Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6

Need a separate section on her Racist Views

There needs to be a separate section for her racist views against Muslims, blacks, and Hispanics

What racist views? Ann simply opposes the politically correct victicrat mentality perpetrated by their self-appointed spokespeople.

One doesn't need to be a genius to know about her racist views. She repeatedly supports racial profiling, which only affect Muslims, hispanics, and blacks. Calling her "politically incorrect" is a nice way of saying that she is a racist.

What about Asians? It's tiring how many Asian-Americans are just passed off as the passive, "controllable" (ie. "harmless" and "nerdy", and keep to themselves) minority. Being of Asian descent, I actually took it as a compliment- and take great pride!- that I got thoroughly checked and screened at the Dulles airport in Washington a few years back. Le Anh-Huy 07:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-arranging talk page

Would anyone object if I were to categorize some of the discussions on this page to make them easier to follow? --Ben 3 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

I don't object, but can you archive any non-active discussions first? --kizzle July 3, 2005 21:07 (UTC)
Ok done, but you or someone else would probably know better than me which ones are still active or unresolved, so I'll leave that for someone else to do. The sections are in no particular order (change as need be), but all the talk within is still in order of date. -- 4 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

If there is any question of the bias of this article, read the wikipedia article on Al Franken. There is no section in it discrediting him or dedicated to his critics. Al Franken and Ann Coulter are essentcially the same just in different political parties

Um, no - Al Franken is a partisan, Ann Counter is a nutcase. Slight difference. Every second word out of his mouth isn't a lie. Guettarda 7 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
Yes. Big difference. Al Franken uses self-effacing humor and facts to persuade. Coulter uses harsh invective, lies, and distortions. Coulter's mendacity has been thoroughly documented, and only the relentlessly lazy or ill-informed could be unaware of that fact. People of both sides of the political spectrum have complained about her shrillness, even Bill O'Reilly! There ARE left-wing counterparts to Coulter, but Franken is not one of them. Poor example. 12:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
While I agree with Guettarda, I'll encourage you to add a criticism section to his article. I don't agree with him either and would be happy to help ;) --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 04:20 (UTC)

status of quotations

There are two different ways to interpret the above poll results (currently 11/10 in favor of keeping the quotations):

  • One can see no concensus and from this justify removing the information since it didn't reach concensus.
  • The other interpretation is that one can see no concensus to change what currently exists, and thus justify keeping the information in.

I believe that we must adopt the latter interpretation, because if we apply the former rule in a utilitarianist sense, we will face several unwanted consequences:

  • any passage in any article at any time could be questioned and removed given that it does not meet a significant concensus.
  • endless challenges, as what is to prevent us from simply re-polling to bring back the information in. Given the exact same results in a hypothetical subsequent vote on including the quotes on this page, we would be justified in including the information, as one could interpret that there isn't concensus to keep the info out, of which this process could be repeated ad inifinitum.

Given a tie, the direction of a poll should favor keeping information previously existing for some time the same rather than removing/changing information. --kizzle 03:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have reached my 3 revert limit today, thus I plead with others to follow the above guideline. --kizzle 03:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

There is only one way to interpret an 11/10 vote on Wikipedia: there is no consensus. This isn't a democracy, we don't use votes to make decisions. The close tie tells us that we don't agree. The content of the page does not command consensus. We must therefore edit the page until we have consensus. I still don't understand why we have to have that bald list-of-quotes in the first place. Coulter is famous for her bizarre neanderthal conservatism, let's write about that and use the quotes to illustrate it. Just plating a braindump into an article doesn't cut it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. I can equally say that there is no concensus to remove the information. In other words, while "the content of the page does not command concensus", neither does its removal. --kizzle 03:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

You are a nice reverter, but I think people may be at this awhile. If something is on Wiki and it is entirely POV as it is, then it either get removed or editors change it to be NPOV. I think the burden is on those who want the quotations to write an appropriate paragraph and stick it in there. In that way, the context can be added that make it NPOV. I don't think that is too much to ask. --Noitall 03:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to respond to any of my points addressing necessary consequences assuming a system where a tied votes yields change rather than no change? --kizzle 03:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I don't have much a response to the consensus argument. I did not ask for consensus and see that there is none. If there is no consensus, then I do as I see best to make the article better, following the principles that I stated. --Noitall 03:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Yes but what do you say of the consequences in adopting your viewpoint that the default in a tied poll rests upon including the information rather than removing it? What do you say of the interpretation that there is no concensus to remove this information which has existed on the page for some time now? --kizzle 03:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

