Talk:Ann Coulter

Archives

Before 2005 Criticism, Quotes, Racism/Sexism, Idle rich Vietnam comments on the Fifth Estate Ext links, Transsexual, Birthdate, Plagiarism More racism, Quotations, Length, Photos Pictures, Canada/Vietnam, August 24 2005 to September 8 2005 September 08 2005 to September 30 2005 September 30 2005 to October 10 2005 October 10 2005 to June 08 2006 June-ish 2006 June 28 2006 to July 8 2006 July 8 2006 to August 29 2006 September 1, 2006 to October 31, 2006 October 31 2006 to December 25, 2006 December 25 2006 to January 31, 2007 January 31, 2007 to February 17, 2007 (CBC, College Speeches) Feb 17, 2007 to March 1, 2007 {Canadian troops, Anti-Islam category

---

Out of Control

This article is out of control. It displays the worst tendencies of Wikipedia. In 10 years time, this person will be barely remembered. Why is this article longer and better researched than Einstein or Lincoln? Why the incessant desire to flaunt opinions about current events? This is an encylopedia, not a blog.

What a ridiculous statement. Instead of complaining, why don't you do some research and add to the Einstein and Lincoln articles? Your political leanings are showing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.201.181 (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

That is a really good point. I have followed this discussion for months and made a couple contributions. It's clear there are die hard fans and detractors who will continuously fight. Anyone sayng the page looks good is nuts. The attempt to create a section titled 'faggots' stands out. Also the CBC issue was especially noteable. Case in point, all the irrelevant material on the CBC Vietnam comment. At the time every other q&a she was in had a fan stand up (like this was actually helping her) and offer the points about Canadian peacekeepers and such. At the one I was at at Florida she made jokes and then said basically that's not what I meant, I was wrong, I've said as much, let's move on. Separate but similar comments were referenced in the UofT paper. But here the issue is misrepresented. Her detractors and her supporters both have little reasonable perspective.

Perhaps because Einstein and Lincoln are not alive and still generating new news that is documented before the entire public in their daily news consumption, thereby providing plenty of sourced information to be included? Further, Coulter is a contemporary advocate for a political party as well as a source cited and provided air-time on a number of national outlets and has an ongoing impact on politics and American life. Why should such a person not be thoroughly covered? And why should any attempts be made to not include all aspects of their contributions? Why should her comments about calling multiple political candidates "f****ts" and calling Iraqi people "towelheads" be kept out? There are facts and non-facts. If something is a fact, then why cry "bias"?[Perhaps people sometimes have agendas beyond adhering to NPOV?] Should we only allow contributions to articles about people and topics that certain editors feel are acceptable? In ten years time, this person may barely be remembered. If every event and person was eternally memorable, what would the point of an encyclopedia be? And while you and I may not think she is very memorable, the fact that she was chosen (repeatedly) by one of the most prominent political gatherings of the year says that she is of some significance.

Cordell 02:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that Wikipedia did not exist in the days of Einstein and Lincoln, I think it's safe to say that if it did, we'd likely have more-detailed articles. That aside, given how "sensitive" people have become in the past few decades, it's easier to offend people, especially demonstrated by how PC our society has become, and what happens to people who "speak out of turn" like Coulter did; I doubt the same furor would have been incurred a few decades ago. I don't think Coulter will be "barely remembered" in ten years time, but that's because even though there are plenty of people like her out there, she's one of the few the mainstream media pays attention to. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The original poster does have a point that recent articles get way too much attention here. It seems that editors (myself included) have a tendency to want to add things they've heard or read to articles, without first analyzing whether it is relevant. That's why George W. Bush's article is almost three times as long as say Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, even though Jefferson and Washington are clearly more important and historically significant than Bush. But such is the nature of the beast. Persons and subjects who make the news in the present is emphasized more than persons and subjects in the past. Over time it is easier to comprehend whether an event or controversy should garner a mere sentence or a full section. But in the present there is no way to objectively figure that out. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, just have the article conform to events that actually was a defining moment in the person's life. Look at the celebrity article for Stacy Ferguson of the Black Eyed Peas to see what I'm talking about. She peed herself on stage, while funny has nothing to do with her career and no one can reference anything to the contrary. i'm sure that Lincoln must have done something embarassing. Maybe he sneezed all over the Gettysburg address. You wouldn't know from the article on Wiki but I sure know that George W. Bush recieved a drunk driving ticket when he was 30 and inexplicably the locked door incident? The hell? Its a real shame because when I come to Wiki I just scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the references to get the story on a subject. --Art8641 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

a) Please sign and date your comments. b) If the articles on Einstein and Lincoln are insufficiently researched, feel free to improve them. c) If you have specific problems with the article, please state them. If the article contains "opinions", identify them and they can be removed. But vague general complaints like "out of control" do nothing to improve the article and look a whole lot like inflammatory trolling. -- Jibal 13:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying but the original comment is very valid. There needs to be some kind of sanity check on the length of biographical articles, and the length needs to somehow be correlated to the significance of the person in question. I'm not saying there should be hard-and-fast rules about how detailed an article needs to be, but I fully agree that the Coulter article is "out of control." She simply is not a significant enough public figure to warrant this kind of coverage in an encyclopedia. My $0.02. KyuzoGator 14:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is said that this article is out of control. However, people such as Anne Coulter need to be researched so that society can be better protected from them in the future. More research is clearly needed to understand her lovable personality. She displays clear sociopathic behaviour, but is this due to a diagnosable pyschosis, or, is she merely the clever wordsmith of the agro-military-industrial complex? For example, a question that requires much more research in this context is the issue of her religious beliefs. Obviously, one might conclude that to have views that appeal to the broad spectrum of right wing Republicanism, one must pronounce faith in Jesus Christ above all other things. Coulter professes this, but her faith appears to be rigorously non-denominational in the sense that she deplores Anglicans and the like, but is very very careful to not pronounce allegiance to any of the many right wing interpretations of Christianity that drive neo-conservative Republicanism. Why is this? Surely this argues against a diagnosable pychosis and in favour of her being the clever wordsmith of the agro-military-industrial complex? Money is probably the predominant issue here. Thus, there is is a measured incorporation of "Christianity" in her philosophy. To put her cards on the table, so to speak, would put her on the "to burn" list of at least one right wing denomination, and thus reduce the appeal of her published collections of apoplectic rantings.

So yes, perhaps this section is out of control, but clearly more research is necessary. Elk Islander 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What are the Wikipedia rules about slander/libel on the talk page? Does Elk Islander's 'clear sociopathic behaviour' comment step over any line? If so, it'd be good to delete that comment, and mine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marieblasdell (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Slander/Libel: It is laughable that the neoconservatives and their supporters consider the suggestion that Dearest Anne is a sociopath slanderous. Consider the following quote of hers from the main article: "......I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism." Apparently right wing religious whackos can say anything they want and the rest of us must bear their constant insults in silence. The lovely lady is slandering liberals/Democrats, Muslims, Anglicans, gays, secular humanists, academics, and single mothers with impunity, and we are supposed to be sensitive about her feelings! The poor dear! Elk Islander is obviously an insensitive jerk! Bloom Thorn 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the ideas in the original post...

I think the point you've made is a valid one. Although, even though it's our desire that Wikipedia be a timeless encyclopedia, the reality of the situation is that the length and detail of many articles tend to reflect the amount of attention currently placed on the subject of those articles. This is both good and bad. Yes, it's correct to say that it appears to place undue emphasis on subjects that are not as historically important as others that receive less attention. However, the upside is that the more a particular subject ends up being the hot topic of the moment (or year), the more people will be looking for information on that topic, and the more information they will find about it in Wikipedia. In 10 years from now, interest in Ann Coulter, like many other subjects of lengthy Wikipedia articles, will have waned considerably -- as will the size and detail of this article. As public interest gradually diminishes and historical perspective takes over, future editors will rehash this article and trim it down accordingly. We can discuss the merits and faults of this approach, but this does seem to be the reality of how articles grow and shrink on here. --DavidGC 10:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the issue here is that in a user created encyclopedia, the weight of content will reflect the interests of the users, not the importance of the subject. Every Pokemon, minor Star Wars character, and cancelled Fox pilot has its own page, while the minor Roman and Byzantine Emperors are still one sentence stubs. This reflects the fact that placing a project in the hands of the people must take into account the unfortunate fact that many of the people are dunces inclined to the lowest culture. Anne Coulter is a polarizing figure who expresses simple opinions in broadly sarcastic language...a ten year old can understand her political philosophy, so she is perfect for America's pie-throwing political culture of juvenile non-debate. "Faggot" v. "Shrill Bitch" is easier and more satisfying to the masses than any more sophisticated debate. No one who really reads informed books about politics (Conservative or Liberal) wouldn read one of Coulter's doorstops. They are intended entirely to goad and confuse those American who are alreadys full of rage and confusion and provoke those who easily respond to blunt provocation. However, it works, so the smarter and more interesting conservative writers will continue to get paragraph length entries, and Anne will join J.K. Rowling as a woman writer with a longer entry than Flannery O'Conner. Huzzah for the tyranny of the masses in action. Also, someone should add that she is extremely tall with shoulders like Hercules. The pictures really don't do that justice.

John Edwards comments

It only distracts from the truth, try and find a OB-GYN in West Virginia, I guess a 'bundle of sticks' is more a threat to our well-being than proper medical care.

I suggest at least a week's moratorium on including this in the article to see the extent of coverage, if any, but here's another Coulter gem: Source w/Video

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot' – so... Kind of at an impasse. Can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions." - Coulter at this year's CPAC.

--kizzle 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits to the title of your post to avoid any BLP issues. This way the reader's know you are simply relaying Coulter's words. I hope there is no offense taken. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mine was a direct quote, so I don't see how that violated BLP (but no offense taken :) ). --kizzle 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Any (possible) BLP issues". I am not sure if it did or not, but I figured let's move on the safe side. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia, or a catalog of Coulter comments, anti-Coulter comments, and slurs from folks with agendas? Lou Sander 02:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant by "slurs from folks with agendas" (are you talking about kizzle or Ann Coulter?) but the remarks from the CPAC event have already generated note: [1] [2] [3]. That only within a day or so of it happening. I assume we're waiting a while to include it because it has yet to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. --Ubiq 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course he's talking about me. --kizzle 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it seems he's slurring you and has an agenda (something on his user page about how he "respects [Coulter's] brilliance"). -- Jibal 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Total wikiquotebait. Let's avoid recentism. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 04:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said let's wait a while to see if it gets picked up...if not, then pass it up. Just giving you guys a heads-up. P.S., I can't wait until someone tries to defend this comment. --kizzle 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of humorous as a play on both political correctness, the recent rehab spate of everyone and the feigned impasse. Vitriolic to be sure but not anything more than what is routinely thrown her way. It got picked up [4]. --Tbeatty 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like non-trivial coverage thanks to Howard Dean. Will probably become even more significant if Republican candidates comment on her remarks, but it should certainly find a home in the article now. Thanks for the tip, Kizzle, and thanks for waiting on reliable coverage. Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edit war, let's hold off on adding this if we even decide to add it at all until at least a week, so we have a good idea as to the media impact. As it stands, Fox News covered it, Editor and Publisher covered it, Michelle Malkin condemning it, Captain's Quarters condemning it, Howard Dean condemning it, Olbermann's show covered it, and more coming, this may have some weight to it. --kizzle 06:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The John Edwards comments are part of a pattern in her speech where she makes accusations about an individual's supposed homosexuality. It is a significant distinction within her style and since she is a unique political and social commentator the pattern deserves recognition. Since it has been used repeatedly, it has become a important and meaningful part of her message. Txjeffrey 07:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's part of political satire designed to needle her political opponents. --Tbeatty 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, she isn't a comedian she is a political partisan who is engaging in antilocution and hate speech in an attempt to degrade and intimidate he political opponents. It is not satire and to characterize it as such is misleading.[Agreed] Txjeffrey 15:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is not recognised as a political satirist, nor have any of her numerous controversial comments been interpreted or reported as satire in either the traditional media or online media. Her comments are clearly non-satirical. Kronix1986 17:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is we just don't know when she's being satirical or sarcastic. However, if we just stick to issues of whether this comment is notable, and simply report on what happened, the reader can decide for themselves whether it is "political satire" or "hate speech". --kizzle 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kizzle, I agree. My opinion is she isn't a satirist and her remarks are meant to belittle, not humor. But that isn't the main point of my argument which is this is another occurrence of a rhetorical pattern--part of a theme which I feel is now noteworthy because it has appeared repeatedly. Since yesterday two speakers at the conference have condemned her remarks which arguably gives her remarks more weight. Because she is unique among her peers with a unique style and with a wide following, I feel it is appropriate to present a thorough citation of her work.Txjeffrey 19:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The "theme" of her using derogatory terms towards homosexuals is something we may want to discuss if the passage ends up meriting inclusion, but let's hold off a while to avoid Kyaa's correct point about recentism, as we're not a news site and we need a better assessment of its notability. --kizzle 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't satire. -- Jibal 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If Ann Coulter is a "satirist" then you're suggesting that she's portraying a fictional character who doesn't reflect her own true personal convictions, but rather playing to an exaggerated stereotype. Is that what you're trying to say here? KyuzoGator 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have major concerns regarding recentism, the introduction of personal analysis and the fact that quotations should be placed on wikiquote, not here. Kyaa the Catlord 08:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For recentism, I agree. We need to hold off for a little while to assess the media impact and notability of the comment. I also agree that there shouldn't be any personal analysis calling it "hate speech" or anything else similar. However, if it ends up satisfying notability, then we only need to word it into prose and not just a naked quote, just like many of her other quotes that are contained within this article as well as wikiquote. --kizzle 18:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand, Kyaa. Many see this article and its discussion page as places to express their disdain for Ann Coulter. That is their total motivation. Lou Sander 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessary, Lou. Lots of people have worked hard to improve this article. --Ubiq 16:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To overlook the widespread opposition to her ideology and condemnation of her comments would be omitting crucial information from the article. The only "motivation" of people editing the article is to accurately and non-pejoratively catalogue her views for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. Kronix1986 17:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. --kizzle 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Lou's total motivation is to violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF whenever possible [/snark] -- Jibal 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested some help from AN/I. We shouldn't need to edit war over this. (Strange bedfellows recently, eh?) Kyaa the Catlord 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, to understand the "recentism" we need to keep in perspective it's reference to the "Gray's Anatomy" reference that this is made contemporaneously. This is the satire part of it and is important part of the context. [5] --Tbeatty 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, according to googlenews we now have many sources mentioning the topic. While not all of the sources there are WP:RS, enough are that it is hard to argue against inclusion at this point. JoshuaZ 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link... checking the mainstream sources, I find this incident covered in the New York Times [6], Washington Post, Editor and Publisher, even Hotline (National Journal), along with UPI, Fox News, Countdown, and probably others. I'm also asserting it's notability for inclusion. Does anybody disagree? --kizzle 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to include the context of Grey's Anatomy to be NPOV. Tbeatty 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I certainly concur and feel it worthy of a subcategory similar to the ones currently existing. Also, Tbeatty has a valid point regarding the reference to Grey's Anatomy and giving the reader a clear understanding of the origin of the rehab portion of her remark.Txjeffrey 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. --kizzle 22:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the well demonstrated WP:OWN violations going on here, and defended by Kizzle and Kyaa on the AN/I, I've opted for Boldness, and restored two sections which were both fully sourced, and repeatedly added by editors who feel the sections are worthy of inclusion. factor in the comments by editors shocked that Wikipedia FAILED to include such well sourced information, and it's clear that this addition corrects a failing on the page. ThuranX 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the WP:CIVIL, the WP:NPA and the obvious mischaractizations by ThuranX on Kizzle, I'll be bold and revert. Are we having fun yet? Kyaa the Catlord 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa, your edit summary was a WP:NPAvio. I'll let it go this time, but you need to rein it in. I made the edit based on the comments by editors here and on the AN/I, where people expressed surprise that with as much coverage as it has, it's NOT on wikipedia, and given the list above by Kizzle, INcluding FOXNEWS, and teh NYT, if both sides of the fourth estate are covering it, if her fellow speakers are responding to it, and if readers are looking for it, we should include it. it is well sourced, and if we chose to, we could use all of Kizzle's list to make it one of the single most extensively sourced paragraphs ever on wikipedia. that's not a POINT violation, it's being bold in the face of obstructionism citing 'recentism' as a reason to not include an event on the national news. I'll ignore that PA this time, but I suggest you let it stand. Numerous additions, citations and so on extensively support it's inclusion. ThuranX 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an directory of quotations. We've simply asked that we wait for some evidence that this is a notable controversy. Newsworthiness does not equal notability. If we listed every time that Coulter shot off her mouth, this article would challenge the library of congress in size. Is this a notable spouting of nonsense by Coulter? Probably not. Is it the most recent, yes. Gaming the system to try to overcome consensus is not cool. Kyaa the Catlord 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Coulter's spouting is always notable. She's got a major national following and deliberately seeks media attention to garner more sales and attention. This time, she's managed to insult a major political figure at a level which skirts slander with the thinnest of veneers. AGAIN, I reassert, the massive coverage, response from within her own party and the expectations of readers to see such information substantiates that it is NOT transitory, and DOES belong in the article. Should she do nothing more along this line, then in six months or a year, it can be collapsed into a general 'Other controversies' section, perhaps. but for now, it's relevant and noteworthy. The NYT, and FOXNEWS, and WashingtonPost are all carrying it, in addition to wire services, major blogs, and on, and on, and on. Stop making your baseless personal attacks aabout me gaming the system, and making POINT violations. One more out of you and I'll take this right back to AN/I. You argued it's content, I came back and argued the content. Your reply, Personal Attacks. Irony much? ThuranX 00:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's review. ThuranX hops onto AN/I and starts attacking myself and Kizzle, accusing her of being a "freeper" and protecting conservatives. He throws out some baseless arguments about WP:OWN when I was reporting some sock infringements by our old friend GeorgeBP, as reported by Cool Hand Luke (an admin in good standing). Then he comes and decides to be bold and restart the revert wars on his own. This is the end of our review. Kyaa the Catlord 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are entirely mischaracterizing what amounts to a satirical comment about a) our culture of redemption through rehab and b) the shock value of language a la George Carlin. She essentially said "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" but with the "Grey's Anatomy" twist. She didn't call anyone a name. It's a biting style considering the word she used, but it's satirical humour nonetheless. Also characterizing her comment as "spouting" is not very encyclopedic. --Tbeatty 00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she referred to the Grey's anatomy "rehab" nonsense. However, in doing so, she called Edwards a "faggot". It's not like it was the first time she used the word, she also called Al Gore a "total fag". --kizzle 01:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, she said she couldn't talk about Edwards. That's the humour part. And the Al Gore quote was a total deadpan humour line. This is very similiar to Al Franken. I find them both very funny with very biting satire. --Tbeatty 01:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But the logical implication is that she would use "faggot" as a descriptor, no? The presence of sarcasm in a statement is not a license to freely interpret meaning, as sarcasm indicates that the meaning is opposite of its intention. Thus, the sarcasm directed towards Isiah Washington (which I fully agree is a bullshit remedy a la Mel Gibson/Ted Haggard/Mark Foley) still does not negate the logical implication that she was referring to Edwards as a "faggot". That's my take, at least. It's also the take of Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney, all of whom condemned her statement. --kizzle 03:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was serious so I am not sure how to interpret it. I think the word choice is condemnable and is why they condemned it. But I think the humour that was both meant and understood by the audience is lost in simply a literal/logical interpretation. For example, if she was making a joke about how stiff Al Gore is and said something like 'I'd talk about Al Gore but I was taught never to speak ill of the dead.' There would be no claims that she was threatening his life (or if there, they would be silly). There would be no literal intrepretation that she was saying he was actually dead. It would simply be picked up for the word play that it is. The issue here isn't that she called Edwards "a faggot", but rather her word choice may be seen as offensive even in the context of joke. There is no reason though to try to turn the quote into something other than a joke. Highlight it's offensiveness of the word but the context is still an attempt at humour. --Tbeatty 04:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The of my favorite programs used to start with a statement "may offend the easily offended...." This is also Coulter's schtick. Kyaa the Catlord 04:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, Your points are excellent but her comments, however interpreted were either a joke or not. Was she wrapping a personal attack within a joke? This can't be concluded, just as it cant be concluded whether it was just a simple botched attempt at humor.Txjeffrey 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you actually read the sources for these, you see that the quotes were cherry-picked and lacked the satirical context in which they were made. Kyaa the Catlord 00:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. I'm not going to watchlist this page, in little time, I'm sure all of the bad about Coulter will again be gone. yet again, Agenda of Encyclopedia. I'm done with this issue, someone else can fight it. ThuranX 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

K, bye. --kizzle 01:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this article listed on ANI, and have had a longtime interest in Ms. Coulter. I think her McVeigh/NY Times comment was my favorite! What's yours? I will study the situation closely and post my assessment and conclusions soon. - FaAfA (yap) 04:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is looking pretty good. I have not viewed it for some time. Kudos to everyone who has contributed. I agree that she was attempting to be satirical in this instance tho she is in general not a satirist but also that that should not factor into whether or not this comment should be included. The comment does not carry the weight of controversy that it would if spoken by some other pundits. By her extravagances Coulter crosses the line into being an entertainer and so I think a lot of poeple take what she says with a grain of salt. As others have noted the reaction is more important and needs to be gauged. (Trajancavalous 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

The disagreement above by kizzle and Tbeatty can easily be resolved by including the quote, without analysis as to whether it was a joke or not. I also think relevant, agreed upon context can/should be provided. If we're going to include the reference to the cast members of Grey's anatomy, we need to find a reliable source for this (I'm sure it's not lacking), as otherwise it would appear to be original research. The title Use of the word "fag" or "faggot" albeit a neutral one, seems a bit odd to me. Maybe it's just me. However, it's better than a title like Accusations of homosexuality, which seems to imply that her comments weren't jokes. I don't think we can know if she was joking or not, and therefore it's not in our place to be deciding such things as editors.

