Jump to content

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Proposed vietnam war

Coulter became involved in some controversy for a statement she made on CBC Television's news program The Fifth Estate. During a conversation with the host, Bob McKeown, Coulter asserted that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. McKeown disputed her assertion. While Canada did not send combat troops to Vietnam in support of the United states. They did send noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972.[1] In a later CSPAN interview, Coulter admitted she was wrong about the actions of the Canadian government, but justified her comments based on 10,000 Canadians who volunteered for the US military.[citation needed]


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Flatly, on what McKeowan said what Coulter said, she wins. She did definitely mention Indochina, *Canada did send troops to Indochina in the '50's*. Ah, but they were 'peacekeepers'. Canada has no separate peacekeeping corp, they were trained combat troops. Their role was peacekeeping, but were not sent there to be sitting ducks, not in the '50's and not in the '70's.

Now, on a slight tangent, Coulter's knowledge may not have been 100% complete, but she knew *something*. Ask the average American with an interest in war history, and they'll tell you America liberated Holland, made the largest proportionate contribution on the D-Day landings, staved off the Communist Chinese at the battle of Kapyong, joined WW2 European theater in '39, Great Britain 'stood alone' except for the US, and America won the Battle of the Atlantic all by itself and supplied GB from day 1.

I'm saying, give Coulter some credit where credit is due. She was not wrong, even though she made the admission to being 'wrong'. Her knowledge was incomplete, but not wrong. signed.Consulzephyr (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... here we go again. How is neutrality preserved in this passage? Where is the mention of Coulter's important admission on C-SPAN which the pro-Coulter people always glaze over? Why do we have to put the details of Canada and Vietnam on a bio page about Coulter when we supply the redirect link? What about the fact that Coulter, in her mea culpa, never once referred to these non-combat peacekeepers? I must respectfully disagree with your usage of summary style in this one instance, as I can't for the life of me understand why you want to use editor interpretations rather than verbatim quotes. If it's a matter of space, we're only talking about the difference of a few lines. Just as we get into problems about the college speech section as to what descriptors we can or can't use, by using verbatim quotes we truly allow the reader to decide for themselves without deciding the debate for them. Some people think that Coulter was right, that Bob McKeown was incorrect in his isolated assertion that "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam", as Canada did send non-combat peacekeeping troops in 1954 and again at the very end of the war to oversee the ceasefire. Some people also think that Coulter's point, taken in the context of her general point about Canada's relationship with the U.S. and an analogy to Iraq, was correctly disputed by McKeown, and that he was referring to combat troops when he said "troops". Your proposed passage has clearly sided with one of these points of view. --kizzle 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it most certainly has not. What in my brief and descriptive paragraph would you modify? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
To summarize my above passage:
  1. Add Coulter's verbatim mea culpa from C-SPAN as it is there now.
  2. Re-word your summary with verbatim quotes from the interview, as you are excising context about her general point. If all the interview consisted of Ann saying "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" and McKeown saying "No they didn't", then I'd agree with Lou et al. But there is context that is missing, and at the space the passage currently takes up, we can afford to include it.
  3. Provide redirect link to Canada and the Vietnam War to syphon off content that does not belong on a bio page about Coulter.
--kizzle 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with any of your requests contingent on reliable sourcing. The language I used was direct from the Time article. Can you propose alternative language that does not make our article look like a quotefest? I would note that quotefests are highly unlikley to be featured articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It's hard for me to determine what specific criteria renders my passage such a subjective term as a "quotefest" ;) 3 main quotes are all I care about:
  • Coulter on CBC - "Canada used to be...one of our most...most loyal friends, and vice versa. I mean, Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" video
  • McKeown on CBC - "No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam" video
  • Coulter on CSPAN - "Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. There is a War Memorial to them, at least for most of that. The Canadian Government didn't send troops [...] but [...] they came and fought with the Americans. So I was wrong. It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada... People keep saying: "well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans..." I don't think he knew, he's a bubblehead Ted Baxter" video (click on US response)
Along with the daughter link: For more information on Canada's involvement in the Vietnam War, see Canada and the Vietnam War.
--kizzle 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Try now. I feel the passage is now at absolute maximum length for me to accept it as a compromise from my favored position that any mention of this is crufty cruft cruft. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I must respectfully disagree with your assertion. I can't see how the reader is serviced by excising verbatim quotes with editor interpretations, especially given the verbatim alternative is only a few more lines. --kizzle 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Because excessive quoting makes us not an encyclopedia but a politics information board. We are not here to argue about politics. We are here to describe Ann Coulter. Quotes of some debate she had on some show are not descriptive. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It makes it kind of hard to describe Ann Coulter by avoiding quoting her, and 2 short quotes and one medium quote comes nowhere near "excessive quoting". --kizzle 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this strict insistence on summarizing everything is necessary. Including relevant information without subjective analysis is though. It's not even that lengthy in the first place. --Ubiq 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"This page is 58 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." We're at the very very top end of featured - we need to cut material to include more better material so we can get a bronze star. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Then why don't we create an Ann Coulter criticisms/controversies article that links from her main page (per this policy)? That way we can include actual quotes and not inaccurate summaries of various incidents. --Ubiq 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't Hipocrite's original question ask why the CBC interview is notable? It's two years old and wasn't mentioned much outside CBC. The CSPAN part isn't sourced. IMHO the whole thing isn't at all relevant to Ann Coulter's notability, and I haven't seen any clear demonstration that it is. Lou Sander 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but your claims and opinions are pretty much meaningless, Lou. I've debated this with you in above sections. As predicted, you ignored my points and are restating your claim right here, so just read above a few sections and respond to the actual points I've made instead of just repeating yourself. I've noticed over the past few weeks you've failed on a consistent basis to provide good points or counterpoints, yet you keep repeating your opinion on the matter as if it means much at this point. --Ubiq 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, Lou, your inability to address any specific points that we have mentioned since then renders you a non-participant in this discussion. --kizzle 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to butt in here. First, I ask that Ubiq remember to keep it civil, assume good faith and that one of the suggestions from WP:DR is to sometimes disengage from an argument when it gets heated. Perhaps that is what Lou is doing. But on to my larger point. This entire debate about how to present this CBC appearance has gone on for quite some time despite its dubious notability. Because I have issues with the video under WP:RS, the only coverage of this story was in the Time article about Ms. Coulter. There has been no independant coverage of this incident, and as such does not qualify for inclusion under WP:NOTE. See the first paragraph of the guideline. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine doesn't count as "independent coverage", nor her subsequent appearance on C-SPAN? And how does a video clip taken from CBC's own website fail to satisfy WP:RS? --kizzle 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I responded to the independant coverage question below. I just noticed your question (maybe I should start reading from top to bottom, instead of the other way around). The video clip from CBC is a primary source, which although not per se forbidden, is discouraged by Wikipedia because it often leads to original research which is disallowed. Here's the test of notability, IMO, you can find entire articles solely on her "Jersey girls" comments. She was interviewed on numerous shows based solely on those comments. Where is the article in the mainstream media, American or Canadian, that deals only with this topic? Was the interview on CSPAN only concerning this dispute? Or was it just mentioned in passing as part of a larger interview? If there is such a source, I will gladly change my opinion.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Any encyclopedia benefits greatly when only clearly notable material is included. It also benefits when editors keep their focus on the articles. Lou Sander 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
With the examples I posted at WP:ANI, you might want to think about taking your own advice. --kizzle 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ram: I'm being civil. I ask that you assume the assumption of good faith. Thanks. Lou is known for leaving arguments (that weren't heated I might add, so your suggestion that he's ignoring my points for the reason of resolving something is false) only to start the exact same argument a day or two later. It's always "I haven't seen any clear demonstration that it is [notable]" without citing legitimate reasons why or answering peoples' points why it is notable. I assumed good faith the first 3 or 4 times he did it. It's a bit different now.
Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I am assuming good faith. You seemed pretty annoyed with Lou (and you may have good reason) and made comments about him instead of improving the article. We all get frustrated with others at times, it natural, I just didn't want to see you go over the edge. That's all. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Now. Onto your point. You stated "there has been no independent coverage of this incident" This is false.[2] [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43856] [3] [4] Your conclusion (that this doesn't qualify for inclusion) is based on previously stated premise. --Ubiq 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I will only deal with the Time article because the other's do not qualify as reliable sources due to their polemic nature, IMO. Time mentions this in a larger article about Coulter and complaints of innaccuracies. It also supports her. The mention is not about the incident itself. To me that would mean "independent". If a reliable source mentions this incident on its own terms and not in a laundry list of other things, then I will consider a step towards notability. So my opinion is clearly NOT false. You and I may view this differently, but please let's have some humility. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, we'll stick to the points. I disagree that the other sources are not reliable and that they are "polemic". Look at the FAIR article. Is this article polemic? How so? Can you cite specific examples? Look at the [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43856 WorldNetDaily] article. How is this polemic? It's possible I could be misinterpreting what you're saying but it seems like you think "independent" should mean "seemingly politically neutral". Taken from independent sources, "an independent source is a source which describes a topic from the outside." How are these articles not describing the topic (of her interview with Bob McKeown) from the outside? If you can point these things out to me, I'd appreciate it. The thing about the "laudry list" to me is a point not worth rebutting, as there seems to be plenty of references/sources on wikipedia that have events mentioned/described in such a manner. Yet, the events described are rarely considered less notable because of it. --Ubiq 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify... when I said "polemic", I meant in terms of using the website as a source in general, not that their presentation of this issue was biased. Fair.org is a self proclaimed liberal media watchdog group seeking to counterattack conservative misinformation. It exists to refute conservative arguments. WorldNetDaily although it claims to be independant, on a cursory review it is apparent that it has a conservative "mindset". I mean, Ann Coulter has a banner on their page! In almost all cases, these sites on their own, would not be considered a reliable source of information, except for information about themselves. Again I ask, has this issue been covered in any other reliable published works besides Time? If it has, it should be included. The other question is the mention in Time and the C-Span, and CBC videos enough to show notability on its own? Some say yes, I say no. But my larger point is considering there doesn't seem to be any agreement on how to even present it, shouldn't we first reach a consensus if it should even be included? As to your last point. I agree there are many problem articles on Wikipedia, just see WP:AFD. But we have to take it on a step by step basis. Just because a bad article exists now, doesn't mean it will be here forever. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how these aren't independent sources. It sounds like, by your definition, any source that has a hint of political bias is not a reliable source. By this measure, we wouldn't be able to use Fox News as a source, because there is very clear and blatant conservative bias on their part. Similarly to how you said, "[FAIR] exists to refute conservative arguments", I could easily say "Fox News exists to perpetuate misinformation, and provide entertainment and opinion based 'news' to push its neoconservative agenda". Should we not use them? Also, has FAIR or World News Daily been shown to have poor verifiability? You said "in almost all cases, these sites on their own, would not be considered a reliable source of information, except for information about themselves." I don't see any legitimate reason for saying that and your reasoning seems to be because of political bias. Let me ask, who besides yourself "would not consider" it a reliable source of information and why? Reliable to me would mean that there's been consistent credibility and verifiabilty, sans subjective interpretations of events. Look at the actual articles. How are these articles more politically biased than any Fox News or CNN article or "news" story?
Concerning your larger point, the only person not seemingly agreeing with kizzle's passage is Lou. He simply just doesn't want it in the article though. He hasn't once provided evidence or an argument that the passage is biased or not NPOV. All he's done is make vague inferences that kizzle (or other editors, "some people" he likes to say) are malicious in their editing. If you can look over the passage and tell me what you think, it would be greatly appreciated (and I can find it for you, as it may not be found easily on this page, just ask). Thanks for discussing this in a civil manner by the way. --Ubiq 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not make assumptions about my motives, desires, or biases. It is uncivil and uncalled for. I am not questioning your motives arguing for the inclusion of this issue, please give me the same courtesy!

