Talk:Ann Coulter: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:37, 10 October 2005

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

For those interested, an RfC has been filed against User:BigDaddy777 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. Your comments would be appreciated. --kizzle 19:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Coulter and McVeigh

During an interview with the New York Observer Coulter said that she was ok with what McVeigh had done; "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building." She has explicitly stated that she supports McVeigh's brand of terrorism... and suggested another place to hit. She doesn't regret that McVeigh blew up a building. She doesn't regret that he killed alot of innocent people. She doesn't regret that there was a daycare center in that building. She just has a 'better target' in mind. --CBDunkerson 11:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to prove she made that quote, mission accomplished. use the quote. get over taking it of context though, unless you can do it in a way that cites your paraphrase/summary as someone else's. 71.133.115.162 12:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Use the quote"? Uh huh... I take it you have missed your fellow conservatives screaming bloody heck about the use of quotations? Including that one? This is ridiculous... whether we describe her position without the proof that she holds it, paraphrase what she said, or quote her exact words someone insists on excluding it. My 'POV' is that Ann Coulter supports anti-american extremists, white-supremacists, and terrorists. There is quite alot of evidence backing up that view... and one way or another you ARE going to allow that evidence to be included in the article. --CBDunkerson 22:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no one cares what your pov is except your thesis advisor. leave the wikipedia for encyclopedic facts which can be referenced. if statements get disputed, cite someone else saying them or don't expect them to stay. 71.133.115.162 02:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and don't tell us what we ARE going to allow. No one here is in any position to behave like that.Gator1 02:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's just ducky... except we have done that and it got yanked then too. Or are you saying that we are allowed to quote anyone EXCEPT Coulter (or ourselves) in explaining what Coulter's views are? Ridiculous, but whatever. As for behaviour... let's talk about incessant reverting of proven facts, shall we? --CBDunkerson 10:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was the problem with quotes other than the sheer number of them? As for trying to make a point by giving evidence, please abide by Wikipedia: No original research. 64.140.89.34 19:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the only problem with the quotes was the amount of them, not the content. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please READ the 'original research' guidelines. The idea that Ann Coulter is a right-wing extremist is HARDLY a 'novel interpretation'. I assure you that I am not the first person ever to come up with this 'radical' suggestion. The 'original research' guidelines do not prevent someone from adding 'the Earth orbits the Sun' without finding a quotation of someone else saying that. I CAN quote other people making the point which most recently got pulled out;

OK, then go on the Saddam Hussein page and try calling him a "dictator" or that he was even "dictatorial" and see what people say. It's POV. Just deal with it.Gator1 12:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Although the article is sympathetic to Coulter, it doesn’t make Coulter look good—namely because it uses Coulter’s own words. First, it has the already notorious quote: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." This is a depraved, moronic statement. It’s one thing for a foo-foo babe from New Canaan to go native and develop militia chic, but when she expresses sympathy for the activities of racist criminals like Randy Weaver, the mass-murdering Branch Davidians, and McVeigh, it should raise serious questions to her advocates. As far as I know, it hasn’t." [1]

The point is... I shouldn't HAVE to. We don't NEED quotes to say that the Earth orbits the Sun... it has been pretty well established that this opinion exists... we can just throw it out there and let any Flat-earthers who are around put in their objections. Filling an article with quotations of other people expressing opinions doesn't make it "encyclopedic"... just messy. Number of quotations, type of quotations, describing views without quotations, quotations from the wrong people... this is all nonsense. Every which way someone tries to include what they see as wrong with Coulter it gets yanked. Enough already. The excuses are getting increasingly silly (e.g. saying, 'some people think Ann Coulter is a right-wing extremist', is now "original research"). --CBDunkerson 10:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not OR, it's weasely worded. Find the person and quote them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's vote on this --

a)those who think she's a right wing extremist and its fair to include in the article

b) those who think she isn't and don't want it in the article

c) those that think its POV to call her an extremist, whether or not it they believe it so. --69.110.10.133 03:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote B. She's obviously a right-winger and self ID's as that. But the first thing I think when I see Ann Coulter is - Damn, that's the hottest looking woman over 40 I've ever seen...including Demi Moore! My next thought is I know I'm gonna laugh my butt off at how she incites liberals. And she never fails to deliver:) So, while she would probably be delighted to be called a right-wing extremist, I think we should be smart enough not to fall into her little trap. Big Daddy 13:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insults

Is the POV question whether Coulter uses insult at all or weather she uses insult heavily?

--71.112.11.220 04:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to cite sources for anything that is so obviously going to get disputed as her use of insults. Find someone to quote and quote them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the POV question is whether she uses insult at all? [2] I was thinking more of her insults toward Canada, this was the first article to come back from google. --155.91.19.73 22:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one to quote in that article RE her propensity to use insults. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because she's SO important, right?

She's just a shock journalist... like McDonalds or a sitcom, all she is is entertainment. We DO have freedom of speech (in this case, freedom of "screech") in the country, so let her say whatever she wants. What she says doesn't change anything. If you like her, good luck with that. If you don't... why don't we just ignores her? I mean, she's clearly an attention whore... so? -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 20:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? Think of the poor 6-year old that has just learned to read coming on wikipedia looking up Ann after seeing a lifteime worth of her on Fox (he's only 6). He reads this article and sees she is just a harmless jester who writes bestselling books, engages in hyperbole, constitutional attorney, who doesn't ever insult anyone and righteously supported trailer-park good Christian girl Paula Jones. Sure, she has a few critics but all they have are unfounded "allegations" about her. Oh and her legs are 10 feet long. The kid grows up accusing everyone of slander and treason and calling teachers to the mat with accusations of liberal bias and eventually blows up the N.Y. Times building, making sure the news staff are inside this time around, but not before having pretend sexual relations with Bill Maher. --155.91.19.73 23:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You see! I told you that the whole 'Bill Maher sex thing' was just there to feed the fantasies of self-acknowledged Coulter-haters. It's coming out.Big Daddy 09:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natsuki, I've been editing Coulter for a while; some of my work is still evident in the article. Haven't seen you here, because I've been on other articles, but I saw you're section heading:

Your comments betray not only an obvious negative bias, but hostility towards the subject. It is not a good foundation for serious discussion, nor is it a foundation to gain the trust of people striving to make this article NPOV. This page is for talking about how to improve the article. People put serious work into their discussions and arguments for improvements. This is not a message forum for slamming the subject of the article. That is what Yahoo! is for, not WP. Pease take such comments elsewhere; they don't belong here. Period.

The comment that follows yours is cute and marginally entertaining, but it too does nothing to move forward the discussion at hand, either.

I will work with any serious editor, of any persuasion, who comes here to work on this article. Please do not waste my time and others with Internet chat.

If she's not that important, why have you joined a room full of editors trying to write an article about her? We're trying to get something done.

I haven't read your history on this page, so maybe you're taking a little break from some hard editing work. Do it on your talk page. Visitors to Wikipedia who visit this article are directed to this page by the article's "neutrality" warning. It would be nice if our visitors didn't have to wade through your chat. paul klenk ^talk 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

too long, didn't read. Biut I will say this... for a FIVE PAGE discussion area my comment hardly makes anyone WADE... they already ARE WADING. My comment is a valid POV, it belongs here. I don't like ann coulter... but honestly, what's all the dispute about? She's a mere bug on the backdrop of more worthy issues. As for you. Oh... and if you're such a great wikipedian, why are you throwing passive agressive personal attacks around? If you don't like what I say....... yup, IGNORE IT! -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 00:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I "like" what you say, or whether it is "valid POV," is not the point; if it relates to content, and I do not "like" it, I still have to address it. If it doesn't relate to content, it doesn't belong here.

If you didn't read what I said, why are you falsely accusing me of a personal attack?

Read what I said again, please. I'm asking you directly and politely: Please take slams to a forum appropriate for slamming. On this page, please stick to content. paul klenk ^talk 00:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When someone says "too long, didn't read" it means they started to read, and skimmed a little, but didn't waste time on something long and worthless to read. I read enough to see that you told me there was some other important wikiwork I needed to be doing. THAT is a passive aggressively snide thing to say, and thus a personal attack. Are you done being hypocritical? -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 02:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Natsuku's right - you need some perspective on this stuff if you want to stay sane. Those of us with opinions about these people let it all get out of perspective - everyone knows Coulter is a shock-jock wannabe but is less restrained by good taste than Howard Stern - but big deal. Get some perspective, and find a stub to expand into a real article. Guettarda 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. At least someone caught the drift. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ATTACK that is an ATTACK!!!! lol. If what paul said was a "personal attack" what isn't?!?!? Give me a break...please stop throwing that accusation around, it loses all meaning when so clearly used inappropriately.Gator1 01:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and this, kids, is what is called a BAIT. Notice how he also employed the "twisting what was said" and "putting words in other's mouths." That concludes today's lesson. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah "personal attack" was never said...yeah I had to put that in someone's mouth...yup, you got me! Give me a break.Gator1 12:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is called "purposefully misinterpreting the person's words." Any questions class? Moving on... -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THAT is a passive aggressively snide thing to say, and thus a personal attack. You labeled what he said as a "personal attack." What's their to misinterpret? Hiding behind snotty responses instead of taking the opportunity to either confirm or deny your intent, is poor form. My point: Stop throwing that accusation around, they lose all meaning and is only meant to try to initimdate people. Nuf said. Moving on.Gator1 17:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and this is someone who doesn't know how to use wikipedia (he put everything in a long quote box). 69.231.245.82 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YO, talk pages are free for all to betray their own POV. Natsuko can say what she will and Paul can tell her to shove it. Personally, I think she's right on. Does it really make anyone feel good to rip on Ann? Or bolster her? After thousands of edits, is this really a high quality piece of work?

