Talk:Ann Coulter

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 1 – Before 2005

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 2 – Criticism, Quotes, Racism/Sexism, Idle rich discussion

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 3 – Vietnam comments on the Fifth Estate discussion

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 4 – External links, transsexual, birthdate, plagiarism

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 5 – More racism, Lots of Quotation stuff, length, some photo stuff

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 6 – Lots of picture stuff, Canada/Vietnam, other 8/24/05 to 9/8/05

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 7 - covers September 8 to September 30th.

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 8 - covers September 30th to October 10th.

Conservative criticism of Coulter - where?

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

Back to the quotes

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

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

Uh-oh. Here we go again. We have already had this discussion many times. PLEASE read the archives and use the talk page before making any additions or deletions to the quote section. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, y'all know my opinion on this one, but there is no strict policy on this score and my inquiry on the Village Pump made it clear that there are varying views. So until a policy can be made for it (which may never happen), it'll have to go by consensus on individual articles. Since there's a consensus on the section as it stands currently, and especially because it was the result of long, hard negotiations, I'm inclined to leave it alone for now. I am thinking, though, of drafting a policy proposal in this arena soon. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The criticism section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't you propose a specific change? · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

BD is right about the criticism section, it is full of unsubstantiated statements using "critics", "those on the opposite side" and "supporters".

many of which infuriate those on the opposite side of the political spectrum, inviting much criticism. Coulter's supporters often suggest that many of her comments are taken out of context, that Coulter is only joking, or that she is engaging in hyperbole, though Coulter refuses to apologize or back down when responding to the controversies about them, apparently enjoying the consternation they cause to her opponents. Supporters also argue that she uses satire to illustrate her points and for intentional, if controversial, comic effect. Critics also accuse her of hypocrisy and double standards, and argue that since she has such strong conservative bias in her comments and writing she is willing to misrepresent sources and facts to support her case. --155.91.28.231 22:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That you would even pretend that sentence about, "Her conservative commentary has earned her...", is controversial shows the impossible standards which are being applied to this page. Heck, I had assumed that was written by one of her FANS. Isn't that what you LIKE about her? Coulter describes HERSELF as conservative. She proudly proclaims her strong criticism of liberals. Yet you treat this as 'NPOV'? The nonsense about how, 'you have to quote someone saying that some people dislike what she said about women being less bright than men so we can put in five paragraphs about how stupid that person is and why they should be ignored', is equally absurd. NOBODY can tell me that it is controversial to say that Coulter's statement that 'women are not as bright as men' makes people angry. If you REALLY believe that's a shocker then I invite you to go up to your wife, girlfried, mother, sister, or any other woman and tell them that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they aren't as bright as men. Think they'll be angry? Please, go ahead... you can verify for yourself. It's like refusing to accept "The Sun is bright" in an article unless you can quote an astro-physicist saying so... and then have 'Dim Sun' proponents post a bunch of stuff about how the astro-physicist is really evil and knew the bright Sun comment was a joke all along. Ditto the whole, 'it does not count if she was joking' defense. Yeah... so long as she thought it was FUNNY it's all good, right? If you believe that then I invite you to go to an NAACP meeting and start telling 'coon jokes. Hey, so long as it's a joke what could be wrong about it, right? So Ann said that she wanted a terrorist to murder a bunch of people at the New York Times building... she was ONLY funnin'! Tee hee. And that one about returning all the blacks to slavery? Oh man, what a side splitter!

Clarification for the tone deaf - there may have been a note or two of sarcasm in that last section. --CBDunkerson 10:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact if you can't find sources to back your claims about the brightness of the sun you have no business editing encyclopedias. This is not supposed to be a source for "truth" but for verifiable facts. Why don't you leave such hard stuff like editing contentious articles to people willing to put in some effort if you don't want to bother with annoying things like rules?

As for the allegations subsections, many people throughout history have said things that might potentially make some other people angry. It does not mean any significant degree of anger or allegations or controversy of any kind actually ensued. 67124etc 12:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Interesting guideline, but did you actually read it?

==When to seek professional help==

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

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

==Weasel terms==

When reporting claims and opinions, so-called "weasel terms" tend to crop up, like "some believe", and "others claim", which should always be avoided. Replace the weasel terms with names of people, institutions, or publications, and cite the source of your claim. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.

