninformed speculation and anger.  Present Ann's writings and let them speak for themselves as to her character.  If people want to draw from them the conclusion that she's (insert speculation here), then let them.  Now, if you have eyewitness testimony or photocopies of plastic surgeon bills from a reputable source, that would be Wikiworthy. -Syberghost 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter in popular culture
Would anyone be interested in adding a small section, or note, about Coulter's influence in popular culture.

The character Ainsley Hayes on The West Wing (TV series), played by Emily Procter, is at least in part based on her, and I wondered if this was relevant enough to the article. If not, I don't mind.

Daydream believer2`


 * Seems relevant enough to me. Maybe as a part of that section we could throw in Coulter's general disdain for and ignorance of popular culture: "Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down". Salon: "Who would have guessed that she doesn't have a clue about American culture? She is under the impression that "Forrest Gump" is a recent flick. She only first saw Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Wonderful Life" last year. Like a perpetual grad student, Coulter's favorite books are the pages of pre-Commie Russians.". Sidenote: just found an interesting biography of Coulter: - Mr. Tibbs 21:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong definition
I think a stricter definition of political commentary should be used in this sentence - "Coulter has written five books of political commentary" maybe "mindless crap" is a better term to use in this context.

Quotes out of Control
Can the criticism section be a criticism section? Listing a bunch of satirical quotes doesn't do anything for an article. It seems daily someone adds another old quote, that masquerades as a critcism. If I listed all the ones she has said, I can fill an entire wikipedia.

The Quote section is full: Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The point of a wiki is that anybody can edit it. It's completely counter to the whole philosophy of Wikipedia to throw something like that up there.  If you want to put an advisory saying that the current state of affairs was arrived at through consensus and to please come to the talk page before making changes, that might be better. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right. Removed. -71.112.11.220 19:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't add that comment. Shall we now move the multitudes of quotes, and post actual criticism? Maybe it is just me, but bad criticism of anyone I like or that I do not like, is infuriating. I think the truth goes beyond the arguments, and if one side puts out a bad argument, it lets BOTH sides down. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 23:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps rename the section "Criticism & Controversy", to be more accurate. Or here's a crazy thought, "Praise & Criticism". Not that last one would solve your problem but wouldn't that just be the neutrallist thing ever? 67124etc 06:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Praise and criticism might be interesting.  I haven't seen much praise of the woman so far. -71.112.11.220 19:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason most of the controversial sections are quote based is just for simplicity's sake. If we get into actual criticism someone comes along and wails about NPOV. As far as praise goes, the only praise of Ann Coulter I've been able to find is on sites selling her books:. On one of those sites there's supposedly a collection of "praise quotes" on the hardcover book jacket:. But I have been unable to find confirmation of any of those quotes, and most of them come from like-minded people anyways: "Ann Coulter is a pundit extraordinaire." - Rush Limbaugh. If someone could find confirmation of those quotes I wouldn't be averse to adding a section stating that some conservatives actually praise Coulter. - Mr. Tibbs 21:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As an afterthought, if we do end up adding that some conservatives praise Coulter, it also must be mentioned that some conservatives object to Ann: : Bill O'Reilly: "Well, I threaten him because I see through him, I know what he is. But even the conservatives have said that your rhetoric is so over the top, you may be hurting your own cause." - Mr. Tibbs 21:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course feel free to add any stuff you got if its from a good source. Noteworthy commentary is way more interesting than just quotes. Not that I personally object to piles of quotes, but others do. The way I see it, style goes out the window on political pages, but as long as it stays factually accurate it's still useful as an encyclopedia. 67124etc 03:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The comment was removed now it is replaced. Shall I move the quotes there, and see how it works? Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 22:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

can we please take down the quotes cause its embarassing that i support ann coulter and she actually said some of this garbage

Accidental Revision
Just so you know, I somehow didn't realize that I was altering a quote when I revised the article this morning. I can't see how that escaped me. - ElAmericano 23:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. Maybe you hadn't had enough coffee yet. ;) &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And re-reading my edit summary I see it could have been interpreted as harsh, but I meant no harm. See ya. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  13:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Pie?
Shouldn't there be some mention of the pie being thrown at her? Dklangen 06:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Along the same lines, I heard that at one of her speaking engagements at a school, a great many (though not all) of the students stood up, turned around, and gave her the backs of their heads. I could be mistaken, though; that may have been some other speaker it happened to. I wouldn't know where to go to find out if it's true. Still, it seems to be a rather striking and civil way to indicate you find someone's views repugnant. -Kasreyn 05:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life

 * Trivial question:
 * What's a constable in the Connecticut sense?


 * Other question:
 * Why is there so little of her personal life? I do not want to be prurient but we would understand less about Charles Darwin if we didn't know he was married to a believing Christian woman who was saddened by his work, and we would less fully understand Queen Victoria's life if we did not know of her relationship with Prince Albert? Where's the detail?

Avalon 23:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Queen Victoria had a Prince Albert? Rob 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Except I'm not sure how much more info there is on her. She is not married, has no kids, etc. We mention where she's from and some of her personal life, but I am not sure what else we can say. What would you like to see? -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  15:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

boyfriends
She definitely dated Guccione, it was in all the gossip columns, etc. as an "interesting" pairing. I don't know if that's still on. She and Maher both say they're just good friends, never dated. D'Souza, I've never seen anything one way or the other. Gzuckier 20:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But does that information belong in Wikipedia? Phiwum 09:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I deleted the entry because a) I don't think it belongs and b) it was written too unprofessionally. While I can understand Katie Holmes being in Tom Cruise's – because he's a hollywood celeb, a lot of people want to know about his relationships – I don't think trivial relationships should be included as a general rule. - ElAmericano | talk 23:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * a) Enough folks have asked about her personal life that its reasonable to include this info. katie holmes is not included in tom cruise article just because she's a celebrity.  Whoever he dated would show up in his article just like all the nobody trophy wives in all the other articles on wiki.  Anyway, Maher is a pundit celebrity so your logic doesn't pan out.
 * b) No one is paid to edit wikipedia so none of it is professional. If you think it is sloppy, clean it, don't just remove it.  This is a wiki guideline.
 * Maher has joked about their sexual relationship in public. He may have later denied it, but that doesn't mean we rewrite history.  "We're just friends, but I make jokes about us having sex that are unfounded."  See, its just not that funny...


 * -155.91.28.231 01:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I said Hollywood celebrity, not just celebrity: Coulter is known for her political views; where have you seen people ask about her boyfriends? Are we going to include every trivial relationship in every biography? Professional, as I was using it, meant professional-sounding. Reread it and you, yourself, will agree that the tonal consistency just isn't there. And we, as editors, have the right to remove poorly written single sentences. (Though I'm not a deletionist, I do believe that solo unimportant phrases can be removed, at least until they display some quality and intellectual thought.) By the way, I might give your opinion more weight if you were a Wikipedia user. - ElAmericano | talk 19:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * He or she is a Wikipedia user. You are not required to log in to be a user. -- LV (Dark Mark)  14:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course I understand that; I meant a registered user. You have to admit that registering gives your opinion more weight, whether right or not. When I see an IP making such a non-encyclopedic addition as "Ann's boyfriends have been...," I respond differently than I would if the user were registered. - ElAmericano | talk 16:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Logged in users can be just as retarded as anon users. Sometimes even more so. -- LV (Dark Mark)  20:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I said Hollywood celebrity, not just celebrity
 * Bill Maher is a "hollywood" celebrity (his show is filmed in LA), but does it matter?  Being a "hollywood celebrity" has never been a wiki criteria.  Laura Bush, a retired librarian, has a page and has never been in a movie as far as I know.  Gennifer Flowers has a page too.
 * I do believe that solo unimportant phrases can be removed
 * No one has a beef with deleting unimportant phrases, whether they are professonal-sounding or not.  It's the relevant phrases that we're talking about here.   If the writing is poor, clean it up, but don't use that as justification for removing content that offends.
 * where have you seen people ask about her boyfriends
 * Read through this talk page and you'll see users sayings things like "what about her personal life?"  As an unmarried 40-something year old woman with no children or husband, this *is* her personal life.  Anyway, I'm curious about her boyfriends.  -155.91.28.231 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please format your posts so that they're more easily followed. Anyway, as to hollywood celebrity, I did not say one had to be a hollywood celeb to be on Wikipedia! I merely said that the people who are associated with boyfriends and girlfriends (especially in articles) are those celebs. When is the last time you saw a Teen People article about Coulter's love life? She is not known for her boyfriends, whereas actors are. Are we going to start listing all the past girlfriends of Dan Rather because a few people (those that make the article edition) might inquire?? Asking about personal life could mean anything, I would tend to think childhood, career shapers, etc. I wouldn't say that you being curious about her boyfriends means it is necessary. I want more opinions though, to get a different perspective on the matter. - ElAmericano | talk 05:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah I got ya, sorry, I misunderstood your point about hollywood celebs. I thikn personal life usually means husband and kids, what she does in her spare time -- sort of stuff that she's done in her adult life outside of writing books and doing legal work. But anyway, I'd be curious about her boyfriends -- I know about Maher from an inside source but NOR applies :) -71.112.11.220 05:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If Condi's page makes mention of her romantic relationships or lack thereof, then you have to include it for other figures in the political world. Its silly to suggest that such information is only relevant if the person is a hollwood star. By that rationale, we couldn't mention Laura Bush!


 * I've been blocked for a while, but I disagree. Let me try to break it down. Marriages are often of note on Wikipedia. Hence, we will mention the spouses of our articles' subjects. "Boyfriends" (just mentioning the term takes me back to middle school, though I understand it isn't limited to that age level) are much more trivial in many more cases. Exception: Hollywood stars, where lots of teenagers care about breakups, fights, and scandal. Not every boyfriend/girlfriend of every person needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia. I'm open to further discussion; just trying to be clearer on my stance. - ElAmericano | talk 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good god. Leave it out. No one anywhere in the world goes to the tabloids in the checkout line hoping to find out who Ann Coulter has dredged up now. It's simply not on the radar at all. Don't even try to force some nonsense standard like "well, the article on celebrity x does it so this one has to, too!" Puh-leeze. Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it's not. For instance, it would be appropriate to list boyfriends in the article on Paris Hilton, because the only reason anyone anywhere cares about Paris Hilton is to find out who she's sleeping with this week. That's not an interest people have when they research Ann Coulter. They want to know what she has said and what makes her say it. No one one cares about her personal life, because she's not that type of celebrity. -Kasreyn 05:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why's there no paragraph on her new book?
Thought I might ask why there's no paragraph on her newest book, How to Talk to a Liberal. Anyone mind me writing one in, or someone else? Is there a reason it's not mentioned?

And how long is it going to take for people to understand the difference between controversy and criticism? There's a HUGE (I think too long) section on the Paula Jones controversy, and then a section called criticism. THEN, under that section, there's a billion other sections titled "controversy"! How does that happen? Can someone perhaps explain to me (since I've been missing for a while) if there's been a consensus on this or something?

And why is there even a huge section about Al Franken's book? I realize he's criticising her in the book, but it's not just about Coulter, it's about many "Lying Liars" and I doubt every one of their pages has a huge section about Franken's book on it. I don't mind a mention, but it is HIS book, shouldn't the majority of it stay on HIS page?

Oh, and I plan on making a slight edit to the books section. Books are written about in the present tense, not past, i.e., "the book made a case" becomes "the book makes a case." Anyway, cheers. Stanselmdoc 15:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2004) doesn't have a summary here is because there's an entire seperate article about the book, and that article has barely any content. The whole Controversy-Criticism thing came about as the result of a long arguement earlier on this talkpage: . The previous version was "Allegations of..." instead of "Controversial statements regarding...". And the reason theres a section about Al Franken's book: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them is because a large amount of that book is about Ann Coulter, with another large segment about Bill O'Reilly. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Writing for Yahoo news?
Saw this on Yahoo news.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20051124/cm_ucac/newideaforabortionpartyaidtheenemy

I am not sure how they get thier news. Does she submit to them? or they take from a feed? &mdash;preceding unsigned comment by 195.212.29.67 (talk &bull; contribs) 09:06, November 25, 2005


 * This article also appears on her site and on Jewish World Review's site. I am sure that Ann gives yahoo (and others) reprint (or should I say repost) rights. --Rogerd 16:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

re
Phiwum edited 09:25, 23 November 2005 (revert very strange edit. How can Coulter have two birth years?) If you read the article, you will see the sentence, "A minor controversy started when the Washington Post reported Coulter had a Washington D.C. driver's license with her birthdate listed as December 8, 1963, two years after her actual birthdate." So it's a factually incorrect original edit that misrepresents the facts, but I wouldn't exactly call it strange. 207.172.155.74 23:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thanks for the explanation.  I missed that comment in the article.  Phiwum 09:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Margaret Cho?
Is there any particular reason we should care about Margaret Cho's comments? Cho seems a fairly standard kind of comic, while Franken is at least a bit more political. The comments provided here don't seem particularly apt as political criticism.

Surely lots of people dislike Coulter and say so. Some of those people even do it onstage and in books, but should they all be included here? Phiwum 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * They probably shouldn't be. Any public figure generates tons of commentary from other public figures.  If it doesn't add anything to the topic of who Ann Coulter is, it is just superfluous.  Giles22 21:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Cho is not just "any public figure." She is an award winning comedienne, and the book in question which contains the chapter on Coulter is a best-seller. This isn't just idle chatter, it is published content in a #1 selling book. Furthermore, Cho is hardly a "standard kind of comic." Besides the fact that her first live-stage-film, I'm the One That I Want, is currently the highest grossing film of all time (in relation to the number of screens it was shown on,) Cho has also become a highly respected/loathed (depending on which group of people you ask) political activist and commentator. If her section is irrelevant, then so is Al Franken's. Pacian 07:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You've convinced me. A section on Franken's squabble with Coulter is out-of-place, too.  This isn't an important feud like, say, the dispute between Newton and Leibniz.  Franken is simply one of many commentators that criticize Coulter.  A few words about his criticism might be in order, but not a section in an article on Coulter.


 * I say delete the Franken section. It clearly doesn't fit.  Even a cursory glance at the table of contents confirms that. Phiwum 10:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Coulter as performance art?
This is an interesting theory, but unless you can come up with actual documentation (i.e. someone criticizing Coulter as such), this is personal opinion and so violates the NPOV rule. I hate the bitch, too, but there's no need to descend to her level. Kiddre 14:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it notable how manish looking she is?
Not at least alluding to it is like not mentioning Bob Dole is missing an arm. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.93.122 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Almost exactly like not mentioning Bob Dole's missing arm, isn't it? Good point.


 * But even if Dole did have a missing arm, your opinions about Coulter's appearance are not notable. Phiwum 12:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And more importantly, they're POV. Some people may think she's entirely femme looking and gorgeous. Your opinion is not a fact. Pacian 05:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you search the internet for "Ann Coulter", you'll come across a huge number of articles/opinions etc about her being a man, a transsexual etc etc. I think the volume of public debate on this issue makes it relevant. It's one of the main talking points associated with her. It's also componded by the fact that she has a very prominent adam's apple. It would be like writing an article on Michael Jackson and not even mentioning the word pedophilia. If this was a view held by a small number of people, I would ignore it and delete it from her wiki, but it seems to be one of the top five things people say about her.


 * Remember, it's hard for anyone to discuss her without personal bias creeping in. Coulter enrages many people with her political rhetoric.  Enraging people is how she makes a living.  Enraged people have a tendency to say unkind things, and continuous repetition of things can make them seem more true (the echo-chamber effect).  I agree with Phiwum and Pacian that it's not appropriate to repeat slander on wikipedia.  It reminds me of Republican partisans who - I'm not kidding - went around saying John Kerry looked "French".  The truth is, there is no one "right" way for a woman to look womanly, or a man to look manly, or whatever.  And it's certainly way too damn subjective to be NPOV.  -Kasreyn 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ann Coulter self-identifies as a "gyne-American" and it would be a form of bigotry to deny that on the basis of one or more aspects her physical appearance such as an enlarged Adam's apple, akin to saying super-thin model Kate Moss is really a teen-aged boy. Ruby 18:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right...maybe there is no bias
Perhaps you're right...maybe there is no bias here on Wikipedia. The Ann Coulter entry has a 6-part Criticism section and the Osama Bin Laden entry has ZERO.

Bravo!!! Bravo!!!


 * Osama Bin Laden is 100% criticism, not 1 positive thing on there (Besides his date of birth). Nice try though.

Does Margaret Cho's opinion of Ann Coulter REALLY deserves a section here?? How about my grandmother's opinion of Ann Coulter?? Maybe Gov. Jeb Bush's opinion of Ann Coulter??

I know Dennis Miller, a comedian like Cho, also has a lot of his own opinions on many of the Liberal personalities in the country. Perhaps his opinions also deserve sections in Wikipedia also??

Here's some advice: You're criticisms and biased POV's...are NOT fact...they are just your own opinions. Take it to a message board and leave them out of a site the bills itself as an Encyclopedia. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeravicious (talk &bull; contribs).

critique/study/allegation
I disagree with the claim that "Slander" is a study of alleged liberal misconduct. That sounds like an academic examination of the allegations. Similarly, critique doesn't work for me, since one doesn't critique "alleged misconduct". One critiques what has actually been done, but of course whether the conduct she discusses really occurred is what is at issue.

Thus, it seems to me that the easiest description is this: Coulter claims that liberals have behaved badly. That's the point of the book and thus the book is neither a critique nor a study but a lengthy (perhaps tedious) allegation.

Caveat: I have not read the text so take my opinions with a grain of salt. Phiwum 16:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What about something like, "an inquiry into alleged misconduct..."? I don't necessarily think "study" is wrong, but I'm looking for compromise. -- LV (Dark Mark)  16:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)




 * "an extended allegation of..." is at best clumsy and at worst wrong. There's no such thing as a book-length allegation: "statements" or "assertions" don't last that long. "indictment" works, though.


 * There's nothing wrong with "critique of the alleged misconduct..." It's the standard way to neutrally refer to an unresolved matter such as a partisan position or an ongoing investigation.


 * Surely you don't think that "five people have gone on trial in Rome charged in connection with the alleged murder of..." is an invalid statement because there's no such crime as "alleged murder"?


 * I don't mind "study" (or "inquiry") as a substitute for "critique", but I prefer "critique".