From WP:RS:The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.

That goes to FAIR and WORLDNETDAILY as a reliable source not to their independence. TIME is a bit different. If FAIR and WorldNet are considered reliable sources then yes they would qualify as independant in this matter, since they in fact have articles solely dedicated to this issue. To answer your questions about what separates these from Fox and CNN is this. Fox and CNN, have copy edit staffs, ombudsmen, research departments, and other procedures in place to make sure that their stories are factually accurate (even if it always isn't). I don't know if the other organizations mentioned have these safeguards, and considering their upfront bias (not perceived or a matter of opinion as with Fox and CNN, after all both Fox and CNN officially deny any bias), it should give editors here caution when using them as sources in general. I have no fault with the specific articles but only with the source. To use a really extreme example: If Stormfront.org, did a fair and accurate article on the dangers of alcoholism, I wouldn't not use it here on Wikipedia not because of what the article says but rather because of who wrote it. (I am not saying any of those organizations are anywhere near to Stormfront--the allusion is just illustrative). Finally, I don't have any problems with the passage using quotes (although I usually prefer summarizing info, but Kizzle's point is fair and may be a good exception), but I know Lou and apparently Hipocrite did have issues with it.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
<----------------moved

Ram: I looked over this paragraph: "Please do not make assumptions about my motives, desires, or biases. It is uncivil and uncalled for. I am not questioning your motives arguing for the inclusion of this issue, please give me the same courtesy!" and couldn't think of one thing I said that warranted that repsonse. Then I looked over my paragraph and noticed "I don't see any legitimate reason for saying that and your reasoning seems to be because of political bias." and how you might have taken it the wrong way. I meant to say that your reasoning that these articles shouldn't be considered reliable seems to be because of the fact that the sites writing them have political bias. Sorry. I need to word things better. I have absolutely no clue or hint that you, personally are biased and I wouldn't accuse you of it.

As far as your argument goes, it sounds like you're saying that FAIR and World Net Daily actually have claimed they are politically affiliated or biased. This is not the case with World Net Daily. FAIR, on their about page, mentions that they're progressive. I don't know that that necessarily disqualifies them or renders their articles illegitimate. Also, in regards to Fox News and CNN having editing teams to make sure they are accurate, we have no clue that either of them don't put slant first and accuracy second, so I don't see it as a good point. Fox News has been shown to flat out lie on occasions. As far as your comparison with alcoholism and stormfront.org, I see that as a weak analogy. FAIR specializes on the topics of credibility, "fairness", and accuracy. If anything, I'd say that should help their case in why they are reliable on this event, since credibility is exactly what this event is about. I can only go a couple more times about this, at some point we'll have to just agree to disagree. --Ubiq 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about taking your comments the wrong way, I guess we're even now. With regard to WND, fair enough, although their allegiance to the right is pretty apparent from viewing their website. Just to be clear, I am not saying their articles aren't legitimate, but that under WP:RS we should be cautious using it as a source where there has been no corresponding coverage in other non-biased, mainstream, reliable sources. Here TIME has covered it, but I don't know if that is sufficient. I brought up the procedures at Fox and CNN because under the old RS section (there's been some edit warring there recently), these were factors lending the source to reliability. The page has since been refactored and those principles have been lost but see [5]. I am sure Foxnews would disagree that they have told any "lies" in their news reporting, and am sure the targets of Fair would disagree with your characterizations. But in any case, I agree let's just agree to disagree. I'm not going to edit war over this and my objections are duly noted.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree that caution should be important in considering what is reliable. As far as your reference to WND being conservative, I also agree. They even have an article claiming soy milk makes you gay. But your original point regarding this was that Fox News and CNN don't declare a political leaning, so they deserve the benefit of the doubt as an RS. I was just, essentially, trying to point out that since neither FAIR or WND declare a clear affiliation, there is very little difference between Fox News, CNN, FAIR, and World Net Daily in terms of reliability. They all have their leanings, and none of them admit to being politically affiliated (with the exception of FAIR somewhat). I personally consider none of them unbiased as a whole, but will admit that some of their articles/stories aren't biased or unreliable, meaning I think these articles/stories should be looked at on a case by case basis to determine if they are reliable. I'm sure the subject of reliability of a source on wikipedia could be debated endlessly, especially when clear and definitive standards aren't stated. Makes it kind of unfair for us but that's life I guess. --Ubiq 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This matter appears in Time as an example of an alleged mistake that really is NOT a mistake. At the risk of posting a great wall of text:

Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with facts, and if you Google the words "Ann Coulter lies," you will drown in results. But I didn't find many outright Coulter errors. One of the most popular alleged mistakes pinging around the Web is from her appearance on Canadian TV news in January, when Coulter asserted that "Canada sent troops to Vietnam." Interviewer Bob McKeown said she was wrong. "Indochina?" Coulter tried. McKeown said no. Finally, Coulter said haltingly, "I'll get back to you." "Coulter never got back to us," McKeown triumphantly noted, "but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam." What he didn't mention was that Canada did send noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972.

