Talk:Ann Coulter

Editors, to improve readability, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). This will help everyone know who they are talking to. Thank you!

Archives
Before 2005 Criticism, Quotes, Racism/Sexism, Idle rich Vietnam comments on the Fifth Estate Ext links, Transsexual, Birthdate, Plagiarism More racism, Quotations, Length, Photos Pictures, Canada/Vietnam, 8/24/05 to 9/8/05 09/08/2005 to 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 to 10/10/2005 10/10/2005 to 06/08/2006

---

Conservative criticism of Coulter - where?

[www.coulterwatch.org] made by American conservatives against Coulter. --66.234.203.32 18:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to find the site. Are you sure it isn't hyphenated or something? My browser is returning a 404. Kasreyn 18:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[www.coulterwatch.com] [1]

Transsexual?

Since there seems to be an astonishingly large number of sites claiming Coulter is a transsexual (run a search anywhere - you'll immediately see what I mean), I felt a sub-section should be added at least mentioning this possibility.

I tried my hardest to stress that most of these speculations are Internet-based and that there was no evidence to support their claims. I feel the section should be included, however I do not want the reader going away thinking Coulter is a transsexual, only that there are a large number of rumors suggesting this.

I maintain that this section should remain in the article, if only because there are a relatively large number of sites mentioning this possibility in regards to Ms. Coulter compared to other celebrities - however, if there are any NPOV issues with specific wording or anything else in this section, or if someone feels it can be cleaned up, please feel free to do so; however I ask that the section be kept no matter what changes are made.

By the way, I see absolutely nothing wrong with gender reassignment surgery, in case anyone wondered. ChildOfTheMoon83 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't feel that internet rumor and speculation on such an offensive subject is relevant or notable, no matter how widespread the rumor. Kasreyn 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Moonie, since you yourself point out there is absolutely no credible evidence for it, if the rumor were to be mentioned at all, why would you think it deserves an entire section? In the section you added, you also created a whole bunch of original research in violation of policy which I'm glad to see someone else had the good sense to remove. Good job, trying to fill it up, though. Next, why don't you go ahead and set up the "George Bush IQ" controversy section? I'm sure there are even more websites that mention that. Listen, I'm going to WP:AGF and believe that rather than you knowing the rumor is a garbage insult and were simply attempting to have it promininently included that you are really just an idiot. And please return the favor and assume good faith me with that I don't mean that as an insult. I see absolutely nothing wrong with being mentally retarded in case anyone wondered. Lawyer2b 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon now, L2b. No need for personal remarks, no matter how uninsulting you meant them. If anything, it still violates WP:CIVIL. Let's rise above this. Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I apologize to User:ChildOfTheMoon83. Lawyer2b 14:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

you shouldn't, you were absolutely correct. moonbutt wasn't attempting anything more serious than simple junior-high level insult, yet you get a warning from the edit cop for responding in kind. its apalling to see the way the mod community uses these officious little codes to enforce a double standard that way. -AB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) .

Me, an "edit cop". The difference was that Moony made a comment about Ann and her article (however wrong or dishonest that may be), whereas L2b mad a remark against an editor. If you look at my contribs, I think you will find that I am no leftist, Coulter-hater. We use the policies though to encourage a better community to help the writing of an encyclopedia. Making personal comments about other editors does not contribute to that goal. Thanks for your input though. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a picture of her at 8 years old from the documentary "Is It True What They Say About Ann?" where's she's clearly a little girl (unless crossdressing started abnormally early) badmonkey 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Coulter likes to make outrageous statements I believe this entire section should be included. Let her take her medecine. Besides, has anyone looked at her jaw line? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

Please refer to WP:NOR. It is not our place to further internet gossip and speculation based on subjective criteria. We are editors of Wikipedia, which means our personal opinions count for exactly nothing. Nothing can be added to an article which is not notable and verifiable. This topic is a waste of our time. Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Photo

Could someone change the main photo to something more appropriate? Using the image from the cover of her Slander book looks ridiculous and unprofessional. That photo belongs in the section dedicated to the book, not in the main Ann Coulter page. How about a simple picture of Ann and Ann alone? Sloopydrew 10:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats what she is know for, a writer. It is not anymore out of line as other authors on wiki. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

She's known far less for her writing than she is for her varied comments made on different television programs, during speeches, and as a talking head. Only a small subset of people known her first and foremost as a writer. Regardless, the entry is for Ann Coulter, not Slander and should reflect as much.--Sloopydrew 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

She's had four books on the NYT bestseller list. Many of her TV appearances are in the context of book promotion.

Why do all of her photos/covers show a very large portion of her body. Nothing says "I'm a serious journalist" like a blonde woman in tight, skimpy black clothes. Anything to sell a few more books, I guess. Cacophony 19:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to go on officially on the record and say that I have absolutely no problem with photos of Coulter showing her body in skimpy black (or otherwise) clothes. If there are any extras that anyone have that can't be used, I'll send you my email. ;-) Lawyer2b 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Constitutional" lawyer

Removed this descriptive term. There is no such thing officially recognized as a "constitutional lawyer." Also, the article only briefly mentions her law degree and makes no mention of specific studies in constitutional law. Wjbean 22:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed Some Stuff

Got rid of the controversial statement stating her books were false just because of a citation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.25.2 (talk • contribs) 16:10, June 7, 2006.

To any admins reading this, we need an sprotect.

For some reason we're awash in anon vandalism. I can't even do a compare, by the time I'm done figuring out what I need to fix more vandalism has been added. There are half a dozen different anons vandalizing at once. Kasreyn 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an easy one. Look what the cunt's done now: Anti-liberal US writer calls 9/11 widows "witches". --Nelson Ricardo 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm well aware. I just don't know why they all come to Wikipedia. :P Kasreyn 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back to LV

Notable information had been removed (such as the fact that she is a bestselling author), summary information about her nature as a polemecist was blanked, and POV attacks were missed by other editors. I'm going by the admonition to be bold on this one. Kasreyn 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I added NPOV to this article. Why is it that FOX News seems to be a target of choice? This article is about Ann Coulter, not FOX News. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.79.43.137 (talk • contribs) .