 * chocolateboy 16:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have one thing to say about Coulter, she references everything. Much better than wikipedians do. She refers to periodicals and makes references throughout her books, that one can check at the library. I put in study, in the sense of Merriam-Webster definition: "a literary or artistic production intended as a preliminary outline, an experimental interpretation, or an exploratory analysis of specific features or characteristics". She is an analyst, and a commentator. A study does not have to be academic, or meet an unstated standard of literary merit. Dominick (TALK) 16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me add, I do not stake my life on critique, but I always regarded a critique as a shorter work, based on a concept, not an analysis as is this work.


 * Like I say, I don't particularly care whether it's "critique", "study", "indictment" or something else (not "extended allegation"), but I disagree with your definition of "critique", and so does Kant :-)


 * chocolateboy 17:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Kant can pour it on CAN'T he! Dominick (TALK) 18:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This page does not accuratly reflect who Ann Coulter is.
Ann Coulter is a guerilla right wing terrorist (to use her people own language).

By focusing on her sucess in the american media through the sales of her various publications, Wikipedia is underminding who she is as a person.

She has endorced terrorist attacks, within the United States ("My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building. ")

I could go on, if need be. But I hope that this will be corrected.

To possibly read.

"Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American syndicated columnist, bestselling author, and television pundit. Her commentary has earned her a reputation as a strong critic of social and political liberalism, to the point of endorcing terroist activities agianst her political opponents. Her speaking and writing style is provocative, aggressive, and in most cases offensive, with heavy use of sarcasm, and hyperbole. Through her carrer in the media she has been very vocal in her stance of American Imperailism, cultural hegemony, and coersive international relations."

It is very hard for me, or for anyone versed in Ann Coulters oppinions to view this artical as impartial. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.96.4 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * What is funny is that some conservatives that have come by this article think it is biased against her. Guess that shows that it is getting pretty NPOV. Thanks for your opinion. -- LV (Dark Mark)  14:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well this article started as a openly hostile article, sceptical of her contributions. It approaches NPoV, but I would agree it isn't there yet. I think it is funny that a lot of people think Wikipedia is a place for activism, (cuts both ways) present the facts plainly, and the truth will speak for itself. Dominick (TALK) 15:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I figure, start with one sentence and flesh it out. A one sentence summary of Ann Coulter would have to state something like she is aggressive towards "liberals", and therefore the whole article truly ought to reflect that. Yet that is exactly what Ann supporters want removed as "POV". Apparently that doesn't take into account the other contriubtions of her well-rounded character, which are still waiting to be posted here. Instead we just neuter the article. Gzuckier 15:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This page definetly reflects who Ann Coulter is, a liberal hater. It also correctly reflects her nonsensical remarks. Good job on this article! - J e d O s [[Image:Lily2.png|20px]] 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You say "liberal hater" like that's a bad thing. Ruby 15:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * All you need is love. Derex 15:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My dearest Ruby, she dislikes dykes as well. Dan 00:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Al Franken
Is this section necessary? The whole thing can be reduced to the fact that they probably are secretly in love or something. Both of their arguments back and forth are little more than semantical games and media whoring. I don't think it adds anything except to say the two bicker like an unhappily married couple. -- Jbamb 13:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What about a seemingly happily married couple? ;-) Although this has been discussed a couple of times in the past, we can start it up again if you want. -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've often wondered about that marriage, but you notice that they don't rip each other apart like Al and Ann do. The point is that the bickering between Al and Ann doesn't seem to add much to this article. -- Jbamb 22:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is necessary to include the fact that she has been caught lying to support her position. If she had done so while speaking it might be dismissed as due to her “shoot from the hip style” but I think it is very revealing in print. It shows a disconnect from reality when a person makes the facts fit their argument. You may simply dismiss these lies that she was caught in since they were pointed out by a liberal Al Franken. However, things that are stated as a matter of fact can often be proven true or false. In this case it was proven that they were lies that she invented to support her position. I think that the revisions in her paper back version are an admission of guilt on her part. This reveals that she is not always an honest person. -- M stone 13:36, 11 February 11, 2006

World View
This article really needs to be edited to take a world view. There are many American concepts used, which need to be defined. Especially "liberal." Thanks, --sansvoix 09:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Verification sought for quote
Who (re)introduced this quote to the article?


 * Finally, during a May 1997 episode of Politically Incorrect she responded to the question, "You're talking about [repealing] the Emancipation Proclamation?", with "That would be a good start."

I assume it is User:CBDunkerson. I only know of a source from a Washington D.C. magazine website, which quotes her answer, not the question. I did a google search and that mostly consisted of the quote listed in blogs with a series of other Coulter quotes, some taken out of context. I don't think this meets the verifiability threshhold found at WP:V.

The Washington D.C. magazine website, which also deliberately distorts the context in some of her quotes, suggests the question she was asked was, "How far back would you go? You're talking about about the Emancipation Proclamation?", but because of a lack of context, we don't know whether the question should be interpreted as &quot;How far back in time would you go?" or "How far back in laws would you go?"

As I stated here earlier, James M. McPherson's Pulitzer Prize winning account of the Civil War era, The Battle Cry of Freedom, says that the Civil War era was an era of legislative activism (floating the currency, the Homestead Act, spending on federal transportation projects) and thus a very good time for an proponent of governmental restraint to go back to, because before that time, that principle of restraint was mostly observed. Coulter is a constitutional law expert, and it's quite reasonable to assume that she would be familiar with the periods of history when U.S. governmental authority was extended to such a degree. McPherson went on to say something like "what Congress did in this era formed the pattern for our modern system of government."

Suspiciously, there is no context to the quote that would help us decide what she meant, such as what was being discussed beforehand or the reaction of her hearers to what she said and Coulter's response to that. But we do know in February 2000 she wrote "Does anyone [support slavery] apart from a few demonstrably insane losers?" 64.154.26.251 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The quotation is accurate and a primary source given. More context can be seen for the same item on Wikiquote. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 13:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, CB, there is no source given for the interpolation of the bracketed word "[repealing]" in the phrase "You're talking about [repealing] the Emancipation Proclamation." Which is what is precisely at issue, whether she meant going back to the law of the Emancipation Proclamation, or the time of the Emancipation Proclamation.  We need to know who made that inference, because her later statements suggest the interpolation is inaccurate.


 * The source you referred to in Wikiquote can be traced back to the discredited Washington D.C. web-based magazine article that I mentioned above that places other of her quotes out of context. But even that doesn't necessarily agree with the interpolation you are citing.  So it remains for you to name your source for the interpolation.  216.119.139.143 19:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The source I referred to is 'Politically Incorrect'. A verifiable primary source. What's the problem? The '[repealing]' was clear from the discussion/question, but I'll adjust the wording. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Which source you referred to? The one in Wikiquote?  I told you, that was from the Washington D.C. online magazine.  That article was a secondary source which quoted the primary source (Politically Incorrect), and the information about what Coulter said is only as reliable as the reliability of the secondary source, which has been shown to deliberately distort the context of Coulter's remarks.


 * Or did you mean some other secondary source that nobody has mentioned yet? The Wikiquote (online magazine) quote does not contain the phrase, "You're talking about [repealing] the Emancipation Proclamation".  However, there are quotes on the Internet that include that phrase.  Please indicate to us what secondary source you employed that quoted the primary source that featured that phrase of Coulter's interrogator, and whether you are trying to tell us that you added the bracketed phrase "[repealing]" yourself.  Because it would help us to weigh the reliability of your secondary source and hence determine a basis for its inclusion in or exclusion from the article.


 * Here is the new wording you recently added to the article with which you have replaced the wording that I brought up for discussion under this heading, so people will know what we are talking about.


 * Finally, during a discussion about rolling back laws on a May 7, 1997 episode of Politically Incorrect, she responded to the question, "You're talking about the Emancipation Proclamation?", with "That would be a good start."


 * Setting aside for a moment the reliability of the report of this transaction, you now seem to be implying a context that reported remarks can't provide.


 * The remarks are placed under the heading of "Controversial statements about minorities," when, again, that is the issue in dispute, due to a lack of context: Whether they are "controversial statements about minorities" or not.  If she only intended to say the Civil War era was a good time to start repealing laws, then it was merely a statement about laws in general.


 * Secondly you mention the particular discussion was about "rolling back laws". What you fail to mention is that it was also about various points to begin rolling back all laws, not certain ones in particular, so even someone with a familiarity with the history of constitutional law would not understand that she had been refering to eras that introduced laws that a liberal would tend to praise.  Need I add you also fail to mention that the reported conversation also appears to have begun with an air of levity?


 * Again, please reveal your secondary source and whether you personally added something to it, for the reasons I have sketched above. 216.119.139.153 02:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not citing a secondary source (Washington D.C. online or otherwise). I am citing the primary source... 'Politically Incorrect'. That should have been absolutely clear from my prior response. The '[repealing]' added to the text (to provide context without quoting the full transcript) was my wording... as is the longer context phrase I have now replaced it with. I think the context is obvious and find the claim that there is a dispute about whether the statement was controversial or not completely illogical in the face of the hundreds of citations of it as such which can be found on Google. You speculate on what her 'intent' was ('maybe she meant rolling back all the laws to that time... except the one cited') and imply that the 'levity' of the exchange is relevant... both issues were discussed at length months ago and similar defenses are already included in the article as general justifications for her more provocative statements. If you want to reverse the earlier decision to state the boilerplate defenses once for all instances and instead return to repeating them after each that's your call. Given the radically different world-views people subscribe to, it is certainly possible to interpret what she said in very different ways. That's why it is listed as 'controversial' rather than 'proof that Ann Coulter is a bigot'. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 02:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the quote's inclusion. Its lack of context seems more appropriate for The Daily Show or Fahrenheit 9/11 than an encyclopedic article. - ElAmericano | talk 22:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote is actually a misquote. What Coulter actually said was "I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal would be a good start." Someone in the background is speaking simultaneously and says "the Emancipation Proclamation" at the same time. It was a joke. Someone answered facetiously for Coulter. --64.81.228.202 16:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Verification of news report requested
Where is the source that says that Coulter was "booed off the stage" at a University of Connecticut event? I read a contrary report at Free Republic that says she ended the speech she had prepared early, but that she continued on stage with a question and answer session. The reference hyperlink in the article that is supposed to link to this alleged story points to a blank page. 216.119.139.143 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial statements about minorities" section
The "Controversial statements about minorities" section definitely needs some cleaning up. Basically, someone lumped her statements about Arabs in foreign countries, Arabs here, and blacks together under the category of "minorities." Certainly, we can't call Arabs in the Middle East a minority. This needs to be separated out into two sections. - ElAmericano | talk 23:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Messy paragraph
I don't know why there's a section on Coulter's "communication style", but if it must be there, it should be re-written. The paragraph on Canadians in Vietnam seems muddled, unfocused and hard to interpret. If this is supposed to be an example of being loose with the facts, can we state it more clearly and succinctly, without forty-seven caveats and counterclaims?

Or give a more compelling example. Or something. As it is, this paragraph is a mess. Phiwum 12:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The 47 pages of prior discussion might shed some light on that. chocolateboy 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the result exemplifies the usual complaints about wikipedia. This paragraph has regressed to an unintelligible mess. Better to delete it.

However, I will not delete it myself, since I'm a fairly disinterested party. (On the other hand, this page could use some disinterest!) Phiwum 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not wrong, but... actually, let's just leave it at you're not wrong :-) chocolateboy 21:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So is/was she really a man or not? --SpeedyCar 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm, right... and she was also a turtle and a fish, and once she was a blue dragon. --DanielCD 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

quote creep
we now have two different sections essentially devoted to quotes. (a) quotations (b) criticisms, with the 4 controversial statements sections. this article has been criticized _numerous_ times for piling on by listing every outrageous quote. it's really not necessary to document every time the woman has upset someone by being over the top. while i have previously argued strenuously for the inclusion of quotations, we really ought to use either just (a) or (b). my strong preference is for (a), as the quotes need no additional commentary beyond that some view them as outlandish. they are examples of her style, and why she is a polarizing figure. this is an encylopedia article, not a documentary, so this is just excessive detail for a main bio. perhaps a sub-article on controversies surrounding her comments would be useful, but this is too much, in my opinion. Derex 20:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that unlike some other pundits, Ann has no career in politics behind her, no law or medical practise, as far as I know no personal scandals. She has no real actions to speak of, outside of her writings.  When it comes to Ann Coulter, there's really only one thing worth talking about:  what she has said.  I think it's appropriate to include a good deal of quotes, since talking and writing are what she does for a living.  -Kasreyn 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with your last sentence, and I have been a very strong proponent of that view. However, there reaches a point where it's no longer helpful to include it every time she says something outrageous ... which she does every week it seems.  This has been a subject of continuing debate on this article for over a year and a half now.  Every time a compromise is reached, editors new to this article and unaware of the previous interminable debates start adding more quotations.  That's not a criticism; but it does illustrate the seemingly irresistable pressure in this article to "pile on", as some of our more conservative-leaning editors have complained.


 * I suggest the usual procedure in such cases of producing a sub-article Ann Coulter controversies dedicated (obviously) to lengthier discussion of the various controversies surrounding her, including discussion of the circumstances surrounding these quotations. For the main article, we need two things: (a) a short list of quotations illustrating her style (as already present) (b) a brief discussion under criticisms that she is viewed by some as outrageous & why, with a link to the controversies article.


 * This would serve the dual purposes of keeping the main article cogent & npov, and providing an outlet for more detailed criticisms. Derex 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But if also we include Coulter quotations that illustrate great insight, that's POV and not what this article is for (/me rolls her eyes). Ruby 15:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's a single insightful thing that's ever come from her lips, by all means, let me know. I'd be delighted to hear it.  -Kasreyn 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the quotations section is to illustrate her rhetorical style. If deep insight is an important element of her style, by all means include it.  I confess that I share Kasreyn's skepticism, but I am quite open to any quotation that helps illustrate why she is notable as a pundit.  I still think the detailed controversies about certain quotes should be moved to another article, with a summary and link here. Derex 04:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ann does have personal life. It seems she's had sexual relations with Bill Maher, he's even joked about in when she was on his show.   But this (and other info about her personal life) gets removed every time it is added to the article.   If you put this info in there wouldn't be need for so many quotes.  Justforasecond 04:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Let's talk about Ann's sex life!" That's your answer for everything.


 * Seriously, this is probably the dumbest reason to talk about Coulter's sex life that anyone has seriously suggested. And that's saying something. Phiwum 11:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. See my comment in section on "boyfriends" for why it's stupid.  It's not an appropriate focus for the article.  -Kasreyn 14:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Civility Kasren. It is inappropriate to call other edits "stupid".   Surely the editors that took the time to research and write them up didn't consider them stupid.   I happen to think something about her personal life is better than a stream of quotes. Justforasecond 04:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Give me a break. I was referring to the concept of including her sex life as stupid, not any particular editor.  Unless you're volunteering?  -Kasreyn 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

(lefting) Well, most everybody knows that I dislike quote sections in articles, because they invariably invite more quotes, and on controversial people usually concomitant fighting. I'd be happy to see them excised and instead the most pertinent ones incorporated into the actual text of the article, personally. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think including them in the text will solve the problem. There will still be pressure to include more, whether or not they are inlined.  The only technique that I've seen work reasonably well on contentious figures is to have subarticles devoted to the detail.  Inlining or not is a matter of style, and I won't fight that fight anymore.  But, I'll just state my position once for the record:  I do think that's a case where less is more. Do we really have anything both neutral and valuable to add?  It seems to me her rhetoric speaks for itself without any interpretation by us. Derex 05:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we really have anything both neutral and valuable to add?. We could add the stuff about her relations with Maher.  Just a thought.  Justforasecond 06:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're implying that there is something neutral about Coulter's life about which we might report. I find this highly suspect, as I've never seen any sign of it.  :P  -Kasreyn 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You may be mistaking "not favorable" for "not neutral".  The Bill Maher interactions definitely happened and can be described dispassionately.  Whether they preserve some image of Coulter, chaste or otherwise, is irrelevant.  Justforasecond 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was making a small joke. Allow me to be more plain:  I consider (and I am certain I am not alone in this opinion) Ann Coulter to be such an extremist - regardless of whether one feels she is right or wrong - that the very nature of the facts of her life pose great challenges for writing about her in a neutral fashion (one reason I have thus far refrained from doing much editing on this article).  I guess it wasn't a very funny joke anyway.  My apologies.  ;)  -Kasreyn 06:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is self-parody, right? This obsession is just some sort of high-concept satire.  I get it now.  Boy, you had me going for a minute there. Phiwum 06:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Justforasecond, I don't see the connection between this and speculation about her romantic life. Derex 17:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's no mention of her personal life (of which we know only about her sex partners), the only thing left over is her media appearances. Due to endless claims of POV whenever someone tries to interpret her, the only things that shows up are quotes.  Everyone wants to add a little to the article, so we get a longer and longer stream of quotes, and the article becomes increasingly awkward because there is so little to balance out the quotes.  This quotes discussion comes up about once every two months, btw.   Justforasecond 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * oh, believe me, i know. i was there for the very first one (as wolfman). i'm trying to find a way to stop it.  .... the problem with the bill maher boyfriend thing is that it can easily be taken as a bad joke.  so, you can't get a liason in as fact, unless one of them states so explicitly.  however, wikipedia does report on public opinion.  if you can find a reputable source indicating a reasonably widespread belief about that relationship, that would fall under the npov guidelines.  if not, it really doesn't belong here, and a quotation about it is just an end-run around policy. Derex 20:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bill Maher joked about it repeatedly on his show in her presence and her response was to smile -- sheepishly in my opinion. Maybe Coulter just thought it was a cute joke, or maybe it was the truth.  I guess I can't be the one to judge that but my experience is that most women do not like repeated jokes being made about non-existend sexual relations.  There are few "reputable" sources that report on anyone's sex lives, let alone the sex lives of political pundits.  Ann Coulter sleeping with Maher just wouldn't sell many mags in the check out line.  If I did manage to dig something up it would be dismissed as a non-encyclopedic tabloid or somesuch.  I've found an odd tendency at wikipedia to keep out interesting, documented material that gets beneath the veneer of a political or entertainment personality.  There are few articles where muckrakers go unscorned.  21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can't source it beyond a joke, why should we include it? Unless there's some truth to it, an off-hand joke has no notability at all.  And, we have no corroborating evidence at all that there's any truth to it.  As you say, this simply isn't the place for muckraking.  If it could be documented, I'm sure it would be included. Derex 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? You're sure that we should include comments about Ann's sex life just so long as they're verifiable?  You got a funny notion of what encyclopedias do.  This nonsense is just irrelevant, whether it's true or not.  The fact that it's unverified is just an extra strike against it.Phiwum 08:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not my idea of what encyclopedias do. It is Jimbo Wales' idea of what Wikipedia does. "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about _what people believe_, rather than _what is so_." So, only a widespread & notable belief of this need be documented for that belief to be acknowledged in the article, along with any evidence (or lack thereof) supporting the belief.  I don't think you have much to worry about though, because I don't see any evidence that this is believed by more than a "tiny minority", which does not meet the notability requirement stated in WP:NPOV. Derex 19:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You and I read Wales's advice differently. He is saying that, if X cannot be confirmed, then X should not be alleged.  However, the fact that people believe X may be alleged.  But that doesn't mean that everything people believe should be included in Wikipedia.  Some, perhaps many, people believe that Coulter is "genetically" a man, but thankfully this article doesn't discuss such nonsense.  Any more.  Beliefs regarding Coulter's sex life are similarly non-notable, no matter how widespread.  Phiwum 08:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're probably in a minority equating information about Coulter's boyfriends to information that she is genetically a man. Articles commonly have information about folks' personal lives, rather than just an endless stream of quotes... Justforasecond 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, not "everything" people believe should be reported; who said that? Straw man. I said that J needed to establish a widespread and notable belief.  That's what policy requires.  Obviously, a liason with Maher could be of interest, even from a purely from a professional standpoint.  I haven't looked, but I'd be surprised if the fact that Rush's girlfriend is a CNN anchor isn't included in both articles, as it surely should be.  Is it notable that Mary Matalin is involved with James Carville, hell yes, even if they didn't get married.  So, whether or not it's actually true, if it is an important part of the public's perceptions of this woman it most certainly should be included.  I just don't think it is. Derex 18:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the issue that only a small number believe it, or that some editors just don't want to see it? It sounds like most people make objections like "we shouldn't include stuff about boyfriends" not that she's never had one.  Justforasecond 03:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not my objection. I think a liason with Maher would be suitable (though exceptionally disturbing and downright icky), especially since they are in related businesses and have interacted professionally. We have a list of well-known people John Kerry has dated, who have nothing at all to do with politics; I can't see why this would be less suitable.  But, you haven't proved a liason; and you haven't proved that the belief is widespread  (or of any notability) either.  Derex 04:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