The event is already notable. That it's recent has little to do with anything pertaining to notability. We need to be careful in assessing the quote and presenting it as a joke or not. I'm sure some sources will say "it was just a joke" and some will say "she called Edwards a faggot", and unless we're quoting these sources, we need to assert nothing of the sort. --Ubiq 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good point in the preceding two comments. I too think this needs a new subtitle. For consistency, similarity to the other subtitles seems more appropriate. Comments about individuals is the most generic. Perhaps a more specific title to consider is Comments about politicians and public officials. The allegations of homosexuality are just part of her rhetorical style. Another consistency in her style is her advocating justifiable death of public officials which has similarly created notable controversy and could be included in this section at some point if deemed appropriate.Txjeffrey 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Coulter's known for making attention-grabbing comments, and this isn't the first time that she's used or seemed to infer use of the words "fag" or "faggot". That having been said, the media hasn't and the Democratic party have not flipped out every other time she's used the word, so I fail to see what's different other than the fact that they cared to look NOW. If nothing else, it should be noted in her article that she's prone to using derogatory language about gay people (or accusing people of being gay); if we covered every instance where she used the word, this article would be a LOT longer. --PeanutCheeseBar 14:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Coverage has also now occured in the New York Times- [7]. Also, it isn't our job to decide if she was attempting to joke or engage in satire. JoshuaZ 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Coverage is now also ongoing on the front page of CNN.com. I think the burden of inclusion has been overcome (very much so) -- we're doing a disservice by not including this event. Both political parties, several presidential candidates, and other pundits have issued statements regarding COulter's comments. Unprotect and add. /Blaxthos 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --kizzle 21:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be handled similarily to the John Kerry botched joke controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right Kyaa? The "botched joke" controversy ended up turning into a huge edit/revert war, and was listed as such on Wikipedia's lamest edit wars. Anyways, it can be included, but it shouldn't be a section all of its own; Coulter's made comments like this several times in the past, the media has reported on it, and life goes on. If anything, a list should be made, but that's about it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, it doesn't seem like some people will give up without including it. So let's do the timewarp again. Kyaa the Catlord 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think people are reluctant to give up including it because of the amount of mainstream sources that covered it, along with Republican presidential candidates, Michelle Malkin, Howard Dean, and a bunch of other people, all of which makes the incident notable. --kizzle 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely notable for all the reasons said above. Makgraf 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So, if I understand this correctly - we should avoid recentism unless something is picked up and carried throughout the press? It's not enough for something to be a fact or a documented or cited fact. It has to be a fact that is popularly covered wide and far? Does this mean that since very little to no coverage has been afforded to, say, Darfur - it should be ignored and not covered as a historical article or issue of current event? A comment of significance should most certainly appear in your article on wikipedia. Especially if it has caused a significant stir as this has. I fail to see how there should be any discussion as to whether it should be included or not to begin with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cordell (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I think the answer to your question is that quotations within Coulter's bio requires a higher standard of notability than other articles, simply because she makes so many controversial statements. Of course a detailed article on Darfur is justified, and should contain as much information as possible based upon verifiable and reliable sources. The Darfur case also contains a high amount of non-controversial concrete descriptive facts, whereas here we're discussing whether one controversial statement out of a million that have already been spoken deserves inclusion. In the case of Coulter, if we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard of notability, this article is going to be a repository for every dumb thing Coulter has ever said in the past. Kyaa's initial concern of recentism was entirely justified, as she says shit that pisses off liberals every week, and even gets some media coverage for those statements almost as often. We had to wait until it was absolutely clear that this incident rose above the rest of the dumb shit she says, and in mine and others' opinions, when all top-tier Republican presidential candidates weighed in, as well as Michelle Malkin, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Amaechi, in addition to being covered on almost every major news outlet, it showed a clear demonstration of the incident's notability. We ended up only waiting a few days, and I believe such caution especially on this page is justified in order to prevent this article from becoming "What dumb shit did Coulter say this week?". --kizzle 03:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend that the heading be changed back from "2007 Homosexual Slur Controversy" to something more neutral, like: "2007 CPAC Controversy"Marieblasdell 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the word "controversy" is even included here gives credence to the argument that what she said is appropriate. There is nothing controversial about her comments. They are disgusting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.230.167 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Much like the NY Times article on the Elizabeth Edwards vs. Ann Coulter issue, I think this article takes the comment Coulter made on June 25 completely out of context. (I'm referring to the "Edwards should be attacked by terrorists" comment.) The video is here http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3309572&page=1 . Maybe we should consider adding to the quote (around 1:04 of the video) "But about the same time, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. Um, so I've learned my lesson . . ."Davesawyer 19:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets back?

Based on the recent edits adding the contentious category and 'see also' (see archive 17) I'm thinking another sock may have raised its head. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Already filed another check request, although I'm not familiar with what they want exactly (feel free to help add evidence). It seems especially clear to me that Jill is GeorgeBP. Some of the others are more into vandalism, and some just want a "faggot" section, so I'm not sure. Could be socks of two or more people. Not a lot to work off of. Any ideas about which are connected? Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, GeorgeBP was the one I was thinking of - the Jill edits were identical. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Gods, I do what Jossi suggested last time and AN/I is like "the editors there have WP:OWN issues". Admins suck. (with notable exceptions) Back to the war. Kyaa the Catlord 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware she was a suffragess

Exactly how does her quotes on the political/comedy/commentary program Politically Incorrect relate to her notability? Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, they were covered in multiple other sources such as the Guardian. JoshuaZ 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And? Why are these quotes notable to her? She makes a lot of off-hand remarks, especially ones where she's "joking", as shown by the Guardian's "she said laughing". Honestly, four words, huge out of context quote, does not meet the wikistandards. Why we're discussing an edit made by an indef blocked vandal is beyond me, in the first place.... Not everything should be included. Wikipedia is not wikiquote, if you want to have nearly naked quotes without framing them in how they relate to her notability, put them on wikiquote. Kyaa the Catlord 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My sentiment is that this particular quote isn't that notable. Reproduce coverage from more mainstream coverage like NY Times, WaPo, etc., and you may change my mind, but the Guardian quoting a Bill Maher interview.... ehhh. --kizzle 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The first "source" seems to be some wingbat blog as well. Kyaa the Catlord 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's documented in the Time article. I never knew Ms. Coulter's personal religious practices were of such import. Is it encyclopedic and NPOV to expound on Ms. Coulter's religiosity at such length? To give the issue about 5 times the amount of weight as the voting irregularities issue? - FaAfA (yap) 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm game for cutting the hell out of her religious views section. Kyaa the Catlord 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, what? How are her religious views not notable? She's been very loud about what they are and has made clear that they influence her decisions deeply. The section isn't that long in any event. JoshuaZ 15:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to pile on Kyaa the Catlord but how can you ignore a prominant American saying that islam ought to be replaced by Christianity? Especially when there are fundamentalist Muslims out there who point to remarks like that and say we are trying to eliminate Islam. Muslims in poor countries without access to independant sources may actually see her as the embodiment of everything we as Americans stand for if that's what the propaganda says. I'm not saying what I just said should be included in the article, but given the state of the world today how can her religious views don't matter? Anynobody 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is not covered, nor was it covered, in her personal religious views subsection. Kyaa the Catlord 09:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the way Kyaa trimmed it. JoshuaZ 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential Edwards facts for inclusion

Obviously not all will make it in to avoid violating due weight, but just putting up facts that people can use.

• YouTube link
• "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions," said Coulter, whose comment was followed by applause. [8]
• Audience members appeared startled, then many clapped, and she opened the floor to questions. The event was carried on C-SPAN. Many newspapers, including The New York Times, covered the event but failed to mention the Coulter slur at first. (Editor and Publisher)
• Mr. Edwards’s aides responded with an e-mail message that attacked Ms. Coulter and urged supporters to donate to Mr. Edwards’s campaign. “John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power,” said his campaign manager, David E. Bonior. “Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter’s resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion.” [9]
• "Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible," Edwards said in a posting on his Web site, www.johnedwards.com. "In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large." [10]
• Edwards' campaign posted the video on their Web site, and asked readers to help them "raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry." [11] "I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it."
• Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.” [12]
• “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said [John McCain's] spokesman, Brian Jones. [13]
• Mr. Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.” [14]
• Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.” Mr. Romney preceded Ms. Coulter at the event and mentioned that she was speaking later — he jokingly referred to her as a “moderate.” But he was not in the room when she spoke, Mr. Madden said. [15]
• The remarks also drew disapproval from some popular conservative commentators. Ed Morrissey on his Captain's Quarters blog wrote: "Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann." [16]
• In a written statement, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said, "Ann Coulter's words of hate have no place in the public sphere much less our political discourse. Not only should she apologize but those who participated in the conference with her should denounce her shameful and divisive actions." [17]
• "Ann Coulter's use of this anti-gay slur is vile and unacceptable," said Neil G. Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, "and the applause from her audience is an important reminder that Coulter's ugly brand of bigotry is at the root of the discriminatory policies being promoted at this gathering." [18]
• Michelle Malkin expressed disapproval, and at her Hot Air site regular contributor "Bryan" wrote: "I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying. Last year it was 'raghead.' This year it’s calling John Edwards a 'faggot.' Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come. Thanks, Ann." [19]
• Democratic Party chief Howard Dean weighed in later: "There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans -- including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today -- should denounce her hateful remarks." [20]
• John Amaechi response on YouTube.
• Coulter's response on her website: "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!" [21]

--kizzle 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably the entire quote plus selected reaction. Probably something like this (not fully developed):

In an allusion to the Grey's anatomy stars' (I forget who it was) use of the slur 'Faggot' and his subsequent rehab stint, Ann Coulter made the following statement <full quote> at a speech to CPAC in <wherever it was>. The audience appeared startled but responded with laughter and applause. The slur was roundly condemned by politicians, gay rights organizations and pundits from around the political spectrum.

I'm not sure if there is room for each individual condemnation and it would probably be hard to decide which is more worthy. Maybe John Edwards response is notable along with the fundraising aspect of it. --Tbeatty 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to note that while she was alluding to the Isaiah Washington situation, that almost all news sources are reporting that she was referring to Edwards as a "faggot":

• CNN - "condemned right-wing commentator Ann Coulter for her reference Friday to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot.""
• ABCNews - " Coulter made the comments on Friday during a speech at the influential American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference, calling Edwards a "faggot."" [22]
• Fox News - "she called the former North Carolina senator and presidential hopeful a "faggot"" [23]
• NY Times - "Ann Coulter...offered an example of it when she used an anti-gay epithet on Friday to describe John Edwards" [24]

--kizzle 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured that using the full quote would make it obvious about who and what she was saying. --Tbeatty 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that the media has jumped all over this while taking the joke out of context is much more notable than the fact she said it. She made her point and they added an exclamation point to it. Kyaa the Catlord 00:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My take (citations will be turned into ref tags to look cleaner)

---

Coulter drew considerable criticism for statements she made at the 2007 CPAC, where she referred to presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot" in an allusion to Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington's use of the word and his subsequent stint in rehab: [25] [26] [27]

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions." (Video)

The audience appeared startled, but then applauded Coulter's statements [28]. Edwards responded on his website by characterizing Coulter's words as "un-American and indefensible" [29] and asking readers to help him "raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry." Coulter's words also drew condemnation from Republican presidential candidates John McCain [30], Rudy Giuliani [31], and Mitt Romney [32], as well as conservative commentator Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters [33], Michelle Malkin [34], Howard Dean [35], the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation [36], Ted Kennedy [37], and John Amaechi [38]. Coulter responded to the controversy in an e-mail to the New York Times: "C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean." [39] She also posted a response on her website: "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!" [40]

---

--kizzle 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would change 'she referred to presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot"' to 'she used the slur "faggot" in reference to presidential candidate John Edwards'. I think it's more accurate. I have no problem with it though. --Tbeatty 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's what I said before. Fox News said "she called Edwards a "faggot"". NY Times said she "used an anti-gay epithet on Friday to describe John Edwards" E&P's headline is that Coulter "called Edwards a "faggot"". Subsequently, I believe "Coulter called Edwards a "faggot"" is a safe statement to make. --kizzle 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add "where she referred to" as "where she jokingly referred to". The media may have missed that she was telling a joke, but we shouldn't. Kyaa the Catlord 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding "jokingly referred to" presents the problems Ramsquire brought up when we were discussing the CBC: with Coulter especially, and given her frequent but not uniform usage of sarcasm, it's tough to say what is a joke in the official tone. My proposed passage does, however, quote Coulter saying "It was a joke", so hopefully that will be good enough. You said we should treat this like the Kerry botched joke, it's the same thing: we don't say whether it was a botched joke or not, we just report what she said and that she claimed "It was a joke". --kizzle 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Kizzle especially because concluding that the tone was joking constitutes WP:OR. JoshuaZ 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kizzle, you're spot on and I agree with Tbeatty's suggestion.Txjeffrey 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Coulter drew criticism for statements she made at the 2007 CPAC, where she used the slur "faggot" in reference to presidential candidate John Edwards in an allusion to Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington's use of the word and his subsequent stint in rehab: [41] [42] [43]

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions." (Video)

The audience appeared startled, but then applauded Coulter's statements [44]. Edwards responded on his website by characterizing Coulter's words as "un-American and indefensible" [45] and asking readers to help him "raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry." Coulter's words also drew condemnation from Republican presidential candidates John McCain [46], Rudy Giuliani [47], and Mitt Romney [48], as well as conservative commentator Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters [49], Michelle Malkin [50], Howard Dean [51], the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) [52], Ted Kennedy [53], and John Amaechi [54]. Coulter responded in an e-mail to the New York Times: "C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean." [55] She also posted a response on her website: "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!" [56]

---

I think it's okay not to characterize it as a joke. I'd prefer not to characterize it at all (jsut quote it) and leave it smaller but I have no problem with longer as long as it includes her response. I touched up with my additions. My shorter version is up higher. Maybe wehn it dies down, it might be more appropriate. --Tbeatty 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work. Job well done.Txjeffrey 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you changed but I think i'm fine with your version Tbeatty :) I'll compromise on the "in reference to", as long as we're indicating the term was used towards Edwards. --kizzle 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A question on audience laughter: It's clearly audbible. It's in some of the first hand accounts in the sources [[57]. But I haven't seen it characterized anywhere byt the press. Does the laughter deserve mention as audience response? I don't think there's a question it was there, just whether it can be reliably sourced. --Tbeatty 01:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins: un-protection please? --kizzle 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To request un-protection, go to WP:RPP. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

About "the audience appeared startled". I don't get that impression from watching the video. There was immediate chortling, then applause, then more applause and she finished up. I don't see any startled-ness there, despite what the cited source states. (Do we keep their words even if they are obviously incorrect?) Kyaa the Catlord 09:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. There's no need to include clearly wrong information, even if it is sourced. That part of the sentence can be removed, I think. ~Switch ^{t c g} 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The sentence "(This was after Edwards had come under fire for hiring, firing, re-hiring and re-firing two pronounced anti-Christian bloggers)." seems designed to imply hypocrisy in Edwards's criticism of Coulter. Nor is it NPOV to refer to the bloggers as "pronounced anti-Christian," which is certainly not how they self-identify or are commonly referred to.