-->That is not the default. NPOV is the default. Removing the quotes is inherently NPOV. Including the quotes without context and without a written paragraph is POV. --Noitall 03:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Umm, once again, how is quoting coulter POV? And you haven't answered the question: in a tied poll, what preference should we give that we can apply universally, changing previously existing information or removing information? NPOV is not the default, it is the standard, of which including quotes has nothing to do with. --kizzle 04:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I bolded my entire statement since you only read (or understood) part of it. --Noitall 04:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
If you feel any of these quotes are taken out of context, what is preventing you from adding the context instead of simply crying POV?--kizzle 04:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I bolded my statements I previously made that address your point, both above and below. --Noitall 05:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
So that means your content to simply cry POV due to a lack of context but you want other people to add the context. --kizzle 05:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
My statements speak for themselves. No, there is no requirement to add the context. You have an alternative: you can delete the quote entirely. But if you think these quotes are so necessary to make a point, you must write a proper Wiki article, which is not a collection of unrelated out of context quotes. --Noitall 06:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
for the love of god, what exactly is POV about quoting the woman? if coulter were here, she would no doubt want more quotes like these. i can see tony's argument that quotes aren't encyclopedic, though i disagree for the case of a polemicist. but POV entirely escapes me. what POV do you think is being expressed here? these are illustrations of her style & that's exactly why she's well known -- it's certainly not for her intellect. she's proud of these; conservatives are amused by them; i'm horrified by them -- but including the quotes furthers no point of view that i can see. Derex 06:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Below copied here from user talk pages:

The quote section has been there quite a while, and has been debated at length before -- see archive 1. Full disclosure: I went under the name Wolfman in that debate. Given the previous participation of many editors & long-standing debate, it doesn't seem to me that the default should be to remove the section given an essentially tied poll now. If you feel strongly about removing the quotes (and apparently you do), perhaps the best way forward would be to post an RFC. Regards, Derex 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't quite work that way. There is no "default". Either a page is stable or it is not. When there is consensus and someone calls a vote, for instance, you tend to see most people stacking up on one side and one or two opposing it. This hasn't happened here (although I opposed calling the vote for the very reason that I perceive no consensus). In the absence of consensus there is no "default". We'll go on arguing about it until someone rewrites it to the satisfaction of all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not you recognize it, there is a "default." In a hung poll, a decision must still be reached whether to include the information or not. --kizzle 03:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's never going to be to the satisfaction of all. But, I do recall that I brokered a compromise back around September. This had two parts. First, a 'disclaimer' which appears to be intact. Second, I reduced the number of quotes by selecting those most illustrative of her style. I think that got it down to 8 or so quotes. That compromise was pretty stable for quite a while. Apparently, there has been quite a 'quote creep' in the meantime. The best way forward might be a discussion of which quotes contribute most rather than whether there should be any quotes. Regards, Derex 03:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Along with that, the discussion suggests that the article might be enhanced by a paragraph or two describing different aspects of her style, and incorporating quotations within the text to illustrate the points made. I think the list of quotations is better than nothing, because it provides some information, but it would be more useful to the reader to have that kind of summary, and it would satisfy the editors who don't want a long collection of simple quotations. Of course, it would also be more work, and, no, I'm not volunteering to do it. JamesMLane 04:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You have accurately captured the problem. Certain people want the quotes but don't want to do the work that it takes to write a proper article to get them in. There are no shortcuts, someone who wants to do the work can get them in. --Noitall 04:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I really take issue with this view. The quotes have existed here for some time. Now you don't like them, so you threaten deletion if those who want the quotes don't modify them into paragraph form, without even a concensus to remove this previously existing info? If you don't like how the quotes are, why don't you modify it yourself instead of holding it hostage via threats of deletion?--kizzle 17:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with kizzle. The paragraph form would be more helpful to the reader than the simple collection of quotations, but, until someone writes the paragraph, having a selection of quotations in the article is better than forcing the reader to switch over to Wikiquote. JamesMLane 17:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
what sort of content do you think would be appropriate for paragraph form? to me, the current lead-in paragraph to the quotes section sort of says it all. i worry that providing 'context' will really turn into an opportunity (and battleground) to provide a point of view. i do think that the list of quotes ought to be pruned quite a bit, because it goes way beyond what is necessary to give a flavor of her style & her issues. Derex 18:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind shortening the amount of quotes, my ideal range would be 5-10. --kizzle 20:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess the POVers don't understand it until we turn the situation around. How about adding a whole section of quotes in the President William J. Clinton page without any context and no paragraphs and no way of addressing any issue. It would, of course, include:
1. I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution.
2. I tried marijuana once. I did not inhale.
3. If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
4. One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
5. The 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime.
6. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president.
7. It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is.
8. It depends on how you define alone.
9. There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were.
10. What's a man got to do to get in the top fifty?
11. When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again.
12. Politics gives guys so much power that they tend to behave badly around women. And I hope I never get into that.
13. It was a real sort of Southern deal. I had AstroTurf in the back. You don't want to know why, but I did.
14. You know, if I were a single man, I might ask that mummy out. That's a good-looking mummy.
15. Last year, the vice president launched a new effort to help make communities more liberal.
16. Usually briefs.
17. It wasn't my finest hour. It wasn't even my finest hour and a half.
18. You'd think he was running for First Lady.
19. I may not have been the greatest president, but I've had the most fun eight years.
20. I've said I've never broken the drug laws of my country, and that is the absolute truth.
21. The road to tyranny, we must remember, begins with the destruction of the truth.
22. The other thing we have to do is to take seriously the role in this problem of...older men who prey on underage women...There are consequences to decisions way or the other, people always wind up being held accountable.
23. I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now realize that I did not fully accomplish that goal.
24. I did not have sex with that woman.

