Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Plagiarism

This version avoids biased untrustworthy sources and also does not give undue weight to the matter, while preserving the fact of the allegations and pointing readers to the links for more details:

• Coulter has been accused of several instances of plagiarism. Thus far, critics point to five instances where a factual sentence or list appears to have been copied from another source without attribution. [1] [2] A representative of the distributor of Coulter's weekly column, Universal Syndicate, stated that the company is looking into the allegations. [3] The publisher of Godless, Crown Publishing, has stated that the allegations regarding the book are "as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible" and that "the number of words used by our author in these snippets is so minimal that there is no requirement for attribution"; the publisher also pointed to the "19 pages and hundreds of endnotes" contained in the book as evidence of proper attribution by Coulter. [4] [5]

____G_o_o_d____

I like this version, which IMHO presents the pertinent facts and conveys a neutral point of view. Plagiarism is an important subject among authors, and when an important author is accused of it, it is worthy of prominent mention. When the important author is controversial, and when many people have the point of view that she should be discredited wherever possible, responsible encyclopedia editors need to try very hard to avoid edits that might disrupt the article's neutral point of view. Lou Sander 14:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No link to "rawstory.com" please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Goodandevil. I was wondering when you were going to stop hiding behind anon IP's. My guess is that the sprotect did it. Nice to finally have a name to know you by.  :) Kasreyn 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I figure if Plagiarism can feature so prominently on leftist Ward Churchills wikipage, accusations of Plagiarism should be posted here, too.

Some more dirt to be added when the article is unprotected:

It’s been five days since the New York Post reported at least three instances of “textbook plagiarism” in Ann Coulter’s latest book and found “similar patterns of cribbing” in the last 12 months of her columns. Yesterday, Coulter’s syndicator, Universal Press Syndicate, announced it was going to probe the allegations, itself. And she remains under investigation for voter fraud in Florida, a third degree felony. (with links to all of the allegations) [6]

Signed: Travb (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Churchill is a professor being fired from his position because of plagarism, one of the most serious offense a scholar can commit. Why does that merit adding "dirt" to this particular article? If there are legitimate accusations against Coulter then by all means add verfiable, noteable references to those accusations. But to try to add material to one article because "another article has something similar" is poor logic and has no merit in Wikipedia policies or practice. --ElKevbo 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's critics have glommed on to non-academic writing that contains hundreds of footnotes but left out attribution of a few short factual sentences that her publisher considers trivial. Thats it: a few instances of what her liberal cirtics consider to be plagiarism. Whereas with Churchill, a university committee agreed unanimously that as a professor he had engaged in "serious research misconduct," including four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to “comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.” In addition, the committee found him "disrespectful of Indian oral traditions." And by the way, the CHurchill article does not even use the word plagiarism in any subheading despite his being fire for it. Whereas COulter is merely accused of it by leftwing political enemies, and some here treat that information as if it defines her.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.217.186 (talk • contribs) .

I pretty much agree with the thrust of the anonymous words immediately above, but not necessarily their strong expression. IMHO the article should definitely mention the allegations of plagiarism and describe what is alleged. (Plus, of course, anything notable that contradicts the allegations or responds to them.) Also IMHO, we should avoid quoting from a jillion references that report the allegations, report new items that have been found that seem to have been plagiarized, throw in their opinion that Coulter is a serial plagiarist, etc. Put the references in, if you want, but try hard to avoid looking like Wikipedia has a point of view on this matter. Just because you can reference it doesn't mean that it belongs in the article. Lou Sander 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous? You mean you aren't aware that 84.146.etc is Goodandevil? Kasreyn 02:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't follow all the changes of disguise. It's hard enough to remember my own name. (Thank heaven for those four little squiggly things.) Lou Sander 03:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to quote one example of a "factual sentence or list ... copied from another source without attribution".

Additionally, if there is a dispute between Coulter opponents and Coulter supporters about how serious the "plagiarism" charges are, why not describe the dispute? Is anybody (outside of Wiki contributors) saying that Coulter should:

have her book(s) withdrawn from publication?

be considered a sloppy, deranged, unreliable kook?

If so, these opponent POVs could be added to the article, along with any balancing POV from defenders, couldn't they? --Wing Nut 13:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's reasonable to include some of the stuff that Wing Nut suggests, particularly as long as the plagiarism flap is a current event. Both sides should be presented though, and we should guard against this section becoming a long anti-Coulter rant, complete with highly documented references. (The plagiarism stuff shouldn't be longer than its importance within the article merits, and it definitely shouldn't be an anti-Coulter rant. Each of us should treat her fairly, even if we hate her guts.) Lou Sander 13:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggested re-write. The tone is dismissive about the plagiarism, which makes it inherently POV. It also doesn't correctly use the <ref> tag. Previous versions provide more detail and give examples. Efforts should be made to re-word these versions than to introduce completely new text that gives no context to the allegations. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is ok for the tone to be dismissive about the plagiarism, if the plagiarism is not real. Does anyone know either way? Probably not. So, just report the facts. The facts are: 1. She was accused of specific problems. 2. Her publisher has denied it with elements of a clear defense. --Blue Tie 02:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't followed this section closely, but my impression is that previous versions have glorified in mentioning every allegation of plagiarism, putting in references to each, and in general magnifying the "allegation" side of things. I appreciate that someone might think that it's some sort of "inherent POV" not to cover every little detail, but I have to say that those people are wrong in their thinking. To "pile on" is to express a point of view. So is to defend "piling on." To me, it's proper to say that allegations have been made, while providing some detail to put the allegations in context, and posting a roughly equivalent amount of material about defense against the allegations, opinions that they are groundless or nitpicking, etc. Lou Sander 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I just re-read the plagiarism section. Right now, it's a long list of well-referenced blah-blah about all the instances of "copying" that anybody could find. It's sort of like the "Coulter is an habitual offender of Islam" section further down in the article. Aren't people ashamed to post this stuff? Do they have any idea about writing from a neutral point of view? (I kinda think they don't.) Lou Sander 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, it should be shortened, but the re-write is dismissive. To say that critics (what critics? this is a weasel term) have pointed out five instances without referencing a single instance and then giving quotations to both her column publisher and book publisher denying the charges is dismissive and POV. Re-wording is appropriate, re-writing and whitewashing isn't. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Critics have made allegations of plagiarism. Her publisher has dismissed the allegations as baseless. Her syndicator is investigating but the most credible source will not provide the syndicator with the evidence it claims to have. Not much else to report. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but she is a popular author, not an academic or a journalist. Plagiarism is a bigger deal in academia and journalism than it is elsewhere. Also, I really appreciate it when people say stuff like "POV," when they also say what they mean and why. I know words written from a neutral point of view when I see them, and a lot of times I don't see them when somebody shouts "POV!" Lou Sander 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why is the article completely lacking a neutral tone? If plagiarism isn't a big deal for columnists, then the Boston Globe would have never fired Mike Barnicle. I suppose it would be okay with you to insert the phrase, "However plagiarism is excusable because she's just a columnist and doesn't need to be taken seriously." Yeah, I think that would fit well with the current tone of the section. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not really see the lack of neutrality. Before you consider that I have a partial view, understand: I am no fan of A.C.'s but I am also not an enemy. I don't really care either way whether she plagiarized or not. However, I know she upsets people and so, people hating her may try to edit toward her in a negative way and I would object to that. --Blue Tie 02:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are there no exaples of the plagarism and/or factual errors cited? That would clear up a lot in my view. 66.57.225.195 22:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's "plagarism" is just as easily considered "paraphrase" in my mind. She summed up 2 passages using her own words to make the point made in another work. Coulter is a political humorist who only needs footnotes and endnotes in the first place because she is vilified. Case in point, by the way, of what she says about the liberal media. Do you think Al Franken could ever get his column dropped from a newspaper? I find the gentleman and his anti-plagarism computer program to be far too debatable to be included as fact here. ---rippa76

Proposed rewrite

This paragraph focuses on a minor event and gives toomuch detail for an article that is actually about Coulter, not some newspaper that dropped her column. The precise date it happened is a minor piece of info, as is the nameof the small-time edior and the small-time paper. The comments of several readers is also not something of value for an encyclopedic article.

• Current version: On August 28, 2005 {why is the precise date given?}, Coulter's syndicated column was dropped by the Tucson newspaper Arizona Daily Star {how is the name of a small state paper important in an encyclopedia article about Coulter?}. David Stoeffler,{how is this guys name - a nobody who is not even at the paper anymore - important?} the editor and publisher said, "We've decided that syndicated columnist Ann Coulter has worn out her welcome. Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives." {is the important fact that the column was dropped, or what the editor claimed as the reason? - agan this is supposed to be an encyclopedia}[15] Despite this sentiment, Editor & Publisher magazine {this information belongs in the footnote, not the article} wrote that she "hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients, or the support of her syndicate, Universal Press Syndicate," despite the swirl of negative press that has accompanied the release of her latest and most controversial book, Godless. [23]

• Proposed version: In 2005, one newspaper dropped Coulter's syndicated column citing reader complaints. [15] But none of the more than 100 newspapers that carry the column have dropped it due to the controversy surrounding the 2006 release of Godless. [23]

I agree with your rewrite, whoever you are. Somebody fixed it in a similar way a week or so ago, but somebody else reverted it. All your points are valid. The way the article stands right now, with some minor guy's strong anti-Coulter words about a non-notable event, makes it hard to believe that this section is written with a neutral point of view. Lou Sander 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[ec]Let's see - precision and accuracy are two reasons in favour of the current version. The latter version is vague, conveys very little information to the reader, and is more difficult to verify. Vague is never an improvement over specific. Guettarda 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fallacious reasoning, Guet. A straw man. The current version is faulty on the grounds proposed by the anonymous proposer. It also, IMHO, makes the article seem to be written from a highly biased point of view. (Specifically by including the colored words "shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited." Yes, he said them, but to put them into an encyclopedia is hardly an act of neutrality.) The guy who said them, by the way, resigned a few weeks later under mysterious circumstances. And his "many readers" are, of course "weasel words." His assertion that the weasel readers "identified themselves as conservatives" is unsupported by any reference. But then it couldn't be, could it? Lou Sander 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw man? How so? Guettarda 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous poster gave some very specific arguments for why he/she advocated a rewrite. Your answer didn't address them, but addressed something else: the desirability for precision and accuracy (a generality that might or might not be pertinent to his specific reasons). I was probably too quick in saying "straw man," but I think a more specific response would have been in order. ("Straw man" is putting an argument in somebody's mouth, then legitimately destroying that argument. This wasn't quite that. Sorry.) BTW, I wondered what "[ec]" meant. Is it a typo, or an abbreviation I probably should have understood, or ???? Lou Sander 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to shorten the section but I'm not sure I follow either the original section or the rewrite. The first "half" is about a newspaper dropping the column because of reader complaints. The second "half" is about many newspapers retaining the column. The entire "controversy surrounding the 2006 release of 'Godless'" seems to come out of nowhere and I don't see the connection between the first and second halves of this section. --ElKevbo 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo: IMHO the important fact is that in spite of all the talk against Coulter, her column keeps chugging along, and people aren't dropping it. To mention, yet alone quote some guy's rant about, the occasional add and drop is just a waste of bandwidth. And quoting the rant smacks of a biased point of view. Lou Sander 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lengthy quote from the Arizona newspaper editor needs to go - it's giving undue weight to that particular issue. What confuses me is the jump from one newspaper citing reader complaints to someone else defending against Coulter against unmade accusations of decreasing popularity because of her most recent book. The sections just don't really follow one another logically. --ElKevbo 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody tried to balance a "took it out" with a "didn't take it out." Lou Sander 03:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a likely explanation. I appreciate the attempt at balance but it just doesn't work in this case. It would work much better if the mention of "Godless" were removed as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the issue at hand: the non-decreasing numbers of newspapers publishing her column. The point is that the Arizona paper cancelling their publication is an isolated incident. Correct? --ElKevbo 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes - its an isolated incident that does not even belong in the article. The whole idea of adding the continued popularity of her column was to add a balance to the silly addition to this article of one small Arizona paper's temporary editor dropping the column a year ago - followed by no other papers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.217.186 (talk • contribs) .

ElKevbo - I think that Godless is mentioned only because it has created a firestorm, and that people are saying that her column is defended and kept, even in the face of that firestorm. Lou Sander 14:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why doesn't the article just say that? I don't see anything about a firestorm resulting from the publication of Godless in that section. --ElKevbo 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberals and sexuality

in the link it sayes,anal sex and fisting ,not anal fisting.Someone made a creative reading.--87.65.137.22 20:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What?!--Wakefencer 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Delta Gamma Membership

I removed the google cache link reference from the article [7] because the link goes to a google error page that doesn't tell us anything. The current page on Delta Gamma's website is [8], and doesn't mention anything about Ann Coulter. Either (a) she was never a member of the sorority (or "women's fraternity", as many "sororities" are actually called) or (b) they removed her from the noteworthy members page on their website because of all the controversy she's involved in (which is plausible; I know of another unnamed greek letter organization that took similar steps a couple of years back when Bill Clinton was impeached). I left the text there and changed the reference to the 'citation needed' tag. Dr. Cash 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, she definitely is. It used to work, but I guess they removed her from the page. You can still see her in the "From the Pens of Delta Gammas" in this pdf. (Page 29 of the publication, page 16 of the pdf) The cached link used to work, but I guess no longer. Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured she was a member. Just trying to find references for stuff and clean-up the existing ones. Not surprised that Delta Gamma seems to have 'downplayed' her membership a bit, considering all the controversy she's involved in,... Dr. Cash 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A tiny bit of discussion is also above. Not much help, but thought it wise to have a note to that talk as well. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work, you two! Thoroughly and rationally discussed, and I cannot detect your points of view about Ms. Coulter. Lou Sander 12:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Naturally?"

Since the publisher and syndicate could have fired Coulter, the insertion by Malber of the word "naturally" - as in "they naturally have defended Coulter's work" or words to that effect - is pure POV assserted as fact. No way! Knock it off. ____G_o_o_d____ 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Religious Views

This subject has grown to take up half of her Biography. That's way too much, IMHO. I'm in favor of keeping only the first paragraph, and either deleting the others or moving them to their own section further down in the article. Such a section would fit well immediately before "Political activities." Lou Sander 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea on the move, not sure about the trim but it does seem to be too long. I'm sure we can hash out which ones should be kept and which ones should be removed with a little discussion. Specifically, I'd say the quote on premarital sex is rather muddled and doesn't seem to fit well, while the mention of the quote from scripture in Godless (the "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie" bit) speaks to her assertion that Christianity fuels her writings, so I'd say that bit's notable. Kasreyn 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved "Religious views" into its own section, after "Media career." (Decided not to leave the first paragraph in "Biography," since it didn't look as good there.) Now the article moves from Biography into Media career, (which extends her life story into her recent notable activities), into Religious views, (which is part of her life story mostly visible from her writings and closely related to them, and therefore follows them), into Political activities, (which is more life history stuff that seems to fit here), into Allegations of improper conduct, (which are serious issues, and the first to involve outside criticism of her), to Notable controversies, (which are a bit less serious, and also about outside criticism), to another section on outside criticism, to the general sections that end up the article. I mention all this stuff to show what is, IMHO, the natural and logical flow of the article as it is after the move. Lou Sander 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kasreyn 06:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It's another proof that GMTA. ;-) Lou Sander 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Do any other editors besides Lou and I have anything to say on the subject of whether, or how much, the religious views section should be trimmed? Kasreyn 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I like the work ya'll are doing and the direction it's heading. If I have an objection or other comment I won't be shy about speaking up. :) --ElKevbo 22:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lou Sander says: I'm thinking that the section could be trimmed quite a bit. Suggestions:

Coulter openly professes her Christian religious beliefs. At one public lecture she proclaimed her faith in Jesus Christ, saying: "I don't care about anything else: Christ died for my sins and nothing else matters."[25] Time magazine's John Cloud also reported that he attended a service at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City with Coulter, where she worships and often brings guests.[2]

When asked during an interview about the morality of non-marital sex, she replied: "Christians are the most tolerant people in the world—because we know there's original sin. We know people do bad things. But it seems to me it's a much worse thing to go around saying that it isn't a sin to commit a sin. I mean—at least feel guilty about it."[1]

She has stated that her Christian faith, "fuels everything," she writes, and that it particularly fuels her book Godless.[26] In that book, Coulter says in a footnote, "Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others." Coulter has stated: "Although my Christianity is somewhat more explicit in this book (Godless), Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism."[26]

In a commentary on Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" she wrote: "Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity. (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed')."[27]

Coulter also quotes Christian scripture in her work. Godless begins with: "They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the creator.... Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor, for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature. — Romans 1:25-26"

Some of the transitions could be better, but I didn't want to cloud things up with them right now.

On the deleted stuff: 1) Sex: not notable in the context of a biographical encyclopedia article. 2) "fuels everything": some is repeated later; the rest is from a footnote, and is therefore probably not worthy of mention. 3) "As opposed to...": Inflammatory stuff that detracts from the point being made, plus we already have a boatload of anti-muslim stuff (see below about losinthe point).

I'd maybe get rid of the whole Mel Gibson paragraph, except that she definitely isn't nice to people, and some think that's grossly incompatible with Christianity. This corrects that misperception. The "smell bad" stuff isn't central to the point. In the paragraph before that one, the "do battle" stuff, similarly, makes explicit the connection between her religion and what she does in her work.

As changed, we'd have a section that: 1) Editorially states that she's a Christian. 2) Quotes her basic profession of faith. 3) Discusses her church attendance (not a huge deal, but readers might be curious). 4) ID's her religion as her fuel, and quotes her on what it fuels her to do. 5) Explains that niceness isn't central to her religion. And finally, 6) gives an explicit example of Christianity in her work. Lou Sander 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say either keep the entire Gibson quote, or delete the whole thing; keeping the part where Coulter outlines a positive guideline, but deleting the part where she immediately fails to follow that guideline herself, risks losing out on one of Coulter's many "jokes".  ;) The only other quibble I have is that I think we should keep the sentence on her claim that Christianity "fuels" her work, and the source for that claim - I think that sentence should go first in the section, because it's the real reason we even have a section on her religious views, ie., it's why the section is notable. All the rest of the material you struck, I would support removing. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should see what people say about what stays and what should go, then rearrange and polish it. Lou Sander 00:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just some initial thoughts, I think we should eliminate the whole Gibson quote, as removing the second part alters the entire context of the joke. This is not really descriptive of her belief in Christianity, so I'd sooner see it go than stay, as long as it was under the part about her views on people from the Middle East. --kizzle 01:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just shortened this section in accordance with the above discussion. I eliminated the entire Mel Gibson passage. Lou Sander 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is an obvious issue that Coulter repeatedly and publically refers to herself as a Christian when her behavior contradicts what so many Christians accept as Christ's teachings. I added the inescapable conflict between Christian precepts and Coulter's frequent statements that religion is her motivation for her book Godless There is a strong reaction to this among CHristians and secular commentators too, but even without that it is necessary to address it due to its inherent relevance to her continued public statements.

I'm not arguing the point...I'm just saying that pointing it out is Original Research. If you can find a reputable Christian group that objects, you can quote them and cite it with a reliable source, but we just can't come out and call her a hypocrite...we can only report if others accuse her of hypocrisy (with appropriate, reliable sources, of course).--WilliamThweatt 03:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "open about her Christian belief " is both POV and assumes there is some reason not to be "open" about that. Christianity is the overwhelmingly dominant religion in her gestalt - what is there to be "open" about?? Her obvious ideology is not in conflict. The terminology used is gratiutous and not enlightening -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getterstraight (talk • contribs).