If the Vietnam material goes into the article, it should not do so under color of deception. It is an alleged mistake whose allegation doesn't stand up under professional fact-checking (verbatim citation above). Lou Sander 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So I'm guessing that you are now agreeing that it is notable, but simply stating that it shouldn't be included under the color of deception, which is something I agree with. Kizzle's passage is not deceptive in any way, so are we ok with it now? Let me know. --Ubiq 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
1) The event is not notable on its own. It is but one of hundreds of interviews she has done. It is two years old and has mostly been forgotten.
2) A clear demonstration of its wider relevance to her notability has not been made. Attempts have been based on indirect, subjective opinions.
3) Time looked closely at it and found that the troops business is a "popular alleged mistake." Maybe it could be presented as an example of alleged errors that are something other than errors. Lou Sander 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"So I was wrong." - Ann Coulter on CSPAN. --kizzle 20:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lou:

1) You are not saying anything you haven't said before. Just because an incident is old or that she has done other interviews relates in no way to notability.
2) First you were saying "clear demonstration of its relevance to her notability". This was before I provided evidence of its notability with the articles above. Now you are saying "clear demonstration of its wider relevance to her notability." Your standards for including this increase with every bit of evidence that's been provided to you.
3) The topic is not about whether what she said was a factual error. It was, in coincidence and technically, a true statement (though she admitted being wrong). The topic was about her credibility, which was shown to be poor in the context of the interview. --Ubiq 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ people (don't edit my comment). If you don't like reading mountains of text than go find another talk page, as there are more than several issues being tossed around here.

  • Notability: As I have stated before, I'm not a huge proponent of its notability, and to answer Ramsquire's question, there were no interviews that were scheduled solely to deal with her assertion. But, you have the Time piece, CSPAN interview, FAIR, WorldNetDaily, and a shitload of views on YouTube (which is obviously not an objective measurement) covering a single, specific question in a one-hour program on CBC. So while she was never scheduled to come on and discuss specifically her controversial assertion on say Hannity and Colmes, CSPAN, Time, and the CBC website thought it fit to cover this one specific question out of an hour-long program. It's not as big as the Jersey Girls, but its more notable than many of her comments. Given the doubt, and the fact that the proposed passage lets her have the final say, and that it's only 3 quotes, we're not violating undue weight, nor WP:NPOV. Lou's criteria of notability consisting of "It is one but of hundreds of interviews she has done" is ridiculous, as so was her interview on the Today Show where he asked her about the Jersey Girls comments, and yet we cover that.
  • Time Piece: I have no problem including Time, but I frankly must vehemently disagree with than not including the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting criticism of Cloud's piece. The Time piece is inarguably an opinion piece, and while it comes from a major reputable news source, it is still an opinion piece. Leaving out the other side, which is best represented by FAIR's critique, is failing adhering to NPOV. Yes, FAIR is a liberal-leaning organization, but for what they exhibit in slight partisanship, they more than make up in WP:V. Hell, Drudge is abashedly partisan and yet Wikipedia uses Drudge as citations, primarily because what he says can most of the time be verified. In FAIR's (and MediaMatters btw) case, these things can be verified through the transcripts and date of broadcasts they publish along with their critique. WP:BLP and its corresponding criteria for sourcing, WP:RS, says that we must be "careful" of using partisan sources, but when that source superbly satisfies WP:V, then I believe it merits inclusion. Subsequently, I proposed earlier to have a brief paragraph afterwards, mentioning the Cloud piece as well as the FAIR criticism of the Cloud piece, but that was rejected by others here, so I kept it brief and simple: 3 quotes and a re-direct link on a question that got specifically covered in Time, CSPAN.
  • Rant (optional read): I have heard the mantra that Lou and other pro-Coulter people have constantly re-asserted: Bob McKeown was wrong. Why was he wrong? Because you say that Coulter didn't necessarily mean "military" troops when she said: "Canada sent troops to Vietnam". The word "troops" could mean non-combat "troops" as well as combat "troops". Thus, there are two issues to consider: First, whether Ann Coulter was right:
    1. That Coulter was referring to the non-combat definition and referring to the 240 non-combat peacekeeping troops in order to "contain" the "threat" that Vietnam posed, and thus, while her mea culpa subsequent to the interview never mentioned these non-combat troops, she was absolutely right.
    2. That Coulter was referring to the combat definition, and, like she explicitly said on CSPAN, she was wrong.
  • The second issue is whether or not McKeown was right:
    1. That McKeown was referring to the non-combat definition of "troops", and thus was absolutely wrong, as at least 240 non-combat peacekeeping troops were sent to Vietnam.
    2. That McKeown was referring to the combat definition of "troops", and thus was absolutely right, as Canada never sent any combat troops.
  • My question to you then: If we're going to give Coulter the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she meant non-combat, then why can't we give McKeown the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant combat troops? --kizzle 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't have said this better myself. --Ubiq 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So Lou, are you arguing that Coulter was wrong when she said she was wrong? If so, that's your original research - the fact remains she admitted making a mistake. That you don't think she made a mistake is irrelevant. Sixth Estate 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, John Cloud of Time Magazine calls this issue "one of the most popular alleged mistakes" and yet we can't even mention it? --kizzle 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kizzle, you've stated repeatedly that you are not a huge proponent of its notability. Well neither are Lou and I. So why is this debate so ongoing? If it has questioned notability, why even begin to address how to present it. Shouldn't we reach a consensus on notability first? That is my larger point. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the event is as notable as the Jersey Girl incident, but I do think it's notable enough for inclusion. See my above post on notability as well as my immediately prior post pointing out that Time Magaine called this issue "one of the most popular alleged mistakes". --kizzle 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