--Noitall 21:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, I believe that you are missing the point. Coulter is a polemicist. That is why she is known. I imagine that Clinton finds these embarassing. Coulter does not. They are her craft. They are the very essence of her notability. Clinton is notable because he was the most powerful man on the planet for 8 years. Coulter is notable because she is rhetorically flamboyant (at least that's why she is successful as a pundit). You act as if she ought to be embarassed by these quotes, well I do agree with that. But, she & most of her supporters revel in them. I ask again: What POV is supposedly being pushed here? You call me POV pusher, I'd at least like to know which POV you think I'm pushing. Derex 22:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Unlike Coulter, Clinton is known for slightly more than his words. --kizzle 22:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

By all means Noitall, go add some quotes to Molly Ivins or Jim Hightower or Al Franken or Joe Conason. I think it would be absolutely fabulous for someone to add a few quotes illustrating their respective styles. Derex 22:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • POV, POV, POV. Hypocrite, Hypocrite, Hypocrite. But for consistency, because you have argued so strenuously that quotations cannot be POV because they are accurate, I instituted your Quotation policy here: William J. Clinton. --Noitall 22:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Gotta love those ad hominem attacks. --kizzle 22:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
WHAT POV? Tell me. I've asked twice before. What point of view am I pushing? Where am I being inconsistent? Where is the hypocrisy? I just said I think you should enhance the articles on liberal polemicists in exactly the same way. Do you even know what POV or hypocrite mean? Derex 22:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
No one can help the willfully deaf, dumb and blind. If you can't see it now, you never will. --Noitall 22:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not being in the least willful. If you don't care to explain your position, then that's your business. But then don't pretend that I'm the recalcitrant one. I can't very well debate or even understand someone who won't even specify the complaint. Derex 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Someone who won't specify their own position just sounds like an idiot calling someone else willfully deaf, dumb, and blind. --kizzle 22:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, I have written books on this page. No one has ever accused me of not forcefully making my point. Just because you can't or refuse to read and understand, well, it only supports my willfully deaf, dumb and blind statement. --Noitall 22:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have asked you the most basic posssible question three times in a row. You have refused to answer, yet you accuse me of being deaf & blind. I'm more than happy to talk (though I have to leave in a minute, so I'm not dumb either). You are choosing to be dumb though. So, I will ask you for a 4th time: what "point of view" is being advanced by including examples of her rhetorical style. If you would answer that, then I might understand your position, and then we might be able to find some common ground. Apparently, you are so convinced that I am pushing POV that you find it beneath yourself to explain what that POV is. At least 3 possiblities spring to mind, but I'm not going to sit here & speculate on what's going on in your mind. Either state your position clearly, or quit wasting my time & calling me names. Derex 23:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Because I have answered it 4 to 5 times on this page. Wake up. This "discussion" has been going on for some time now. If you don't want to read, I can't make you. --Noitall 23:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Where? Provide a link. Wouldn't that be a lot simpler than repeatedly refusing to answer? Or god forbid, write a new sentence. Yes, this discussion has been going on for quite a while, see Archive 1. I was discussing this back in August. That was a bit less maddening because at least Rex would answer my questions. So, at least that actually was a "discussion", and because of that we reached a compromise. Derex 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Haha, as Derex pointed out, that was my first post on Wikipedia. Geezus, after a compromise with Rex of all people, can't believe we're going through this again. --kizzle 23:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