As a fan of both Coulter and Christianity I disagree with your interpretation that to say she is "open about her Christian belief" is POV and assumes there is some reason not to "open". If by gestalt you meant weltanschauung, I agree but I don't see its relevance. To be "not open" would be to simply not (be willing to) discuss the subject. Many people (me, for example) are simply private (not open) about their religious beliefs and do not discuss them in public. Coulter discusses her religious beliefs publicly both in interviews and in her books and is therefore, "open" about the subject. I actually changed it to "open" from "profess" because profess has a secondary meaning, "to pretend", and I didn't think the word choice was a good one. As for it being gratuitous, the entire sentence is; but it flows well. Lawyer2b 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You justify substituting wording whose primary purpose is to put unremarkable behavior in a positive light (i.e. POV) by replacing a word whose secondary meaning may be viewed as negative. The fact you are a fan of Coulter's speaks to your neutrality in seeing this point. Since encyclopedic style calls for use of words to concisely deliver information, then it would be worth stating she was "closed" about her faith, or that she was open about not going to church, or did not consider herself a Christian, as those would be noteworthy. Certainly it is not surprising that someone who makes a living and regular headlines speaking negatively about people she does not believe are Christians should be expected to not be "closed" about being Christian. "Profess" is the perfect word for your own definition of her behavior, "to affirm openly, declare, claim". But if you prefer "proclaim" that is also more appropriate, and although I beleive i tcarries a connotation stronger than profess ( aterm used frequently in the behavioal sciences) i tdoes not have a dictionary negative secondary meaning. Since she activley proclaims her opinion of her religious self on a routine basis, is that not more descriptive than merely being open about it? Remember, counselor, your fan status is prima facie evidence you seek to paint the subject in a positive light over the delivery of relevant information. GetterstraightGetterStraightGetterstraight

I was not so much in favor of saying she was "open" as much as I was not in favor of saying she "professes" for the reason we both mention, namely, that secondary definition; "proclaim" is fine by me. The rest of what you say kinda lost me. I can't tell if you are saying that based on Coulter's criticisms of non-Christians that it should be obvious to anyone that she she must be a Christian, open about her beliefs. If so, I disagree. While it may not be surprising to find out someone who says the things Coulter does is a Christian, I think "encylopedic style" calls for it not to be left up to the reader to make that tacit assumption. Appropriately, this section of the article makes both her religious beliefs and the fact that she's open about them pretty clear. Therefore, with regards to "concisely delivering information", you have to admit the entire sentence we're discussing is gratuitous/redundant; but as I said, I think it flows well. If you disagree, please feel free to remove it entirely. I'm unclear on what your point is regarding my being a fan of Coulter, but it must be important because you mentioned it twice. Lawyer2b 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed some NPOV material and irrelevant material, and I would like to comment that this page is not as NPOV as it should be. I hope that I helped. Neutronium 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind being more specific? What is so POV? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of avoiding the abbreviations "POV" and "NPOV" when discussing this article. If somebody thinks that something does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view, I'm in favor of their explaining why. That helps the rest of us understand what they are talking about. Lou Sander 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a few minor things in the "Jersey Girls" section caught my eye. Namely, the line "The partisan activities of the, 'Jersey Girls' have also been documented by other observers." seems kinda irrelevant; the only reason I can think of for it's inclusion would be to make a point about the Jersey Girls. I think that an article about Ann Coulter should only contain material relevant to Ann Coulter. The Jersey Girls' activities can go somewhere else. Also, the line "makes no apologies" kinda sticks out to me as something she herself would say, and should probably be omitted or replaced with something like 'defends her stance'. But anyways, that's just me... Neutronium 01:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not really an NPOV issue, it's a notability issue. The reason for the inclusion of the section on the Jersey Girls is due to a recent controversy over Coulter's comments on the Jersey Girls, which went so far as to earn her not one but two scalding remarks on the floor of Congress itself. Now that's what I call controversy. I would say that if we're interested in reporting on controversies involving Coulter, this article would definitely be the place for it. Unless there were an "Ann Coulter Controversies" article. Kasreyn 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kasreyn. The Jersey Girls stuff definitely belongs in the Coulter article: it's current, it's a controversy, it's the kind of thing Coulter often gets involved with. I think that the stuff about other people ID'ing the girls as partisan is important in putting this controversy into context. "Annie ain't the only one saying some of this stuff, she's just saying it more rudely," ya might say. Lou Sander 03:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken I suppose Neutronium 06:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Coulter on Women

Can anyone explain why this entire section was removed? It has been in the article for a long, long time. There have been disputed over what should be in it, but I don't recall anyone arguing the entire section should just be deleted. Kasreyn 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I've long wondered why it was there. Maybe somebody thought it wasn't very important. I suppose that Coulter definitely said all those things, but who cares? Is she noted for her comments about women? (IMHO, no.) Do encyclopedias usually regurgiate a bunch of a subject's words on a topic, without discussing why that topic is important in the subject's work? (IMHO, no.) Could readers infer that showing a bunch of well-sourced quotes "against" women means that Coulter is an anti-woman sexist? (IMHO, yep.) Should we make a special effort NOT to include things that might erroneously be interpreted as trying to paint someone in a negative light? (IMHO, yep.) Lou Sander 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I care. And as far as I'm aware, her comments sparked a good deal of outrage. Is it survey figures you want from me or something? As far as I can tell, "notability" is wrangled out between editors based on common sense and their gut feelings. I've never seen any really objective standards proposed for determining it. And I feel Coulter's comments about women are notable. I can't speak for anyone else.

You ask, what use are a "bunch of a subject's words". Here's a use: Ann Coulter is a polemecist, self-described. She makes her living off of saying outrageous things. Whether you see her as a vindictive hate merchant or a brilliantly witty satirist, either way you slice it, she makes her living off of saying outrageous things. Throughout the article, we cite sources who say essentially that - "Coulter says outrageous things to make a living." So I ask, why do you think the article would be complete without examples of what we are discussing? In the article on Degas, some photos of paintings would be in order. In the article on Lance Armstrong, a discussion of his favorite custom bikes might be handy. In the article on Ann Coulter, some examples of the more widely remarked-upon of her stock-in-trade: polemics, and the reactions thereto.

You say that you feel it is incumbent upon us to make a "special effort" to avoid anything that might be "interpreted" as trying to paint Coulter in a negative light. But consider for a moment: what if Coulter really were, as some people believe, a truly bad and awful person? (Hypothetical, mind you.) Would we then also be required to avoid anything that could be interpreted as trying to paint her in a negative light? The NPOV policy mainly refers to the verbiage used, but there is a section on "Undue weight". It essentially says that if in the real world, one viewpoint on a subject is more widespread than another, we should give proportionate amounts of our time and space for those viewpoints. (This is my interpretation of the Undue weight section. If I'm mistaken, the following reasoning of course, would be voided.)

So the question is, what is the balance of opinion on Coulter out there, in "real world" land? What proportionate balance should we be emulating? Note that I've raised this issue here before, if I'm not mistaken, and don't recall engendering any real debate. No one was interested. I doubt I can judge this sort of thing based merely on personal experience. An overwhelming majority of people I have spoken to offline have expressed to me negative opinions of Ann Coulter, ranging from the garden variety "she's right about some things but she's way over the top" to "she's an evil fascist b****", etc., etc. But perhaps I move in rarefied circles. Perhaps I have asked all the wrong people by sheer chance. Perhaps I have an unconscious talent for only asking people who dislike Ann Coulter. I'm willing to acknowledge all these possibilities. But the problem remains: how do we at this article figure out what the balance of opinion on Coulter is, and represent it proportionately? Aaagh!!

Frankly, I can't keep up. This article has gone through roughly 50 edits a day for weeks now. It's too much to cope with. I previously had my hands full just reverting the jagoffs who thought it would be cute to insert "Ann Coulter is a C***". Then there are the editors who obstinately refuse to engage in any dialogue or collaboration unless you kick and scream and hold your breath (and revert). Then, you get a grudging and terse reply, and whee, they're back to the 30 edits in a row with practically no edit summaries! In particular, 136./84./whoever the hell he is today appears to have very little interest in debate or obtaining any consensus. No offense, Lou, because I think you're one of the saner and nicer people at this talk page, but you and him put together do not equal consensus.

I'm at my wit's end. There is a poisonous atmosphere at this article. There is not enough communication between editors, not enough collaboration, and certainly not very much in the way of consensus for many of the recent changes. And this isn't necessarily because all those changes are "bad"; hell, most of them would probably have consensus if there was time to ask people what they thought, or if anyone bothered to. I'm sure I would have agreed to quite a few of them if anyone had tried to persuade me. Most editors here, myself included, are reasonable and can be debated with and convinced of points. That sort of discussion is how we forge a consensus article out of our varying knowledge, experiences, and viewpoints. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. But no, apparently no one can stand to wait around and TALK when there's reverting and blanking to be done. By definition you can't know whether an edit has consensus if you never bother to stop and ask anyone.

So tell me, Lou. You're a teacher. How do YOU deal with a situation like the one I've described? Best regards, Kasreyn 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How I deal with it. The biggest way I deal with it is to avoid making substantive edits myself. I just put out what I think are sound facts and well-grounded opinions, and hope that people agree. It's pretty hard to get agreement on the talk page, even to very uncontroversial proposals, but sometimes somebody will make a substantive and unreverted edit that seems to have considered my (hopefully) sound facts and well-grounded opinions.

When I do make an edit, I try to include a fairly thorough edit summary, and often to explain it further on the Talk page. I hope that doing such will not only help the edit not be reverted, but also might inspire others to do likewise.

Also, I avert my eyes when a part of the article is, IMHO, just outrageously stupid, biased, or whatever. No sense shoveling sand against the million gallon oil spill.

Stupidity (IMHO). My favorite stupid part of the article is the business about kente cloth (now titled Confederate flag, and not as stupid as it once was, but still reasonably stupid). When I first saw it, it presented a quote about "kinte cloth" in such a light to show Coulter as saying nasty things about Negroes (that racist b****!!!). One of my very first edits was to fix the red link by making it kente cloth (Hey, not every encyclopeddia editer knows how to spel, expecially when dealing evenhandedly with a racist idiot like Ann Coulter!!!)

Later on, I looked at the reference, and found that it was a column about the Confederate flag. It argues (as I recall it) that the flag stands for a great many good and wonderful things, that its "racist" aspect is minor and pretty much made up, and that those who promote condemning it as a racist symbol are loony liberals full of hot air. The mention of kente cloth is just a small part of the column, used to illustrate liberal one-sidedness: "if C.F. is demeaned by liberal loons because of its minor connection to slavery, why are they not also demeaning K.C., which has a similar connection to slavery? And even more, why are the same liberal loons promoting K.C. as a glorious symbol of historical pride?"

IMHO, the kente example is trivial and not worth mentioning, unless of course, somebody wants to make Coulter into a racist by quoting her words out of context. (That context being a long column showing that liberals demean the Confederate flag on loony grounds that are full of hot air.)

It was as if the Emancipation Proclamation had used the word "darky" in one minor paragraph, and a bunch of editors thought the use of the word was the really important thing about the Proclamation.

The kente stuff is still in that part of the article, but at least it's not the highly-emphasized big deal it used to be. (I'm thankful for small favors.)

Coulter on women. On the women quotes, I acknowledge that you and your many acquaintances find them them outrageous and notable, and that you do so on grounds that are very important to each of you and all of you, and that you care very deeply about the subject at hand. But until I see a bunch of stuff showing that Congressmen denounced a group of Coulter anti-woman quotes, or that CNN did a show on Coulter's anti-woman side, or that credible people did some articles on it, or something similar, I'm not going to agree that they're notable enough to put in an encyclopedia article about her.

She says a lot of outrageous stuff, and she's an equal opportunity offender, but IMHO, she mostly attacks/makes arguments against liberals and Democrats and their (according to her powerful, well-reasoned arguments) loony ideas and behavior. I keep wondering when that stuff, (the meat of her work), instead of her outrageous obiter dicta will work its way into our encyclopedia.

I also observe that the article is not in any way lacking examples of Coulter's polemical style. And I think that picking out 27 anti-ostrich quotes and putting them in a section on "Coulter on ostriches" would be something more than an effort to demonstrate her polemical style.

"Undue Weight." I think that the world at large is divided about Coulter. Maybe 50-50, maybe 80-20 (I'm not sure in which direction.) Many hate her and many love her, and it's our job not to emphasize one or the other view just because we and all our friends hold it, or because we feel it's so very obvious, or meritorious, or blessed by our personal gods, or whatever. Lou Sander 14:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)\

This article is still riddled with POV potshots at Coulter. Editors who hate her feel the need to fill the article with comments or quotes they think make her look bad. But that is not what this article is for. It is to provide objecitve factual information in a neutral way. The article could be filled with comments in praise of Coulter just as easily as it could be filled with critiques. Sadly, those who hate her are way too excited about including the latter. As usual, despite her obvious popularity, some editors feel that the mainstream view is that she is a hated bitch and want the article to read that way. 136.221.66.16

Please don't try to paint yourself as guardian of neutrality. It's not convincing. A choice gem from today: "a liberal fat comedian slings mud at her, so what? why should a bio include such trash?" I dunno, maybe because Al Franken's criticism, in his book "Lies and the..." etc., has been widely published and read and is therefore notable? You say our job is to provide objective factual information. That is what you have been removing, such as Franken's criticism (reported in as NPOV a manner as I've ever seen), the kente cloth furor that Lou went to the trouble to fix (and which IMO is one of the only reasonable things Coulter has ever said), and on and on.

Get it through your head. This encyclopedia operates on consensus, NOT unilateralism. I shouldn't have pussyfooted around the topic in my above comment, I should have been clearer that I was largely referring to you when I spoke of editors who do not bother to try to establish consensus for their changes. I can tell you this, though, with certainty. Either you will begin to discuss major changes beforehand with your fellow editors, or your edits will be seen as vandalism and treated as such, as they rightly have been today. Frankly, I don't care which you wind up choosing. Kasreyn 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to touch all this debate with a 20 foot pole, but I just thought that I'd point out that I removed the 'Coulter on Women' section recently, because it was only a collection of quotes, most of which were already on her Wikiquote article. So I moved the one quote that wasn't to wikiquote and deleted the section. If you think you have something more to write on that topic, please do so, but also please do more than just citing a bunch of quotes that are better put elsewhere. Dr. Cash 17:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Doc, I think you offer a good justification for removing the 'Coulter on women' section, and I'm not displeased that you moved it. I'm not a wikiquote expert, but it seems to me that quotations belong in a book on quotations. Lou Sander 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable controversies

I restored this heading over the Colleges stuff, the Jersey Girls, and the bombing the Times stuff. Those three have been pretty heavily discussed, and are widely agreed (IMHO) to be past or present controversies (follow the link, please), and to be notable, either because of repeated student uprisings, or especially strong reaction by public figures, TV folk, etc.

The various topics covered in the next section (I called it "Other criticisms," but maybe there's something better) either do not represent controversies, or are maybe not highly notable, or both.

All this stuff has been thoroughly discussed up above. Though there may or may not be consensus about it, at least all who read this page can have an understanding of the rationale behind these things. Lou Sander 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Raw Story: Acceptable Reference?

It looks like several people seem to want to add the following reference from The Raw Story to the 'plagiarism' section:

Brynaert, Ron. "More examples of 'possible plagiarism' from Coulter's 'Godless' book." The Raw Story. July 10, 2006.

To me, I don't think this particular reference follows the guidelines of reliable sources, as this is a very controversial and politically motivated publication, and relatively new as well, being founded only in 2004. What do others think? Personally, I would much rather see a more conventional source mentioned for the particular area that is being referenced. Dr. Cash 17:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the part of the article in question, and I don't know enough about The Raw Story to have an opinion one way or another about them. If they are anything higher than absolute garbage, I would NOT be strongly opposed to including them as a reference, on the grounds that we should try to give all opinions fair exposure. But I would BE strongly opposed to putting their rants (or anybody's) into the article itself (or paraphrasing their rants in rant-like words, etc.). Lou Sander 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Raw Story, but the information in the article looked sound and the WP article on RS makes it seem like a solid news organization. Gamaliel 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is in regards to the plagiarism section. If so, it's important to include this to illustrate who made allegations of plagiarism. Raw Story gives evidence to their allegations, so it's not just a "liberal" rant. It also backs up the story from the NY Post so it doesn't look like just one person is making allegations. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rush

The words "Rush", "Limbaugh", and "miniskirt" should be kept paragraphs apart at all times. It sickens me, and makes me desire to end it all.

I'll admit, those two words used in the same sentence are a bit scary,... hehehe. I definitely do not EVER want to see the REAL Rush Limbaugh in a mini skirt (the goggles really will do nothing there)! But given the context in this case, I think it helps the article to have a comparison to not only Rush Limbaugh but also Michael Moore, as both are particular well known for their highly critical views. Dr. Cash 20:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph

I don't really love "controversial" in this paragraph. Although it DOES describe her, IMHO lead paragraphs in encyclopedias don't include adjectives like that. She's an "author," and that belongs in there. She's a "bestselling author," and that probably belongs in there, just because it focuses a little better on what kind of author she is. (Not "struggling," or "science fiction," or "academic," for example.) "Controversial," etc. comes out throughout the article, but maybe it could be explicitly covered in a mild, factual sentence or two immediately following the "Media career" heading.

I'd be VERY much in favor of removing "former litigator with the Center For Individual Rights" from this paragraph, too. Reasons: 1) Yes, I know it's an accurate statement, and it isn't unimportant, but it's not what she's noted for rignt now; it's a fairly minor chapter in her past. 2) It IS mentioned later on, in the "Education and early career" section of her Biography. It belongs there, and it's not notable enough also to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Lou Sander 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading the lead paragraph again, I'm thinking that the rest of the paragraph adequately conveys the idea of "controversial" -- the stuff about polemecist, Moore, and Limbaugh do it pretty well, IMHO. And I still think the "former litigator" stuff needs to be deleted. Lou Sander 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your second point but not your first. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that controversy has been foundational to her success and noteability. Maybe she is intelligent, persuasive, and original enough to have succeeded without courting controversy. But she has chosen a different path in life and I think it's important to state that in the introduction. --ElKevbo 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "controversial" is fine. I was the one who added it (probably back) a while ago. It describes her perfectly. Regarding the former litigator stuff, to quote Bread: It don't matter to me. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

ElKev and LV -- I'm not saying it isn't warranted or isn't important -- it just seems that it's a bit unsuitable in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article. Most such sentences are dry and factual, no matter how heroic, evil, or controversial the subject. They just say "AAA is a B, C, and D." Babe Ruth's first sentence doesn't mention home runs, for example. Also look at Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh, and even Adolph Hitler. The first sentence is short and limited to basic facts. Then the other stuff is brought in. In fact, the Michael Moore lead paragraph might be a good model for the Ann Coulter one. Lou Sander 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I would understand if you or someone else removed the adjective for the sake of consistency with other articles. I still don't agree with your point but you've provided clear evidence that I am in the minority (I would probably support changes in those other articles but I am positive that such change would not be consistent with the consensus of other editors). --ElKevbo 22:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I found an article about somebody even more polemical than Ann Coulter, and every bit as well-known. I kind of like the way the lead sentence just presents the facts as they apply today. (No historical stuff about jobs held many years ago, for example.) No adjectives except where absolutely necessary. The sentences immediately after the lead maintain a similar tone and content. Who is this controversial person? CLICK HERE to find out. Lou Sander 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic NPOV essence of the plagiarism thing

This is the NPOV version of the facts with proper weight for a biogrpahical encyclopedia article:

• Critics claim there are several instances of plagiarism in Coulter's book Godless and other examples in her syndicated columns. Both the publisher of Godless and the syndicate that distributes Coulter's weekly column have dismissed the allegations as meritless.

84.146.253.64

IMHO, 84 etc. has capably written this material for a proper encyclopedia. It is limited to facts. Its length is appropriate to the weight of the matter under discussion. There are references to both the critics and the defenders. And, above all, the material, its presentation, and everything about it bear not even a hint of the encyclopedia's point of view about the merits of either side. Thank you very much, 84 etc., whoever you may be.

Now, everybody, take a close look at the subsection entitled "Coulter on Arabs and muslims." Does anybody think it might need a little work? Lou Sander 02:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel the subject of the allegations of plagiarism deserves a bit more explanation than a brusque "someone said something and someone else said nunh-uh". I'm certain a way can be found to do so which is NPOV. Kasreyn 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not limited to facts. It is free of facts, which have all been taken out and replaced with vague allusions to events. Gamaliel 05:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. Kasreyn 06:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are to build consensus, it's important that we agree on basic terminology. There are some important disagreements here. I see the passage as totally factual and absoluetly free of vagueness. Others see it differently.

The passage in question is quoted a few inches above. Could someone please help by showing why "Critics claim there are several instances of plagiarism in Coulter's book... is "free of facts." (Use another extract from the passage if you like.) It would also be helpful to know what parts of the passage or its references ("allusions?") are thought by some to be vague. Lou Sander 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with specifically identifying the "critic"? Why is "critics claim" superior to "John Barrie of iThenticate"? Why this drive to remove the specific facts? Gamaliel 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the anon (84.whatever) seems to claim in his edit summaries that citing the maker of iThenticate - a program designed to catch plagiarism - amounts to "advertising" that product, a belief I couldn't disagree with more. Personally, I would think an expert on plagiarism-catching software would be precisely the sort of person who would count as a reliable source. Kasreyn 01:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree, per lack of Wikipedia:No_advertising. --kizzle 02:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it really were inserted just to advertise something, I'd think it would fall under WP:SPAM. The fundamental difference of opinion here is that the anon feels the mention of Barrie and his software is "advertising", and I feel it's quoting a source on a notable subject. Kasreyn 02:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

True, I should have actually enunciated my point :) ... removing info that is actually germane to the topic due to considerations for advertising is wrong, unless it's "iAuthenticate, now available at a low low price of blah... this sunday sunday sunday only!" --kizzle 04:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should specifically identify the critic. The vague term "critics" is a textbook example of a weasel term. I admire the struggle for conciseness and agree the statement/section should be as brief as possible to accurately address the topic but I don't think identifying the specific critic(s) adds unjustifiably to the length. --ElKevbo 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo: It isn't a weasel term at all -- there are references (three of them, I think) that specifically identify the critics and detail what they have to say. Also, this critic and his firm aren't exactly household words (in other words, what they say isn't highly notable). Also, encyclopedias aren't like tabloids that reproduce every word in a quarrel -- they summarize important issues, and in the case of online encyclopedias, they provide links for those who want to know more.

Gamaliel: Why do you answer a question with a question? ("Free of facts?" "Vagueness?") I really would like help in understanding why people hold those beliefs about the paragraph at the top of this section. Lou Sander 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If what they say isn't noteable then why is it in Wikipedia at all? --ElKevbo 01:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo: It's notable that an important author has been accused of plagiarism and that the accusations have appeared in newspapers. It's notable that her publishers have investigated the accusations and dismissed them. Encyclopedias sometimes report things like that, at least while they're in the news.