I don't understand what you mean. FOX News is mentioned only in the context that they host Coulter. If you wonder why few media outlets other than FOX are mentioned, it's easy to explain. FOX is just about the only media outlet that will still touch her. Most won't publish her or give her airtime. Fortunately for Coulter, FOX is far enough to the right to consider her acceptable, for now. Kasreyn 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag. I just read the article for the first time and didn't find any problems with the mentions of Fox news. Please illuminate us on your problem more before adding it back in. -Quasipalm 00:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the word cunt POV? 24.8.6.242 06:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see that word in the article? I've searched for it and I can't find it. Please tell me where it is in the article so I can immediately remove it. Kasreyn 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any further NPOV issues with this article, 24.79.43.137? You haven't replied to my comment regarding FOX News, which is making me wonder whether the NPOV tag you added should remain up. Kasreyn 06:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatives do not seem to be able to handle the fact that Colmes called her the devil on Hannity and Colmes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

Please refer to [WP:CIVIL]. No constructive purpose is served by making offensive comments towards other editors or groups of people on Wikipedia talk pages. We are here to improve the article, not to attack others' views or make a political "point". Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

think Ann migh really be a liberal. What self-respecing conservative would go so far out of their way to be that hated by Replulicans and Democrats alike?  Maybe she is trying to drum up sympathy for liberals. 'Oh, look at how mean and crass the conservatives are... They play dirty!" Or perhaps she is just mentally ill.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.153.203.4 (talk • contribs) .

What purpose does such speculation serve? Wikipedia's no original research policy would preclude us from adding it to the article. How about we focus on ways in which we can improve the article? Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for topical discussion. Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Widows

Latest News The Clinton comment is a very serious charge against the former president and should be recorded as an unsubstatiated remark unless someone has a citation to a rape indictment. Nope, didn't think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

I've already commented on this & am waiting for a consensus of viewpoints. I agree that Coulter's remarks have the purpose of misleading, since she begs the question on the alleged rape. However, a way must be found to note the context of her remarks which is NPOV and which does not introduce original research. Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The way to include her remarks and keep it NPOV is to call them unsubstantiated which is what they are. There is no charges, no indictment, no grand jury investigation. I did not call them made up which is what they likely are I called them unsubstantiated which is completely neutral and factual. Until and unless legal action is taken, these remarks are unsubstaintiated. If not then I should be quoted as calling her the whore of babylon. I have much more substance to those claims than she has to this rape accusation.

Could we please add the latest news story where Ann Coulter is criticizing 9/11 widows? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/07/entertainment/e070803D31.DTL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BaliPearl (talk • contribs) 12:59, June 7, 2006.

This section is overly long. I don't feel it's notable enough to warrant the level of detail it's been given. Perhaps a trim back to simply the main two or three lines of the quote (regarding "enjoying their husbands' deaths" etc.) The entire article should not be turned into a "look what Coulter's done now" noticeboard every time she says something astonishingly foul. We can't afford to, because she does so practically every day. New comments must be kept in proportion to the old.

P.S. Admins, we need sprotect now! Kasreyn 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say since it just happened, but I believe that in a few weeks, we'll look at this and see the coverage is warranted. --kizzle 00:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As in, you feel this one's gonna blow up in her face as bad as the crack about calling for the death of an Associate Justice did? Good thing I don't watch TV, I can avoid all the meaningless furor... Kasreyn 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the name given to the ladies from the "Jersey Girls" that did not have a citation to the name Ann gave them: "The Witches of New Brunswick", which has a citation. I used the same article from CNN as the Clinton quote later in the section. The two footnotes are 11 and 14... I'm not sure how but is there any way to combine the two footnotes, as they are the same? User:StoopidEmu 05:33, 2006-06-08 (UTC)

StoopidEmu, I removed the reference to "The Witches of New Brunswick" altogether. The section already covers the relevant quotation from the book, and I'm not thrilled with including the second quotation in that section either. This article is already too big - if we stopped to include every outrageous remark that Coulter has made, we'd break the web. lesmana 09:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's remarks are an important insight into her thought process. BTW how does Clinton criticism appear here. This is about Coulter and her ridiculous comments. She is an outrage and a bully. She is a chickenhawk who has never been held accountable for anything she has said or done. Support of her shows you condone her behavior.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) 15:25, June 8, 2006.

I think this is notable...maybe even her worst episode yet. I saw her repeating the same on Tucker Carlson. And, in this case Ann was not "joking". She was asked in a very straightforward manner about her comments and she stood by them unflinchingly. There was no laughing from either side or humorous feel to the piece. The controversies section is getting long, but I guess controversy is her thing. I think we could expand on the bibliography a little, I can't tell what the books are about and how they were received. There should also be something about her numerous relationships, especially considering her complaints about premarital and homosexual sex and her wearing that cross all the time. Justforasecond 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

get over yourself, vandal. ward churchill calls all 9-11 victims "little eichmans" who deserved what they got and progressives rush to his defense as a victim of mccarthyism (a term rendered meaningless by the venona revalations). ann coulter critisizes specifically four 9-11 widows for cynically transforming their berievment into political hackery for profit and she's expected to feel shame. the unbelievable gall of you people. in the meantime the nytimes spent three op-eds marginalizing the largest organized group of 9-11 widows and relatives because they opposed eric foner's designs on the wtc site.71.201.70.152 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Coulter suspected of felonious voter fraud in Florida

Here's my writeup with up to date information. I guess some of it could be merged with the previous information:

Coulter suspected of felonious voter fraud in Florida It is claimed that Coulter had registered to vote using her Palm Beach Realtor's address while waiting to complete the purchase of her $1.8m home. In February it is claimed by a poll worker that she illegally cast a vote after being told that she was in the wrong voting district. She became belligerent and still cast her vote.

She also claims to live in New York City but records from New Canaan, CT show she was registered there and cast an absentee ballot in 2004 the same time.

In response on the Fox News Show "Hannity & Colmes" on June 6, 2006 she called all the reporters who wrote about the case in Palm Beach and Palm Beach Election Supervisor Arthur Anderson "retarded" and "I think the syphilis has gone to their brains".

Coulter has hired a criminal defence attorney to defend her in the Palm Beach case.

Refs: http://www.nydailynews.com/06-08-2006/news/gossip/story/424613p-358230c.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198549,00.html

--Costoa 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Attire

If she's a conservative, why does she dress so skankily? Also, does her being a blonde explain why she has no idea what's what in our country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.90.97.254 (talk • contribs) 12:41, June 8, 2006.

My thoughts exactly about her attire. She does not exemplify modesty. --Facto 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Griffin was on the Today show this week after Coulter, asked why Coulter was wearing a cocktail dress at 7am. Gzuckier 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? It's not really encyclopedically notable. My personal opinion, though, is it's some sort of shallow "see, Republican girls are prettier" nonsense. Of course, how someone can be pretty when there's always a snarl on her lips and venom in her tongue is beyond me. Kasreyn 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is encyclopedically notable (wiki

in their articles. It used to be in the article as a matter of fact but someone claimed use of term "short" as in "short skirt" was POV. Justforasecond 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

all you have to do is take two steps outside of progressives' stereotypes of non-progressives and suddenly they have nothing clever to say. indeed, their bs breaks down completely: present them with a gay conservative, they reflexively spew the most vile homophobia imaginable. present them with a black conservative, they start making "sambo" jokes. if they lose an argument with a conservative jew, they scramble to rewrite the protocols. for very long, conservatives misapprehended progressive hate, believing it to be simply a discrete hate against a narrowly-defined majority. the truth of the matter is that progressives hate everything which is not them so hotly that it makes their minds morally flexible, like a steel girder under a white hot flame, allowing them to bring a high degree of connivance to the practice of hating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) .