Folks, the page has been protected while you work things out here. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 03:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Quote section poll(s), take two

Okay, it seems pretty clear that there is no real consensus on whether to keep or to remove the quote section. That just means we need to buckle down and find a compromise that everyone is relatively happy with.

There are some underlying issues that I think need to be addressed first: crazyeddie 05:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this an NPOV issue?

Some people are throwing around the notion that the quote section is inherently POV. It seems to me (assuming that the quotes aren't selected in order to support one POV or the other), that a quote section is absolutely NPOV. I think we might be seeing an example of the hostile media effect here. To see, let's have a strawpoll on this issue, and, in the spirit of scientific inquiry, let's also state our individual POVs on the subject of Ann Coulter. For the record, let me point out that "NPOV" doesn't stand for no point of view. NPOV is achieved through fairly and accurately representing all POVs. If you think Mrs. Coulter is Evil Incarnate, say (anti-). If you think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread, say (pro-). If you truly think you're neutral, or you don't wish to show your hand at this time, say (undisclosed). I'll start off.

Also, in case I haven't made it clear, let's consider this question independently of whether or not to keep the quote section. For example, I don't think this is an NPOV issue, but I do think the quote section should be removed, or at least severly prunned, for aesthetic reasons. crazyeddie 05:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the inclusion or removal of the quote section is an NPOV issue.

  • Yep, quotes without context illustrate little but can contribute to a POV. Quotes that show how outrageous or provocative one is can be helpful in giving a full picture, but the selection of quotes is bound to be fraught. DavidH 04:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, the inclusion or removal of the quote section is not an NPOV issue.

  1. No. (anti-) crazyeddie
  2. er.. anti.... I think including quotes can't be NPOV, as long as they are correct and not taken out of context, and that deleting them is mostly POV. What does that come under? Gzuckier 05:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that counts as "No", I took the liberty of moving your comment. Go ahead and put it where you want if you disagree. crazyeddie 05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


  • There has been one poll and it did not resolve anything except that there is no consensus. I have written about the POV and hypocracy here and on the William J. Clinton page. In all my effort, however, I can not make the blind see. --Noitall 05:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fuzheado | Talk 05:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC) - it's not clear what this poll will prove
Not much, but hopefully it will settle the issue of whether or not this issue is a NPOV matter, which might demuddy the watters a little. We can move on to more actionable things later.crazyeddie 05:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Tony's proposal

A while back, Tony proposed that we make an extra effort to use Coulter's quotes in the main text of the article, in order to provide evidence for or against the POVs under question. For example, we could provide a quote for each bullet point in the "stated views" list in the criticism section. He suggested it as an alternative to the quote section, but let's consider this proposal independent of whether or not we keep a seperate quote section for now. crazyeddie 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Tony's proposal sounds like a good idea.

  1. Yes. crazyeddie 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Maybe. I don't totally understand it, but if I read into it, it seems to be what I have advocated. --Noitall 05:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Heh, you're assuming I understand it. Or even read it for that matter :-) If we decide the basic idea is sound, we can bang out the details later. crazyeddie 05:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Eh, not so much.