Encyclopedias do NOT report the details of things like that -- the specific accusations, their number, their source, etc. -- because the nature of an encyclopedia is to be neutral and to stay above the fray. (Show us a few examples if you disagree.) Online encyclopedias have the advantage of including links to all this stuff, so readers can follow them and make their own judgments. Lou Sander 02:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal would seem to turn any article dealing with accusations into a repository for links, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Neutrality can still be achieved without whitewashing details, as long as due weight is considered. The answer is not to "NOT report the details of things like that" but to make sure each side is given a chance. Of course, we want to be smart about it and not write an article where 80% of Ann Coulter's life are these charges of plagiarism, especially when her publisher defended her. But 84's proposal and your approval of such is not the way to go. --kizzle 02:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something here. Would somebody please provide links to two or three other Wikipedia articles where this sort of thing goes on? (Reporting the details of contemporary accusations against the subject of the article, devoting entire sections to criticisms of his/her work, etc.?) Lou Sander 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill_Clinton#Monica_Lewinsky, Air_America_Radio#Controversies (implication according to Matt Drudge? Priceless), Al_Franken#Controversies, if by contemporary you mean within the last few months I can't for the life of me think of a current accusation scandal, maybe you can supply a counterpoint? Also, pointing at other articles does not justify the content here (otherwise I'll simply go to the page you cite and change the content to fit my point ;) )--kizzle 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle: Thank you for the links. The controversies in Franken and Air America are kind of like those in the Coulter article's "Major controversies" section -- more or less thorough discussions of big deals, including both sides, written after the dust had settled. The one in Clinton is the same, but in a class by itself due to its huge weight.

You gave me what I asked for, but what I'm really looking for elsewhere is the focus on minor utterances or events, current and past, presented in a way that is negative to the subject of the article, and easily seen as being in the article because of their negativity. By "contemporary," I was trying to exclude scandals of the past like Watergate, ABSCAM, Lewinsky, Teapot Dome, etc. I refer you here for a notable contemporary scandal that is covered as it should be, IMHO: in a separate article, with lots of discussion, etc. Also see here. Are these things anything like those in the Ann Coulter article?

Some specific sections of the Coulter article that I believe are unlike anything seen elsewhere are: 1) The plagiarism bit, when it includes details of the accuser(s), their companies, etc., but not when it omits them. 2) Coulter on domestic separatists. 3) Coulter on Arabs and muslims. 4) Confederate flag.

IMHO, none of the above are notable, none belong in an encyclopedia, none present anything but the slightest discussion of a tiny event(s), if even that, etc. It is very hard for me to see a neutral viewpoint in any of them. (Yes, a lot of them are well sourced. That doesn't mean their effect is neutral. Individually and collectively, their effect is to embarrass the subject of the article.) Lou Sander 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What about:

• Critics, such as John Barrie of iThenticate, claim there are several instances of plagiarism in Coulter's book Godless and other examples in her syndicated columns. Barrie claims to have found at least three instances of plagiarism in "Godless" as well as several more instances in her weekly column using his proprietary plagiarism detection software. Both the publisher of Godless and the syndicate that distributes Coulter's weekly column have dismissed the allegations as meritless. Lee Salem, editor and president of Universal Press Syndicate, defended Coulter against such accusations by saying that "there are only so many ways you can rewrite a fact and minimal matching text is not plagiarism."

Feel free to change any minor mistakes above, but you get the gist. --kizzle 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

kizzle, I think this is a good paragraph. And you know where I'm coming from. ;-) I changed the software to it's actual title though, "iThenticate". --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

Taking a look at the 'external links' section, we could probably trim these down a bit. I don't have a problem with the three links at the beginning, and the 'column archives' seems to be appropriate as well. But there seems to be a lot of stuff we possibly could trim up under the 'book reviews' and 'interviews' sections. Some of these could have something written up in the article and moved over to the 'references' section; like Flatulent Raccoon Theory or the fifth estate. Others come from somewhat questionable sources (spinsanity.org, talkreason.org, countercurrents.org, crooksandliars.com). Not so sure that these follow WP:RS guidelines. Dr. Cash 21:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the three links at the beginning and on the column archives.

I don't find anything of merit in "Book reviews and criticism." If they're book reviews, they belong in the articles on her books. If the links say stuff like "screed" and "new low," readers might infer that this article fails to present a neutral point of view. All else I looked at was inappropriate to be referenced from an encyclopedia. (I didn't look at everything, though.)

I only glanced at the "Interviews." Some of them might be useful for understanding Ann Coulter, but they don't seem to be of encyclopedia quality. Do other biographical articles include interviews?

Also the section above "External links," called "Further reading," has nothing at all of merit. It deserves to die. Lou Sander 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberal != unreliable. Crooksandliars.com is mostly a repository for video links from news sources, so I'm not sure how that violates WP:RS. An attempt should be made to view the article and make sure it's not someone going "Ann Coulter sucks because she's a bitch", but rather "Ann Coulter's source on page 136 removes the context, here's her source with the context put in"... as long as the claims meet WP:V I think the links should stay in. --kizzle 03:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the external links that aren't officially related to Ann herself should be removed. See WP:EL ... all the book reviews shouldn't be there and the interviews. There's no need for them. --EmmSeeMusic 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I highly disagree with your conclusion. Interviews and notable book reviews should not be on a page about a notable author? --kizzle 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No they should not, look @ Stephen King's page and other "notable" authors. They stick to official links. If you're going to have reviews and interviews, have 2 of each... from professional respected reviewers that give a "good review" and a "bad review" same with the interviews: from WP:EL - "For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment." --EmmSeeMusic 00:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You do realize the policy refers to articles on "albums, movies, books" which is substantially different from articles on authors of these works. In addition, Stephen King is not as controversial as Coulter, nor are his works a) non-fiction or b) contain highly disputed assertions. --kizzle 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

More reason they shouldn't be there if they're just reviewing her as an author and not a specific work. I'm just trying to keep the article clean of links to sub-par websites that have no business being linked to from an encyclopedia. --EmmSeeMusic 00:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I was responding to your assertion that "all the book reviews shouldn't be there." The policy you cited states no such thing, as it wouldn't make sense to limit one book review on an author's page who has multiple books. Secondly, the interviews do add something to the article that mere prose cannot, and is once again not prohibited by the policy you refer to. What links specifically are you talking about that link to "sub-par" websites? --kizzle 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't see the complexity in the WP:EL article. You can read it yourself. It clearly speaks about what should be allowed for External Links and what shouldn't be. CrooksandLiars.com - TheRationalRadical.com - SpinSanity.com - WhatLiberalMedia.com ... I could go on. Those websites clearly do not meet the standards that the WP:EL sets forth.

"You can read it yourself...those websites clearly do not meet the standards..." Please see begging the question. --kizzle 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It would help me, and I'm sure it would help others, if editors would be more specific about what parts of Wikipedia policies they are talking about. Sometimes I can't follow what they are saying.

I agree with those who don't want this article to include links to book reviews. Each of Ann Coulter's books has its own article, and the book review links should appear there, not in the article about the author. WP:EL says, under OCCASIONALLY ACCEPTABLE LINKS, For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. This article isn't about a book. Neither are the links typically to "professional reviews" -- for the most part, they are links to opinion columns with strong anti-Coulter points of view, dedicated not to reviewing Coulter's books, but to bashing them.

Under WHAT SHOULD BE LINKED TO, WP:EL says On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. The number of links dedictated to anti-Coulter points of view is six. The number dedicated to pro-Coulter points of view is two (maybe). Only one link has a detailed explanation, and that is to an anti-Coulter site. Lou Sander 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For me, the bottom line of WP:EL is that if there are external links, they should be small in number, directly applicable to the article, explained in detail, and balanced as to point of view. The links in this article do not comply with that. The effect, for me, is that in its choice of External Links, Wikipedia is presenting an anti-Coulter point of view. I say: Be bold, Dr. Cash! Lou Sander 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, no book reviews. Pro or Con, they should all be on the actual books sites. It clutters the article and makes it look unprofessional when there's links to non-professional or sites. --EmmSeeMusic 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with offshooting the links regarding specific books to their respective articles. However, it is incontravertible that Coulter's books have sections with citations that many view are taken out of context. Articles from sites like Spinsanity or CrooksaAndLiars.com, as long as they meet WP:V, should be in here somewhere, whether it is on the individual book pages or not. I'm not trying to deface Ann here for some personal satisfaction, as you can see I just wrote my proposal above giving credence to the publisher's defense of plagiarism charges. If the info in these articles do not belong in the WP:EL (of which I still haven't seen a specific passage that applies, the first mention was about articles on books, the second mention simply begged the question by stating "Those websites clearly do not meet the standards that the WP:EL sets forth" without actually citing such policy) then they at least belong somewhere in the book articles, maybe a disputed section that talks about such allegations. --kizzle 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • So you think they have a place in Ann Coulter's Wiki page... OK, but I'm glad to see I am not the only one that would like all the reviews taken down. Maybe we can put it up for a vote? It shouldn't require a vote since I would think just by looking at the EL section people would realize that it's filled with useless links that have no place clutting this Wiki article. --EmmSeeMusic 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Derek, Good work removing the EL clutter. The article looks much better now. A+ --EmmSeeMusic 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like somebody beat me to it to add something here. Anyway, I just removed the book reviews and interview sections, having moved several notable book review links to the book articles individual, and removing several others. As for the interview links, I removed all the interview links which were hosted on sites that did not belong to the interviewing organization itself, since this would be third-party information. For example, the link to the today show interview hosted on the drudgereport.com site, though drudge report is verifiable and reliable, the link itself said that the transcript was "rushed" and not complete. That left two links: The link to cbc.ca was just a video, and I couldn't see the value in it in relation to the article, and the link to the booknotes.org I moved to a reference.

I've added an 'invisible note' to editors to the top of the external links section, as well, to cut down on linkspam. Dr. Cash 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotations section

Someone removed the quotations section citing a discussion that took please in the archive. I have taken a look at that discussion and despite what this person may believe there was anything but consensus reached. As such I am renewing the discussion in the hope of achieving this goal. Quite simply these quotations, or soundbites are Coulter's trademark. Almost every media appearance involving her leads in with one of her intentionally massively over the top and completely outlandish statements. Whether it be about the 9/11 wives (or Jersey girls) enjoying their husbands' deaths or bombing the NY Post building or Liberals being Goddless and worse than terroists; she uses these statements for their shock value to gain more media attention. They are an integral part of Coulter's MO and I think that this article leaves a gapping whole in describing Coulter if left out. - Glen 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Quotes should be worked into the content of the article if they are truly necessary. Quotes that can not or should not be worked into other content explaining their context and why they are noteable should, at best, be put into Wikiquote. --ElKevbo 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm not sure how we'd work statements about Bill Clinton's mastabatory habits, or anorexics having/not having boyfriends into the article's content - yet its these exact kind of statements that get her into cable news shows or onto the front page of the political papers... she is so incredibly blatant in her use of such statements for publicity that they cannot not form part of her bio. I am curious, what harm do you think such a section causes? - Glen 15:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If these kinds of statements are indeed why she is famous then *that* fact needs to be cited. In the course of citing that it may be helpful or appropriate to also include some examples as those would surely also be in the cited source or directly referred to by the cited source. To otherwise state that "she's famous because of ___" is WP:OR regardless of how obvious such a statement may seem to some people.

An entire section of quotations presented without context or explanation is a magnet for POV and OR since there must be justification (i.e. noteability) for their inclusion beyond the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. --ElKevbo 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It did take place (almost once a month for a year+ now), and almost every time most people have said that an indiscriminate list of quotations shouldn't be there. For awhile it was just trying to par the list down to a workable number (6 was the common suggestion), then we moved away from this unencyclopedic version, and started working the quotations into the body of the article. This helped with flow and style. It also helps prevent things from being taken out-of-context. See Wikipedia:Quotations for a proposed guideline on this subject, and more discussion on why WP is NOT a random list of quotations (i.e. Wikiquote). Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I am aware of WP:QUOTE and that "Second, editors should try and work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand alone quote section." - however I remain steadfast in my opinion that Coulter is one of the rare exceptions where such a section is relevant. Again, I fail to see how we'd work subjects such as Bill Clinton's mastabatory habits, or anorexics having/not having boyfriends or her opinion that God gave us the earth for us "to rape" into the article - yet, again, these are the EXACT types of sound bytes that get her into the news on a daily basis. She uses these outlandish little blurbs so blatantly that they are most definitely notable. I am happy to work these into the article but I think that would require such a dramatic skew off topic in order to be worked in that a stand alone section is the most sensible way to note them. Look forward to your thoughts. - Glen 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Voldemort. Raul654 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Her quotations are definitely one of Coulter's trademarks, so there's more than the usual justification for keeping some of them. But IMHO they need to be in the context of the discussion that prompted them. Usually, the quotations are just the exclamation point at the end of a discussion of something notable. I'm in favor of having just a few of them, carefully explained, and each instance presented from a neutral point of view. Lou Sander 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for a quotes section in a Wiki article, I vote to take the whole "Ann Coulter on" section out. People can find a million websites with just Ann quotes. --EmmSeeMusic 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This really is the neverending battle. --kizzle 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. What is your response to my above point, that a discussion of the content of Coulter's polemics is noteworthy due to the fact that she is noteworthy due to her polemics? Wouldn't it make sense to inform the reader why this woman is so notable that she gets her very own Wikipedia article? Kasreyn 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

She is primarily notable for her activities as an author and columnist. In that work, she uses her intellect and argumentative skills primarily to demonstrate the foibles (as she sees them) of liberals and Democrats. (There isn't much on that in the article, by the way.) Another aspect of her notability is her polemical nature, but as "flashy" as that is, it's not her main claim to fame (it's primarily a matter of style, not substance). She's something like Dennis Rodman or Terrell Owens in that respect -- many know them for their antics, but their real importance is as outstanding basketball players. IMHO, her WP article focuses mainly on her antics, and does so mainly by quoting harsh words from her critics. Some of this is fine, but there's too much negative stuff from her critics, and far too little about her substantive work. Lou Sander 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you stronger. She is known for her polemics, not her argumentative skills or intellect. People tune in to hear what she's going to say next, just like Howard Stern. She's a shock-jockette. She's right on par with Sean Hannity and Michael Moore, all notable for their extremism. And as a huge basketball fan, I take issue with any comparison to any basketball player ;) --kizzle 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know she's not known for her arguments or intellect? Do you think that Wikipedia is the final source on that? (Trust me, it's not 100% objective about her.) Do you think that Budweiser's claim to fame is its Clydesdales? Or that fire engines are mostly about loud sirens? And do you really think (as *I* must have when I wrote the above) that Terrell Owens is a basketball player?????  ;-) Ann Coulter is in some way like Playboy magazine in its heyday -- it was "known" for naughty pictures, but its editorial content far outshone the centerfolds. Lou Sander 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lou, with all due respect, how do you know she is known for her arguments or intellect? Of course Wikipedia isn't the final source, but you're throwing that out there as if it were common fact. It could be the case (which I highly doubt), but you're using this unsupported justification as consideration for the article's organization. As for your playboy example, editorial quality is fine and dandy but if it didn't feature naked women, we would have no idea who Hugh Hefner is today, and the magazine would probably have gone out of business a while ago. Ann Coulter is known for her polemics, plain and simple. She's famous by her intellect the same way Howard Stern is famous for ground-breaking journalism. --kizzle 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It kind of IS a common fact. She writes bestselling books and a column that is featured in serious newspapers. Her writings make strong, reasoned arguments against liberals, Democrats, etc., and they hate it. It's what she does. She does it in an over-the-top manner, and that attracts a lot of attention. Just like the siren on that big red truck. Lou Sander 02:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because Ann Coulter "writes bestselling books" and has "a column that is featured in serious newspapers" does not imply that she "makes strong, reasoned arguments against liberals, Democrats, etc., and they hate it." I hate Coulter not because she makes strong arguments against liberals, but because she's almost as sloppy as Michael Moore when it comes to fact-checking and using sources. Have you even read any of the citation-by-citation analysis done by several different groups, or is the content of their arguments automatically disqualified because they happen to be of the opposite political persuasion? Regardless, Dennis Rodman and Terrell Owens became famous because of their athletic ability, whereas the infamy came later. Coulter is famous precisely because of this infamy, and that is the reason she sells books just like Howard Stern, with his similar antics, causes hundreds of thousands of people to join Sirius Radio to hear what he'll say next (and not his journalistic integrity in doing the news). If you can't understand that sensationalism and extreme behavior sells, and that's the reason why both Howard Stern and Ann Coulter are famous, then I'm afraid we're at a fundamental disagremeent. --kizzle 04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But simply throwing a bunch of quotations in the article doesn't *document* that alleged fact. If it's true that she is known primarily for her outrageous statements then that needs to be demonstrated by sources stating that NOT by selecting some quotes which a Wikipedia editor thinks is somehow noteable. --ElKevbo 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)T

For those interested in contributing to her list of quotes, please see one of wikipedia's sister projects, which is linked from this page via the 'sisterlinks' template: WikiQuote Article on Ann Coulter Dr. Cash 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be especially happy to see the "Coulter on Arabs and Muslims" section go over to Wikiquote. These are some valuable and well-referenced quotations, but Arabs and Muslims are not a main theme of hers. Why would anyone collect them here? Bottom line: 1) Lists of quotations belong in Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. And 2) The Arab and Muslim quotes, individually and collectively, are not notable in the context of Coulter's biographical article. Lou Sander 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lists of quotations belong in Wikiquote. Paragraphs that incorporate quotes into prose analyzing her viewpoints are salient to this article. This is the conclusion from a neverending debate that has been occuring for around 2 years now. --kizzle 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. But Are you saying that by putting some paragraphs around the quotes in a list of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim quotes makes them suitable content for an article about Ann Coulter? That seems to be what has happened here, at least to a few of the quotes. I say again, Arabs and Muslims are NOT a major topic for Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things to consider. First, given the body of work Coulter has written dealing with the Muslim population, I truly don't believe that these admittedly anti-Arab, anti-Muslim quotes are not representative of her general view or are taken out of context. If you can find some quotes akin to "Muslims people are great!" then by all means PLEASE add them in. Considerations for representativeness (is that word?) should trump a simple positive/negative weighing. The first post I ever made to Wikipedia almost 2 years ago was comparing Ann Coulter to Jack the Ripper by saying that an article on Jack the Ripper shouldn't omit some of its victims because it makes him look bad. While this analogy was rightly blasted as extreme to say the least, the point remains: call a spade a spade. Rather than asking yourself, "Does this make Ann Coulter look bad (or good)?", ask "Is this an accurate representation of what Coulter has said on the matter". While you have no reason to believe me, I'm really not trying to make her look bad (hell I hate the woman and I'll still defend her against what I think are trumped up plagiarism charges), I just think as a columnist and author, her views on subjects are noteworthy to potential readers, and that removing info not based upon accuracy but upon its positive or negative implications seems wrong. Second, the section on Arabs and Muslims as it stands is little more than words surrounding outright quotes. However, we have the option of either removing the section altogether because of this, or to strive towards better accompanying prose. For the reader's sake, I emplore we strive for the latter. As for your claim that "Arabs and Muslims are NOT a major topic for Ann Coulter", I must disagree, as in the world we live in post 9/11 (as a conservative, isn't that your line? ;) ), the relationship between western and islamic cultures is tremendously significant, and Coulter hasn't exactly kept quiet on the matter. --kizzle 04:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a break! ANN COULTER IS NOT ANY SORT OF NOTABLE VOICE ABOUT ARABS AND MUSLIMS. Her notable work is about LIBERALS and DEMOCRATS. (But you might not know it if you only read this article.) Yes, she has probably said maybe five or ten pages about Arabs and Muslims. Yes, its nature is to be negative and outspoken (as is much else that she says). Yes, one can quote it, reference it, and write some generalities to put it in some sort of context. One can even collect it all in one place to allow it to be carefully scrutinized. But none of it is notable in the context of her body of work, her mainstream activities, or anything else; it's just crap she said along the way. For example, her current book about liberals runs to 300+ pages, and it's about their "religion." If Islam is mentioned even once, it would be a surprise. (I read the book, and I don't remember seeing any mention of Arabs or Muslims, but of course I could have missed it.)

One effect of devoting huge amounts of an article to her outspoken negative obiter dicta on Arabs and Muslims is to unintentionally give the appearance that the encyclopedia has a certain point of view about Ann Coulter. Specifically, readers could easily infer that the encyclopedia is trying to persuade them that Coulter is a racist and a bigot -- that anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiments are some sort of driving force in her work. "Well there are her words," says the encyclopedia from its possibly not-so-neutral point of view, "and look how very many of them there are!" (It's left for the reader to draw the inference of racism and bigotry, of course.) Lou Sander 05:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This conversation has gotten completely off topic. The question is: Should there be a quotations section in an encyclopedia article? Let's consider how many encyclopedias (real ones, not wiki) have quotation sections for people.....................................................................................cricket chirp ...........................................