CBC and OR

It's not our job to determine whether Bob or Ann are in fact right. We don't have to play philosophic games with their phraseology; in fact, we must not do this. Stitching together conclusions from primary sources is the definition of original research, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of OR. Following the secondary sources, we can write a passage that describes the event, notes the plausible validity of her statement (citing Time), then questions whether such treatment is too sympathetic (citing FAIR). fin Cool Hand Luke 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. --Ubiq 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well, that's why it was filed under "Rant (optional read)". It's also helpful to take into consideration when people suggest putting in statements like "McKeown's assertion was actually false" such as User:HowardDean's recent edits. --kizzle 06:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Really? You do know that I was referring to conclusions from her un-reported, un-analyzed primary source C-SPAN "confession" as original research. Cool Hand Luke 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding WP:OR. Quoting a television interview is not original research. Show me the passage in WP:OR that you think applies here. --kizzle 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not OR to directly quote a primary source such as C-SPAN. It would be OR if we were to analyze that source and that is not what is being proposed. If anything, it is those who are arguing the "Coulter is right" line who are engaging in OR. Our task is to quote CSPAN and allow readers to come to their own conclusions, not decide for them. Sixth Estate 17:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I don't even need to guess whether you're synthesizing primary sources to advance a position; you yourself characterize it as a mea culpa. This is an unreasonable use of primary sources in violation of WP:OR and WP:BLP. It moreover doesn't seem be notable because no independent sources have commented on it. Cool Hand Luke 17:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
She said "So I was wrong" and the way this is described in the article is that she was "admitting she was wrong". I don't see how this is a "characterization". Nor do I see how reproducing a rather lengthy quotation by her made on C-SPAN constitutes "synthesis". Synthesis is drawing together varied unrelated or tangentially related facts from numerous different sources to produce a new and original conclusion - here we have a quotation of an exchange on the CBC documentary followed by a lengthy quotation by her made on C-SPAN about that documentary - there's no synthesis going on and it is left to readers to decide on the matter. It looks here like you're trying to suppress references to the CBC interview because you don't like the way it reflects on Coulter. However, it is not our job (or your job) but to suppress information. What we do is lay out the information so that readers can decide for themselves. Sixth Estate 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No. As I said in the first block, this is a notable event covered by independent sources and must be included in the article, including the FAIR response. It's not at all clear what she was admitting to, and no third party thought it worthwhile to comment on in either case. The use of primary sources in articles must be well-justified, and this wrinkle of the story is not. How on earth are you drawing the conclusion I'm trying to suppress references based on how I feel about Coulter? Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First, saying "So I was wrong" is the very definition of a mea culpa, independent of whatever motive you'd like to imbue my passage with. Second, you're fundamentally misunderstanding WP:OR and the role of primary sources. There's no original analysis or point to be made or advanced (reproduce the proposed prose indicating this if you disagree), and I can't see how the CSPAN interview isn't relevant to the CBC interview, especially since she's referring specifically to him, the Canada/Vietnam claims, and calling McKeown a "bubblehead Ted Baxter". --kizzle 04:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Calling it a "mea culpa" is certainly OR and POV. Considering how sarcastic she is, her admission is ambiguous at best: "So I was wrong. It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada... People keep saying: 'well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans...' I don't think he knew, he's a bubblehead Ted Baxter." Moreover, none of this was covered by any third party, which shows that it is not, in fact, notable. Cool Hand Luke 05:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
How is "So I was wrong" not a mea culpa? She corrected herself and said that "The Canadian Government didn't send troops" (which you conveniently omitted from your post). Once we have established that the incident is notable (which we have), then the reader is entirely disserviced by excluding an extremely relevant comment by Coulter commenting specifically on the question. I can't believe you're seriously arguing not to include this comment along with the CBC quote. You're doing the readers a disservice by censoring (yes, censoring) pertinent information (a comment from her specifically talking about the incident in question for goodness sake!) that helps the reader form a more complete impression of what Time Magazine called "one of the most popular alleged mistakes" that Coulter has made. --kizzle 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not a mea culpa if it's sarcastic. And it's not censorship to avoid dumping tons of related but non-notable primary source material into an article. I'm sure that many figures have spoken about notable words they've said, but without notable coverage there's really no reason to include every incidental speech they might have made as well. And I'm arguing to specifically include the CBC quote. Please don't assume you're dealing with a POV warrior. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 16:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith, and nowhere in my post did I allege that I was "dealing with a POV warrior". Once again, you're misunderstanding the role of primary sources in WP:OR:
Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
There is no "interpretation of primary source material" present, so a secondary source is not required. The primary source in question is also available so that "anyone-without specialist knowledge-who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source" from the videolink. Notice the absence of "notability" and "notable" from both the specific passage and WP:OR in general, and also that WP:N specifically deals with the notability of "topics" and not primary sources. --kizzle 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You assume good faith by claiming that I'm censoring, "yes, censoring", the article? I should apologize because my remark was not directed exclusively toward you. See, Sixth Estate says it looks like I'm "trying to suppress references to the CBC interview because you don't like the way it reflects on Coulter."
In this case, the primary source has not been published by a reputable publisher, so the question about inclusion is moot. WP:BLP demands we remove it. Putting this question aside, it's still a question of editorial judgment, and relevance alone cannot be the deciding factor. Millions of primary datapoints may be relevant to many subjects, but we always prefer to use secondary sources that are verifiable with other reliable sources. In this case, the meaning and importance of her remarks are unclear since no media ever picked up on it, which is a red flag that inclusion would be inappropriate. As for OR, I can't shake the fact that you're certain that her statement is an admission. We seem to be building a particular case favored by some editors. But again, even if that's not the case, no reliable (or even verifiable) source has published on her remarks as being in relation to this incident, and WP:BLP demands even more caution toward the relevence of primary sources. Cool Hand Luke 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
How is a television interview with Coulter on CSPAN not a "reputable publisher"? It's not like it's a print article that claims Coulter said something, as we can see for ourselves what she said on the video, unless you also think its possible that CBC doctored the video as well. As for the last half of your post, your opinions are interesting, but they are not grounded in policy. As I stated above, WP:N does not deal with primary sources and WP:OR and its passage on the use of primary sources does not deal with notability. The topic has already been determined to be notable, and a comment by Coulter on television remarking about the CBC interview is relevant. How can we truly say that the reader has come to a fair assessment of the situation if we leave out Coulter's own subsequent words on the incident? The answer is we can't. As for your assessment that I am "building a particular case", back up your claim by reproducing the specific prose that you think is advancing a position. The mere selection of quotes, however, which you also admit are relevant to the issue and satisfy WP:V, does not qualify as "advancing a viewpoint". We are being cautious with the primary sources we use on this page in order to satisfy WP:BLP by using a link to a television interview on Canadian national television that anyone can click on to hear Coulter's subsequent words on the incident, a near paradigm of WP:V and WP:RS. --kizzle 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me make myself clear. You have no reference to C-SPAN date, time, or anything right now. For now, the other issues are moot because you have nothing that can be verified. Once again, I am saying that CBC interview is notable, relevant, and verifiable—I have always argued that it should be included. The C-SPAN "confession" fails notability and most clearly fails verifiability right now. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The CSPAN material is not sourced. In addition, citation #64 is placed in the article as though it refers to the CSPAN material, which it doesn't. Somebody needs to fix it. Lou Sander 17:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If that's the final problem with the passage, we'll deal with that then. We know the video exists, was an episode of Washington Journal, and can link to it from the US response section on the CBC website. --kizzle 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed image

I have removed the fair-use Time Magazine cover per Mindspillage's mailing list post regarding the foundation's new copyright policy - [6]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know the protocol on removing images? I'd like to remove the ones from X-Wing since they're copywritten/fair use images. Kyaa the Catlord 14:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I expect that we'll shortly have a substantial reduction in fair-use images. I would be shocked if X-Wing images survive a re-tightening of the FUC - the relevent text is

"Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a

doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace

with free media that would serve the same educational purpose."

There's currently a discussion at WP:AN about how far this will go. I believe in free content and oppose fair-use in general, and welcome this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So I can go around and just remove the linking? (I'm such a n00b.) Kyaa the Catlord 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I read the email. Does it apply to quotations from copyrighted written works? Seems like it should, but all the email says is "media." Aren't Time and C-SPAN "media?" Lou Sander 15:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It's refering to images. Quotes will remain fine. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, quotes are useful in controversial articles, and I use them, justifying it by fair use. But the bottom of every edit screen says "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." Most quotes are exactly that. What does the "Do not..." mean? Will quotes one day go the way of fair use photos? Lou Sander 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Only if you have a thick enough skin to handle the backlash from removing pictures of spaceships from an article about spaceships, which might be severe, regardless of how right you are. On that one, given how I see the community operting, you might want to wait for the giant purge which should be coming soon. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Teehee. But I'm evil! :P Kyaa the Catlord 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Clear demonstration

Ann Coulter once criticized the Jersey Girls. The episode appears in her Wikipedia biography. I offer this as a clear demonstration of its relevance to her notability:

  • Coulter's criticism was very widely read: it appeared in a book that topped the New York Times bestseller list
  • It was very widely discussed in mainstream sources afterward
  • Hillary Clinton denounced it on the floor of the U.S. Senate
  • Rahm Emanuel denounced it on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
  • 9/11 Commission member Tim Roehmer, speaking as an individual, also denounced it
  • Clinton, Emanuel and Roehmer were all importantly involved in the nationally very important 9/11 investigations that led to the Jersey Girls becoming notable.