Alas, the efforts of Paul and Natusko are in vain, neither approaches the legendary antics of the too-soon forgotten BigDaddy777. Big Daddy, we hardly knew ye...--69.110.55.229 00:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interest piqued... please expound of yon BigDaddy777... lol -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 01:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Search for Daddy on this page -- and go to the Rfc at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

He's a big contributor to some other arts too, like Pat Robertson

--69.110.10.133 03:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That post referencing me pretty much violates every wik principle there is, huh? Big Daddy 09:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== Support foFile:R Tim McVeigh??? ==

Can someone provide a source that says she SUPPORTED McVeigh's actions? Otherwise this is coming out. (And, no a snarky comment that she wished he would have blown up the NY Times bldg does NOT count.) Thanks! Big Daddy 16:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, saying that McVeigh did the right thing, but in the wrong place - how is that anything but support for McVeigh? How can that not be interpreted as "supporting a terrorist"? Guettarda 14:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have taken sarcasm literally. It is an elementary mistake. Don't worry, a lot of Ann's detractors fall into that trap; it's why she uses such language -- so she can claim "how stupid liberals are" -- she loves to think that (even though it is not true). She uses hyperbole, she's a polemic. It's what she does. The fact that you are here discussing it, saying, "how is that anything but support?" is making her point.

She is exploiting the extremist, irrational hatred of conservatism to get people to say what you just said. She is very good at it. She makes her argument, states it in an outrageous and offensive (to some) way, and waits for a reaction. You just gave it to her. You missed the point that she doesn't like the NYTimes. You mistook it for support for McVeigh -- an outrageous idea driven by irrational hatred. Irrational hatred prevents us from thinking clearly.

I will now explain her remark to you: Ann hates the New York Times. She would be very happy to see it fail as an institution. McVeigh blows up a building. Coulter says, "Gee, why couldn't he have blown up the NYTimes instead." Get it? paul klenk ^talk 14:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and many others DO actually "get it", but don't let it get in your way. Now there's a thought.Gator1 14:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with gator and paul klenk. If that's the only basis for a claim of timothy mcveigh support, it's a travesty this even made it into the article. I'm taking it out. If you can find her specifically praising McVeigh that's another story. What she said was similar to what Howard Stern said the other day on his often hilarious program "I wish (hurricane) Katrina would have swept away Jennifer Anistion and Oprah Winfrey." This was not an homage to life-destroying hurricanes. It was a sarcastic shot across the bow at Oprah and her 'pal' Jennifer.Big Daddy 15:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, McVeigh's a huge joke here in OKC. Everyone think's he's so funny. Ha ha. Guettarda 15:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, it was unfortunate you had to smear BD by saying the motive of his edit was to "whitewash" something in your edit summary. Is it possible you failed to read his reasons on the talk page? You need to do that, and make an honest effort to understand it. He made a good point. Is it possible that your living in OKC is making it harder for you to suppress your own POV? If so, just say so. paul klenk ^talk 23:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smear? I think not. I read the discussion, it sounds like an attempt to whitewash support for a terrorist. And to answer your other question, no again. If I had lived here ten years ago, if I considered Oklahoma home, I would have to take a very careful look at my own POV. But I was in Michigan at the time. My comment was meant as an observer, not as a participant. I'm by no means convinced by the whole joke angle - commentators reverse themselves all the time...some, like Pat Robertson are shameless enough to claim that they didn't use a word that's on tape, but most of them claim that they were either taken out of context, or joking. We cannot speculate about what people meant, only report what they said. Coulter has expressed her support for McVeigh. It's a verifiable fact. So she supports at least on terrorist. Maybe she supports others, maybe she doesn't. But it isn't the place of a Wikipedia article to speculate about this. You can report serious, verifiable information that "explains what she meant". But removing it because "we all know it's a joke"...that isn't really in keeping with the standards of a Wikipedia article. Guettarda 01:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I guess she doesn't really support Tim, its hyperbole. Maybe we can at least agree it is tasteless hyperbole. --69.110.45.28 16:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, I took out that prepsosterous suggestion that she supports Tim McVeigh. The only thing more prepsosterous is the absolute tortured logic that supports it in this talk section.

But, if someone wants to carry on in that vein, be my guest. The logic supporting it is a textbook case of the 'selective' outrage that occurs when someone simply wants to slime Ann Coulter. If Ann's joke means she supports Tim McVeigh than Bill Maher's joke means he supports murdering Katherine Harris (see below) Howard Stern supports people being drowned by Hurricane Katrina and countless comedians support Dick Cheney dying of a heart attack! IOW, this is a dead end ridiculous and pathetic attempt to smear her for absolutely no reason. It may not be funny to you but neither is Hurricane Katrina to others. When someone tells that crude joke in the movie 'The Aristocats' does that mean beastiality, incest and necrophilia are a huge joke here in OKC or anywhere else? BOTTOM LINE: If you want to make a statement of fact that Ann Coulter supports Timothy McVeigh, you're gonna have to have more than a wisecrack.

Here's the Maher joke: "Now earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris." Big Daddy 21:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That entire first section of criticism sucks. Is that obsidian thing supposed to an especially respected blog or something? Nobody cares its still just some blog. And then we have "the daily howler". Yay another blog. And the crj reference looks like its either the wrong link or else it's badly misrepresented. All this fighting over McVeigh when the whole thing needs to go. 69.227.95.108 10:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous dude: You've got a point, but you have no idea what it's really like editing in Wikipedia. Not only do the Ann-haters fail to see the forest for the trees (whole sections are created merely to damage her reputation) they will fight you on every...little...detail if they think it is a positive for Ann. The McVeigh fight is a classic example but hardly unique. And, you know what, people have a right to express their opinion. That's how Wik works. It doesn't mean they'll prevail if their opinion is based on faultly logic, or as in this case, an obvious attempt to smear someone. But sometimes you just have to edit articles one line at a time. Maybe someday it'll be better. Just not yet...Big Daddy 18:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, your insistence on adding the misleading McVeigh wording in light of the discussion on this page is beyond the pale. You are going being factual editing to making subjective and inaccurate characterizations about what she says. It is clear you don't want a good article about Ann, you want an article that smears her. Read my comment above about irrational hatred. Please remove the McVeigh text and suggest a wording that makes reference to her comment without characterizing it. paul klenk ^talk 11:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, it looks like your POV is blinding you. I think you need to follow the advice you keep giving to people and quit editing articles that you cannot approach in an NPOV manner. A "good article" cannot be based on speculation, interpretation, or personal research. Removing factual, cited information does not improve an article. Guettarda 11:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to Ann's quote being in the article. I object to its inaccurate mischaracterization. Please give me a citation that says she "supports" McVeigh. One good citation, please. Also, for someone with a screed against Bush like the one on your user page, you really have some gall preaching to me about POV. You're not as clever as you think you're being. I actually have criticisms about Ann. But you don't know what they are, because I haven't made them known. paul klenk ^talk 12:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you're hilarious. I comment on heartless bureaucracy, and you characterise it as a "screed against Bush". Which illustrates my point exactly - you need to look beyond your POV. Having an opinion does not mean you cannot edit neutrally. I despise Eric Williams more than I despise Bush, but I have written most of that article very neutrally. Lots of people here have written neutrally despite strong POVs. You should try it. It doesn't matter what criticisms you have of AC - if they are documentable, put them in the article, if they are your personal opinion, keep them out of the article. That's simple enough. There's a quote of her supporting McVeigh. It's verifiable, so it's legit. Calling it a "joke" is not verifiable, so it's personal research (or mind-reading). Simple enough. Guettarda 12:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I see you marked as "minor" your reversion to the mischaracterization re: McVeigh. Please do not mark edits that you know are disputed as "minor." paul klenk ^talk 12:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the rollback button it's marked as minor. The anon changed without discussing, it's reasonable to revert people who remove verifiable information without participating in the discussion. Guettarda 12:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the cite you are looking for is not her supporting McVeigh, but rather allegations of such. Please re-read the statement again. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. I would like someone to prove that "many critics deplore" with a citation, especially citations that mention how critics specifically feel about her "alleged support for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (disputed — see talk page), President Richard Nixon, and Senator Joseph McCarthy." Just make the sentence better. It is an unproven claim that "many" critics "deplore" her for her mischaracterized and "alleged" support. It is just plain poorly written. paul klenk ^talk 12:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please go find the critics who have said each of these things and attribute the criticisms to the critics. Paul, why don't you start by finding one about Nixon. Deplore is a recent addition that should be reverted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think we have it about right. Support for McVeigh? Nonesense. Support for Joseph McCarthy? Absolutely. In fact, I propose we eliminate the word 'allege' to "unwavering" support for McCarthy. Ann Coulter is an admitted (and apparently quite proud) Joseph McCarthy apologist. Much of her book Treason is an attempt at resurrecting his image. I don't know if she actually supports Nixon. My guess is not but the claim is not nearly as ridiculous as to suggest she supports McVeigh. What I think we'll probably find out is that she thinks Clinton makes Nixon looks pretty good by the standards of relative comparison. Anyone even remotely familiar with Coulter's work is aware of how much she utterly loathes Bill Clinton. So, it's probably not true that she supports Nixon. I think the following line probably sums it up "Not all Republicans are good, but all democrats are bad." I actually heard her get booed on Jon Stewart when she made that declaration. :) Big Daddy 04:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Maher