And it's also not about whether what Ann Coulter says gives her fame or her intellect. There either should NOT be allowed quotation sections in articles or there SHOULD be allowed. Ann Coulter is an author. How many authors on wiki have their own quote sections? Even the controversial ones, who used every second of their fame to say something that people would respond wildly to? Stanselmdoc 19:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there should be a section as long as its not naked quotes and more of an anlysis of such events as the NY Times feud, the Godless "Jersey Girls" section that incorporates the quotes into prose, along with any other notable incidents involving Coulter's words that got picked up by national media. --kizzle 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus decision - quotes definitely belong in the article, but not as a naked list; instead, it shouldbe descriptive. The section on her anti-islamic comments is a perfect example of how this should be done. Raul654 19:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, what are you referring to a "quotations" section? The whole "Controversy" section or the "Other criticisms" section? --kizzle 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Stan was looking at the stand-alone quotation sections that periodically pop up here, no? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but then I asked why he would post if the quotations section was already out. --kizzle 19:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The former quotations section is gone. The quotations were moved to Wikiquote. Many seem to agree that the article is better for it. I'm going to focus some more on quotations by starting a discussion on...

If I correctly recall the distant past, at one point there was a lengthy section of quotations (which dwarfed the rest of the article). The inclusion of the quotes seemed to have the same intent as the typical book on Bushisms - to make the person look stupid.

If Coulter critics want to attack her for things she said or wrote, let's quote the critics and/or summarize their reasoning. I'm still looking for a summary of the attack one critic made about her "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" remark:

• Coulter meant Canada as a nation or people, as in "10,000 Canadians volunteered"
• Her critic interpreted her remark more narrowly, in the sense of the national government

Coulter critics had a field day with this one (it was blogged incessantly), the point being that if she "got this one wrong" it calls into question every other "fact" she ever cited. Maybe I can dig it out of the article history. --Uncle Ed 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. --kizzle 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is one summary we used to have. Wow... what a different article. And actually far less edits back then, too. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Parts of the old one were pretty good, IMHO. Compare the "Racism" section back then with today's "Coulter on Arabs and Muslims." At least one of them manages not to convey a point of view. Lou Sander 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Coulter on Arabs and Muslims

There is a section on this in the Ann Coulter article. It is about as long as the combined sections on her Books and Columns(!). It consists of six quotations collected from various places, complete with eleven references and some attempts to put some of the quotes into the immediate context of the times and places they were made. I'm sure nobody did it on purpose, but this section appears to have been put into the article with the specific intent of defaming the author by painting her as a "racist" and a "bigot." There is no other reason for it to exist, or for it to be so huge. If it is a "perfect example" of anything, IMHO, it is a perfect example of how an encyclopedia can advance a non-neutral point of view while appearing to "follow the rules." Unintentionally, of course. Lou Sander 19:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, to see much more neutral coverage of a person who, unlike Ann Coulter, has "racist" and "bigoted" themes as key aspects of his political philosophy, see Louis Farrakhan and anti-semitism. Note the lengthy discussions of his controversial words. Also note how some of them are notable due to unanimous censure by the U.S. Senate, as opposed to the personal opinions of a few encyclopedia editors. Lou Sander 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in that section that is untrue? No, there is not (which means, by definition, it is not defamation). Then why does it make Ann Coulter look like a racist? Because she has said plenty of racist, bigotted things. So if that section of the article doesn't portray her in a good light, then she has no one to blame for htis but herself. By your own logic, it's defamation to collect all her anti-islam quotes in a single place. Raul654 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Raul. Neutrality is not born from simple positive/negative 1:1 ratio but from representativeness and accurate context. --kizzle 05:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, If there is a racist side to someone (not saying that there is) it needs to be mentioned, by your logic Lou, quoting any statement a person has made which casts a negative light upon him/her is not done, and that simply is wrong! If she has such views about Musims it should thus be mentioned, otherwise do we not lose neutrality?Pubuman 15:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Center for Individual Rights (CIR)

About 50 words in her "Education and early legal career" are devoted to describing this organization:

She later became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, D.C., a nonprofit conservative/libertarian public interest law firm dedicated (according to its website) "to the defense of individual liberties against the increasingly aggressive and unchecked authority of federal and state governments" by means of "aggresive litigation and publicity."

I propose to improve the article by putting a period after the "Center for Individual Rights" link, deleting the rest of the paragraph, and moving some of the CIR material to the CIR article.

My justification is to shorten the Coulter article by moving some not-highly-notable details elsewhere, where they can be accessed with a click of the mouse. Lou Sander 02:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We probably don't need much in this article for the Center for Individual Rights anyway, especially if there's an existing article for that. Links work fine. Dr. Cash 02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been here for two days without objection. I think it is pretty non-controversial. I'm making the change. (Actually, the CIR article already has all the stuff that's in this sentence, except for some things that are no longer on their web site, which was the source for it.) Lou Sander 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cash, as far as I know the CIR material was added some weeks ago when the intro included the claim that Coulter was a civil rights advocate, by way of a source. As can be seen, the article has changed a great deal in that short time. Kasreyn 04:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A Very Recent Interview

This just popped up 5 minutes ago on AOL (undated, but this is the first I've seen it). Some sort of AOL book person did a three-page interview with Ann Coulter. It also has an unflattering picture. For those who might be interested, CLICK HERE Lou Sander 06:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That was a great interview. Maybe it's just my crush, but I didn't think the picture was unflattering. Lawyer2b 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a rewrite

This article, and the discussion is a long, long way from being neutral. It's almost impossible to see an unbiased and objective profile of Ann Coulter in these pages. Someone needs to move all the partisan stuff to the controversies section, and try to balance out both sides.Landroo 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

The lead paragraph is not as smooth as it could be. Right now it says:

Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is a conservative American syndicated columnist, author, attorney, and conservative pundit who frequently appears on national television and radio, and who often speaks on college campuses and at other events. As a political pundit and self-described polemicist, she has been referred to as "the Republican Michael Moore," and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt."

I propose to rewrite it as follows:

Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American author, columnist, and pundit. She frequently appears on television, radio, and at public and private gatherings. Known for her polemical style and conservative views, she has been described as "the Republican Michael Moore," and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt."

IMHO this is an improvement because it's shorter and more direct, especially in the first sentence. The words syndicated, attorney, colleges, and national are no longer in the lead, but they are well-covered later in the article. The Moore and Limbaugh stuff isn't highly encyclopedic, but it sums her up very nicely, IMHO. Lou Sander 15:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with an earlier editor who stated that "Rush," "Limbaugh," and "miniskirt" should never be in the same sentence, I think your rewrite is fine. The only slight hesitation I have is in the removal of "lawyer." If she doesn't define herself with that label, isn't viewed that way by others, and is not active in the profession then I see no problem with removing it for the sake of brevity. --ElKevbo 19:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Two days mentioned here, and no objections. It seems pretty non-controversial, too. I'm going to make the change. Lou Sander 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Biography," etc.

The heading "Biography" is misnamed, because it really only covers her life before her media career. The subheading "Education and early legal career" is descriptive, but it's kind of out of place under the not-so-descriptive "Biography" heading.

In looking around for a better way to head this material, I looked at several articles, including the one on Michael Moore. His life before he became famous is covered under the heading "Early life," and it weaves very well into the article. I think it would also do so here.

In the Ann Coulter article, I propose to rename the "Biography" heading as "Early life," and to delete the subheading "Education and early career." I believe that doing so will improve the flow of the article, especially its headings. Lou Sander 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been here for two days, with no objections posted. It also seems pretty non-controversial. I shall make the change. Lou Sander 01:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

More trouble with her mouth

I found this bit on the FAIR website:

• Kurtz's account of a 1997 debate on MSNBC's NewsChat show (10/11/97), when Coulter was a paid MSNBC contributor. According to Kurtz (Washington Post, 10/16/98), "Coulter was debating a disabled Vietnam vet when she snapped: 'People like you caused us to lose that war.' (She says she didn't know the guest, appearing by satellite, was disabled.) That ended her MSNBC career." [9]

It's notable because I always assumed she was deliberately dissing a disabled vet. As if to say she blamed disabled Vietnam veterans for losing the war - as opposed to blaming "people who express opinions like that" (whatever that was would be interesting to know, too).

A Wikipedia article about a controversial person is always better when the views of supporters (or fans) are balanced with the views of critics. Readers want to know WHY supporters endorse a public figure or their ideas - as well as why critics condemn them or their ideas. --Uncle Ed 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is precisely why we must include examples of what they have done to earn such praise or criticism; in Ann Coulter's case, the things of which we must provide examples are her polemics, rants, and pithy one-liners. Kasreyn 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NO. What we must provide are sources that claim those "polemics, rants, and pithy one-liners" are somehow noteable. By selecting our own quotes without providing evidence of their noteability, you only insert your POV into the article by assuming the quotes are noteable. --ElKevbo 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Period. Dot. Bingo. We need to show that the specific remarks are notable. We need to explain their signifigance, not just say "Hey, see what she said here??" Context is key. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That fact that that comment ended her tenure on MSNBC makes it, on its face, relavant for inclusion in this article. Raul654 17:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why losing a job or assignment is notable at all, unless you're Dan Rather, with a 15-year tenure as a top-ten journalist. There are four (4) such incidents, covered at length, in this article, complete with quotations from each side. Other than in the Ann Coulter article, I don't recall seeing anything like that in this or any encyclopedia. (See Terrell Owens) Lou Sander 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To use your own example: "He also caused considerable controversy with a comment to the effect that he "wasn't the guy who got tired in the Super Bowl," the remark apparently directed at Donovan McNabb" - Owens shot off his mouth, and lost his job. Coulter shot off her mouth, lost her job, and it all belongs in this article, even by your own example. Raul654 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend Coulter here, just trying to show why people might say "Neutrality Needed." (Full disclosure: I bought one of Coulter's books, but I'm not any kind of rabid fan of hers.) Please assume good faith on my part, and please compare these paragraphs for encyclopedic tone, neutrality of point of view, context of time and events, notability of events, etc.:

Daniel Irvin Rather, Jr. (born October 31, 1931) is an American journalist who was anchor of the CBS Evening News from March 9, 1981, until March 9, 2005. He then contributed to CBS' 60 Minutes. On June 20, 2006, CBS News announced Rather was leaving the network. [LS - The events possibly leading to "leaving the network" are expanded on elsewhere in the article, and even have their own article. They were notable world events. Rather's departure, also notable but less so, gets one short, bland sentence later on.]

In April of 2005, Owens announced that he had hired a new agent, Drew Rosenhaus, one of the most aggressive agents currently representing NFL players, and indicated that he will seek to have his contract with the Eagles renegotiated. Owens made $9 million in 2004, and was slated to make $3.5 million in 2005. He also caused considerable controversy with a comment to the effect that he "wasn't the guy who got tired in the Super Bowl," the remark apparently directed at Donovan McNabb, who indeed angrily denounced Owens for making it. On July 1 the Eagles denied a request made by Owens for permission to play basketball in a summer league under the auspices of the NBA's Sacramento Kings — a decision seen by some as a deliberate attempt to antagonize Owens on the part of Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie and club president Joe Banner. [LS - Note the abundant context.]

Coulter's first national media appearance came after she was hired in 1996 by MSNBC as a legal correspondent. She was fired the next year after an exchange with Bobby Muller, president of the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation who had been paralyzed due to combat wounds, she said, "No wonder you guys lost." Coulter claimed that she did not know Muller was disabled. [LS - This is the lead paragraph from the "Media career" section of Ann Coulter's article. All but a quarter of it is devoted to her "firing." Compare Dan Rather, above.]

In 2005, one newspaper dropped Coulter's syndicated column citing reader complaints.[23] More recently, in July 2006 The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, announced it was dropping Coulter's column despite having published it for 14 months prior,[24] whilst on July 3, 2006 it was reported that the Shreveport Times Editor Craig Durrett announced he is considering dropping Ann Coulter, and that he has "come close" before.[25]

Some specific things here that IMHO cause people to see problems with the Coulter article are the use of the unencyclopedic word "fired," the invocation of a disabled veteran to inspire pity (a technique analyzed by Coulter in her recent book, and therefore probably familiar to many readers), and the inclusion of negative non-events like an editor "considering dropping Ann Coulter."

Please note the absence of similar things in the other articles cited, and, IMHO, in most other articles. Lou Sander 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Needed

I am not an Ann Coulter supporter, but isn't there a policy of neutrality? Most of what we see here is the latest dig against her. There's got to be a higher standard than that.

Please point out these "digs" at her. I look at the article and mostly what I see is Coulter's own mouth getting her in trouble. Kasreyn 06:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mostly what I see along these lines is editorial glee over the insertion of polemical Coulter quotes, and a lot of "look what this awful person said now." (There's also a lot of "see Ann get fired.") Gleeful editors defend it on various grounds, but no other encyclopedia, and not even this encyclopedia, with the exception of its treatment of Coulter, does anything like it. Lou Sander 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree only that it isn't happening anywhere else on liberalpediawikipedia. Please see Bill O'Reilly controversies for another example. Lawyer2b 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Editiorial glee? Please WP:AGF. I'm not on a mission to destroy Coulter, nor am I jealous of Coulter, nor am I secretly in love with Coulter (which also has been accused of me), nor am I "bristling at having my atheistic outlook held up for display and ridicule." It's truly sad that you Lou, along with others here, resort to assuming we're all out to get Coulter when people disagree with you. Note that I don't go claiming you have a crush on Coulter (even though you admitted it) or that she's the only (slightly) attractive conservative out there, or that you just like Coulter because conservatism today is falling apart due to it being hi-jacked by extremists and she makes you proud to be a conservative, or any other attempts to attack your motivations rather than your arguments when you insert such obvious peacock terms as "insightful and hard-hitting commentary". I'm sick and tired of such comments as "Editorial glee" and "Bristle at having their atheistic outlook" because they stifle productive discussions by assuming motivations on the part of their co-editors that truly aren't there. --kizzle 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

kizzle: 1) I try very hard to assume good faith, and I don't think that anything I've posted shows that I don't. Example: In "Coulter on Arabs & Muslims" (above), I said "appears" and "unintentionally" to emphasize that I'm not throwing stones. Maybe I should have left them out. 2) somebody else said the "atheistic," stuff, not me. 3) thanks for your opinions on conservatism, etc. 4) I don't edit much for substance. But somebody had put "sarcastic" and "abrasive" in the lead (which IMHO is a bad place for colored words like that), and I felt the need to add some balance. I think the whole sentence is gone now, which is a big improvement. 5) I call "editorial glee" as I see it. It seems as though there's delight on this page when another not-highly-notable Coulter quote, firing, etc. gets into the article. 6) IMHO, there is quite a bit of unsuitable material in this article. When I carefully specify what it is and why I think it doesn't belong, not many respond to my reasons. Those who do say stuff like "she said it, didn't she?," and defend its truth. The truth is not an issue. Whether this stuff belongs in an encyclopedia, presented as it is, is the issue, IMHO. Lou Sander 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Assuming that your co-editors take "editorial glee" in quoting Coulter is lacking WP:AGF. 2) True, this message wasn't directed solely towards you. 3) Those aren't my opinions on conservatism, I was trying to come up with some juicy ad hominems to demonstrate my point. 4) Agreed. 5) It's both wrong and lacking WP:AGF to assume that because someone wants to add a Coulter quote, that they take pleasure in doing so in order to make Coulter look as bad as possible. This is the crux of the argument of my previous post. 6) Debates over encyclopedic appropriateness and selection of suitable material are commonplace, but accusing people of personal motivations to "get" Coulter because they disagree with you is wrong. I couldn't have said it better myself, Whether this stuff belongs in an encyclopedia, presented as it is, is the issue, and not the suspected motivations ("editorial glee") of your co-editors. Once again, I'm not out to get Coulter, I'm not jealous of Coulter, I don't have a secret crush on Coulter, I'm not intimidated by Coulter's arguments and thus want to make her look bad, I just think that this article would be better served by the inclusion of quotations worked into the prose of the article to demonstrate both her views and act as samples of her writing style. --kizzle 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

kizzle: 1) I'm not assuming. I remember one editor saying "if it walks like a duck..." in some sort of gleeful context, and others that I can't cite right now. I will watch carefully for glee or its lack in the future. If I don't see any, I won't mention any. 2) OK. 3) On re-reading, I see it. 4) GMTA. 5) OK, but when I make specific arguments for removing some of this stuff, they are often answered with straw men or other non-sequiturs. Maybe I'm not being clear enough. 6) While I believe I see a certain non-neutrality in this article, and while I think that for some reason many are blind to it, I try hard to avoid accusing anybody of anything, and I believe I succeed. If anybody feels accused by me, let me know and I'll apologize. Lou Sander 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I think I just took offense, as one of the people who generally disagree with you on this page, that you assumed that I, along with other people who disagree with you, somehow want to make Coulter look bad just because I think paragraphized quotes should stay in rather than for the reasons I state. Lets continue to work together (and disagree) on helping make this article better without assuming ill intent on either party. Of course, I will abandon any of my arguments and praise your awesome intellect and debating skills for backstage passes to Rusted Root ;) --kizzle 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lou, perhaps people are reading too much into it... the anon did not say whether these supposed "digs" were occurring on the article page or the talk page, so I assumed the anon meant actual instances of failure to maintain NPOV in the main article itself, which I don't see. It goes without mention that this talk page includes a lot of POV material from both sides (why, I seem to recall Lawyer2b mentioning here his desire to marry her ;). As long as such material remains 1.) on the talk page and 2.) under control so it doesn't disrupt constructive discussion, I don't see how it's a problem. The anon still hasn't replied as to what these "digs" are in the main article, and I'm beginning to think that's because they're unable to actually prove it. Cheers, Kasreyn 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At the end of "More trouble with her mouth" (above) there are some examples of Wikipedia descriptions of people losing their jobs. Read them and see if you see any special treatment of Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 04:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone claiming that the write-up on the Arizona firing is POV. I haven't even heard you say that. What I have heard people say is that reporting on such firings is not notable, or that NPOV Undue Weight is violated thereby. To my mind, this does not equate to a "dig". Kasreyn 04:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that Godless is #4 on the New York Times bestseller list is a factor. Coulter has taken a potshot (no, it's more focused than that) against American Liberalism, and she got "the largest advance ever given to a conservative nonfiction author". So maybe Liberals are jealous? I daresay they bristle at having their atheistic outlook (and the ideas and policies which derive from this materialsm) held up for display and ridicule. "G

Coulter on "Plagiarism and factual inaccuracy"

A couple of anons have removed the following paragraph from the referenced section, citing "POV," but not explaining themselves. IMHO, it does not express any editorial point of view. It is a fair, properly sourced summary of some of the author's prior writings about factual inaccuracy, and it provides context and balance to the other material on the subject. It includes links to Wikipedia articles about the specific assertions she makes (except for the one on anorexia), so readers can draw their own conclusions about them (and about their citation here).

Most or all of the other Coulter quotes in the article are notable in great part because of their shocking nature (e.g., the Philander Smith rat poison joke). This one is a serious comment about a serious matter:

In Coulter’s book Slander, she wrote that "Books that become publishing scandals by virtue of phony research, invented facts, or apocryphal stories invariably grind political axes for the left. There may be publishing frauds that are apolitical, but it’s hard to think of a single hoax book written by a conservative." She goes on to discuss discredited books by highly praised liberal authors Rigoberta Menchu, whose award-winning autobiography was to a great extent an invention; Michael A. Bellesiles, whose anti-gun book Arming America was found to be based on fraudulent research; James Hatfield, whose Fortunate Son was recalled by St. Martin's Press; and Naomi Wolf, whose book The Beauty Myth claimed 150,000 annual deaths from anorexia, when the actual figure is about a hundred.

I propose to put it back in, prefaced by the words "In 2002, Coulter herself wrote on the topic of factual inaccuracy," and less the part about Naomi Wolf and anorexia. Lou Sander 13:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call, Lou. At least someone here is actually reading her books!  :-) Lawyer2b 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

With no objections here in almost two weeks, I made the change. Lou Sander 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Polemical Style

Coulter's ideas and arguments are often overshadowed by her over-the-top style, which is definitely one of her trademarks. To those who don't read her work, or who read it and react emotionally to it, her style is her only trademark. (It is as though Stephen Hawking had the coprolalia variety of Tourette's Syndrome -- it might be hard not to focus on his swearing.)

I'm thinking that we need a specific section on "Polemical style," where it can be discussed, where outside writings about it can be cited, etc. Right now, the discussion of her style is scattered throughout the article and, IMHO, often overshadows the substantive content of one section or another. The proposed section would allow a lot of this to be concentrated in one place.