controversies and criticisms
the previous section "quote creep" has gotten sidetracked. i would like to start a sub-article to handle the detail of the various criticisms, conflicts, and controversies swirling around coulter. usually, these revolve around something she has said. this would not replace a basic discussion and summary in this article, but would supplement it. the idea is that there is pressure to add a detailed account everytime she is outrageous, as she often is. this is excessive for a basic biography, and tends to lend a hint of POV to the article. one useful strategy to avoid "censorship", while keeping main articles concise, is to add sub-articles. successful examples of this approach include bill clinton, bill frist, al gore, george bush, john kerry, and so on. does anyone object to this? does anyone support this? Derex 19:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I object - this idea is nothing but an thinly veiled attempt to create more room for anti-Coulter comments and bashing. 10.195.85.230 08:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If the anti-Coulter comments and bashing are quotations from other people and not wikipedia editors, then they deserve their fair share of our time (NPOV). However, the point of this is to move the controversy to a seperate article so that this one can focus on Coulter herself.  That would give this article more space for non-bashing things.  What's not to like about that?  -Kasreyn 23:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, I'm butting in without having read everything. But I think overlisting negative things can create a POV. A few quotes should be used, but there should by no means be an exhaustive list. Fair treatment doesn't mean listing everything; and crying "censorship" does have limits. Sub-articles are often nausiatingly over-focused and undesirable, and there are beginning to be too many already as far as I'm concerned. Their creation shouldn't be based on being a place to house things like criticism. If there's too much criticism, some of it probably needs to be axed. --DanielCD 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The selection criteria for the quotes needs to be really obvious, such as a vote, authority, being on a relevant topic, etc. People choosing these quotes have an agenda. I think I'm going to make a competing list of quotes that make her shine like a polished silver spoon in the midday sun.


 * I don't want to seem like I'm demanding anything, but I would like the "quick and dirty" on what the selection criteria is/was and why there are no "positive" quotes. --DanielCD 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, do I have to explain this? There are no "positive" quotes because they can't be found.  I've already challenged Ruby to do this and she has not replied.  It is not biased to fail to report nice things a person has said if they've never said anything nice, it's just reporting the facts.  Demanding "balance" in that case would mean removing all the negative things as well, since nothing can be found to balance them.  That's taking NPOV to an extreme of interfering with reporting the facts.  Anyone disagree with me?  Then take me up on my challenge and find something positive, nice, or constructive Ann Coulter has said.  -Kasreyn 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will. I think some of the things already there are positive things. I find Coulter one of our times most amusing and entertaining personalities. I only wish I could have seen her on the Daily Show, as Jon Stewart is another of my favorites. Coulter engages in hyperbole and rhetoric to fire up her base... much like some liberal speakers. She speaks her mind and likes to piss off the Left. It's rather funny. I find just about all of it positive. But that's just my opinion. And the day she goes on the Colbert Report is the day I don't leave my house in fear of missing it. ;-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as a postscript, I was rereading WP:NPOV today and stumbled upon the Undue Weight policy, which would appear to be a direct support of what I was saying, only much more succinctly put. Clearly, it is against Wikipedia policy to misrepresent in this article the real-world balance of opinion (heavily negative) on Coulter.  -Kasreyn 04:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, AC supporters think some of these quotes are positive. If you can find one or two that are more obviously positive, I think discussion about swapping some out would be valid. Have any in mind? -- LV (Dark Mark)  05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah. I must have been on crack or something when I left that second comment. Let's just move on, as I've been reading the archives and have answered my own question. --DanielCD 05:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Crack is whack. ;-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  05:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the citations, I was noting the weasel words "Some view.." more than anything else. And I genuinly would like to find that other one (that citation could come in handy; how? I've no idea). Also: Don't be dissin' Whitney ::)) --DanielCD 06:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I ran a google search a couple of different ways and all I got was WP mirrors. It would be nice to have it cited. Hey, and Miss Houston said it herself. :-) -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  06:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * regarding sub-articles being over-focused, isn't that exactly the point? people who don't want to read that level of detail are well-served by a concise main article, while people who actually are interested have access to a thorough article.  one can't very well argue that controversies involving coulter aren't at least as notable as 90% of the articles here.  so the question is not really whether such an article would be ok ... people want to add such info, and legitimately so under our standards.  the question is whether sunch detail would be better presented in a sub-article or in this one. Derex 14:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea. My point is just to be aware and not abuse it. --DanielCD 14:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * completely agree. Derex 14:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "It's not rocket science doctor. Would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs!? Just say yes and we'll move on." --DanielCD 16:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * wow, that took a google i feel old. Derex 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea, let's balance the negative and positive stuff. She's been lauded elsewhere I'm sure, but positive comments are wanting in the article. -- Jbamb 04:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

random statement
Coulter has said she likes to read anything written by humorist Dave Barry (Coulter, January 2004).

This doesn't seem like a particularly relevant piece of information. Or, at the very least, it's in a very odd place. It doesn't seem like it's relating to anything around it.--Hbutterfly 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, looks kinda out of place. Besides, without knowing who Dave Barry is, it practically says nothing. --DanielCD 19:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if you do know who Dave Barry is, it has meaning, and after all it is linked to Barry's entry. --syberghost 20:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe. But the rest of us who don't know who he is should go wanting? Proper writing would include a bit in the sentence as to who he is and why he is important. The link doesn't compensate for that, and "humorist" is too general. --DanielCD 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say the distinction is that Dave Barry differs from Ann in two striking ways: he leans, as far as I've ever been able to tell, perhaps slightly to the left on the political spectrum (calling to mind Hunter Thompson's unlikely friendship with Pat Buchanan), and also unlike Ann, he is almost unfailingly polite and civil.  -Kasreyn 10:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good for him; I prefer polite. As far as the sentence is concerned, someone just add something that tells what the attraction is. That's what's being alluded to here, and I don't want to have to go read the Dave B. article to find it out. If her attraction to this material is important anough to be in the article, it deserves some elucidation. At this point, I'm considering removing it on grounds of relevance, as it needs the relevance made plain. --DanielCD 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mann Coulter
I learned just now that "Mann Coulter" is an insult to Ann Coulter (like Slick Willy was to Bill Clinton). I believe Mann Coulter should be mentioned in this article, but I'm not really sure how best to fit it in. DyslexicEditor 14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this before. Please read the talk page archives. Thanks. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  14:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a lot. Have any idea which one of the large archives it is?  DyslexicEditor 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there is something about this in almost every archive... just look around, it's all there. Cheers. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  14:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not found. I searched for both "mann" and "man c" and found not a thing.  DyslexicEditor 03:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Mann Coulter" is a personal remark by some people who think she is a transexual and it has been discussed in almost every archive. Perhaps not the exact insult, but the subject matter. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude or Chick?
There is a rumor on the net that Ann Coulter was born a man or is still one. Is there any truth to this? In hindsight this certainly makes sense. Thanks. --Costoa 13:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Any truth to it? You would have to run a blood test to be sure, but it isn't going in this article. Please see the thread directly above this one. And why would it "make sense"? You don't think women can be tall, aggressive, and bombastic? That's a little sexist don't you think? Or were you referring to something else? Thanks. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  15:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't we post a notice somewhere that we've been over this, so people will stop wasting time and discussion space on it? --DanielCD 15:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * She is kinda hot. I hope she's not a guy.  DyslexicEditor 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The DyslexicEditor wouldn't care for a little Lola? ;-) -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  01:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, take her out and see... You might get a surprise... kinda like a fortune cookie, only with the potential for a lil' nookie... --DanielCD 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What does it take?
Coulter called Arabs "ragheads" that is racism.

listen to her yourself if's about 4 minutes and 20 seconds into her rant.

http://www.bradblog.com/Audio/AnnCoulter_CPAC_021006.mp3

132.241.245.49 04:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's obviously a racist remark, Grazon. But how does that justify the addition of Category:Persecution, Category:Racism, and Category:Prejudice and discrimination to this article? Do you believe that everyone who has used a racial slur should be listed in these categories? Don't you realize how useless and ponderous it would make the category system? What if we added everyone who's gone to a sporting event to Category:Sports? Should we add everyone who votes to Category:Politics? It doesn't make any sense. Rhobite 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no Category for anti-Arabs like there is for Anti-Semitism there are however other people already in the racism category.


 * Heh. Maybe that's because Arabs are Semites?  ;)  Splitting hairs, I know.  I'd say Coulter's problem is with Islam, not with people who are ethnic Arabs.  There are plenty of ethnic Arabs who are Christian, for instance, or Atheist or whatever.  Ethnicity doesn't define a person's religion.  -Kasreyn 13:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And I would be more than willing to let it slide if it wasn't for her 132.241.245.49 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * remarks right after 9/11
 * her calling Hellen an old Arab
 * and the fact that people applauded her comment.

Despite the fact that she might have made a racist comment, the NPOV tag should not be on this article and im going to remove it. If we say that the subject of the article making a racist comment makes it NPOV, then we might as well put the same tag on the Adolf Hitler article because of his well known Holocaust, and other offenses against Judiasm. Placing this tag is useless. (PlasticMan 10:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Just a note. In cases regarding categories, the preferrable thing to do in controversial situations is "do no harm". The categories are meant to help people find material, not label material. We don't know if the woman's serious about many things she says anyway, as she's often sarcastic/cryptic (and this may be an understatement). As such, it could be adding POV to put her in such a category. She's primarily an entertainer. She uses such statements primarily for their effect, not for their primary meaning (though that doesn't excuse them). Yea, she says racist things, but people aren't going to go to Category:Persecution to look for her. --DanielCD 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Category:Articles most likely to be vandalized doesn't exist, but it would make for interesting perusing. --DanielCD 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Take it from me, we'd have to pop Sexual Intercourse, Eminem, Paris Hilton, George W. Bush, and Prussian Blue in that category, too. It's a daily struggle on those ones...  -Kasreyn 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

*Coulter may be accused of a Felony
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/celebrities/content/local_news/epaper/2006/02/15/a2a_josecol_0215.html


 * This is more of an editorial piece. If there was anything to it, I guarantee the mainstream press would have something to say on it, and we'd have a multitude of sources. But I don't think this source is strong enough in itself for such an accusation. It's really nothing but a "may have" anyway, and nothing more than heresay. --DanielCD 22:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=%22Ann+Coulter%22+florida+voter

PS have you seen the new Abu Ghraib photos?


 * What's your point? --DanielCD 23:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The MSM has barely said a thing about the new Abu Ghraib photos yet they're real.


 * And who is Abu Ghraib...? And perhaps more importantly, what's it go to do with Ann? --DanielCD 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

few stations in the US have given much coverage to this story's new development.


 * And perhaps more importantly, what's it go to do with Ann? 

Quit playing games. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.132 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * I am confused. How are these new photos relative to Coulter's article? Did I miss something? -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ever see Cheech and Chong's Nice Dreams, when, in reference to the lizard, the cop says, "Good luck Sarge, but I couldn't get a damn thing out of that guy?"


 * I could probably say the same thing here. You're not alone in that thought; am I missing something as well? --DanielCD 00:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I got that. I was just gently ribbing the anon to provide some connection. Probably not the most productive thing in the world, but a genial way to say "Put up or shut up." -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Did she say something about this event? --DanielCD 01:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, no. But this strikes me as a non-issue anyway; most likely she put down the wrong address as a matter of privacy, or maybe just made a mistake.  She was four miles away from her correct precinct.  At this point, with so little information to go on, I think we need to give her the benefit of the doubt. --Marco Passarani 17:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, given her wild accusations against others about their lack of patriotism ... seems to me it IS news if she does something that constitutes voter fraud! The Democrats are the party that is frequently accused of voter fraud (can't say I'm an expert on whether those accusations have merit), and here you have a woman who has done as much damage as she possibly could to Democratic politicians (remember the title of her book on Bill Clinton, anyone?). Why on earth should she be let off the hook? If she cheats, she's fair game, folks. And as for guarding her privacy, I can understand how someone who has repeatedly advocated murder of political enemies (and then claimed to be kidding) might be afraid of reprisals, but frankly I'd have more respect for her if she lived with her notoriety more forthrightly. But I agree with you that she has made mistakes.


 * I say it's an interesting fact about her if (it can be proven that) she lies about her age and votes in the wrong precinct, and Wikipedia is chicken if it can't mention this. Rousse 04:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot fathom why this is not in the main article. I've heard it discussed in the mainstream media, and was reported by a reputable source...the local paper. I perceive the concensus here as adding it to the main article and only a minority trying to remove it. Given her position in "High Crimes..." that a crime is a crime, black/white, I think this is appropriate for the article. The only contrary argument given here is that it is a non-issue. Anything can be characterized as a non-issue. If it is a non-issue, why is it being reported in the local publications. User: Agrippina Minor

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=7735


 * The fact that you can't fathom it doesn't mean you have consensus for changing it. The fact that you heard it on the radio doesn't make it noteworthy.  Coulter is being accused of something that is widespread in every election in the country.  It's not even a crime most places.  An "consensus" does not mean "majority".  You might want to read Consensus before bandying the word about. -Syberghost 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is being reported in the local media. She has made a career out of taking a hard-line stance on criminal conduct. She was a staunch advocate for the impeachment of the President fo the United States for lying under oath (what she is accused of here). The fact that this is being buried in the talk page when the majority of people here want it on the main page is ridiculous. This site is a place where people come to reference historical information in concert with current events. This issue is an excellent example. Your stifling of this information is contrary to everything this site stands for. This is reputable, mainstream information that you are suppressing against the consensus. When you look at the edit history numerous individuals have attempted to link the Palm Beach Post article to this site, and it is systematically removed by a single person citing the discussion page.