There is clearly no concensus. The issue is clearly controversial. You are clearly using your own arguments. And it is clearly weasel worded.

I'm not gaming the system. I am trying to work within it to resolve a problem. I think these claims are nothing but blog-quality tripe that not even Eric Alterman would stoop to making. Please prove me wrong. 67124etc 23:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Great idea! let's replace the phrase "allegations of ..." with "controversial statements regarding...". You know I have this feeling I've done that at least twice already. Anyone else like this compromise?

btw you are side-stepping the far more contentious "allegations" where apparently someone called the subject a racist and supporter of terrorism. That kind of stuff requires sources no matter how stacked the discussion page is with Coulter-haters. 67124etc 06:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I think an effort to increase verifiability as 67 is doing is always appreciated. --kizzle 07:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh. Do you have a citation for that? From a reliable source?  :] --CBDunkerson 11:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

So she had a pie thrown at her -- woopdedoooo

Has anyone here read [1], a critique of Wiki articles which was mainly right on the button (but nicely replied to later by David Gerard)? I don't care that someone biffed a pie at Coulter, but as we have an article about her I 'd like to see something about her personal life -- husband/s, kids, etc. Moriori 23:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure she's married. I don't know how much more personal info there is on her that's not in the article. Her favorite colour? You got me. Oh well. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann Coulter doesn't have a husband or kids, or even a long-term boyfriend. Nor has she been in a divorce.[2]. She's in her 40's though, I guess you could add a mention of that. But as far as Ann's personal life goes, there's really nothing to say. Mr. Tibbs 19:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? -Kasreyn 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I archived a bit

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

New section reverted

I reverted this addition: Hatred of Ann Coulter has led some partisans to accuse her of being transgendered. Opponents have taken as evidence of this the fact that she is unmarried and without children. A website has even been made to unfairly promote this abuse, called Strap On Veterans for Truth. Another website, called Encyclopaedia Dramatica published the following false information:

What is most dramatic is that Ann Coulter used to be a man. S/he had male to female surgery at a young age. The typical hormone therapy was incomplete in her case. She has no breasts and features typical of women who take testosterone steroids. Watch "her" adam's apple bob up and down on her throat when she talks on Fox News.

The Humor section of About.com has an image that purports to show an Adam's apple on Ann Coulter's neck.

1. Hatred of Ann Coulter has led some partisans to ... This assumes a conclusion we cannot without violating NPOV. If you want to cite someone saying this accusation is being made out of spite, feel free. But we can't state it as a fact. If you want to quote someone saying Coulter's transgendered, we can discuss its addition. If you then want to quote a rebuttal, that would be the proper way to do it.

2. When publishing corrections, newspapers don't reprint the incorrect material. They simply fix it. In that same vein, there's no need to regurgitate a paragraph of such vicious speculation, particularly when the surrounding text is asserting that it's false.

· Katefan0^(scribble) 03:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm - don't forget that ED is a parody site. Guettarda 03:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeesh! Even more reason not to reprint it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

DEFINITION: Definition of Adam's apple

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find this discussion very, very inappropriate. We do not go around speculating on the actual sex of any person, in any form. Speculating on the sexual practices of any person, especially when it is motivated as political retribution, is repugnant and highly unethical. People make these accusations against people from time to time, and giving it any credence by claiming "parisans" make this attack is a often used trick. "Some accuse Fred Schlep of devouring unsuspecting children. The claim the proof of a photo of a discarded child's shoe next to a soiled napkin, left in his front yard." If no objections are made, I think this discussion should be removed. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 14:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I object. Just because it might be offensive to someone doesn't mean we should remove discussions here. Talk pages are a record of discussions, consensus and non-consensus. There were no personal attacks on other editors, therefore other editors' comments should not be removed. They'll be archived in good time, though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