I'm interested in seeing a sandbox version of such a proposal before I vote either way. --kizzle 05:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

ditto, i'm not really clear on what the proposal is. i'm also think that we should avoid providing an interpretation of the various quotes, other than as examples of her style. i suppose a few of the comments have received quite widespread media attention, especially the 'kill all the muslims' kind of quotes. so those might deserve a place in the text with some context.Derex 06:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Old issues

I'd encourage folks to take a look back at Talk:Ann_Coulter/Archive_1 as there is very little new here that wasn't argued last year. (In fact, I had to do a double take to make sure it wasn't simply cut and pasted.) Fuzheado | Talk 05:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

it's like deja vu all over again :) --kizzle 18:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no concensus to either keep or remove the info, for purposes of un-protecting the page, the quotes will stay in for now. I think whatever Tony's proposal is might be interesting, if it can be done in a neutral fashion. If he would like to delve into his proposal and show us a sandbox version of a few of the quotes, I think it would be very productive for this page. --kizzle 06:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Don't limit it to Tony. Why not let anybody who wants to take a swing at it? crazyeddie 06:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Cause I'm not sure exactly what Tony's proposal looks like. Maybe someone else who does? --kizzle 06:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'd settle for something Tony-esque. Doesn't have to follow his proposal exactly. Just something that integrates Ann's polemical voice into the text of the article. crazyeddie 06:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

After looking over the article, I've had a thought: Why not break out the "stated views" subsection out of the criticism section, and make it a section in its own right? That way, we could use the quotes to demonstrate her views. This might also be a good opportunity for some NPOV discussion about whether or not her views are being misrepresented or something. Use quotes for that as well. Then we could open up the Criticism section with something along the lines of "In addition to her often controversial views, many people criticise Ann Coulter because... yada yada yada". crazyeddie 06:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Picture

There is no reason why that picture should be up. For crying out loud, if you can't put your bitter hate aside as well as your idiocy, DON'T COME HERE!

No reason or purpose for it. Quit being an asshole. Whoever put that up ought to be banned.

Nazi pic? What Nazi pic? Guettarda 23:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts on quotes

Sorry to jump in so late, but I thought i'd add another voice to this.

I believe the quotes should stay. Quotes are as NPOV as you can ever get provided they are accurate and in context. If they are not accurate then they should be corrected, if they lack context then context should be added. There's no need to delete them.

Yes, a point could be reached where an article has too many quotes, and this article does have a lot of them, but I do not find them excessive because each them contributes to understanding what Coulter is all about and it does so in her own words.

As for the quotes being very negative, that's simply a result of Coulter saying a lot of negative things. She makes her living criticing Democrats and the media and others whom she disagrees with and there's nothing wrong with that. It is simply here style and the quote section is naturally going to reflect that. Still if people feel that the quote section should include more positive or uplifting sentiments from Coulter then the solution seems to me to to add some "positive" quotes, not to remove the ones that are there now.--Heathcliff 22:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

OTOH I notice that the Al Franken quote section has been moved to Wikiquote and the most potentially offensive one has been deleted so I guess if liberal editors have to sanatize the controversial comments of of liberal commentators then it's only fair that conservative commentators do the same. sigh Wikipedia is doomed.--Heathcliff 22:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Not in the least, Heathcliff. I'm not sure as to what quote you're talking about, but I think you should re-instate this offensive quote that you speak of. Parity should be reached, we just shouldn't reach parity through the lowest common denominator. --kizzle 22:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to include quotes, then build them into the text as sources and provide links to verify. Simple. - jredmond 22:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I will be looking forward to seeing your edits on this matter. --kizzle 22:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
How many encyclopedias offer a "quotation" section in an article as large as this one? A few quotes works, an entire section dedicated to the quotes doesn't give it the feel of an encyclopedia. There's already a large criticism section. Put some "shocking" quotes in there. There's already a large non-criticism section. Put some "not shocking" quotes in there. But the section is pointless and NOT encyclopedic and is only put in there "to demonstrate" how she writes. You can demonstrate how she writes WHILE being encylopedic. Fair, balanced, and informational. That's what I think.Stanselmdoc 21:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I look forward to your expanding these quotes into paragraphs. --kizzle 21:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle, no offense, but what's your point? Clearly I can't edit anything, since the page is protected. And I wouldn't want to just change anything without discussing it on the talk page first, so that there's a consensus. And if you read my paragraph, I never said let's expand the quotes into paragraphs. I said remove a lot of them, and work a few others into other paragraphs in the article. What other article on wiki has such an extensive quote section? Does it apply to authors? If quite a few authors have an extensive quote section in their articles, by all means have a quote section in Ann's. She IS an author. But as far as I know, quote sections are dedicated wikiquote, which most authors have links to in their articles. Coulter's quote section is uncalled for, because it's not that hard to point a little mouse to the wikiquote link and click on it to get a picture of how Ann Coulter writes.Stanselmdoc 16:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to make my point, pages of authors that don't have extensive quote sections -

