Jump to content

Talk:Ann Coulter: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MarkoOhNo (talk | contribs)
62 edits
→Misinformation: new section
Line 114: Line 114:


Someone else's project; I don't even know where I'd begin. <br>[[User:Weeb Dingle|Weeb Dingle]] ([[User talk:Weeb Dingle|talk]]) 19:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Someone else's project; I don't even know where I'd begin. <br>[[User:Weeb Dingle|Weeb Dingle]] ([[User talk:Weeb Dingle|talk]]) 19:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

== Misinformation ==

Under Religious Beliefs, it's stated that Intelligent Design rejects Evolution. This is not only incorrect but inflammatory, reflective of bias, and must be changed or removed immediately. While some who believe in intelligent design may reject evolution, certainly not all do as evolution could still be a part of the intelligent design. At dispute is not the method but rather the propelling force behind the methods.

[[User:MarkoOhNo|MarkoOhNo]] ([[User talk:MarkoOhNo|talk]]) 23:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:21, 30 July 2017

Archive
Archives
  1. Before 2005
  2. Criticism, Quotes, Racism/Sexism, Idle rich
  3. Vietnam comments on the Fifth Estate
  4. Ext links, Transsexual, Birthdate, Plagiarism
  5. More racism, Quotations, Length, Photos
  6. Pictures, Canada/Vietnam, August 24 2005 to September 8 2005
  7. September 08 2005 to September 30 2005
  8. September 30 2005 to October 10 2005
  9. October 10 2005 to June 8 2006
  10. June-ish 2006
  11. June 28 2006 to July 8 2006
  12. July 8 2006 to August 29 2006
  13. September 1 2006 to October 31 2006
  14. October 31 2006 to December 25 2006
  15. December 25 2006 to January 31 2007
  16. January 31 2007 to February 17 2007 (CBC, College Speeches)
  17. Feb 17 2007 to March 1 2007 {Canadian troops, Anti-Islam category
  18. Mar 2 2007 to July 27 2007
  19. August 17 2007 to October 29 2007
  20. November 10 2007 to December 24 2007
  21. 4 January 2008 to –––
  22. /Archive 22

update to Ann's politics

[1] Ann Coulter recently tweeted "14!" referencing the "fourteen words" or "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children", a nazi quote. This points towards Ann sympathizing with fascism, which might be something to add to her political beliefs.

How long have you been following her? She tweets a new number every day: She's counting down to Trump's inauguration.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty hard stretch there when she has also been hired as a writer for "American Renaissance", a white supremacist publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.210.91 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/817022914004447232

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

Coulter is officially writing for the white supremacist site "American Renaissance" now. Article should be update to reflect that she is now an admitted white supremacist. https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/817022914004447232 73.155.210.91 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JustBerry (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source has been provided, public statement by the owner of the white supremacist site in question. Site IS a hate site, see https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-renaissance
Coulter has also been lobbying and promoting white supremacist groups https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/12/21/ann-coulter-attends-vdare-christmas-party-%E2%80%93-her-second-white-nationalist-event-three-months — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.210.91 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Site page listing her as a hired author: https://www.amren.com/author/ann-coulter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.210.91 (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

Djwebb79 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polemicist?

Anyone got any opinions on describing Coulter as a polemicist? We already mentioned in the lead that she has described herself as this. I moved the word into the first sentence with the summary "She describes herself as a polemicist, and I don't think anyone would disagree. This is a very good description of her, so I think it should go in the first sentence." This was reverted by Peter Gulutzan with the summary "Why we would throw out "writer" and add a word she used 15 years ago in the lead, I don't see."

I don't have strong opinions either way. I just thought, as I said, that it was a very good description of her, and so worth putting in the first sentence. Perhaps we should discuss it here. I am happy to go with the consensus, either way.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the edit by Yaris678 did not merely add "polemicist" to the first sentence, it removed "writer" etc. However Yaris678 is correct that "polemicist" was in the lead previously (in the third paragraph), I should have acknowledged that. Well, we'll see if others care. Incidentally the cite for "polemicist" is to a second-hand possibly-not-notable source, the original statement was in: publisher = The Sunday Times, date = July 7 2002; title = Right's avenging diva in US book coup; Author = Sarah Baxter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about "writer". I was thinking that "syndicated columnist" covered this, but she has also written several books. I'd be happy to come up with a version that includes that too. But let's see if anyone else has an opinion on when we should mention "polemicist". Yaris678 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ann Coulter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

when does the objectivity begin?

An interesting collection of Coulter trivia, but not really much of a WP article. For instance, Coulter's claims are left as fact, rather than meeting any sort of explanatory balance. Easy target: LGBT conservatism, where she told gay Republican Taylor Garrett that "The gays have got to be pro-life," and "As soon as they find the gay gene, guess who the liberal yuppies are gonna start aborting?" She claims it, WP repeats it, & suddenly absurdity is Truth.

While I'm there, I note there's frequent lapse of simple English: She … opposes transgender individuals to use bathroom usage.

Someone else's project; I don't even know where I'd begin.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

Under Religious Beliefs, it's stated that Intelligent Design rejects Evolution. This is not only incorrect but inflammatory, reflective of bias, and must be changed or removed immediately. While some who believe in intelligent design may reject evolution, certainly not all do as evolution could still be a part of the intelligent design. At dispute is not the method but rather the propelling force behind the methods.

MarkoOhNo (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter&oldid=793147948"