I think the section should be either before or after "Religious views." Lou Sander 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Can one simply think that Coulter's trademark is not presenting meaningful arguments or does that belief necessarily imply an emotional reaction or lack of reading if we disagree? Lou, if you do not think that Al Franken has a trademark of worthwhile ideas and arguments, does that necessarily mean that you haven't read it or that you just reacted emotionally to it rather than simply disagreeing with it? BTW I'm all for a Polemical Style section, just as long as we watch the peacock and weasel terms. --kizzle 02:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Letterman comment

I have twice removed the following from the intro:

"...and perhaps most famously as an "inconvenient bitch" by chat show host David Letterman. [10]"

First, there is nothing supporting the phrase "most famously" in the cited source. Second, it's clear from the video that Letterman used the phrase "Inconvenient Bitch" not so much as a direct reference to Coulter (as in "She is an inconvenient bitch") but as a play on the title of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." To characterize it otherwise is misleading and dishonest. Finally, I don't think it really adds anything to the intro except length, something of which the intro certainly doesn't need more. --ElKevbo 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Who was the "Inconvenient Bitch" then if not Coulter? Yes I realize it's referring to the Gore movie but you're saying he wasn't referring to Coulter? --kizzle 03:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly he was referring to Coulter. But it's also clear that the phrase was selected as a play on the Gore movie and not necessarily because Letterman truly feels that Coulter is, indeed, and inconvenient bitch. He's a comedian paid to make jokes and, I would argue, not particularly well known for the depth of his political or historical knowledge other than that necessary for his comedy. That someone would argue that a joke made in Letterman's Late Show monologue belongs in the introduction of an encyclopedic biography beggars belief. --ElKevbo 03:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't belong in the article, I just think he did mean it, especially given his choice words to Bill O'Reilly. --kizzle 05:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

kizzle: Inserting the Letterman quote is done with what I would call "editorial glee." It's not notable, it is demeaning to the subject of the article, editors are persistent about inserting it, and they insert it in the lead section of the article, where it absolutely doesn't belong. Q.E.D. Lou Sander 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You could be right, but I try to not guess my fellow co-editors motivations on the matter and simply discuss or revert if I disagree. For instance, I have advocated including information that puts Coulter in a negative light, I have been quite persistent about it, and while I think it might be notable, you do not. Does that make my actions fueled by "editorial glee"? My point was not that you were wrong, but to indulge ourselves in guessing motivations on the part of co-editors rather than the merits of their arguments (of which there exists absolutely none in the people who are trying to insert the Letterman quote in the beginning) leads us down a dark road. Is it fair for me to assume everytime we disagree that it's because you have a crush on Coulter? Don't play that game and just revert or state your grievance on this page. --kizzle 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't usually revert. I DO state reasoned grievances, as above. I don't question the motivations of editors, I just see them gleefully doing, IMHO, edits that have no merit (=ain't no valid arguments for 'em). I told you I'd report the next time I saw glee, and I did it. I don't play games, and I don't have crushes. Lou Sander 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For instance, I have advocated including information (Arab section) that puts Coulter in a negative light, I have been quite persistent about it, and while I think it might be notable, you do not. Does that make my actions fueled by "editorial glee"? Does someone who is insistent on putting in information that is negative necessarily take pleasure in doing so? I just don't think such observations on editor's motivations for their editors should even be a factor here. And btw, I don't think you have a crush, I was being hypothetical. --kizzle 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blumby keeps reinserting it. On the other hand, I am not positive any of those quotes are notable enough to include in the intro. They give it a nice flair, but I'm not 100 percent satisfied with them. Oh well. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LV: I'm not excited about those quotes, either. They would fit well into the "Polemical style" section, proposed immediately above. Lou Sander 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My $0.02: I was never satisfied with the removal of the simple, one-word description "controversial" which used to be in the intro. It was simpler and far more NPOV than some of the stuff we have now, and if I remember correctly had pretty firm consensus. Even Coulter's supporters are willing to admit that she is indeed controversial, and sources describing her as such are dime a dozen. I say, kill off the Letterman quote, kill off the hyperbolic "Rush in a miniskirt", and go with a more NPOV "Coulter, a self-described polemecist (source) has been described as controversial (source)" etc. Kasreyn 03:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I very strongly believe that encyclopedias do not use words like "controversial" in the lead paragraphs of articles about living human beings. I also believe that such words are infrequently, and very judiciously, used lower down in the body. If others believe differently, it would be very helpful to have some references to other articles. IMHO, the article on Michael Moore has a suitable introductory section. So do Rush Limbaugh, Malcolm X, and Maureen Dowd. In Dowd, note the section on "Writing style." Lou Sander 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I'd much rather have "controversial" applied to both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter than to neither. Why, Lou, do you believe "controversial" does not belong in the lead paras of an encyclopedia entry? --kizzle 04:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is more than a belief. It is, in my experience, a fact. The examples of controversial people other than Ann Coulter are typical examples of how controversial people are handled. If I am mistaken, I will be happy to be shown some examples. I can't find any, but some might possibly exist. Lou Sander 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So it is a "fact" that "controversial" does not belong in the lead paras of an encyclopedia entry? That seems to me to fall under the classification of a belief or judgment rather than a statement of fact. I agree you've found a discrepancy between Ann Coulter being described as "controversial" while Moore is not. What you haven't refuted is why they shouldn't both be addressed as "controversial". --kizzle 06:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I like having "controversial" in the lead. Simple, accurate, verifiable. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is not what we individually would like, though we are all free to post whatever we want to. The point is that this article seems to be different from others, in that editors infuse the notion of "controversial" all through it. They also like to include inflammatory quotations from the subject of the article.

These things just aren't done in encyclopedias. They aren't even done in this one, at least that I can see. (See all the many articles referenced above. Also see Jerry Springer.) Some people like to put vandal-like words into articles, or to spray paint naughty words in schoolyards, or to shout insults at people in special education classes. I am hoping that Wikipedia editors don't do too much of any of those. Lou Sander 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So according to your logic, saying Coulter is "controversial" is tantamount to "vandal-like words into articles, or to spray paint naughty words in schoolyards, or to shout insults at people in special education classes"? I think not. I must ask again for you to provide a justification beyond that of "It just isn't done", as it is almost begging the question at this point. I'm all for describing Michael Moore, Al Franken, Malcolm X (as long as it was "controversial at the time", cause I don't think he's creates too much controversy these days) among others as controversial... while I didn't like Farenheit 9/11, I like Michael Moore as a person and I'll still describe him as controversial. Contrary to your assertion, it is, as editors of this article, what we would like to place in this article. Due to the way Wikipedia works, each page is written by a different group of editors, and thus uniformity is not its strong suit. It could be that there was never a discussion on Michael Moore about the word "controversial" in the lead, or that we think that their discussion's conclusion was wrong. Even still, a concensus on Michael Moore does not equate a concensus on Ann Coulter, which is why WikiProjects exist. Maybe you would like to start a WikiProject about the word "controversial" and whether it should be outlawed from any article's introductory paragraphs in order to establish such a precedent of uniformity that you may rely upon, but until then, citing other pages runs into the problem of what I just proposed: given the disparity, why can't we make both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter say "controversial" in the lead? I'm sorry I must ask this again, but so far besides an incorrect use of precedent, you haven't stated why on this page (as well as possibly on the other pages you cited) it shouldn't be used in the lead paragraphs. As LV said, It's "simple, accurate, and verifiable." --kizzle 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The article looks like a hit piece. I can't find another. Lou Sander 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to address any specific points I made? Most importantly, why both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter shouldn't be described as "controversial" in the lead? --kizzle 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I can't agree with this. You are equating good-faith POV disputes to bad-faith vandalism. Additionally, the article on Jerry Springer does not appear to be the bastion of clinicality you seem to think it is; it describes his show as a "tabloid talk show" in the very intro, a description that (while I feel is accurate) is certainly no less subjective than "controversial". Kasreyn 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact via consensus is dubious at best, personally i prefer fact via evidence, which is why Wikipedia will never be Brittanica, who exactly said Coulter is the "Republican Michael Moore". Erm....some guy....erm oh i dunno but it sounds right don't it = CONSENSUS.

Who called her "an inconvenient bitch" on Live TV in front of millions [11] David Letterman = FACT. Blumby 11:19, 24 July 2006 (GMT)

Which is why I prefer "controversial"; a lot more notable people have called Coulter "controversial" than have called her an "inconvenient bitch"; plus, the "bitch" quote is taken out of context from a joke; "controversial" is not. Kasreyn 22:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Kiz and others, there isn't enough time to answer all the minor arguments about "controversial" and the other stuff. I assume the good intent of everyone, and this article reads like a hit piece. I've looked at articles for many other controversial people, and I don't see that tone there. I've even provided links and a description of the tone. And yes, anyone can put anything they want into Wikipedia. And yes, a group of people can decide to put any tone they want into an article. I just don't find the tone of this article anywhere else in Wikipedia. As a mother once said when looking at a parade, "Look! Everyone's out of step but my son John." She's entitled to her opinion, of course. Lou Sander 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that given the disparity you rightly pointed out, that you never had time to address the "minor argument" as to why both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter could have "controversial" in their intro paragraphs. --kizzle 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving Needed

This page is sure LOOOOONG. I'd be in favor of archiving everything before "Coulter on Arabs and muslims." I'm told it's easy, but I don't know how to do it. Lou Sander 04:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's simple, create a file with a forward slash, such as Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 11 (in fact, this is precisely the file you should create). Then remove whatever you want to archive from here and put it there. Add the {{talkarchive}} tag to the top of the new article page and save it. Make sure you note that you are archiving with your edit summary on this page. Finally, add a link to the new archive to the archive infobox at the top of this page, preferably with a short summary of the significant topics discussed in the sections you removed. And you're done!

A good rule of thumb on what to archive is to not touch any section that's had discussion as recently as two weeks (I prefer to wait a month on particularly slow-moving pages, but this page is anything but slow-moving!)

See Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page for more details. If you need any more help, just ask.  :) Kasreyn 06:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is 240 KB long. The guideline recommends keeping them to under 32 KB, so people with certain browsers can edit them. I'm reluctant to make substantive edits, as they keep being reverted with unclear (to me) reasons. (For example that Coulter's remarks on domestic separatists belong with those on bombing the NYT because they are "coupled.") Lou Sander 08:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend archiving sections 1-32 (so that the section on Religious Views would be first); sections 1-32 seem to have very little recent discussion, while Religious Views has a comment from a few days ago. I seriously doubt anyone would object to your archiving them. Kasreyn 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the 32 KB limit is really for encyclopedia articles themselves, and doesn't really apply (or is not enforced quite as strictly) for talk pages. Anyway, we might still want to archive some of the sections of this talk page that aren't quite as controversial anymore and people aren't actively discussing. Dr. Cash 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree about archiving the inactive stuff and keeping the active. It would probably not be good to get rid of all the "to do" stuff at the beginning. Lou Sander 18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Domestic separatists

I removed the following section previously from 'other controversies', and nuking that section:

Coulter has criticized the government's handling of radical separatists. She has described members of the Branch Davidians as, "harmless American citizens" despite their use of violence and after the bulk of the group was immolated in an FBI raid. Likewise, she berates what she calls the "unprovoked government assault" and "murder" at Ruby Ridge.

Someone has reinserted it into the New York Times bombing section. I don't think that's valid here. Timothy McVeigh has absolutely nothing to do with the Branch Davidians, and tying them together here is just simply not accurate. I don't think the 'other controversies' section would be good to bring back, though I also don't think that this particular incident is notable enough for 'notable controversies' either. It's just an example of one of the things she's made comments on in the past, and really isn't a major theme of hers, so I don't think it really belongs in the article. Though I'd like to hear what others think about this? Dr. Cash 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya I'm not so sure the Domestic separatists is as notable as other things she's said (which is evident from the section containing only two examples). --kizzle 18:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Notable controversies" section came about to separate things that were truly notable and truly controversial from other things, like statements she made that some editor(s) didn't like. Every time she says something, or gets called a name, somebody wants to put it in the article. Some even want to put it in the lead (e.g., Letterman/"bitch"). IMHO it's a good thing to have a catchall heading for that stuff. One was there and was working, but somebody deleted it.

"Domestic separatists" is unimportant and inspired no known controversy. It should be deleted. Lou Sander 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Brief Apperance on Adam Corrolla

Before I add it, I wanted to check: is her very brief phone-in on The Adam Corolla show worth any notation? Here's the URL for additional information: http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/08/adam-carolla-hangs-up-on-coulter/ Rsm99833 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, funny but probably not notable IMHO :) --kizzle 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Arabs and Muslims

August 25th 2006 on Fox News she said everything is going find in Afghanistan and that we really don't need to hunt for Bin Laden he is not the problem.

Now removing that I disagree with. --kizzle 18:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any grounds for wanting to keep it? Lou Sander 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Several, I just feel that this has been discussed so many times before, I'll try to dig up my previous comments on the matter. --kizzle 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she herself said that that quote (Kill them, convert them, blah, blah, blah...) is a notable quote. I believe she compared it to Ozzy Osbourne and his bats. (It was in the article awhile back. I'm sure someone could find it again.) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

She compared what to Ozzy Osbourne? :) I never heard that. --kizzle 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, at one point tin time, we had: "Ozzy Osbourne has his bats, and I have that darn "convert them to Christianity" quote. Some may not like what I said, but I'm still waiting to hear a better suggestion." - (from Treason, published 2003) in the article. Guess it might have gotten lost in the history somewhere. Don't know if she actually wrote that though. Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks LV :) --kizzle 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As I stated previously, it is notable, even by Lou Sander's own example. Raul654 18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I added that one. Don't know why it was removed, no one has replied to the several times I asked. I personally felt it added a positive human element to Coulter: it showed she's actually capable of realizing that the outrage over some of her comments are actually sometimes her fault rather than her audience'. Kasreyn 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Ann_Coulter#Coulter_on_Arabs_and_Muslims as well. --kizzle 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that actually reverted the removal of it, though in reading a recent entry on our request for peer review, I'm thinking that the part about, "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," did cause a significant controversy, and is somewhat notable. However, the section as it currently stands is poorly written and really just a collection of quotes, so I am modifying my stance on this to that of a, "major rewrite," instead of deletion. Dr. Cash 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I think we should focus on upgrading the surrounding prose. --kizzle 18:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear some justification for collecting a bunch of quotes on some subject unrelated to her main ideas. And what ever happened to the "Coulter on liberals and Democrats" section? Lou Sander 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not waiting - you have been told many times. You're just ignoring hte responses people are giving you. Raul654 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand what makes this material worthy of the great importance that it gets here, or even worthy of being included. I see and understand the responses, but I think they are weak and off the point. Some of the discussion is at Talk:Ann_Coulter#Coulter_on_Arabs_and_Muslims. There, I made the point that the Arabs and Muslims section is longer than the entire sections on her books and columns. The responses were to the effect that "the material that is there is true," and "it doesn't matter that it's longer." 1) Yes, it's true. Nobody disputes that, and I didn't say it wasn't. But its size, emphasis and level of detail are out of proportion to its importance. 2) Yes, it DOES matter that the Arabs & Muslims section is longer than the sections on her books and columns, but not to anyone who doesn't feel it does.

There was no response to the concern that (possibly not expressed as well as it could have been) that ethnicity is not a major Coulter theme, yet it gets huge, huge, huge coverage here. Louis Farrakhan was offered as an example where such a thing is a major theme, yet the man and the theme are covered much more equitably. Lou Sander 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your proposed "Coulter on liberals and Democrats" section, why don't you begin one and we'll see how the rest of the people here feel on the matter. --kizzle 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer, I'm waiting for one of those folks to take the first step. All her columns are available online, and her books are available at stores and public libraries. Lou Sander 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the 'coulter on liberals and democrats' section, this section only contained one or two minor sentences on her thoughts related to liberals sexual freedoms and citing the 'anal fisting' thing. I didn't think this was notable enough for its own section, so I moved this up in the article ('media & career: columns' section), to another article where it's talking about her being critical of liberals and democrats. Seems to me like her being critical of liberals is a major theme of hers in most topics, so a specific section on this is probably unnecessary. Dr. Cash 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me see... Coulter's words on Arabs and Muslims, consisting of inflammatory quotations sifted from many sources, but not a theme of her work, deserve their own long section in her article, but her ideas on liberals and Democrats, which are the subject of four of her five best-selling books and most of her hundreds of columns, don't? It's a bit hard to follow, but I'll work on it. Lou Sander 16:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cash, just wanted to say wonderful, wonderful job! That's exactly what the section needed. It looks a bit trimmed down now, maybe Lou will finally be happy (though I doubt it). --kizzle 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the 'coulter on arabs and muslims' section, focusing predominantly on her comments directly related to the aftermath of 9/11 and removing some quotes that did not seem to fit that topic, like the Helen Thomas quote. I also removed the part about the Muhammed cartoon controversy (see below), which was really just a long quote by coulter that really wasn't directly related to 9/11. It might actually be notable in another section, provided that more is written about this than just the reproduction of a quote. Dr. Cash 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

She wrote in her column, in response to the riots stemming from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, "The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That's a "dog bites man" story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot lunch menu and the birth notices. After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers' relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford. The 'offense to Islam' ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire."

Somebody ought to get rid of this one, because it just isn't true:

Coulter routinely describes Muslims in her books and columns using words such as, "camel jockey," "jihad monkey," and, "tent merchant," and often jokes about the offensiveness of these remarks.

She does not routinely describe them as this. (I've read two of her books and am working on the third, and I've never seen the words.) Neither does she "often joke" about the offensiveness of the stated terms. In fact, the quoted terms were used in the referenced column in order to make a point. Read it yourselves and see. (Of course, if someone can substantiate the assertions of "routinely" and "often" and "jokes," that puts it in a whole new light. And by "substantiate," I mean something stronger than "I feel it's true," etc.) Lou Sander 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Does Lexis/Nexis search for Coulter columns? (or wait, nevermind, that would be violating WP:NOR)--kizzle 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Addition To 5.1 : Registration & Voting

I added in the other incident of accusation of improper conduct as it relates to Coulter's voting record...the disparity between her original and current driver's licenses w/r/t her age when she first registered to vote.

There are two edits because I self-edited the language a bit to try and remove any evidence of POV, given the disputed nature of the article. (did not state she "was guilty", changed to "may have been guilty", took out comments re: Franken's motivation for including the controversy in his book.)

--Parcequilfaut 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your additions are pure excrement. This is supposedly an encyclopedia. Driver's license conspiracy theories are NOT going to remain in the article. Period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.226.108 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 July 2006.

Please see WP:NPA. You can make your point without resorting to personal attacks. --kizzle 07:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As I hand out my "Wikipedia Public Defender" business card to the above anonymous editor...On a technical note, while perhaps incivil, calling someone's additions "pure excrement" is not a personal attack. It is a comment specifically directed at content and not a person. Lawyer2b 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And as I assume the office of the "Wikipedia Assistant District Attorney", I contend that because the anonymous editor specifically attributed said excrement to the plaintif, it was intended as a personal attack on the plaintiff's ability to produce quality contributions. I think we're going to indict.  :-) --WilliamThweatt 22:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Objection! Defense relying upon rules-lawyering by user with "lawyer" even in his username. ;) --kizzle 00:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

PURE excrement? Isn't excrement by definition IMPURE? Lou Sander 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Your Honor, if it please the court...while no editor of rational mind would deny said excrement was indeed attributed to plaintiff by defendant, the prosecution is attempting to ascribe intentions and a prima facia mens rea where, I submit, there is none." -- said like Matlock while wiping brow with hankerchief.