The author of this abusive comment, who was blocked in April for vandalism, has been warned at their talk page to not disrupt Wikipedia with this sort of thing again. Kasreyn 17:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kasreyn. Justforasecond 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting comment. Perhaps a little projection going on. Bill Clinton should be impeached for a blow job but Dan Burton who fathered a child in an extra-marital affair is the picture perfect conservative congressman with "real" family values. Then has the audacity to call Clinton a scumbag for his affair, Come on. Further, he does some freaky experiment with a .38 and a watermelon to "prove" hillary killed Foster. Republican nut cases gone wild. The Republicans claim to be God's prophets. Why can't they handle criticisms of their hypocrisy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

"...i shouldn't have to read or hear anything which is critical of progressives..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) .

How does this help to improve the article? Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

i see no evidence on this page that anyone here is performing in the interests of improving an encyclopedic article. i suppose by reminding justforasecond that their expectation that this article be a monopolar bashfest is unrealistic may remind them and the others editing to keep their biases in check.

Has anybody seen the trash that is worn at most media awards shows? Compared to what I see Hollywood celebrities wearing to movie premieres or the Oscar ceremonies, what Ann wear is rather mild. Why not stop with the attacks and sticking to things that matter, like facts and not opinion. Mushrom 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see any award recipients claiming to be disciples of God claiming their writings are inspired by Jesus. When one make such a claim one is open to crticisms of their attire which does not represent the writings they claim to prophesy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

I don't understand. How does claiming divine inspiration make one's attire more notable? Many people who dress more provocatively than Coulter claim to be Christians. It would definitely be original research for Wikipedia to declare that celebrity x's clothing is demure enough that she can be called a Christian, but celebrity y's clothing is too risque and she is therefore not a Christian. All we should say is, "celebrity y self-identifies as Christian", or "critic z says celebrity y does not behave in a Christian manner" or possibly "critic z says celebrity y's attire is un-Christian", but this last is not particularly notable, in my opinion. Note how each example is cited from an outside source. Ideally, Wikipedia does not make statements; it reports the statements of others. Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Anne Coulter is not about facts and opinions - conservative or otherwise - she is an entertainment character in the media spotlight who makes outrageous statements and waits for the fallout. As such, discussion about her "uniform" appearance (the short skirts, all-day-cocktail-dress, etc) is not POV but rather description of her outward persona, a la Dame Edna. CMacMillan

You hit the nail on the head MacMillan. Coulter's short skirts and long hair are part of her persona. If a friend of mine doesnt' know who Coulter is, I say "you know, that awful blonde republican woman that wears the short skirts" and they inevitably respond "oh yeah, i know her" Justforasecond 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

is it possible for an honest person to say they trust the capability of the authors featured on this talk page to produce NPOV contibutions? --AB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) .

Please stop making personal attacks against other editors, either singly or as a group. It is unproductive and is not tolerated at Wikipedia. Comment on the content of others' remarks, not on the contributor. Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

its an honest question. its not at all a personal attack, but i see you've gone to the trouble of redefining "personal attack" to mean oblique criticalism of groups in reference to the pertinance of their contributions. i mentioned before that this officious wielding of acronyms (W:NPOV, W:NOR, etc...) is a tool to enforce the biases of the person citing them. it's perfectly legitimate to question the ability of the contributors here to create npov product, considering that according to these editors, she's a "cunt" and a closet transsexual who's blondness negates her apparent intelligence. the article is evidently fruit of this poisoned tree, considering that there are debatable elements presented as fact. the south africa "quote" (its not a quote, but presentred as if it were one) is an item which coulter contends is a creation of the person who wrote that piece. her "bomb the nytimes" quote was from a conversation walking down the street, and an abuse of confidence to begin with, but nothing like that appears in the article. instead the tone of the article is indistinguishable from what one would find in a david brock dossier. i invite you to compare to the article on ward churchill, who has suggesting that mutiny and fragging are qualitatively better alternatives to conciencious objection. [[2]]

I actually find Ms. Coulter attractive. I enjoy it when she wears skimpy clothing. Maybe she's doing it for me. Lawyer2b 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to get past the horns, but maybe thats just me. Anyways, I don't think that her attire, being relatively common, is important enough to mention in a biography.

Weasel

This article is rife with weasel words, "some say", "critics say", etc...needs to be fixed Judgesurreal777 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

'Be bold  :) Kasreyn 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The words "some say" and "critis say" do not appear in the current version of the article. I read through specifically looking for such comments and did not see any. If you could highlight any that I may have missed then please do so, if not I propose the tag is removed from the article. Adam777 14:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, read it again. Here is a list of sentences that I find to be unsourced or biased.

• "She has made statements about the religion of Islam that some consider discriminatory and commonly supports the positions of other Christian conservatives."
• "Since that time Coulter has been unfailingly critical of the Libertarian Party in her writing."

She wrote one article that began, "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston", and referred to some (unspecified) female attendees as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons."

• "Some find her presentations, both published and spoken, to be biased, offensive, inflammatory and claim them quite often full of misinterpreted facts that put her credibility in question, while others consider it biting satire"
• "Critics also accuse her of hypocrisy and double standards, and argue that, since she has such strong conservative bias in her comments and writing, she is willing to misrepresent sources and facts to support her case."

• Just because some loony professor says its true, doesn't mean it is true, needs a real source or should be removed.

• According to a 2002 report in the UCLA Daily Bruin, Coulter has suggested that she supported apartheid in South Africa. The Bruin printed: "In response to a question on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miss Coulter said she supported the government of Israel for the same reason she supported apartheid in South Africa, because they were surrounded by "savages".

• "The case went to court after Jones broke with Coulter and her original legal team, and was summarily dismissed."
• "This echoed the sentiments of an August 2002 Newsday article, in which she argued that the media are biased to the left because Republicans don't have the wealth to start media outlets, while Democrats do."
• "Conason said Coulter's criticism is blunted by pre-assumed opinions, making many of the conclusions she draws irrelevant to the actual nature of her arguments."

There, these need to be fixed, either unsourced, biased or both. Judgesurreal777 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So, what constitutes a critic? The word "critic" isn't supposed to be in the article? Does that mean that every time "critic" or "supporter" appears, we should have a specific person instead? Stanselmdoc 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "detractor"? Rsm99833 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

most of them can just be gotten ride of, and replaced with what people actually said. Others rephrased. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at what is being done, good work, keep going Judgesurreal777 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay Im new to Wikipedia but why are the last four examples cited as 'weasel words' - they may (and do) require a substantive link but I dont see them as 'weasel words', what, if anything is biased about them. Adam777 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the word "critic" is in all cases a weasel word. But in the context given, it tries to make a statement by saying "Critics also accuse her of..." without telling us which critics or giving a source. This is 'weaseling' out of responsibility (that is, the responsibility to provide a specific source). The same applies for "Some find her presentations...". Who are "some"?