Here's how I re-worded the Bill Maher piece:

Coulter has appeared several times on Bill Maher's cancelled program "Politically Incorrect". Maher has referred to her as "a friend of mine" yet often ganged up on her with other liberals when the conversation turned serious. While on the show she has been deliberately provocative, comparing, for example, actor Richard Belzer to Osama Bin Laden and saying the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed.

It's better because it eliminated the cheezy 'pretend sex' line that's useless and only feeds the ann-haters already frenzied antipathy (see above for a user comment that illustrates this perfectly.) Plus it ADDS useful, and relevant info regarding one of the reasons why Ann became such a darling of the right - Her ability to withstand withering attacks from Maher and 3 other liberal guests (Ann being the token conservative) on a regular basis before a national audience.Big Daddy 09:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yet often ganged up on her with other liberals when the conversation turned serious - that's neutral language? I think not. Guettarda 14:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I changed it again. Perhaps you can make it even better. What I was attempting to describe was what frequently happened on PI. Maher would invite just ONE SINGLE conservative guest along with 3 others who were either far left or left-leaning and then joined them in their attack on the conservative. Now, to be fair to Maher, he has improved as reflected in his HBO show, but it was truly despicable the way conseravtives were treated on the old ABC program. One was even spit on by Sandra Bernhardt. Anyway, Coulter would often be that token conservative 'punching bag'. But she'd acquit herself quite well. True, she definitely played the "I'm hot" card, wearing the tightest of tops and shortest of skirts (for which I was eternally grateful) but she also did held her ground and it was duly noted by Maher. Big Daddy 14:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. If someone wants it back, they can quote her, and provide an intelligent, well-written context for her remark. In its current state, it was a thoughtless, stupid blunder. paul klenk ^talk 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul writes - ":Good edit." Why, thank you. Very much.Big Daddy 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was only "cheezy" because someone put "pretend" in front of "sexual relations". I fixed it up. And...not to accuse yall of anything...but its a little suspicious when you never disagree on anything.... --69.110.37.143 21:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you only knew, which you clearly don't. Not to accuse y'all of anything, but coming from an anonymous person with no edit history whatsoever, your statement is more than a little suspicious. Why don't you go edit the Al Qaeda page? paul klenk ^talk 22:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, removing "pretend" is not a terrorist act. Don't forget the wiki policies, Paul --69.110.51.207 03:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What an Improvement!

This article is TREMENDOUSLY more balanced than it was just 3 short weeks ago. Applause to everyone. Most of what pops out to me now are just little tidbits that can be tweaked without a full scale war breaking out.

I haven't done anything to the passage below, but to help everyone see why it's laughably ironic as it's currently written, I highlighted a couple snippets...

"...that Coulter is only joking, or that she is engaging in hyperbole. However, Coulter herself has never stated that she doesn't hold these views when responding to the controversies about them. Indeed, when asked about a comment she made suggesting the New York Times building should be blown up, Coulter took the opportunity to clarify that she meant this should be done only with the newspaper staff inside. Big Daddy 15:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do love that quote. paul klenk ^talk

I wrote it, and it's deliberately ironic. Yes, it looks like hyperbole... yet the point stands. All of this, 'she does not really mean it' is an INVENTION of her fans. Coulter herself makes no such claim. All the, 'you liberals just do not GET it' stuff is painfully obtuse in it's own right. We DO get it... what YOU are failing to see is that by playing this 'does she mean it, does she not mean it' game Coulter presents horrifically unAmerican, pro-terrorist, fascist, et cetera beliefs and then turns it into 'hide and go seek' on whether she is really a nazi or not. We don't CARE if she is as evil as she lets on or just 'funning'... either way her actions support sickos who hate this country and crazy 'liberal' ideas like freedom, justice, and equality. Maybe Coulter ISN'T really in favor of blowing up day care centers... it does seem rather unlikely. But the fact is... she said she was. When Ann Coulter went on about the evil government "murdering" those "harmless American citizens" down in Waco who just wanted to enjoy their god given right to buy illegal weapons and rape little girls... it had consequences. That kind of ridiculous slant helped to create people like McVeigh - who actually believed the nonsense (hell, he was practically quoting her). So again, I don't CARE if she doesn't really mean it. There are people out there who DO... and she is helping them. --CBDunkerson 12:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, this article is as good as I've ever seen it. Quite frankly, I'm almost proud. But in the Wik-spirit of CANI, (Constant And Never-ending Improvement)I propose a couple additions -

1)I want to add something about Ann and Max Clelend. She caught a tremendous amount of flack for pointing out that Max Cleland wasn't actually injured in combat in Vietnam (as the democratic myth machine had intimated). However, it turns out that she was right and her critics wrong. That's noteworthy and relevant. Especially since, as is the case for Wik articles on any conservatives, there's usually a litany of allegations where the conservative was said to be proven wrong.

2) We have a lot in the Ann Coulter article about what Al Franken thinks about Ann Coulter. Yet I don't think we've returned the favor to Al! But, in lieu of that, I think we owe it to fairness, to share a little bit of Ann's take on Al. After all, it is her article, no? Big Daddy 08:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Franken, I corrected what I considered a poorly written charge that he considers Coulter a hypocrite. Here's how it looks now:

"Franken claims that Coulter treats any comments found in The New York Times as reflecting the official opinion of the newspaper. He says that Coulter's statement (in Slander, chapter 'The Joy of Arguing with Liberals: You're stupid ) "If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments" can be viewed as hypocritical, because in the same book she uses similar characterizations to critique others."

The previous version seemed meandering, rambling and disjointed. I think the same point that a liberal is calling a conservative a hypocrite ( I know, newsflash!:) is made much more succinctly with this edit. Any comments? Big Daddy 04:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! The previous version was not meandering, rambling, nor disjointed. I'll be reverting it for just that reason. Also, you've been Referred for Arbitration, based on a month of vandalism. Here's your Arbitration page: [3]. Also, I'm glad to see you've finally logged on, instead of making edits behind your anonymous sockpuppet, as you've been doing all day. Cheers! Eleemosynary 04:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops... Kizzle beat me to the revert! Eleemosynary 05:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

who exactly is supposed to be a sockpuppet and what evidence do you base this charge on? 67.124.200.240 06:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He thinks you are me. Hate can do this to a person's cognitive faculties! Ps Since I provided a reasoned legit explanation and context for my re-write, and no such counterclaim were provided other than childish mocking which are duly noted, the edit will go back in again. Any attempts to be revert t will be considered a second step towards a RRR violation.Big Daddy 07:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached by several editors on the version ending with Kizzle's last edit. Thus, I've reverted it. Threats are non-Wiki, and will be ignored. Eleemosynary 09:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

there is no consensus here. 67.124.200.240 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann is shrill?