It is not notable satire. As I said it is a poisonous slander to suspect a woman is a man with not a shred of proof. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 22:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but suppose somebody sees it elsewhere, and looks here to find out is there any evidence for it? And finds either a statement that none has been provided, or..... nothing. Just mentioning that somebody calls you names doesn't cast disfavor on you, it may well cast disfavor on them. When this was just an odd mention or two on Usenet, big deal. But it seems to have become more "notable", not the same as true. Gzuckier 04:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree from a personal perspective that this particular situation is base. But just because something is rumor doesn't automatically disqualify it from being notable enough for inclusion... I take no position personally, but it is a question that should be answered. Some speculation gets so widely discussed in the public street that not mentioning it would be tantamount to censorship (i.e. rumors that Richard Simmons is gay -- pretty widely circulated). The question is -- does this meet the same threshold? Is it well enough known that people would find it curious if some discussion of the issue weren't present? · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Ann Coulter in popular culture

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

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

Daydream believer2`

Seems relevant enough to me. Maybe as a part of that section we could throw in Coulter's general disdain for and ignorance of popular culture: "Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down".[3] Salon: "Who would have guessed that she doesn't have a clue about American culture? She is under the impression that "Forrest Gump" is a recent flick. She only first saw Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Wonderful Life" last year. Like a perpetual grad student, Coulter's favorite books are the pages of pre-Commie Russians."[4]. Sidenote: just found an interesting biography of Coulter: [5] - Mr. Tibbs 21:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Quotes out of Control

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

The Quote section is full: <!-- Please do not add any more quotes. See the talk page before adding anything new to this section. Feel free to add quotes to WikiQuote --> Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The reason most of the controversial sections are quote based is just for simplicity's sake. If we get into actual criticism someone comes along and wails about NPOV. As far as praise goes, the only praise of Ann Coulter I've been able to find is on sites selling her books: [6]. On one of those sites there's supposedly a collection of "praise quotes" on the hardcover book jacket: [7]. But I have been unable to find confirmation of any of those quotes, and most of them come from like-minded people anyways: "Ann Coulter is a pundit extraordinaire." - Rush Limbaugh [8]. If someone could find confirmation of those quotes I wouldn't be averse to adding a section stating that some conservatives actually praise Coulter. - Mr. Tibbs 21:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

As an afterthought, if we do end up adding that some conservatives praise Coulter, it also must be mentioned that some conservatives object to Ann: [9]: Bill O'Reilly: "Well, I threaten him because I see through him, I know what he is. But even the conservatives have said that your rhetoric is so over the top, you may be hurting your own cause." - Mr. Tibbs 21:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Accidental Revision

Just so you know, I somehow didn't realize that I was altering a quote when I revised the article this morning. I can't see how that escaped me. - ElAmericano 23:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe you hadn't had enough coffee yet. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

And re-reading my edit summary I see it could have been interpreted as harsh, but I meant no harm. See ya. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Pie?

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

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

Personal Life

• Trivial question:

What's a constable in the Connecticut sense?

• Other question:

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

Avalon 23:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Queen Victoria had a Prince Albert? Rob 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

boyfriends

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

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

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

a) Enough folks have asked about her personal life that its reasonable to include this info. katie holmes is not included in tom cruise article just because she's a celebrity. Whoever he dated would show up in his article just like all the nobody trophy wives in all the other articles on wiki. Anyway, Maher is a pundit celebrity so your logic doesn't pan out.

b) No one is paid to edit wikipedia so none of it is professional. If you think it is sloppy, clean it, don't just remove it. This is a wiki guideline.

Maher has joked about their sexual relationship in public. He may have later denied it, but that doesn't mean we rewrite history. "We're just friends, but I make jokes about us having sex that are unfounded." See, its just not that funny...

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

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

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

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

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

I said Hollywood celebrity, not just celebrity

Bill Maher is a "hollywood" celebrity (his show is filmed in LA), but does it matter? Being a "hollywood celebrity" has never been a wiki criteria. Laura Bush, a retired librarian, has a page and has never been in a movie as far as I know. Gennifer Flowers has a page too.

I do believe that solo unimportant phrases can be removed

No one has a beef with deleting unimportant phrases, whether they are professonal-sounding or not. It's the relevant phrases that we're talking about here. If the writing is poor, clean it up, but don't use that as justification for removing content that offends.

where have you seen people ask about her boyfriends

Read through this talk page and you'll see users sayings things like "what about her personal life?" As an unmarried 40-something year old woman with no children or husband, this *is* her personal life. Anyway, I'm curious about her boyfriends. -155.91.28.231 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Why's there no paragraph on her new book?