206.223.238.155 05:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Emilyxc, March 14, 2007

sources for the "faggot" remark

[58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]

I know that people are complaining about the number of sources for her remark against John Edwards, so here are a number of sources that show how notable it is and also helps to verify the infomation. dposse 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think notablility will fade. It's a current event. Last year at the same conference, one of the sources pointed out she used the slur "raghead". It's essentially a sentence today as part of a larger paragraph. I suspect this will fade into a sentence or part of a sentence as time fades. Unfortunately a real time encyclopedia seems to emphasize the immediate. I think this is just the nature of the beast and simply needs to be as concise and neutral as possible given the amount of detail that people want for current events. The hard part is not to do an injustice to the subject. --Tbeatty 04:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, it would be interesting to have a moratorium on all but the most basic current events for 6 months on BLPs just to see what would happen. Or maybe have a biography section and a current events section. I suspect that most biographies of contemporary controversial figures need to be rewritten every 6 motnhs or so because they become a jumble of random events, quotes, and tidbits. --Tbeatty 04:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible, but irrelevant at the moment. This is getting a lot of coverage. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not paper. If someone gets to be sufficiently controversial we can always split the controversy off to another article and only have the major ones on the main article. At this point Coulter's article is short enough that we dont need to worry about this at all. JoshuaZ 05:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with JoshuaZ. The notability of these comments may or may not fade, but it certainly deserves a place in the article now because Wikipedia is niether paper nor a crystal ball. We often must trim articles to avoid undue weight. At any rate, it's rare she provokes such a response from prominent Republicans. For this reason, if I were in the prognostication business, I think her Edwards remark might become one of the classicly-repeated Coulterisms. Maybe right up with converting them to Cristianity. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And the difference between an encyclopedia and a tabloid newspaper is? Lou Sander 13:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR come to mind. But I do get your point. And people are right that she will probably not be terribly notable in the distant future. But we're not editors of a paper encyclopedia in the year 2100. We're editors of a non-paper encyclopedia in 2007, and this article is being fed traffic from people searching google in conjunction with her latest attack. Trying to omit tabloidish New York Times stories before they're X days old underserves our readers and is quixotic at best. Incoming readers view it as an omission and add it in whether we take the hundred-year view or not. It's better then to make such coverage accord with N, V, and NOR. We'll trim for undue wieght later when we have better perspective, but lacking the future wisdom of August or 2100 is no reason to leave cited stories out. Cool Hand Luke 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it wrong that this piece of vandalism made me chuckle? "becauthe thith wath very, very hurtful to Gay Americanth, not to mention mean-thpirited" Kyaa the Catlord 14:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an advocate of perpetuating stereotypes (or hatred) but I can't deny the fact that it made me laugh a little when reading it for the first time. Laughing is natural though. What can ya do? --Ubiq 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't get it. Is that what John Edwards sounds like? Nil Einne 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It's a stereotype of gay males, that they talk with a lisp. like this: lisp -> lithp --Ubiq 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember the test for notability isn't enduring notability. All that requires is that at one point it was notable. I don't think there is any serious question that these comments are notable right now. Therefore inclusion is proper. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial statements at the 2007 CPAC: allusion needs referencing

This allusion in the aforementioned section, "...where she used the word, 'faggot,' in reference to presidential candidate John Edwards in an allusion to Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington's use of the word and his subsequent stint in rehab..." needs to be cited as the citation provided does not include the above citation. Mystyc1 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that took ten seconds. Kyaa the Catlord 05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

I discovered that the bit about Coulter on Hardball was lifted directly from Media Matters for America and removed it. Sorry. Kyaa the Catlord 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i though the tag system got deleted

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 5 tags on this one person around 1 statement he made. so 2 rules in place? y dont you guys bring the arguments used here over there.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"y dont you guys bring the arguments used here over there" Probably because Coulter is arguably a political satirist and Ahmadinejad isn't. Don't vandalize other talk pages because you lose arguments on other pages.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How did this user vandalize anything here? --Ubiq 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shreveport Times Citation

In the section on negative reaction to her column, the article implies Coulter was dropped from the Shreveport Times and supports this with citation #40. She was not dropped and is still a weekly column to this day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkrell (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Removed from list. I'm trying to check the other papers, but not having much luck. Kyaa the Catlord 06:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They had discussed dropping her previously, but apparently have done so after her latest comments. [64] and [65]. I put this info back in with a citation, but if this list gets much longer we might need to make a table or list. R. Baley 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter NOT on Michigan Law Review

I attended Michigan Law School at the same time as Coulter, one class ahead of her. I was on the Law Review and served on the executive board my third year (her second). She WAS NOT ON the Michigan Law Review. Would/could somebody edit the article so that it is accurate on this point?

There were several other law reviews at Michigan at the time, and she might have been on one of them. I don't know. I vividly remember her starting the Federalist Society at Michigan during her first year and that was her claim to fame around the school.

Amk49709 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. We seem to have a reliable source that says otherwise. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have no choice but to go with the reliable source. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking in more detail, I can't find the claim in the source given, so I've removed it. JoshuaZ 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Found it. JoshuaZ 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I will call michgan shortly to confirm the 1988 and 1987 mastheads. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's on the masthead of vol 85 No. 1 (October 1986) as an associate editor, "Ann Coulter of Connecticut". She became an article editor by vol. 86 No. 5 (April 1988). Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work, all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"CPAC" vs. "Homosexual Slur"

The name of the section regarding Coulter's most recent controversy has been changed to "2007 CPAC Controversy". I think the homosexual slur title is more accurate and appropriate as the controversy concerns Coulter's use of the slur and not her attendance at the CPAC. In addition there is no controversy with the CPAC about Coulter's appearance there. The controversy is about Coulter and her use of the slur, therefore the title should be changed back. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm against this change. The title appears to have been changed during the morning "vandalism" spree. :( Kyaa the Catlord 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't live in a society where "faggot" is unanimously considered a slur like "nigger" is, and thus is a controversial label. Subsequently, while I believe you are right Ramsquire, I'm going to have to lean towards the "2007 CPAC Controversy", though of course I wouldn't mind if we ended up adopting your suggestion. --kizzle 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the current title better illuminates that it is what Coulter said at the event that is controversial. So my objection is duly withdrawn. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kizzle's current version of the caption: 'Controversial statements at CPAC.' seems just fine to me.

I don't see a problem with the 'homosexual slur controversy' subsection title. The problem I have with '2007 CPAC controversy', is that readers not familiar with the subject are not going to know what the hell 'CPAC' is, and spelling it out is going to be way too long. '2007 CPAC controversy' is probably the kind of thing that will only be seen on wikipedia and nowhere else. Dr. Cash 05:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia isn't censored let's just make it say "Faggot controversy" No POV issues or confusion there. JoshuaZ 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Heck, if we are going to do that, why not just use the same format as the "Comments on Islam, Arabs and Terrorism" and just call it "Comments on faggots"? Please. --Tbeatty 07:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Faggotgate?" or "Queer Smear 07?" :P Kyaa the Catlord 07:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's call it gay controversy. This controversy is gay. Kyaa the Catlord 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares for my opinion, i think the current "2007 John Edwards controversy" is perfectly fine. dposse 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How about it gets reduced back to the single paragraph and it's not a section? This is way beyond undue weight if her comments at CPAC are covered in depth. Her comments last year at the same conference were just as controversial and also included a slur. Scale this back to te original paragraph. --Tbeatty 06:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I question why the tiny newspapers are notable as well. Kyaa the Catlord 06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the tiny newspapers are worth mentioning. We certainly don't mention it when a newspaper picks up her column, right? Now, if there's been a significant decrease, (or increase, for that matter), in the papers that carry her column, that'd be worth mentioning. Is that information that's available?Marieblasdell 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No way! There is no way wikipedia is only able to refer to the biggest papers. If it is public & distributed publicly it can be refered to! There is no way that only the biggest networks or papers in whatever country we are talking about are of note. If i wish to refer to a small independent paper, in Russia lets say, i have a right to, just because the large ones currently dominate or are under a common rubric doesnt mean they are the only notable ones, and this applies to every country on the globe including the US, people can refer to whatever paper they wish, hopefully they choose articles that are well reported and accurate, but if someone has issues with that referal then they can post counter references with a different side to the issue, or if they can show it was patently false or inaccurate or misleading in a discussion they can remove it, but take this tyranny of the majority argument back where it came from. Anyways a small US paper has a right to be represented if an editor so wishes to refer to it, and as i said before this particular issue of her latest controversial remarks should be reasonable in length to other sections, yet I am against deleting a bunch of information just as a couple of editors really want to spend some time with something compiling stuff, even though my opinion is this is one of the least of the controversial things she has said and she is being unfairly attacked over it, there are other things far more controversial and potentially highly inflamatory.

for instance this controversy over the word "faggot" is not going to produce a bunch of violence, yet her remarks using the word "raghead" for instance, while i do support her free speech, and her ability to make jokes or slurs about something she feels she needs to, just as I should be able to make sarcastic remarks about a really stuffy arrogant thick-skulled christian for instance, or the way they dress, if I wish... none the less, in the circumstances of her making that remark, considering the extremely tense violent situation at hand globally, she was within her rights, yet was just not wise, as she has further polarized her own country with it, is encouraging her country to make broad general swipes or accusations at all muslims or arabs when only a minority is responsible for the actions she is especially upset about, and on the other side, inflamatory remarks such as this by a well known highly publicized individual undoubtedly encourage further extremism if they are picked up in that part of the world, and undoubtedly would then increase the size of the minority she takes issue with for its violent means, and would thereby further increase the violence they would perpetrate to her own nation and people, so she had a right to this, yet in the particular climate it was an unwise remark, I would tell her she should be able to say what she wishes, yet unfortunately the current state of the world is not such that people in high profile positions such as hers should utilize their natural rights to full freedom of speech in highly public mass media forums thereby possibly inflaming or enraging people and creating potentially violent reactions...so she should be able to express her extreme anger, even call publicly for invasion of all muslim countries and to "christianize" them, yet to resort to ethnic-religious slurs in calling for this is the unwise part which is uncalled for and is actually perhaps more inflamatory than simply calling for retributive invasions...85.1.223.203 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make myself clear. It looks as though we're detailing every small newspaper that drops her column. What's notable about that? If we could show a trend toward less readership because of controversies, (or more readership), that would be notable.Marieblasdell 23:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement has so far gotten more coverage than her statements at the CPAC last year. I don't see any undue weight issue with it currently. If in 3 months this seems like a much smaller issue then we might consider an undue weight response. But in any event, it isn't like this page is so long (only 63 kb). I would furthermore suggest that if the various controversies are getting too long to just have the major ones in her article with mentions and have a fork of "Ann Coulter Controversies" And I still favor "Faggot Controversy" as NPOV and easy to locate. The other option would be "Edwards Controversy" maybe? JoshuaZ 08:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure...To everyone on wikipedias suprise I am "coming out of the closet" as a "friend of Ann Coulter"...it may indeed shock people familiar with my editing and writings...I have never met Ann, yet I am indeed perhaps even starting an advocacy group in support of Ann Coulter named "Friends of Ann Coulter"...My call is for the section to be renamed "controversial use of first ammendment rights to free speech"...and I think she has been unfairly targeted, she has a certain style, her style is often provocative or over the top, many times this is an attempt at humor, in any case she has a right to use the full extent of the english vocabulary to express her opinions without being demonized for it, and as long as she isnt advocating violence she is well within her rights, attack her for the content of her arguments, not for her sometimes flashy provocative style, some arent happy with her latest attempt at humor, yet whether you appreciate the joke or not, she has a right to full use of the english vocabularly, she did not tell people to head out to "hang all the gays" or something, she made use of a term, not even considered a profanity, such as others might use the term "red-neck", or a hip-hop singer might use the term "nigger", (these even ethnic based slang!)...people use terms like "commie scum", or "pinko", to talk about those on the left, or "nazi" or "fascist scum" to those on the right, for instance, based on ideological differences, and to advance their own position using a rhetorical flair, while some may think these slurs deflect from the substance of the discussion, and that they actually may end up hurting the users position in some cases, the user has full right to the full extent of the english language to express whatever opinion they may have. If anyone has a case against her for something she has said it would be the New York Times bombing remark, and I would tell her to be careful with such talk considering the laws in place in the US right now, and for this remark i would rebuke her to be more thoughtful about her highly public statements, as with her wide popularity it could indeed stir some in her fan base that lean towards the violent extreme to actually carry out such attacks, yet I still would argue she was within her 1st ammendment rights and was using the remark in a rhetorical sense to advance her position and argument and didnt actually plan such attacks to be actualized in reality. Anyways i certainly do not agree with many of the things Ann Coulter has spouted out, yet I believe in this instance she has been unfairly attacked while trying to use light humor to poke fun at something she doesnt believe in: homosexuality. And i have another confession to make actually...I'm coming out of the closet yet again.......indeed i admit here on wikipedia...that once...and its the only time it has ever occurred...once several years ago i indeed vandalized an ann coulter book...(it was a library book, and it wasnt exactly extreme vandalism, i think i took issue with something she said about Harry Truman)...anyways...yet indeed i wrote in a couple sentences explaining a few facts to dispute the argument Ann was purporting in her book...(in fact its the only thing i have written in an officially publicized form, the only thing I've ever written in a published book was in a copy of an Ann Coulter book)...anyways, you cant exactly call me a huge Ann Coulter fan, at least not until now...but after the attack on her for her use of freedom of speech and using light humor i have come to her defense, even to the point of incriminating myself if I were to come before a US court...anyways I'm not saying i agree it was wise or appropriate to use the joke or whether i thought it was funny, yet i believe it unfair to deprive her of free use of her most effective weapon to advance her positions and views on the subject of homosexuality or any other subject: her tongue...and i feel it highly hypocritical for people to attack her on this recent escapade when she has used the term "raghead" in the past which is quite plainly a much further and greater controversial remark as it is somewhat of an ethnic or religious slur, yet i do believe once again she was within her rights to express her opinion, if she is in a state of mind to be so put off by those she slurs, she has a right to this vocal catharsis...indeed in some countries she might be killed or beaten for such a remark, yet in many countries we have established a tradition of allowing people to express their minds even if it is controversial or "politically incorrect" language, plus they would not experience violent retribution or stir riots using this freedom in these countries, and the targets of these slurs would most often just laugh it off being sure enough of themselves to weather the verbal blow and perhaps even have a quick comeback to denigrate the user of the slur in like terms, so it is allowable...85.0.218.125 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is questioning the legality of her ability to utter the word "faggot". I'm just questioning her judgment. --kizzle 05:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus I'm boycotting Verizon, Sallie Mae, and Netbank, as well as The Oakland Press in Michigan, The Mountain Press of Sevierville, Tennessee, and the New Era in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, as the simple fact is she has made other statements of far more concern than this latest attempt at humor, if they had any backbone they would have discontinued her column or dropped sponsorship over more serious offences or the substance of some of her ramblings, yet of all the things Ann has said it is this that gets people to drop her column?, she didnt even actually use the word directly on anyone, only indirectly & on someone married with children in an attempt at a joke towards someone clearly even immune to the joke...85.0.218.125 05:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You may not have meant it this way, but Ann does not in fact have the right not to be demonized. She has the right to make the comment,but others havethe right to judge the comment. First Ammendment rights only become involved if she is arrested or something over her comments. (Wikifan999 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

Religious views subsection

Well, apparently Lonewolf doesn't like the tiny amount of trimming, I did to religious views a week ago. Anyone else? If not, I'm taking it back out. Kyaa the Catlord 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the additional details add in any useful fashion. I'm fine with the trim. JoshuaZ 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and retrimming. I left this article alone for 24 hours to see if anyone would flesh out their rationale for inclusion. Kyaa the Catlord 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as of 7 March, the deletions concerned were not done "last week" but "the day before yesterday" (5 March) and (somewhat more extensively) "yesterday" (6 March). I restored the material within a few hours, both times -- not that it should matter who restored it.
I restored the material because long-standing content has achieved consensus, and so it ought not be unilaterally deleted, without discussion or at least a note on the talk-page giving a rationale. Also, the likelihood of the deletion being overlooked, because of the vandalism-storm, seemed overly great. So foremostly I meant to ensure the deletion did not pass un-noticed, and was at least mooted somewhat.
As for content, the part that was commented-out seems to be more-or-less covered elsewhere, so I think it is no loss. The bit about quoting scripture at the beginning of "Godless" seems insignificant. The part about church attendance seems worth mentioning. -- Lonewolf BC 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Coulter Article Falsly Says Jones Suit "Summarily Dismissed."

The Jones suit was not "summarily dismissed," as the Coulter article falsely claims. It was dismissed on April 1, 1998, almost four years after it was filed on May 6, 1994, and after extensive discovery, including the deposition of President Clinton, which later touched off the expansion of Independent Council Starr's jurisdiction, and eventually led to a referral to Congress and the first impeachment of an elected President in American history on counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Before the case got to stage of the Clinton deposition, it had already been to the Supreme Court, where the court issued a historic ruling that the District Court may take discovery in a civil case against the President based upon alleged acts before the President took office. All of this important context is not conveyed by the outright false statement that the Jones case was "summarily dismissed."

The article contains the additional demonstrably false statement that the Jones case was settled for $850,000 "in exchange for Jones' not appealing the decision." In fact, the settlement was reached on November 13th, 1998, several months after Jones' lawyers filed an appeal of the District Court's dismissal on July 31st, 1998. In the interim, oral argument on the appeal was heard by a panel of Eighth Circuit judges on October 20, 1998. The settlement occurred while the appeal was pending a decision by the Eighth Circuit.

All the facts above are back up by the Washington Post time-line of the Jones civil suit, found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/timeline.htm

Bcrago77 09:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bcrago77 09:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bcrago77 09:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary judgment is a term of art that has nothing to do with how long the case persisted (being delayed by interlocutory appeals), and the district court judge did eventually grant the motion for summary judgment. I think it's been incorrectly changed to "summarily dismissed", and you're might that this gives readers the wrong impression. The article simplifies all of this which creates a highly misleading picture. Would appreciate it if someone fixed this. I shouldn't theoretically have enough time to correct it now. Cool Hand Luke 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes based on the above discussion. If they are incorrect, please feel free to make additional changes. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

chain smoking?

IN HER PERSONAL LIFE SECTION, WHY NOT MENTION THAT SHE IS A CHAIN SMOKER? by user 68 33 144 238...

i reinstating that, that is a valid question for the talk page by that user, why exactly was it considered vandalism Rtrev?...I'm starting to feel some of the wiki-bio pages are maintained by fans and might get a little out of control, remember people, you may adore your favorite entertainer, but we do try for an NPOV here, to even blank something from just a talk page that just asks a question is a little excessive...while you may wish to hide the fact that your favorite star is a chain smoker, its just not NPOV, especially not to even remove another user from asking if it is OK to place that in the article...anyways...is she a chain smoker???...in terms of placing it in the article if she is...I'm not sure, we do in fact tend to report on the drug habits of our entertainers so maybe its allowable...what do some other people think? it is true a lot of entertainers besides ann coulter chain smoke (if in fact she does)...do we put that in their bio?...I lean towards we have a right to if someone wishes to include it and its documented...just as we havent uploaded it to other peoples bios doesnt mean we cant store the info on those someone has taken the trouble to load on the page...85.1.223.203 09:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Got a reliable source that states she is a chain smoker? Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 10:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Because its a complete smear job as it is and anything more would be over the top. Is it relevant that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are chain smokers? Of course not. It would be relevant if any of the three were smoking illegal substances....user 69.232.222.5

There's two tests that we'd need to pass. The first--providing evidence that she IS a chain smoker, which hasn't been done so far. The second--showing some reason why it's important to mention it, assuming that it's true. If she were a passionate anti-smoking crusader, I could see a point to it--the old hypocrisy issue. If she did a lot of pro-smoking advocacy, it might be relevant. If neither of those is the case, why is it any more notable than the model of car she drives, and her favorite dress shop?Marieblasdell 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

speak for yourself user "69"...for instance it has been stated that the right leaning conservative leader in the UK, David Cameron, smoked ganga while in college, now i might still vote for the conservative leader knowing this and that the left leaning labour party leaders did not (and even have a policy of not allowing past ganga smokers to work in their government), frankly I am more concerned with his & their policies on the issues at hand!...yet I am happy with the information on Mr Cameron's drug habits during college and also currently, on the other hand if I knew that Mr Cameron was currently a chain tobacco smoker, (which i dont think he is) I simply would be very unlikely to vote for him as he is clearly making choices by chain smoking that are extremely detrimental to the health of his own body, the solvency of the health care system, and also he would be creating a bad public example, (for instance 440,000 people die each year in the US from tobacco, and more & more public figures smoking constitutes a bad example to others clearly!) so how could i trust him to make healthful choices for the UK?...while it might not be a deciding factor by any means, it would be points against him and if he couldnt demonstrate a great advantage over the other leaders, his chain smoking could lose him my vote!...while there would of course be many many other factors in my voting for him or not, it would be nice to know whether he is a chain tobacco smoker, whether he smoked ganga during college a few times is totally irrelevant as regards whether i would vote for him and only interesting to note...If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain or anybody else in such positions is currently a chain tobacco smoker i would like to know, just like I would like to know if they are currently a chain ganga smoker, it doesnt necessarily mean I wouldnt vote for them, but I want some public info about their habits and preferences and how they treat their own bodies before i come to conclusions to their ability to hold sway over the body public!...and its nothing to do with a smear job, its wishing to acquire information about public figures, including entertainers that are highly politically involved like say ann coulter (I'm actually a fan of hers after her latest troubles, yet wasnt before especially)(I still will be a fan even if I know shes a chain smoker, she can be highly entertaining, it just will cement my view that shes maybe upset about not having kids or something and that its just another thing like her aggressive sensational tone)...83.79.148.111 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus! my main concern was really that the user "68" etc. had their question for the talk page removed as vandalism! That user added a legitmate question to the discussion pages!...I am concerned that some of these pages are just maintained by a fan base and that the articles can get inaccurate because of that and lose their NPOV...There is clearly some clear vandalism to anns page and her talk page, yet i really dont think that question by that user was such!!!...83.79.148.111 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to read all that. I had to skim over. Just keep these things in mind:

1. No articles or sources have been provided that she's a chain smoker or that she smokes at all.

2. That a person smokes is hardly notable enough to make it into their wiki article, so even if she did smoke, the only reason I can think of that that would warrant inclusion is if say, she was harshly critical of smokers/smoking and it was discovered that she smoked too. Then we'd have to see how much note the fact that she smokes generated.