Lou Sander 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Phew, thank goodness you didn't address any specific points above! That was a close one! --kizzle 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thing is Lou, I think everyone concedes that the CBC interview is not as notable as the Jersey Girls comments. The question is, is the mention of it in TIME (and in other sources-- whose reliability I dispute), and her subsequent discussion of it on C-SPAN sufficient to state it's notability. Whether it happened two years ago, yesterday, in te 80's is irrelevant. Was it notable when it happened? I don't know, and lean towards it being not. Other's disagree. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
They haven't done too well at providing a clear demonstration of its relevance to Ann Coulter's notability. The hopefully clear demonstration of the Jersey Girls' relevance hopefully shows what such a clear demonstration might look like. Lou Sander 22:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's what your argument looks like Lou: Let's say I don't want Hakeem Olajuwon to have a Wikipedia article. I want to argue that Hakeem Olajuwon isn't a well known or popular person, so I list the number of people who know who George W. Bush is, the number of people who talk about him, and the number of people/groups that support him. I come to the conclusion that Hakeem Olajuwon is not well known because not nearly as many people know who he is, so in conclusion, he shouldn't have a wikipedia article. The fact is, they are both well known, just George W. Bush is more well known. There are degrees/levels of certain things, like how well known someone is and the notability of an event. All you demonstrated was that the Jersey Girls incident was very notable, but you did not demonstrate that the CBC interview wasn't notable. --Ubiq 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The material is challenged on the basis that it appears to be biassed or possibly malicious. Its up to those who want it in the article to provide a clear demonstration of its relavence to Ann Coulter's notability. Until they provide it, it is up to the rest of us to insist on seeing it. I am an editor of Wikipedia. I DO see the proposed material as biassed and possibly malicious. I AM insisting that the clear demonstration of it's relavence to Coulter's notability be provided. I need to see it so I can be sure the material isn't biassed or malicious. Where is it? 209.247.22.60 23:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If she admitted the mistake herself, then how is it either biased or malicious? --kizzle 23:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do explain how the proposed passage is biased or malicious. Providing evidence or citing the actual passage might help. --Ubiq 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just feel that it is an attempt to get biassed and possibly malicious content into a persons biography. I'm almost sure of it in fact. I guess its my editorial judgement. My boyfriends too. Our feelings are strengthened & our assumption of good faith are weakened by the lack of a clear demonstration of this matters relevance to Ann Coulters notability. Please do make it clear if you can. 209.247.22.60 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand who has to prove what. You are stating that this passage is "biased and possibly malicious content". Yet you are admitting that this is based purely on a judgment from the "feelings" or inclinations from you and your boyfriends. You are also claiming that you aren't assuming good faith because of a "lack of a clear demonstration of this matters relevance to Ann Coulters notability" (Lou?) If you want your "feelings" to mean something here, you're going to have to provide evidence that we haven't demonstrated relevance clearly per WP:N and WP:RS, and that the passage is "biased and possibly malicious" per NPOV. Again, it might help to cite quotes from the actual passage to demonstrate this instead of just reiterating your "feelings". Inclinations don't hold weight in an argument. --Ubiq 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by biased and malicious, do you mean these kinds of edits? [7] [8] [9] [10] --Ubiq 01:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Its pretty clear they mean the edits about the Canadian troops. You know, the edits that are used to show that Ann Coulter plays fast and loose with the truth & doesnt know what shes talking about & gets totally wiped by some insignifigant Canadian guy on a two bit governement station. THOSE edits. The ones that you cant show are relevant to her notability. The ones where in their current version they use misleading citations. The ones by people who don't have any other edits at all except on this talk page and in the penectomy article. They are not at all talking about this edit, or this one that some spammer just sent to about a jillion of us. 209.247.22.57 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine to delete personal attacks and vandalism from your own usertalk page. I'll do it again if it happens. The "spammer" you just mentioned is the same vandal, go figure. You've got vandalism on both of your IP accounts, something I can't say for myself. As for your argument, you've not cited any specific examples or made any good points other than what you've said before. Also, we're not talking about edits, we're talking about a passage describing the CBC interview. --Ubiq 05:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's fine to delete those things from our usertalk pages. And nobody minds if we delete incivility from our own posts, or the complaints about that incivility from the posts of other people. Have a nice weekend, all. Good Cop 02:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


You too, Good Cop enjoy your weekend. I get the impression you'll be away for the weekend but if you are able to write something, I look forward to discussing it Monday when you return. In the meantime I'm going to use a modified version of the example provided by Lou Sander to add my thoughts on a clear demonstration of why the CBC interview should be included.

I could have listed some more bullets, but they would have been a bit shaky like a few of Lou Sander's seem to. To be clear, I mean no disrespect toward you Lou Sander and I completely agree that the Jersey Girls comments merit inclusion. I am only saying that points like:

  • It was very widely discussed in mainstream sources afterward
  • Clinton, Emanuel and Roehmer were all importantly involved in the nationally very important 9/11 investigations that led to the Jersey Girls becoming notable.

are weak because the first one fails to cite specifically any of those sources. The second point doesn't cite a source either, appears to be a statement based on original research, and may be incorrect as it could be argued that 9/11 and their involvement itself guaranteed notability. Anynobody 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the two points about the Jersey Girls: It's correct that they include no citations. But they could include them IMHO, and they probably would include them if there was doubt that they were true, and/or if they were going into an encyclopedia article. IMHO, as it is, they are just part of a discussion IMHO, and their accuracy is pretty obvious. IMHO, they demonstrate relevance to Coulter's notability by pointing out that her Jersey Girls comments received much more media attention than do most of her others, and by pointing out that the critics named weren't merely commentators, but were seriously involved in the events being discussed. Unless you disbelieve the points, they are pretty strong arguments for relevance to her notability, IMHO. (By contrast with her other comments like the one about Justice Stevens, look at how widely the media noted it, and look at the status of those who criticized it. IMHO it was very narrowly noted, and the critics were minor commentators.) Lou Sander 14:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed I too remember the Jersey Girls incident being covered in the national media quite extensively. My point is that a person who missed that coverage could rightly insist that point be disregarded unless the specific coverage was cited. I don't know how they could have missed it, but to a person who did our assertion that it was covered may appear biased. That hasn't happened yet because I think all of us participating in this topic agree on it receiving said coverage, and it may not ever happen. Don't get me wrong Lou Sander, I'm sure you can get the sources if it were necessary I'm just saying better to put them in from the start. In my CBC argument, I know I saw Ann Coulter admit she was wrong on C-Span but I don't have any references so I left it off my point list for just that reason. Anynobody 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, we're looking here for why the CBC interview is important enough to Coulter's notability to be included in her encyclopedia article. Did it launch or destroy a career? (I don't think so.) Was it widely discussed in major forums? (Not that I can see.) Did it mark any major turning point? (It didn't seem to.) IMHO, from everything I've seen so far, it just wasn't a very important event. It was a short interview on a very small network, and there was nothing very notable about it. Lou Sander 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That we are, and I would have assumed if you disagreed with the points I raised you would have addressed them rather than defending your failure to include sources. Perhaps it is my fault for attempting to explain why I listed only three bullets as opposed to the six in the Jersey Girls example, I did not mean to get off-topic so I apologize if you thought I was. Is Canadian media not notable? It sounds like that it was you are implying. It is becoming difficult to assume good faith on your part when you ignore the evidence of notability provided by not just myself but others like Ubiq, kizzle, and Ramsquire. In the interest of clarity Lou Sander, would you please explain why "there was nothing very notable about it" and why these points do not show otherwise?