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

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

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

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

The reason How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2004) doesn't have a summary here is because there's an entire seperate article about the book, and that article has barely any content. The whole Controversy-Criticism thing came about as the result of a long arguement earlier on this talkpage: [10]. The previous version was "Allegations of..." instead of "Controversial statements regarding...". And the reason theres a section about Al Franken's book: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them is because a large amount of that book is about Ann Coulter, with another large segment about Bill O'Reilly. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Writing for Yahoo news?

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

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

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

re

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

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

Margaret Cho?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coulter as performance art?

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

Isn't it notable how manish looking she is?

Not at least alluding to it is like not mentioning Bob Dole is missing an arm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.93.122 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you're right...maybe there is no bias

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

Bravo!!! Bravo!!!

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

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

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

critique/study/allegation

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

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

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

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

---

"an extended allegation of..." is at best clumsy and at worst wrong. There's no such thing as a book-length allegation: "statements" or "assertions" don't last that long. [11] "indictment" works, though.

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

Surely you don't think that "five people have gone on trial in Rome charged in connection with the alleged murder of..." is an invalid statement because there's no such crime as "alleged murder"? [12]

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

chocolateboy 16:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

chocolateboy 17:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

This page does not accuratly reflect who Ann Coulter is.

Ann Coulter is a guerilla right wing terrorist (to use her people own language).

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

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

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

To possibly read.

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

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

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

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

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

This page definetly reflects who Ann Coulter is, a liberal hater. It also correctly reflects her nonsensical remarks. Good job on this article! - JedOs 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Al Franken

Is this section necessary? The whole thing can be reduced to the fact that they probably are secretly in love or something. Both of their arguments back and forth are little more than semantical games and media whoring. I don't think it adds anything except to say the two bicker like an unhappily married couple. -- Jbamb 13:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What about a seemingly happily married couple? ;-) Although this has been discussed a couple of times in the past, we can start it up again if you want. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've often wondered about that marriage, but you notice that they don't rip each other apart like Al and Ann do. The point is that the bickering between Al and Ann doesn't seem to add much to this article. -- Jbamb 22:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

World View

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

Verification sought for quote

Who (re)introduced this quote to the article?

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

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

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

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

Suspiciously, there is no context to the quote that would help us decide what she meant, such as what was being discussed beforehand or the reaction of her hearers to what she said and Coulter's response to that. But we do know in February 2000 she wrote "Does anyone [support slavery] apart from a few demonstrably insane losers?" [13] 64.154.26.251 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The quotation is accurate and a primary source given. More context can be seen for the same item on Wikiquote. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, CB, there is no source given for the interpolation of the bracketed word "[repealing]" in the phrase "You're talking about [repealing] the Emancipation Proclamation." Which is what is precisely at issue, whether she meant going back to the law of the Emancipation Proclamation, or the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. We need to know who made that inference, because her later statements suggest the interpolation is inaccurate.

The source you referred to in Wikiquote can be traced back to the discredited Washington D.C. web-based magazine article that I mentioned above that places other of her quotes out of context. But even that doesn't necessarily agree with the interpolation you are citing. So it remains for you to name your source for the interpolation. 216.119.139.143 19:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The source I referred to is 'Politically Incorrect'. A verifiable primary source. What's the problem? The '[repealing]' was clear from the discussion/question, but I'll adjust the wording. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verification of news report requested