Authors with quote sections I have found:

In the case of Asimov and Voltaire, I propose removing some of their quotes as well. But I put them on this list to show everyone that I'm not trying to be POV. I'm being honest and showing the authors I've found.Stanselmdoc 15:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Stanselmdoc, you get the NPOV award and the award for Wiki common sense. Unfortunately, they will not do you much good on this page. I could not agree with you more. --Noitall 21:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


This is one of a number of articles that I'm unprotecting today because they've all been protected for a ridiculously long time. I won't be involved in editing here for a while because that would lead to a conflict of interest. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


NPOV or not, at 42K the article is too darned long. Is there some reason the quotes haven't been moved to Wikiquote? That isn't enough but it would be a start. Tualha (Talk) 01:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No one offered an objection to my entry, and because of length and lack of defense, I removed a vast amount of the quote section, and directed the article to Coulter's wikiquote. Six quotes is still a large amount, but I hope I picked out enough from her own writings and enough to demonstrate her way of writing so that everyone will get over the tragic loss. I dare say it might be difficult to know...dragging that little mouse over to the wikiquote link...Stanselmdoc 16:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, for reasons of length and consistency, I tried to shorten the article. I removed a lot, and tried to copyedit as much as I could (there were a whole lot of "which"s in the article). I especially removed large amounts from the Al Franken section, because if people want an extensive explanation of his commentary on Coulter, they can check out the article for his book. This article is on Ann Coulter, not on her critics. I also removed some paragraphs that I felt didn't need to be in there, because it was basically reiterating statements that could be made in about two sentences. I was aiming for concise, removal of bias, and still NPOV. If someone has a question about the removals, I'm more than willing to discuss.Stanselmdoc 13:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone Mind This Being at Least Re-Named?

What's the deal with this Canada/Vietnam War section? At the very least, the way it's written is certainly not "criticism" of Coulter. It's more like "controversy". And from my point of view, it doesn't seem to prove any point of serve much of a purpose, nor do I really think it had any lasting impact on Coulter. What does it prove? That she's been wrong before? Well, I think we can all agree she's been wrong at least once before. So my question to everyone is, can I remove it, or at the very least, move it out of the "Criticism" section and into a different one, like the Paula Jones 'controversy'? They both seem to be controversy, not criticism. Thanks!Stanselmdoc 13:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, originally the statement about her being accused by critics of being just plain wrong about an easily verifiable fact was supported with a few examples; for instance that the new york times didn't print anything about dale earnhardt's death until a week later. But they all got chipped away as being too trivial too mention. For whatever reason, rather than chip away at her "blame Canada" statement, somebody decided to argue the case. Now it has a life of its own, without any connection to the rest of the article. Gzuckier 14:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverted a few changes

I took out the bit about blowing up the New York Times because it appears at least two other times in the article, including later in the same paragraph. I removed '(supposed)' because there is no supposition involved. The sentence says that Coulter has stated this. She has. I removed '(jokingly)' because it is a POV opinion and the passage already specifically says that some claim Coulter is only joking with these comments... that BELIEF is included and should not then be re-inserted as 'fact' in the conflicting opinion. Finally, I removed 'their leaders' because while Coulter DID only advocate killing Muslim leaders she suggested converting ALL of them to Christianity. As written the sentence indicates she wanted to kill some muslims and convert others... true. As revised it had indicated that she wanted to kill some muslim leaders and convert others... false - she said to kill them all. --CBDunkerson 10:36:44, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

<sarcastic voice>Gee, isn't it too bad we can't insert the actual quotes here for the readers to see for themselves, instead of trying to describe the quotes accurately but using other words.</sarcastic voice> (Note: not aimed at you, CB) Gzuckier 15:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Photos, photos, and more photos, please

There are not NEARLY enough photos of Coulter on this page. Don't you people read Free Republic? Many leggy photos of Ann are obligatory whenever and whereever she is discussed.

Fix, please.