Nothing said in the article as protected can be shown to be untrue or based on POV. It simply states that there are allegations and that if true, she "could" be found guilty of a felony. User: Agrippina Minor


 * It's being reported in the local media, not the national media, because it's a non-story. Yes, she's being accused of something that is technically a felony.  And every time a Wikipedia editor puts an unauthorized image in an article, he's doing something that's technically a felony as well; but we don't add it to their user page as "may be charged with a felony" unless they get indicted.  "Being investigated" means no more than "somebody called and complained".  This is a non-story unless she's indicted.  Until then, it's of no more interest than the similar allegations against Michael Moore, which are relegated to no more than a one-line footnote in his article.  If you follow the edit history, you'll notice that this is being removed by more than just me; you just happened to decide to start an edit war instead of seeking consensus for a change.  You'll perhaps note that the information is not currently in the article, and that I did not remove it.  Finally, you talk about "majority".  You clearly have not read Wikipedia policies; this isn't a Democracy, it's not "majority rule".  This is a commons.  Things are done by consensus.  A majority is not necessarily a consensus.  Consensus exists when a solution is reached that nobody objects to strenuously enough to continue debate.  When one side has absolutely no interest in seeking consensus, things dissolve into edit wars.  The current consensus is that if Coulter is indicted, this information will merit inclusion.  Everybody agrees that in that case it would be worthy of inclusion.  The disagreement is on whether it's worthy before that happens.  My side is participating in the debate; why are you opposed to doing so? -Syberghost 13:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What's your basis for saying that "every time a Wikipedia editor puts an unauthorized image in an article, he's doing something that's technically a felony as well...."? It might be a violation of the rights of the copyright owner, but not every act that violates someone's legal rights is a felony (or even a lesser crime).  I don't think this is hugely relevant to the question of including the point in this article, because part of the argument for inclusion is that Coulter has made herself a prominent public spokesperson on related subjects, which wouldn't be the case in your analogy.  Nevertheless, I'm curious because I think your statement is probably inaccurate. JamesMLane t c 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me preface this by saying that I am not a lawyer. It's my belief that since Wikipedia contains more than 10 such things, it constitutes a federal felony.  However, it may be that a individual would have to do it ten times and that Wikipedia wouldn't be considered commercial, in which case I'd be completely wrong about it being a felony.  I'd love pointers to anything that would help me understand this aspect of copyright law better. -Syberghost 19:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Violations of intellectual property laws are not criminal offenses. Aside from the analysis of whether or not a copyright has been violated, even if a copyright is violated...you cannot be accused of a crime for doing so.  A person can be sued in a civil proceeding, but not charged criminally.  Agrippina Minor 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since 1990, 10 or more instances of commercial violation are a felony punishable with jail time. The question is whether or not Wikipedia counts a "commercial" and whether or not it counts in aggregate or whether individual contributions count seperately. -Syberghost 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am an attorney who practices criminal law in California. I graduated lawschool with a concentration in Intellectual Property (thought I'd be a copyright attorney until I realized how boring it is).  I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.  Infringement of a copyright is a civil matter.  I have never heard of a "commercial violation" or even a "commercial infringement."  If a court in a civil proceeding orders that an individual no longer infringe a copyright and the individual continues to do so, they can get jailtime for contempt of court...but even this is not a criminal offense.  I'm completely unfamiliar with what you are referring to.  For a real-life example, the owner of NAPSTER was never threatened with jailtime, merely losing his company.  Agrippina Minor 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Title 17, Section 506 makes certain categories of copyright violation a criminal offense. Title 18, Section 2319 sets the penalty at various maximums depending on other circumstances.  It ranges up to 10 years.  This was passed originally in 1992 (not 1990 as I misremembered above) and may have been amended since then.  (You have better resources to follow up on that part that I.)  Just because you're a lawyer doesn't mean you're intimately familiar with every single US law.  Nobody could be, there's too damn much of it.  And again, I'm not saying this applies.  It's a confusing mess that I don't pretend to understand, and would be happy to hear your interpretation of it, after you've read and digested it.  I based my statement on my memory of discussion of this law, among non-lawyers.  But it nevertheless does exist. -Syberghost 21:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That law would not apply to Wikipedia. That law deals with theft of intellectual property for the purpose of profit.  Wikipedia (and it's users) generally, are not posting information for the purpose of financial gain.  Additionally and regardless, under the rubric of intellectual property, there is a common defense to infringement known as the "fair use doctrine" which consists of a complicated, multi-prong balancing test (conceived of my Justice O'Connor) which allows for uses precisely like those on this site.  See Fair Use.  Agrippina Minor 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is being reported in the local media as well as the national media, I heard it on CBS yesterday. She is being accused of something more than a simply a felony. There are two important distinctions. This is the woman who said "high crimes and misdemeanors" included simple misdemeanors, and beat the war drum for the impeachment of a President of the United States for lying. She's allegedly lied here. Secondly, she was relentless in her criticism of the locals in Palm Beach County for not knowing how to fill out a butterfly ballot. Now her only defense to these allegations is that she made a mistake voting in Palm Beach County. There have been articles and editorials written in the Palm Beach Post citing this history. I have not mentioned posting them because I think they carry a certain point of view that some might find objectionable. As far as what I've posted, I don't see how it is objectionable. One witness, a former candidate for mayor, said he saw Coulter running out of the polling place when questioned by workers. I haven't included that. When I look at the edit history I see you, Syberghost, not only removing my edits, but other individuals who have attempted to post or link the article in the Palm Beach Post related to this incident. Please refer me to where you seem to see someone else engaging in the conduct. I did not seek an edit war, it appeared to me that the consensus was for including the link, and you were the only person against it. There was never expressed consensus that this information should only be included if she is indicted, it is important regardless of whether she is charged with a crime. Cynthia McKinney hasn't been indicted, and I'm sure there's a lengthy account on her page. This is not a dictatorship. You will notice that my entry is not titled "Coulter To Be Charged With a Felony." It is simply titled "Allegations of Voter Fraud" not "Coulter Commits Voter Fraud." I haven't posted anything that isn't true, and that anyone here on the discussion page hasn't already conceded is true. There is absolutely no POV included. User: Agrippina Minor


 * before you came along, people started discussing it, instead of putting the edit in there. That's why you don't see it reverted; nobody was so rude as to put it in there without discussion until you came along.  The fact that something is true does not make it suitable for inclusion, especially without consensus.  Wikipedia's NPOV Policy specifically mentions Sensationalism as being an example of bias.  The official policy on What Wikipedia is not includes "# News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples."  Whether or not Ann Coulter is one of the millions of people who have on occasion voted in the wrong precinct is not of historical significance.  If she is indicted, that would be.  What you're attempting to add here (without discussion and despite lack of consensus) is appropriate for Wikinews, but inappropriate here. -Syberghost 15:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I guess you choose to ignore the opinions of some of the others above. There were others who tried to edit the page after discussion on this page, and you unilaterally removed their edits. The fact that Coulter went to two separate pricincts before she voted in the wrong location, after making a career of criticizing others for voting errors is highly relevant because it's hypocritical. This information is appripriate here. As I said before, look at Cynthia McKinney's page...she hasn't been indicted yet, and that's not only on Wikinews. I sense a double standard. Agrippina Minor
 * Hey Agrippina. Please sign your name using four tildes in a row ( ~, don't just use bracketing. The four tildes will fill out your name for you and also a time and date stamp, automatically, when you hit save. Mine looks like this: &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 15:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, let's see if this works. Thanks for pointing that out.  Agrippina Minor 15:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There you go. =)  Thanks &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 16:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For there to be a double standard, I've have to be editing McKinney's page too. I'm not.  I am not in any way responsible for other people's errors.  However, McKinney is accused of assaulting a police officer, a very serious crime, and police have asked that she be charged.  That would seem to pass the "historical significance" test, and fail the "Sensationalism" test.  The extent of Coulter's "investigation" has been an editorial against her in a newspaper followed by an elections official sending her a letter asking for clarification.  They do this every election with lots of people; none of them get indicted, and nobody in the elections commission has yet asked that she be indicted.  To say "Ann Coulter may be charged with a felony" here is just about as accurate and newsworthy as saying "Agrippina Minor and Syberghost may be charged with felonies".  Fails the historical significance test, passes the sensationalism test.  As for ignoring people's opinions; how exactly is it that you come to the conclusion that disagreement means ignoring?  The "others" who edited the page are all you, working without a login, so they don't really count as "others".  Don't bother trying to deny it, you signed one of the talk page posts you did from the IP.  For you to claim now that this was somebody else I think is prima facie evidence of bad faith. -Syberghost 16:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there consensus that we can call this an inquiry or a politically motivated inquiry, and leave the F word (Felony) out? Dominick (TALK) 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion is that considering the nature of the crime and the fact that nobody has announced any intentions of charging anybody with anything, this does not belong here at present. It might belong on Wikinews; I don't contribute there so I don't know much about their policies.  If somebody from the Florida Election Commission announces an intent to file charges, this becomes of historical interest and should be included in the page; but every random diatribe against a political figure doesn't belong in their page.  I do not agree that there is consensus. -Syberghost 18:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to leave the F word out. This is a significant piece of news about Ms. Coulter and deserves to have at least some reference on this page, given her line of work.  It is more than a random diatribe, it is a pending investigation.  This is perhaps the ONLY recent news about her.  I'm willing to leave "felony" out, because it is the least relevant part.  I tried to minimize that on the original post by not putting it in the title and stating that they are only allegations.  We can take that part out. as far as I'm concerned I think that's an appropriate compromise.  Agrippina Minor 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No crime has been alleged by any officials. All that was done is a letter was publically sent to Miss Coulter, in violation of her privacy, in response to a partisan attack of vote fraud. Dominick (TALK) 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this is considered a "partisan attack." There has been no indication what the political affiliation of the individuals reporting this is.  The behavior is under investigation and may be considered a crime depending on the results.  Her privacy being violated is an opinion...she is a public figure afterall. Agrippina Minor 01:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unclear
"However, Eric Alterman of The Nation and MSNBC.com, and many other critics were not amused. While writing that "Coulter jokes about McVeigh blowing up the Times", Alterman still found the joke offensive, calling Coulter a "terrorist apologist" and "ideological comrade" of McVeigh due to their similar statements about the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents. [12]" I'm not sure exactly what is trying to be said. I'd edit it, but I'm just not sure. The bolded section is what I'm not clear on.209.189.130.6 18:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's supposed to mean "Although Alterman knew Coulter was joking, he still found the comment offensive." If it's not that, I have no idea.  I'll change the second "joke" to "comment" (reads better, hopefully less confusing), but the sentence is still vague and needs a rewrite.  --Marco Passarani 20:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I ended up rewording it. Hopefully I didn't change the intended meaning of the sentence.  Anyone who wants to rewrite it further go right ahead. --Marco Passarani 20:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

controversial tag
User:Bachs; if you're going to tag this article as controversial, you should state just what element of it you think is controversial.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the "disputed" tag unless someone can explain why it is necessary at this point.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

link
Don't readd this link; it is pure trash: http://www.hoolinet.com/StrapOnVets/tabid/278/Default.aspx

No information here is of value so I removed it. It might serve as an example for the Satire article (but probably not, as satire is most often a constructive endeavor, and nothing I can see here is constructive). But other than having her name in it, it really has nothing to do with her.

If fact, I don't think I'd call this satire. It's more like childish shit-slinging. --DanielCD 01:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Racist vs. controversial
Er, even if you think "raghead" is offensive (I certainly do) it's not necessarily "racist". Please discuss before reverting again. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * it's racist, just like gook or burhead are racist. what's not racist about it? 132.241.245.49 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just look at the format of the headings; 'Controversial statements about women', 'Controversial statements at Philander Smith College'. Regardless, just leave them in a consistent style. ~ PseudoSudo 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"consistent style"...Screw that. She like to call a ace an ace then she deserves for her spade to be called just that.

132.241.245.49 06:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What "race" is the victim? The problem is the ignorant comment by Coulter can refer to Arabs, Sikhs, or folks of different races in Asia. So for consistency, for accuracy, and for NPOV's sake, controversial is sufficient. Her quotes are strong enough for people to figure out what she's all about. No need for the inflammatory label. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Arabs are the target of her remarks. she make her statement about 4 minutes and 20 seconds (no joke) into her rant.

132.241.245.49 07:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are offended by a remark doesn't mean we should stick POV in the article. The statements are controversial; that's a value judgement, but it's not one that's in dispute. Calling them racist is a disputable value judgement, and will result in revert wars. - Syberghost 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * However, if some other organization or person, specifically a reliable source, has called Coulter's commentary "racist", I don't see how it would violate wikipedia policy on OR or NPOV to include a quotation. What's important is that we not invent allegations.  -Kasreyn 10:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The "rag head" comment was undebatably racist. It is a term specifically used for Arabs. I'll add a source that justifies the use of the word 'racist' in this context. For now, see: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12324. Also, I think the term 'minorities' is being overused. Alot of Coulter's commentary are in reference to things going on abroad. Obviously, in the Middle East, Arabs are not a 'minority'. Amibidhrohi 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Editing the article full of your POV with a promise that you'll document "later" is BS. Document allegations, and include them NPOV, or I'll revert you. -Syberghost 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The future tense was only because I was bringing my point to the talk page before I made the edits. If you'd bother to read, you'd see I added my source to the page which you reverted. Before you throw a fit and accuse of POV editing, take the time to read and comprehend. If to an objective person the use of the term 'rag head' is indeed racist, to NOT include those allegations here is in fact POV. Who here things 'rag head' isn't racist? Amibidhrohi 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there is an implicit problem with automatically deeming anything "racist". My guess is that she says things to raise ire and spark reaction. I think there needs to be some driving force behind a comment to really make it "racist". It may well be controversial or offensive, and still not be racist. It is like Chris Rock using the word "nigger". Just using the word itself may not be racist. I think Coulter is just using these words to get a reaction. She knows people will take offence and react and get her more publicity. It would be another thing if she truly felt this way. It is her job to piss people off. That's how she makes her living. She won't get much press if she writes something like, "People from the Middle East are bad" than she would if she writes, "Those towel-heads spend their time covering up their women, while they turn around and fuck their camels." Now the second thing here would be racist, if that's what she truly believes, but how do we know she just isn't using these words to get a reaction? That's why I am more than happy to call them "controversial statements" and let the reader decide for themselves if they qualify as "racist". We don't need to be drawing reader's conclusions for them. But like Rhobite said below, you are more than welcome to find Coulter critics saying she is racist and write something like, "Because of these remarks, some critics have deemed Coulter a racist. " Oh well, like I said, this is just my opinion. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  00:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not 'deeming' anyone racist. And what you think does not matter. I'm not adding original research. Listeners and readers of her material HAVE taken her statements to be racist, and that is what the sources I am quoting state. If you want to give Coulter every benefit of the doubt, that's your right. That's your POV. But she has voiced support for killing Arabs, she has used racial slurs in reference to them. It's unlikely someone would make a career out of saying these things if one didn't believe the essence of what those comments say. If people have understood her to be a bigot and a racist, the entry should state that people have understood her as such. To NOT include that information is POV. Amibidhrohi 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, except the argument you make against me doesn't make sense. You say it doesn't matter what I think, but then you say that "listeners and readers..." Well guess who listeners and reader are... people like me. Anyone can start a blog and spout their ideas, and you think that warrants their inclusion in the article, but if I say something, it doesn't matter. What makes my opinion worth less than a random blogger out there? The article already states people think she is racist, but to label her as racist is forming people's conclusions for them. We don't do that here at WP. We report facts and let the reader decide. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is labeling her a racist? My edits don't include the adjective 'racist' to describe Ann Coulter herself. She has made racist comments, tons of them. Those individual comments are racist. And yes, your opinion matters less than the average person out there. When a Wikipedia editor injects his own opinion in the form of an entry, that's original research. I don't need to tell you about that, do I? In your case you're using your own opinion of Ann Coulter to censor verifiable information. BTW. dismissing her comments as 'sarcasm and hyperbole' is POV. That line should be removed. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim she has some strong hate issues when it comes to Arabs and Muslims, amongst others. There's nothing to support those views aren't genuine. Amibidhrohi 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I think what you just said is very odd. To answer your first question, you are trying to label them racist. Remember that section header you keep trying to insert? But I digress. So why, in your opinion, would labeling her comments as sarcasm and hyperbole be POV, but labeling them racist and bigoted not be POV? You are creating a double standard. You say that my opinion does not matter, yet you continue to push your opinion into the article. What is wrong with labeling her remarks as controversial and letting the reader decide what to make of them? Why do we need to label them "racist"? What does it accomplish besides painting Coulter in your POV light? See you tomorrow, my friend. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. There are a large number of people who find her comments to be racist. Those critics include both those who allign themselves with the 'right' and the 'left'. The fact that people hold that view must be represented here. My edit to the entry doesn't have the entry itself stating she's in fact racist. They point to the fact that OTHER people do see her as such. To simplify the point further for you, nowhere in my edit does it say or directly imply 'Ann Coulter is a racist". Since the information added merely intends to point the reader to how many others view and recieve Coulter's commentary, the addition of such information isn't POV. It's simply factual. To CENSOR that information because in YOUR mind you've determined she doesn't really mean it all, THAT is POV. The difference between all that and the 'sarcasm and hyperbole' phrase is that an editor on Wikipedia made the judgement that her speeches were sarcastic. The entry itself is stating that her comments are sarcastic. If the comment read "her comments are seen by so-and-so to be sarcastic.." (ie if they pointed to other sources where others found her comments to be sarcastic) that would be acceptable. This entry is effectively an endorsement of Ann Coulter and an attempt to advertise her in the best light possible. On the 3RR crap, my last several edits were in response to criticisms (albeit disingenous) to what I posted. My last edit was meant to add sources other than the blog previously cited. I'm reverting back to the last edit I made, since you cannot make present a credible justification for excluding it. Amibidhrohi 04:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Amibedhrohi. If the "racist" claim is cited is is superior to the uncited "sarcasm and hyperbole".   Furthermore, it doesn't require any analysis to conclude she is making racist statements.  Chris Rock use of the n-word, as ridiculous as it sounds, is not, because of not least his ethnicity, racist by American tradition.   Coulter has no such defense for her use of "raghead", "old arab", etc.  Justforasecond 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As I've said, I feel LV is being disingenuous. He's pretending to be more clueless than he actually is. I didn't bother responding to that Chris Rock analogy because the answer was so obvious. As a rule in urban street talk, black people can say "the N word" while white people cannot. Chris Rock exploits that weird rule and turns it into humor. Surely you can see the difference it would make if instead on some occasion, on stage, Trent Lott or Bill O'Reilly referred to black people as "niggers". Amibidhrohi 07:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, Senator Robert Byrd has done exactly that at least three times on record, including one not all that long ago, but you can only think of two Republicans, who haven't done that, for your example. I think this is telling. Syberghost 21:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered on Amib's talk page. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  12:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh...don't call LV "clueless" -- I've seen enough of these discussions to know most of the time no one gives in, but namecalling cements that certainty. Justforasecond 16:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it... I didn't. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is very simple - just attribute the racism accusation and then you can add it to the article. Rhobite 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that blog links, such as "The Conservative Voice", aren't ideal references. Can't we find anyone notable who has accused her of racism? Rhobite 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many notable sources that call her a racist. http://www.counterpunch.org/kalmbacher05042005.html http://www.mediamouse.org/briefs/021706racis.php

As well as countless political ones like http://www.progressiveu.org/160000-coulter-racist-remarks-draw-cheers-at-conservative-event

I do not see any reason to note that Coulter is a racist. Including looking back at her "old arab" comments. Even if someone says a racist comment to get attention, they are racist. NMLawking 17:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

She's just downright mean, she is. But her perky brestses makes up for it somewhat. --SpeedyCar 01:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best to just call her remark controversial. Those who find such remarks racist will draw that conclusion anyway, making it redundant to put it in the article. Some people are arguing that it is "obvious" to any "reasonable" person that her "raghead" comments are racist, so calling it such is NPOV, not POV. However, if that's really so, then all "reasonable" people would conclude that they're "racist" just from the quoted comment, making it unnecessary to deploy that adjective. And calling them "racist" won't convince the "unreasonable" people, who will just join in a revert war. This article gives a full hearing to Coulter's critics already, I think it's anti-Coulter as it is. --WacoKid 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, you really need to take a breath and back off. There is a right way to include things you think are relevant, and then there is continually pushing your agenda into the article. You're doing the latter. Stop, please. --Syberghost 17:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And let right-wing devotees like you run the show? I'm not pushing an agenda. There's a whole host of people who find her commentary racist. The article must reflect the existance of that review of her views. Period. To censor that information makes the article POV in her favor. If you read my talk page, even LV acknowleges I'm 'probably right'. Now, how about you justify your position of censoring that information? Amibidhrohi 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is flagrantly against its subject. Amibidhrohi, you can turn this into a political war all you want, but I hope you realize that your rabid attitude is not changing any minds or shedding any light on the subject.Giles22 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Lay off the personal attacks. This article is about Ann Coulter. Alot of people find Ann Coulter's comments racist. My edit implies 'some people find ann counter's comments racist", citing 7 sources that back that statement. Explain how that is political? Is the NPOV thing to do to censor that fact? Amibidhrohi 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Be very careful how you characterize this here. It is not necessarily "censoring" a "fact" when the nature of the fact itself is in dispute.Giles22 19:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't mind Giles. He doesn't speak for others.  Justforasecond 19:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact is that there are people who consider Ann Coulter's remarks racist. That is what the edit states, nothing more. It doesn't state that she is in fact a racist, since that would be editorializing. The only bit of information that is certain is that there ARE people who find her comments racist. Alot of people. That fact is supported by 7 sources. How is this disputable? If it's disputable, I'd like to hear the content of that dispute. I'd like to hear the arguements against adding this information. Syberghost only reverts the article without actually stating his reasons; I'm guessing it's because he has none. Amibidhrohi 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave reasons multiple times. Why haven't you read them? I'm guessing it's because you have, and don't want to admit you're wrong. Labelling sections 'racist' instead of 'controversial' is why I reverted you. Putting conclusions that are not universally-shared into the top of the article is why I reverted you.  I will keep reverting you as long as you do that without seeking consensus here.  So far, you haven't sought consensus; you've yelled at people and tried to enforce your view because you're pissed off.  You have a right to be pissed off; you don't have a right to turn Wikipedia into your own personal tool for venting.  At least, not within the articles; feel free to continue to do so on the Talk pages. - Syberghost 19:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Angelic Wraith, please stop changing "Controversial" to "Racist". That's a substantive change and should be discussed here before being made. There is not consensus on making that change, and it is inappropriate of you to continue making it. All you will accomplish is getting your changes reverted, and likely at some point a valid change will be reverted along with your NPOV violation simply due to the frequency with which you continue making this mistake. This is a community; come talk to us instead of pushing your agenda into the page. -Syberghost 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

...Some things need adjusted in this article...
I read the article on Anne...good job at the beginning--but at the end, the paragraphs got to be a bit POVish...