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

"Controversial statements about minorities" section

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

Messy paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quote creep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(lefting) Well, most everybody knows that I dislike quote sections in articles, because they invariably invite more quotes, and on controversial people usually concomitant fighting. I'd be happy to see them excised and instead the most pertinent ones incorporated into the actual text of the article, personally. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think including them in the text will solve the problem. There will still be pressure to include more, whether or not they are inlined. The only technique that I've seen work reasonably well on contentious figures is to have subarticles devoted to the detail. Inlining or not is a matter of style, and I won't fight that fight anymore. But, I'll just state my position once for the record: I do think that's a case where less is more. Do we really have anything both neutral and valuable to add? It seems to me her rhetoric speaks for itself without any interpretation by us. Derex 05:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Maher joked about it repeatedly on his show in her presence and her response was to smile -- sheepishly in my opinion. Maybe Coulter just thought it was a cute joke, or maybe it was the truth. I guess I can't be the one to judge that but my experience is that most women do not like repeated jokes being made about non-existend sexual relations. There are few "reputable" sources that report on anyone's sex lives, let alone the sex lives of political pundits. Ann Coulter sleeping with Maher just wouldn't sell many mags in the check out line. If I did manage to dig something up it would be dismissed as a non-encyclopedic tabloid or somesuch. I've found an odd tendency at wikipedia to keep out interesting, documented material that gets beneath the veneer of a political or entertainment personality. There are few articles where muckrakers go unscorned. 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can't source it beyond a joke, why should we include it? Unless there's some truth to it, an off-hand joke has no notability at all. And, we have no corroborating evidence at all that there's any truth to it. As you say, this simply isn't the place for muckraking. If it could be documented, I'm sure it would be included. Derex 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? You're sure that we should include comments about Ann's sex life just so long as they're verifiable? You got a funny notion of what encyclopedias do. This nonsense is just irrelevant, whether it's true or not. The fact that it's unverified is just an extra strike against it.Phiwum 08:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not my idea of what encyclopedias do. It is Jimbo Wales' idea of what Wikipedia does. "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about _what people believe_, rather than _what is so_."[14] So, only a widespread & notable belief of this need be documented for that belief to be acknowledged in the article, along with any evidence (or lack thereof) supporting the belief. I don't think you have much to worry about though, because I don't see any evidence that this is believed by more than a "tiny minority", which does not meet the notability requirement stated in WP:NPOV. Derex 19:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You and I read Wales's advice differently. He is saying that, if X cannot be confirmed, then X should not be alleged. However, the fact that people believe X may be alleged. But that doesn't mean that everything people believe should be included in Wikipedia. Some, perhaps many, people believe that Coulter is "genetically" a man, but thankfully this article doesn't discuss such nonsense. Any more. Beliefs regarding Coulter's sex life are similarly non-notable, no matter how widespread. Phiwum 08:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You're probably in a minority equating information about Coulter's boyfriends to information that she is genetically a man. Articles commonly have information about folks' personal lives, rather than just an endless stream of quotes... Justforasecond 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, not "everything" people believe should be reported; who said that? Straw man. I said that J needed to establish a widespread and notable belief. That's what policy requires. Obviously, a liason with Maher could be of interest, even from a purely from a professional standpoint. I haven't looked, but I'd be surprised if the fact that Rush's girlfriend is a CNN anchor isn't included in both articles, as it surely should be. Is it notable that Mary Matalin is involved with James Carville, hell yes, even if they didn't get married. So, whether or not it's actually true, if it is an important part of the public's perceptions of this woman it most certainly should be included. I just don't think it is. Derex 18:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the issue that only a small number believe it, or that some editors just don't want to see it? It sounds like most people make objections like "we shouldn't include stuff about boyfriends" not that she's never had one. Justforasecond 03:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not my objection. I think a liason with Maher would be suitable (though exceptionally disturbing and downright icky), especially since they are in related businesses and have interacted professionally. We have a list of well-known people John Kerry has dated, who have nothing at all to do with politics; I can't see why this would be less suitable. But, you haven't proved a liason; and you haven't proved that the belief is widespread (or of any notability) either. Derex 04:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

controversies and criticisms

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

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

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

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

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

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

Umm, do I have to explain this? There are no "positive" quotes because they can't be found. I've already challenged Ruby to do this and she has not replied. It is not biased to fail to report nice things a person has said if they've never said anything nice, it's just reporting the facts. Demanding "balance" in that case would mean removing all the negative things as well, since nothing can be found to balance them. That's taking NPOV to an extreme of interfering with reporting the facts. Anyone disagree with me? Then take me up on my challenge and find something positive, nice, or constructive Ann Coulter has said. -Kasreyn 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I will. I think some of the things already there are positive things. I find Coulter one of our times most amusing and entertaining personalities. I only wish I could have seen her on the Daily Show, as Jon Stewart is another of my favorites. Coulter engages in hyperbole and rhetoric to fire up her base... much like some liberal speakers. She speaks her mind and likes to piss off the Left. It's rather funny. I find just about all of it positive. But that's just my opinion. And the day she goes on the Colbert Report is the day I don't leave my house in fear of missing it. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, AC supporters think some of these quotes are positive. If you can find one or two that are more obviously positive, I think discussion about swapping some out would be valid. Have any in mind? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Crack is whack. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the citations, I was noting the weasel words "Some view.." more than anything else. And I genuinly would like to find that other one (that citation could come in handy; how? I've no idea). Also: Don't be dissin' Whitney ::)) --DanielCD 06:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I ran a google search a couple of different ways and all I got was WP mirrors. It would be nice to have it cited. Hey, and Miss Houston said it herself. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

random statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mann Coulter

I learned just now that "Mann Coulter" is an insult to Ann Coulter (like Slick Willy was to Bill Clinton). I believe Mann Coulter should be mentioned in this article, but I'm not really sure how best to fit it in. DyslexicEditor 14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. Please read the talk page archives. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot. Have any idea which one of the large archives it is? DyslexicEditor 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is something about this in almost every archive... just look around, it's all there. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not found. I searched for both "mann" and "man c" and found not a thing. DyslexicEditor 03:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Mann Coulter" is a personal remark by some people who think she is a transexual and it has been discussed in almost every archive. Perhaps not the exact insult, but the subject matter. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude or Chick?

There is a rumor on the net that Ann Coulter was born a man or is still one. Is there any truth to this? In hindsight this certainly makes sense. Thanks. --Costoa 13:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Any truth to it? You would have to run a blood test to be sure, but it isn't going in this article. Please see the thread directly above this one. And why would it "make sense"? You don't think women can be tall, aggressive, and bombastic? That's a little sexist don't you think? Or were you referring to something else? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

She is kinda hot. I hope she's not a guy. DyslexicEditor 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The DyslexicEditor wouldn't care for a little Lola? ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, take her out and see... You might get a surprise... kinda like a fortune cookie, only with the potential for a lil' nookie... --DanielCD 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What does it take?

Coulter called Arabs "ragheads" that is racism.

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

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

132.241.245.49 04:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

And I would be more than willing to let it slide if it wasn't for her

• remarks right after 9/11
• her calling Hellen an old Arab
• and the fact that people applauded her comment.

132.241.245.49 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Articles most likely to be vandalized doesn't exist, but it would make for interesting perusing. --DanielCD 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Take it from me, we'd have to pop Sexual Intercourse, Eminem, Paris Hilton, George W. Bush, and Prussian Blue in that category, too. It's a daily struggle on those ones... -Kasreyn 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

*Coulter may be accused of a Felony

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/celebrities/content/local_news/epaper/2006/02/15/a2a_josecol_0215.html

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

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

PS have you seen the new Abu Ghraib photos?

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

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

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

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

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

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

Quit playing games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.132 (talk • contribs) .

I am confused. How are these new photos relative to Coulter's article? Did I miss something? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Yeah, I got that. I was just gently ribbing the anon to provide some connection. Probably not the most productive thing in the world, but a genial way to say "Put up or shut up." --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Unclear

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

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

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

controversial tag

User:Bachs; if you're going to tag this article as controversial, you should state just what element of it you think is controversial. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the "disputed" tag unless someone can explain why it is necessary at this point. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

link

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

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

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

Racist vs. controversial

Er, even if you think "raghead" is offensive (I certainly do) it's not necessarily "racist". Please discuss before reverting again. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

it's racist, just like gook or burhead are racist. what's not racist about it? 132.241.245.49 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just look at the format of the headings; 'Controversial statements about women', 'Controversial statements at Philander Smith College'. Regardless, just leave them in a consistent style. ~ PseudoSudo 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

132.241.245.49 06:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Arabs are the target of her remarks. [15] she make her statement about 4 minutes and 20 seconds (no joke) into her rant.