She can be but I'm gonna take out the quote from the very first paragraph because it's misleading. First of all, the Ann-haters apparently can't get enough of this quote. It's used TWICE in this article. That's wrong to begin with. Secondly the only readers who are alleged to find her 'shrill etc' are those from that Arizona paper and we have only the words of it's editor to back this charge up. (Not that we couldn't find others who agree! :) In conclusion, if you want to include it, use it only once and in relation to her being unfairly censored by that Arizona paper. Big Daddy 19:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The editor said "many readers", not "many readers from Arizona". Changing this is a misquote. As he is not making an accusation against Ann, this is no allegation -- its a cited fact. --155.91.19.73 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources make the intro look bad and this problem is why. He can add context without misquoting (quite the opposite!), and what you suggest he would do is not what he proposed. Plus if we keep it then we now need two pro-Ann references in the intro to make it neutral. 64.140.89.34 02:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I had an email conversation with this editor right after it happened. I was curious how he knew the letter writing complainers were republicans. He said he didn't know but only that they said they were. It stands to reason we don't know for sure where the letters emanated from either. So to infer that this Arizona editor was claiming they came from all over because he didn't specifically say they were from Arizona is faulty logic. It's a moot point anyway. The context was a local Arizona paper. It's not just a stretch to START her article with the implication that readers around the world wrote the Arizona Republic. It's flat out dishonest. NOTE: To those reasonable people who are wondering why I even have to make these obvious points in here...don't ask. lol! Big Daddy

hah. no one alleged readers around the world wrote the arizona republic, but it's a misquote to say the readers were *only* in arizona. i'd bet good frozen chicken that readers around the world DO think she is shrill (peeps in olympia, washintgon, ann arbor, and the greater eastern and southern hemispheres, in any case) but that would require some original research to prove and would be deleted immediately. so i guess all that makes sense is stickin with the quote --71.112.11.220 06:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of numbers wrote -"I'd bet good frozen chicken that readers around the world DO think she is shrill." Well, you'd probably be knee deep in frozen chickens then as that bet is a sure winner. Of course, I'd bet a year's full of weekend dinners at The Tribute that I could find readers saying all that and a lot worse about Al Franken etc. The question is, can you back it up? And a quote from the editor of the Arizona Daily Star, one of FORTY newspapers in Arizona and two in Tuscon, doesn't qualify as a back up. So my guess is that, in the absence of supporting evidence, the quote gets cut out. And even with back up evidence, it's appropriateness at the beginning of the article is suspect. Big Daddy 06:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is intact and cited, doesn't need any more support than that, does it? Did anyone do a nationwide study to determine she's sarcastic? --155.91.19.73 21:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blogs

If this were a real encyclopedia--and I say this with the straightest possible face--the majority of sources used on politically contentious pages are unacceptable. But it seems editors lately are stooping even below current standards with blogs as references for anything. Do people actually think they are valid as sources here? 71.128.137.211 07:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try this one - http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020923/alterman

If that's an opinion column by an actual journalist in a real-live published journal then it is worlds better. Why don't you Ann-haters use stuff from that and lose the blogs. 71.128.137.211 19:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more McVeigh fun and excitement

since my dynamic IP address confuses Guertedda so much I will repeat what is needed to reach a concensus here (plus engage in some nauseating legalese): either someone provides a source that proves a critic said Coulter supported McVeigh or the claim must remain removed.

I really assume one can find a source saying just about anything these days, but must insist it is provided for this case. In fact I will move the disputed text here as encouraged by the official policy on Verifiability. Since you disagree with my neutral rewording of some of it, I will instead ask you to adhere to the requirements of verifiability for your preferred wording.

Critics have taken issue with comments by Coulter which they perceive as indicating support for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, President Richard Nixon, and Senator Joseph McCarthy. They also accuse Coulter of stating the following views: women should not be allowed to vote; women should not be allowed in the military; women understand how to spend money but not how to earn it; Muslims smell bad and should be killed or forcibly converted to Christianity [12]; juvenile delinquents should be publicly flogged; liberals should be threatened with death; terrorism is acceptable as long as it is directed against liberals; the way to prevent school shootings is to allow students to carry guns; environmentalism is against God's wish that we "rape" the Earth; fascism can be a good thing when properly applied; and many other similarly contentious views.

Demanding that those who disagree with an assertion prove the negative is not a reasonable approach (hipocrite). The policy on verifiability states it is to be moved here until made verifiable so that is what we will do. It can remain here and only here until someone provides sources worthy of an encyclopedia which state that:

1. critics claim Coulter supports McVeigh (I doubt anyone cares about Nixon and McCarthy is covered later in the article).

2. critics accuse Coulter of stating each of the listed views.

Or, a reference to an actual noteworthy critic making these accusations work as well, though then the statement must be properly attributed to the critic in the article.

Unfortunately, blogs are not acceptable as Reliable sources. Also, Wikiquote references to Coulter's words do not prove a critic said anything.

Please restrict any replacement of the disputed content until there is a form which all can agree, even if grudgingly, that accurately represents the content of sources provided. Please stop reverting anons who remove that statement just because they are anon. Many of them are me going back to the 22nd, where I might add, I made this same point in the discussion repeatedly asking for a source which remains unprovided. You aren't running some anon vandal away with such behavior, you are failing to assume good faith. I'm also eager to hear other suggested Neutral ways to reword these unsourced statements. 71.128.137.211 06:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) p.s. Guettarda: none of those anons in the frozen chicken and AZ discussion are me.[reply]

Either you are being dishonest in youe edit summaries or you don't understand what "neutral" means. Please read WP:NPOV carefully. You take the conetent out of the statement and leave something that is meaningless and almost nonsensical. "Critics have taken issue with statements by Coulter regarding: Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh..." says nothing about what statements. People are upset because she had expressed support for a terrorist (seriously or jokingly, we have no way of determining; see CBDunkerson's comments above). Similarly, removing the fact that people have shown that a lot of her footnoting is spurious. To what end? You cite the fact that bogs are not reliable sources. That's utterly irrelevent in this case - the article says what bloggers have found, it doesn't say "X is the case" (and Y's blog is my source).

I am not reverting anons, I am reverting the removal of sources information from the article. You have not made your case in the least as to why referenced information should be removed. Please address the issue at hand - why should we remove mention of the fact that AC has expressed support the Tim McVeigh? Start there. Guettarda 12:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We continue to descend further into the absurd. It isn't possible to include 'critics object to Ann Coulter saying women should not be allowed to vote' without a quotation to that effect from the mainstream media? Conservatives really can't wrap their minds around the possibility that someone might object to Coulter's view that just over 50% of the population should be denied voting rights? It's just too radical a concept for you to accept? You need proof? And the THOUSANDS of examples of this from regular people don't count... it HAS to be a member of the supposedly 'liberal' media?

PLEASE! Throwing up ludicrous impediment after inane restriction is not going to keep the obvious out of this article. The core of your objection seems to be over her support for McVeigh... but a qualifying example of that was posted BEFORE the latest 'censor-a-fest';

"But fortunately, John Judis and Nick Confessore have taken responsibility for that, leaving me to the less ominous but more baffling phenomenon of the bestselling Barbie-doll terrorist-apologist [Coulter], who continues to be celebrated by the very media she terms "retarded" and guilty of "mass murder" while calling for their mass extinction by the likes of her ideological comrade Timothy McVeigh." http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020923/alterman

Mainstream journalist. Calling Coulter and McVeigh comrades. Saying she is an apologist for him. Like the thousands of other people you are pretending don't exist. Because see, you don't need a 'reliable source' to prove that an OPINION exists. If I am just saying 'critics accuse Coulter of supporting Tim McVeigh' then the fact that I can point to lots and lots of people doing exactly that makes it an established fact - that opinion DOES exist. It doesn't require that someone employed by a massive right-wing news corporation actually share the same opinion... it can exist even without that. Reliable sources are required for 'facts' which cannot otherwise be confirmed. I don't need a 'reliable source' to confirm that the Sun is a yellowish color... I can direct anyone who doubts my claim to look out a window during the daytime. Ditto the 'unsourced' claim that some people object to Coulter's view that women should not be allowed to vote. Anyone with a functioning brain is going to take that as OBVIOUS. If they don't... a Google search will turn up thousands of examples proving it. This, 'I am taking it out and you are not allowed to put it back in until you quote Bob Novak saying it is so' game is just pathetic. --12.42.50.51 12:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the quote did not begin here on Wikipedia.... But alrighty. Gzuckier 13:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all please do not revert my changes en masse over a few weasel words and phrases; I did a great deal of other work trying to improve the article's flow and accuracy (for example the removal of "falsehoods"). Secondly, indeed I took the content out Guettarda becuase that content is not verifiable by a reliable source. Blogs are not reliable sources. Sorry about the confusion, this is a new issue I am introducing with the recent discussion to include with the previous issues on the Criticism section. I am quoting official wikipedia policies and style guides here. To be specific:

From Wikipedia:Reliable source, a style-guide:

If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor.

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website.

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

From Verifiability, a non-negotiable official policy:

The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.

For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform original research. Therefore, anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.

Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information.

As I read it, the blogs, at best, were being used as sole primary sources to include the opinions of the authors, named as "critics". At worst, they are secondary sources which is even less acceptable.

Yes we do require reliable sources anon. This is an encyclopedia not a summary of internet gossip. Please refer to the policy and style pages if you think I am in error in my interpretation of them, again Wikipedia:Reliable source, and Verifiability.