I'll now suggest some edits be made and they are as follows:

1. "[The book] Slander claims that many American journalists have ties to the Democratic Party and are extremely liberal, which biases their reporting. Coulter argues that George W. Bush has faced a difficult and unfair battle for positive coverage in the media from the moment he decided to run for president, and that a similar battle for fair coverage has been waged by practically every Republican presidential candidate since Calvin Coolidge."

The problem with this paragraph is that it needs to go with the article about the book "Slander"--NOT with the article about the author! It's talking about what the book says so therefore, that paragraph needs to go where it belongs.

2. "David Daley, who wrote the interview piece for the Hartford Courant recounted what followed (need to add "and you can find the interview piece at (link)."

There is no need to paste the article at all--just link to it and let the folks read it from there.

And for coherancy, cut out the paragraph that starts with "According to the Coulter Watch website."

3. Cut out everything else afterwards. Trivia section needs to be provided with its proper links or removed (in other words, it needs to kind of have the format of the "Quotations" section. Making the statement--then providing the link.) Leave the Quotations section and edit the reference section accordingly.

There is no need to continuously bring up what the critics have to say. If the reader wishes to examine what the critics have to say further, then he or she will do so via an encyclopedia or internet resources.

4. The book reviews section can go. You already have a critical section on her--we need to be fair and balanced here. A little time for those who approve of her and a little time for those who disprove.

5. And finally, for the "Interviews" section, rename it "Randomly Selected Interviews" or something to that affect. If you're going to have a section named "Interviews", you must list every single interview she has ever done.

Everything should at least be fair and balanced now...

--JJ


 * Ok, I'll bite...


 * First off, what makes you think that quotes from a pundit's writings are not relevant to the article on the pundit herself? The entire reason why Ann Coulter is noteworthy enough to merit a Wikipedia article is due to her statements, opinions, and writings.  Wikipedia has a duty to show why she is worth having an article about.  By your standards, everything she has said in a book should be confined to the articles on those books.  This is nonsense; quotes from her books serve an important purpose in helping this article explain - neutrally and fairly, since we use her own words - who Ann Coulter is.


 * Secondly, whether an interview is worth merely linking to, or quoting from and linking to, is an editorial decision that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. I can't believe you would suggest that Wikipedia cease quoting from all articles it links.  You definitely couldn't mean that, so my question is, what criteria are you using for deciding that interview isn't appropriate to quote from - and why have you not stated your criteria as justification?


 * then he or she will do so via an encyclopedia or internet resources.


 * Absolutely hilarious. This IS an encyclopedia, AND an internet resource.  And if  you're one of those who thinks Wikipedia isn't a "real" encyclopedia, then by all means, quit wasting both our time here, and don't let the door hit you in the backside as you leave.  Still here?  Good.  So since you agree Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I guess we'll let them look up the critics right here, won't we?  :)


 * You're also mistaken in your remark about "a little time" for each side. The reason quotes from critics vastly outweigh quotes from supporters is that critics of Ann Coulter vastly outnumber supporters.  It's as childishly simple as that.  Let me put this simply:  It is not a violation of NPOV to report the truth.  It is a violation of NPOV to deliberately misrepresent the balance of public opinion to create a false appearance of balance where in reality there is none.  If your theory were correct, then the article on the Holocaust should have exactly the same amount of links to holocaust-denial websites as it does to holocaust-information websites.  Want to go there and try making that change, and see how fast an admin blocks you?  Didn't think so.


 * If you're going to have a section named "Interviews", you must list every single interview she has ever done.


 * More patent nonsense. Nowhere on Wikipedia has there ever been such a rule, and no admin would be insane enough to enforce it.  Readers of Wikipedia are bright enough to know that "Interviews" means "Selected Interviews", because of course this encyclopedia didn't write itself, did it?  Someone had to have selected them.  And please, don't be insulting.  No one here selects interviews at "random", so that label makes no sense at all.  If you're so desperate to underestimate our readers' intelligence, then fine, call the section "Selected Interviews", but it'll probably be reverted within a month for stylistic reasons.


 * In any case, keep in mind that an article on a polarizing subject like Coulter - a person who deliberately attempts to create as much controversy as humanly possible - is going to automatically generate NPOV issues, and that therefore it's best to remember to assume good faith of your fellow editors. Cheers, -Kasreyn 11:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think there is value in ensuring that the charges of racism remain in the Criticism section, because if not they'll continue to be inserted in other sections. While I appreciate the irony of turning an article about a polemicist into a polemic, I think we can maintain a balance between having a good NPOV article and still including all significant criticism. -Syberghost 14:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but notice the repeated use of the phrase 'fair and balance'. Are we talking about fair and balanced in the Fox sense of the phrase? Amibidhrohi 17:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. Glad I'm not the only one who caught that.  The question is, Freudian slip or subtle trolling?  YOU DECIDE.  :P  -Kasreyn 05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Kasreyn by JJ
"By your standards, everything she has said in a book should be confined to the articles on those books. This is nonsense; quotes from her books serve an important purpose in helping this article explain - neutrally and fairly, since we use her own words - who Ann Coulter is."

It's not non-sense--any encyclopedian knows that if you pay special attention to going more in-depth about the contents from a book, then create an article about the book and insert that in-depth look about the book WITH the article about the book. If you are THAT desperate for people to see what her book is about, you can even INCLUDE A LINK to the book (with a phrase that goes "For more information, see 'Slander' " or something to that effect.)

"Secondly, whether an interview is worth merely linking to, or quoting from and linking to, is an editorial decision that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. I can't believe you would suggest that Wikipedia cease quoting from all articles it links. You definitely couldn't mean that, so my question is, what criteria are you using for deciding that interview isn't appropriate to quote from - and why have you not stated your criteria as justification?"

Hopefully, you read my "edited version" of the Anne Coulter article before changing it back to what it was. Neutral and balanced was all it was. All I did was make it look more professional...leaving out the extras and keeping the necessary stuff that gave the article its professional air.

"This IS an encyclopedia, AND an internet resource. And if you're one of those who thinks Wikipedia isn't a "real" encyclopedia, then by all means, quit wasting both our time here, and don't let the door hit you in the backside as you leave. Still here? Good. So since you agree Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I guess we'll let them look up the critics right here, won't we? :)"

I never said Wikipedia isn't a "real" encyclopedia...just because critics exist, doesn't mean that you have to make them the majority of the consistency of the article--it makes the article lose its professionalism. A professional-looking article talks a little bit about the critics and then, the people who applaud the idea brought out by...whoever. It's professionalism at its finest that gives a Wikipedia article its flavor and glow.

"You're also mistaken in your remark about "a little time" for each side. The reason quotes from critics vastly outweigh quotes from supporters is that critics of Ann Coulter vastly outnumber supporters. Let me put this simply: It is not a violation of NPOV to report the truth. It is a violation of NPOV to deliberately misrepresent the balance of public opinion to create a false appearance of balance where in reality there is none. If your theory were correct, then the article on the Holocaust should have exactly the same amount of links to holocaust-denial websites as it does to holocaust-information websites."

First off, it's the focus that you put on a person (be it negative or positive) that decides how you write about a person--if you were writing about your greatest enemy, you'd hardly say anything good about them. Right? Of course...and if you keep focused only on the negative or only on the positive about someone, then usually you start wearing "rose-colored" glasses. There's a BIG line between telling the Truth and painting the truth the way you want it to look.

...And putting a negative tint in an article on someone isn't going to help matters any either--and you can't justify negativity by putting a label of "truth" on it.

Lastly, who says that it's popular opinion that everyone hates Anne? Where's your proof? (And just because there are a lot of negative things about her doesn't mean that everyone dislikes her.) Do you have an independant site that can give me poll numbers on this? Or something to that affect? If not, then please...don't go around telling folks that the majority of people dislike her--if you can't prove it.

"Readers of Wikipedia are bright enough to know that "Interviews" means "Selected Interviews", because of course this encyclopedia didn't write itself, did it? Someone had to have selected them. And please, don't be insulting. No one here selects interviews at "random", so that label makes no sense at all. If you're so desperate to underestimate our readers' intelligence, then fine, call the section "Selected Interviews", but it'll probably be reverted within a month for stylistic reasons."

You misunderstood what I said, friend...By "Randomly Selected Interviews", I meant that the writer picked out certain kinds of interviews on Anne (and as far as I know, those interviews are posted there to cast a negative light on Anne.)

"In any case, keep in mind that an article on a polarizing subject like Coulter - a person who deliberately attempts to create as much controversy as humanly possible - is going to automatically generate NPOV issues, and that therefore it's best to remember to assume good faith of your fellow editors."

"A person who deliberately attempts to create as much controversy as humanly possible"? Really? You know, I hardly know her at all--all I knew is that liberals and democrats didn't like her. However, she shouldn't be causing this kind of hysteria among liberals.

Al Franken doesn't make me go into hysterics--even though I don't care for what he says.

"Assume good faith of your fellow editors"?

Well, you know, I've mentioned several edits be made to several editors of various articles--having good faith that they would at least consider what I have to say. Know what happened? They didn't even consider what I had to say! They made excuses for their style of writing and totally ignored me!

...And this has been a pattern for a while now, and frankly, I'm losing faith in my "fellow editors"--they aren't listening to what I have to say and they leave stuff in the articles that don't even need to exist! Of course, if your definition of having faith in my fellow editors means to not question what they have to say and just sit back dumb and mute and let them put anything and everything in their article (in the name of "truth"), then no way will I have faith in them to run me over like that!

Cheers and democracy all de way friend,

--JJ

I know as a general rule one isn't supposed to edit another person's talk page comment, but I really don't think your response, as well written as it is, deserves to be categorized as an entirely separate section. Someone here noted the irony of the entry on a polemicist being polemic. If you hold a handful of feces to a mirror, what will you see in the reflection? Ann Coulter's made a career of bashing and insulting. That's what she does. The names of her book are "Treason" and "Slander". If she wrote a book or two that had more 'positive' messages or tones, we could've referred to them. The entry can only mirror what she actually is and how she is actually viewed. If there's something positive about her that's noteworthy (and noted) that you know of, by all means include that too. Amibidhrohi 02:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: To Amibidhrohi
"I know as a general rule one isn't supposed to edit another person's talk page comment, but I really don't think your response, as well written as it is, deserves to be categorized as an entirely separate section."

...I'm not going to address rabbit trails.

Personally, I don't think the Holocaust deniers ought to be mentioned in this or any other encyclopedia at all. Maybe as an obscure article that states that they deny the Holocaust but nothing more.

They are entitled to their opinion however and if they wish to provide "evidence" for the holocaust never happening, then they can do it on their user page and not as a part of an encyclopedia article.

However, folks can claim that this is hindering free speech and that Wikipedia is prejudiced--so the admins will let them provide links for their "evidence." And well, that's the way things are...

...And like I said, that was just a rabbit trail to lead off into something else. And I'm not going to address it any further...

"If you hold a handful of feces to a mirror, what will you see in the reflection? Ann Coulter's made a career of bashing and insulting. That's what she does. The names of her book are "Treason" and "Slander". If she wrote a book or two that had more 'positive' messages or tones, we could've referred to them. The entry can only mirror what she actually is and how she is actually viewed. If there's something positive about her that's noteworthy (and noted) that you know of, by all means include that too."

So, let me get this straight: You're saying that because Anne writes two books, everyone all of a sudden labels her "a racist"?

...???

...She makes some comments and writes two books...and because she does this, "everyone" labels her a bigotted racist and hates her? Personally, I wouldn't judge and hate you just by two of your writings and some libelous statements you've made...that's not right or fair.

Not only that, it's too mean-spirited.

...WAY too mean-spirited...

--JJ

re: top image
This is directed towards the person who claimed the image replacement was "unflattering". I personally disagree, but is it really the place of wikipedia editors to try to only use photos of celebs looking their best? Isn't that kind of like pandering?

Not that I'm saying the other one should be restored. But isn't it just a matter of personal opinion as to which photo she looks better in? I think our goal should be to find a photo that shows the subject as they most commonly are, not their "best" or "worst" day. This is rather difficult to expect, though, since we don't have time to examine that many photos. I'm only bringing this up to mention that the can of worms you're opening is highly subjective, and arguments could go on endlessly about whether she looks "better" in one photo or another. -Kasreyn 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think if the entry for a person has a top image, that image should be one that is generally agreed to be representative of the person's appearance and, within that restriction, the most flattering image available of a PG-or-better nature. If discussing a specific event related to that person, unflattering images that are representative of the event would absolutely be appropriate.  I'd say a valid exception to this would be if there is a particular image that is most associated with that person in the public consciousness, but care should be taken to make sure that this doesn't go to far down the road of turning an NPOV encyclopedic entry into a parody.  In other words, we don't have to dig around and find somebody's glamour shot, but there's certainly no POV taken in merely looking for an image in which they look their best doing what they normally do.  In this case, Ann spends a lot of time on TV.  An image of her on TV smiling is appropriately neutral.  Also, there is the principle of discussing major changes and seeking consensus before making them.  Humans are visual creatures, and changing the top image on an entry is therefore a pretty major change, and should be done as a matter of consensus. -Syberghost 14:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't matter if it looks flattering, that other one does not have sufficient copyright info, I believe. The Fox News one is fine. It perfectly illustrates Coulter, so there is no reason to replace at this point in time. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  16:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, if someone wants to put up the bucks to purchase the rights to a suitable glamour shot, and then release it into the public domain, please do. Until then we'll just have to live with what we got. My 2 cents worth. --DanielCD 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I remember that Ann posed for a professional photo of herself on the cover of Time magazine.  Presumably a much higher quality image than a screen capture from a TV screen -- maybe we should put that one up?  Justforasecond 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Both the Fox image and the "unflattering" CNN image seem to violate fair use policies.  Removed.  Justforasecond 02:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think that the image everyone is fussing about is unflattering (she is just butt-ugly) anyway it is not as bad as the photo that Ann Coulter, or whoever runs her web site, chose to be displayed on every webpage of anncoulter.com. See --[[User:Inahet|Inahet] 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to JJ by Kasreyn

 * ...if you pay special attention to going more in-depth about the contents from a book, then create an article about the book and insert that in-depth look about the book WITH the article about the book.

But that's the thing, the point of this article is, "Who is this Ann Coulter lady and why do so many people find her noteworthy?" That is our readers' question. To answer it, we must provide examples of her writing. To be fair to her, this sample should come from all aspects of her career, which means columns, interviews, and books. It's not about going in-depth into the books. It's about going in-depth into Ann Coulter, the subject of this article.


 * All I did was make it look more professional...leaving out the extras and keeping the necessary stuff that gave the article its professional air.

So to you, removing the entire criticisms section is removing "extras"? To me, it's partisan bias. Coulter's importance is almost solely based, as I have said before, on her outrageous (or, if you prefer, bold) comments which are notorious for having offended many. If Wikipedia fails to report on this, then the entire article becomes a sham.


 * A professional-looking article talks a little bit about the critics and then, the people who applaud the idea brought out by...whoever.

I've already dealt with this point. The reason why the article hosts so many more criticisms of Coulter than praises is because that is the ratio of beliefs regarding her among the public. The public debate on Ann Coulter is heavily weighted towards criticism of her comments. Again, for Wikipedia to fail to report on this facet of Coulter (her widespread opprobrium), we would again be failing to report on the truth.


 * and you can't justify negativity by putting a label of "truth" on it.

I'm not calling what people have said about Coulter the "truth". That's just reporting on sources, the proper task of an encyclopedia. I'm calling the fact that far, far more people criticize her than praise her, the truth. It's self-evident by the simple fact that far, far more sources of criticism exist than sources of praise. Unless you'd like to go begging the bias question.