132.241.245.49 07:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The future tense was only because I was bringing my point to the talk page before I made the edits. If you'd bother to read, you'd see I added my source to the page which you reverted. Before you throw a fit and accuse of POV editing, take the time to read and comprehend. If to an objective person the use of the term 'rag head' is indeed racist, to NOT include those allegations here is in fact POV. Who here things 'rag head' isn't racist? Amibidhrohi 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think there is an implicit problem with automatically deeming anything "racist". My guess is that she says things to raise ire and spark reaction. I think there needs to be some driving force behind a comment to really make it "racist". It may well be controversial or offensive, and still not be racist. It is like Chris Rock using the word "nigger". Just using the word itself may not be racist. I think Coulter is just using these words to get a reaction. She knows people will take offence and react and get her more publicity. It would be another thing if she truly felt this way. It is her job to piss people off. That's how she makes her living. She won't get much press if she writes something like, "People from the Middle East are bad" than she would if she writes, "Those towel-heads spend their time covering up their women, while they turn around and fuck their camels." Now the second thing here would be racist, if that's what she truly believes, but how do we know she just isn't using these words to get a reaction? That's why I am more than happy to call them "controversial statements" and let the reader decide for themselves if they qualify as "racist". We don't need to be drawing reader's conclusions for them. But like Rhobite said below, you are more than welcome to find Coulter critics saying she is racist and write something like, "Because of these remarks, some critics have deemed Coulter a racist. [16][17][18]" Oh well, like I said, this is just my opinion. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not 'deeming' anyone racist. And what you think does not matter. I'm not adding original research. Listeners and readers of her material HAVE taken her statements to be racist, and that is what the sources I am quoting state. If you want to give Coulter every benefit of the doubt, that's your right. That's your POV. But she has voiced support for killing Arabs, she has used racial slurs in reference to them. It's unlikely someone would make a career out of saying these things if one didn't believe the essence of what those comments say. If people have understood her to be a bigot and a racist, the entry should state that people have understood her as such. To NOT include that information is POV. Amibidhrohi 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right, except the argument you make against me doesn't make sense. You say it doesn't matter what I think, but then you say that "listeners and readers..." Well guess who listeners and reader are... people like me. Anyone can start a blog and spout their ideas, and you think that warrants their inclusion in the article, but if I say something, it doesn't matter. What makes my opinion worth less than a random blogger out there? The article already states people think she is racist, but to label her as racist is forming people's conclusions for them. We don't do that here at WP. We report facts and let the reader decide. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is labeling her a racist? My edits don't include the adjective 'racist' to describe Ann Coulter herself. She has made racist comments, tons of them. Those individual comments are racist. And yes, your opinion matters less than the average person out there. When a Wikipedia editor injects his own opinion in the form of an entry, that's original research. I don't need to tell you about that, do I? In your case you're using your own opinion of Ann Coulter to censor verifiable information. BTW. dismissing her comments as 'sarcasm and hyperbole' is POV. That line should be removed. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim she has some strong hate issues when it comes to Arabs and Muslims, amongst others. There's nothing to support those views aren't genuine. Amibidhrohi 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think what you just said is very odd. To answer your first question, you are trying to label them racist. Remember that section header you keep trying to insert? But I digress. So why, in your opinion, would labeling her comments as sarcasm and hyperbole be POV, but labeling them racist and bigoted not be POV? You are creating a double standard. You say that my opinion does not matter, yet you continue to push your opinion into the article. What is wrong with labeling her remarks as controversial and letting the reader decide what to make of them? Why do we need to label them "racist"? What does it accomplish besides painting Coulter in your POV light? See you tomorrow, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple. There are a large number of people who find her comments to be racist. Those critics include both those who allign themselves with the 'right' and the 'left'. The fact that people hold that view must be represented here. My edit to the entry doesn't have the entry itself stating she's in fact racist. They point to the fact that OTHER people do see her as such. To simplify the point further for you, nowhere in my edit does it say or directly imply 'Ann Coulter is a racist". Since the information added merely intends to point the reader to how many others view and recieve Coulter's commentary, the addition of such information isn't POV. It's simply factual. To CENSOR that information because in YOUR mind you've determined she doesn't really mean it all, THAT is POV. The difference between all that and the 'sarcasm and hyperbole' phrase is that an editor on Wikipedia made the judgement that her speeches were sarcastic. The entry itself is stating that her comments are sarcastic. If the comment read "her comments are seen by so-and-so to be sarcastic.." (ie if they pointed to other sources where others found her comments to be sarcastic) that would be acceptable. This entry is effectively an endorsement of Ann Coulter and an attempt to advertise her in the best light possible. On the 3RR crap, my last several edits were in response to criticisms (albeit disingenous) to what I posted. My last edit was meant to add sources other than the blog previously cited. I'm reverting back to the last edit I made, since you cannot make present a credible justification for excluding it. Amibidhrohi 04:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Amibedhrohi. If the "racist" claim is cited is is superior to the uncited "sarcasm and hyperbole". Furthermore, it doesn't require any analysis to conclude she is making racist statements. Chris Rock use of the n-word, as ridiculous as it sounds, is not, because of not least his ethnicity, racist by American tradition. Coulter has no such defense for her use of "raghead", "old arab", etc. Justforasecond 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As I've said, I feel LV is being disingenuous. He's pretending to be more clueless than he actually is. I didn't bother responding to that Chris Rock analogy because the answer was so obvious. As a rule in urban street talk, black people can say "the N word" while white people cannot. Chris Rock exploits that weird rule and turns it into humor. Surely you can see the difference it would make if instead on some occasion, on stage, Trent Lott or Bill O'Reilly referred to black people as "niggers". Amibidhrohi 07:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, Senator Robert Byrd has done exactly that at least three times on record, including one not all that long ago, but you can only think of two Republicans , who haven't done that, for your example. I think this is telling. Syberghost 21:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Answered on Amib's talk page. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 12:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugh...don't call LV "clueless" -- I've seen enough of these discussions to know most of the time no one gives in, but namecalling cements that certainty. Justforasecond 16:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it... I didn't. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is very simple - just attribute the racism accusation and then you can add it to the article. Rhobite 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I should also mention that blog links, such as "The Conservative Voice", aren't ideal references. Can't we find anyone notable who has accused her of racism? Rhobite 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