As to "the issue at hand" Guettarda, I will repeat: no reliable source (blogs are out now) provided in the article states that critics accuse Coulter of #1 supporting Timothy McVeigh, or #2 holding the listed beliefs. There's probably a lot of room to agree in #2 of course, please let's discuss it here. Or we can agree to strengthen some or all members of #2 as just paraphrasing of Coulter's quotes, so please deal with those individually here in discussion or of course in the article if you must, but not by massive reverts. Thanks. 67.124.200.240 17:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The nation is not a blog
Media matters is not a blog
Quoting bloggers to support the assertion that said blogger said what they said does not fall foul of the isssue of verifiability.

These actions border on vandalism. Please desist. Guettarda 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

excellent points except you should have waited until I was done editing before starting the insults. Your mass-revert caused this difficulty. 67.124.200.240 17:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

btw the opinion of bloggers is only acceptable if it is a "well-known person". 67.124.200.240 17:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC) p.s. please assume good faith and remain civil.[reply]

Ok, I'll AGF...I assume you are going to replace the content that you keep replacing with weasel words, and restore coherence to paragraphs that you have chopped up? Guettarda 17:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact they were also weasel words before I touched them. "critics accuse Ann Coulter of ____" is weasel-worded sir. However I'll be glad to address that style problem in time, I can't get to it right this second. where is there a coherence problem? I'd be glad to fix that also. 67.124.200.240 18:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who's responsible for this (I have some good guesses) but every time I pop in here, I discover this article gets better and better. More fair, less tawdry and more civil to Ann which, contrary to some people's sensibilities, is a good thing. A very good thing. Nice Job! Big Daddy 20:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a brilliant idea. Don't bother trying to claim critics or Coulter think or believe one thing or another and just paraphrase the controversial quotes. That really is the source of all this isn't it? Then just add context, with sources where disputed. How about the following for paragraph 2 in Criticism:

---

Ann Coulter has made a career of controversial arguments, many of which infuriate those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. 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 herself has never stated that she doesn't hold these views 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. Some examples include Coulter's statements to the effect that: it would be a better country if women didn't vote (because Republicans would almost always win); Muslim countries should be invaded, their leaders killed, and their citizens converted to Christianity (referring to the countries with crowds cheering after 9/11); conservation is against God's wish that we "rape" the Earth; the solution to school shootings is for the other kids to have guns also; and Libertarians don't appreciate the benefits of local Fascism (whats the point?? someone help here). However, the editor of the Arizona Daily Star, in dropping her column from the publication, said that many readers from both political parties "find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited."^[4]

---

I removed those issues that are repeated elsewhere in the article or in the quote list at the end (McVeigh is covered in detail in the next para). I dropped Nixon because I don't see where that came from. Granted it is turning back into something of a quote list, but I'm trying to be neutral and non-weasely, and at least it's much shorter. In fact it serves to illustrate the back-and-forth regarding her style. I welcome suggestions. 67.124.200.240 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, if you find Ann repugnant, feel free to be bold and say so! Its well within wiki policies [5]

Morally offensive views

...

We can certainly include long discussions that present our moral repugnance to such things; in doing so, we can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing the view to prominent representatives or to some group of people. Others will be able to make up their own minds and, being reasonable, surely come around to our view. Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views.

...

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

--71.112.11.220 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are quoting Wikipedia policies;

"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group of people holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified."

Many people who criticize Ann Coulter hold the opinion that she has voiced support for Tim McVeigh. It can be, and has been, verified that this opinion exists and is so held. So STOP BLOODY DELETING IT ALREADY! --CBDunkerson 11:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Big Daddy 23:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specious Paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Psychoanalysis of Franken is presumption as well.

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

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

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

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

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

I told her I usually read The Times before bed, because it depresses me.

"Oh, it totally gins me up, it works like coffee," she said. "I read it like a wolf."

So you see, she praised them.

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

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

Ann Coulter is not a screeching reactionary?

"The American people don’t think so. I speak for them."

64.154.26.251 17:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The stuff I edited out was for the following reasons:

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

Eric Alterman is on the MSNBC payroll and writes a regular column for them... as stated in his Wikipedia entry, his bio, the MSNBC site, and virtually any other source you might care to check. [9] If you actually did care. --CBDunkerson 17:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

"Only Joking" re McVeigh

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

For one source, John Cloud said in [10]:

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

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

Well, 'John Cloud' is incorrect. The conversation as reported by Gurley [11];

Coulter - "Is your tape recorder running? Turn it on! I got something to say."
Coulter - "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
Gurley - I told her to be careful.
Coulter - "You're right, after 9/11 I shouldn't say that," she said, spotting a cab and grabbing it."

Coulter never said it was a joke... just that she shouldn't be saying it right after some other terrorists blew up a building in New York. --CBDunkerson 15:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please. Coulter didn't mean McVeigh should blow up the Times building? Only go there? So why would she want MCVEIGH to go there? Why did she link her statement to 9/11? Why did she later say he should make sure the editors and publishers were still inside.

This is simply bad faith. --CBDunkerson 03:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

I moved part of your addition here:

He makes this claim based on the 'Wall Street Journal' quotation of Alterman above. However, what Cloud leaves out is that Alterman was, in fact, paraphrasing Coulter herself. He substituted conservative indicators for liberal ones specifically to show that no one on the left was making similar statements calling for mass murders. [12]

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

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

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

Sources, fully cited arguments, and context defending Coulter got removed (oops)

please be more careful in your revert warring, and discuss removal of sourced facts on the talk page. I wasted several hours digging up those counter arguments and including them and don't appreciate them being blown away like that. If you don't like my wording, the re-word it, don't remove it. I note that the section now contains 100% Coulter-bashing and 0% Coulter-defense. Someone who didn't assume good faith would call such one-sided deletions vandalism. At best they are a mistake which must be corrected. 67.124.200.240 23:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention a tag-team Quintuple revert. And on the last two reverts no explanation at all was given for reverting. 64.154.26.251 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's the CRITICISM section. It's SUPPOSED to be negative. As to defense... the 'she is only kidding' bit appears several other places in the article and the rest of the defenses (i.e. 'Coulter said she was joking', 'Alterman wanted to blow up the Wall Street Journal') are provably false... as explained earlier on this page. --CBDunkerson 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Big Daddy, I thought you were putting us all on to make a point. Wow is right. Not only does he seem to be attacking Ann Coulter, but a wikipedia user who seems to get in the way seems to get hit with collateral damage. 64.154.26.251 04:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to put you on. These ann-haters write stuff, I couldn't make up if I tried. lol! Big Daddy 07:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
those quotations are present in the cited sources, relevant to the section topic, and not present elsewhere in the article. I should point out that I clearly added neutral context for the Alterman quote, and find your insistence of its removal rather ironic. 67.124.200.240 02:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And we should just ignore the fact that they are proven lies? --CBDunkerson 02:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should add what is there will have to be pared down. The Michael Moore page contains one page of criticism with rebuttals in all but one or two paragraphs and it's 36 kilobytes long. The Coulter page contains three pages of criticism with some rebuttals (plus mostly negative accounts of relations with the media) and it's only 39 kilobytes long. 64.154.26.251 02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Clinton page is a good model for how to treat the kind of utter slime some people seems hell bent on poisoning this article with. Hmmm...Criticims of Clinton and Moore are short and sweet. Criticisms of Rove and Coulter are a mile long. How could this be? Big Daddy 03:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will soon be bringing the 'Clinton Model' to Ann's Column. What we'll do is pare down all these cheap shot attacks into one neat and concise paragraph and make it clear what the political orientation is of the majority of the attackers are and what they're real motivation is. Ps Also will be reinstating my reasonable, clearly defended, logical and explicitly documented before the fact edits and continue to do so ad infinitum undeterred by anonymous multiple-reverting page vandals. Just thought everyone would like to know.Big Daddy 00:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Took out this line "However, he provides no evidence for this claim." since he doesn't have to. It's his opinion and duly noted as such. What proof could he proffer anyway? DNA evidence of a joke? Also MSNBC and Eric Altermann do not belong together. Big Daddy 07:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to put it back in again. Proof of Alterman's employment at MSNBC was already posted above. More proof - [13][14]. --CBDunkerson 08:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