3. This article is not maintained by a "fan base" of Ann Coulter. At least I'd hope not. --Ubiq 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if its a fact she (or anyone else notable enough to have a wiki-bio page) is a chain smoker, an editor can legitmately add that to the article, if its true and documented somewhere. Simple as that. In fact its just as notable as mentioning some random town they happen to be born in, its information, its notable,...period...(they shouldnt write a paragraph on it unless its somewhat highly notable and controversial such as you suggest, as if they were vehement anti-smokers, but a single sentence mention is allowable, if its true)...83.79.183.169 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about would satisfy notability, in addition to "chain smoker" not being the most NPOV way of putting it. --kizzle 03:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Chain smoking is the common term, and its not really necessarily derogatory. Well I'm doing an internet search to find out...this mentions it [66]...this [67] also [68]...in fact i see 33,000 entries for "ann coulter chain smoker" on yahoo...it does seem the more liberal sites or the centrist sites are the ones that typically mention this fact, and you dont see the right wing ones talk about it publicly...liberetarians arent lefties though are they?...it certainly seems it is something notable and that the left really picks up on, I suppose we could have the sentence say "those on the left frequently remark on Ann Coulter for her chain smoking"...as it seems they really typically do...even the muslim community seems to know she is and remarks on it! maybe we should make it "A variety of people comment on her chain smoking, usually in negative terms" 83.78.128.62 04:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The links you provided are blogs and aren't reliable sources. Again, the smoking issue has come up for other people too, and like this case it is usually dismissed, for the reasons of it not being relevant. I like to point to the essay WP:SMOKERS for a good take on the subject. --Ubiq 07:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense, if we mention her smoking, be sure and mention Ted Kennedy's drinking and other NPC behaviors for all other public figures.--67.142.129.190 06:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

a true act of vandalism!

someone...I'm supposing an ann coulter fan like myself, has just redirected her page to uncyclopedia!...and that is true vandalism I'm afraid!...83.79.148.111 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been worse cases of vandalism to this article. One single act of it doesn't necessarily warrant its own section on the talk page. Alleging that whoever did it was an "ann coulter fan" isn't really necessary either. Just try to focus on improving the article in what ways you can. --Ubiq 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

i cant edit the article, only the talk page, so I have to bring it to other users attention when there is an act of vandalism on a locked article so they can in turn remove the vandalism!...83.79.183.169 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Or you could actually establish a user account... RJASE1 ^Talk 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Appeal for Even-handedness

This entry is excessively editorialized.

While Coulter is famous for her purposeful jabs at secular progressives, her quotes are no more incendiary or controversial than the likes of, say, Garrison Keillor, whose anemic entry makes no mention of controversy. In fact, it reads as though Keillor is the incarnation of the wise and kindly Will Rogers. Worse yet, the hypercontroversial Al Franken’s entry presents none of the editorializing comments that Coulter’s does.

Compare some of Coulter’s quotes to the following examples from Keillor’s HOMEGROWN DEMOCRAT (which are NOT cited in Wikipedia's entry, though Coulter's controversial statements are): Keillor calls Republicans as "hairy-backed swamp developers, corporate shills, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, hobby cops, misanthropic frat boys, lizardskin cigar monkeys, jerktown romeos, ninja dittoheads. .. .tax cheats, cheese merchants, cat stranglers, grab-ass executives, gun fetishists, genteel pornographers, nihilists in golf pants."

While claiming that his book describes "the politics of kindness, Keillor also says that Republicans are "criminal" and worse, "evil, deeply evil."

In 1999 Keillor told THE GUARDIAN (London) "Republicans might be heathens out to destroy all we [sic] hold dear; but that doesn’t mean we take them seriously. Or be bitter because they are swine.”

Worse yet, Al Franken's entry--perhaps sanitized for his recent run for the Senate--might link to sites that would reveal some of Franken's highly provocative, inflammatory remarks; however, none of these are quoted in his entry, nor does the text contain any narrative descriptions of events such as the following:

As a promotion for one of his books, Franken recorded a creepy spot that shows him engaging an actor who is playing a conservative reader. In this "ad," Franken kicks the conservative in the groin and smashes him over the head with a chair. The "skit" closes with Franken grinning broadly, holding up his book, and saying, "That felt good." To see this ad, go to www.michellemalkin.com/archives/003777.html

I fail to see why Coulter's many controversial statements (most of which contain liberal "rebuttals," as if the article is trying to prove a particular point) are cited in quantity and at length, while secular progressives such as Franken and Keillor enjoy entry that omit their equally incendiary statements and behaviors (all of which are accessible and documented).

I have often used Wikipedia entries (and have directed my four children toward them) when doing research. I have found them to be accurate and very helpful. This entry, however, has caused me to question the integrity of this service and to wonder about, or perhaps simply to recognize, a political bias that distorts the accuracy of information presented.

To maintain credibility, Wikipedia needs to amend its approach to use a more even hand when representing highly outspoken and controversial figures on both sides of the aisle.

Sixbrocks 04:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)sixbrocks

1. If you feel that other entries are lacking in information that satisfies WP:N and is based upon reliable sources, please add them.
2. If you think that some of these quotations on this page are lacking in WP:N and are not based upon reilable sources, please mention them here in talk to discuss a proposed change. --kizzle 05:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note. Wikipedia isn't a "service" as you mentioned.

It could be that there haven't been that many critics of Franken and Keillor or that they don't receive the same attention that Coulter does. But if that's not the case, feel free to find reliable sources that might discuss certain events and criticisms and that these events satisfy WP:N and WP:BLP. --Ubiq 07:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

-What??? How does she compare to kind Mr. Keillor? 66.177.204.252 3:58 11 march 2007

if someone feels they need to add Garrison Keillors quips about american republicans I'd say head to his page and go ahead if thats what you want to do. You will then deal with the editors that keep an eye on that page. Maybe they will be glad to have some of his sarcastic remarks included, I dont know. I know for sure that on this article there are several loyal Ann Coulter fans that keep an eye out to have the rightwing position presented. Go ahead Sixbrocks, start trying to put in some derogatory dirt on Ann Coulter to her article page! See what happens! Your going to need a bunch of references and maybe even then you'll just be blocked. In fact head to any republican personality or politician and start trying to fill the page with comments from the hard left...see what happens!...you'll never get away with it, there are hundreds of editors from the right watching over all those pages! Look at the edit histories for either right or left politicians, your going to find massive editing wars on each one between left leaning and right leaning editors!...maybe one side or the other has a slight advantage on any particular page you check, it just depends...on top of that your going to get editors from other countries come to english wikipedia and say the entire thing has a right-wing bias, the slightly left in america could be distinctly right of center to them, and of course you may find some editors from certain countries that would say wikipedia english does seem to have a left bias from their country perspective...its really a hard call to designate objectively where wikiepdia english stands right or left, all depends on the relative position of the observer...yet I'd say there are enough american editors, from both the american left & right, to keep it teetering rather near the center, looking at it from an american perspective as the observation point...and if the teetering on ann coulters page seems to be off center, well perhaps its as near 2/3 of americans are ticked off about the Iraq War and she was a big proponent, so maybe her page isnt looked on quite as fondly as a couple years ago, and of course as time passes her opponents will have more and more stuff she has said to add from their perspective...if anything wikiepdia english has an american bias, it certainly doesnt have a chinese or russian bias for instance! A Bahamian bias?...no...it likely does tend toward the most internationalist of the various wikipedia language sites, with at least some contribs from a wide variety of lands and perspectives, yet the slight american bias would be the biggest tilt currently i would think...83.78.128.62 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:SOAP. Your accusation that editors of this article are "loyal Ann Coulter fans" is amusing, but false. Please try to focus your attention on improving this article. As it appears, some of your posts are borderline trolling. I'm sure you mean well, but accusing people of bias and writing out endless posts with no constructive direction are not good ways to go about improving an article. Again, we're not Coulter supporters. We must stick to the policies and guidelines though, and that means not inserting trivialities into her article (like if she smokes or not). --Ubiq 07:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that public attitude towards the Iraq war should have bearing on the tone of any article is troubling. It might change some of the content naturally, but tone? No, his concern is both worthy of attention and ultimately misfounded --Mokru 21:07, May 15 2007 (UTC)

If your going to tell me that there arent any Ann Coulter fans that edit on this site its others that will do the laughing, she likely has about half of america counted as fans of a lesser or greater sort, so you'd basically have to say that this right of center half never edits on the Ann Coulter page...no way...of course there are ann coulter fans that edit on this site, and the whole paragraph was just responding to accusations of bias, so tell it to the first person! If they want to try and say wikipedia is biased, then someone can respond and say, ya sure it is, but its not quite like how you think, and if there is a bias its surely a partial american bias!-get real Ubiq!-did it say everyone editing on this page was an ann coulter fan? NO! It was even made clear that wikipedia has lots of people from both the right and left that edit and so that tends to keep pages relatively in the center somewhere...maybe next time you could actually read the paragraphs you are responding to Ubiq!-83.78.136.13 22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing this talk page with a discussion board. The purpose here is to discuss specific edits or specific passages that need to be edited. I think we all understand your general concerns, but so far you have not provided any actionable items. Like I said above:

1. If you feel that other entries are lacking in information that satisfies WP:N and is based upon reliable sources, please add them.
2. If you think that some of these quotations on this page are lacking in WP:N and are not based upon reilable sources, please mention them here in talk to discuss a proposed change.

Also, the less words you use in your upcoming specific suggestions, the easier it is for all of us to respond to it. A lot of us are lazy and don't respond to mountains of text. --kizzle 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

in the last ten edits youve got Ubiq trying to argue people can't even call her provocative, which isn't really even a negative adjective, and you've got an editor removing "although she is known for preaching what many consider unprecedented hate" (clearly put there by someone on the left, and promptly removed by someone on the right surely!)...don't try and pretend to me Ubiq that editing wars don't occur on all politician and political personality bios on wikipedia!...That is patently false, all these types of pages are subject to constant edit wars, its why I rarely even go near them, its just a waste of my time, maybe in 50 years once they are long gone, but even then i doubt it will change! This entire section was started by an editor saying the there is a bias in that leftie personalities arent given the same treatment as righties, do any of you even read things??? plus it was pretty darn long! Yet no one comments like that to him! I have responded to that first editor, and the rest of you have just been sputtering that I cant respond to him! and its why I stay away from pages like this usually! PS: if you cant read a couple hundred word paragraph in a minute or so you dont belong editing on wikipedia!.83.78.136.13 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing this talk page with a discussion board. The purpose here is to discuss specific edits or specific passages that need to be edited. I think we all understand your general concerns, but so far you have not provided any actionable items. Like I said above:

1. If you feel that other entries are lacking in information that satisfies WP:N and is based upon reliable sources, please add them.
2. If you think that some of these quotations on this page are lacking in WP:N and are not based upon reilable sources, please mention them here in talk to discuss a proposed change.

Also, the less words you use in your upcoming specific suggestions, the easier it is for all of us to respond to it. A lot of us are lazy and don't respond to mountains of text. --kizzle 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

well, it clearly seems you dont read things kizzle...exact repeated postings is the epitomy of laziness...please dont waste wikipedians time with posting the exact same message, was going to erase, yet its nice to leave it, and for Ubiq who claims there isnt a two sided edit war on pages such as this..."Regarding the latest edit war" (added by kizzle march 3 6:45)...as after all she has opponents, she has those in the middle that dont really care, and as after all she has fans, (like me after her latest exploits, and especially after being snubbed unceremoniously by the reeper candidates despite clear utter loyalty, and she is after all a brilliant entertainer)-83.78.136.13 04:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

anyways for the originator of this little discuss (sixbrocks), who expressed concern about liberal bias on wikipedia, there is now yet another editor looking at this page that could even be described as an ann coulter fan, and who doesnt even try to hide it!, I will look over the entire article and give my opinion as to what needs to be done...83.78.136.13 04:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeated my post because clearly you did not read it. So far, you have not advanced any actionable items or specific suggestions but rather broad generalized comments on the article, so it's hard to discuss such topics. I await your specific suggestions quoting specific passages that need to be altered rather than your idle musings on the subject. --kizzle 09:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

improvements to the article

First of all she also needs a section on positive reactions from publishers!...quite frankly this woman is worth some serious gold, and I'm sure many a publisher would like to have her, and in that vein I think we need some statistics on how much money this little lady is making! With all those bestsellers!, someone got some stats on number of books sold and how much they go for!...I might not vote for a chain smoker, but I just might hire her to write a book for me as its gonna be worth some serious bucks!...I think the smoking thing does belong in here, I have heard on some blogs maybe she has stopped? we need mention of the current status of her smoking yet just a sentence or two...I also think we need a section summarizing her views, with quotes from her on all the main policy issues...& sections of background and personal life should be expanded...currently there is a lot of coverage on this page about some of the controversial things she has said, I think thats OK, people on all sides want to know about these things, (plus some may actually like what she has said, and others may not) I just think for a little more balance it needs to be more clear that the bottom line is this little lady is worth a fortune and is a brilliant entertainer/writer, she has made a good living with this character she has created of "ann coulter" and as I'm not one to remove things that are valid and true that other editors to wikipedia have contributed, my proposition is not to shrink this article down to bring more balance, but instead to beef up some of the other sections like background & personal life, and create a couple new ones such as 1-"positive reactions from publishers" 2-"number of books sold and earnings/book price" (plus other salary type figures if possible to find), 3-"stances on the issues" 4-"positive comments about Ann from other notable people" -83.78.136.13 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

as one of my propostions on pages with edit wars, at least for some of them, is for the editors on both sides to back off each other a little, and allow the pages to expand from both viewpoints, instead of constant bickering and battling over every little entry addition, I think a lot of valid info from both sides may get left out when there is so much battling...83.78.136.13 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(a disclaimer) PS: I'm certainly not saying I agree with everything the character of Ann Coulter has said! I'm just a fan of hers...despite it even!...and of course as she is a savvy entertainer/writer-83.78.136.13 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to talk about her Adam's apple. It is nothing personal, just a photographic fact that she has a prominent one. Why does the reference always get deleted? 66.177.204.252 4:52 11 march 2007

you've got us a little scared user 66.177.204.252...does someone have some proof Ann is actually truly a woman!...there is the no kids thing, now this adams apple thing...I'm starting to get paranoid! someone please bring some info that proves she is a woman!-83.78.136.13 05:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

337,000 entries in yahoo search for "ann coulter adams apple" !!! here is one from a blog with several pics! [69]-83.78.136.13 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not suitable references. Find something that meets WP:ATT Kyaa the Catlord 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Should anything with claims to being an encyclopedia bother to mention something so trivial? "Though more common in men, some women have Adam's Apples as well."--quote from current Wikipedia article. Marieblasdell 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK here is a news page with the info and not a blog [70]-83.78.136.13 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we (the evil liberal media) need to get a doctor to go on TV and say she has an Adam's apple and then we can attribute it. 66.177.204.252 - This computer will no longer be adding comments like this, apologies.

phew!...just looked it up on wikipedia, at least according to this encyclopedia it does appear that some women do have adams apples, (this fan was just about to be crushed!) anyways i would be willing to include a single sentence in the article about her prominent adams apple, that includes a wiki-link to the word adams apple and the fact that many critics refer to her adams apple, and the fact that women sometimes have them, and we dont really need a reference and you can just look at a picture, yet actually we can't really make a statement that she is in fact a woman, only that it appears she is a woman despite the adams apple, as we need a valid reference to state this for sure that she is a woman- I suppose something like... "Many critics refer to Ann's prominent Adam's apple, (which women sometimes do have), and sometimes insinuate that she is really a man." I would be willing to allow a statement like that-(PS: this fan is still kind of paranoid...I'm making a personal plea! Ann please do something to prove your really a woman!)83.78.136.13 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think you're going to get a lot of agreement on including a sentence about her adam's apple and that some people think Coulter's a guy. I think that's the one of the only points Lou Sander and I agree on. --kizzle 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mention of an Adam's apple in this article would be trivial, and would not satisfy requirements for a BLP. --Ubiq 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree its not the most important fact, but there are indeed 337,000 entries on yahoo for that, and many many critics do bring it up, yet its not so important & I don't especially care, i was just saying I wouldnt be the one to block another editor from adding it if in a reasonably worded sentence. As to recent edits by Ubiq in battle with a couple others, I'd say the both "criticism and praise" thing he wants in should stay, as surely she has had both from her many appearances, as to the word "provocative" I take the other side, as its not really a negative or positive word, just saying she provokes attention really, and come on, I mean its obviously true, you can be provocative and be good, or can be bad, its a rather neutral adjective describing a state of provoking thought or debate/controversy etc etc, anyone with with so many sections on controversies can surely be described as provocative-85.1.212.140 03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the "criticism and praise" thing. Please get your facts straight. Her viewpoints are best described as "conservative". Her style may be described as "provocative" but again, that's a fairly descriptive word. Not Dilbert wanted to change it from "conservative viewpoints" to "provocative viewpoints" and has done so many times without bringing it up on the talk page. He/she would need to get a source to attribute that word to Coulter's style. Just because you say it's "obviously true" doesn't make it so. --Ubiq 09:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Add Matt Sanchez / Rod Majors gay porn star to 'faggot' remarks?