 * By "Randomly Selected Interviews", I meant that the writer picked out certain kinds of interviews on Anne (and as far as I know, those interviews are posted there to cast a negative light on Anne.)

Then they certainly weren't random, were they?!! If they were selected maliciously, then call a spade a spade. Call the section "Maliciously Selected Interviews" or "Slanderously Selected Interviews", and I'll revert you, and we'll be done with it. OR, go with the NPOV approach, and call it "Selected Interviews", since to do anything else fails to assume good faith.


 * However, she shouldn't be causing this kind of hysteria among liberals.

Ann Coulter has repeatedly claimed that she believes liberals to be the evil scum of the earth, that their sole goal in life is to destroy everything good in the world, and that liberals deserve to be universally put to death. I am not fucking kidding you, read her books if you don't believe me. That is her message. If you don't call that "polarizing", you really shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia for grown-ups.


 * Al Franken doesn't make me go into hysterics

Well, Al's just trying to make you go into hysterics of laughter, you see. ;) Maybe you just don't find him funny.  Hell, I sometimes find his jokes to be duds as well.  But the difference here is clear:  Al makes it clear as he says something that he intends it as a joke, so you play along in the joke with him, and have a laugh at its absurdity together.  Coulter, on the other hand, merely says something hateful, and then later hides behind the "just kidding" excuse, such as when she publically called for the assassination of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.  So you tell me - does saying "I'm kidding" really put you in the same league with a professional comedian?  Who would have known it was that easy to be funny!!

In general, if you haven't read much of a pundit's writings, I really suggest you shouldn't be editing the articles about them on Wikipedia. Go read some of Coulter's writings, then come back here. At the very least, it might give you ideas on better ways to improve the article.

Cheers, -Kasreyn 06:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Indiana University Comments Removed
Why was all mention of her recent comments at Indiana University removed? Can someone please reinstate some of that? Here's a link to the news story:  -- 3 March 2006


 * I reinstated one of the quotes. -Justforasecond 02:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Mention of Skirts
"Coulter is very fond of wearing short skirts."

POV; "short" definition varies from person to person, and all-around unecessary. The remainder of the line in the article should stay about being satirized for vanity, but not this.


 * Someone is continually reverting this. I've noticed a lot of those who are against Coulter want to make some point about this in order to make her seem immoral to Christian conservatives. I think this does not belong here. It IS POV.


 * Bleh, whatever. I really don't care one way or the other; I once rewrote the section to try to make it more NPOV.  The fact that she was satirized for supposed vanity, however, might be considered worth reporting on...  and it would be rather odd to include that without including what she was being satirized for...


 * Personally, I find it ironic that people dislike Coulter for her regressive statements in support of patriarchy, but then attack her for wearing sexually liberated clothing. When exposing hypocrites, it's best to avoid becoming one.  :P


 * So fine, whatever, the section on the skirts can be removed if you can find someone else here who agrees with you. I'm not going to take sides on it.  But whatever is left in the article had better be NPOV.  -Kasreyn 17:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Naw, I think it is ironic from Coulter herself. There isn't sexually liberated cloting in the "imagined" patriarchial society she advocates. She never puts forth an example of a patriarchal society where rights are respected because the ideas aren't compatable. Blue Leopard 06:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * the skirts are short relative to those worn by other pundits like huffington. but simpler to just call them miniskirts Justforasecond 16:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fraternity vs. Sorority
I am a bit puzzled by how a lot of people are insisting on saying that Coulter belonged to a "woman's fraternity" instead of a "sorority" or "woman's sorority."

According to the wikipedia entry for sorority, "Fraternities are all-male or mixed-sex; the female-only equivalent is called a sorority, a word coined for Gamma Phi Beta in 1874."Giles22 22:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorority is valid. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  22:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is, in this case. Delta Gamma describes themselves as a women's fraternity; in fact, that's what the Wikipedia page on them says.  So if we leave this saying "sorority", we've got a link saying it's a fraternity and then, a couple of words later, an assertion that it's a sorority.  The only fair thing to do, in my mind, is call it what they call themselves; a "women's fraternity".  BTW, Delta Gamma predates Gamma Phi Beta by a year. --Syberghost 17:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right. See this page of their website. It even says Fraternity would be used instead of the newer "sorority". I think it is definite. -- LV  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  18:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

One more point on "allegedly racist"
I should note that it may seem fine and NPOV to say that it's merely an allegation of racism (which is as far as we can go, since (thank god) we don't live inside Coulter's head), but this isn't good enough. We have to provide some sort of corroboration that there has been an allegation against her of racism, such as a line saying "Coulter's remark was called racist by organization x (link)". Otherwise the section heading ("allegedly racist statements") would include original research - the unsourced claim that there have been such allegations. We cannot call Ann Coulter racist ourselves, but we can note that others have done so. However, what the article currently is doing is effectively saying "someone somewhere called her a racist once", and leaving it at that. This is original research. -Kasreyn 09:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From the sources I've quoted in the article: "If Ann wishes to write condemning remarks about those responsible for terroristic acts, she has the support of the rest of the Conservative Movement. If she wishes to write inflammatory disparaging remarks which can be easily classified as racist or prejudicial – she's on her own." "At CPAC, Borchers reported that Coulter "rules the far right roost with racist speech death threat 'jokes.'" " Lust: Ann Coulter Makes Racist Remark About Reporter Helen Thomas; Occurs During Ann Coulter's Contrived Defense of Prostitute "Jeff Gannon" "Instead of scorn, Ann Coulter receives royalties. Instead of being written off and ignored as racist, essentially no different than a Knight of the Ku Klux Klan, she appears on the idiot tube, making repulsive comments about Muslims, Arabs, Asians, liberals, and now Native Americans."

How often is the burden to provide 8 independent sources for a single statement? The phrase "allegations of racist.." is appropriate because that's precisely what is alleged. Syberghost, there's several people who support the inclusion of the use of the word 'racist' in this context. My edit doesnt state she's racist, it merely points to the allegations of racism. The fact that you're an apologist for Ann's bigotry doesn't itself justify exclusion of the use of the word when obviously appropriate. You keep stating there is a dispute about it when you can't actually express your side of the dispute. If a paragraph focuses on allegations on racism, it's absolutely reasonable to have the header read as 'allegations of racism' Amibidhrohi 17:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Then start a section called "allegations of racism" and stop changing the section for quotes about Arabs and Muslims. -Syberghost 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, read Words_to_avoid for guidelines on why you shouldn't feature that word prominently in an article where there is ANY dispute about it, even if you can document sources. The fact that several people agree with you and several people don't means YOU DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS.  Consensus requires that you take other people's position seriously.  You aren't doing that.  If you persist I will have no recourse but to refer this for dispute resolution. -Syberghost 21:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I'm glad we could come to an agreement that addresses both of our concerns. -Syberghost 21:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, you've been asked multiple times to stop changing the headers to say "racist". See Words_to_avoid for guidelines on why you shouldn't feature that word prominently in an article where there is ANY dispute about it, even if you can document sources. Several people agreeing with you isn't consensus; nobody actively disagreeing with you is consensus. Talking about allegations of racism in the article is NPOV; calling somebody a racist is POV, unless that person describes him or herself as racist. This is the general consensus of Wikiepedia editors for any article; the fact that you don't like Ann doesn't make hers an exception. -Syberghost 13:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to stir things up again, but for what it's worth the CAIR did say that her at least some of her statements are racially-charged, though the provided link is a bit outdated and not a good representation of how the feel about her now. http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1048&theType=NR

Update on voting fraud issue
This issue was raised above, in the thread titled Talk:Ann Coulter. The inspector of elections for Palm Beach County has begun an investigation into Coulter's possible voting fraud. The procedure is for the officials to send a registered letter to the voter at the address in the records, giving the voter a chance to explain the situation. That newspaper article doesn't address the question whether Coulter might have committed a felony. JamesMLane t c 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weird. --kizzle 04:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not really all that strange, or uncommon. People get the precinct wrong in every election, and it only becomes a big deal if they're celebrities.  For instance, Michael Moore's active voter registrations in two different states technically constituted a felony, but there was never any serious intention to prosecute him because there was no evidence that he did it to vote twice.  See   and .  I especially like the quote from the latter: "About 5 percent of Arizona's voters - 101,536 of them, to be exact - had some trouble voting in the 2004 election, and 27,878 of them had their "provisional" votes thrown out.  The No. 1 reason for ballot rejection is that voters went to the wrong polling place."  It happens.  It's not news unless somebody gets indicted. -Syberghost 13:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Florida law is different that that of Ohio and New York. 132.241.246.111 21:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. And typically in Florida, what they do is throw out votes in the wrong precinct, not arrest people.  In fact, voting rights groups have been trying to get Florida's law struck down  for years because voting in the wrong precinct is such a common thing. -Syberghost 21:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Coulter has insulted the district in the past I doubt they'll forget it. 132.241.246.111 21:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I live in Florida. I know firsthand the issue. I voted out of precinct once. I was to vote in a North Tampa precint, and I moved, and when election day came about they let me vote in my new precinct. I found out when I posted my change of address downtown, which was easy for me to do at the time, I found out I had voted out of precinct. I was informed of this and that was that. No felony was contemplated because just as I did, the question was asked and answered.
 * Arthur Anderson is a Democrat supported and endorsed by Wexler, so he would be likely to take any chance to publically tweak Ann Coulter. A big issue here has been voters from the Northeast revoting in the South eastern part of Florida, that is voting twice. This is not been worked on in palm Beach.
 * Wikipedia should be above this kind of thing. Dominick (TALK) 21:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you all ignoring the issue that she gave a false address in order to vote in that precinct?


 * Yes, we are; on purpose. Because it's not news.  People vote in the wrong precinct literally every single election.  It's not even illegal in most places, and even where it is it's ignored unless they're doing it to vote twice.  The ACLU's current lawsuits against the law are likely to get it struck down.  It's a nonstory about a nonissue, and unless somebody decides to take the incredibly extraordinary leap to prosecuting it, it's neither newsworthy nor noteworthy.  It's just a smear attempt. -Syberghost 17:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be news if she hadn't furthered her career by berating the stupidity of Palm Beach County voters for the 2000 election. Ann has made a carrer of "smear attempts" so I think it's clearly relevant here.  If she dishes it, she needs to take it. It is news, that's why it was reported in the first place.  Agrippina Minor 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Profanity?
Question: does a recent entry in the trivia section referring to a NOFX lyric violate the Profanity guidelines? From the guideline: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." It's trivia, so it seems like it contributes little to relevance, and nothing to accuracy. I guess the question is how informative do we consider trivia to be? It would seem by definition to be trivial. I propose removing it, or editing it to merely say "The song foo on the album bar by punk band baz contains a reference to Coulter." Let's discuss. -Syberghost 13:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If nobody has any input on this, I'll assume that to be a lack of opposition to my proposed changed, and make the change later today. One last chance to discuss it. -Syberghost 13:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

the profanity is completely relevent because it is in the lyrics of the song. the deletion of the profanity takes away from the meaning of the song. The profanity is an integral part showing the message of the song. it is a direct quote from the lyrics.

much like the sean hannity quote in the same song, it shows some liberal public opposition to Coulter's perspectives


 * Two things. First, to the anonymous editor above, please sign you comments with 4 tildes (~).  Second, such use of profanity has no place here on WP for many reasons.  First of all, the lyrics of a fringe "punk" band are irrelevant to a biography, even more so when they use such profanity, which could just as well be for shock value (to sell records), not the singer's "liberal opposition".  Secondly the anonymous editor used this reason to include the lyrics:
 * "the deletion of the profanity takes away from the meaning of the song. The profanity is an integral part showing the message of the song."
 * The purpose of this article is to present a biography of Ann Coulter, not to convey the meaning of a song. If the consensus is that the song is even noteworthy enough to be mentioned, it is enough to simply mention it and cite a link to the lyrics that the reader can follow if so inclined.--WilliamThweatt 23:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm no fan of Coulter, but it's not really encyclopedic to report on every nasty name she's been called in her long career of pissing people off.  Far better to let her do the talking with quotes.  -Kasreyn 04:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead Photo
I move the TIme photo that Miss Coulter has publically criticised to criticism and put a picture from the cover of her book there. It seems more NPoV to not use a picture the subject thinks was distorted or manipulated. Dominick (TALK) 14:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While I don't care one way or the other which photo is used, why should we base our choice of a photo on whether the subject likes it or not? Guettarda 14:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a controversy over Time manipulating the photo. The claim was that such a picture would not have been run on an author that Time editors are allegedly more sympathetic. Running that picture to tweak the nose of someone that some editors find offensive is not NPoV. Dominick (TALK) 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry, I must have read your original comment too quickly. If there is a legimitate controversy, that's fine.  Which brings me to another point - a TIME cover shouldn't be used unless the article is actually discussing the TIME article or cover, in which case moving the image was entirely appropriate.  However, the book cover should only be used where the book is discussed... whatever happened to the FOX News screenshot - or is that only acceptable when the subject is her commentary on FOX News?  Hmmm...doesn't someone have a pic from a press pack?  Promotional material is probably the easiest to justify "fair use"...  Guettarda 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a photo of her on Flickr, and the author is none other than Jimmy Wales. Maybe if you ask him nicely he'll let you use it.--Fallout boy 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected
I could've blocked a few folks for abusing the three revert rule, but instead I'll protect the page. Please come to some kind of resolution here instead of edit warring. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all I was asking for; discussing, then consensus, then edit. If you want to block me for reverting bad behavior I guess I can't stop you, but I joined the discussion before taking any action. -Syberghost 21:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm currently replacing deprecated citenewsauthor. Please drop me a note if this is ready for editing again or do it yourselves. Thanks. --Ligulem 08:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --Ligulem 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If all this is about her having voted in a district where she is not registered to do so, that should be included and cited. "Vote fraud" is too general, and there's no need to list possible criminal sentences (unless, of course, she is sentenced to one).  Eleemosynary 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter on "The O'Franken Factor"
I believe that Ann Coulter was also a guest on the radio show "The O'Franken Factor". Shouldn't that be included on her page as well? I know that the show was liberal and that Al Franken is a satirist, but I just want to be sure in the interest of fairness.


 * If you've got a link you can cite for this, please be bold and add it. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages, by typing ~ at the end.  Thanks! -Syberghost 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I looked it up, and it wasn't Ann who was on the show, it was someone impersonating her. My mistake. Good thing I figured it out before an argument got started. Captain N

She did appear on another radio show with Al Franken.

NPoV
The following paragraph, under "Criticism of Treason and Slander," is unnecessary. It does not tie to Coulter. It seems to try to reinforce her opinions. Factual or not, it does not flow. Just having it in seems PoV to me.

''For instance, President Dwight Eisenhower's chief of staff Sherman Adams wrote a memoir in 1961, "First Hand Report" that makes clear the hostility the Republican administration held against Sen. McCarthy. Further, two Republican Senators wrote memoirs excoriating McCarthy. Sen. Arthur Watkins of Utah chaired his censure committee and wrote "Enough Rope" in 1969, sparing no detail in his fury over McCarthy's conduct. Sen. Charles Potter of Michigan sat on the Army-McCarthy hearings and the censure committe. His 1965 memoir "Days of Shame" is equally harsh toward the Wisconsin Senator.'' 71.132.24.187 20:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)bamonster

Personal Background
Can anybody verify that the following sentance taken from the "Personal Background" section is accurate.
 * Her mother, Nell M. Coulter, is a member of the New Canaan Republican Town Committee. (Cloud, 2005) Ann Coulter attributes her conservative opinions and acerbic rhetorical style to her upbringing in Connecticut and subsequent life in New York City living with her oldest brother, John, and his law school roommate, Bill Bendix, now a Brooklyn, NY Personal Injury Attorney.

Specifically, the part in bold. I noticed the part in bold was added by one of the anonymous IPs that have recently been vandalizing this article. I placed the "citation needed" tag after it, but somebody deleted the tag without comment. Also, the parenthetical (Cloud, 2005) is awkward. Is it a reference? If so can we change it to a standard citation format (footnote)?--WilliamThweatt 02:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Been looking at this too. This seems to verify that her mother is indeed Nell M. Coulter of New Canaan.  I haven't found anything verifying she's on the committee.  Maybe we should just scrap the whole thing for not having citations, unless somebody wants to go all that far back in the history and talk to the person who added it. -Syberghost 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The committee doesn't publish a roster. I can't blame them. Is this something that Ann Coulter has claimed or gossip? I removed some parts of the claim, and left the benign parts. Dominick (TALK) 19:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Statements about women and voting
I was just wondering if anyone could provide links to the unnamed NRO and Politically Incorrect articles that the quotes in the "controversial statements about women" subsection of the criticism section are taken from. Such quotes need cititions in the article body, and if they can't be cited should probably be removed. I'll look for the articles myself, but it would help greatly if someone who already knew the URLs would post them. Thanks. TheKaplan 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits by Skywriter
Regarding the Philander Smith incident, I'd say by removing the bit about what Coulter was arguing about (making the SCOTUS more conservative), you remove some needed context which provides insight into her character. The crack cocaine quip, and the note that she was booed, also do not seem to be worthy of removal to me. Can you defend these removals?

Regarding the CJR, removing " claiming it contained" and replacing with "for" needs more justification than just improved compactness. You've added a POV tinge to the sentence, specifically an assumption that the CJR was correct about mistakes in Slander, which Coulter has vehemently opposed. It's not appropriate for Wikipedia to imply through our choice of language that one side is right by default. "claiming it contained" should be reinstated.

Also, according to Wikipedia's own article on punditry, the term has recently gained a negative connotation in the United States. This is why "commentator" was used. I suggest reinstating "commentator", and for fairness's sake, adding "comedian". You also removed "what he believed were", which once again inserts a structural bias, assuming that Franken was correct and Coulter was wrong. Whatever our personal opinions, it's not right to give one side greater approval through choice of wording. The facts must speak for themselves, and "what he believed were" should be reinstated. You also removed a note that several of Coulter's errors had already been corrected, which removes a positive point in Coulter's favor in an article which has revealed her negativity in great detail. (Not that I'm rehashing a certain tired argument oft found on this talk page; the article mirrors its topic, nothing more.)