In the last four bullets of User: Judgesurreal777's post, (if I could offer my interpretation) there appear to be no weasel words, as I understand them. However, no specific sources are given. It's just some vague reference to a 2002 report from the UCLA Bruin. Is the reader of the article seriously supposed to check manually or search online (if that's even available) all articles from that paper from 2002? This reminds me of numerous occasions in college when people would say something like:

"Yeah, MAAAAN. There's an article in the New York Times about it (GW Bush conspiring with transsexual aliens to plan 9-11 so that he could kill as many black people as possible (or some other such nonsense)). You should really read the newspaper."

Or, on other unfortunate occasions:

"Yeah, like, dude, I heard that like, black people have an extra muscle in their legs. That's why they like, run fast...(insert additional racist blather). Naw, man, it was in the Journal of like, the American Medical, uh, Associates (sic)."

After days of searching online and the library (giving them the benefit of the doubt, as I also try to do on Wikipedia (mind you, this was only in situations similar to the first quote)), I could find nothing remotely resembling the story that was described to me.

That's why I think a specific source is preferable. Also, feel free to let me know if my interpretation of "weasel words" or "weaseling" is incorrect. Thanks. Ufwuct 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Whoever decides to remove pictures without explaining those changes on the talk page, please stop. Puckmv 04:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Kasreyn 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Free advertising for Ann Coulter

It is incredible that someone has placed free advertising - by obvious means - into an encyclopedia. Even one cover jacket of a book currently for sale is inappropriate - it is obviously there for commercial purposes. Coulter's whole style is to make outrageous comments, show herself in tight fitting outfits on jacket covers, and sell books. It is outrageuos that someone is facillitating this and helping her by placing multiple jacket covers of her books on here.

Someone named PuckM calls this crticism nonsense, but provides no reasoning. What is the basis of multiple Ann COulter book covers on a Wikipedia article? David Paulson

I would also support the assertion that there are far too many book covers on this page. It really does feel like a book promotion, whatever the intent is. I think all but one of the three book covers should be removed. Wikipedia is not an outlet for ads. Also, I think there are concerns with fair use when we post this many book covers in an article not fundamentally about her books. Irongargoyle 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

David Paulson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.29.7.173 (talk • contribs) 00:56, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

It is common to show book covers in wikipedia. See To America: Personal Reflections of an Historian or Armies of the Night, or The Power Broker --rogerd 05:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not common to show multiple, politically motivated, shock value book covers. Show me another example in this realm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidpaulson (talk • contribs) 01:15, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

Al Franken. Boo-ya. Lawyer2b 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

*grins* Kasreyn 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity is best known for his show on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes. However, his main image is of his book, Deliver us from evil. Mr. Paulson, please reconsider your statements before entering them into a discussion. Puckmv 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Hannity's is one of the only book covers that bothers me. Am I the only one who noticed that Hannity, displaying his typical subtlety, added a photoshopped halo around his head? Kasreyn 19:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The controversy of her books is not relevant as a criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The fact that it is notable, and is covered in the national media, and will likely sell well, is. There are many notable books with which I don't agree. That doesn't make them less unencyclopedic. --rogerd 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What is shocking about the book covers? All I see is a gangly blonde woman staring fixedly at me. That's not shocking. A picture of an aborted fetus on the cover of a pro-lifer pamphlet, now that's shock value. What you are talking about is a book that is only shocking once you open the cover. Well, so what?? All we're showing is the cover, not a scan of page whatever where she calls liberals devil-worshippers and so on. You're not making any sense. Kasreyn 08:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

personal attack and response removed Justforasecond 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed Franken article and those book covers should also be removed. These sites look like advertising - especially understanding they will attract the politically motivated. Also rogerd misses my point - which I undermined myself when I said multiple book covers were not common. If they are, that is too bad because it degrades these article with crass commercialism. I would like to hear some cogent rationalization for them - which I do not find in this discussion yet.Davidpaulson 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)DavidPaulson

Anonymous.23 butterfly/Rove comment has no relationship to what my criticsm of papering an encyclopedia with covers of controversial books for sale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidpaulson (talk • contribs) .

actually, you directly stated your belief that the book cover images were included by agents of coulter seeking to pervert the article to her ends. "It is outrageuos that someone is facillitating this and helping her by placing multiple jacket covers of her books on here." that's paranoid. see W:Don'tBeParanoid.

Actually, Don'tBeParanoid, I said it was outrageous that someone was facilitating her book sales by including three jacket covers in an ecyclopedia article on her - whether they do so intentionally was not specified. My opionion is this practice does help sell books, is a perfect tool for someone who sells books based on controversial outrageuos content, is not appropriate for a neutral reference, is not justified just because the books "are notable" (Hemingway killed himself with a firearm, a picture of his messy corpse is notable but would never be inclued in the Encylopedia Bittanica, Colliers or Encarta) and finally - could well be placed there by someone with the intention of increasing book sales. IF you honesty believe that could not be a purpose for papering the article with her on-sale books, that is an conclusion that says something interesting about your experience. And finally. do not forget that Just because you are paranoid, does not mean they are not out to get you. Davidpaulson 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)DavidPaulson

I'll have a run at it... Coulter, Franken, et al. are notable. They author books that are notable. In the author's article, the books are discussed. Having images of things help do the job of an encyclopedia (to best explain or descibe something). Therefore, since the books are notable, images of them are perfectly acceptable, as they show the book. I picture it like I would picture an inventor's article... it would be perfectly fine to have images of all of that inventor's inventions (noting the article length guidelines within reason) on that inventor's page. The same would hold true for an artist and her paintings. Notable paintings would be fine on her article. Seem okay? (Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that is a shallow analysis. An encylopedia is not a catalogue of detail, and one can comprehend the nature of an author's works much easier from a well written summary than one or three jacket covers. On the other hand, if this article were to point out, as part of a pattern of Coulter's style or behavior, that she consistently appears on her book covers in short skirts and a leering gaze, then the jacket covers would be appropriate to illustrate that unusual style. Conversely, if a rule of a publication is to not insert content which has the primary or a major affect of commercial gain of th esubject, then prohibiting jacket covers seems to me to be well justified. Does that make sense You Know Who? (and no, I do not know who). Davidpaulson 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)DavidPaulson