Just read about the gay porn star Matthew_Sanchez star of such family fare as Donkey Dick and Glory Holes of Fame 3, who was awarded the Jean Kirkpatrick medal of honor at the confererence where Ms Coulter made the 'faggot' remarks. WOW! CPAC's Gay Porn Star There's a pic of the two together as well. I think this should be in the article for the dichotomy provided. All agreed? Holy CRAP, Batman! I'd never even heard of a 'Dirty Sanchez' before! (I must lead a sheltered life!) - FaAfA (yap) 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• "I think this should be in the article for the dichotomy provided. All agreed?". No, not all agreed. You would need to state a good case as to why it would be relevant, and why it would not be POV pushing or original research, before I might agree. It might be relevant and add to sourcing for the Sanchez article, however. My take on the faggot remark is that she meant it in the more generic "girlyman" way, rather than implying that Edwards is actually gay. - Crockspot 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Michele Malkin's already written about it twice (like Ms. Coulter she did have her picture taken with the gay porn star and creator of the perverted sickening (IMHO) sex act named after him, The Dirty Sanchez) Let's see how it plays out in the next few days so we don't fall into recentism. Malkin and the Gay Porn Star - FaAfA (yap) 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to put it in the sentence, i see no big problem with it, as it is in fact interesting to note this ironic coincidence when talking about her "edwards comments", if you're going to have the section at all, I say, well then, why not mention another award receiver was in fagt was in fact a homosexual paorn porn star and gay prostitute at the conservative awards ceremony...but I don't think people listened to my "improvements for the article" so I'm pulling a kizzle with that statement-85.1.212.140 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Making ironic juxtopositions is the job of reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors (see WP:OR). If there is an acceptable reliable source noting this irony, then by all means add a sourced statement. If not, wait for one, or let it go. I see making such comparisons and noting ironies without reliable sourcing as original research, and would fight it tooth and nail. If someone like Malkin or another notable person has published comments about this, and it can be sourced reliably, then I have nothing to complain about. - Crockspot 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

anyways I just think everybody needs to just accept it, the liberals editing this page can only block this out so long, but its the republicans that have won over the gay vote, they have all these high profile gay stars on their side now, ted haggard, this guy matthew sanchez, dick cheneys daughter, that Fooley guy whatever his name was, I mean theve got all these gay stars and they've just totally turned the tables on the dems and have this serious pro-gay agenda, with even the republican presidential candidates totally chastising Ann over an innocent slip of the tongue...I think y'all need to accept it, the reepers have gone gay, and now have taken the gay vote from the demons, the liberal editors on this page can only keep this latest gay republican star's name out of the article for so long, the republicans have totally squeezed the gay vote from behind the backs of the democrats, Ann was like the last hold out, I mean like they are now totally pro-gay and have the gay vote, they did it again! the liberals are just jealous is all-85.1.212.140 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How could you forget/omit Jeff Gannon?! - Free FaAfA ! (yap) 04:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually dont live in the United States, so I'm not familiar with all their gay stars, i just know that american republicans have a bunch of gay stars on their side these days, and that they are now the hardcore pro-gay party or something, I mean, they give hardcore gay porn stars big awards at their ceremonies, the republican party has changed to hardcore pro-gay, they even try to keep child molestor gays in Congress, I mean, just listen to the candidates denounce Ann for even trying to make a light joke about the excessiveness of people going to psychiatric clinics for not being pro-gay, they denounce that little lady for a joke, but try and keep the child molestor people in the parliament, i mean, thats hardcore-85.1.212.140 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

please try and improve this article with more info besides just controversial remarks

I'm not sure how my statement got turned into an adams apple debate and is she a woman debate...but here it is again...sorry for my hypocrisy kizzle for just posting the same exact thing but calling you out for it

First of all she also needs a section on positive reactions from publishers!...quite frankly this woman is worth some serious gold, and I'm sure many a publisher would like to have her, and in that vein I think we need some statistics on how much money this little lady is making! With all those bestsellers!, someone got some stats on number of books sold and how much they go for!...I might not vote for a chain smoker, but I just might hire her to write a book for me as its gonna be worth some serious bucks!...I think the smoking thing does belong in here, I have heard on some blogs maybe she has stopped? we need mention of the current status of her smoking yet just a sentence or two...I also think we need a section summarizing her views, with quotes from her on all the main policy issues...& sections of background and personal life should be expanded...currently there is a lot of coverage on this page about some of the controversial things she has said, I think thats OK, people on all sides want to know about these things, (plus some may actually like what she has said, and others may not) I just think for a little more balance it needs to be more clear that the bottom line is this little lady is worth a fortune and is a brilliant entertainer/writer, she has made a good living with this character she has created of "ann coulter" and as I'm not one to remove things that are valid and true that other editors to wikipedia have contributed, my proposition is not to shrink this article down to bring more balance, but instead to beef up some of the other sections like background & personal life, and create a couple new ones such as 1-"positive reactions from publishers" 2-"number of books sold and earnings/book price" (plus other salary type figures if possible to find), 3-"stances on the issues" 4-"positive comments about Ann from other notable people" -83.78.136.13 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

as one of my propostions on pages with edit wars, at least for some of them, is for the editors on both sides to back off each other a little, and allow the pages to expand from both viewpoints, instead of constant bickering and battling over every little entry addition, I think a lot of valid info from both sides may get left out when there is so much battling...83.78.136.13 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You have some interesting ideas. Why don't you paste some specific proposed edits to the talk page? For example, if you want a positive reactions from publishers section, why don't you write one and put it here for us to see? I'm not against the idea of such a section. --kizzle 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is a start for one to be expanded upon by others...section title: "Words of praise for Ann Coulter"

Bill O'reilly has praised her good books sales saying "You did very well with that "Treason"...good for you!"[71] He has also given her mild criticism while supporting her in some of her controversies such as this one over the 9-11 widow statements "Ann Coulter should listen to me. But she doesn't listen to anyone" & "In the past, I've told Ms. Coulter that using personal attacks to make ideological points is short-term gain but not long-term pain." but tempered this with "There is hypocrisy running wild in the Coulter controversy. The same media voices that embrace the smear tactics routinely used by the far-left Air America radio network and displayed daily on the nutty political blogs, are all huffy about Ms. Coulter attacking a group of 9/11 widows"[72]

Other words of praise for Ann include[73]:

“Ann Coulter is one of the fiery new breed of conservative commentators who don’t worry what the Establishment thinks of them.” —Robert D. Novak

“The conservative movement has found its diva.” —Bill Maher

“There’s nothing artificial about Ann. She has a vision of the Constitution and the government’s rightful role in our lives that is much different from the mainstream, and much different from mine, but she represents a significant constituency.” —Geraldo Rivera

“Ann Coulter is a pundit extraordinaire.” —Rush Limbaugh

“One of the twenty most fascinating women in politics.” —George magazine

In publishing, Augusta Chronicle editor Michael Ryan stated on a past controversy after dropping her column that none the less he felt "I continue to be an Ann Coulter fan" & "I think her logic is devastating and her viewpoint is right most of the time." and that "Pulling Ann Coulter's column hurts but she's one of the clearest thinkers around."[74]

On the other side, sometimes democratic supporters have praised Ann for her good work. Jerry Zeifman, a former chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee has said: "As a life-long Democrat my view of myself and our party has benefited from the writings of Ann Coulter. I see her as a satirist worthy of literary praise. Coulter has a style reminiscent of the great Irish satirist Jonathan Swift who in his day was denounced by his critics for his strident ridicule of his political opponents."[75]

Ann sometimes speaks of herself too: "I don't think I am strident. I think I speak the truth and people are attracted to that, and judging by my book sales versus those who are less strident, I think I'm doing pretty well."[76]

The proposed section reads rather thin to me. For starters, a pat on the back for book sales isn't really noteworthy praise, even from a felow news personality. I like the quite from Zeifman. The Ryan quote is good, but needs more context. Why is he saying it "hurts *but* she's one of the clearest thinkers..."? Is that a typo? Her own statements are given enough time in this article already, I think, so we probably don't need more. The idea of a positive comments section is good, but we have to be careful not to "over-balance". That is, we don't want to make it seem like half of the public comments about Coulter are positive if it's a much smaller percentage (is it? I'm honestly not sure.) -Harmil 06:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's include her Adam's Apple because there is MUCH photographic evidence. I don't understand why it is so controversail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.204.252 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as being controversial, quite the contrary. I see it as being far too trivial to be worth mentioning. Marieblasdell 02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Update on Ms. Coulter's gay porn star friend

From The Marine Times:

"A Reserve corporal whose star has been rising in conservative circles over the past few months — including appearing on Fox News and being photographed with right-wing firebrand Ann Coulter — has acknowledged appearing in gay porn films."

-snip-

"As a member of the IRR, Sanchez falls under the authority of Marine Corps Mobilization Command in Kansas City, Mo., where the commanding general’s staff judge advocate, Lt. Col. Michael Blessing, has begun an inquiry into the revelations about his past, according to command spokesman Shane Darbonne."

Reservist acknowledges gay porn past - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 10:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems much more suitable for an article on her gay friend than this one to me. Kyaa the Catlord 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say its pretty relevant that she hugged a gay porn star at the confernece she is getting lambasted over, and that a gay porn star received an award from the conservative's conference, and it fits into a section detailing this latest controversy over her remark --yet I reiterate my call for some positive sections on Ann, perhaps someone wishes to paste in my above suggestion for a new section titled "Words of Praise for ANN", and someone should start a "Positions on the Issues" section plus mention the figures of number of books successfully sold and the total value for those books (monetary value, not literary value)-83.79.178.42 05:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the only parallel I can see is the Elton John and Eminem hug. But even then, the Ann Coulter-gay porn star hug didn't generate near the note that hug did. Besides I think Kyaa's right in that, if anything it should only go in the gay porn star's article.

As for your ideas, a "Words of Praise" section would be a bit POV, considering there really are very few (if any) BLPs with such a section. Oftentimes words of praise are interspersed throughout the article, if they're there at all (or there may be one or two in the beginning). Making a section like that under the guise of "balancing" an article is not a legitimate reason to do it, especially if most of the praise isn't notable (lots of criticism isn't notable either). You also might want to check out the articles of other authors and see if they have financial figures for their book sales, because I'm sure the vast majority of them don't. I could definitely see a section that covers the criticism and praise of her individual books, but I think exact figures for sales of her books would be unnecessary. --Ubiq 01:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"exact figures for sales of her books would be unnecessary."-ubiq well, well, well...why is accuracy "unnecessary". This is an encyclopedia for goodness sake. Why would it be unnecessary to have the total number of book sales on here. It is a measure of her popularity/success. Her job is to court popularity/publicity, so it is VERY NECESSARY to state the figures. I smell a non-NPOV contributor called ubiq. Explain your remark immediately please ubiq.

And I sense possible bait. Ubiq is 100 percent accurate, and the explanation is right in the post. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial, provocative, conservative?

The following sentence has been a low-key point of dissension for a while.

Known for her controversial[3] style and unabashedly conservative/provocative views, she has been described by The Observer as "the Republican Michael Moore", and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt".[4]

I'm in favor of dropping the disputed part of the sentence entirely. I think it's redundant in either version. We've said 'conservative' in the lead paragraph, so it's pointless to repeat it, and the comparisons to 'Republican Michael Moore' and 'Rush Limbaugh' reinforce it. I don't think there's enough difference between 'controversial style' and 'provocative views' to justify including them both, expecially considering the nature of the rest of the paragraph. After all, what does provocativeness provoke? It provokes controversies.

In my suggested version, the second paragraph reads:

Known for her controversial[3] style, she has been described by The Observer as "the Republican Michael Moore", and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt".[4] Coulter has described herself as a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and makes no pretense to be "impartial or balanced".[5]

I think that gets all the points across well, with a citation for everything, but since this has been a low-key edit-war, I thought I'd post here before changing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marieblasdell (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Support. I made a minor grammatical change, but otherwise your version looks fine. I reverted because (quite apart from the fact that the change was made either with a misleading edit summary or none), as you point out, "provocative" doesn't mean "conservative", and was redundant given the presence of "controversial". Repetition within a sentence strikes me as being objectionable in a way that repetition within sentences isn't. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page finally. I agree with both of you wholeheartedly. The edit warring was starting to bug me a bit. --Ubiq 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, both of you! Marieblasdell 05:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Words of praise?

I've just overhauled this section. The main changes, apart from copy-editing (and the removal of the fanzine use of her Christian name), are:

1. removal of three comments by some television person, none of which was praise (one merely concerned her book sales, the other two were critical)
2. the removal of the reproduction of a publisher's list of quotations (publishers are notorious for taking comments out of context in order to twist their meanings; if the original sources were provided, then some of them might stay). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone reverted my changes without the courtesy of discussing it here, or even an edit summary. I've gone back to my version. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The section is POV, and rather "unencyclopedic". I'll keep an eye out to see if it gets put back in. --Ubiq 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a section on negative reactions you have to have a section on positive reactions, simple as that, this page is hiding the fact that she is very well thought of by many people. Most public personalities of course are afraid to make strong words of praise for her, and just privately approve, but any public comments of even light praise are entitled to be in here. To leave it to just one publisher comment and a single democratic comment is ridiculous and misleads as to her actual fan base which is in sinc with the several right leaning personalities refered to, with light words of praise for her, (as best they can manage without endangering themselves in the public eye if she gets too wacky)(if you think they are not praise then why in the heck are they included as words of praise for her book sales!!!???)(in fact many people leave their words of praise as rather ambiguous or mixed of course as they are afraid to tie themselves too strongly to her, whereas those of opposite political persuasion have less to fear about close association and can say whatever they truly feel)CrystalizedAngels 09:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: controversial and provocative are two entirely different words. It is not at all a redundancy. They refer to two entirely different concepts. ie: One can be provocative without sparking controversy. One can be controversial with resorting to provocations. Ann in fact can be described, and is accurately described, as both controversial and sometimes provocative. Also keep in mind neither of these words implies a negative connotation, one could be controversial and provocative, and still very well liked universally for instance-CrystalizedAngels 09:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You've ignored what I said about the section (which I didn't remove, just slimmed down). If you can find genuine, sourced positive comments, then add them — but don't do a blind revert (which, incidentally, included reversing various unrelated formatting improvements). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

'Provocative' is also thoroughly covered by this: 'Coulter has described herself as a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot"' There's no need for layer upon layer of redundancy in the opening paragraphs. Marieblasdell 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And CrystalizedAngels has reverted the whole thing again without even the courtesy of an edit summary. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The positive comments are fully referenced, yet I will go ahead and place a reference number by each one. You have ignored what I have said, like it is ridiculous to have just two positive comments, one from a democrat, and one from an editor that discontinued her column. It is also totally ridiculous to have someones self description of themself in their intro! In fact its laughable. On top of this I dont see it a good thing to use an idiom in the intro as opposed to a straight forward adjective like provocative. "likes to stir up the pot" ???...There are a dozen ways to interpret that, it may be worthy to include this self description of herself somewhere in the article, but not in the intro. There are many people who might use english wikipedia, including many non-native speakers, and english idioms, some of which even may only be known in the native english speaking community in certain areas or countries, are a bad practice to start bringing to the encyclopedia intros, even though "likes to stir up the pot" is somewhat straight forward.-CrystalizedAngels 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"The positive comments are fully referenced". That is so obviously not the case that I wonder if we have the same notion of "referenced". See what I said in my original comment, above. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am going to remove the entire section on positive comments that I added, because it is utterly ridiculous to just include the two in there now without showing the several words of minor to moderate praise she has received from fellow commentator-type people. These comments are factual, whatever comments I add are "going to be out of context" unless I add a paragraph or whole page from each person offering praise. Again I stress that the editors of this page clearly have a poor sense of how to write an NPOV biography, with contradictory things going on: like the main bulk of the article devoted to criticism without establishing that this is a very wealthy, popular figure, who has sold an enormous amount of books for a political personality, grown fabulously wealthy from that, and who is very well liked in many circles & booked solid on the lecture tour. On the other hand you have the intro leading with the persons own description of herself! It is down right tacky to have a persons intro with their own description of themself, I will look around wikipedia to try and find another example of such a case. Anyways my main concern is that this page is off balanced, I am not saying to remove the copious quantity of material already devoted to her exploits and controversies and provocations, I'm not saying the editors haven't contributed a bunch of good material, what I am saying is there needs to be included some stuff from a slightly different perspective as well, I initiated one of my suggested sections, (words of praise), and it has been whittled down to being ridiculous, and a misleading poor example of where the praise for her stems from. I don't see this problem as especially coming from a liberal block or something, it seems more the case that people are just stubborn and insistent on haggling over the slightest changes, with absolutely no room for deviation from an opinion they might have about an edit, no matter how minor the edit even. To disallow the clearly factual, (and highly established by just reading the article), statement that she is sometimes provocative, to instead have her own description of herself in the intro, with a vague idiom none the less, I just cant fathom!-CrystalizedAngels 18:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We've gone round and round about this before and like I and others have already stated, oftentimes such praise doesn't satisfy notability and the vast majority of BLPs don't have a "praise section". I don't see anything wrong with a self-description that she likes to "stir up the pot". We're using her words, that's what encyclopedias do. We can't use "provocative" unless we have a source to attribute that word to her. I've told you this already.

And while I strongly disagree that she's as popular and loved as you think she is, how popular she really is wouldn't matter much if she makes her career out of shock and controversy. Actions/events are what get reported, and fittingly, they're in her encyclopedia article.

Also, just because you call something "clearly factual" doesn't make it so. I'm sure there are people who would disagree that she's provocative. It's not our role to label her with descriptive words. --Ubiq 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles should try to avoid de facto POV forks (see Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Criticism). However, I'm puzzled that you're championing notability, Ubiq. Less than two months ago you thought that notability was a bad standard for inclusion because Coulter's many run-of-the-mill offensive comments would not merit inclusion.

But whatever. Keep this section out of the article. If we must, let's insert any useful "positive" comments in the appropriate section. Cool Hand Luke 03:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you.

Just because I argued a point, doesn't mean I didn't listen to who I was arguing with. I actually agreed with you (and Ramsquire) a few months ago, when it came down to it, and that's why I agreed to cut some of the sections. So care to point out any other flaws/hipocrisy on my part? --Ubiq 08:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, Ubiq, nor was I accusing you of hypocrisy. I agree with you, after all. Just curious about your change of heart. Cool Hand Luke 17:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It sure seemed like a personal attack. It's not so much that I had a "change of heart". I don't think I was all that stubborn or steadfast in my argumentation back then. Prior to this article, I'd not engaged in any sort of edit conflict/decision-making so I was fairly new to some of the policies.

But to remind you: When you and I argued over notability, I said notability is relative to how noted other events are and you said notability is relative to how her already noted events are. I remember certain arguments where you stated some of her comments can dismissed as being "Coulter" comments. I disagreed at the time, but after spending more time on wikipedia it does seem to be important to consider how much note someone generates on average in determining how notable any of their events is. I argued with Ramsquire about what sources can be considered reliable. It wasn't that I didn't "champion" notability back then, I just had different ideas of what events are notable.