I hope you'll reply in a few days. I appreciate your efforts to make the article more compact, and good job on catching that dead link. But it's very important to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sometimes extra verbiage is required to avoid structural biases. Cheers, Kasreyn 11:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with Kasreyn on all points. I almost reverted, but since it's not technically outright vandalism, I think it's appropriate to give Skywriter a chance to justify his edits (though, I doubt he'll try).--WilliamThweatt 15:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

WilliamThweatt, why do you doubt I would reply?

There is well-documented danger in citing a Wikipedia article as an authoritative source. Most librarians and information professionals view Wikipedia as a source for tips, not the final say on any matter.

Pundit, for example, is a fine neutral term, not negative at all. Check with Merriam-Webster (11th edition), the dictionary used most often by the U.S. publishing industry: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pundit Or other standard dictionaries: http://onelook.com/?w=pundit&ls=a

If by insight into her character you mean Coulter favors Republicans and the conservative body politic, that point is made in the lede and throughout the article. It is made explicitly, for example, in the section on reversing the 19th amendment (and states it factually without the extra verbiage.) re: the Justice Stevens quip: She says it right there "That's just a joke, for you in the media." Coulter covered her tracks on that one. She doesn't need help from a Wikipedian explaining that a joke is, well, a joke to make a political point. If you disagree, would you say exactly what extra insight into her character the extra verbiage provides in the SCOTUS section? (Insight that does not permeate the article.)

I think you can trust readers to "get it" once a point is made. I fail to see how beating readers over the head by making the same point again and again helps the reader, or the article.

As to the crack cocaine bit, why is that relevant to anything? It is an out of context remark that seems to come out of nowhere. I am sure there was some context when she made the speech but here it sticks out like a bruised thumb. I have no opinion (or knowledge) on the claim of whether or not crack is popular. But I do know this: including that throw-away line adds nothing to my knowledge either of crack cocaine or of Ann Coulter. Why would you include it? Is she an expert on this topic?

Encyclopedia articles do not usually contain the subject's opinion of everything in the galaxy. Coulter is an opinion machine. Biographical details are most relevant here and her opinions when they make news. Throw away lines can safely be omitted. My editing philosophy is that articles should be clear and easy to read and the various viewpoints should be presented fairly. That often means turning passive voice into active voice and avoiding weasel words. It is the opposite of "Mistakes were made. Others will be blamed" school of public relations writing.

Further, everything written turns on a point of view. CJR has a viewpoint as does Coulter and Franken etc. As to the CJR element, sure, change it to "claimed." Then change every single quote by everyone else in the article from "said" to "claimed." Does that make sense?

Re: the Coulter vs. Franken bit. I don't prefer one side over the other, except to object to density and unclarity in writing. My eyes rolled when I read this section because the wording is so dense. The link to Franken's profile makes clear he is a comedian. If you wish to add it here for clarity, please do so.

I have removed the Canada/VN segment because it is not the sort of thing found in an encyclopedia. If you think it should be included, then would you summarize it to point out that she is human and sometimes factually inaccurate (and even stubbornly so sometimes)? Previous to its removal, the section was a restatement of a he-said/she-said that is not particularly enlightening, especially in an encyclopedia. My further doubt on including this section is you can make the point that she gets into pissing matches without providing the blow by blow of each incident, which loses readers. I read this section and thought, okay she screws up sometimes. So do I. So does everyone editing Wikipedia. Should a federal case be made of it, or is it okay to move on?

All of this said, do as you wish. My goal was and continues to be to tighten an article that is flabby and difficult to read. I will not engage in an editing war but will return from time to time to tighten the language, to make it more pleasant to read. If you care about the subject, care about the reader. skywriter 17:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. the section on Paula Jones is way too long and contains biographical material on Jones that has no sound basis for being included in this article. skywriter 17:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your desire to clean up the article. However, I think it was too much to quickly.  So much has changed that I can't even sort through what I find objectionable.  I think moving slower would have allowed for more consensus.  At this point I have to differ because I don't have the time to sort through everything that has changed.  I think the article, while a shorter, more condensed read, has lost A LOT of information.  Agrippina Minor 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Each and every edit can be observed at leisure through the magic of revision history. skywriter 04:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unlike you I don't have ten hours. Agrippina Minor 20:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a case to be made for the removal of the Canada section, but I don't think "Ann Coulter is only human; let's move on already" is it. The Canada incident is well known, and aroused much chatter in the blogosphere as well as in the mainstream media . Michael Moore posted a video of the incident under the headline "Coulter exposed". It made a big enough splash for Time, FAIR, CBC and Coulter herself to get involved in the ensuing debate. I would suggest tweakage rather than removal if you think the And-the-point-is? factor is a tad too high (something I don't entirely disagree with).


 * chocolateboy 22:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Section on Quotations
Does anyone want to make an argument for keeping duplicate quotes that appear in the main article? If, after hearing nothing over a respectable period, I plan to delete duplicates. skywriter 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Observation on Possible Copyright Violations
Time magazine has a stated copyright policy: http://www.time.com/time/reprints/covers/

Time's cover photo of Coulter is used twice on Wikipedia but there's no indication in the photo file that the person/s who uploaded it sought and received copyright permission per Time policy.

Therefore use of this photo may get Wikipedia into copyright trouble. What is the proper way to proceed?

skywriter 01:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Paula Jones section
In the last paragraph, copy reads


 * The judge ruled that, even if her allegations proved true, Jones did show that she had suffered any damages.

Should this be "Jones did not show"?

Signinstranger 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, absolutely yes. Gzuckier 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Treason and Slander
"For instance, President Dwight Eisenhower's chief of staff Sherman Adams wrote a memoir in 1961, First Hand Report, that makes clear the hostility the Republican administration held against Sen. McCarthy. Further, two Republican Senators wrote memoirs excoriating McCarthy. Sen. Arthur Watkins of Utah chaired his censure committee and wrote Enough Rope in 1969, sparing no detail in his fury over McCarthy's conduct. Sen. Charles Potter of Michigan sat on the Army-McCarthy hearings and the censure committee. His 1965 memoir, Days of Shame, is equally harsh toward the Wisconsin Senator."

This paragraph sounds like it is in the book, not criticism of the book. I said it before, it sounds POV and should be removed. ---bamonster

Gossip column
"Ann Coulter was busy chastising Jimmy Wales about her Wikipedia entry and finding out from him how to change it." from Fox News. WAS 4.250 13:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would love to hear her comments on this talk page. Even better if she decided to type them herself. I have a little faith that PoV warriors from the left will act like grownups. A good chunk of this belongs on wikiquote. Dominick (TALK) 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's please move the quotes to Wikiquote. I suspect most of them are already there. -Will Beback 21:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Blog Link
I understand the desire to have a "counterviewpoint" to her work, but a site dedicated to bashing her? And a blog at that? What makes that site a valid one for WP? --Mhking 17:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read it ? -- http://blog.stopanncoulter.com/ I just looked it over. The comments are thoughtful and verifiable. I don't think it crosses the line or "bashes" her, as you say. It is valid commentary of a person who deliberately attracts attention to herself only by making personal attacks on individuals and groups. Look at the first letter. It is from an editor of the editorial page at the Seattle Times complaining about Coulter's statements about him in one of her books. His is a reasoned, dispassionate complaint. He complains not only of her attack-dog style but also of her factual errors about his work in her book. Do you know what it takes for a newspaper person to write in a public place that is not his newspaper? Let me tell you-- it is extraordinary.

The next longer item comments on her column on Muslims, which the author calls "a racist diatribe against Muslims. Not just radical Muslims, but Muslims everywhere. In fact, she very explicitly notes in the column that she is referring to all Muslims when she makes racist statement after racism statement."

This is pointed and intelligent commentary, Mhking, on target for this article. Why would you want to remove it? Skywriter 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a simple PoV fork and blogs are not good sources for wikipedia. It doesn't matter how good it is. Dominick (TALK) 17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not PoV fork. The Seattle Times editor points to false factual attacks on himself. Skywriter 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is surprising that you would want to remove a topic specific link. There are enough links to front page magazine blog to choke a herd of horses on Wikipedia. Why is that? Skywriter 17:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you find unverified blogs, by all means mark them up with templates. Dominick (TALK) 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Last two Revisions Self-praising her Factualness
The last two revisions are unsourced viewpoint. The opposite is true. Coulter has even been accused of plagiarism and that is not yet in this article. (I've been meaning to get to it-- and I will.) That an author uses footnotes is not noteworthy. That an author is accused of getting the facts wrong, as this author has been repeatedly, is news. This is not a public relations site for Coulter. It is already over the top that the page is providing PR (with the photo) for her next book. Skywriter 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact she is proud and touts that she uses a lot of footnotes. Many other authors have far fewer notes in political genre books. Dominick (TALK) 17:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is unadulterated baloney and an embarassment to Coulter. "Ann prides herself on the copious footnotes in her books where she backs up her statements and often cites them in this criticism."

The fact of footnotes is not news and not worthy of inclusion in Wiki article. One would hope a nonfiction writer uses footnotes. When one does is NOT cause for comment.

As to the following, how can anyone know what "most people" think? While this may refer to your personal sense of humor, one can not make this statement for "most people." But most people find them to be very funny. Skywriter 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is something she touts. The second statement I can't say. It must have been a second edit. I edited the first to make it clearer. It is notable among books of this genre. Dominick (TALK) 18:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Second sentence followed a PoV sentence. I merged the two, sort of. Dominick (TALK) 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, you are again crossing the line here by introducing your personal viewpoint which does not belong. "Supporters contend that in context, Coulter's remarks were accurate, in that she was saying that liberals are hypocrites for calling for the elimination of the Confederate flag (which many liberals call racist), while celebrating the 'diversity' of Kwanzaa" If you can find someone who has said this in print, it is okay. If not, it is not okay. This is the second time you've done this-- generalized from the "most people say" or "supporters say" to convey your personal beliefs. Skywriter 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didnt place that in the article. It was in there all along. Add a template. Perhaps you should not take things so personally.  Dominick (TALK) 19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no dog in this race and zero opinion of Coulter, except today, seeing as how she feels she has to defend the adding of footnotes. That's sad, but I guess you are right. It tells volumes about the sort of person she is. My extensive work restructuring this article which you can revisit by looking at the history focused on removing the in-fghting and making the article easier on readers.

Are you saying you did not re-add that material which someone else had deleted. If you do not want to assume responsibility for adding it, then the entry can be deleted. Skywriter 19:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted sourced material that somone else hamfistedly blanked. It is a commentary that footnotes and sources are remarkible in this field. We have more data today, and we reference less and less of it. It speaks volumes of the pundit industry. I think the unreferenced slogan had it's roots in the 60s and 70s, IMHO. I think this article needs to be mostly moved to wikiquote, have things like how shocking she is removed, and focus on Coulter. People don't like short articles around here... Dominick (TALK) 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

When quotes go to Wikiquotes, are they routinely linked to the article page? Skywriter 21:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Franken on Coulter books
I'm pretty sure I remember this line differently. The line as it currently stands reads, In his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, liberal pundit Al Franken pointed out some factual errors and misleading statements in Coulter's books, which were corrected in later editions.

This seems to imply that every error pointed out by Franken was corrected. I've read "Lying Liars", and Franken's laundry list of Coulter errors and (he alleges) lies is quite long. I find it very hard to believe that Coulter would go out of her way to fix every statement Franken had a problem with, especially since Franken is, in her words, a godless liberal who hates America.

Does anyone have a source on how many (if any) of the errors pointed out by Franken were, in fact, corrected in later editions of Coulter's books? Perhaps I'm wrong, and she really did fix them all. Perhaps I've misjudged Coulter. But... I doubt it. Anyone got a source? Kasreyn 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Two images
Why does the article have two book covers at the top? This breaks pattern (very few Wikipedia articles are structured this way, if any) and the images are very redundant - they look almost exactly the same. The purpose of multiple images should be to illustrate different facets of the article, but the two photos of Coulter are practically the same - not like "Michael Jackson in 1984 vs 2004" or anything. I think it is quite unnecessary to have an image of multiple book covers unless the cover of the book is significant in some way. Rexmorgan 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK I removed the treason Image. We didnt have a public domain image so a book cover was good. SOmeone removed a good image long ago and used the Time image. I think the Treason image was better, and the Godless book is probably better for this. Since we are Wikipedia it is easy to use the lastest published image. Dominick (TALK) 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Screenshot looks better. Good job! Dominick (TALK) 17:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the copyright violations mentioned here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ann_Coulter#Observation_on_Possible_Copyright_Violations Skywriter 20:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Covered on fair use. This has been a discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia. Dominick (TALK) 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree... Time covers are used fairly extensively on Wikipedia, and the general consensus is that because the image is illustrating the fact that the subject in question was, in fact, on the cover of TIME and not only using the cover as an illustration of the subject alone, it falls under fair use. Rexmorgan 20:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Coulter watch
If there are issues over the site's reliability or notability, please discuss. Inserting POV descriptions like "rumored" aren't the right way to handle it. If the site is a poor or unreliable source, it should be removed entirely, not included and impugned. Kasreyn 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Many of the allegations in Coulter Watch were third party, and taken from transcripts. I put citation templates where facts need primary sources. Dominick (TALK) 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Kasreyn 00:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Numerous OP Ed pieces are not sources
I started excising some sources. We should really use primary quotes. I even found a link to Free Republic which is a message board! I also added context. If she says things, then we need to take pains to not take the quotes out of context. Not including the whole invasion quote, or that it was written after the death of a friend, is not good encyclopedia writing. This is a bigger task that I can easily do. I will replace some bad sources with fact templates. Lets make this a fair article. Dominick (TALK) 12:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That is why I questioned the use of blogs in the earlier section. --Mhking 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Long section on quotations
Does anyone oppose moving the long quote section and some of the long quotes within the article to Wikiquotes? I will leave this question up for comment for a few days. Thanks. Skywriter 17:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree - Given that the entire article is practically built on quotes by Coulter, I think a quotes section would be quite reasonable limited to the 5-7 most notable short-ish quotes, and move the rest. I doubt you will get much opposition on that - perhaps create a section on figuring out which should stay and which should move? Rexmorgan 17:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, especially since earlier consensus showed this to be favorable. (In the archives somewhere) -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree She is notable as an authoress. Plenty of material to write a good article without a list of quotes. Dominick (TALK) 17:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: my recent two edits
I feel strongly that the bits I removed were apologistic original research. Things like "this remark could allude to something less nasty" and "this is broad comedy and exaggeration" and "these remarks are explicable in the context of satire" are undue editorializing and insertion of original research and POV, not to mention chockablock with weasel words. Kasreyn 09:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this mean I can't add my paragraph about how she was under the spell of liberal mind control weapons when she said some of this stuff? (^_^) Gzuckier 15:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry ;)  Kasreyn 20:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research by 209.152.9.14 and 216.165.199.50
209.etc isn't bothering to "defend" himself, being too busy getting repeatedly blocked for egregious vandalism, so I'll only take the time to address 216.etc.

You wrote:


 * It should be noted as context to this remark that Coulter often jokes about her overly passionate attacks on liberalism, and also that she likes to ridicule the New York Times'' as a totem of intellectual respectability for liberals and in fact had done so earlier in the month in an interview with Brian Lamb, founder of C-Span (Coulter, August 11, 2002).


 * "should be noted" - POV pushing and editorializing.
 * "overly passionate" - POV. I happen to agree, but it's still POV.
 * "Coulter, Aug 11" is not good enough as a source.
 * Furthermore, the issue of whether Coulter is joking or not is already being covered in the Quotations section near the bottom of the article. If you have something to add regarding whether she is serious or not, add it there.

You wrote:


 * ''However, it should be noted as a contextual background to this remark that Thomas often applies makeup to her eyebrows that gives them a thick, dark appearance and that Coulter often jokes about her own willingness to racially-profile Arabs.


 * "should be noted" - as above, POV pushing and editorializing.
 * "contextual background" - says you. Original research.
 * "often applies makeup" - says you. Original research.
 * "Coulter often jokes about her own willingness to racially-profile..." - says you. Got a source for her self-mockery?

In summary, stop inserting original research whose purpose is to apologize for Coulter's wilder comments. It's not appropriate. She said the NYT should have been bombed, and she called Helen Thomas an offensive slur. Ann Coulter did those things, not you. How about you stop trying to apologize for her? Kasreyn 20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this would not be a good time to add an explanatory paragraph, "It should be noted, in all fairness, that Coulter's statements were not made as serious political critique, but were merely the result of her whoring after the dollars to be had by appealing to the rabidly raging right with outrageous but content-free utterances, disguised as witty commentary"? Gzuckier 20:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Kasreyn 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So much for assuming good faith Dominick (TALK) 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't follow.  Kasreyn 03:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Raised Catholic
Just curious about this fact... I can't seem to find any references to this on the Internet. BTW, I've started to made the inlink links as s, as per Wikipedia standard. -- Zanimum 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the statement. -- Zanimum 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Links
Ann has nothing to do with the Venona Papers and also Ned Rice has no relevance. That is why they have been taken out. Puckmv 04:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Whole Thing
Surely, nobody contributing to this farcical dialog honestly believes the wikipedia article on Ann Coulter is etiher fair or informative. I think this is just one of those topics for which collaborative editing just doesn't work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.248.222.242 (talk • contrioncise and well ordered summary of who they are and what they've done. However, reading the summarizbs).


 * Any specific critcisms? The more info, the better we can assist the article. Thanks. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for not being more specific. I just wanted to point out what should be very obvious. Lookup Maureen Dowd or Al Frankin on wikipedia. You'll actually get a cing "biography" section on the Coulter article leaves you wondering why she's famous. The remaining sections read like the desultory result of a highly polarized debate. Again, I don't think this is necessarily avoidable with Coulter. It's just makes for a curious contribution to wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.248.222.242 (talk • contribs).


 * I hate to disagree with you, but there are some who can remain neutral when editing this article. And you still really haven't made any specific criticisms, so it's a little tough to know what to fix. I'll have to go back and re-read this article. Thanks, and you should get an account and sign your name using 4 tildes ( ~ ). ;-) -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the style and layout of the article have suffered greatly from the constant wars over content. This happens a lot on articles whose content is highly controversial; people focus on adding or removing sources or claims, and not on making the article readable and well-written.  If you point out the problems, I'll help out if I can.