"But Your Honor, one must take into account the history of the defendant's interactions and his habitual behavior of ascribing hostile intentions on the part of his co-editors under the various aliases (aliai?) he goes by, thus I submit, Your Honor, we are far beyond prima facia." --Tom Cruise (pre-Oprah) 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

TY, kizzle. I thought it was legitimate; it's been an ongoing issue reported in several different news outlets. If someone who doesn't feel the need to PA me can tell me how it doesn't add to the section, that's fine. It's not about her driver's license really, it's about voter fraud or the appearance thereof. --Parcequilfaut 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate it being in there, but IMHO it's not important enough to waste the bandwidth on. I also don't like all the accusatory emphasis on "felonies." I'd cut this section off after the second paragraph. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or an Ann Coulter blog. (Just because it's well-documented doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. I'm aware that some disagree.) Lou Sander 20:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Gossip by its very definition is undocumented or based upon shoddy evidence. --kizzle 04:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What this article looks like now

Okay, so I've been gone for a little while doing my own thing, and today is the first day I've had a chance to look at this article in a long time. I have to say, it looks SO much better than it did just a week ago. It's not necessarily 100% perfect, but hey, how many wiki articles are? I want to applaud all of the editors who made good changes after heavily discussing them on the talk page. I just think you all deserve a pat on the back. Stanselmdoc 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How dare you sir force your POV on us!! Just kidding...Thanks :) --kizzle 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive 11 created

I archived all sections with comments older than two weeks. Please feel free to move sections back into the active discussion if I accidentally archived it and you wish to resume the discussion. --ElKevbo 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

-polemical style

Can we make "controversial polemical style" into "controversial style" or "controversial writing style" or "controversial arguments", I just don't like describing her using "polemic" twice right next to each other and in the lead. Can I change it or is someone going to have a hissy-fit? --kizzle 04:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And so what if she is Polish, anyway? It doesn't have to be mentioned twice in the first paragraph! Lawyer2b

GMTA. I've been thinking about the first one or two paragraphs, and I didn't like the two "polemicals" or the Rush Limbaugh stuff. (The paragraph isn't bad, but it can be better.) I'm going to try something along the lines of "Ann Coulter is an American.... She's known for her opposition to .... Her sytle is...." I think all that can be done in two or three sentences, to have it end up like the first paragraph of Michael Moore. I'll post it here for comment. Lou Sander 12:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

ugh

[12]... not saying it should go in... discuss. btw, is this the type of "insightful and hard-hitting commentary" that you were referring to, Lou? --kizzle 20:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

One wonders if she likes the taste of her own foot, because it forever seems to be placed squarely in her mouth. Raul654 20:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeebus! Where does she pull some of this stuff from? Dr. Cash 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she dreams it up sipping on a pina colada on a yacht in the Caribbean or a private jet flight to her house in Palm Beach? Who cares? It works by pissing off liberals something fierce! More! More! Hoo-rah! Lawyer2b 01:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, thank you for wiki-linking all those terms, lawyer, I had no idea what a private jet or a yacht or even a pina colada were! I'm going to go down to the bar tonight for some research on pina coladas, I'll report back with my findings ;) --kizzle 04:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I could say, "I'm going to do some research on my yacht or private jet," but I would be lying. (sigh) Lawyer2b 23:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I care because comments like that dumb down our country. --kizzle 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks with strong points of view about the subjects of encyclopedia articles, like judges with strong points of view about cases before them, might want to consider recusing themselves from working on those articles/cases. Just a thought. Lou Sander 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all handle ourselves, yourself included. --kizzle 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If your thinking is correct, how is it that fisting and anal sex are cited as the examples of Coulter's opposition to the liberal point of view? (And they're properly cited, of course. Or maybe they aren't.) Res ipsa loquitur. Lou Sander 06:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Because other editors may have different ideas as to what should be included that may stem from something other than strong points of view, such as varying opinions on notability, due weight, etc. that may not have to do with strong feelings for Coulter. Cash, who stated "Jeebus!" above was the one initially trying to remove the Arab section, is he unfit to edit this page? Once again, you might want to try spending less time determining the intentions of your co-editors and more time on suggesting changes. If you do, I'm sure you'll find agreement to your proposed change. No comment on my original question? --kizzle 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your original question is, IMHO, unworthy of comment. Lou Sander 11:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pity. It was a serious question. --kizzle 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kizz, I would agree with Lou because it seemed to me that your original question was obviously rhetorical. Lawyer2b 23:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to re-affirm the seriousness of my initial question. I don't see the difference between my example and "camel jockey" and "It would be better if women didn't vote" arguments or calling the 9/11 widows "harpies" or where any of these examples consist of insightful commentary... call me a blind liberal I guess... :) --kizzle 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Raw Story, key plagiarism accuser of Ann Coulter (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Associated_Press_reports_on_Coulter_plagiarism_0708.html), uses language eerily similar to WBAL's 'previously published story'. By their own standards, Raw Story has plagiarised WBAL's story. Judge for yourself:

WBAL: Al-Maliki was interrupted briefly by a shouting demonstrator wearing a pink T-shirt that read, "Troops Home Now." The young woman was lifted from her seat by officers and carried out of the House visitor's gallery, while al-Maliki paused and grimaced in irritation. http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/9578227/detail.html

Raw Story: As Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki spoke to the U.S. Congress, he was interrupted by an anti-war protester. The protester, a woman wearing a pink shirt that read, "troops home now," was quickly restrained and removed from the room. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Protester_disrupts_Iraqi_PM_address_to_0726.html

Here is the timeline - according top their own standard, Raw Story has plagiarised WBAL's story: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=%28gallery+AND+pink%29+AND+%28%22raw+story%22+OR+wbal%29

(most recent stories appear on the top of the list - which means WBAL published first) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.146.234.34 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 26 July 2006

And this excuses Coulter if she plagiarises how? Okay, so even if we say that what you say is true, does that make it okay for Coulter as well? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that's way more words that are different than Coulter's passages, second of all, LV's point. Third of all, I don't believe any of them (Coulter or RawStory) are examples of plagiarism. --kizzle 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The president of her syndicator had a very astute point when he said something to the effect that there are only a certain amount of ways to rewrite a short sentence. I think plagiarism as an offense originated with the stealing of ideas, not that someone used the same 7 words as someone else to describe a cross submerged in a bucket of piss. Lawyer2b 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of Coulter's own published opinion about others' plagiarism as data relevant to the question of her own plagiarism is INHERENTLY ILLOGICAL: And published prior to the accusations; funny yes, valid, no. Getterstraight 04:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)getterstraight04:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's comments regarding publishing scandals being a left-of-center phenomenon are indeed irrelevant to the question as to whether she did plagiarize. They are included simply as Coulter's notable thoughts on publishing scandals which many thought this was. Lawyer2b 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason they should not be included is that there are already 50% more words in the 3 preceding paragraph defending Coulter, stating her own position and refuting her critics than words on the charges. The section is too long. Whether intentional or not it appears disingenuous to catalogue Coulters specific complaints from her book - the reader was already told they are in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getterstraight (talk • contribs)

I think Coulter's opinion on factual inaccuracies in published books is notable, especially in a section regarding her books' supposed factual inaccuracies. I also disagree that the section is too long. That there are 50% more words defending Coulter alludes more to the lack of detail the article provides to the charges against her. As a huge Coulter fan, I personally think the substance of the plagiarism charges should be expanded in the article. Why don't you add some specific examples?  :-) Lawyer2b 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Franken' status as an author and political commentator are more relevant than his (almost historical) roles as comedian and actor in regards to this comment.

Bill Clinton section

Those that want it included:

Those that don't want it included:

1. --kizzle 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) - Not notable... what, are we going to start quoting every ridiculous thing she says here?
4. -- Lou Sander 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC) This is not a gossip column.
6. --WilliamThweatt 01:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Not notable, I almost deleted it along with the other stuff, but it seemed a little more "iffy". And to answer Asbl below, you have it backwards. This is an encyclopaedia, you need a good reason to include the section. Without one it can be deleted with extreme prejudice.

What is this poll about? If the section should not be included, there should be a good reason for removing it. Not wanting it included is not a good reason. --Asbl 00:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If the information is true (you have the video to prove it), relevant (it certainly belongs under controversies), and referenced (you have the videos, again), you have to have good reasons to remove it -- you can't call it "gossip" if you have the video showing she said what is alleged. --Asbl 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Because it happened" and "Because it's true" doesn't justify inclusion in an encyclopaedia. You still haven't provided a rationale for this section.--WilliamThweatt 02:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot "because it's relevant". What other reasons are needed to include anything? Please note that WP:NOT does not state that "Wikipedia is not a collection of facts". --Asbl 02:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply saying "because it's relevant" doesn't make it relevant. I'm still waiting for your rationale. And, I was paraphrasing WP:NOT, but if you insist on a direct quote: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."--WilliamThweatt 03:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What about "Because I feel it should be in the article?" That seems to be a common rationale, though IMHO an invalid one. Lou Sander 02:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting notability. There's a vague line between notable and random, I think Arab section is quite notable, especially given the press reaction to the "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" per Cash's explanation above a few sections, but the Bill Clinton part is just not notable, at least IMHO it's too new to gauge notability, and only the blogs really picked up on it anyways (besides Hardball). If we're still talking about it a few weeks from now like the Jersey Girls thing, then we'll re-visit the issue. --kizzle 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And what about that paragon of reasons for inclusion, "Because I feel it should be in the article, and in addition I feel it's notable, and I have a citation for it, and it certainly wouldn't be on/in _______________ if it weren't notable. Controversial, too. And I feel very strongly" about it." Lou Sander 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"I feel it should be in the article" is a straw man, issues of notability, citation are indeed criteria of inclusion in pages. Precedents on other pages, as we've discussed before, are not valid arguments. Whether a fact is controversial is irrelevant as well. As for if you "feel very strongly about it, if you have solid reasons to back up your argument besides just a simple assertation, then that's fine... or were you using a straw man again? --kizzle 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:Notability is certainly a big factor in determining whether something should be included. The fact that she repeats her baseless allegations against Bill Clinton certainly makes it notable. It was not a one time loose cannon assertion.
I have still not heard a single reason for not including this section. --Asbl 12:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To include it shows such a pitiful understanding of what belongs in an encyclopedia that it embarrasses Wikipedia in the eyes of the world. (And yes, out of six billion people in that world, it's always possible to find a few who disagree. You can even find one or two officials of the company who feel it belongs.) Such a section not only shows bad judgment and tone deafness on the part of those who would put it in, but demonstrates an unmistakeable negative point of view in the article. There is more, but it is unproductive to say it in front of those who will reflexively disagree with it. Lou Sander 12:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that she repeats her baseless allegations against Bill Clinton certainy makes it notable." Repetition of a phrase is a weak criteria for establishing notability. The Bill Clinton part is just not notable, at least IMHO it's too new to gauge notability, and only the blogs really picked up on it anyways (besides Hardball). If we're still talking about it a few weeks from now like the Jersey Girls thing, then we'll re-visit the issue. --kizzle 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean her involvement in the campaign to impeach the President of the United States? That involvement in the case was what inspired her first book? No, that's certainly not important material for the article </sarcasm> -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That would all be well and good...if the section in question had anything to do with impeachment.--WilliamThweatt 14:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

She's still blabbing about Clinton on talk shows. Perhaps it would be better to advise her that the topic is not notable. Gzuckier 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A person's "blabs" are not suitable things to put in an encyclopedia article about the person. That's kind of obvious, but I guess it needs to be pointed out from time to time. Lou Sander 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really not that obvious. Clinton's "blab" of "It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is" will be forever remembered and is part of understanding when people refer to a "Clintonian" definition of something. It's not that "blabs" are unwelcome in an encyclopedia, it's that they generally are not notable, but there are some exceptions, of which the appropriateness of these exceptions in an encyclopedia is directly correlated to the amount of news cycles and popular references they receive beyond the original mention. I hope that clears things up. --kizzle 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't that particular "blab" uttered during his deposition and while under oath? Or am I misremembering it...? It seems that a comment or allegation made under oath is by many measures "automatically" more noteable than a similar comment or allegation made under different circumstances. It's certainly not an ironclad rule but it makes some sense to me. --ElKevbo 21:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You aren't misremembering it... I guess it depends on what the word "blab" means ;) Still, while I agree quotes under oath are "automatically" more notable, the direct correlation stated above still applies, along with my point that just because something is said as an aside (definition of "blab" I assume) it doesn't disqualify itself from inclusion in an encyclopedia, but must be weighed. --kizzle 00:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

When those "blabs" are done repeatedly, they are no longer "blabs" they are part of an agenda. --Asbl 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So, we're talking about the Bill Clinton section of the "Notable Controversies" section, right? That I can understand removing. But it would help if there was clarification at the top of this Talk section. The whole time reading I was thinking about the Paula Jones controversy (which absolutely deserves to stay in). Her talk against Clinton is definitely frequent and substantial (it's what helped to launch her career), but couldn't there just be a mention of her disgust of him somewhere else in the article? Like, under the PJ section?Stanselmdoc 17:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the "latent homosexual" charges, I'd much rather wait a few weeks and see if the phrase was covered for more than one news cycle, like the rest of the notable controversies. --kizzle 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- kizzle linked here on a similar discussion at Talk:Bill Clinton. I don't have any particular interest in whether the Clinton section is included in the Ann Coulter article. I think it's too insignificant to warrant inclusion in Bill Clinton, and that Ann Coulter is a more appropriate place, but I find kizzle's initial post (are we going to post single every thing she says?) persuasive. --Ptkfgs 00:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Decline in Syndication section deleted by Lou

Lou Sander recently deleted the below section for the reason: Unsourced. Delete immediately.

Following Coulter's comments about the 9/11 widows, newspapers in Augusta, Ga., and Cedar Rapids, Iowa dropped her column. Also, Yes! Magazine dropped her column, accompanied by a rebuke from the editor for Coulter's comments.

Here are some citations from Editor & Publisher

Following on the heels of daily papers in Augusta, Ga., and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, a weekly in Greensboro, N.C., has decided to drop Ann Coulter's regular column, distributed by Universal. "Yes! Weekly", which has carried the conservative firebrand since last August, announced the move after polling its readers, among other considerations. She will be replaced by another conservative, William F. Buckley. This follows the pattern at the other papers that had dropped Coulter, where she was replaced by conservatives Michelle Malkin in one case, David Limbaugh in the other. - [13]

Augusta's explanation - "In the end, we've reluctantly decided Ms. Coulter's incisive writing, laser-like perceptiveness, quick wit and devastating logic have been overshadowed, and that she has lost her effectiveness as a conservative standard-bearer. "As of today, we're opting to go with Michelle Malkin, one of the most articulate and exciting young conservative voices out there today. "Ann Coulter has long been known for her acid tongue. But much of the hand-wringing by her critics has been, and still is, the result of the fact that she is ruthless in pointing out their hypocrisy and flawed thinking. "But biting commentary is one thing. A personal attack is another -- such as when she slammed several 9-11 widows for backing Democrats and allegedly milking the tragedy for political purposes. That charge alone isn't necessarily unfair, but to suggest they were 'enjoying' their husbands' deaths and calling them 'witches' -- well, that's where stridency crosses a line. "Moreover, in the weeks since, Coulter herself had become the issue, rather than the topics she was writing about, which is an unhealthy circumstance for a journalist, even a columnist. "This editorial page stands for many things, and we make no bones about it. But one of the things we stand for is civility. Pulling Ann Coulter's column hurts; she's one of the clearest thinkers around. But you've got to stand by your principles, even -- especially -- when it's painful." - [14]

I couldn't find the Yes magazine rebuke, maybe someone else can find a source? Next time, if it's unsourced, add a {{Fact}} tag before you delete it to allow people time to find a source. --kizzle 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't do that in that biographies of living persons. --ElKevbo 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you be a bit more specific as to what "that" is, as well as what specific passage of policy you're quoting? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to be clear. --kizzle 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was rebutting the "Unsourced" charge as well, relevant policy issues are a different matter. --kizzle 20:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The specific "that" to which I was referring: Under "Policy in a Nutshell:" Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. In the first full paragraph of the policy (below the Wikilink to the WP:OR): Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. And the entire "Remove unsourced criticism" section.

The text as Lou removed (and he's getting a bit aggressive lately - likely a sign of frustration as I see that opinion often seems to be contrary to his own on this Talk page) didn't cite any sources. There were sources in the version of this paragraph/incident not too long ago but I haven't been following things closely enough to know why or how it was changed so radically. I agree with his removal as the particular text he removed was poorly written and completely unsourced. I'd prefer even one of the older, longer versions that I didn't really like to the one that Lou deleted. --ElKevbo 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I didn't know that. So on biographies, unsourced info can be removed immediately, so when a source is provided it can simply be re-inserted? These two E&P articles would seem to substantiate the disputed passages. Also, isn't this section a duplicate of an above section? --kizzle 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can read the policy (well, you CAN but I don't think you SHOULD :) as justifying insertions of any sourced material. IF someone's only justification for removing or opposing adding material were lack of sources then you'd probably be right. But there are, of course, other ground to oppose adding or retaining material in an article.

And you're right - it's a duplication of an earlier section anyway. I thought the section had been removed but it's been changed quite a bit from when I last looked at it in detail (so much so that I missed it when I glanced at the article earlier). Good catch! --ElKevbo 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well call me a stickler for the rules, but if the rule states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material" should be immediately removed, and a quality source is found for the disputed passage, it would seem that the passage could be reinserted as the rule no longer covers it. Maybe I should go to law school :) Ah well, the point is moot anyways, as its a dupe of an earlier section. --kizzle 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In deleting this material, I was following the policy in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It says to "remove immediately." I did. It also says to remove immediately from the talk page. I will leave that to others. Lou Sander 21:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. However, we have found a quality source for your deleted passage so there is no need for further dispute. --kizzle 21:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with "Losing Syndication" examples

I've got a problem with 2 of the 3 examples listed in Coulter's "Losing Syndication" section. The first one, regarding her assignment at USA Today to cover the 2004 Democratic Convention, I removed because it contained no mention of her syndicated column being dropped; just her assignment. The second one I believe is not appropriate for the section, and perhaps the article. To me, a section entitled "Losing Syndication" implies either a) there was a time period (perhaps even presently ongoing) during which she lost syndication at a higher rate than during other time periods or b) that Coulter has been "losing syndication" as a general pattern over a long period of time. The incident where her column was dropped by National Review is listed as an isolated incident occurring in 2001. The next examples of her "losing syndication" are in 2005 -- four years later. The section pretty much needs (and it makes sense to include ) those 2005 examples, especially since they were described by a source as a "pattern". I feel the National Review example should be removed, because it doesn't fit in with describing situation a) or b). This section's purpose should not be to "list every instance Coulter's article was dropped"; unless we want to change its title. Lawyer2b 04:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove any of those examples, as they are all 100% accurate, 100% well documented, 100% noteworty, and 100% relevant to the article as it was part of her profession, not part of her personal life. As the Wikipedian who organized the section "loosing syndication", I hereby invite you to propose a different name if you do not like the name I gave the section. --Asbl 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your discussing the matter. 1) In your edit summary, you argue that since that Coulter was not employed by USA Today at the time her assignment was cancelled, she was doing "syndication work". I'm not a reporter, but I would be shocked to hear that a single assignment to cover a week-long event for a single newspaper is considered "syndication". Syndication in journalism, as I have always seen the term used, is licensing articles for use in multiple publications and is normally a long-term on-going relationship. Opinions? 2) I am not disputing the examples' accuracies, I'm just not seeing the greater context in which you want to include them because its apparently not about noting her losing syndication. It seems like you want a section that simply lists all the times she lost work (single assignments and newspapers carrying her column) because she pissed people off. Is this correct? Lawyer2b 05:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From dictionary.com, Syndication means To sell (a comic strip or column, for example) through a syndicate for simultaneous publication in newspapers or periodicals. The definition does not indicate the quantity of newspapers or periodicals. Hence, one newspaper is also syndication (even if it is an exclusive syndication agreement). So long as she was not an employee, it was a syndication job. --Asbl 05:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Where I come from newspapers and periodicals mean more than one. To interpret the way you want we should expect the definition to say "a syndicate for simultaneous publication in a newspaper or a periodical". Might I also bring your attention to dictionary.com's definition of syndicate? A company consisting of a number of separate newspapers; a newspaper chain. You don't want to debate definitions with someone who's going to be a lawyer, now, do you? ;-) Lawyer2b 05:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't want to debate semantics with a lawyer, or anybody else. As I've stated before, if you do not like the title "Losing syndication" propose a better title. --Asbl 05:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if that's all I think is necessary, but I appreciate your willing to change the title. If you would share what you feel the purpose is of listing those examples, of what significance they have as a group, I will try. Lawyer2b 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am somewhat surprised that you are unable to answer your question, as the answer appears to me to be self evident. And the answer is ..... Basically all those examples show that Coulter is so far off the mainstream, and is so controversial, that newspapers and periodicals have been rejecting her columns. --Asbl 06:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. 1) I agree that Coulter is not mainstream and is exceedingly controversial, however, the reason I was unable to determine what your argument was is that, in my opinion (as stated above), it was mislabeled and you are diluting your evidence. (Boy, I'm sounding like a lawyer already, huh?) Your evidence seems to be the recent "pattern" of various newspapers of dropping her syndicated column. To mention, "oh yeah, and 4 years before this she got fired for not being professional", in my opinion, weakens it because someone who is "having their columns rejected" is not going to go for one year (let alone four) without rejection. You may be right, and she may be so far-out that she is being rejected for it, but I don't think a case can be made for that happening until recently. 2) All this is moot, though, because isn't your conclusion (that all these examples point to a pattern of rejection) without a source original research? Lawyer2b 06:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no original research in the article. Everything cited is well referenced and well documented.
2. I fail to see how does the fact that the pattern of being dropped has been going on for 5 years weakens anything. So what if there was one incident 5 years ago, another two years ago, and five more incidents this year? What exactly is the significance of the gaps?

--Asbl 06:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you might think #1, but you need to read the"synthesis of published material" section of the "no original research policy". It specifically states, Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. That is what it appears to me you are doing. A = Coulter was fired from The National Review in 2001. B = Coulter was dropped from a USA Today assignment in 2004. Conclusion C = These two are part of a pattern of losing syndication mentioned in 2006. To make that argument (by including A + B in that section) I think you need a source linking A and B to your pattern. Also, I strongly think the entire section ought to lead with "In July, 2006, Editor and Publisher described a "pattern" of newspapers replacing her column with that of other conservative columnists." Because it will make it more clear what the section is about. Lawyer2b 07:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lawyer2B. Like much in this article, the "Losing syndication" material seems to be in there mostly or only to cast aspersion on this living person. Material like this is not found in encyclopedias, including Wikipedia. Lou Sander 12:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I can make a case that for a writer like Ann, all three incidents are notable; so what do you think about eliminating the separate "Losing Syndication" sub-section that implies they're all part of some larger "pattern" and simply incorporating the incidents in the section on her columns? Those examples could be introduced by something like, "While no doubt a successful syndicated columnist, not all of Coulter's employers have been pleased with her performance." Lawyer2b 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Asbl wrote in his edit summary: "...the paragraphs below do not pertain to her writings, but the rejection of her writings."

1) I believe you are mistaken. The paragraphs you reference most certainly do pertain to her writings. They reference her writings; by direct quote, I might add.

