Jump to content

Talk:Ann Coulter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2607:fea8:d5df:fef6:45d5:59c4:ce26:3b41 (talk) at 23:24, 31 May 2019 (→‎former member of GOProud: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template:Vital article

Intelligent Design

This page reads "Coulter subscribes to intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution." Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive in everyone's mind. Belief in Creation doesn't necessitate the rejection of evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.210.89 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether she rejects evolution. This kind of thing [1] implies she does, but I couldn't find a succinct quote. I would challenge that "intelligent design" qualifies as a theory, rather than as less than a hypothesis, more of a surmise. --Hugh7 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "theory" wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html

Coulter's most recent book

Coulter, Ann H. (2018). Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind. New York City: Penguin Random House LLC. ISBN 9780525540076 (hardcover); ISBN 9780525540083 (ebook). It's listed on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.86.4 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

Please include Ann Coulters newest book "In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!" under the books section 165.204.55.250 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, it's already there. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WND and TownHall sources

I removed a quote sourced to WorldNetDaily because this is not a reliable source, even for opinions. In the same edit I removed a Dennis Prager quote sourced to Townhall because the opinion of a columnist is unlikely to be notable and may be considered a WP:FRINGE view. –dlthewave ☎ 10:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considered by whom? If you wish to remove an opinion because it is "fringe" one would like to see evidence of that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, editors wishing to add or retain an opinion will need to show that it is has been published by reliable sources; otherwise it fails WP:WEIGHT. –dlthewave ☎ 21:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an illogical response. I pointed out that those who wish to remove opinions as "fringe" need to provide evidence that they are "fringe". If you respond to that by saying "editors wishing to add or retain an opinion will need to show that it is has been published by reliable sources", that's changing the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "fringe", I meant that it is a minority viewpoint that has not been demonstrated to appear in reliable sources. WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT all apply here. –dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE: "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Not appearing in a reliable source isn't part of the definition. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it's still "a minority viewpoint that has not been demonstrated to appear in reliable sources." We should not be giving Prager and Horowitz the same weight as prominent organizations such as the ADL and American Jewish Committee. –dlthewave ☎ 21:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, not idea if WND should be reliable but Prager would be a notable opinion on conservative/libertarian matters. Here is CNN including Prager on a panel discussing antisemitism [[1]]. Certainly an opinion with a POV and not one that should be typically delivered in Wikipedia voice but still notable. Since this is appears to be a direct quote WND would only have to be evaluated with regards to truthfully quoting Prager. The RS concerns could be bypassed by finding an alternative or second source for the quotes in question. Springee (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave:, this looks like a bad reversion to me [[2]]. The material has been in the article for some time. @FreeKnowledgeCreator: has challenged the removal, I noted problems with the justification for removal and the talk page discussion has not reached a consensus. The WND sourced material might fail RS but the claims aren't extraordinary (thus a lower quality source may be OK). The opinions of David Horowitz and Dennis Prager are both notable in this area so it would be hard to argue they don't have WEIGHT for inclusion independent of sourcing. Springee (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: We must have a different understanding of WP:WEIGHT; I don't see anything in the policy that gives weight to an individual's opinion due to their notability. The policy concerns the prominence of a viewpoint among reliable sources, and it does not appear that Horowitz's and Prager's opinions on Coulter's remarks have been published in reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 13:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WEIGHT allows inclusion of views/opinions of notable commentators/experts in cases like this. I would start by noting that the claims of antisemitism are being made by people who are no more notable, and perhaps less so, than those defending Coulter. For instance Horowitz is quoted several times in the article so I don't think we can claim his opinion suddenly doesn't have weight this time. WND cites Horowitz's blog as the source of the defense. Perhaps you should change the reference to his blog instead. Springee (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, if Horowitz is a notable opinion on the subject then it shouldn't matter where his defense is published. Second, it was incorrect to remove the Prager material in your reversion since it was not related to the WND issue. Third, I've added a HuffPo article that also talks about Horowitz defending Coulter. Thus at this point the HuffPo establishes the WEIGHT and the Horowitz article simply fills in the details. Springee (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity:, there is not consensus for removing the material. The material is party of the long term stable version of the article. The Horowitz material is now supported with two sources (Horowitz's own writing and the HuffPost) so removal of that content was sloppy and unjustified. The Prager material removal is also questionable given there is no doubt he said it. Please justify the removals individually here. Remember you are removing long term stable content so the onus is on you to get consensus for the change. Springee (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prager's column is also a primary-source opinion with no reliable secondary coverage. Editors who wish to add or reinstate the content will need to demonstrate that it is a significant viewpoint, do you have other sources that support this? We need to be particularly careful when sourcing opinions in a BLP, whether positive or negative. –dlthewave ☎ 12:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would be better to get a second source to confirm weight. However there isn't consensus for removal and we are dealing with removing stable content. The Horowitz material did have a secondary source and thus was removed improperly. Springee (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not under a restriction that requires consensus to remove content. What was the secondary source for Horowitz? The HuffPost ref was missing the URL. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source that says Prager defended Coulter. [[3]] Springee (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be an acceptable secondary source for Prager's comments. –dlthewave ☎ 12:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would use that and keep the existing Town Hall article. Since the one references the other. Springee (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:, the Horowitz material was discussed here. While WND is not considered a reliable site for facts etc it is considered reliable for the views/opinions expressed by the authors. There is a very good reason for keeping the actual Horowitz material. The HuffPo article (the second reference) says Horowitz defended Coulter and cites the article WND article. However, since the HuffPo author disagrees with Horowitz it's better to include both so readers can see both what Horowitz wrote and what was said about it. Finally, RS doesn't say this material can't be included, only that we need to use it carefully. Anyway, the material was included after the discussion above. Springee (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a (just about) reliable source for this material. Linking the original is unnecessary and a violation of WP:FRINGE, since WND is a fringe publication. It's a redundant unreliable source, and adds nothing. In fact I would remove the entire sentence as WP:UNDUE unless it's mentioned in something more weighty than HuffPo. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't fringe since Horowitz is a well know commentator. Unless you are claiming the article isn't actually by Horowitz or the material was altered. Also, we already have a consensus for inclusion based on the discussion above. Springee (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Someone says something on a far-right fringe website and the only source that reports it is a dodgy left-wing tabloid. Including that, is undue. Doesn't matter if it was the King of Siam who said it, the lack of commentary in substantive independent sources is what makes it undue. We're not supposed to scour the internet for primary sources supporting or debunking a specific POV, we are supposed to reflect the consensus view of reliable sources, which, in this case, is "meh". Guy (Help!) 23:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Horowitz's views are mentioned several other times in the article. Why do you think this one time, when he is defending Coulter, is fringe and can't be included but the other times are OK for inclusion? I think your POV would be stronger if this was the only time Horowitz was in the article. Springee (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed a Horowitz quote which was sourced to Front Page Magazine. The other mentions of Horowitz come from sources that are at least marginally reliable.
You're continuing to imply that Horowitz himself carries some sort of notability or weight that applies to everything he says. That is not how it works. We may choose to include comments which have been prominently covered by reliable secondary sources, while policy requires that we exclude comments which do not meet this standard. –dlthewave ☎ 05:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: You've asserted several times that the opinions of notable commentators inherently carry a certain amount of weight, including the extraordinary claim that "WEIGHT allows inclusion of views/opinions of notable commentators/experts in cases like this." This is a misrepresentation of our policies, in fact WP:WEIGHT concerns the prominence of a viewpoint among reliable sources and says nothing about the opinions of notable individuals. –dlthewave ☎ 23:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why were you ok with the material until Guy came along. Springee (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Jews