Lou, the national broadcast network of Canada is not trivial. And like they point out, the Time article calls it her most-cited alleged error. I believe it would be notable for that reason alone. Let's move the discussion toward article presentation, eh? Cool Hand Luke 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to find references for this, but the CBC's budget and staff are about 10% of those of CNN. Probably its number of viewers is on the same scale. The CBC is a wonderful national asset, but it isn't very important in the big scheme of things. (Fine distinction: The CBC is notable because it's Canada's national network, because it programs for natives in the frozen wastelands, because it's bilingual, etc. The CBC's broadcasts are typically NOT notable, because they reach a small audience, are programmed mostly for Canadians, etc. The words of notable entities are not necessarily notable themselves.)
Anynobody's bullet points put the demonstration all in one place, but they are very weak bullets, IMHO. 1) Her notability doesn't depend on her knowledge of disputed points of Canadian history; 2)&3) Dozens of her remarks are mentioned in mainstream media. If that's the criterion for including a remark in the article, I have a LOT of remarks I want to include.
It would be nice to discuss the presentation of the incident, but there needs to be a clear demonstration of its relevance to Coulter's notability. I'm trying to see it here, but all I see are a few pretty trivial points. (What will we do when somebody deletes it, citing WP:BLP and insisting on that demonstration?) Lou Sander 14:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The CBC is a respected international broadcaster and the fifth estate has won a number of international Emmys over its 20 some years on the air. As well, the interviewer, Bob McKeown is also an NBC journalist who has done numerous interviews and docs for Dateline NBC. You are grasping at straws here, I'm afraid, by trying to dismiss CBC as a notable source. As for the CBC's budget, in 2004 was about $1 billion [11], CNN's budget was about $220 million in 2002[12] (higher than CNBC and Fox combined). Even accounting for the differences between the US and Canadian dollar CNN's budget is actually a fraction of CBC's. Perhaps the reason it's "hard to find" references for your claim that the CBC's budget and staff is 10% of CNN's is because it's just not true? Frankly, the fact that you are now making up facts out of whole cloth doesn't exactly bode well for your argument.Sixth Estate 18:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
CBC is a wonderful network, and it is a credit to the wonderful nation of Canada. But it's hard to imagine it as equal to CNN; I accept your citations, but I don't think they tell the story. We both need to keep looking.
The program in question was about Canada, directed toward Canadians, and most likely seen by relatively few non-Canadians. Such programs maybe aren't strongly relevant to the notability of a primarily American commentator.
Please try harder to comply with WP:Civil and WP:AGF. Your comments and edit summaries have an air of petty incivility. I'm not grasping at straws and I'm not making up facts. I'm working hard to improve an article, in an environment where some editors can't accept the undeniable fact that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Lou Sander 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Lou, have you actually watched the program (you can view it online)? While many of its subjects are Canadian it also reports on a number of international topics, including the documentary on Fox News which is not "about Canada".
You have glossed over my refutation of your demonstrably false claim that "the CBC's budget and staff are about 10% of those of CNN". I have two questions for you. First, where in the world did you come up with this and second are you willing to admit that your statement was wrong? Clearly you were grasping at straws when you came up with it and now you will "keep looking" for something, anything, you can use to try to dismiss the source. As for being or not being the "equal" of CNN, are you aware of just how many American news reporters and anchors come from the CBC or move back and forth from the CBC to American networks (including CNN)? Brian Stewart, Keith Morrison, Hilary Brown, Peter Jennings, Robert MacNeil, Peter Kent, Bob McKeown, Henry Champ, Morley Safer, Arthur Kent, Sheila MacVicar, Kevin Newman and Mark Phillips to name just a few. If CBC News was not the "equal" of American news sources this wouldn't be happening. Instead of using "tunnel vision" in search of any reason you can find to dismiss the source, whether or not those reasons have basis in fact, you should simply accept that the source is credible. Sixth Estate 00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"I'm not making up facts." Then provide a source for your claim that CBC has 1/10th the budget and staff of CNN. If you can't provide a source please explain where you came up with that "fact" if you didn't make it up. I'm sorry Lou but passing off blatant falsehoods like that strains your credibility. Sixth Estate 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please, Sixth Estate, start assuming good faith. Also please stop using petty incivilities like "blatant falsehoods" and "strains your credibility." And please stop using this page as a forum for disputing what other people say. Particularly, please stop speaking as though you're some sort of judge in your own disputes.
Explaining where I got the 10%: When trying to compare CBC's viewership and demographics with that of other networks more familiar to me, I Googled various phrases. I didn't find anything, so I called a professional reference librarian at my local public library, which is the largest suburban library in Pennsylvania. She called back some time later, saying that she and an associate had looked at all their resources, plus the Internet, and that all they could find was something that said CBC's budget was about 10% of that of CNN. I didn't ask for a source, because I had no reason to doubt her, and because this is just a discussion page, not an encyclopedia article where such sources are required. Also, it seemed very reasonable to think that CBC is a network about a tenth the size of CNN, since Canada's population is about a tenth of that of the United States.
When you provided some references that seemed to contradict mine, and that seemed to show CBC to be a giant that it otherwise doesn't seem to be, I acknowledged them, but expressed some doubt that either of us had found the whole story. There was then a somewhat uncivil response that said I had "glossed over" them.
Let's see if we can agree on a simpler, more easily verified fact: Canada DID send troops to Vietnam, and Mr. McKeown was incorrect in insisting that she did NOT. Some strong evidence of that can be found on Veterans Affairs Canada sitesHERE and HERE. More is available elsewhere, such as by Googling "Vernon J. Perkins".
Do you agree that Canada DID send troops to Vietnam? If you don't, please provide some solidly sourced evidence, hopefully not related to the CBC/Coulter dispute, that Canada did NOT send troops to Vietnam. Lou Sander 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Canada sent no combat troops to Vietnam and was officially neutral in the Vietnam War. Coulter admitted her error on C-SPAN, your original research notwithstanding. Sixth Estate 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't asking about combat troops, or neutrality, or Coulter, or anything else. The simple question, directly from me to you, is: Do you agree that Canada sent troops to Vietnam? Lou Sander 04:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Now you are interpreting her comments. Coulter admitted she was wrong and that's all that matters as far as this article is concerned. Do you think Coulter was wrong when she said she's wrong? Sixth Estate 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You first. Do you agree that Canada sent troops to Vietnam? Lou Sander 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"The Canadian Government didn't send troops" (Ann Coulter, C-SPAN interview). The fact that you think Coulter was wrong when she said she was wrong is of no importance here. Do you see why that is or do you want to keep playing games? I have no time for gameplaying but if you insist we can bring in a mediator who will have even less time for your games than we do. Your choice. As for significance, as Time Magazine has referred to the CBC incident as one of Coulter's "most popular alleged mistakes" we have a major American media outlet stating the comment's significance. Perhaps you now want to allege that Time has only 10% of the staff and budget of US News & Word Report and shouldn't be taken seriously? Your OR and unique interpretation of Coulter's use of the word "troops", so unique that Coulter herself does not accept it, is pure OR and is completely irrelevant here, on a page discussion the Ann Coulter article. Wikipedia is not a debating society so if you want to argue about matters that are irrelevant to this article go somewhere else. Sixth Estate 05:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you are avoiding a very simple question. Why don't you just answer it? 209.244.43.248 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The answer to Lou's question is no. See Anynobody's comments below. Sixth Estate 05:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Entirely irrelevant. Take it up on Canada and the Vietnam War. We're not saying whether Coulter was right or wrong, or whether troops were sent or not, or whether Coulter was referring to the troops sent to Indochina and the cease-fire or not: our job is to provide quotes and a daughter link and let the reader decide. The passage makes no such claims that she is wrong, and gives the redirect link for people who want to find out whether Canada sent troops to Vietnam. --kizzle 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the link you are talking about. It doesn't say anything about whether Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Alot of the other stuff in it is not referenced or it is disputed. How is it irrelevant that the CBC guy was lying? 209.244.43.248 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If the "CBC guy was lying" why did Coulter admit she was wrong to C-SPAN? Sixth Estate 05:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing Lou: you're lecturing another editor on petty incivilities? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling...