In respect to the praise section proposed by Benjiwolf, many of the remarks are less notable (in that they generated less note) than the college campus speeches we cut out of this article. I think a few positive comments and praise would not hurt the article (even if they aren't incredibly notable), but it seems that if we included some, we'd have to find a way to fit them perfectly into the article, and that can be very hard to do. I'm wary of praise sections in any BLP, unless that person has genuinely gotten lots of notable praise for works/actions/etc and that they are known for such praise from others. I don't see Ann Coulter as one of those people though. EDIT: It seems Benjiwolf/CrystalizedAngels has gotten blocked so some of this discussion may not need to continue. --Ubiq 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense; you just had a different emphasis on notability back then. In any case, I do agree with you that these remarks fall below the cut-off, however you define it. Cool Hand Luke 01:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree; much like most "Trivia" sections, this section an be worked into the article, and would work much better. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 04:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with neutrality in this article and discussion

It is impossible to have a fair and balanced article about Ann Coulter. She is simply to polarized. If your not a fan, you probably regard her as crazy. There really isn't any middle ground with her. Most conservatives love her, liberals hate her, and even most moderates consider her way to far to the right for their tastes. Since Wikipedia attempts to give facts without opinions, the fact that almost all of her statements are deemed false by some makes keeping the article nuetral impossible. She allegedly lies, so Frankenh points it out. She claims Franken lied about her 'lies,' he claims she lying about his lying about her lying. See how impossible it is to stay nuetral? Both sides seem to work by a different set of facts, not just opinions. Which set of facts i think is reality is irrelevent to this, but I find it hard to keep my bias out of my evaluation of the article. Two sets of facts can't both be true, but by taking a side Wikipedia apparently is no longer nuetral. See the conflict? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikifan999 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the samething can be said about Michael Moore. There is no middle ground with him either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.3.76.232 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Please sign your messages (with four tildes: ~~~~).
2. I'd never heard of her, and this article is still my only source of information. The same will be true of the majority of editors on Wikipedia. I confess that what I read here doesn't impress me (I don't mean the descriptions of her; I mean the rather juvenile comments that she's quoted as making), but I have no deep-seated feelings, and no preconceptions.
3. What count are verifiable sources; with those, none of the rest matters. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very possible to have an impartial article on Ann Coulter. Just pretend she is a foreign pundit talking about a country you have no attachments to and persons you have no attachments to. Detatchment is easy to attain in temporary fashion, which is all that is required while editing/contributing to an article like this one. Pretend she's talking about different species of ants if you have to. It isn't difficult to be impartial. Darin Wagner 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Women's suffrage

I've had my attention drawn to the discussion of this; it's peculiar, and seems less than neutral. I'm still not clear, having read the discussion a couple of times, why on earth the passage was removed. It's well-sourced, and hardly insignificant. I'm replacing it, as I can see no grounds according to policy and guidelines not to allow it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Because its trivial, on a non-serious show and taken at face value in a POV effort to smear the subject? Honestly. Kyaa the Catlord 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I suggest that you try for civility. Secondly, what's trivial about it? Why is it more trivial than the comments about homosexuality, etc.? Thirdly, what does the seriousness of the show have to do with it? Fourthly (with regard to your misleading edit summary), the second reference, at least, is from a mainstream, broadsheet newspaper; I don't know the first, though it seems not to be a blog. That you choose to use "left-wing" as a way of smearing a source says much about your PoV, and explains why you want to remove the section. That, however, is a partisan approach, and nothing to do with Wikipedia gudelines and policies. If you continue to remove the section, despite its verifiable source(s), I shall take this further. If you think that your view will be well supported, let's see what other editors think. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The suffrage material is most definitely a POV effort to smear the subject. Why else would it be chosen, out of all the hundreds of things the subject says? Lou Sander 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I'm familiar with what is going on, but "Why else would it be chosen, out of all the hundreds of things the subject says?", the answer seems to be pretty obvious; its an incredibly bizarre statement, and ridiculous. And I can't see how it was 'smearing' the subject if the wording was basically her entire quote (which really isn't notable; if there were a big reaction to these comments, I can see inclusion.) Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What's relevant is that it's relatively trivial in its coverage. The Edwards/homosexuality remarks were much more widely reported. That said, these comments might meet some minimal threshold. However, Wikipedia editors ought not decide what "bizarre" means—that's the job of primary sources. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even look at the source? I'm sorry, but I thought was pretty darn neutral in calling it a "leftist wingbat blog". I will continue to remove partisan material that is poorly sourced from fringe sources due to BLP concerns and will gladly accept your invitation to "take it further". If you feel like continuing to threaten me, I'd be happy to take this to ANI, Mr. Administrator. Kyaa the Catlord 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors selectively put "outrageous" quotations from Ann Coulter into this very bad article. Then they say "what's wrong? We've sourced it." The intent, which is obvious, is to demean her. It is as though Wikipedia editors selectively reported horrendous crimes by Italian-Americans in the article (does one exist?) about Italian-Americans, so that the words devoted to horrendous crimes far outweighed the others. Lou Sander 21:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Perhaps the problem is partly parochiality; The Guardian is a major national newspaper — it might not impinge on U.S. awareness, but that's not the point.
2. If she said these things, as she evidently did, then editors here aren't demeaning her — she's successfully demeaned herself.
3. If she has said many more sensible and wise things, why not add those to the article instead of trying to censor the reports of the childish and silly things? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not how NPOV works. Our policies mean that we do not give any aspect of an article undue weight. Editors therefore cannot include "wise" things she said to somehow balance the article. An editor recently tried doing something like this with a separate "praise" section, and we rightly removed it. By the same token, we cannot include every stupid thing she's ever uttered just because it's "bizarre" or "outrageous"; we do not make this judgment. As an encyclopedia, we must follow the sources.

If there are some non-trivial accounts on her views on suffrage, it would merit inclusion. However, what you have is a blog (the least reliable source one can cite) and a passing mention in an article about Coulter. I think this probably doesn't merit inclusion, at least not its own section. This is much different from her Edwards/homosexual remarks, which generated entire newspaper articles from one brief incident. Cool Hand Luke 23:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotations belong in Wikiquote. That would make this article not quite so rotten. Where is Essjay when we need him? Lou Sander 03:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

First, the Praise section is irrelevant to this, as it was made up of third-person comments. Secondly, if the claim is that the article is unbalanced (which is the reason give by most objectors), then either it's right to balance it or it isn't. If it's right, and if balance is genuinely possible, then this can be done by saying more on one side or less on the other. What can't be done is to reject text, not on the basis that it's inaccurate or unsourced, but just that there's not enough on the other side to balance it. Thirdly, and relatedly, "balance" and "NPoV" don't mean that articles must provide an account that misrepresents its subject by providing false balance. We don't desperately try to find bad things about prominent charity workers, or good things about serial killers (and we don't omit, for example, details of Stalin's purges because there's not enough good stuff about him, and we have to be balanced). Fourthly, significance isn't a matter of how many U.S. newspapers talked about it; the issue is significant, and these are her comments on it. They are comments that (as a matter of objective, easily verified fact) go against the standard views in developed societies, and that also makes them significant. Fifthly, if the first source is a blog (it doesn't look like one, but I didn't study it closely), then of course it shouldn't be included; the second source is not in that category, though. Sixthly, I hold no brief for there being a separate section; incorporate the material elsewhere in the article by all means. Seventhly, not all quotations belong in Wikiquote; many (as here) are of interest only in the context of an article about their source. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It is in Wikiquote, the American Politics Journal isn't a blog (though it hosts blogs), and Googling suggests that these comments are indeed pretty widely discussed. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. That sure looks like 4rr, Edit Warrior. Kyaa the Catlord 15:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is simply not a collection of quotes. The line you draw between this and the praise section is absurd. Neither of them belong due to undue weight, and both clearly cover the subject of the article. If something is to go into the biography of a living person it must be verifiable by reliable sources (which the first comment does not appear to be) and it should not give undo weight to any aspect of the subject (her views on suffrage have never been given much treatment—even when it is given a note, as in the Guardian, it's made clear she's telling one of her unfunny jokes). At the very least this is a borderline case, and I'm stunned that an admin would violate the 3rr for it. Cool Hand Luke 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, you should always study sources when conducting a god damned revert war on the biography of a living person. WP:BLP says in no uncertain terms that poorly sourced items must be removed. The Dayton paper appears to replicate the blog used, so it's not a reliable source either (recall the GNAA article that spawned print sources which merely relied upon shoddy online sources). Moreover, Google is not a reliable source, nor does it transmute unreliable commentary into verifiable mainstream debate. If it does, then it's obvious that many other "facts" are more widely discussed than her views on suffrage.

But we ought not include these comments for a more important reason. Editorial judgment. We don't quote every last thing Hitler said or believed because it's simply not notable, even though much of it is against the norms of decent society. If these random comments with almost no coverage are included in the article, it begs the question of which of her words would not belong here. We ought not reproduce all of her moronic comments. We should have the highlight reel—the remarks that caused the most rancor. This is more than enough to give average readers a sense of her political degeneracy. When we go beyond this point—including comments just because we think every last fart should be exposed to the world—then we've stopped being an encyclopedia. Cool Hand Luke 18:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:CIVIL
2. The only reason this woman is at all known, so far as I can see, is that she says and writes things; accounts of what she says and writes are therefore the main feature of the article, and quotations the main way of presenting that accurately. The distinction, then, between text describing what a person has said and text by other people about that person is not only clear in itself, but especially significant in this sort of case (even leaving aside the specific problems with the "praise" section, exhaustively discussed above).
3. Googling revealed many places that this was discussed; why you should think that dismissing one of them serves to show that it's not discussed or poorly sourced is beyond me. And of course Google isn't a good source; it's not a source at all. It's a way of finding sources, which is how I used it.
4. It seems that some people think that the text should be excluded because to include is illicitly to use editorial judgement (that it's outrageous, etc., and thus significant), while others think that it should be excluded on the basis of editorial judgement (that it's not significant). Actually, wait, I've just checked back; it's the same person.
5. The argument that we shouldn't mention this because we can't mention everything is peculiar, of course.
6. But this arouses such deep emotions and hostility that I'll remove the article from my Watch list and let you all get on with it. Frankly, it's just another article on yet another American right-wing kook with the wit of an arrested adolescent who's hardly heard of anywhere else, and it's just not worth the hassle. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Again, I frame this in terms of undue weight; it's not published widely (hardly published at all, except in unreliable sources), and it has no more place in the article than any other obscure facts relating to any other biography. We do not deem what should be significant; an encyclopedia follows reliable sources. It's an illegitimate editorial judgment to declare these quotes are significant in spite of no in-depth treatment in any reputable sources. Pardon for the hostility, but I found it stunning that an admin would engage in revert war to insert information from a dubious source on the biography of a living person. Cool Hand Luke 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Mel seriously needs a refreshing sip from the WP:KETTLE. His hostility towards the editors who have been watching this article for months, years in some cases would be refreshing. The fact that he's come in here with a hostile agenda and boldly ignored 3rr in his efforts to push his unilateral decision that this poorly sourced section somehow is notable and must be included AND has admin rights is truly troubling. Kyaa the Catlord 23:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Those Oxford philosophers sure can be hard-headed sometimes. Some of them are worse than Doctors of Canonical Law. It kicks in in their late forties, and some observers think it comes from their exceptional intelligence. Lou Sander 13:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your last 4 or 5 posts in this talk page have done nothing to help the discussion. It might help to think about how you can improve the article, if you consider it so "rotten".--Ubiq 17:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Heinlein and Steel were right. Lou Sander 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess in that sense, nobody can ever teach you to contribute anything worthwile to this article, use logic in your argumentation, or to stop sniping other editors. What a surprise. No wonder you're ignored so often. --Ubiq 21:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he's confusing this page with a discussion board. It's ok, I don't think anyone takes him seriously anymore. Move on to productive endeavors :) My stance is with Luke, I think he said it best. --kizzle 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing how some people here can be such hypocrites. Kyaa makes sure every single negative information that isn't widely known about Ann Coulter is censored from this article and still wants to be a kind of Wikipedia saint. He thinks just because he and his Coulter lover frinds don't agree with a change, then it is a consensus. Go look consensus on the dictionary. If we make a description of what she said, you Coulter lovers complain that it's POV. If, on the other hand, we just PUT what SHE SAID, then you say it doesn't belong here, but on Wikiquote. She said that, it's a fact, no one here has denied it, so all you can do is search for other sources, if you don't like this one, instead of censoring. Truth doesn't change even if you try to hide it. Oh, and just google the quotes, you will see that it is WIDELY discussed. Jill DeRay 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Google isn't a particularly helpful test, as has been noted on this discussion page. Using google, one could make a case that the alleged transexualism of Ann Coulter was widely discussed.... It still would not meet WP:BLP or WP:ATT. Kyaa the Catlord 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Because its trivial, on a non-serious show and taken at face value in a POV effort to smear the subject? Honestly." See? You are pushing YOUR own POV by censoring the article. Also, it's trivial by whose standards? The fact that the information is trivial is your point of view too, Cool Hand Luke. It doesn't matter if it's trivial or not, that's your opinion, what matters is that it's true. Jill DeRay 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I didn't remove that sentence per my POV or for any reason other than WP:BLP. The second sentence might be open for debate (hence I did not remove it), but the first sentence is clearly forbidden per BLP. Cool Hand Luke 21:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, people. Seriously. WTF? The Guardian article you're citing under 'women's suffrage' goes back to 2003. She made one quote about the fact that she said that she wishes women were never granted the right to vote. It obviously didn't escalate into anything major because you can't think of any other content to put in that section besides a lame quote, or a description of such. Plus, I think she was joking anyway; why would anyone take ***anything*** this woman has to say seriously, anyway? Dr. Cash 01:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Denial of Evolution by Natural Selection, Darwinism, scientific method, etc...

I know she def. disagrees with scientific concensus on evolution. Why is this not mentioned in the article? Seems pretty important, both from the framework of those against and for these views... Let the real truth set you free! Does she not make a critical stance on evolutionary theory in her Godless book? This should at least be mentioned on such an important article of a women who influences millions on TV.

Yes, evolution denial saturates Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Last several chapters detail her position in depth. I agree that it deserves at least a short mention here. Cool Hand Luke 04:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many famous, influential people who sincerely believe in the "theory" of evolution. Yet, I have never heard anyone say that creation denial saturates their influential works therefore the mention of their stance should be noted in wiki articles about them. July 1, 2007

We're not talking about a famous, influential person who happens to have a private view about evolution. Coulter devoted nearly one hundred pages expressly to the subject in her book. Godless has sold something like 200,000 copies to date. Therefore, she has notably written about creationism and it deserves a passing mention. We don't treat Richard Dawkins any different. Cool Hand Luke 08:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins is an athiest so there is no mystery or surprises. It goes without saying (or tagging) that divine creation "denial" saturates everything he does, says, and writes. However, there is a growing number of believers in a deity (or deities) who consider evolution, in some form or another, sensible. But, this fact remains: the vast majority of the world's population who believe in a deity/deities naturally also believe in some form of divine source to all that exists. I don't understand why some people think any of these viewpoints require some "tag" to go along with it. What exactly are the conotations of "evolution denial" ? That was the major point I was trying to make. Einstein was a deniar of Quantum Theory, for instance. What is more noteworthy, if it really needs to be emphasized in the first place, is the comparatively few Moslems, Buddhists, Native Americans, Hindi, Jews, Christians, etc. who lean toward evolution. Therefore, if a famous, influential person is widely known to be some kind of a believer then chances are very good they also tend toward some form of the divine manifestation or origin of all existence. The only real departure from traditional believing or disbelieving, since each foundation gives rise to nearly opposite opinions, are the believers who embrace evolutionary origins.

It is well documented that Ann is a christian and a devout believer. So in the same way it goes without saying that Dawkins does not believe in divine creation, it goes without saying that Ann does believe in divine creation (Unless she was one of the minority christians who embrace evolutionary origins. Then, maybe, it might deserve a special differentiating emphasis, perhaps).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.162.194 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

This article is 5,870 words long.

I'll be the first to admit that I have a personal bias against Ms. Coulter's views, however I think I can honestly say that there's no way this person is notable enough to warrant such an extensive article. This article severely suffers from the "current event" syndrome where every word she says somehow finds its way into Wiki.

Ann Coulter is a controversial, polarizing figure...this much is true. Unfortunately, Wikipedians tend to want to use articles as a means to document every deed or misdeed for such people. As stated above, this article's length is truly "out of control." KyuzoGator 18:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are casting pearls before swine. And there isn't much interest in documenting deeds—misdeeds are what really count in the continuing evolution of this article. Lou Sander 09:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, though...does Ann Coulter have any deeds to speak of? That said, I still think this article is ridiculously long. KyuzoGator 12:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thou shalt not cast pearls before swine. It's official wikipedia policy taken from the Bible. Don't forget, else you'll be smitten by god. This concludes today's episode of Lou Sander's Words of Wisdom. Stay tuned next week for more cliches and biblical quotes.. --Ubiq 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Careful not to kettle yourself, Ubiq. Don't feed the trolls.

Wikipedia is not paper, and as long as we don't betray biases—current events or otherwise—there's nothing wrong with having an obscure topic covered in significant detail.

That said, I agree that this article suffers from such bias, and that we ought to come up with some sort of criteria for which of her many insulting remarks (and which criticism of those remarks) deserve inclusion here. A guideline would also help us in future controversies. Perhaps one criterion is whether a national-level politician or respected authority responds to her remarks. When other pundits or protesters react it's not very notable, and she doesn't get as much coverage.

This criteria would easily encompass "major accomplishments" like her Paula Jones commentary and the "fagot" remark, while giving us good cause to exclude all of the nonsense she utters practically every week to promote her books. Cool Hand Luke 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors with a strong bias, especially admins, should not work on this article

IMHO, anyone who declares in public places that the subject of an encyclopedia article makes "insulting remarks" and "utters nonsense practically every week" really shouldn't be involved in editing that article. This is especially true if that person holds any sort of organizational authority, since lesser persons who respect that authority, or covet it, or are stiff-necked dunces, will be influenced to adopt the same attitudes. "Drinking the kool-aid of hate," it's called on WR and elsewhere. Lou Sander 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I think Luke, along with the rest of us as well as you, has his own personal feelings about Coulter, but I think he has the ability to separate what he thinks from what makes a good article, especially given the fact that while he characterized "insulting remarks", he also defended Coulter by saying this article suffers from anti-Coulter bias. Some of us can actually do that. Some can't. (BTW I'm still laughing on "stiff-necked dunces"... what are we, living in the 1940's?) --kizzle 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that many, many more people dislike Coulter than like her (and that is not simply my opinion)...it's a good thing that there are people on Wiki (myself included) who can put their biases aside and contribute to an article about a person they can't stand. Personally, I hate Coulter and the way she stokes hatred to sell books. KyuzoGator 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Considering that many, many more people dislike Coulter than like her (and that is not simply my opinion)" It's not just your opinion? Please back that up with proof. Thanks! Don Williams 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, you did not just say that. I'm sorry, but you've expressed your personal feelings for the subject of this article, which automatically excludes you from editing this article again. Thank you, come again ;) --kizzle 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I laughed for quite a bit :) --Ubiq 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be fair to Lou here, he isn't actually asking anyone to NOT edit the article. He's just pointing out that if you dislike her a great deal, and can't hide it, that working on the article can create a culture of bias. It's a fair point in a general sense. There are some articles here that I will never read or edit, and I think I can be pretty neutral, because I'm afraid my personal bias may lead me down the wrong path on the close call. FTR-- I know you were joking Kizzle, I am just expanding on Lou's original thought. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has personal feelings on Coulter. If we are asking another editor to exclude themselves from the editing process because they have expressed personal feelings on the matter, then none of us could edit the page. I've admitted many times I have my own opinions on Coulter, but it doesn't mean I can't advance a cogent argument. Lou's signature move is refutation by ad hominem by simply impugning the motives of his co-editors without addressing their arguments. It's somewhat clear that CHL isn't the biggest fan of Coulter, and yet he advanced that the article is biased against her, thus rendering Sander's baseless charge of bias and subsequent request that CHL recuse himself from this article completely inappropriate. As Ubiq points out, what makes it not ok for CHL to edit the page when he calls some of her work "nonsense" but ok for Sander to edit the page when he "respect[s] her brilliance"? If he truly believes that strong feelings expressed on a subject renders one incapable to edit that subject, then he should at least take his own advice and refrain from editing here, which would, of course, be ridiculous. Equating the existence of strong feelings (both pro and anti) with an inability to contribute positively to this page is sheer fallacy. It's when you consistently ignore arguments and attack your co-editors motives that voluntary self-exclusion becomes warranted. --kizzle 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fair point to bring up, say, if you were to bring it up originally. But Lou has on his userpage that he thinks Ann Coulter is "brilliant". So what's to say that if someone who quite obviously doesn't like her shouldn't be editing her article, that someone who (almost) loves her shouldn't be editing the article either? There's not much of a difference between the two, and I think the point is a bit moot, considering to come up with some criteria for deciding on who gets to edit what article would require a significant policy change. Not to mention, it'd be close to impossible to implement restrictions when not everybody states their opinion on things. Personally, I find it admirable for editors to stay away from some articles for reasons you described. But at the same time I don't want to prevent someone from editing an article they might make great improvements to, just because they have a relatively polarized opinion about the subject of the article they're editing. --Ubiq 23:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(Aside: Coulter is undoubtedly very intelligent. As a current law student, I whistle respectfully for anyone who makes Law Review at a place like the University of Michigan.)