Ann Coulter repeating KKK speak. "I mean, you have the Muslims and the Jews and the various exotic sexual groups and the black church ladies with the college queers. The only thing that keeps the Democratic base together is for them to keeping focusing on, ‘No, white men are the ones keeping you down. You must hate white men."

https://forward.com/fast-forward/415931/ann-coulter-jews-hate-white-men-like-rest-of-democratic-base/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unreliable source and I can't find a reliable one, but if there were one, it would probably merit inclusion. If no RS is presented in 48 hours I propose to remove this section per WP:BLP but there are enough mentions in unreliable sources that it deserves at least a short time for people to think about it. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert

This unexplained revert by Chowbok of a recent edit by me, for which I gave a clear explanation, is inappropriate. As noted, the term "sexual intercourse" refers to heterosexual genital sex, or more specifically the insertion of a penis in the vagina. It does not include homosexual activity, making "same-sex sexual intercourse" an incorrect expression. It is unfortunate that an editor would choose to restore such an inaccuracy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do reliable sources describe Coulter's views on the subject? –dlthewave ☎ 01:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there is a reliable source discussing Coulter's views of homosexual sexual behavior. The term she uses in the article used as a source is "sodomy" so it describes her views more accurately to use it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it's not discussed by a reliable source, then it probably shouldn't be covered in the article per WP: WEIGHT. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that there is no reliable source discussing her view of this subject, only that I wasn't aware of one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
dlthewave, this edit by you is misconceived. I am aware that people's views need to be described neutrally, but "same-sex sexual intercourse" is not neutral or even an accurate use of the English language. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia support a broad definition of intercourse which covers various types of sexual activity. More examples can be provided if needed. Which sources support your definition? –dlthewave ☎ 03:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The primary definition of "sexual intercourse" according Merriam Webster is "heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis". The term can be used other ways but it is desirable to avoid a mistaken expression such as "same-sex sexual intercourse" given that the primary meaning of "sexual intercourse" is penile-vaginal sex. The Wikipedia article Sexual intercourse similarly begins with, "Sexual intercourse (or coitus or copulation) is principally the insertion and thrusting of the penis, usually when erect, into the vagina for sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from the note at the Conservatism WikiProject. Pretty obviously, what we should not do is to use the word "sodomy" in Wikipedia's voice, although it could potentially be attributed in a quote. As to "intercourse" versus "behavior", I don't think that editors can definitively determine whether intercourse can be same-sex; there will be too many differences of opinion in general culture. But I see no need to force the issue. I see nothing wrong with calling it "behavior" or "sexual behavior". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

former member of GOProud

"She is a ... former member of the advisory council of GOProud since August 9, 2011." Since 2011 until when? The word former could mean she quit, or she was a member until it ceased to exist.--2607:FEA8:D5DF:FEF6:45D5:59C4:CE26:3B41 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter&oldid=899729376"