Well, no. That doesn't make any sense at all. You ask, "Why not, LV?" Well, because you are not understanding the concept of what we do here. There is no "rule of publication" that prohibits Wikipedia from including stuff that has the major effect of commercial gain of the subject. If it does have that effect, that's not really our fault anyway. If in doing our job of describing and explaining, we show an object, and that object has the effect of gain for the subject, it is not our job to automatically remove it. Notice we have logos of corporations all over WP? Notice we have pictures of purchasable real-life items all over WP? No, we don't advertise for or against something, but having a notable book cover in an article is not advertising. Advertising like that would be, "Hey everybody! This book is awesome! Go buy it today! Quantities are limited, so you better hurry." Simply showing a book cover is not advocating it purchase. It is simply using an image to explain something that we talk about in the article. You seemed to have skipped over the painter/inventor analogy. By simply showing a painting (which could perceivable be bought or sold to the artist's gain) or an invention (which could perceivably be bought or sold to the inventor's gain), we are not advocating for the gain for either the painter or the inventor. By showing the book (which could perceivably be bought or sold to the gain of the author), we are not advocating its sale; we're merely showing the work. As I note, you like to seem to play coy, and that's okay. I got plenty of time to help a newcomer understand what WP is all about. Thanks! --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the book images, the entire article seems like an advertisement. Few other articles have large block quotes (such as those you might see in a magazine article in large bold print, to emphasize key quotes), and while that's obviously not the case here, one can only make such a determination after reading the article in its entirety. Additionally, and more importantly, is the entire article's length and bredth. I didn't do a word count, but by PageDowns, I get 15 screens for this article. In contrast, Al Franken's page is 7 screens, Jon Stewart's - 6.5, Henry Kissinger's - 15, Henry Ford - 14, Montana - 14. I realize there is always a desire to provide a comprehensive overview, and people in the spotlight are more apt to draw contributions, however Ms. Coulter hardly seems to be larger than (or equally as large as) the above examples, in either importance or public exposure. Anyway, I don't know what the WP policy is on such things; I'm just presenting my opinion on how the page appears to me. --192.231.128.66 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good point. I also think that this article is too long and not very encyclopedic. I think the controversies section can be summed up in the following way: "Ann hates liberals (especially the Clintons), arabs, muslims, black "savages" in South Africa, Charles Darwin, the New York Times, 9/11 widows, gay people and basically anyone else who is not a christian conservative. Oh, and she thinks Women (except for Paula Jones - who she thinks is a hero) are stupid and she might have committed voter fraud in Florida." Hmmm... that seems to sum it up rather well actually. This is just a joke so no one get mad. CogsBT 05:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the books (I'll get to that later), I find it difficult to chime in that the entire article is an advertisement for Coulter. Did anyone realize that basically 3/4 of the entire article is on her controversy and criticism? If anything, the article would seemingly promote anti-Coulter feelings, not pro. So I wouldn't call it an advertisement FOR her, nor really an advertisement at all.

The book covers aren't encyclopedic? Ehh...I'm tempted to agree that having MANY book covers on a page about the author isn't the most encyclopedic thing. One is excellent, two maybe. (But perhaps wikis should remember that it's difficult to find pictures we can have rights to, as well.) After all, many other authors don’t have many book covers of their works on their pages. But I agree with You Know Who that a point can be made that they are relevant to the article, not advertisement. The inventor analogy makes great sense in this instance. Stanselmdoc 17:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The other problem is, if we remove the book covers, what is there to replace them with? It's hard to find fair-use images of Coulter that everyone can agree on. We've tried it before, and there were constant fights over whether this image or that image was unflattering or whatever. It was all very subjective. These are fair-use and you'll never hear a peep of discontent from the Coulterites over them, since they're clearly photos of how she wants to be seen. I trust our readers are bright enough that a few pictures of Coulter smiling in leotards will not unduly influence them. Cheers, Kasreyn 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of books Treason and Slander

This section BARELY contains any criticism of these two books. Does this bother anyone? I think the section should be removed because the contents don't seem particularly important and don't seem to flow with the rest of the page. Thoughts? Irongargoyle 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of those two books should be moved to their respective articles: Treason:_Liberal_Treachery_from_the_Cold_War_to_the_War_on_Terrorism

and Slander:_Liberal_Lies_About_the_American_Right

--Facto 22:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Facto Puckmv 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Puck, agreeing with Facto.  :-) Good call. Lawyer2b 00:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unhappy with recent deletionism

As I've noted on the "to do list", several of the claims which are somehow unsourced were definitely sourced as recently as a few weeks to a few months ago. I'm flabbergasted to hear that, apparently, those sources have vanished. Other claims which are said to need a "real" source do, in fact, have a real source but could do with greater specificity.

I'm disappointed that outright deletion has taken the place of adding cite tags and enlisting other editors in finding sources. Kasreyn 02:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NB: I was looking at Lawyer2b's recent version when I wrote that. Kasreyn 02:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you disagree with something I did? Lawyer2b 02:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Specific Problems

Why was Joe Conason's criticism from Big Lies removed? (It has since been restored.) It provides an example of a critic attacking Coulter for hypocrisy and double standards, which would answer issues raised about sourcing of the statement that critics find her statements hypocritical. What I see here is 1.) a source backing up claim x being deleted and 2.) someone claiming that instances of claim x should be removed because there is no source.

Albanaco's "minor" edit was in fact a revert and probably not appropriate. There was some interesting material that had been added, such as the note on the congressional reaction to Godless, and the remarks by Andrew Sullivan. I would much prefer to see an edit that combines the best of lawyer2b's version with some of the details which have been removed. Kasreyn 02:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And to lawyer2b: I'd say the only problems I had with your edit were that Conason's remark was not merely a critique of her books but also spoke to the overall criticism of "hypocrisy" and therefore is still a useful source for this article (since some have pointed out we need good sourcing for the accusation of hypocrisy); and that when the other material was removed to the articles on her books, no links were added in the criticism section (such as, "This section is for criticism specifically of Ann Coulter. For criticism and information on her books, refer to the articles on them.") Kasreyn 02:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. My bad. I will find a good home for Conason's remark in her main article. As an aside, you and I were independently coming up with the same compromise vis-a-vis a mention of her books in the controversy section.  :-) Lawyer2b 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - What a pain in the ass. I hate fucking endnotes. They add extra work to moving things from one article to another. (sigh)

I'm with you there. I prefer inline sourcing on the web, endnotes in printed material. Kasreyn 03:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

False prophets is simply a link. people can draw their own conclusions if they wish to follow it  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

Criticism of her books section

Antaeus: I think that criticism that is directly related to her books should go on their (the books') pages. Since you admit that the criticism is more relevant on those pages, at best in her controversy section why don't we have a sentence stating something like "Coulter's books have also been controversial and have met with both strong support and criticism" ? I just think its a mistake to have EXACT duplicates of criticism in both her main article and her books' articles. Lawyer2b 02:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I hate the way liberals use this page as their own personal attack add, this place is a regular cabal of leftism--Libation071404 02:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wow, I've never heard that on Wikipedia before... ¬_¬ I can only advise you to refer to WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL and try to calm down. No one here's out to "get" anyone. Paranoia is unproductive and usually comes to grief here. Kasreyn 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Hail Mao Tse Tung. --kizzle 06:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