Paul Klenk 21:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Conservative vs. Right Wing

The conservatism page says "This article currently excludes conservatism in the United States and Canada, where the term can be taken to mean something different. For those countries see American Conservatism.". I don't think that anyone would consider Coulter "conservative" in the literal meaning of the word (radical would be more apt). Linking to "right-wing politics" or to "C. in North America" would be ok, but just linking the word "conservative" would probably not be apt. Also, Wikipedia is not US-pedia - we need to use language that is accessible to speakers of english around the world. Guettarda 16:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. "Right-wing" should be used. Shem(talk) 20:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I am charitably assuming that you are joking. If so, yes it is quite funny to propose such POV terms here on Wiki. --Noitall 20:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Why is "conservative" NPOV while "right-wing" is POV? They are both legitiamte terms to describe political viewpoints. -Willmcw 20:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Noitall Please review the policy on Neutral Points of View. It will prevent some of your edits from being reverted, thank you. (Cathytreks(talk) 00:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

Responding to Willmcw (Cathyleftwing obviously needs to read up on NPOV, or at least attempt to understand it), the label is a conclusion that is entirely POV. The issue is entirely relative to where you start from, issue based. You are correct that "conservative" generally fits into the same POV category, but in this case dealing with one person, I think it reasonable to label her that. As for "right wing", it has perjorative connotations (that is why the attempt is being made by left wing POVers). Why not "right of center"? (we know why). --Noitall 00:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a source which establishes the POVness of "right-wing"? Also, out of curiousity, do you believe that "left-wing" is similarly POV? Thanks, -Willmcw 00:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I am not certain why some people have such difficulty with POVness. First, define what "right wing" means, including its perjorative connotation. My rationale is always consistent, and "left wing" is just as POV. Even if I wrote article about Cathyleftwing, I would not state it as so in the article. Labels are POV depending on who is doing the labeling, especially when a term has a perjorative connotation. --Noitall 01:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
We can't figure it out because we're not as smart as you. "Conservative" has perjorative connotations too. Please explain the difference. And who is "Cathyleftwing"? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
"Conservative" is ambiguous. "Right-of-Centre" is inaccurate - right-of-centre would describe the pro-business wing of the Dems - Clinton and the DLC. Tony Blair is right of centre, Ann Coulter is not (and would probably be offended to be thus described). Guettarda 01:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am Cathy and am not a "left-wing" at all as our good Noitall here has asserted and sadly and prematurely mocked me on... for you see I accedently made a reply to him on his "User Page" ....rather than on his "Talk Page" and it seems that I am now forever in the proverbial "dog house" with him now. (though I have apologised to him both on his his talk page and mine.) I do stand on Wiki's Neutral Point of View in my edits regarding Ms. Coulter in that she is a openly Right-Wing participant, and have found the many ignorant comments and sweeping generalitys of her agenda to be an offense to both the Republican party, (of which I am a proud member!) and to The United States of America, as a whole! I can only wish that Ronald Wilson Reagan were still alive and well.. Shalom! (Cathytreks 03:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