msnbc.COM, maybe. There's a big difference. Big Daddy 08:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A gentle note
Hi all -- I know that Ann Coulter invites a lot of strong feelings on both sides, but as a casual observer of the article I've begun to see edits here recently beginning to veer off toward the land of Bad Behavior. Please, everybody, take a deep breath, go do something else for a few hours on this lovely Sunday. Get some fresh air. Watch a movie. Just don't worry about Wikipedia for a while, then come back some other time and take a crack at it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kate, you bring calmness to an heavily inflamed situation, thank you :) enjoy your sunday! --kizzle 17:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Franken Re-write - Do not remove
Franken states that Coulter treats any comments found in The New York Times as reflecting the official opinion of the newspaper, although many of the comments Coulter cites are from opinion pieces. Franken calls Coulter's statement in her book Slander "If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments...They call everything stupid." hypocritical because in the same book she describes others in a similar derogatory fashion. Thank youBig Daddy 00:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Big Daddy, I just wanted to say I'm sorry you are being harassed by Kizzle and his accomplices and had to redo the section after they reverted all your recent contributions for the sole purpose of imposing a make-believe "sanction" on you unauthorized by any administrator of Wikipedia. I clicked the edit button on that section to fix it myself when the edit box revealed that you had already fixed it. 64.154.26.251 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Is that what they are trying to pull? Do you have any proof of this, it would be very interesting to see.
Check the edit history of Talk to see it. 64.154.26.251 06:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind childish pranksters and page vandals ultimately will not prevail at Wikipedia. Just ask Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. He may be ready to crack down on such nonsense. It's sad to see how fast Kizzle has discredited himself, but please provide any supporting evidence you may have. Take care. Note: I also cleaned up the convuluted tit for tat McVeigh section. Here's how it looks now:
Criticism of statements regarding radical separatists
Coulter has frequently criticized the government's handling of radical separatists and expressed what some consider to be support for them. She was willing to characterize members of the Branch Davidians at the Waco compound as "harmless American citizens" [15] even after the survivors of the raid and subsequent immolation of the group by their leader were convicted. Likewise, she berates what she calls the "unprovoked government assault" and "murder" at Ruby Ridge [16]. Years earlier, Timothy McVeigh made similar criticism as partial justification for his bombing, though the government's handling of both incidents has been widely criticized. [17] [18]
Shortly after the publication of Slander, Coulter joked, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." to interviewer George Gurley. (Coulter, August 26, 2002) John Cloud, a staff writer for Time magazine later wrote, "She said at the time that it was a joke".[19]Melik Kayan of The Wall Street Journal described the statement and others she has made as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop". [20]
Many liberal critics, such as Eric Alterman who writes for The Nation and blogs for MSNBC.com, criticize Coulter's use of humor. Alterman called her a "terrorist apologist" and an "ideological comrade" of McVeigh, because of Coulter's strong criticism of the government's handling of the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. Alterman has written "My only regret with Osama bin Laden is that he did not manage to kill every member of the Wall Street Journal editorial staff", before quickly pointing out that he did not mean it. [21] Time's John Cloud remarked that "Eric Alterman and Ann Coulter engage in the same kind of debate." Big Daddy 01:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This extremely POV edit has been completely reverted. Hollow cries like "do not remove" are especially non-Wiki, and will be ignored unless (of course) if an administrator makes the request. Eleemosynary 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Page vandalism by Elemosynary reverted and reported. Big Daddy 01:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A page vandal loses his wings.
Everytime this gets reverted until the authorities step in, I will be making even more concise edits to remove even more of the distorted POV inherent in this piece. I'll also make it a much better written piece. I'd call that a win:win:win.
Here's the latest version, please respect it's nPOV.

Coulter has frequently criticized the government's handling of radical separatists and expressed what some consider to be support for them. She characterized members of the Branch Davidians at the Waco compound, which included children as young as eight, as "harmless American citizens" [22] Likewise, she berates what she calls the "unprovoked government assault" and "murder" at Ruby Ridge [23]. The government's handling of both incidents has been widely vilified by across the political spectrum. [24] [25]
Shortly after the publication of Slander, Coulter joked, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." to interviewer George Gurley. (Coulter, August 26, 2002) John Cloud, a staff writer for Time magazine later wrote, "She said at the time that it was a joke".[26]Melik Kayan of The Wall Street Journal described the statement and others she has made as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop". [27]
Many liberal critics, such as Eric Alterman who writes for The Nation and blogs for MSNBC.com, criticize Coulter's use of humor. Alterman called her a "terrorist apologist" and an "ideological comrade" of McVeigh, because of Coulter's strong criticism of the government's handling of the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. Alterman has written "My only regret with Osama bin Laden is that he did not manage to kill every member of the Wall Street Journal editorial staff", before quickly pointing out that he did not mean it. [28] Time's John Cloud remarked that "Eric Alterman and Ann Coulter engage in the same kind of debate."
Starting Anew
It's been quiet today, so rather than making big changes to the article while various people are out I thought I'd archive all of the older stuff. Anything which was active within the past two weeks I left here.
I've got a suggestion to try to clean this up a bit. Would it make sense to have a 'background' section (the current top sections mostly unchanged), a section of criticism, and then response to the criticism? Basically the same information, but organized into three areas to reduce the great amount of duplication and choppy structure in this article. Quotations and footnotes could remain largely as is, though I'd hope to work most of the quotations into the article.
As a start / example I'll strip the criticisms (and associated defenses) out of everything down to the 'Books' section and move them to 'Controversy'. Let me know what you think. If people agree we can then work on splitting 'Controversy' into 'Criticism' and 'Support' or somesuch. --CBDunkerson 22:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I took it a step further and removed all the OT name-calling and bickering. Talk pages are for discussing the articles - there are lots of other places to discuss user conduct. If I removed any text discussing the content of the article, my apologies, and feel free to restore them. The other material doesn't belong here. Guettarda 22:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand, Dunkerson. You want to create three parts: History, Criticism, and Support? That's what I got, is that right? If so, I don't see why not. It would certainly make for a cleaner article. And I think it would be great to work the quotations INTO the article instead of having a separate section for them. Stanselmdoc 14:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I particularly agree with doing away with the "quotes" section. It's too easy to cherry-pick uncontextual quotes that potentially serve to unbalance the article, and besides which, that's what Wikiquote is for. It's fine to have some quotes incorporated into the text of the article at appropriate places to give a flavor of the person's speech, but a laundry list of quotes IMO is not a good idea. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the general idea Stanselmdoc. Might need to be refined, but assuming we all agree with the premise that it is appropriate to include the both the reasons people criticize Coulter and why they defend her I think the general idea could help. Still waiting until some of the involved parties get back this evening to comment before implementing. --CBDunkerson 22:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled onto this article for the first time, and I have to say that it is very choppy in its current form, and seemingly trying TOO hard not to be POV. I think that the re-organization that was just mentioned would help make this article much more interesting, informative, and readable.
Do not remove the quote section. A lot of work and debate has gone into building a fair, balanced, verifiable set of quotes. Quotes are just about the most verifiable, NPOV piece of information that can exist in type. Some POV editors have been pushing for their removal for quite some time.
--155.91.19.73 22:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am a completely NPOV editor, and I say they should be removed. In fact, if nobody else objects I plan to do just that, and move them instead to Wikiquote, then place a link within the article to Wikiquote. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't we been over this a dozen times already? Do all the previously laboriously argued out and grudgingly hashed out decisions have no influence? Gzuckier 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i object. this has been debated repeatedly for over a year. just because you sincerely try to be npov does not mean that your edits necessarily are, are you perfect? does your instant opinion trump the probably hundreds of hours that have been spent on this topic? at least do us the courtesy of going back through the archives and responding to the various arguments before you decide to reopen this can of worms. sorry if my response seems intemperate, but i feel pretty strongly that some deference is due to the long and considered debates of the past year. Derex 04:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, as my first post ever a year ago was about this topic, people need to go back and read the archive before just throwing that out there. --kizzle 09:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, calm down. There's no way I'm going to go back and read through every archived post before suggesting changes to an article when the archives are as lengthy as the one here, but if something I've proposed has been the subject of significant debate, I'm glad to comb back through it for the pertinent information once someone's told me that it's there. The only thing anybody said when I first raised the issue was an anon who insinuated that I was biased for even wanting to do such a thing, which is ludicrous. I never said I'm perfect, but to have that be the response to a genuinely good faith suggestion was a little offputting. I can see now that it was a touchy subject and I have no desire to set off another edit war when everybody else seems happy, so let's consider it dead and buried. · Katefan0^(scribble) 12:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kate, please go right ahead and do just that. The quotes unbalance the article, and anyone reading this article gets the idea Miss Coulter is not going to talk about fluffy bunnies when she speaks. Dominick 12:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i very nearly panicked, because that issue has been such a lengthy nightmare. i understand now that you have no knowledge of the background. the phrase 'completely npov editor' threw me a bit, as it sounds like a claim that your edits are necessarily correct or neutral. now, i don't think you meant it that way, but rather that your intent is neutral. Derex @ 23:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I'm glad that I've assuaged your concerns. ;) Not at all... the one thing I know about myself is that I always have room to learn. I only meant that my suggestion was made in good faith, not to grind some kind of POV axe, which is what the anon was suggesting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In this same vein, I should tell y'all that I've opened up a topic to gauge opinions on the subject of having quotes in articles in general (this is now the second article I've come upon where it's been an issue -- seems to be resolved for now, but apparently only after an extensive fight). You can find it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) if you care to stop by. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally could care less whether quote lists are used or not. I suppose listing them here does steal the thunder of wikiquote, but its a style argument for which I don't have a opinion about either way.
As a more important style issue, I doubt keeping the criticism and support separate is viable, people will constantly be dropping by to slip in counter-arguments to statements. Not to mention it sounds more like an article about a trial than a person. What about breaking it down by source? Interview statements go in "media relations", column articles go in a "columns" section, and book stuff goes in individual sections for each book. The vague generic criticism can go in a vague generic section like "what people who just plain love and/or hate her have to say" or whatever. 67124etc 05:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV page advises against separating out the pro/con sections
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into a separate section.