For what it's worth, I've always preferred dealing with editors who make their biases known. I got involved in Wikipedia largely through working on articles about Mormon history, and I have long mentioned my Mormon historical revisionist sympathizes. This isn't because I think Wikipedia is a chat room or a battlefield for the minds of readers. Instead, I think it's useful to disclaim biases where they exist so that others are better able to scrutinize my contributions for inappropriate tone and POV. I strive for NPOV, but I recognize that I might sometimes fall short of the ideal and hope others can correct me. In other words, I mention my personal feelings on Coulter to help write a better entry for her. It so happens that I think the article suffers from the inclusion of way too much anti-Coulter trivia. This is my assessment of the article's current state relative to Wikipedia policy. It (obviously) has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the subject. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to really come close to proving Godwin's Law, but I think the argument here is valid: What about someone like Hitler? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on Wiki or elsewhere who doesn't possess a negative bias when it comes to discussing him. But that is not to say that you can't have a bias against the man yet be capable of contributing to an unbiased article.

I'm not comparing Coulter to Hitler, except in that they are both highly controversial figures who most people are negatively biased against. To say, "if you have a public bias against someone you shouldn't edit their article" is ludicrous, mainly because there just are certain people out there who you can't be unbiased about.

Can you honestly say with a straight face that people are flawed for having a bias against someone who "jokes" about killing liberal Supreme Court justices and claims that God wants us to "rape the Earth"? KyuzoGator 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not comparing Coulter to Hitler, except in that they are both highly controversial figures who most people are negatively biased against." And with that absurd statement, you can safely recuse yourself from the discussion to the disappointment of no one. Now, why don't you go over to Sen. Clinton Talk and make the same claim? I've never seen a scientific poll on Coulter's negative numbers (if you have, please site it), but I have on Sen. Clinton. Don Williams 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

FTR- I never said that I agreed 100 percent with Lou's statement-- just that it is a valid one. Nor am I asking anyone to adopt my litmus test concerning whether to edit an article. It is just something that I do as a double check to make sure I am being neutral. Of course the actual test of whether someone should edit an article is there actual edits. For example, there was once editors who felt that Coulter was a rabid Islamaphobe, and wanted the article to state that without credible sources. If your dislike of the person is so strong that you can't engage in discussion or follow the guidelines, then obviously you shouldn't edit the article. I have not seen that here, except for a few isolated incidents. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Then what do you have to say about CHL's or my ability to edit this page simply because we have expressed our viewpoints on the subject before? (Which was more to Lou's point) Also, do you see a disparity between Lou asking an editor who referred to some of her work as "nonsense" to exclude himself from editing while Lou publicly declares that he "respects her brilliance"? --kizzle 17:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well since you asked, ;). CHL-- I have seen no bias in any of his/her's edits. Kizzle-- slight bias but is fair and will attempt to reach consensus, which is all anyone can ask. So I disagree with Lou if he was saying that you or CHL should not edit on the article. But then again, I don't think he was making that point. However, Lou does tend to be cryptic and snide with some of his talk page edits, so I can see why one would believe that's his point. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"slight bias"?! That's it! I'm never recommending any of your future suggestions in a vote again, POV Warrior ;) --kizzle 18:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do me! Do me Ramsquire! I can take it! *gets ready* --Ubiq 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for including material

Thank goodness we're at least using DFTT in connection with Mr. Sander's quips here. The problem is that we are never going to find anything that remotely resembles objective criteria to use as a guide. Your criteria of "national-level politician or respected authority responds to her remarks" would actually be too inclusive in my mind, but if we at least start with that, it would remove other things of lesser importance. Giving a cursory look, however, I'm of the mindset that the Jersey Girls, John Edwards comments, NY Times, and Arab comments deserve inclusion. What specific passages on the current version would you say do not merit inclusion? --kizzle 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're right that it would probably be too inclusive, but having an identifiable minimum threshold would help the constant pounding this article receives for very minor events. These have built up into a very strong bias toward recent trivia. I think it might be useful to use Time and other in-depth profiles as a guide to framing a concise section of her politics, which would include, for example, her exchanges with the New York Times. The "political activities" should only include events that rise to a fairly high threshold of public commentary, as the Edwards comment, Paula Jones/Clinton (which, many authorities say, vaulted her into prominence), and possibly the Jersey girls bit too. We must include some of her comments about Arabs, which are iconic, and sometimes remarked upon by non-pundit public figures.

The sorts of material I think fall short include the Women's Suffrage heading (which has now been removed in entirety), and much of the copy about "irregularities in registration" which seems incredibly trivial; just fodder for mocking blogs. Her Libertarian congressional bid can probably be reduced to a biographical sentence or two. The Times, "religious views", and factual inaccuracy sections can probably be edited down further as well, although I'm happy with some of the progress we've made. One problem with the headings is that they seem to attract Coulterisms that aren't in themselves very notable. The religious views section seems to suffer from that problem. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with basically all of your suggestions. NY Times can be whittled down, but it should get a brief mention. --kizzle 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that the Edwards section should be narrowed. The "controversy" has passed and, omg, noone seems to care anymore. Kyaa the Catlord 04:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If by putting controversy in scare quotes you mean there wasn't any controversy, with 3 Republican candidates specifically denouncing the comments and many of Coulter's advertisers pulling ads, it's quite a stretch to say the least. I think the specific advertisers as well as the Hannity and Colmes appearance can be whittled down to one sentence apiece, but it's still somewhat recent so I'd like to keep the other stuff. On a side note, you must use AIM a lot ;) --kizzle 05:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying there was no controversy. I'm saying this is the sort of stunt she pulls to grab attention to herself and the overreaction to it was the controversy. Since everyone's calmed down again, maybe we should look into cutting back on our coverage as well. Kyaa the Catlord 05:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not in our place to call it an "overreaction" and cut content accordingly. Besides, I'm pretty sure the bulk of the controversy was over what she said, not the reaction to it. In any controversy, it's probably smart to consider what people actually discussed afterwards in assessing what the controversy was actually over. --Ubiq 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Although this probably won't effect her career, the act is notable due to the reaction it recieved. It might in fact be an over-reaction—I personally don't see why so many politicians would feel obligated to address her comment—but we do not decide what constitutes an overreaction. Cool Hand Luke 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from derogatory words

Considering the recent developments, it would be a VERY good idea to refrain from derogatory words on this page. If it's deleted quickly, it's slander. If it stays around a while, it's libel. If an appointed official removes its history, it's evidence of destroying the evidence. DCLawyer 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

People are allowed to say "I don't like Ann Coulter" or call her words "nonsense". BLP forbides statements like "Ann Coulter is X" where X is an unattributed fact that is both defamatory and false. To the question I posed: What specific passages on the current version would you say do not merit inclusion? --kizzle 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do respect the pro-Coulter editors, and I share their views about the article's bias. However, this is not a chat room, and I've come to the conclusion that editors here often engage in trolling. That is, editors often make comments designed only to provoke responses from other editors. Editors should not engage with these sorts of comments. Hence "don't feed the trolls." Hopefully, this policy will encourage all parties to attack faults in the article rather than faults in other editors.

If you mean my comments about Coulter, I should emphasize that I don't look down upon saying nonsense to promote book sales. She's an enormously successful woman. I've actually read some of her books, and I find them to be a standard deviation less outrageous than her publicly-repeated comments. My point is only that she often stirs up controversy—it's how she promotes her views, after all—and that we ought to resist including any remark that may have insulted someone. It makes for an over-long article and probably constitutes undue weight besides. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Coulter notable enough for an article this extensive?

That was my original question, and it seems we've gone on lots of different tangents. As has been noted before, The Ann Coulter article is significantly longer and more extensive than those of people who are much more notable and more accomplished. I don't really want to argue bias, however it is clear that this article has become mired in minutiae and is really nothing more than a glorified WikiQuote. I propose it be shortened significantly, with many of not most of the "controversial" quote discussion removed. Yes, it's clear that Coulter is an agitator and a provocateur, but I think instead of detailing each instance of her offending someone a more general statement could cover several instances.KyuzoGator 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly see whre you're coming here. If you read this, you would see that shes a notable columnist/controversial figure, but looking at it, it does seem a little bloated. However I would have no idea what could be cut/should in any case. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone, please add a comma to this sentence: "Upon further questioning from Alan Colmes<add comma here> Ann Coulter replied,

Personally, I'm glad this article is so large. I had no idea who Ann Coulter was and now I know just about everything I'd ever care to know about her. How do people like this wind up being taken seriously? I can't believe that somebody this bigoted, obnoxious and self-righteous is taken seriously by anybody within the field of politics. I had my conservative brother read up on her and even he thinks this woman is an embarrassment to his beliefs. I've never heard him say that about any legitimate conservative commentator. I would like to add that this is a decent article: well-written, referenced and detailed. Good job to those responsible for its creation, maintenance and the bulk of additions. Gamer Junkie 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality not quantity, correct? (at least this is what most men have told me through the years...) Comparing lengths of articles and using that measuring stick to decide who is more significant than someone else is a bit over the top, don't you think? Conversely, the individuals who are considered to be the most important (by the way, who decides who these most notable people are?) should all have articles at least 10,000 words long , idiots 200 words, pure evil 100 words, utter insanity 0 words. So who determines if Hitler deserves 10,000, 200, 100, 0, or a vacuum ?

We need extremists. We need fanatics. We need conspiracy theorists. We need some madness. Imagine, for a moment, our society as a multifaceted gem. Each of these facets manage to keep us somewhat contained, preventing us from coming unglued, unraveled. At times these individuals feel like slaps in the face, splashes of icy water, a repugnant odor, a mild sunburn. We need these things sometimes. Other times they can feel like a dull knife in the gut or the intangible heartache/heartbreak. Sadly, these are needed sometimes as well. For an extreme example, as fearsome as it is to admit, we even need some fanatical Islamists. These facets help the rest of us to run in the opposite ideological direction and not become homicidal sociopaths ourselves. Marie Burnett July 1, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.162.194 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Boyfriends?

Ok i was listening to "real time" with bill maher and he claimed on that show to have "been with" her i'm not sure if this was a joke or its serious but considering how many times shes been on his show and the fact that he refuses to say a bad word about her i think its relevant considering hes not exactly a neo-con.. does anyone have anymore info on this or maybe its just not relevant, even tho her being with bob gucionne is... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curefreak (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Not sourceable to my knowledge, and a passing remark by Maher (I saw the segment) doesn't count. --kizzle 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ok i'm not logged in for a start, but thats just because i don't have an account on here anyway ...... Ok, follow this, she SAYS gays will burn in hell (same article), she SAYS she was engaged 4 times in the quoted telegraph article, but can't remember their names, she SAYS there are lots of single men around her in new york which she likes, yet she has only ever "dated" a few fellow conservative writers for very short time????, she has an adams-apple the size of a football, at college she joined an ALL FEMALE frat society,...is anyone else out there joining the dots people!!

Bottom line-I'd like the wiki fact she has been "engaged 4 times" removed until names are provided by her and they are checked for being plants. Thank you.

On the adam's apple issue. This is from the WP article Adam's apple: "A prominent laryngeal prominence is commonly considered a male secondary sex characteristic though this is more of a perception than anything pointing to scientific fact since not all males have large laryngeal prominence and there are quite a few women who do."  :-) Steve Dufour 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you take a scientific, investigative approach to your specualtion and get your hands on some pictures of toddler Ann running around in the buff, you will be very disappointed to discover she did NOT have any dangling genetalia! She was a perfectly normal female toddler from all accounts and cute too! The writer who describes a football sized adam's apple reminds me of young people who make fun of the fat kids and the nerds and the ugly girls and the acne faces. In my opinion, the writer is phobic about perceived imperfections in others.

Also, the "all girl frats" speculative statement demonstrates the writer's lack of any university/college exposure. A FRATernity is an organization of MALE students. A SORORITY is an organization of FEMALE students. Try thinking about the Boyscouts verses the Girlscouts. Did you know that Ann was in the first and only "all girls" boyscout troop? You asked us to connect the dots and they led to your bias and made up facts. Marie Burnett July 1, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.162.194 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Can we get a consensus on the 'women's suffrage' section (for the record)?

There seems to be some edit warring over including this part. At first glance it does seem like it's not all that important or notable. However, let's try to go about this in a systematic way. Some work needs to be done by those who want it to be included:

1. Find reliable sources that discusses her suffrage views in some way. Sources with just direct quotes from her probably aren't enough.

2. Compare the amount of note you've compiled to the amount of note other Coulter incidents/events/controversies/quotes have.

3. Provide all sources here.

4. Discuss civilly if other editors argue that it's too trivial for inclusion.

Without doing these things, it's very unlikely this will go in the article. On the surface, it doesn't seem to pass the notability test, so providing evidence that it does would be helpful. --Ubiq 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We have 1 editor with a crusade to have it included. The rest of us don't seem to want it (per previous discussions). (To be fair, Mel seemed to have wanted it too, but the vast majority of us seem to be against it. Consensus has been established.) Kyaa the Catlord 07:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable to me. What we actually need is a non-POV of way to describe her style. I could go through her columns and collect almost any amount of exaggeration/untruth/hyperbole that no one is expected to take literally.

It's very difficult (if not impossible) to maintain a NPOV description of such a divisive character. Ann Coulter's very existance is based on being a biased, agitating provocateur who constantly tries to outdo herself with new "everyone look at me" stunts. That last sentence violates Wiki's NPOV policy, despite being 100% honest and accurate assessment. KyuzoGator 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO it comes down to an editorial decision rather than a sourcing issue of whether or not to include the incident...my personal feeling is that it's just not notable, but that's just my 2 cents. --kizzle 20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. We're in agreement. Point to this section in the archives any time someone tries to put it back in. --Ubiq 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the exchange that is being referred to in edit summaries as "consensus"? Several editors obviously disagree that the quote is too trivial and unimportant to be mentioned, and weighed against the above brief discussion, I fail to see consensus. Merely exclaiming "consensus has been reached!" does not in itself mean it has actually been reached. --Ezeu 17:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree these is no consensus on this point. I fail to see how this comment is important, however. If this quote deserves inclusion, what grounds can be used to exclude all of the other similarly provocative quotes? This didn't get national attention (poor notability), and even on subjective terms it doesn't seem like one of her most outrageous remarks. Cool Hand Luke 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are 4 editors (besides the other editors from earlier discussions on this issue who agreed also) who expressed that this doesn't merit inclusion. There are, so far, no disagreements in this section (unless you want to count your point here as a disagreement Ezeu). If there really are "several editors who disagree that the quote is too trivial and unimportant to be mentioned", then those editors should come to the talk page and discuss this civilly instead of edit warring. Personally, I'm open to hearing arguments from both sides. Going about proving notability in the way I described at the beginning of this section would be helpful. --Ubiq 18:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope I've not been bold in asserting that 4-5 votes to 0 is a consensus, and indeed, I apologize if I have. However, I don't particularly enjoy seeing (or partaking in) arguments through edit summaries in an edit war. That was my point in bringing this here, because there's been an edit war over inclusion of this issue for a number of days now. What most of us are arguing is that her position on the issue has not been well noted in relation to other positions/events. And while I agree the topic itself is interesting (i.e. we have somoene who represents a minority opinion), it doesn't appear to have gained enough note for inclusion. Generally I would expect to see at least 3-4 sources that discuss the issue independently before I consider it well noted. That's mainly what I'm hoping to see provided by those that want this to be included. Simply saying it's "sourced" doesn't mean much, as far as notability goes. --Ubiq 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Doing some searching (sifted through 10 google pages), this quote is mentioned in a lot in blogs (not reliable sources). I only found 2 mentions from reliable sources total. However, I don't see it in anything besides The Guardian [77] that actually discusses it. I found a simple quote from this article, but it did not actually discuss anything relevant to the quote: [78]

If anyone would like to add, feel free to do so. --Ubiq 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That article is a student newspaper opinion column, which is not a reliable source either, but this is all besides the point. The Guardian is a respected source with an editorial policy for fact-checking. They presumably did not make the quote up. Unlike the other quote, this one does not violate WP:BLP.

However, The Guardian also didn't fabricate the fact that she was laughing while she said it. Presenting this non-notable joke as a flat statement of her position on suffrage seems, at the least, to be a mischaracterization. It was also not a "controversy"—it has four hits in lexisnexis, including the original article and two student newspapers. No respected commentators have reacted to it, and even pundits presumably sense that wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Again, if this quote is "important", practically nothing she says in public could be excluded from the article. Cool Hand Luke 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything you said (with the exception that someone is laughing about something means they're joking about it or don't mean it). But you're right, it's not a controversy, although I don't think anyone claimed that (or was this because someone put this in the controversies section?).

I found it extremely difficult to find anything to use as a reliable source for this incident. Whereas, when I tried finding sources for the CBC Canada in Vietnam incident (which was disputed on notability grounds), I was able to find quite a few more.

On a bit of a side note: If anyone has any search engine recommendations that are better than google for filtering out blogs, please let me know. I tried searching through LexisNexis but I'm really not sure what section to use, as I've never used it. --Ubiq 01:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, yes. This is much less widely reported than the CBC incident, which suggests it's even less notable. I just use lexisnexis out of habit; I don't think it's the best for this purpose. I also recommend EBSCO, ProQuest Newsstand, and Newsbank—their coverage, like lexis, is weighted toward recent publications, but it's usually much deeper well for reliable sources than the internet. All of these services are subscription, but it seems like public libraries usually carry at least one, and if you're a college student you'll have access to a few. Cool Hand Luke 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I never even thought about EBSCO Host. I've used it for a long time, but mainly for Psych articles (PSYCInfo). I just searched on there and found nothing relating to the quote. I also googled one of her other quotes relating to women's suffrage, but again, found tons of blogs and opinion pieces. --Ubiq 02:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Public Appearances

Are radio shows public appearances? Just the opposite, I believe. Good Cop 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved it there because there was only that one sentence under the subheading of 'radio', and she doesn't have her own radio show (and probably won't, given her controversial status). If you consider the fact that radio consists of the 'public airwaves' controlled by the FCC, one can count that as a public appearance. Alternatively, you might move the radio appearances to the 'television' section mentioning her appearances on talk shows, and rename that to 'television and radio'. But I don't think the radio bit alone is enough to warrant it's own section entirely. Dr. Cash 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Howard Kurtz

Just read this article for the first time - and the Howard Kurtz para made no sense to me until I clicked through to the Washington Post link. Maybe it should be changed or even deleted?

coulter replies to faggot comment

I added on two videos from H&C and O'ReillyMatthew Sanchez 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)." Reference the show name and air date, do not link to copyvio's on YouTube or any other site. --Dual Freq 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

NO....DO LINK TO YOUTUBE. If there is something you think is not a copyvio on these types of sites. They are quickly (days) pulled if they are copyvio's anyway, so wait a few days, weeks before linking to be sure.

thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.111.167.232 (talk • contribs).