  • "The guy WAS wrong, though some people have trouble acknowledging it" [13]
  • After I proposed a passage, Mr. Sander characterized my attempt as a "malicious agenda"
  • "Your point of view is showing. Let's hope you keep it out of your edits. Many people do, many don't." [14]
  • "IMHO, you're not getting the big picture here. Sorry." [15]
  • "For whatever reason, editors of this article want to, or don't have the skills to, (or whatever else) to fairly and neutrally choose and summarize material about Ann Coulter" [16]
  • After a user says "Kizzle poses an interesting question" Lou replies: "Give us a break. This incident is non-notable, and is only mentioned by those who want to show that Coulter is "stupid," or "didn't know what she was talking about," etc... It doesn't matter to malicious editors that Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. It doesn't matter to malicious editors that Coulter attempted to clarify her remarks by asking "Indochina?" ... It doesn't matter to malicious editors that their work is misleading to readers. Nor does it matter to malicious editors that WP:BLP says "Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial material." Instead of trying to comply with that policy, they try to find ways around it. Some of them can be excused because they just aren't very bright ("Fools' names and fools' faces are often seen in public places") and have a hard time making cogent arguments. But their maliciousness cannot be tolerated." [17]
  • Lou is "amazed" that I can't "comprehend" something, then compares me to a "funny/pathetic/laughter-provoking shopkeeper in the Parrot Sketch" [18]
  • "Some people just don't get it. Or won't. Maybe they spend too much time with fantasy roleplaying games."[19]

--kizzle 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

KIZZEL: Talking about somebody's mind boggling hypocricy seems to be more than a little uncivil. Trotting out a dozen examples is only fouling our nest with more incivility, isn't it? The purpose of WP:Civil is to encourage us to work together in harmony. Let by-gones be by-gones. Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't be a you-know-what. It just encourages the other guy.
I looked at some of your examples. Mostly he seems to be making general comments about things. I didn't see anything where he used your name or directed anything at you. Seemed to have you on ignore, in fact. #7, #10, #11, #12 seem to hit the nail on the head. What's wrong with them? Nobody was ridiculed or called names. Nobody is personally targeted. Where's the incivility in that?
I've got to say that it does seem that some editors are trying to slime Anne Coulter. They look for ways to say she's a liar without actually saying it. I don't see very much actual trying to make a good article, which of course requires neutrality. Why is it so hard to admit that Canada sent troops to Viet-Nam? I feel that it is for the reason that admitting it would make it look like Mrs. Coulter wasn't lying. The truth is that there were troops there and she was right, even though she maybe didn't realize it. 209.244.43.248 05:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine called it one of Coulter's "most popular alleged mistakes". Notability? Check. --kizzle 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you sincerely Lou Sander for addressing your issues with the points I've put forth. In order to make my thoughts perfectly clear I'll include your points in italics so that everyone knows what my specific comments refer to. :Anynobody's bullet points put the demonstration all in one place, but they are very weak bullets, IMHO. 1) Her notability doesn't depend on her knowledge of disputed points of Canadian history; 2)&3) Dozens of her remarks are mentioned in mainstream media. If that's the criterion for including a remark in the article, I have a LOT of remarks I want to include.
*1 The topic is not exclusively Canadian, it is about an issue of American/Canadian relations during the Vietnam conflict.
*2 and 3 appear to be one point so I'll address them bother here. Mention in the mainstream media is not the only requirement, but it helps show notability. I for one would welcome any cited remarks from other mainstream sources.
Does anyone else think we all should consider involving a third party or requesting mediation? Anynobody 02:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody: 1) The point is that Ann Coulter is notable for her acerbic/outlandish/insightful commentary on American liberals and related topics. What she says casually in an unscripted interview about things that took place before she was born and when she was a child, and that are not directly related to American liberalism, isn't very relevant to her notability. 2&3) The point is that most of what Coulter says is mentioned in the mainstream media. Some of it is mentioned so much, and discussed in such depth, that it becomes clearly relevant to her notability. The Jersey Girls stuff is an example. The post-9/11 stuff is another. Next to those, this is nothing (but that's just my opinion).
I for one would welcome more material that clearly demonstrates the relevance of this incident to her notability. It seems like there might be some, but nobody other than you is presenting it in a brief, easily comprehended way. Your material is a good start at such a demonstration, but for the reasons stated above, I myself don't think it's very strong. Lou Sander 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Time Magazine calls the CBC interview one of Coulter's "most popular alleged mistakes". --kizzle 02:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your recognition of my points, Lou Sander but if one extends your first point 1) The point is that Ann Coulter is notable for her acerbic/outlandish/insightful commentary on American liberals and related topics. the notability is clear. I agree 100% that she is notable for the reasons you cited but there is one more reason. The problem here is she believes the things she says and she holds herself out to be a political commentator, please take a moment to read the linked article. To be clear I am not saying she believes liberals should be rounded up and shot or that the NYT should be bombed, she just wishes they'd shut up. If she admitted that she is, for lack of a better comparison, a "fake" political commentator in the same way that professional wrestlers are "fake" I would feel like you do on the CBC thing. She says she's "real", so we should treat her as such.
Though I do appreciate your criticism and I am enjoying our debate, I do have a separate concern. I must point out that many others on this page have made points that may be even stronger than mine. Your statement about mine being the only points worthy of this level discussion, which I took to be a compliment, comes at the expense of several editors here. I have seen kizzle, Ubiq, Sixth Estate, and Cool Hand Luke among others make points worthy of your attention.
Also I noticed you wanting to know if Canada did send troops to Vietnam. The answer is no, they sent peace keepers. Canada was a neutral party in the Paris Peace Accords, they and some other neutral countries sent peace keepers to enforce a cease fire while the U.S. withdrew in 1973. They were there to ensure that the terms of the cease fire and withdrawal were enforced. Personally I find it ludicrous that the North Vietnamese would accept peace keepers who they had fought against. Australia and New Zealand sent troops to Vietnam. Among others, but they were the only former British possesions that sent "troops". Anynobody 05:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We aren't communicating well about point 1). Her field is contemporary American liberalism. She's not a noted commentator on Mexican matters, or matters regarding St. Pierre and Miquelon, or even matters involving our friend and neighbor Canada. Because of that, her notability has little to do with what she says about Mexico or Canada or little islands in the North Atlantic. If she confuses Alberta and Saskatchewan, as many Americans do, it really doesn't affect her notability.
Others have, indeed, made points. But they haven't been able put them together into anything like a clear demonstration of something. Not everyone is able to do that, so there's no fault in their failure. But until somebody does it (you?), their isolated points aren't a part of the "clear demonstration of relevance to notability" that is required of us in controversial situations.
Troops are commonly understood to be members of military forces. "Soldiers, collectively" is a common definition. Combat soldiers are troops, civilian guerillas are not. Peacekeeping soldiers are troops; peacekeeping civilians are not. Indian soldiers keeping the peace in Africa, even if unarmed and unwilling to take the life of even a fly, are Indian troops, because they are Indian soldiers. Canada sent soldiers, uniformed members of her armed forces, a.k.a. troops, to Vietnam. That fact is clearly demonstrated on Veterans Affairs Canada sites HERE and HERE. More evidence is available elsewhere, such as by Googling "Vernon J. Perkins". Much good could result if reasonable people could agree that Canada did, indeed, send troops to Vietnam. What do you say? Do you agree that those soldiers who earned those medals were "troops?" Lou Sander 06:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
While she does concentrate on liberals, she will also go after conservatives who she disagrees with. Though even if she was exclusively a commentator on liberals, she should still know that Canada is where liberal lefty draft dodgers went, and conservative fighters of communism came here. If they had been our ally during the war, would they have let our draft dodgers hide out there? Or let their citizens join our Army as opposed to just sending them over under Canadian command? (Please note: I'm not asking that question to get the info in. I just don't understand how you can reconcile these facts and not see how it doesn't affect her credibility as a "liberal commentator" if she misunderstood a liberal refuge like Canada during the war.)
I realize troops is a generalization, but she explained that the troops she meant were the fighting kind. Peace keepers are soldiers under the command of an international body or treaty. Kevin Michael Grace among others (FAIR) point out she was referring to Canada and America as the best of friends during Vietnam, and not going in to Iraq after sending troops to "Indochina" is some sort of betrayal of friendship. When troops operate as peace keepers they cease to directly represent their country. (For example American soldiers as part of a UN deployment become peace keepers when they don the blue helmet. They will be taking orders, not from the United States military but from whichever country is in charge of that particular UN mission. This concept is the same whether the troops in question are being deployed as UN, NATO, or the International Commission For Supervision And Control Service - ICSC. Lou Sander I provided a link to the same page earlier to prove my point; the award isn't for service to Canada it is to recognize participation in the ICSC and other treaty deployments in Southeast Asia. I think the U.S, military also awards similar medals to troops who participate in deployments under another flag. Anynobody 08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Just an fyi to anyone who is curious, the US military does give awards to soldiers for UN and NATO deployments. Here is an example of the UN awards: United Nations Medals info from pentagon.mil. Anynobody 10:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No one denies that Canada sent those soldiers to Vietnam, so you can cease going on as though someone does. Further, everyone but you (or almost everyone) recognizes that those soldiers don't matter, here, because Coulter's claim that "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" was a claim that Canada sent American-allied troops to take part in the Vietnam war, in the manner of Australia. It was not merely a claim that Canada sent some soldiers to Vietnam for some purpose during that time. There is thus no need to delve into the hairsplitting question of whether the sending of the peace-keepers should be considered "sending troops" -- which of course depends upon exactly what one means by "troops" and by "sending troops", so that there is no single right answer. If, for arguement's sake, we take your view on that point as right, Coulter is nevertheless wrong. Much good would result if you would be so reasonable as to admit that -- foremostly that we could all cease wasting time on this red herring. -- Lonewolf BC 08:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What a weekend! LouSander asks for agreement that Canada sent troops to Vietnam, and provides proof that they did. SixthEstate won't even answer the question, saying a lot about him/her. Kizzle won't answer the question either, and maintains it's totally irrelevant in an argument about whether Canada sent troops to Vietnam. AnyNobody doesn't answer it. All three, instead of answering it, go on and on about other subjects. Then LoneWolf says that no one denies that Canada sent soldiers to Vietnam. Priceless!