2) I have not seen a response from you regarding my pointing out the original conclusion you sought to advance though this separate section is, in fact, original research. In addition, I have also pointed out that since the incidents you list aren't all examples of losing syndication, the section's title doesn't make sense. I do not feel these incidents merit a separate section. Since you obviously do, I feel the onus is on you to come up with a section title that does make sense. Lawyer2b 17:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I tought that the idea that labeling a section is orginal research is so farfetched, that it did not need a response. Since you insist on one, you now have it in the previous sentence. I relabeled the section to something that will hopefully better appeal to you. I also removed POV language from your intro, as whether or not she is succesful is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. --Asbl 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I hate "Me too" posts, it's rather difficult to measure consensus and opinion without them. So, in that spirit: I agree with Lawyer2b's point of view and almost all of his points. I do think that to isolate these particular incidents and present them out of context as evidence of widespread, falling readership or success is both POV and original research. These isolated incidents either need to be linked together with published, noteable sources that link them together as a trend or indication of a trend or presented in their proper context. --ElKevbo 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You lost me, ElKevbo. What exactly are you proposing? Are you saying we delete the entire section even though every single item in it is well referenced because nowhere else has the section been written as one section? --Asbl 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Earlier, someone proposed this material be moved out of this specific section and incorporated throughout the article in the appropriate sections. I can't seem to find the specific proposal right now, though (this is a busy Talk page!) but I suspect it was put forth by either Lou or Lawyer2b. I would also be amenable to adding more balanced material as proposed below by Ptkfgs. My objection is not that the material is included in the article but rather how it is included. I simply feel that the current method of inclusion attempts to link all of these incidents together to lead readers to a conclusion unsupported by any source. I understand your dislike of Coulter but I just don't think this is appropriate in an NPOV encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo 20:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The E&P article does cite a trend of some sorts of 4 specific papers dropping Coulter after her plagiarism charges and Jersey Girl comments, but I feel we're just adding on top of that cited trend any time Coulter has been dropped from another paper. I personally believe that the section should be there, but that it should be limited to the trend E&P identified, along with sticking with the theme of any other papers that dropped her at the same time either because of plagiarism charges or Jersey Girl comments, but to include stuff like the USA Today thing along with the NRO thing is just tacking on any paper removing her. The other alternative is not to phrase the section as if there's a rising tide of a Coulter backlash but rather show that Coulter has been dropped several times for her controversial writing style from various papers by focusing upon the reasons stated why she was dropped, and then make sure to provide balance by including that she still is nationally syndicated in numerous publications, and that the impact of these few papers dropping her is pretty low. --kizzle 20:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Kizz, I am 110% in agreement, and well said. Either of your alternatives makes perfect sense.  :-) Lawyer2b 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems you object to having a section heading, as opposed to the wordings of the section heading. If you don't like the title wording, I've already said you can propose a different section title. My likeness or dislikeness of Ann Coulter is irrelevant. The only question is whether the article is POV. I can't see how having a section header in which none of the information is disputed could possibly be POV. --Asbl 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure, it sounds as if you think I suggested titling a section in the article "Original Research", which I did not. I’m not necessarily saying the section is POV, I’m actually not sure. What I think ElKevbo is agreeing with me about is that your listing the incidents in a separate sub-section appears to present them as part of a pattern you concluded exists and for which you have no citable sources; and that this is ‘’original research’’. As I mentioned before, I can see an argument that the incidents are notable and should be included in her article somehow but I think putting them in a separate section puts inappropriate emphasis on them as a group, which appears to be your intention to begin with. Would you be willing to compromise and simply integrate the sub-section into the section on her columns? Lawyer2b 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This section cites incidents beyond the trend stated in the E&P article of which the section originally followed. --kizzle 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to go in circles. I've already stated before that breaking a long section into sub-sections improves readability. It appears that nobody objects to the content, as everything is well referenced. It seems appropriate to lump all the incidents in which her columns have been dropped into one section, rather than scattering it throughout the article. Although other wikipedians have charged that the lumping is POV, none have been able to demonstrate why it is POV. Our job as Wikipedians is to present material in a readable manner. --Asbl 20:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I really want to end this debate by stating that the subsection in question contains 458 words. This is long enough to be broken off into its own subsection. I can certainly understand that Coulter's fans are not happy to see all of Coulter's rejections being listed together, but that is an insufficient reason to not bracket all the information which is all inter-related into its own subsection. --Asbl 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Debate re-opened. That is entirely inappropriate because, in "lumping all the incidents in which her columns have been dropped into one section," you're implying a pattern where one might not exist. She's a nationally syndicated author with highly controversial views. No doubt there will be occasional newspapers that drop her columns here and there. The E&P article, however, cites a pattern of such following the publication of Godless, which is why we had a sub-section in the first place. I actually don't necessarily care if it's this way or my other proposed alternative, as long as we provide balance by stating something along the lines that "Despite being dropped from these papers, Coulter remains a nationally syndicated author whose words appear in numerous publications" (specifics on her distribution would be even better). It's all about balance people! --kizzle 20:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the intro sentence of the disputed subsection? It states "Although Coulter's articles appear in many publications, some publications have not been pleased with her columns." You are welcome to edit the sentence if you are not satisfied with it. Lets close this debate and move on to more useful things. --Asbl 20:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Let's wait for other people to chime in with their opinion before we artifically close this discussion. --kizzle 21:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it, Kizz. Very balanced. The only thing "stuck in my craw" is that the title says "Loss of Syndication" but I don't think the USA Today stint was a syndicated job. I think it should stay in the section but I'm at a loss for what to title it... ? Lawyer2b 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I like Kizzles "crack at it" better, but I still have a few problems with the section. Specifically, the USA Today article should be integrated into a different section as it has nothing to do with "syndication" (look up the word). She was contracted by one paper to write one article about one specific event. This is not syndication. Also the lead sentence is chaulk full of weasel words ("few", "various", etc.). Can we count the cited examples and change "few" to a specific number?--WilliamThweatt 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the section to be "Publishers' negative reactions to her views", because if we're going to include two incidents that are not related to her syndicated column I think the title has to be more generic. Opinions? Lawyer2b 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I like! I think it's both fair and balanced. ;) --kizzle 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm comfortable not having a reference to her popularity in that section. Lawyer2b 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

my edit regarding the impact these incidents have not had on her popularity makes sens While I do not have an opinion on the specific construction of this section or what it should be named, I think there is merit to the inclusion of a description of how widely a syndicated columnist is syndicated. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to write this in a way that documents both gains and losses in syndication, if there is sufficient information on the topic? --Ptkfgs 06:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the section looks much better now. But wait, I hate Coulter, but Lawyer and William like her, so how is it possible that we reached concensus when I'm only out to smear her and Lawyer wants to take her to bed? It does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! --kizzle 23:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

True dat, yo! Harmonious editing is the eighth wonder of the world! Lawyer2b 00:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Occasional drops in syndication"

Given that there have been seven distinct occasions, the word "occasional" sounds like were making excuses for her. I dont want to start another war over this word, so let me just say that I will:

1. Support if any other editor would make an argument to remove the word "occasional"
2. Insist on the word's removal once the number of droped syndications reaches 10.

--Asbl 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

First, two of the examples listed are not drops in syndication. The USA Today and National Review gigs were not examples of syndicated work. Second, ignoring that, the Shreveport Times did not drop her -- it only says they were considering it. Thirdly, and perhaps most important is the consideration of time. These six drops happened over a course of 5 years. While four happened since late 2005, as a group (which you really seem to like viewing them as) she's averaged once per year. In my book, that's occasional. Lawyer2b 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Occasional drops in syndication" sounds like it describes the evidence accurately. I like it, with the exceptions noted.—ptk★fgs 21:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

100 Intellectuals quote

Before we get into an edit war here, saying that "Ann Coulter has been identified as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the country" and making the reader go into the footnote to find who actually identified her is wrong. That's quite a bold statement, and I'm fine with including it, lets just attribute it to who actually identified her in the lead rather than some floating head. On a side note, Lou, I take offense to your edit summary "rvv" calling my re-insertion of mention of Posner into the lead as vandalism. We may disagree strongly on issues, but it doesn't mean you have to resort to calling my edits vandalism. --kizzle 22:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just removed this quote from the intro of the article. It is clearly the POV of one person and does not fall within wikipedia's NPOV rules. Dr. Cash 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a quote, it is a statement of fact. Please explain how mentioning something positive from a scholarly book from Harvard University Press is "clearly the POV of one person" and does not fall within Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Also please discuss such deletions here before you make them. Lou Sander 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for the apology for calling my edits "vandalism", it's all good, no worries. --kizzle 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lou on this one. Halfway. Shouldn't even come close to being in the opening of the article, but something like that definitely deserves a mention. It's like saying someone was mentioned in Who's Who. It should be put in somewhere (perhaps biography?). Stanselmdoc 19:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, either way, Lou put that up there because he felt it counter-balanced the "Rush Limbaugh in a Mini-skirt" comment, which I don't see as negative (except when I visualize it in my head). I agree, put it somewhere else than the intro. --kizzle 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

another picture?

While I'm at it, I was wondering if anyone would be against putting a picture somewhere in the middle part of the article. there are three pictures up at the top right (frankly, i think for aesthetic purposes one of them should be moved left), but then there's none at the middle. i thought maybe finding a picture of Coulter giving a talk at college like this one or this one might be nice. But it depends on copyrights I suppose. And really, if people object to having so many pictures. I mean, there's four all together, but maybe one of the top three could be moved lower or something? Stanselmdoc 19:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Numerous = POV?

Pray tell, User:Asbl, what is the "point of view" that saying she is in "numerous" publications take? Lawyer2b 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summaries, "numerous" = a lot, which (by definition) is subjective. What might be a large quantity for one person may be a small quantity for another. Therefore, we must either post the actual number, or use NPOV language. --Asbl 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"More than 100 publications". --kizzle 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sufficiently large. In fact, if that is all we have, we will have to remove the sentence all together, as the 7 publications would represent 7%, which is not insignificant. Although, the word insignificant is also POV, in my opinion, it must be < 1%. --Asbl 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I reject your argument in its entirety. 100 newspapers = numerous. (insignificant = <1%) = ridiculous. --kizzle 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your POV, and I'm entitled to mine. This is why we have to come up with an NPOV phrasing. --Asbl 01:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but calling over 100 newspapers not numerous is just flat-out wrong. --kizzle 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Everyone's entited to their own opinion, so long as it does not conflict with Kizzle's". --Asbl 02:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're clear. </sarcasm> --kizzle 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't calculate a percentage of "more than 100 newspapers", not to mention that USA Today doesn't even count, as they didn't "drop" her, they just never actually hired her. --kizzle 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why it says approximately 7%. The USA Today did hire her, and after she submitted the article, they dropped her (read the article). --Asbl 02:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I did RTFA, that definetely doesn't count as dropping, nor is it part of the initial over 100 count, which is highly unscientific. Calculating a percentage against "over 100 newspapers" is just plain irresponsible. What do other people think? --kizzle 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote

On a side note, Asbl, please don't put "NPOV" after every edit you make. Let's just assume we all think that our edits are NPOV and that none of us think we are the bastion of neutrality. --kizzle 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest Bill Clinton Allegations section attempt

Please see here for what concensus determined. Asbl, you are the significant minority. --kizzle 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion does not contain sufficient reasons for removal of section. 3 Wikipedians not wanting is not sufficient for removing accurate and well referenced information. --Asbl 02:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, more than 3 (see the very bottom), second of all, just because it's accurate does not mean it belongs in an encylopedia. You haven't satisfied notability (that distinguishes from every other fucking crazy thing she said). Re-visit the issue in a few weeks. --kizzle 02:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be in the article or not, but I am a little concerned about the sources that this section (which just keeps coming back and going away) is citing. All of the claims are attributed to [15], which appears to be a blog reprinting the interviews, with broken links to the actual articles, in the case of the "rapist" quote. I don't have it on hand, but (due to recent attempts to add it to Bill Clinton) I know that there is another source containing the "latent homosexual" quote. As for the "total fag" quote, I think it's obvious to anyone that she's making a joke there and it's misleading to include this in a section on "unsubstantiated allegations". —ptk✰fgs 02:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't like their viewpoint but I believe Mediamatters is a reputable organization, generally does a very good job documenting things, and can be used as a source. And besides, if they couldn't be used 95% of the citations supporting criticisms of conservative figures on wikipedia would have be to be deleted. ;-) Lawyer2b 21:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have anything against 'mediamatters.org', though they're not quite as strong as a reference as say, CNN, Fox News, or the New York Times or another newspaper. But the biggest problem with this section is it seems that it really shouldn't just be added to the end when there's a whole extra section earlier in the article dealing with bill clinton, so this seems like it might be related and should go there. Dr. Cash 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Aww come on, people! Firstly, even if this section goes in the article, it doesn't belong in the "Notable Controversies" section. Her "unsubstantiated allegations" don't constitute a notable controversy. HOWEVER, her hatred of Clinton certainly deserves a mention, but not under a controversy section! How many people who say base and lewd things about Bush get a section called "unsubstantiated allegations against Bush" under a "Notable Controversy" section? There's an extensive Bill Clinton/Paula Jones section ALREADY in the article. If we wanna comment about Coulter's hatred of Clinton, do it there. Stanselmdoc 17:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This 'unsubstantiated allegations against bill clinton' keeps getting re-added to the page, and I find it totally unacceptable. The section is nothing but a bunch of he said/she said quotes about Clinton and fags. Big f'ing deal! Maybe put a line or two about her hatred of Clinton (which sorta goes with her hatred of liberals, doesn't it?), but it is NOT a 'notable controversy'. Dr. Cash 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, maybe "hatred" of somebody by somebody else doesn't exactly belong in an encyclopedia. Lou Sander 17:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Could say something like "Today, Coulter maintains an intense and outspoken dislike for Clinton, even occasionally insulting the former president in interviews." I don't know. Something succinct and to the point and in the Paula Jones/Clinton section. Stanselmdoc 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You could say it, but it wouldn't be so. Also, encyclopedias don't usually attribute emotions to the subjects of their articles. Nor do they usually repeat or refer to things their subjects say in routine interviews. Lou Sander 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Plagiarism and Factual Accuracy Section"

Isn't this section about allegations of plagiarism against Coulter? I'm all for balance, but that to me would be Coulter's response and/or her publisher's response to the charges of plagiarism against her rather than her making allegations against other people. Going to wait a bit then replace the passage with a quote from her publisher or herself. --kizzle 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not include sections of material about allegations against the subjects of their articles. To do so promotes a negative point of view about the subject of the article. This is a particularly sensitive subject when an article is a biography of a living person. Lou Sander 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course they do. See, for instance, Floyd Landis and William J. Jefferson. Not only is your statement factually incorrect, it indicates a failure to understand the concept of NPOV. Omitting the fact that there are allegations against the subject of an article in order to avoid negativity is highly POV. It is not the place of editors to protect subjects from possible negative reactions by selectively excluding facts. Proper NPOV requires that the fact of an allegation be reported accurately; it would be POV to issue a judgment about the allegation one way or the other. -- Jibal 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a break, Jib! Allegations of doping for a Tour de France winner, and serious allegations of criminal activity for a Congressman are one thing, trivial allegations of plagiarism are something else, especially when they lack "legs" and seem more like a commercial for a software company than a serious allegation of wrongdoing by a responsible authority. "Highly POV," indeed. Lou Sander 04:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with Lou regarding whether or not the encyclopedia should include allegations against the subjects of their articles, I feel that Coulter's views on "factual inaccuracies in published works" are notable, especially in a section regarding supposed factual innaccuraies of her work. I'm having this same discussion with User:Getterstraight above. Lawyer2b 16:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a paper encyclopedia and can deal with current events, like allegations of improper conduct, better. Biographies of living persons does allow for the inclusion of allegations against a public person when they are published by a reliable source -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As Malber says and WP:BLP explicitly states, Lou, properly sourced allegations do belong in this encyclopedia even if they are negative towards the subject. That being said, this section is for controversies involving Ann Coulter, and more specifically, this sub-section is for allegations of plagiarism and factual inaccuracy against Coulter, not her views on the matter. 3 paragraphs on people accusing her of plagiarism followed by 1 paragraph of her accusing random people of plagiarism (not even in defense of her plagiarism) just don't fit together. Balance is achieved by getting Coulter's side of the story on whether she plagiarized (or possibly her publisher's apt comments), not a nexis search for "plagiarism" within Coulter's works. I think this would benefit Coulter more, as achieving "balance" by adopting a "well they did it too!" defense is one of the most basic logical fallacies you can commit. --kizzle 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to keep these counter allegations, I've made the following POV changes. Gamaliel 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Discredited books" - it is pov to state that these books are discredited; certainly not everyone thinks so for every one of these books

"highly praised liberal authors" - James Hatfield was not "highly praised" and was excoriated by almost everyone in the mainstream media. Was he even "liberal"? I don't know, but let's not assume.

"award-winning autobiography" - what award? she won the nobel, but you don't get the Peace Prize for writing.

Answering your question: "This book was first published in Spanish in 1983 as My Name is Rigoberta Menchu, and This is How My Consciousness was Born. It was awarded the prize for best testimonial narrative for 1983 in the Casa de las Americas Annual Contest." See it here. Lou Sander 17:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"to a great extent an invention" - no. some elements were found to be untrue and there is a matter of debate to what extent.

User:Gamaliel's edits look reasonable to me. :-) Lawyer2b 16:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Gamaliel. I've moved the Slander and Al Franken paragraphs to the top of the section, to put things in chronological and logical sequence:

2002: Coulter writes on factual accuracy

2002: Franken challenges Coulter's factual accuracy, Columbia investigates

2006: Allegations of plagiarism

2006: Response by publishers Lou Sander 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I also added some examples of the assertions of plagiarism. I picked a long one and a short one, both from the references, and I tried to make them typical of all the others. I also slightly expanded the response of the syndicator, to give some context to his rejection of the allegations. Lou Sander 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job Lou, very NPOV way of letting the reader determine the accuracy of the plagiarism accounts (I personally see it as Coulter's publisher does, there's only so many ways to re-write a sentence). --kizzle 23:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Arab people

Why shouldn't she be included in the above category?? She is on record calling Arabs 'Ragheads' and as saying we (USA) should just bomb the whole Middle-East and far worst! Would she not have had to say far less about Jews to be included in Category:Anti-Semitic people?? So if there are no objections I will include her. Yas121 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an objection: Compare her with the other people in the category. She's nothing at all like them. Lou Sander 04:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing Style and Political Leanings

This section is needed, but what a negative and non-neutral attempt this first effort turned out to be! (IMHO, at least. Others may find it very evenhanded. After all, there is a citation.) Lou Sander 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the sarcasm? --kizzle 15:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In this section, Michael Moore is misspelled "Micheal"

It's actually redundant (restates stuff from the intro) and poorly referenced. Google searches are not acceptable as reliable sources. Dr. Cash 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc, can you point out the section in reliable sources that says Google searches are not acceptable as a source? The reason I ask is that I see that WP:RS this particular section of it specifically lists a Google book search as being acceptable and nothing leapt out at me during my quick gander at the page that makes me agree with your interpretation. What am I missing? Lawyer2b 20:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That section is about how to find good sources -- the idea being that you use google book search to find books on the topic... and then read and cite those. —ptk✰fgs 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The immediate preceding post really answered your question. But the other reason that citing links to google searches in articles is that the google searches are too dynamic. For example, your google search for 'Ann Coulter' this week will very likely produce completely different links in the top 20 results than the same search next week, two weeks later, and even a year later. That's why you need to be more specific when you're citing sources. Dr. Cash 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My good doctor, I now see two questions and neither, IMHO, have been answered. To wit:

• 1) What part of WP:RS states or implies a Google search is not allowed as a citation.
• 2) Is a books.google.com search a valid citation?

I disagree that the section even implies you have to read the books you find using a books.google.com search before you cite them. The policy states, "When you use one of these services, be sure to gather all the information you can find by selecting links such as “About the Book.” You should be able to assemble a citation in exactly the same way you do with a print publication. It don't say nuthin' 'bout no readin'. Lawyer2b 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also add, that the "top 20 results" for a google search changing every week is germane only insomuch as the fact being supported requires it to be in the top 20. The results of a google search can change and still be supportive of fact, q.v. Coulter and "queen of mean". Lawyer2b 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that WP:RS is not the right policy to cite or use here. WP:V is a more useful policy in this circumstance. A Google search is simply not (always) repeatable and thus not verifiable. I also think that in most cases using a Google search itself as a source is or is very close to original research. --ElKevbo 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that is good point.  :-) Lawyer2b 21:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE LINK re Matt Lauer "The Today Show" Interview June 6, 2006

Please link the video interview that quotes Coulter. The proper link is http://crooksandliars.com/2006/06/06.html#a8602 Coiltesla3 04:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)coiltesla3

WP:Be bold! :-) Lawyer2b 04:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you can be bold and add it. But I think a link to this interview was actually removed from the article in the last couple of weeks. First of all, if you're linking to a Today Show interview, linking to a third-party site with a copy of the interview would not be ideal -- it would be better to link to the actual Today Show website with a copy of the interview. Secondly, I'm not so sure that 'crooksandliars.com' meets the guidelines specified in reliable sources, and I would also doubt if the owners of 'crooksandliars.com' have the copyright permission from ABC/Today Show to rebroadcast and/or redisplay excerpts of the interview in question (if wikipedia is making an effort to protect copyrights, we should not condone copyright infringement by other sites). Dr. Cash 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember a video of her recent comments on Clinton being removed but I don't remember one of this interview. Regardless, you are dead right on both your points. Lawyer2b 21:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How does CrooksAndLiars.com violate WP:RS?

The missing cite in the Paula Jones section

The missing cite in the Paula Jones / Bill Clinton section is as follows:

• Daley, David (June 25, 1999). Ann Coulter: light's all shining on her. Hartford Courant. [$2.50 charge required to view article]

Someone can cut and paste it in by selecting "edit" for this section, reshaping it as a footnote, and placing it in the appropriate points in that section.

It was removed in May by User:Dominick on the grounds that you have to pay to see it. But that is just a convenience for the users who want to check up on it. You can get it for free at a major Hartford library, I'm sure, as any other journal from a major city cited on Wikipedia. Also its presence in the paid archive shown by the link is evidence that the article does in fact exist.