And let right-wing devotees like you run the show? I'm not pushing an agenda. There's a whole host of people who find her commentary racist. The article must reflect the existance of that review of her views. Period. To censor that information makes the article POV in her favor. If you read my talk page, even LV acknowleges I'm 'probably right'. Now, how about you justify your position of censoring that information? Amibidhrohi 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is flagrantly against its subject. Amibidhrohi, you can turn this into a political war all you want, but I hope you realize that your rabid attitude is not changing any minds or shedding any light on the subject.Giles22 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Lay off the personal attacks. This article is about Ann Coulter. Alot of people find Ann Coulter's comments racist. My edit implies 'some people find ann counter's comments racist", citing 7 sources that back that statement. Explain how that is political? Is the NPOV thing to do to censor that fact? Amibidhrohi 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Be very careful how you characterize this here. It is not necessarily "censoring" a "fact" when the nature of the fact itself is in dispute.Giles22 19:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind Giles. He doesn't speak for others. Justforasecond 19:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that there are people who consider Ann Coulter's remarks racist. That is what the edit states, nothing more. It doesn't state that she is in fact a racist, since that would be editorializing. The only bit of information that is certain is that there ARE people who find her comments racist. Alot of people. That fact is supported by 7 sources. How is this disputable? If it's disputable, I'd like to hear the content of that dispute. I'd like to hear the arguements against adding this information. Syberghost only reverts the article without actually stating his reasons; I'm guessing it's because he has none. Amibidhrohi 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave reasons multiple times. Why haven't you read them? I'm guessing it's because you have, and don't want to admit you're wrong. Labelling sections 'racist' instead of 'controversial' is why I reverted you. Putting conclusions that are not universally-shared into the top of the article is why I reverted you. I will keep reverting you as long as you do that without seeking consensus here. So far, you haven't sought consensus; you've yelled at people and tried to enforce your view because you're pissed off. You have a right to be pissed off; you don't have a right to turn Wikipedia into your own personal tool for venting. At least, not within the articles; feel free to continue to do so on the Talk pages. - Syberghost 19:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

...Some things need adjusted in this article...

I read the article on Anne...good job at the beginning--but at the end, the paragraphs got to be a bit POVish...

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

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

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

2. Cut out the links that follow the sentence "Critics have labeled her comments and opinions as blatantly racist." (The "Quotations" section should make it evident whether she's blatantly racist or not. Add "See 'Quotations.'")

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

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

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

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

There is no need to continuously bring up what the critics have to say--after all, you still have the paragraph that states that the critics stated that her words were very racist. No need to go into express detail about that particular issue--the reader will examine this further if he or she so chooses.

"Critics have labeled her comments and opinions as blatantly racist"

This will suffice...and like I said earlier, they can always go to the quotations to see whether or not Anne is racist.

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

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

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

--JJ