    ?? Kasreyn 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

    • • Just trying to satisfy the accusations of the liberal cabal. Its better than trying to respond with reason. --kizzle 07:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

        Heh. Yeah, I'm thinking of starting a counter on my userpage: "Number of times this user has been accused of being part of the liberal / homosexual / jewish / east coast / elitist / imperialist cabal / agenda / conspiracy: x." If I had started such a count when I first came here, it would surely be in the twenties or so by now. Kasreyn 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that criticism that is directly related to her books should go in the articles for those books. But I disagree that the obvious corollary is "that criticism should not go anywhere else", especially since that very point has been discussed in detail at WP:POVFORK. Your proposed summary, simply informing us that Coulter's books have been "controversial" and "have met with both strong support and criticism" and completely avoiding any mention of why they have been so subject to criticism, is simply not adequate. If we were to say "well, a vague summary is adequate here, since there's a different article where a true summary of the different positions on the issue would be more relevant", then we are really just saying to every POV pusher out there "Hey! If there's something that you want to marginalize any discussion of, just make a new, ultra-specific article which is clearly where that discussion is most relevant! Then use the fact that it's 'most relevant' there, to justify minimizing it everywhere else!" If you're telling me that the article on neither book has any more detail than this article does ("EXACT duplicates of criticism") then that says more about the sad state of the book articles than of a need to be even more vague in this article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

1) I'm not saying "that criticism should not go anywhere else". I am simply saying

a. Any detailed criticism of her books ought to go on their respective articles.

b. Her main article ought to only contain a summary of criticism of her books.

2) If you think my summary was too vague and think it should summarily mention "why" they were , please feel free to add to it. I'm not saying the summary has to be vague, just that it should be a summary.

3) I hope I'm making it clear that I'm not married to the summary as written. In the spirit of cooperation can I ask that, should you not like the summary, instead of simply reverting (pardon the pun) to putting back the detailed criticism that you, instead, improve the summary?

4) - Apparently we're both not doing a good job actually reading what the book criticism section contains. The first paragraph that mentions Slander, as far as I can tell, contains no criticism at all and merely describes her point of view in and outside the book. Lawyer2b 14:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'd like to point out that Lawyer2b has been very polite and willing to listen to problems with his edits and make fixes. I hardly think he's a POV pusher. And Feldspar's example of marginalizing important information might hold water if non-notable articles were created in order to do so. However, Coulter's books were already each notable in their own right (most of them being best-sellers) and already had their own articles, so the comparison isn't accurate. There's no need to duplicate information as long as we wikify (ie., link) and organize correctly. Kasreyn 17:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate the positive feedback, Kasreyn, and I think your assessment of the comparison is correct and important to note. Lawyer2b 18:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lawyer2b, please take a closer look at the very few edits that I have made to the article. You accuse me of "simply reverting ... to putting back the detailed criticism", but what I have in fact done is simply to restore two references to verify a particular statement that was made -- namely, that one of the reasons Coulter's books are controversial and have attracted criticism is because they are accused of distorting and misrepresenting the facts. Now, I would like to believe that you simply became confused, and mistakenly attributed some edits that were made by others to me: I fail to see how saying 'Coulter's books have come under criticism for allegedly distorting the facts' is too much detail to go into at Ann Coulter. However, from your example above of what you think would be an adequate summary, I cannot be sure that this is the case. Please clarify. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be offensive so "accuse" is a bit stronger of a word than I would use; it just appeared to me that as part of this edit [3] you added back the entire criticism section I had removed. Am I reading it wrong? Btw, what's your opinion of the criticism summary now? Lawyer2b 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you're reading it right; I'm looking at the the diff for my edit and it did a lot of things that I have no intention of doing. I would have sworn on a Bible that my edit merely re-inserted two references to support the statement that Coulter has been accused of distorting facts. The only way I can figure it happened is that I obviously had to go back to a previous version to get the references that had been removed, and though I would have sworn I then edited the current version, it must not have been the current version after all. Sorry! As for the criticism section as it is now, it looks satisfactory to me; it doesn't try to rehash the entire debate (which, as you correctly point out, belong in the respective articles for those books) but it does provide an adequate summary of what the debate is about. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve the summary. No apology is necessary. Everyone makes mistakes like that.  :-) Lawyer2b 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And now all text has been stripped from the book criticism section, nothing is left but a link. If this is going to be the case, it should be moved to See Also. But I don't think it should. A short overview of some of the more common and/or notable criticisms of her books is appropriate. Her books speak to her character and are the primary reason she is notable enough to merit her own article. I think they deserve at least a passing mention. The Bibliography does a decent job of summarizing each book, but critical response (and praise, assuming there is any) is worth mentioning.

P.S. We still need some explanation of Coulter's views on McCarthy in the main body. That See Also link looks awfully lonely. Kasreyn 05:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Coulter on Willey

I understand why POV explanations of her quotes have been removed, but this allows them to stand without context. Since the intended purpose of Coulter's one-liners is to mislead, we risk aiding and abetting her purpose.

Case in point: "Before criticizing others for being 'mean' to women, perhaps Hillary should talk to her husband who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick and was groping Kathleen Willey at the very moment Willey's husband was committing suicide."

What Coulter wants the reader/listener to think: Clinton raped women, one of whose husbands committed suicide in horror over the crime.

Fact: Clinton was not charged with a crime in either case. Tripp's testimony destroyed Willey's credibility. And Edward Willey committed suicide because, due to his admitted embezzlement, he had debts he was unable to repay. People kill themselves over debt all the time.

So, is there an NPOV way we can add sourced context to the quote - being careful to avoid weasel words, or must we simply hope the reader will follow the links to Accusations of rape against United States presidents and Kathleen Willey and figure it out themselves? Kasreyn 17:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you bring up a good point. An article is supposed to be NPOV and a person's article can't be NPOV if it effectively serves as a platform to promote their views. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

clinton beat the rap because of his class and skin privlege. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.70.152 (talk • contribs) .

What did his skin have to do with it? Every U.S. President in history has been white. Clinton is white. Willey is white. How did he use "skin privilege" to beat the rap? Kasreyn 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

pics from ann?

I think Ann is really a liberal. No self-respecing conservative would go so far out of their way to be that hated by Replulicans and Democrats alike. She must be trying to drum up sympathy for libera —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.153.203.4 (talk • contribs) .