 * One point I might add. You note that from the bio, it's hard to understand why Coulter is famous, and you're right.  I'd say this is because the reason - which is that she is highly controversial and notorious (or is it infamous?) for her hyperbolic rants and accusations - is constantly removed from the article by her supporters because they feel it's unfair to say she is hyperbolic and accusative.  However, they never bother to add any other reason for Coulter's notability, so the bio section is left with that "who is this woman?" feeling.  I really don't know how to fix this problem, aside from heavy-handed interference from admins, which should always be a last resort.  Kasreyn 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"they never bother to add any other reason for Coulter's notability" -- but this seems to be not very difficult. She's a best selling author, prominent and frequent guest on television programs as a pundit, she was on the cover of Time Magazine, etc. It seems highly POV to me to imagine that "she is hyperbolic and accusative" is the only reason why she is famous.--Jimbo Wales 15:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks for weighing in, Jimbo.--WilliamThweatt 15:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't mean to imply that there was no other possible reason for notability, just that some editors take things out without putting anything in to replace them with. As to Time etc., most of their coverage of Coulter is in language acknowledging her extreme controversiality; Time's cover is captioned "Miss Right", a commentary on both her conservatism as well as her polarized, I'm-always-right-you're-always-wrong attitude.  Time itself seems to be saying that Coulter's fame is due to her attitude.  So her attitude may not be the only reason she is famous, but there seems to be evidence that it is chief among the reasons.  Cheers, Kasreyn 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

newsaper founding
We had "As an undergraduate in Cornell University's College of Arts and Sciences, Coulter helped launch a conservative newspaper, The Cornell Review, with funding from the Collegiate Network, which in turn receives its core funding from the conservative philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife."

Interestingly, our article on the Collegiate Network does not mention Scaife! Do we have a source which would show that the Cornell Review was launched with funding from the Collegiate Network in the first place?

It seems plausible to me that the claims are true, although I should point out that this sort of chain strikes me as pretty hackish writing. She "helped launch" a newspaper (in what capacity) which got funding (how much, was it primary funding, or simply a small grant?) from a non-profit organization, which in turn receives funding from Scaife. That is a pretty stretched chain whose sole purpose seems to be to imply a connection between Coulter and Scaife which probably does not exist.

So even if the claim did turn out to be true and verifiable, it is not clear to me as a matter of editorial judgment that it belongs in the article anyway.

To be clear, I am editing in this case as an ordinary editor, not acting in any special capacity. I met Anne Coulter recently and she brought this tidbit up to me as an example of a flaw in the Wikipedia biography of her, and I have to say that I agree with her criticism on this point.

I have not reviewed the rest of the article in any detail.--Jimbo Wales 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have emailed The Review, and will report back with any details they can provide. Although we'll see how much they can. And yeah, the whole thing was pretty hackish... welcome to the world of highly contentious articles, Jimbo! ;-) -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, an email from them should be treated only as a lead, since we need verifiable sources.--Jimbo Wales 16:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, but if they can provide some primary documentation (perhaps her name on a charter, SAO (Student Activities Office) petition, or some other early Review document) I'd say that would be pretty reliable. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  16:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, to start answering some of these questions, this article simply states she was "[a] founding member of the Cornell Review as well as former editor-in-chief". This one simply states "who founded the Cornell Review". I'll see if I can get any deeper information. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  16:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats part of the problem, conspiricy theory writing has been crepping into articles, and efforts to remove them are met with "censorship" claims. Thanks Jimbo! Sources are supreme. Dominick (TALK) 16:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I received a response (amazingly fast!!!), but was unable to get many specifics. It was confirmed that The Review receives funding from the Collegiate Network. CN operates under the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), which does in turn receive grant money from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. "Scaife's three principal foundations gave [ISI] and its affiliate, the Collegiate Network, $880,000 last year. Since the early '60s the two have been granted more than $7 million from Scaife sources." However, as none of this really applies to Coulter, I'd say this point is fairly moot. However, I wonder if this stuff is in the Collegiate Network article. ;-) -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's courting of racist celebrities shows the direction Wikipedia is going. - Xed 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "courting", boy that is certainly a strange remark. --Jimbo Wales 22:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not really necessary, Xed. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True though. Nearly all of the articles 'protected' by Jimbo and his associates are about right-wing fanatics – Alan Dershowitz, newsmax.com, Christopher Ruddy etc. We can assume good faith, but lets not be naive. - Xed 17:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz? Yikes. If you think he's a "right-wing fanatic" you may be showing off your POV quite a bit. This article has not been "protected" either. We do need to remain verifiable and encyclopedic. And it's not naiveté. If you think that's the direction it is going, what direction is it that you think it currently is in? ;-) -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I know a lot about Jimbo's integrity. Or lack of it. While he may support someone like Ann Coulter (who rants on at length about ragheads, camel jockeys, jihad monkeys etc), and share her opinions, I don't think it's right that he imposes his views on Wikipedia. Whenever he starts "editing as an ordinary editor", very soon afterwards his sycophants make sure the article becomes the embodiment of his opinions. The history of Wikipedia is replete with incidences of this nature. - Xed 18:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but did you ever stop and think he and "his sycophants" were correct? I know you have taken issue in the past, but perhaps what they are doing is actually helping WP. This is afterall an encyclopedia, not a blog or diatribe-ranting medium. We just try and explain the topic at hand and give the best possible description of the article's subject. We do not add or remove things willy-nilly either. We have to remain NPOV and especially verifiable. Just because he met Coulter does not mean he shares her views. I would be shocked if he did, in fact. He isn't "courting her", he's trying to make the article better. I can't see why you would take exception with trying to make articles batter, or is that not your goal here? -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  18:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The selectivity about how he chooses which articles to "defend" is notable. All are ferociously anti-arab. I won't pretend this is a coincidence, and I respect your intelligence enough to know that you won't either. So, this leads his interventions to become more and more like a blog or a diatribe, rather than less. Let's not be naive. If Jimbo had met David Duke, and he came onto Wikipedia and suggested Wikipedia should be more sympathetic to the man, would you support him? Let's maintain some integrity, and resist the need to support Jimbo simply because he leads this project. - Xed 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "anti-arab" (and this isn't really the place to be debating this anyways). Perhaps "Pro-Israel", which is vastly different. And to be frank, sorry Jimbo, I don't really think Jimbo leads this project much. He has some control, but in the vast majority of decisions around here, especially in recent times, Jimbo has had no role. There are many others that have contributed more to the actual content around here. Jimbo plays a role, yes. But an increasingly diminishing one (as it should be, really). He hasn't even touched on Arab-related material in some of the articles he has, as you put it, "protected". If he had wanted a "anti-arab" wiki, he would have formed one; not one based on NPOV. That's the way I see it. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee, as far as I can tell, the question at hand here seems to have no positive nor negative connotations for Ann Coulter. It is a purely factual question.  The idea that my work on this matter, or any other, has anything at all to do with agreeing with the ideas of Ann Coulter, Newsmax.com, Alan Dershowitz, and Christopher Ruddy is laughable in the extreme.  The first clue one might get is that I am in vehement disagreement with all of them.  To make his case, Xed has to blank out almost completely on the facts of reality.  A quick review of my edit history shows me "defending" such notorious right wingers as Jay Rockefeller, Juan Cole, Paul Barressi, etc.  Please.  The idea that I am anti-Arab is so preposterous that I think Xed should hang his head in shame for suggesting it. --Jimbo Wales 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV is NPOV, unforunatly NPoV for some editors means thier view wins. Dominick (TALK) 01:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this linked to Joe McCarthy
A user asks "Why is this linked to Joe McCarthy?" The answer is, she wrote about him, in her book 'Slander'Rsm99833 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a good reason to me. She has written about dozens of people in her books. Why pick Joe McCarthy out of the blue like this?--Jimbo Wales 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'd say that Coulter's fascination with McCarthy is quite notable. I've seen her on many talk shows discussing McCarthy's philosophy, and much criticism has arisen about her supposed praise of his blacklisting Communists. For me personally, when I hear the name "Ann Coulter," my first thought is "Oh, she's the one who built her entire political manifesto around McCarthy's"--whether or not that's true is debatable, but I think it's worthwhile to mention in the article. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then it's simply a question of needing better sourcing for Coulter's McCarthy fixation. Ie., if it's notable, then there should be plenty of material out there showing she mentions him a lot.  If not, then it shouldn't be included.  Kasreyn 23:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * She has written about him in several columns, talked about him at speeches, and Slander DOES talk at leangth about him. There is also a photo of her at his headstone. Dominick (TALK) 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. I hadn't realized.  Well, then, all that remains is to find an NPOV phrasing for including it; as far as I've concerned, with sources like that, it would definitely be notable!  Kasreyn 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * the mccarthy photo and the photo of her (or someone that looks like her) shooting a rifle barefoot Justforasecond 15:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah those photos are there, along with ones of her skiing, posing in a dress, on TV and speaking all the things you may expect a busy pundit to be doing. Why do those two photos get your attention? The rifle photo is a favorite photo to use by leftist pundits, as it shows she actually seen handing a (gasp!) gun. Dominick (TALK) 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * yes...busy pundits dropping by joe mccarthy's headstone. busy busy!  Justforasecond 17:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't personally care about the rifle one, though it does seem odd that an unmarried woman who is a successful pundit, political agitator, lawyer, and apparently amateur markswoman, should consistently argue that women should not be allowed to vote (apparently having better things they need to be doing in the kitchen). Somehow I get the feeling Ann doesn't intend for these restrictions to apply to herself.


 * As for McCarthy, most leftists (and many others, I'd expect) find her support for such a completely discredited figure as McCarthy to be just one more example (as if more were needed) of how out-of-touch she is with mainstream American society. Standing up for McCarthy today is as bizarre and outlandish today, socially, as standing up for someone called before HUAC would have been fifty years ago - and a hell of a lot less justifiable.  Kasreyn 22:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Satire about sufferage goes over some people's heads. Not a personal attack. You didnt read the book, and don't understand why she wrote what she did. If you look at the VENONA project and cables, a lot of what McCarthy did had grounds but got politicized. The blacklisting and the post WWII mentality then took off and hurt some innocent people. If the Rosenburgs were executed for Atom Bomb espionage, that would a "red" in your employ get. It was a different time. Dominick (TALK) 01:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm already well aware Ann hides behind the "I was joking" excuse for everything she says. That's not news.  Just because I fail to find it funny doesn't mean it "goes over my head".  And I'm not specifically judging McCarthy, simply pointing out that support for him is not considered mainstream.  Kasreyn 04:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like there is some agreement that the mccarthy connection is notable and it is unquestionably verifiable. Justforasecond 15:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I still find it odd that it is in the "see also" section, but perhaps the best editorial solution would be for someone to add more names there.--Jimbo Wales 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Worth noting
Since Xed seems to be launching a smear campaign against me based on vague allegations about my political positions, it is probably worth saying a few words about this.

First, I am not a fan of Ann Coulter. I have never read any of her books. I may have read some of her columns now and then, but mostly people people of my own ideological persuasion tend to hate her with a passion and send me links when she has said something which I would find particularly offensive.

Second, when I met her I was very impressed that her primary complaints about the article were about simple matters of fact that apparently we got wrong. She was fully expecting and fine with the article detailing various controversial things she has said and done. Xed wants people to believe that I would have a goal of whitewashing articles about conservative political figures, which is bizarre on the face of it, but made even more bizarre if you look at this article, and my edits to it... which I made with full disclaimers that I am editing only as an ordinary editor. If you think my edits were mistaken, revert me... or better yet, let's keep doing research and get to the bottom of the factual question.

Why is Xed claiming these things? I do not know. He has always been anti-Jimbo from the time he first showed up here, and he has always been prone to radically misrepresenting the facts. Nothing new. But it is well worth a few minutes of my time to say: stop it, Xed, you should be ashamed of yourself.--Jimbo Wales 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really interested in smearing. People can see the facts themselves. You just need to look at the list of articles that have come under special attention. - Xed 23:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. They should pay special attention to Juan Cole.  Forget it Xed, this is case you are not going to be able to make, because it is fully contrary to the facts.  Try again. --Jimbo Wales 04:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should look at the Cole article. And compare it Christopher Ruddy, newsmax.com, Alan Dershowitz, and of course Ann Coulter. Ruddy, Newsmax and Dershowtiz get their pages blanked! How kind of Wales. And then Wales personally intervenes on behalf of Coulter. And for pointing this out, I'm anti-Jimbo. Let's not elevate Wikipedia to a cult. - Xed 09:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a stretch between what Jimbo said, and "courting racist celebrities", a stretch that seems to have been covered by your personal opinion of him. Tossing off witticisms like "or his lack of it" (re: integrity) also isn't very fair.  If Jimbo came in here and tried to gut this article of its balance regarding Ann based on a request to him, hell yes I would say something to him.  But the section he removed was unsourced.  Original research is fair game to any editor that spots it.  Frankly, I wouldn't have minded it if Ann herself had come on this talk page and requested it be removed.  I personally prefer to apply a cite needed tag and leave it for a week, but that's not required by any WP policy I'm aware of.  Kasreyn 10:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With respect, I know more about his integrity than most, having suffered from it's absense. In regards to the Coulter article, the chain of events is as follows:
 * Wales meets Coulter, a racist celebrity known for her talk of camel jockeys, jihad monkeys and ragheads. Perhaps they mix in the same social circle.
 * Coulter complains to Wales about her article.
 * Wales gets personally involved in sorting out her article for her.
 * Referring to the Juan Cole article, Wales tells me "I think some brave editor ought to go into that article and make a stub of it and insist on rigorous sourcing and 'no original research' throughout. Will you take on that challenge?" The article is of course locked, meaning I couldn't make the article a stub even if I wanted to.
 * Wales attacks me for questioning his methods, using the cult-like language of "anti-Jimbo"
 * I just wish I could say I was surprised. - Xed 10:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

personal attack removed Justforasecond 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Typos

 * Search for the word "Sheforeign". I don't know what the author intended, so I won't edit or delete that, however irrelevant it seems.
 * It was this edit. It was "United States foreign policy", but it got messed up a little. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  15:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring...
I recently refactored this page, but it got mostly reverted. Let me explain. The Fox News screencap is grainy and out-of-focus. The book cover better shows who Coulter is (especially since she is first an author, secondly a Fox News guest). Using the SC in the lead leaves no image for the "Media career" section, and multiple ones in later sections. For these reasons I feel the cover should be in the lead, and the SC should be lower. The list of books should be higher in the article, as this is the main reason she is notable (although they would probably be better suited in some sort of paragraph form, not just a straight list). Some of the "Controversies" mention the book, but we haven't even identified what she wrote before jumping right into critiques of them. I know there is still some refactoring left to do, but thought it wise to discuss my changes here. Thoughts? -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the books should have pride of place; they are the main reason she is notable. I really don't care about which picture is used as long as the images are all acceptable for our use.  And you're right, it's probably jarring to a reader who hasn't heard of Coulter to be told criticisms of "Slander" or "Treason" before even being told that such a book exists!  Those of us editors who have studied Coulter should keep this pitfall in mind:  just because we know about Coulter is irrelevant.  We must assume our readers know nothing about her, and present the information in a logical order.  Good call, LV.  Kasreyn 00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

South Park, Jay Leno claims
When did South Park lampoon Coulter? What episode?--69.249.195.232 18:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I couldn't find her on a South Park episode. If no source is given an the next few days, that bit will be removed. Thanks. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  02:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Statement Revoked
If you have reason to claim neutrality stance on this issue, please talk about it on this page. Puckmv 23:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good catch, Puck. The POV tag was added by an anonymous user who did not explain the reasons on the talk page.  The burden is upon the person who adds the tag to explain the reasons for its inclusion.  Since that anon user 24.15.75.90 did not state any reasons here, the NPOV tag should not be there.  Kasreyn 00:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits by Joeldpalmer
I think these were a clear example of POV. He removed the description of the Washington Times as "conservative"; this is not controversial. It is common knowledge that the Washington Times is owned and carefully overseen by the Unification Church of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a prominent Republican Party donor.

He also added a description of Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation as a "liberal anti-war group". Try as I might I can find no reference to VVAF's political beliefs. As far as I am aware they are an apolitical organization. The attempt to paint them as "liberal" is therefore an attempt to cast inappropriate aspersions on the validity of their commentary on Coulter. Kasreyn 20:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To LV, I have to disagree strongly with the removal of "conservative" before the Washington Times line in the section in dispute. The paragraph is discussing conservatives who do not agree with Coulter.  If Washington Times is not "conservative", what the heck is it doing in that paragraph?  Only conservative organizations belong in that paragraph.  If it removed from the paragraph, there's nothing left to the paragraph and the entire paragraph should be removed.  Removing the descriptive word "conservative" requires removing the entire paragraph, or adding further examples of conservatives disagreeing with Coulter.  I think it's noteworthy that even organizations widely accepted as conservative - such as the National Review and the Washington Times - have chosen to distance themselves from her.


 * To wit, on the page Washington Times, in the section on Political Leanings, there are no less than eleven individual sources supporting Wikipedia's flat pronouncement (on that page) of the Washington Times' conservative leaning. How many is the right amount for me to copy to this article to provide proper sourcing here?  Kasreyn 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well perhaps you are right. But we should probably not just say "the conservative Washington Times". We should say something more along the lines of "the Washington Times that some have identified as conservative (insert cites to people claiming the conservatism of the Times)". Not exactly right, but you get the point. There is a difference in us simply labeling it conservative, and saying that others have labeled it conservative. I hope you get what I'm trying to say. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly do. It definitely should be sourced.  How about "Arnold Beichman reviewed Treason in the Washington Times, which is known for its conservative editorial stance (sources 1-n)," and so on?  Kasreyn 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Phew, because I wasn't sure if I came across with what I was trying to say. I think your sentence is a good jumping off point. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added the verbiage we discussed. How's it look?  Kasreyn 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Quotes
How long are uncited quotes left uncited before they're determined to be unfounded and removed? Is it true that "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable" or can I just go through every article and write bizarre "facts" with a "Citation Needed" in superscript? In my opinion, quotes should not be posted until verification can be provided.

Roy Harmon 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I typically give unsourced claims a week, as a courtesy to whoever added them. Of course, if it's something offensive or obviously loony, there is no grace period; vandalism does not require courtesy in return.  Note that I mean a week from when the cite tag was applied, not a week from when the claim was first added.  This gives other editors a chance to find sourcing; often whoever added the claim has moved on and might never even look at the page in question again.  Kasreyn 04:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)