I don't hold anything against Cathy except for reactionary reverts. I guess this is the problem when any old editors (obviously more than Cathy) can edit Wiki and they can't comprehend encyclopedic writing or what NPOV means (except when it does not correspond to their POV). Even worse when editors do not read prior posts or take time to think about them. I respect Cathy's right to think what she thinks or to think that Anne Coulter is evil or to think she is the greatest thing. And it is fine to say so on this talk page. But it has no relevance to what should be on the article. The fact that she thinks or anyone thinks that Coulter is right or left wing is irrelevant. Let me go back to what I said several times, putting a label on anyone requires a POV, so by definition it violates the standard. And I am not making an argument for the label "conservative" as Willmcw keeps wanting me to do. It is also problematic, and, yes, perjorative in some limited cases, but far less so than "right wing." And genius Guettarda has his own labels for everyone. Perhaps we should get rid of the NPOV policy and make it an GPOV policy (Guettarda POV). He can separate out everyone. How? Because he knows. Ok, I admit, this is getting rediculous, but so is not understanding NPOV. --Noitall 04:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, the sign of a truly superior intellect - when the conversation gets too complicated for you, resort to name-calling. That always impresses people. Guettarda 11:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I still haven't heard any concrete reason for the demand that Coulter be described as "conservative" rather than "right-wing". If "right-wing" is more accurate, then it doesn't matter if the term is perjorative. -Willmcw 06:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on right-wing to which the coulter reference is linked is not particularly pejorative, and seems to me more accurate. Joe Lieberman is conservative; Ann Coulter is rightwing. Her rightwingitude is not what people mainly take her to task about; it's her style. Gzuckier 14:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Noitall I'm thankful to you for forgiving my honest mistake in posting on your User Page. But yes it is true, I am "new" around here but I am not new to life, or to the politics of our great nation, the fact of the matter is I am a "compassionate" Republican who has voted in every election since 1976 and am one who feels strongly in revealing "the truth"....wherever that may lead or be...good or bad. Saying that Ann Coulter is Right-Wing is no great insult to her, it is merely revealing a rather "ho-hum" fact, given her outlandishly ignorant comments she has made in her writings and television appearences over the years, her "over the top", reactionary comments have done more harm than good to those truly conservative Republicans and a large number of sensible Democratic's across the aisle, such as Joe Lieberman for one, for anyone to call me "reactionary" to my measuredly calm and thoughfully placed edit(s) on Ann Coulter, does an injustice to my intelligence, in the years since I graduatuated Yale I have had a wonderful exsperience as a teacher at a small college in New England. I do not need to be coddled or lead about by the nose on a having a open roundtable discussion here on these important edits I always try to maintain a NPOV (and I do understand what that means here on Wikipedia all too well , now) and never resort to name calling, for what good does that ever do?, and that brings me back to the point of this paragragh, from a NPOV Ann Coulter is not a Conservative, she is a Right-Wing reactionary commentator, and shes proud of it!, well good for her I say, but it doesnt mean that I think ..."shes evil"... just a little far our there from the rest of us in GOP or sensible Democrats, and yes from all of the majority of moderate Americans citizens who truly care about our country and who have the eyes and brains to see the exstremists for who and what they are on both sides of the aisle. Shalom! (Cathytreks 15:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

"Conservative" is the most commonly used term for Coulter, and the most NPOV. "Right-wing" is often used frivolously and pejoratively, and hence is less encyclopedic. 23:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read this section, we've addressed each of those issues. Namely, "conservative" is pejorative, and "right wing" is apparently more accurate. Further, on what basis do you say that "conservative" is the most commonly used term for Coulter? Is being common the same as being correct? -Willmcw 00:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I read the section first. "Right wing" is inherently POV-pushing and a less encyclopedic term. 03:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What POV does the use of "right wing" push? Is "conservative" a POV-free term? -Willmcw 04:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
We have addressed these issues and they were entirely misstated by Willmcw. They both require a judgment based on an editor's POV -- and we see what POV Willmcw has. "Right wing" is worse because it is intentionally POV. "Conservative" is not usually intended to be POV, but the only way to label someone with a one word label, is to make it also POV. And to answer the POV definition question, the term "right wing" is always used to denote an extremist, the reason the POV pushers are intending to label this subject. Note their objection to the term "right of center" above -- it does not allow them to insert their POV --Noitall 04:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you should change the Right-wing politics article if you believe that you have an accurate understanding of things. Left-wing and right-wing convey far more information than "conservative"...from Conservativism "In western democracies, 'conservative' and 'right-wing' are often used interchangeably, as near-synonyms. That is not always accurate, but it has more than incidental validity. Certainly the enemy is in both cases the same: the political left. (Although left-wing groups and individuals may have conservative social and cultural attitudes, they are not generally accepted, by self-identified conservatives, as part of the same movement). On economic policy and the economic system, conservatives and the right generally support the free market, although less so in Europe than in other places. Attitudes on some ethical and bio-ethical issues - such as opposition to abortion - are accurately described as either 'right-wing' or 'conservative'." But a term which can lump Coutler with environmentalists and Russians longing for the days of a term that may be overly broad, and in the interest of clear communication should probably not be used. So yes, I have a POV - my POV is that clear accurate communication should be paramount in an encyclopaedia. If this is something that you are opposed to, maybe you are in the wrong place. Guettarda 16:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts, Coulter probably does not mind being called "right-wing". I don't think it is such a POV term. Why does it matter if she is called "conservative" or "right-wing"? Both are accurate, and both are going to be seen as POV by someone (see: "Liberal" v. "Progressive", etc.) --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)