Again, this speculation serves little purpose as it would be original research to include it. Kasreyn 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

the book covers are a little bit overwhelming and do smack of advertisement. could someone send a feeler out to ann to see if she'll donate a photo or two to the public domain? (jimbo??) the one in front of mccarthy's tombstone and the one with a rifle are both pretty good, and she's got some more glamorous ones as well. Justforasecond

personal attack and response removed Justforasecond 18:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Ann cares enough to deal with Wikipedia right now, she's under a little heat for her actions. --kizzle 05:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well she might like to hear from someone willing to give her some positive attention.... Justforasecond 18:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Ann cares enough to deal with Wikipedia right now too; she's busy trying to figure out a way to spend all the money she's making from her newest book.  :-) Lawyer2b 04:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

More apologism

I've removed a statement from the section on the 9/11 Widows statements. Not only was it unneccessary - it was clearly noted above that Coulter was referring to precisely four women - it was also POV speculation and an attempt to apologize for Coulter's remarks. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Furthermore, if "Jersey Girls" is added to the title of this section, which I don't particularly dispute, it must be indicated that this is a term applied to them by Coulter rather than by Wikipedia, as to call a woman a "Jersey Girl" can in some cases be meant as an insult. Kasreyn 05:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

At least with regards to the 9/11 widows referred to as "Jersey Girls", the name does not appear to be used perjoratively nor by Coulter alone. An article on commondreams.org (certainly no friend to Coulter) declares the women are referred to by that moniker in Washington, D.C. [4] Lawyer2b 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but whether an insult was intended or not, we can't allow the appearance of it. For instance, when black rapper x in a rap track calls a friend a "nigger", no one is foolish enough to think he is using it as an expression of contempt. Yet it would not be appropriate to include a list section in that rapper's article called "Rapper x's Niggers", because it risks the appearance that it is Wikipedia that chose to use the term. When a term that could be offensive is used, it should be clear that Wikipedia is quoting someone else. Maybe it's just me being overly sensitive, though. I consider it only a minor problem, but when a person who happens to be a personal friend of one of the foursome, who happens to feel the term is a put-down, comes on this talk page, you can be sure they won't feel it's minor at all that Wikipedia joins the world in calling their friends "Jersey Girls". Kasreyn 09:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You might think I'm being cold-hearted but I think your appeal for clarity is much more persuasive than for sensitivity. Lawyer2b 12:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

POV tag added by 24.15.75.90

24.15.75.90 apparently feels the article violates WP:NPOV enough to merit a POV tag. As I'm sure he is aware, use of the POV tag requires explaining the reasons for adding the tag to be detailed on the talk page. 24.15.75.90, please post as soon as possible in order that we might know what is POV about the article. Thanks, Kasreyn 05:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

here's a nice pic maybe we can get rights to

[5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gzuckier (talk • contribs) . Yeah, I forgot to sign in my liberal excitement at tearing down a great American.Gzuckier 17:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is pic shoul be added at the top.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) . Wr

Here's the commentary from the site that went with the photo. And I'll be, it does look like her. Maybe there does need to be a tranny section :D badmonkey 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Worked for Sen Spencer Abraham R-Michigan

Michigan is the only state w/ a sizable Arab and Muslim population and Abraham hismelf was of Lebanese Arab Christian descent. It is notable that Coulter worked in his senate office for two years yet articulates such incendiary anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Very remarkable. Take Care! --65.184.213.36 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved comment from To Do

The most amazing thing about this article is the fact it is full of what Ann Coulter says yet any criticisms as some say or some believe are removed as NPOV. How can publishing what she says but disallowing what others say or believe about her be neutral? She is given the only voice. That is not neutral —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.251.179.41 (talk • contribs) .

Please refer to Avoiding Weasel Words. Claims such as "some say" or "some believe" are not verifiable and therefore not encyclopedic. If a specific, reliable source can be found making the claim or statement, then that source can be cited and quoted. Otherwise, to include statements prefaced with "some say" or "some believe" is original research, which is not accepted at Wikipedia. Thanks, Kasreyn 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV of Coulter's remarks re: liberalism from "Godless"

I'm concerned about our presentation of Coulter's remarks regarding her belief that "liberalism" is a religion. We've just recently removed a great deal of criticism and discussion regarding her books, including Godless, to the specific articles for those books. Now we are adding claims made in those books. If counter-claims - ie., criticism from what I will for the moment indulgingly call "the other side" are to be added, no doubt someone will move them over to the criticism section of the book in question. This presents a question: how much material from, and criticism of, each book should we include in this article, and how much should go in the articles on the specific books? Given the unbelievable frequency of edits to the article, most of which are by POV-pushers on both sides, it would be wise for us to decide on a good rule of thumb which can be applied in a fair way. Otherwise, the laudable attempt, recently made by lawyer2b, to move information pertaining to the books to their respective pages, will be reduced to incoherent chaos. Exactly how much of the material in her books is so notable, in speaking to her character, that it deserves to be related in this article, and which items are more book-specific and should be left in those articles? I'd really like to hear as many different opinions on this as possible. Thanks, Kasreyn 01:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the positive feedback. For what it's worth, I think with only limited exceptions any claims or quotes from her books should go on their respective pages and not in her main entry; the same with criticism regarding them. I think exceptions should be limited to things that are cited to support a general description of Coulter, her behavior, or her views. Lawyer2b 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that, though a small sampling of quotes of her writing style would also serve a useful purpose here. My concern is to preserve a balance between reporting her views and those of her critics while avoiding another round of content creep. Kasreyn 09:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter and Paula Jones References

Ann Coulter wrote a lot of articles related to the Paula Jones case for Human Events during the Paula Jones period. I have listed the one I have found below for someone with more knowledge to choose the best ones. (I was barely a teenager when this all occured and I have never heard of Human Events before.)--chemica 03:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why is the IRS harassing Paula Jones?, Human Events, Jan 23, 1998
• Supreme Court ruling has no impact on Paula Jones, Human Events, Jul 17, 1998
• It's official: Clinton's a liar, Human Events, Apr 23, 1999
• Immaterial girl, Human Events, Mar 26, 1999
• Now apply NOW law to Clinton, Human Events, Nov 6, 1998
• Carville meets his match,Human Events, Oct 9, 1998

big daddy 777's revenge

with the talk of librel cabals etc i can't help but be reminded of our old pal big daddy 777. maybe he's haunting the place.

big daddy, we hardly knew ye

Justforasecond 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're too right... I've been reading some of the links on Kizzle's talk page and going over the history of Big Daddy's downfall. His attacks read like the way Bill O'Reilly treats "guests" (read: punching-bags) on his show. Amazing that an editor that abusive didn't get banned long before. I was stunned at the dozens, if not scores, of corroborative links presented at the RfM. Were people just startlingly patient with him, or did a previous attempt to ban him fail somehow? Regardless, very sad, and funny in a twisted sort of way.