Insulted by a Punk band

NOFX call her this, I think this should go in the article somewhere. They call her a cunting cunt in their song "You're Wrong" from the Never Trust A Hippy EP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.236.74 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is of no importance in relation to Coulter. It might be worth noting in the article on the band. -- Lonewolf BC 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it isn't really notable that a pseudo-punk band insults a conservative, hence little independent coverage. In fact, the internets don't even seem to have heard of this song. If it were a well-known man-bites-dog-type story it might be worth a passing mention. Cool Hand Luke 15:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional legal career

Folks, are we refraining from adding information about her professional (non-media) legal career? She was a clerk for an appeals court judge, worked in private practice, performed litigation, worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, etc. Is there an issue re-stating this material here because it can be found on her website? -Ajmastrean 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. All noteworthy biographical information, if properly sourced, should be included in this article. --202.61.204.15 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It must be from a third-party source - i.e. not from her own Website

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, in this case it doesn't need to be from a third party website. General data should not be contentious at all, so her own website should be fine for the basics. In depth analysis would be... well, it would be better to find somewhere else. But the basic data would be ok. Kyaa the Catlord 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but an independent source would be preferable.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are always welcome, but primary are kosher as well. The subject CAN be a source afterall. Kyaa the Catlord 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No they can't. See WP:SELFPUB. That sets out the criteria for when self-referencing can be used. Unless this is independently verified, it should not be used.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 05:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you reading that backwards? Raw data about cases handled by her as a lawyer is not contentious, unduly self-serving, we know who wrote it, we're not making claims about anyone but Coulter herself, it is relevant to her notability (her first claim to fame was as a legal analyst during Lewinsky/Clinton). Unless you want to be a dick, there's not problem using the basics from her webpage. Kyaa the Catlord 05:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am? I am just trying to re-iterate that this is an encyclopedia, so we should try to be thorough about how we source information. I'm sure Ann Coulter's fans don't care, and are happy to accuse people of being a dick, but this is NOT a platform for Ann Coulter's CV - sorry résumé. It MUST be neutrally verifiable.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 12:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You simply do not understand WP:SELFPUB. We're not talking about contentious material here. Relax and drink some tea, there is no need to get all heated. But hey, if you wanna throw down, I've not gotten into a nice talk page scrap in ages. Kyaa the Catlord 12:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I drink far too much tea as it is. Maybe that's why I'm getting so tetchy. For what it's worth, I don't mind it being included, but it is something that should be avoided. To quote somewhere else "self-publication is a fast-track to non-notability". Notability/notoriety should not be a carte blanche for acceptance of everything self-generated as being verified.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 12:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a stretch to call a sampling of her legal career contentious and non-contentious material really doesn't require sourcing, citing her webpage in this case would be a courtesy, not a requirement. Yes, sourcing is GOOD but it isn't always necessary. Kyaa the Catlord 12:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"self-publication is a fast-track to non-notability"? As I see things, that's a non-issue with Ann Coulter, who's obviously notable. Let's think about things, a moment. If a non-notable person puts information about herself up on a website, who's to know or check or care if it's erroneous? That's why self-pub material is treated with suspicion. Do we really think that Ann Coulter's website hasn't been scrutinized by people who'd just love to find her padding her resume? And we avoid 'self-pub' contentious material because, by definition, it's apt to fall foul of the NPOV issues, right? So, that doesn't apply, either. Marieblasdell 18:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(I apologize to Kyaa the Catlord, and thank Lonewolf, for fixing my mistake.) I don't know how that happened!Marieblasdell 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we can't just cite her own resume, but all of these claims have been reproduced in reliable sources. I dug up some of the cites myself, so I'm very confident they're correct. Marieblasdell might have a point about people finding any errors she might have on her CV; after all, her two-year birth discrepancy was discovered, and a COA clerkship would be one whopper of a lie. On the other hand, her fictional birthday shows precisely why we can't trust her resume entirely. Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Heresy?

While I was looking at the WP:SELFPUB page, I noticed the paragraph that starts as following: "Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people."

Based on that, I'm taking out the "Ann Coulter has been accused by some religious leaders of heresy for her unorthodox views regarding Christianity" paragraph, pending some sort of a cite--at which point we can see whether the persons who said it have any notability as religious leaders, etc. Marieblasdell 18:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looked kind of silly anyway. And redundant too, seeing as she's Satan. I kid, I kid. Thanks for keeping an eye out though. --Ubiq 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor Ubiq. Poor, poor, poor Ubiq. Good Cop 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really should get with the times and start being more racist, homophobic, and religiously intolerant. Oh, and stupid too. Shouldn't forget that ;) --Ubiq 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to quotes/article

Public consensus: Does anyone have an objection to my adding rebuttals to some of Coulter's claims? Specifically her quote, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim." I would like to add cites and reference to the fact that the *VAST* majority of terrorist attacks performed on US soil were conducted by middle-aged white men. I realize this doesn't directly apply to an article regarding Ann, but it would serve to balance the information. What objections/comments do you have to this? Thanks,--Legomancer 04:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• While well-intentioned, I don't think that would be appropriate. It's likely to be OR and frankly, irrelevant to the article, which is about her. eaolson 04:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't present original research, it would all be sourced - but I see your point on relevancy. Is there a page for specific claims she's made or any real desire for one to exist?--Legomancer 04:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is OR if you're not citing sources that specifically comment on Coulter's claims (like the CBC Vietnam bit). See WP:SYN. Cool Hand Luke 05:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? It would seem if talker A presents a claim and Talker B had previously refuted said claim then relating the gist of talker B would not represent OR, even if B had no idea A existed. I am soliciting comments because I am trying to preserve the main page. Worst case scenario (as I see it) is I present contradictory information, then somebody presents another interpretation, and so on and so forth until it's 30 pages debating different perspectives of events with no direct address of the topic. I think the information should be accessible, but I concede this might not be the correct forum. I have gotten two responses in short order and both were unequivocally, "no." Both also reinforce my trepidation about clogging the page with content that exists just to refute minor points of the main article.--Legomancer 06:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not a debate chat room, it's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's follow reliable sources, we do not create new research. You cannot free-associate political arguments back and forth. Unless you're relying on existing and reliable research on Ann Coulter in particular, it is unpermitted synthesis. Read WP:SYN—what you're talking about (using source B to "refute" source A even though B is not commenting on A) is exactly what we're not allowed to do. Cool Hand Luke 06:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Note previous comment was an acceptance of not adding refutes. I will, however, continue to verbally spread the rumor she used to be a man. :) --Legomancer 15:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ann should be pleased

I think she must be laughing all the way to the bank over all the free publicity WP is giving her. :-) Steve Dufour 20:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so should Michael Moore, John Stewart, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Al Gore. Jinxmchue 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Hillary and Barack both have regular jobs. The others and Ann make their living by saying shocking, controversial things. The more the things they say are talked about the better for them. Have a great day. Take time to enjoy the summer. Or the winter if you live in the Southern Hemisphere. Steve Dufour 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed a few of your favourite hate figures out there. At least most of what those guys say is vaguely accurate. This woman just talks out of her rectum in the hope of getting more cash. 195.157.52.65 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Coulter and Jon Stewart is that, Stewart is a comedian; he says things to be funny. Coulter probably ought to be a comedian, but sadly, most of the time, she's dead serious. Coulter is the exact type of right-wing pundit that Stewart's friend Stephen Colbert tries to imitate and make fun of on his show. Dr. Cash 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, your sense of humor appears to be inextricably locked to your political viewpoint. Don Williams 03:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove the "voter-fraud" section

The whole section probably should be removed if no wrongdoing was found. Steve Dufour 08:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it should be kept, since it still happened, but treated more briefly and dismissively. As it stands, about half the paragraph seems to be devoted to implying that there may have been wrongdoing, which seems more appropriate for a muckraking anti-Coulter site. Marieblasdell 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's so much muck that not much raking is required. I'm surprised that this kind of bigotry is accepted as the norm in the USA. Actually, no, I'm not. 195.157.52.65 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we'll keep that section. No wrongdoing was found because they couldn't talk to Coulter and they stopped investigating at the request of the FBI. That is, on its face, extremely fishy, and warrants discussion in this article. Raul654 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be "fishy", but considering that almost no reliable sources covered the FBI intervention, I suspect it's undue weight. Paragraph should certainly be trimmed. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the Palm Beach Post link to the FBI intervention seems to be dead, and a Google search for "Ann Coulter" "John Fitzgerald" Borchers seems to only turn up blogs and people quoting Wikipedia. Is there any source material still available for the second half of the paragraph? And, if there isn't, would that tend to indicate that it's a non-notable event? Marieblasdell 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, it should probably be cut down to a quick mention, something like "Coulter was [...] however [...]". Short and simple. David Fuchs 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like to l-i-b-e-l people, you might want to remove the whole section. Especially if an official of Wikipedia is involved. Especially if you or he or she is aware of the many worldwide jurisdictions into which Wikipedia is piped. DCLawyer 23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Careful, you're awful close to making legal threats. eaolson 02:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

happens a lot when you have to stand up for homophobic xenophobic bigots though.... 195.157.52.65 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore her?

'Stop feeding the trolls' applies to them as they exist outside the inernet as well. Why don't people just totally ignore folks like Anne Coulter, rather than constantly feeding them the attentions and arguments they so desperately crave for? I think you'd find that she'd vanish rather quickly if her diatribes went unattended and television appearances were denied to her.

Good luck with that. She may be controversial, but you cannot deny the fact that she is a bestselling author. Smaug99 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Edwards Controversy

I think it is important that Wikipedia not be bias and show what Coulter said immediately before her statement about Edwards on Good Morning America. Here is the direct quote:

"No, no. There were, I was denounced all over. All over. I think the one that hurt the most was, was from I'mALittleGirlInAPinkPartyDress.com… Very upsetting…Though about the same time Bill Maher said - and by the way, I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn't talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word.

[…]

But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

You guys are playing on people's stupidity.

The way I see this article.

1. Did anyone ever consider the fact that Ann Coulter sells another 10,000 copies of her three books every time she winds up in the spotlight? If you think that she is way off base, stop reacting to her. The best way to annoy someone you feel is a supercilious bigot is to ignore them.

2. Wikipedia is not a definitive or purely scientific encyclopedia. It has been and always will be a collection of entries from a wide variety of people. Some contributors are concerned with being factual and unbiased. Some are concerned with having their opinions aired. I applaud the folks that have to wade through all of our contributions to screen out the crap and leave the substance. I, for one, am rather full of it sometimes. That's why I save my comments on things for a more appropriate forum. As much as I wish it were different, I don't know everything.

3. Ann Coulter thrives on controversy. If she kicks over the slop bucket often enough, she will make herself irrelevant. If I knew her personally I would advise her to reserve her opinions for a while and see if she is pursued by the media. Then again, I don't know her personally (and probably never will).

Hilarious or crazy?

I'm not sure how to approach Ann Coulter's work, simply because I'm not sure if she's a genius comedian who's getting one over on everybody, or if she's actually serious. If the latter, we need to have a section on her mental health. 71.68.17.30 01:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Only if you can provide some sort of reliable source for a diagnosis, Mr. Anonymous Editor. eaolson 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is defined as a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy. Many of the traits of this disorder, i.e., lack of empathy and unwillingness to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others and arrogant, haughty behavior, need for excessive admiration, preoccupation with unlimited success, power, brilliance, taking advantage of others to achieve her own ends -- appear to apply, are in line with the definitions provided in the dictionaries on this disorder. Loveyourselftoloveothers

• • So you are suggesting adding original research to the article? Not allowed. - Crockspot 14:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Article getting a bit long

Currently, this article is getting pretty long; it currently stands at 67 Kb. The longest parts seem to start with the political activities, legal and professional disputes, and controversies and criticism sections. Perhaps we should move all information pertaining to her criticisms and disputes to a new article; Criticism of Ann Coulter, or something like that? Link to it from here under 'see also'? Dr. Cash 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the school that "criticism" articles are tantamount to POV-forking and should only be done in cases where the criticism of a subject is itself a notable topic. That said, this might be such a case; hard to believe the number of well-known politicians who have responded to her book-sales-promoting shock speaches. Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Shouldn't there be some sort of reference to the repeated charges of plagiarism either as it's own heading or under the factual inaccuracies heading? I read the talk subject in the archives, and there was no clear reason why the topic wasn't added to the Ann Coulter page. According to http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207794.htm, which just had the most comprehensive list of offenses (cited, too!), there are more than enough to warrant some sort of mention... Jaspray 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Jaspray

Citing blogs? Mmm. Maybe when it's in an actual news story. This was supposedly brought to Universal Press' attention last year, but there seems to be no notable coverage on it at all since then. We need to have some solid sources before accusing her of plagiarism (see WP:BLP).

I've always though that her book Treason is basically a ripped off and updated version of None Dare Call It Treason, even answering its title. Coulter's book doesn't cite to the classic Cold War paperback even once. However, none of this sort of speculation belongs in the article. Cool Hand Luke 04:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

I just want to congratulate everyone who has worked on this article. Considering how charged the subject matter is, I think you all have navigated the issues of fairness and neutrality very well. I don't agree that it is too long (see the article on Coast to Coast with Art Bell for an example of the kind of useless, trivial bloat that this article avoids); love her or hate her, Coulter's influence I think is greater than some of the commenters assert. Anyway, as someone who had spent years frequently going "who the hell is this Coulter person anyway? Where'd she come from? " (I don't have cable) the article was informative and a good read. just a thank you from a wikpedia sceptic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.17.134 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

her favorite books

sounds like a PR piece. what's that about. who wrote this some one from her staff? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.222.71.16 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

I agree that that sentence comes across as irrelevant fluff information. Marieblasdell 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashing

The section covering her racist comments about Muslims should be called such. Her comments are repeatedly charaterized as rasict and prejudice and should be described similarly in the article.--Agha Nader 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• That would be a pretty classic violation of WP:NPOV. eaolson 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a point my point of view that her statements are racist, it is the consensus among commentators. --Agha Nader 16:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Which commentators? Prove it. Algabal 02:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many commentators that characterize some of her statements as racist and bigoted. She even characterizes herself as a bigot. Please see [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] etc.--Agha Nader 04:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, but please be aware that Muslims are not a race, so it is not possible to make a "racist comment" about them (as you stated she has done in your original post), merely a bigoted one. Algabal 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you agree with "Prejudiced"? While Arabs are not a separate race, they certainly are a separate ethnicity. One doesn't have to target an entire race to be a racist. One who targets just one ethnicity is still a racist. Jews are generally not considered to consist a separate race. Yet Hitler was a racist (as are all anti-Semites). --Agha Nader 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Others characterize her as a racist, bigot and any number of other slurs. Unless Coulter herself classifies herself as a racist, we cannot do so. We can remark on her categorization by others as such however. Your links do not support your contention that she categorizes herself as a bigot. Sorry, but per BLP we cannot label her. Kyaa the Catlord 06:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at this site at CNN [84]. He characterizes her comments in this manner: "What Coulter said is hateful, inflammatory, racist and just plain wrong." What part of BLP are you referring to?

Other people characterize her. You claim she characterizes herself. This is a worlds apart difference. Unless she states she is a bigot, we cannot call her one. This is the core of BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 06:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of BLP gave you the idea that "Unless she states she is a bigot, we cannot call her one"? This is completely false. Would Hitler have to characterize himself as a bigot for us to do so?--Agha Nader 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleh. I don't feel like explaining NPOV to you. We can include sourced criticism, but not giving it undue weight. Labelling her a bigot is a complete infraction of NPOV and we can only include sourced negative material. There would be no sourcing in the heading as you propose, we'd be making a claim which is not allowed by Wikipedia's policies. It would be OR, unverified, unsourced crap. Kyaa the Catlord 03:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV, OR, RS, ATT, or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline does not keep us from providing criticism of a living person. I do not know what you mean by "OR, unverified, unsourced crap." There are plenty of sources that characterize some of her statements as racist or bigoted. We must portray this in the article. Based on the numerous sources I have provided, the view that some of her comments are racist or bigoted is not a fringe view. Thus it would not be giving that view undue weight.--Agha Nader 04:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your sources aren't very good, (blogs, for example, could never be used to attack living people per BLP). For any good sources you might have, we might be able to source the comments to them, but changing the heading to suggest that her remarks are in fact bigoted is an absurd violation of WP:BLP and NPOV. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you broke Godwin's Law 24.205.34.217 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that the opinions that Ms. Coulter espouses in her various writings and commentary have led to the subsequent attention to her Wikipedia article. Regardless of whether people like or hate her or have no opinion of her, numerous Wikipedia editors have devoted a large portion of time to the editing and revision of her page. In my opinion, this is a waste of energy and people's knowledge and their analytical abilities. We know only a small amount of knowledge of the Universe. Can't Wikipedia editors focus on the true purpose of Wikipedia? Arguably, Wikipedia is an attempt at a knowledge repository. Can't we stick to the "Facts"?67.49.177.39 08:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the Media Matters link

• The Media Matters Organization is an organization centered on a political ideology, and therefore violates the neutrality of the article. --SirAndrew1 02:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. WP:NPOV requires that the article be written from a neutral point of view, but doesn't say the links should be NPOV as well. WP:EL is fairly silent on the subject. The MMFA page has undeniably a lot of Coulter-related content that is reliably sourced. It's no more POV than the Human Events or National Review links also in the article. eaolson 03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As long as the link is adequately labelled as coming from the biased source, we should keep it. Silencing criticism isn't our job and MMfA, despite being comically biased, is a major critic of Coulter's. Kyaa the Catlord 03:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal voting age is 18 in entire U.S.

Sorry to add such a bland topic to this, but in the section about Coulter's age, it points out that the legal voting age where she first registered in 1980 is 18, as if it's unique to that area. Well, it's been 18 everywhere in the United States since 1971, per Amendment XXVI of the Constitution. That phrase just looks dumb and unnecessary, and should be snipped.67.160.141.110 02:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I edit this article?

There should be a way anonymous users (i.e. those who choose not to log in) can edit this (link preexisting text) without leaving the article wide open for vandalism. 12.40.34.150 18:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some articles are semi-blocked so that they can be edited only by registered users. This is to prevent vandalism as some articles are specifically targeted by vandals. So, register an account. You are actually more anonymous with a registered account than without as anyone can WHOIS your IP. --Ezeu 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It's definitely encouraged to register ^_^ --Ubiq 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Coulter has the same following Hitler had. Fanboys and Fangirls worshipped him like the sorry excuses of ignorants that worship this idiot. She is nothing but a fascist, ignorant, rude, hate filled, racist bitch. Did I mention she is a fascist?

This article should be deleted and rewritten to include a basic bio along with some of her political rhetoric. And that should be the end of it. It's absolutely abhorrent what this hack of an article has become.