Here is the diff of the removal. 216.165.199.50 07:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've replaced the source citation. --ElKevbo 13:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevbo. I don't know how long this article will be locked so I can't edit it, so I also want to request that you or someone else do the two previous cites in the Paula Jones section (they say (Daley, 1999)). Unfortunately I can't offer any guidance on how to do duplicate references (they're doubled up because they sandwich another different reference)—are you supposed to simply type in the thing again? Anyway if anyone wants any practice at wikiediting, here's something to challenge your skills! 216.165.199.50 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! I apologize for missing it.

Citing the same reference multiple times is pretty easy. If you look in the article you can see what I did which is to name the reference the first time I cited it and then use that name in subsequent citations. --ElKevbo 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Book image

Did anyone else notice that the image of the book 'slander' is photoshopped to say "Ann Lies About The American Liberal" from the original "Liberal Lies About The American Right"? -Theaterfreak64 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The image has been reverted, and the person has been warned. Rsm99833 20:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

media matters.

Hey. I added some infomation on Media Matters and what they posted on their website under the "Plagiarism and factual accuracy" section. If you could please expand it, that would be great. dposse 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Media Matters info is redundant and really only serves the purpose of adding linkspam to their online petition. This is not what Wikipedia is for. They should promote their online petition in other places, not an encyclopedia. Dr. Cash 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Media Matters link goes into more detail than the other links, and it also shows that another organization has found something wrong with the endnotes. I did not link to the petition as an advertisement or whatever, i linked there because it's another thing that a organization is doing against Coulter. It's infomational, not spam. All this was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night. [16] Could we just reword my addition to have it fit into the article? dposse 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One resolution to this problem would be to not mention the petition against Coulter from Media Matters. Until it actually is shown to be effective, it is sort of irrelevant. For example, there is no mention of Bill O'Reilly's boycott of France on Wiki's France page, because it has had no effect and is irrelevant to the topic. That sentence seems like a POV pumping up of Media Matters. Ramsquire 22:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mention of the petition simply does not belong in an encyclopedia, so I reverted again. The reverter did not establish consensus on this talk page. As far as the media matters reference, it simply doesn't add anything to the section, nothing new at least. The topic is covered quite well enough, and media matters is just, IMHO, beating a dead horse on this. It's not wikipedia's job to mention every single journal article about every single topic. Dr. Cash 03:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have checked and the MM plagiarism concerns seem legitimate. To save linkspam concerns I suggest rewriting this so it does not name MM directly and simply has a sup link to the URL in the reference section (eg ^[17]) The online petition link is not appropriate in my opinion. I will do this now assuming it pleases both parties. - Glen 03:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

MM has no place in any external links section unless it's a Wiki about MM directly. EmmSeeMusic 02:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The MM link has NOTHING to do with their petition. It has documented each and every Coulter appearance, along with video clips, and transcripts citing factual errors and flat out lies spewed by Coulter. Al Fanken has the same thing. Just because you put, "linkspam" doesn't mean that only neutral Coulter sites can be posted. Coulter makes a lot of ridiculous and malicious claims. MM is the most comprehensive and thorough web site out there. Coulter is in the same category as Jerry Falwell. Stewiegfan 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, MMFA doesn't like Ann Coulter and will not give her the benefit of the doubt, whether she deserves it or not. This is a biographical article of Ann Coulter, so a site dedicated to exposing her as a liar, probably shouldn't be linked here. MMFA will not contain biographical information on her, and her factual errors and lies are already listed and cited elsewhere in the article. The external links should be to other cites that bio Coulter, MMFA doesn't fit the bill. Ramsquire 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. Jerry Falwell is the same. You will find all other entries for many others also contain links to sites that document people, even the ones they don't like. MM contains not only transcripts, but video. It doesn't matter if a site "likes" Coulter or not. She has made a ton of outrageous claims. MMFA has the most comprehensive, up-to-date entries on Coulter. The link will be staying.

Please sign your edits. I don't understand the relevance of Falwell to this article and if, MMFA is cited there it is wrong and should be removed as well. MMFA has no biographical information on Coulter and is simply irrelevant in that regard. MMFA is relevent to debunking her claims, and should be cited for that limited purpose. Ramsquire 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Hate knows no bounds

"Her grandfather four times removed"??? operated a large plantation

You gotta go THAT far back to link her with slavery?

I can't believe the more reasonable editors in here would allow this '6 degrees of separation' nonesense ANYwhere in the article, much less at virtually the VERY beginning.

It's boilerplate liberal orthodoxy that all republicans are racists, so it makes sense that liberal editors in here attempt to create that impression.

But this really is pathetic. And embarassing to any serious editor at wikiepedia.

Big Daddy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.168.173 (talk • contribs) .

Well at this point it doesn't really matter, since after your "Phase II" of drying up Wikipedia's fundraising sources is complete, this place won't even exist. --kizzle 18:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Daddy, you should know by now that I'm a big Coulter fan. It's a little unususal and I think a supporting source should be required, but I actually don't think the information makes her look bad at all. Lawyer2b 20:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just took out it not because of whether it made her look bad or not, but I think going beyond her grandparents is not quite essential to this article; it's not like there's some noble and illustrious family line of Coulters that we need to document. --kizzle 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Coulter has never gone back through ancient history to smear somebody. (sarcasm) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stewiegfan (talk • contribs) .

Time to block that IP permanently. I've blocked it month to month for awhile thinking that well, maybe it isn't static. It is. Bye Big Daddy. Again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woohookitty (talk • contribs) .

Merge Template

I agree that the Criticisms of Ann Coulter article should be merged into this article if it hasn't been done already. If it has been done, then perhaps we should remove the tag. Ramsquire 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't (necessarily) object to the merge but I do object to the manner in which it was done. Isn't there supposed to be some discussion first? It seems to have been rather unilateral: Suggestion was made at 12:55, one comment was left here in the Talk, and the material was merged at 13:45 not even one hour after the initial suggestion. --ElKevbo 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The best argument for merging is the guideline Wikipedia:Content forking. --M@rēino 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen discussion going the other way: if there's a lot of critical material about the subject of the article, it's best to put it in a separate article. I don't recall where I saw this right now, but it has something to do with biographies of living persons. I am NOT in favor of importing this critical material about Ann Coulter into her article. It has the effect of presenting the entire subject from a non-neutral point of view. This is amplified if it's done without significant discussion and consensus. Lou Sander 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think I can address that concern. As I read Criticisms of Ann Coulter, everything is either something that is/was in the article (specifically, it looks like it was copied on Apr 1 2006) or is polemic (like calling her "blatantly racist", when it's a perfectly valid opinion that she's not racist at all, but rather just likes to annoy people by sounding racist). Therefore, there's very little that would survive the merge that wasn't on this page anyway. --M@rēino 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It says critics CHARGE her of being racist. Critics is the key, and it is backed up. It's not a POV from the writer when it's a CRITICISM page.

I support the merge proposition on its merits. It will take a good bit of work to merge the two articles and I suspect there will be quite a bit of work after the merge between authors who disagree but it's still a good idea. I do worry a bit about the total size of this article but suspect that after all is said and done the merge will add little to this article that isn't already here. --ElKevbo 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be merged (and redirected), but the manner in which it was done was poor. I also don't think we necessarily need a 'criticisms' section; much of the content can be merged into the 'notable controversies' section, and much more can probably just be removed as non-notable cruft,... Dr. Cash 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think someone may have misread my quote, and did the merge too quickly. I was attempting to open discussion, if it had not previously taken place. There should have been a consensus reached first. However, it does appear that most of the stuff in the criticism article was here in some form already, so I think the merge could take place rather quickly. Ramsquire 23:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ehh... I'm kinda with Lou on this one. Dumping that into here is going to tip the scales very much towards the anti-Coulter end. If we're going to keep the info, the existence of the article should be viewed as a daughter article and possibly combined with other info here rather than merged, as there is definetely enough controversies on here to warrant its own daughter article. --kizzle 23:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't support a dumping of the entire 'criticisms' article in here either for the reasons you stated. But I do think a good portion of the subject matter covered over there is already covered here, and with that being the case, there is no point to have that site stand on its own. Might as well just add it to the controversies section in brief. It's not like she didn't make these statements. Ramsquire 23:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the "criticisms article" again, and there's a lot of stuff there that is in the Coulter article or the articles on her books, or has been there and has been removed after discussion. A lot of it is poorly-written cruft, too. It's very hard to see the current Coulter article as written from a neutral point of view, and putting this stuff there would only make it harder. To see what I mean about point of view, go through the Coulter article and take note of the amount of material about her work (which, even though you may disagree with it, is serious, reasoned criticism of liberals, the NYT, etc.). Then take note about the amount of material about criticisms of her offhanded inflammatory comments. Then consider if you are reading something encyclopedic that is a balanced biography of a living person. (And please don't just conclude that if something can be sourced, it belongs in the article. Try to think beyond that. Take a look at the articles about other controversial people, and see if they are different in tone and content than this one. Look at Robert Byrd for something with, IMHO, a balanced discussion of a potentially inflammatory subject.) Lou Sander 23:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally understand the POV/undue weight concern of the editors here. But I think it's generally agreed that a controversies section belongs in this biographical article. The repetitive stuff from the "criticisms" article, should be briefly and POV'ly (I made up a word) added here, if possible. The stuff that's poorly written can and will be fixed. The criticism of Treason and Slander should not go here, but into the articles of those books. ... I just thought of this... why don't we simply have a controversial quotes section and list her quotes without commentary. Although I agree that the BYrd page does an excellent job discussing the topic, the difference between Byrd and Coulter, is that Byrd's views on race where excellently tied into his role as a US Senator and his opposition to the appointment of Clarence Thomas which is closely related. Coulter is simply an author with a following. Technically, the article could do without a controversies section, but then it would be accused of being POV the other way. So in order to reach a consensus, why don't we simply make the controversies section, a quote repository with no comment. Let the reader's decide if the quotes are controversial or not. Ramsquire 00:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is just that, criticism. Why wouldn't it be "critical" of Coutler? It sounds as if you only want a pro-Coulter page and that is not going to happen. The story about Coulter publishing the author's home phone number and e-mail address, to which resulted in the author being harrassed, needs to be published on here, but where? In the Criticism page. If you would like to clean up the Criticism section beforehand, I see no problem with that. But a criticism section IS going to be added. There is simply too much that doesn't fit into the other sections, and Coulter has made numerous statements that are flat out wrong. Coulter goes into the Jerry Falwell category of people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.20.145 (talk • contribs) .

If you want readers to take your thoughts more seriously, please sign your edits. Ramsquire 00:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been extremely long discussion about including quotes in this article. In the end, most of them were moved to Wikiquote, which is the place for quotations. I'm sure hoping that nobody introduces yet another round of quotes that belong elsewhere.

IMHO, the Wikidifference between Byrd and Coulter is that this encyclopedia, through its editors, expresses the point of view that Coulter is a person whose legitimate views are not to be fairly presented, and who is to be, as much as possible, portrayed as an offensive person. When you look at articles on other controversial people, they are handled very differently from those on Ann Coulter and her books. Check out Louis Farrakhan, for example. (The examples are given, not to invite comparisons of their subjects' roles in life and that of Ann Coulter, but to invite comparisons of Wikipedia's handling of Ann Coulter and other controversial people, in hope that editors might begin to handle Coulter as they routinely handle the others.) Lou Sander 00:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So what then do you propose? The article cannot remain as is. For some reason, the concensus of editors here feel there needs to be a criticism section (I don't necessarily agree but I don't want to rehash old fights) and if there is one here, then the other article should be merged into it, somehow. Ramsquire 00:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose having the Ann Coulter article be about Ann Coulter, not about the well-sourced opinions of her targets, her critics, and those who would suppress her views. That requires a certain evenhandedness and a separation of the criticism from the material about Coulter. Many, but not all, editors are able to do that.

If there is a criticism section, shouldn't all the criticisms be moved there? In many articles, the pattern is A, criticism of A. Then B, criticism of B. Then C, criticism of C, etc., with care taken that the criticisms don't grossly outweigh the A, B, and C. (Alternatively, A, B, and C, then criticisms of A, B, and C, with similar care about weight.) If the criticisms become so heavy that they create a non-neutral point of view in the article, they can go into an article of their own.

You can see an example HERE. (The example is not about Coulter vs. the other guy. It is an illustration of a good, practical way to handle a person about whom there is lots of controversy.) Lou Sander 01:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's smarter to just create a criticism page and link to it. Coulter has stuck her nose and her mouth in many public figures and debates. When a person starts committing felonies, doesn't fact check, and makes outrageous statements, there deserves to be a criticism page to say exactly what the criticism is, and let people decide for themself. Controversies and criticisms are a bit different, in that, not all criticism has led to a paticular controversy per se. I believe that the current Controversy section is good on the main page since a lot of it is ongoing, and it talks about her books etc., and it seems pretty concise. Stewiegfan 01:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the notion that Coulter "doesn't fact check" is a result of the undue weight that Wikipedia gives to the viewpoints of her critics. People read those viewpoints and draw erroneous conclusions about the subject of the article. Coulter's book Treason contains 48 pages of endnotes, put there by an honors graduate of Michigan Law School. Generally speaking, they are rock solid backups for what is said in the book. Are there occasional errors? Of course. Are they quickly corrected? Yes. Do critics gleefully focus on minor errors in an effort to discredit her very solid work? IMHO they do, but you can judge for yourself. (And wouldn't it be nice if you could use Wikipedia to actually read about her work?) Lou Sander 12:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I seriously don't think that we want a 'criticism' section added to this article. The material from the criticisms article is really best merged with the 'notable controversies' section, which already covers many of her criticisms. Please remember, wikipedia is not anyone's personal soapbox, so if anyone is trying to make a point by adding info to wikipedia, please stop. Dr. Cash 03:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read the Criticisms page, I'm here to tell you, it's not a soapbox. It's really too much to add to the controversy section as a whole, but the information is still valid. A link to the page, I still think, is in fact, valid. The section on the main page is "Notable" Controversies, which would be the "big ones", if we were to add all, we would have a 20 page document on here, which makes the Criticism page valid to have. Coulter's outrageousness sparks every other week. Stewiegfan 03:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, we should keep the criticisms page, clean it up, move all the criticisms and controversies there, then link to it from the main article. The main article should state that there are criticisms and controversies, should outline their general nature, then refer readers to the criticisms page to see the details. People could load up the criticisms article with whatever well-sourced material they want to. Lou Sander 12:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my original opinion based on the fact there does not seem to be a way to merge the articles without giving undue weight to one POV. As a compromise solution, I think Lou Sander's idea may be the way to go. We should just merge, the controversies section of this article into the criticisms article. Ramsquire 16:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious Views

Some anon keeps posting material about Coulter's criticism of evolution under this section. This stuff definitely doesn't belong in a section on Coulter's Religious views. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the article about Godless, where her criticism of evolution appears. Lou Sander 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, because her criticism of evolution comes from a religious perspective, it makes the most sense to put it in the religous views section. --Asbl 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Now some non-anon has put it back in, marking it as a minor edit(!). Here is the questionable paragraph: "In her book, Godless, Coulter claims that "there’s no physical evidence for evolution", and goes on to state there's "no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record." Coulter's arguments against evolution do not appear to have any scientific basis [18] [19]."

The section in which it appears is about Coulter's Christian religious beliefs, which she openly states. The questionable material has nothing to do with her stated religious beliefs. It has to do with a claim made in a book (which has its own article, and seems to be a good place to discuss the claims made in it). The book is about the "religion" of liberals, which is a different thing than Coulter's religion.

It is very hard to see how a statement about weaknesses in scientific claims is part of the author's personal religious views, particularly when the book says little or nothing about her personal religious views.

Or maybe it isn't so hard. This paragraph also appears in the book: "The single greatest victory of the Darwiniacs is in the realm of rhetoric, not science. They have persuaded the slumbering masses that anyone who questions the theory of evolution must do so out of religious fervor."

IMHO, It would be better for us all if sections about a person's religious beliefs were limited to actual material about that person's beliefs. Lou Sander 17:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the only widespread challenge today against evolution is intelligent design, a religious concept, put forth by the Discovery Institute, which happens to be who she consulted to write that chapter in her book. If she's defending a religious concept, I'd say that factors into her religious beliefs. --kizzle 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The part that doesnt belong is "Coulter's arguments against evolution do not appear to have any scientific basis". Whether you belive they do or do not, that statement is defenetly biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FG3001 (talk • contribs) .

How is this statement biased? --Asbl 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it depends on who you ask. If you ask a someone who believes in evolution and arguments against it have no scientific basis, but if you ask who doesn’t believe in evolution then evolution has no scientific basis (see Kent Hovind) I think the sentence before should be enough to convey that it is just her opinion and not a professional scientific analysis ("Coulter claims")--FG3001 15:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the questionable paragraph has anything to do with Coulter's religious views. To say otherwise is to do original research. Lou Sander 14:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Coulter Comment on New Yorkers

Coulter recently said in a FNC interview that New Yorkers would surrender to 'terrorists' or Iran, if invaded. You can find it at YouTube by searching 'ann coulter new york surrenders' Are we going to put this in notable contaversies? User:Green01 9:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

Verified it is there, and can be cross-referenced via Yahoo-news, and google-news. The remark should be included, but carefully worded.Rsm99833 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a draft: On August 25, on the Fox News Channel political commentary show Hannity & Colmes, Ann Coulter contraversially asserted residents of New York City "would immediately surrender" if terrorists invaded their city. She had also written the comments in a collum: "As Republicans were saying repeatedly -- captured on Lexis-Nexis for a year before it showed up in a [Republican pollster] Frank Luntz talking-points memo in 2004 -- the savages have declared war, and it's far preferable to fight them in the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York (where the residents would immediately surrender)."(1)

(1) Coulter repeated claim that New Yorkers "would immediately surrender" to terrorists, Media Matters, Fri, Aug 26, 2005 1:31pm EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200508260002?offset=20&show=1

User:Green01 1:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

Looks good to me, but I would source other places. Look to Google for other sources. This way, the article is neutral, and there's no accusations of bias. Rsm99833 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The only 'news' souce I could find that in google and yahoo is http://huffingtonpost.com. Would that be alright as a source? All other search results are like forum discussions or blog responses. Note: the Media Matters article provides the transcript of the interview. User:Green01 1:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

Is there any particular reason that this comment is notable? She says many things, and we can't really put all of them into her biographical article. It isn't suitable to do that, either. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or a historical record of everything a person says. If we put this comment in, we should provide the full context of the statement, plus several paragraphs to put it into the larger context of her life and work, as is done when the critical comments of others are posted. For an example, see Robert Byrd. Lou Sander 04:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's notable because of the notability of the preson who stated it and it's defamitory against a whole city's population in regards to what Establishment politicans talk about a great deal in the US: terrorism by Islamic fundementalists. The bad taste of Coulter should not deter coverage of her predjudiced bile. If she said Arabs should be tagged when in the US, would you also object to having that covered by Wikipedia? User:Green01 3:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

First, things are not notable just because a notable person says them. Second, editors who regard a living person's work as "prejudiced bile" might want to consider recusing themselves from editing articles about that person. It's so hard to avoid including that very strong negative point of view. Lou Sander 14:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's notable because what she said is in her area of "expertise". Ann Coulter chooses to be a political pundit and controversial things she says in that capacity certainly should have the presumption of being notable. Can you show how this statement is less notable than others she's made on the subject and which appear in the article? Vpoko 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter says a lot of dumb shit. Are we really going to put in every little thing she says that attacks someone else? This article is then going to basically be a regurgitation of all of her books and columns dumped into here and then sorted by topic, which would make like an "Ann Coulter Encyclopedia of Ad Hominems and Inflammatory Language" with an alphabetized index of every group she's used inflammatory language towards. Lets keep the examples that were picked up widely by mainstream press, such as "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" and the 9/11 widow choice remarks, and leave the rest out, otherwise we're going down a very slippery slope. --kizzle 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, you've convinced me. Vpoko 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Kizz, your policy, which I hereby dub the "Super Official Kizzle Policy of Ad Hominems and Inflammatory Language", was both eloquently and elegantly stated and seems a sound basis upon which to set many a future precedent. I should also point out that while you may think Ms. Coulter says some "dumb shit"...she got a "purty mouth." (said like a character from The Deliverance.)  ;-) Lawyer2b 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Touche, L2b, touche :) I am enjoying these debates where it all boils down to how hot the girl is. Lara Logan trumps them all, she's my warrior princess. --kizzle 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Buying her book

This might be OT, but I went to the most Liberal part of New York City to buy her Godless book. It was at a sidewalk book-stand in the Upper West Side, where a man and woman were selling half-price hardcover political books. Of course, less than a handful of the titles on sale there were liberal - Godless was only there because it's a best-seller.

When I handed him my $15, he refused to meet my gaze and even seemed to step back a bit. He was literally in the gutter, and I had to lean over the table to get him to take my money.

Anyway, now that I've bought her book I intend to expand the Godless article and correct some of its errors. (I'm also re-reading Slander, so watch out, POV-pushing Liberals! ;-) --Uncle Ed 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar situation at Borders. When I talked about the book, the "associate" blubbered something about being a "Christian liberal" and turned red. I don't think she had ever looked inside the book, but of course I might be wrong. Lou Sander 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent anon vandalism

Should a request for semi-protection be put into place? Rsm99833 01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time this article needed semi-protection.--WilliamThweatt 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone would be so kind as to put the request in. I'm off work, and on my way to a far-away bar, and won't be able to do it for about two or so hours. ;) Rsm99833 01:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have just submitted a request.--WilliamThweatt 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)