I suppose if he were still around I'd already have been labelled a member of the cabal and instructed to "shut up" in the manner of his mentor. Little would he know that my credentials don't even make me worthy of being the cabal's towel boy. :P Cheers, Kasreyn 09:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who was his mentor, pray tell? :-) Lawyer2b 12:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he really needed a mentor though a couple editors did try to "help" him (i.e. exploit his awful behavior). I don't think he was around for that long, he was just extremeley prolific. Justforasecond 15:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that only the editors who never had a single discussion with BigDaddy criticize those who had to deal with him. --kizzle 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. You'll never hear such criticism from me. From what I've seen in the page histories, everyone who ever had to talk to that guy deserves a Bigdaddy777 Campaign medal. :P Kasreyn 07:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was curious too. Then I looked at User:BigDaddy777. badmonkey 15:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the King of Shut Up, naturally. Kasreyn 23:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this woman getting such a huge amount of attention here at Wikipedia? I would say this article is biased in her favor!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.203.122 (talk • contribs)

Point to where the bias is and let it be addressed . Lawyer2b 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to try and answer Kasreyn's question about why BigDaddy didn't get banned sooner. There was some waffling by the filers of the RfC about BigDaddy.[6] Mainly because they were bending over backwards to try and get BigDaddy to play nice. I made a little summary of the whole BigDaddy saga one time, might be interesting read now: [7] -- Mr. Tibbs 09:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read your summary and I came in at the tail end of his tenure but, as someone who was sympathetic to Bigdaddy due to his political beliefs and shared perception of substantial liberal bias on wikipedia, I agree with you. His incivility was to such a degree that I would have banned him much earlier. Lawyer2b 17:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that part of it is that community bans have gotten more common. BD wasn't a vandal, he had some decent contributions to the Ann Arbor article, and, I suspect, that most of us who felt the brunt of his wrath were relatively inexperienced (I had never filed an RFC, for example, or even participated in one). He also had a few supporters, and a few apologists. A lot of new users come in spoiling for a fight, and then settle down - I suppose I was a bit naive, and figured that he was an intelligent enough person to figure out where "the line" was, and would settle into being just short of a troll. He probably did eventually, under a new user name... Guettarda 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And even I, as someone who tried to reform and partly defend BD, got fed up rather quickly. Once that happens (people who try to defend you turning against you), I am not sure there is much hope. Hey, it happens. There is only so much someone can take. :-) --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Guettarda BD did do some vandalism: [8]. Thats nothing compared to the other things he did though. I don't think he has a new user name though, because he leaves me and other users little notes occasionally about "PHASE II"[9]. That and his writing style is so distinctive I doubt he could fly under the radar "LOL!". Who remembers that phrase? And whatever happened to the picture of himself User:BigDaddy777 put on his user page? -- Mr. Tibbs 06:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To Feydey re: sourcing

I'm sorry to revert you, but I think the citation needed tag must remain. Originally the section only mentioned Coulter's direct quote, which as you pointed out, is perfectly well sourced by Godless. However, very recently someone added the section of text saying "who pushed for the 9/11 Commission, were critical of US security policies, hinted that George W. Bush was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and supported John Kerry for president in 2004.", which is a claim regarding not Coulter, but the four widows. Since Coulter has already said such venemous things about the four widows, I hardly think we can consider Coulter or her book a reliable source on them. Coulter may indeed have made such claims in Godless (or not, for all I know), but we need a third party to report on that, which is why I added the cite needed tag. My guess is that whoever added the claims was repeating hearsay and had no particular source. If you can find one, please do. Best wishes, Kasreyn 08:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That edit (and this one) were fine points and spot-on-well-done. Lawyer2b 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment.  :) Kasreyn 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

POV!

please clean this article of liberal POV that is very strong in this article and it should be balanced not POV----Fellow-edit 22:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of restoring the See Also links to Joseph McCarthy and FOX News. (See lawyer2b? I don't like to do I-told-you-so's, but the material on McCarthy should have been kept in the main article.)

Suffice to say that Coulter has openly stated that McCarthy is the American politician she most deeply admires. This is no secret, it's her own words. FOX News also deserves its link, seeing as how the vast majority of her televised appearances are under its auspices, perhaps because no other network will give her airtime anymore.

These quibbling details aside, what in specific do you feel demonstrates a liberal POV in this article? Kasreyn 22:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have again reverted it, please don't reinstate it again----Fellow-edit 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, could you please be more specific in what exactly needs to be cleaned up. Thanks. --Dcflyer 23:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I note that you haven't responded to my specific explanations for the inclusion of the links. Do you have any reason for removing those links? I have been polite enough to provide you my reason for including them. Perhaps you could return the favor.

P.S. That's 3RR for me today. Other editors, take note. Kasreyn 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been so amusing...I almost hesitated to intervene. User:Fellow-edit, please explain how including these two links make the article POV. Better yet, I'd really like to hear your reasoning regarding how removing the links makes the article less POV. Also, it is common practice to provide logical reasoning and discussion before changing the status quo that has been reached by a consensus of editors.--WilliamThweatt 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Fellow-edit, even though I am a self-identified Ann Coulter fan and someone who perceives quite a bit of liberal bias on wikipedia, I don't find much (any?) bias in this article. I am certainly open to the idea that I am mistaken (I have missed bias before) and so am very interested to hear specifics from you on the talk page so that they might be addressed. My (and others') politics notwithstanding I wish to see NPOV articles and will fight hard for that. Lawyer2b 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also just like to emphasize that wikipedia is supposed to be edited by consensus and discussion. This has been going on quite well on this article lately and I have found just about everyone very civil, open to admissions of error, and focused on making the article as good as it can be and NPOV. You would benefit from taking advantage of this spirit/climate by participating in a discussion to see your points addressed as a community. It will certainly result in less reverts. Lawyer2b 01:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

After Rex/Merecat/Kizzle, BigDaddy, and other "persecuted" conservatives, I just want to say what a breath of fresh air it is reading your comments Lawyer. You are a shining example of how conservative editors gain respect on Wikipedia. --kizzle 01:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While I am libertarian with conservative values, thank you very much for the positive feedback. :-) Lawyer2b 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits to the "see also" links, Racialism, absoultely had to go; it's simply wrong, good call on that one. I don't see how a POV argument can be made regarding Joseph McCarthy or Fox News, however. Am I missing something there? Lawyer2b 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree...she is a regular contributor to Fox News, I don't see why that's POV. --kizzle 02:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. There's nothing POV about a "see also" link to Fox News or Joseph McCarthy. However the "Racialism" was misplaced. While I do identify more with the "Reagan Conservative" Camp, I am not particularly a fan of Ann Coulter's style. However, none of what I've heard from her or read in her books/columns has anything to do with "race". If one wants to write a "Culturism" article, though, that would be a different story. Her observations are based on American Culture vs. (fill-in-the-blank)'s Culture, not on race.--WilliamThweatt 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Racialism

Why is this under the "see also" section? Why is this present in the article at all? When has Ann Coulter ever expressed that she subscribes to racialism? In the absence of a quote directly linking her to this belief, it must be deleted. Stanley011 03:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So far, I think we are in agreement on this one link (Racialism). I noticed nobody has put it back in.--WilliamThweatt 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)