I would defer to KateFan's judgement on this matter as I agree with User:67124 that it's more of a style rather than substance issue. Although I think the underlying point is that the quote section has heretofore been used as kind of a dumping ground for Ann's more outrageous quotes in what appears to be an attempt to confirm her detractors portrait of her as an out of control nut-case. So, if I had to come down on this tiny controversy, I'd say either remove all the quotes to WikiQuote or simply add some quotes that seem more trenchant and insightful to counter the obvious attempt at caricature. There are some more important lingering POV issues with this article (although I still maintain it's vastly improved over what I stumbled upon less than a month ago.) I've addressed those concerns below. Ps It shouldn't surprise anyone that I agree with User:67124. After all...we are the same person :) Big Daddy 21:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It just invites too much trouble if you ask me, particularly for something that's, in the end, redundant. But I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest in this particular article that was only settled through careful compromise. In terms of the issue in general, there isn't much guidance in WP's policies on this particular score -- WP:NOT is closest; it says: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information [...] Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. But this only really speaks to an article that only consists of quotes, something like Ann Coulter Quotations, which isn't at all the subject at hand. I'm thinking about trying to come up with some sort of policy brainstorming on this issue; the pump discussion indicates to me that it would at least be an interesting exercise. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A waste of keystrokes. The quotes aren't going anywhere, they are legitimate encyclopedic content. Even attempting to remove them smacks of POV. If you want to press a new policy, something about trolls/vandals would be good. It's too hard to get rid of the greifers at this point....(and I don't mean bigdaddy777) --155.91.19.73 21:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting they be removed, I'm suggesting they be placed in Wikiquote, which can easily be linked to any article. Be careful of what you are insinuating, and remember to assume good faith. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This will sound like a false analogy, but I don't really think it is. We can link _anything_ from here. We can link to her fox news bio. We could link to a new yorker profile of her. We of course do that, but we don't leave it at that — we write our own stuff. Just because wikiquote exists as a resource doesn't mean that quotes can't be a useful part of an article. For example, here, we have the option of choosing and including a few different quotes that illustrate distinct elements of her style: sarcasm, hyperbole, personal attack, metaphor, whatever. Or particularly well-known quotes. Or controversial quotes. It's highly doubtful that wikiquote is organized that way, or even should be ... it's ideally an exhaustive collection, probably chronological. My point is that here we have the ability at least to add value beyond wikiquote, even in just a quote list. Selective quotes can be a way to introduce POV, but they can also be a way to introduce quality. Sure, we could toss a few words of context around them to make them part of the text. That strikes me as artificial. But you know that's what is going to happen. Ban quote lists, and wikipedians will simply work around it by adding some fluff "context". Maybe that would be a better way to do it, but it's not obvious to me. I haven't been following lately ... is the particular selection of quotes included here currently a source of conflict? Derex @ 00:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TOUCHE, PREVIOUS EDITOR: the word "insinuate" usually requires some lack of assuming good faith--but I'll presume this was just poor word choice on the part of an unknowing newbie. These quotes are legitimate encyclopedic content. Putting them off in some rarely visited sister project would make certain that few users ever see them. It's deletion just like "placing" things in the Recycle Bin project is deletion. Its smacks of POV more than the neverending moving of content to positions of less and more prominence in articles. --155.91.19.73 23:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The quotes aren't going anywhere "Wow! Bold talk from someone who speaks anonymously. Again, I defer to Kate's judgement. But if Mr 155.91. etc is right and they must stay, then I will introduce additional quotes that will portray her in less than a 'crazy nut' light. Big Daddy 21:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why
Why can't you Americans see that this woman is fake? I've heard dozens of quotes that begin with: Liberals are ..., or, Liberals think this and that, or, Liberals don't... . How can this woman know that? She is conservative isn't she. Like that recent remark she made on the Hannity & Colmes show: "who doesn't wants to be sexual abused by a firefighter?". This woman is giving the conservatives a bad name. Regards, Geograaf 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We thank you for your opinion. Many Americans do think she's fake. On the other hand, many Americans happen to believe the same things as she does. I have a hunch that conservatives think Coulter gives them a good name. A bright, attractive woman not going with the new-feminism; Conservatives relish it. A goofy-looking, misinformed hate-monger; Liberals can't stand her. Either way, I think it makes for good television, but that's just me. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 20:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. I think that conservatives are nuts to support this, already 44 year old, woman. Of course she's pretty, but she has a very uninformed, and distorted opinion. Like that remark she made about the Vietnam war. Did she realy think that Canada sent troops? Boy even kids know that Canada didn't sent troops. Geograaf 14:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What would her age have to do with her writings and her punditry. She isn't a reporter, she is a commentator. This is off topic as this is not directed towards making this article better. Thanks for your comments. Dominick 15:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutly right of course. Well it is nice that you thanked me for my comments. On the dutch Wikipedia I would have been blocked by now so you guys are nice. However I did do a good thing. I did help on the dutch version of the article on this person. Regards Geograaf 21:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it's just about impossible to get blocked here for comments on talk, unless you are being absolutely vicious Derex @ 23:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Waitaminnute! Whats this I read about her on the Dutch site!
Haar conservatieve commentaar gaf haar een reputatie voor haar stevige kritiek op het sociale en politieke amerikaanse liberalisme.
I think her hair is just fine if you ask me! Dominick 01:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Troubling aspects of the artiicle as it exists right now
1) I believe if Eric Altermann is to be accorded the prestige of being associated with msnbc.com, it should be noted that he is a blogger for msnbc.com. I say that because I found conservative columnist and author Michelle Malkin referred to as a blogger in another article and I do believe that's meant to diminish the value of her statement. So, again, yes. We HAVE to see the forest for the trees. No one article in Wikipedia exists in a vaccum. There has to be a baseline standard and I reject any argumentation that suggests implies or directs that if 'I don't like that article, go change it.' (Although, once we decide which way to go across the board, I'd be happy to change the other article.) Instead, one way or the other (and I don't care which way) liberals and conservatives have to be characterized by the same fair measuring stick.
2) This is new. It's from Conason: "Conason goes on to point out that Coulter's critical nature is blunted by her pre-assumed opinions, making many of the conclusions she draws irrelevant to the actual nature of her arguments." Wow! That seems a little unfair just hanging out there like that. I propose either eliminating it or...and I hate this approach as much as the next guy...scotch-taping on yet another quote which refutes this obvious cheap-shot from Conason.
3) This is old. The McVeigh section, as should be no surprise to anyone who's followed my work here, is troubling. Let's start with this quote: " She was willing to characterize members of the Branch Davidians at the Waco compound as "harmless American citizens" [6] even after the survivors of the raid and subsequent immolation of the group by their leader were convicted." Well, some Waco compounders were convicted of something or another. But the reality is that there were mostly innocent victims of David Koresh in that compound - especially young children. It's unbalanced to just add the tag line about conviced Davidians without acknowledging what I GUARANTEE you Ann was referring to, which were the overwhelming number of innocent victims in that massacre.
This quote is also troubling: "Timothy McVeigh made similar criticism as partial justification for his bombing." Well, McVeigh had LOTS of reasons for his bombing. But who cares what a madman thinks? And if you do, then I understand he also had some uncomplimentary things to say about the Bible. Therefore, if we are to include this in Coulter's section, I say we include it's complement in Bill Maher's article. It would go something like this: "Naher has frequently criticized the Bible calling it a 'bunch of fairy tales' and claiming 'God doesn't write books.' Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh made similar criticism as partial justification for his distrust of Christianity, though the Bible has been widely criticized throughout history."
Whady'a say?
(Much more on this section later.)
4) Racism is not the same as being anti-Islamic terrorists that want to kill Americans for supporting Israel etc. To title Ann's comments on Islamic Radicals as allegations of racism seems dishonest to me.
5) Did Ann really say that ALL women are "not as bright" as men'? Some editor in Wikipedia wants us to think so. I say this quote be taken out until we get confirmation of her whole statement in context. Now, I know for a fact that Ann is only half-joking when she argues women should not be allowed to vote so she is far from imune when it comes to suggesting she holds less-than-boilerplate-feminist views. But this quote supposedly out of H & C seems like it's probably another smear. Again, if proven wrong, I'll gladly man up and stand corrected. But, unitl I'm proven it wrong, it should be excised in my view.
More later...Big Daddy 21:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the transcript, Hannity & Colmes, Sept. 23 2004. Apologies for the length:
HANNITY: Let me go to Ann.
I think one of the -- I think the defining number was in the NBC poll. Sixty-eight percent of all respondents say Bush and Cheney have a message and know what they will do if it's elected. Only 36 percent think that they have any clue what John Kerry is going to do, now that John Kerry is, you know, the puppet on the string for James Carville.
COULTER: Right. Right. And -- and in the Fox/Dynamics poll, when asked who would handle terrorism better, the numbers were pretty stark: 51 percent for Bush, 36 percent for Kerry.
HANNITY: Does that -- does that answer the gender gap issue, the security mom issue you and I were assessing before -- before...
COULTER: Yes, I'm so pleased with my gender. We're not that bright. And generally, even landslide...
HANNITY: I'm glad -- I'm glad you said that.
CADDELL: I'm glad I didn't say that.
COULTER: No, Pat will back me up on that. Landslide people who are Republicans...
CADDELL: No, no, no.
COULTER: ... are -- split the women's vote. I mean, when -- when Reagan won a landslide, he was splitting the women's vote and then just overwhelmingly won among the men.
HANNITY: With men.
COULTER: Now what's stunning about the numbers, and this is true of a lot of the polls now, is Bush's winning among my gender. So apparently, women that were not as bright don't want to die any more than men.
HANNITY: Oh, stop. The women -- you're going to get us all in trouble.
Pat, let me throw up some numbers on the screen. Quick numbers. Quick states. I think key states in the race here.
If you look at Florida, for example, the Quinnipiac poll, 48-43. When you add Nader, it's 49-41. So it's an even bigger margin.
CADDELL: And he's on the ballot.
HANNITY: And Nader will be on the ballot.
CADDELL: He's on the ballot.
HANNITY: In Wisconsin, it's 52-38, as you can see there on the screen. Nevada, 52-43. That's another big change. And West Virginia, which only a day or so ago seemed to be leaning to Kerry, it's 51-45.
I mean, if this holds up, obviously John Kerry -- and Kerry's pulled out of advertising in some states that he was going to try and contest.
CADDELL: Look, I don't understand -- you know, I've never understood the idea of spinning polls. You know, it seems to me that they say what they say and we ought to be honest about it. I watch the campaigns and I'm just -- I just don't -- I don't get it.
The fact of the matter is, look, as I said, structurally, Bush has established the first real lead in the campaign. That's something we should look at. That is not getting any higher right now. If anything, it's coming down a little bit.
The question now is, and that raises the challenge of what is Kerry going to do.
The point of the matter is two things have happened and Ann actually referred to them.
And Ann you're not a pollster. You're not supposed to make these points.
But anyway, the -- one of them is that -- one of them is that -- is that, you know, is that we have the gender gap has closed, which is remarkable.
Now, the -- now the -- Kerry's pollsters said yesterday, Alan, an amazing statement. He thought the gender gap closing was not a problem but an opportunity. And I thought, well, thinking like that will -- thinking like that will get you very far.
COLMES: I've got to get to Ann in the next segment about how she says her gender is not that bright. (My note: They never went back to that subject.)
· Katefan0^(scribble) 21:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I man up and stand corrected...Big Daddy 00:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to various issues raised by BD777;

1 - Alterman should be called a 'blogger' for MSNBC.com. I've got no problem with this so long as we similarly change it to calling Coulter a blogger for uExpress.com.
Sorry, Ann is NOT a blogger. That's just dishonest. Her SYNDICATED COLUMNS are on uexpress. (She did suggest one day that she'd blog but it never happened.) My main objection to the use of MSNBC.com in connection with Altermann is that it lends mainstream credibility to him. But he IS IN FACT a blogger on MSNBC.com and that's why I suggested that inclusion. Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2 - No opinion.

3 - You guarantee Coulter meant ONLY the innocent at Waco? In the context of the quotation Coulter was saying that the government went after harmless American citizens at Waco. If we accept your 'guarantee' then Coulter was claiming that the government was not trying to arrest the murderers / rapist... they were after the innocent children. Which would make her sound like even more of a nut :]. Also, you say that McVeigh offered LOTS of explanations other than things like Waco / Ruby Ridge... such as? Everything I've read calls it retaliation for those. He even timed the attack to coincide with Waco.
To suggest that Coulter meant rapists when she referred to 'innocent victims' is to suggest that John Kerry mean crooks and possibly rapists too when he said 'Osama bin Laden was responsible for the taking of thousands of INNOCENT American lives on 911.' (After all, we haven't checked the rap sheets of the 911 victims have we? It's likely that, amongst 3000 New Yorkers, a few had criminal records and thus weren't really 'innocent', right? Let's face it, this is non-starter. She was referring to the fact that people in that compound that had done nothing wrong were dead because of what she perceives to be a colossal blunder at the federal government level. To somehow twist that the way this article does really isn't very smart. Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4 - Coulter does not specify 'we should kill only their leaders who are islamic terrorists and forcibly convert only the islamic terrorists to Christianity'... she says these things universally about all Arabs. She groups them all with the terrorists. That is the very basis for the charge of racism - she doesn't differentiate. The whole 'repeal the Emancipation Proclamation' bit doesn't help either.
Sorry, she not only does NOT say all Arabs, she doesn't even say it about ALL Arab leaders. Read the article again. She is VERY SPECIFICALLY talking about people who were REJOICING over American deaths. Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 - As already noted, yeah she did.
I was wrong here. Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem is, she didn't say it. The conversation probably went like this:
COULTER: I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more.
Asked how far back in time would she go to start repealing laws, she replies
COULTER: "Well, before the New Deal."
When asked, "You're talking about the Emancipation Proclamation?"
COULTER: "That would be a good start." (meaning starting right after that proclamation).
Two things come to mind here. First, as the Wikipedia article on the Emancipation Proclamation states, the Emancipation Proclamation was not a law, but an executive order. (see Emancipation_Proclamation#Adoption) Secondly James M. McPherson in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Battle Cry of Freedom, noted that after the South seceded, there was a flurry of laws passed in Congress (such as the Homestead Act, federally funded construction of transportation facilities, and an act allowing the government to float the currency without being tied to the gold standard) which was the beginning of a period of activism in the operation of the U.S. Government.
The part about converting Muslims has been discussed here before. She was careful to indicate only those people cheering and dancing at the 9/11 events, which killed her friend Barbara Olson. This fact was removed from this article sometime after May 2005. 64.154.26.251 20:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretations in both cases. There was nothing about 'AFTER' the Emancipation Proclamation stated. As to how careful Coulter was to ONLY want to murder and forcibly convert those who supposedly cheered and danced in the street in celebration of 9/11... in her own words [29];
COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?
COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.
COLMES: But you're talking about a group of extremists who misuse Islam and aren't practicing true Islam. But would you like to convert all of these countries to Christianity. Should they all become Christian nations?
COULTER: Yes, that would be terrific.
No matter how you dress it up she's still a bigot. --CBDunkerson 20:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with her 'kill their leaders' line. As a matter of fact, EVERY born again Christian thinks it would be a 'good start' if every Muslim were to become a...er..born again Christian! That's their religion. Same with Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and..umm...Macintosh afficinados. Wanting to 'share the joy' does not make one a bigot, not matter how you dress it up.Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CB, it's possible to refer to a period of time without refering to a particular point in time. Take for instance: "When's the best time to eat breakfast? When your alarm clock goes off?" "That would be a good start." Everyone who knows the context knows what the person means (hint: it's not that you should eat breatkfast while you're still dreaming).
CB, you also tend to conflate things together. You set up like your going to disprove "that Coulter ONLY wants to murder and forcibly convert those who supposedly cheered and danced in the street" (a sentiment that doesn't match the quotation anyway) and you end up by only proving she'd like to see Muslims as Christians instead, a sentiment shared by a great many evangelical Christians. 64.154.26.251 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That's what I just said. We are the same person after all, aren't we? :) Big Daddy 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
a man?
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2867
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)[reply]

@@ Line 842: / Line 842: @@
 http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2867
+== 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.[[User:BigDaddy777|Big Daddy]] 18:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:37, 10 October 2005

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

Coulter and McVeigh

Insults

Because she's SO important, right?

Bill Maher

What an Improvement!

Ann is shrill?

blogs

more McVeigh fun and excitement

Archive

Claims of Support for Domestic Terrorism???

Specious Paragraph

"Only Joking" re McVeigh

Sources, fully cited arguments, and context defending Coulter got removed (oops)

A gentle note

Franken Re-write - Do not remove

Criticism of statements regarding radical separatists

Starting Anew

Why

Troubling aspects of the artiicle as it exists right now

a man?

Back to the quotes