Then Lonewolf says that "Coulter's claim that "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" was a claim that Canada sent American-allied troops to take part in the Vietnam war, in the manner of Australia." Show us a citation or two, Lonewolf.

LouSander offers a golden example of a demonstration of relevance to Coulter's notability --- boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Everybody agrees it's a valid demo. Kizzle, who can compile reams of old links about what she thinks is incivility but doesn't seem like it to me, can't do the same about an incident she thinks is important. Neither can Kizzle find a citation to the CSPAN interview. SixthEstate can't do either, and is stuck on being offended by anything that says the CBC isn't ABC, CBS, and NBC all rolled into one.

Here's the incident in question: Two years ago (!) Coulter says, in passing, "troops to Vietnam." The CBC guy jumps all over it. They discuss it, with the CBC guy continually insisting "no troops." Each time, Coulter says she thinks he's wrong. She doesn't even say "yes they did." She's politely doubting the CBC guy. The CBC guy is wrong, by the way, and he's extremely snotty in his wrongness. People on the internet, but almost nowhere else, rejoice in another Coulter error. Much later, somewhere that Kizzle can't find or is keeping from us, Coulter explains herself and points out the CBC guy's superagressive nastiness about a point that she's unsure of and he is. (We, on the other hand, know for sure that the CBC guy was wrong, but some of us won't admit it.) Then people who edit an encyclopedia excitedly jump up and down over Coulter's admission that she was "wrong" about a minor aspect of Canadian history. (Kizzle is excluded from this because she has never edited a single article, or something very close to that. SixthSense specializes in minor Canadian political figures. I don't know about Anynobody.)

The truth is that the CBC guy was wrong and won't admit it, Coulter has an imprecise knowledge of Canadian history and shows it by saying in the uncited interview that she had been wrong (when the Wikipedia-suppressed truth is that she was right). Not only won't the CBC guy admit that he was wrong, neither will Kizzel or SixthEstate or (with a few reservations) Anynobody. There's an obvious reason they won't admit that the CBC guy was wrong. It's the same reason they won't come up with a clear demonstration. Everybody knows what it is, so I won't say it. Good Cop 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I got mentioned 6 times! Somebody's a fan :) Two minor corrections, I'm a "he", and I have edited more than a single article, I actually took one from scratch to featured status on the front page. Hope that helps :) I'll reproduce my previous post dealing with your substantive points:
  • Rant (optional read): I have heard the mantra that Lou and other pro-Coulter people have constantly re-asserted: Bob McKeown was wrong. Why was he wrong? Because you say that Coulter didn't necessarily mean "military" troops when she said: "Canada sent troops to Vietnam". The word "troops" could mean non-combat "troops" as well as combat "troops". Thus, there are two issues to consider: First, whether Ann Coulter was right:
    1. That Coulter was referring to the non-combat definition and referring to the 240 non-combat peacekeeping troops in order to "contain" the "threat" that Vietnam posed, and thus, while her mea culpa subsequent to the interview never mentioned these non-combat troops, she was absolutely right.
    2. That Coulter was referring to the combat definition, and, like she explicitly said on CSPAN, she was wrong.
  • The second issue is whether or not McKeown was right:
    1. That McKeown was referring to the non-combat definition of "troops", and thus was absolutely wrong, as at least 240 non-combat peacekeeping troops were sent to Vietnam.
    2. That McKeown was referring to the combat definition of "troops", and thus was absolutely right, as Canada never sent any combat troops.
  • My question to you then: If we're going to give Coulter the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she meant non-combat, then why can't we give McKeown the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant combat troops?

--kizzle 18:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Cop and LouSander perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Because I've allowed myself to digress and ask questions about how some editors on this page arrive at their conclusions when compared to the reality of history. The point is this, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the article should not imply that either was right or wrong. It is notable because it was widely discussed in media like Time Magazine, FAIR, and the CBC editorial link I provided earlier. The article should say something like: "Ann Coulter was accused of citing incorrect information on The Fifth Estate by the host, Mckeown. Supporters of Ms. Coulter cite an article in Time magazine, where John Cloud asserts that she was correct. Critics, like FAIR, argue that she was incorrect. For more on this see: Canada and the Vietnam War." The wording doesn't have to be the same, but it should neutrally mention both sides and cite the Time, FAIR references. At the end, a link should be provided to the actual history. As I understand it, that is as NPOV as it gets in a situation like this involving opinions (a pro reference a con reference and lastly a factual reference). Anynobody 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability has already been determined. Let's move on to discussing presentation. --kizzle 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully kizzle, I think LouSander and Good Cop would disagree about it's notability being determined. Anynobody 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Lou Sander does not engage in discussion and has ignored the point about Time Magazine calling it one of Coulter's "most popular alleged mistakes", thus he is a non-participant in this debate. Good Cop has yet to address that point specifically, which even Cool Hand Luke agrees qualifies the topic as notable. --kizzle 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think using the "most popular" langauge of the TIME piece is problematic. The writer seems to only use Google hits as the basis for his assertion. But "notability" and "popularity" are two different things. Google hits alone do not determine notability. I've had this debate before on the Ewing Theory, which although popular was deemed to be a non-notable topic on its own. Just to clear up one mistake above. I do not think the topic is notable, but I am not 100% certain about my position. With that being the case, I am not going to keep arguing the same points over and over, nor will I edit war on this. But I must point out that there is original research in the section, which I removed. Ann says she is both right and wrong. To say she admitted anything would be synthesis. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but regardless of what Cloud's motivations were in calling the incident one of Coulter's "most popular alleged mistakes", we're still talking about Time Magazine calling it that. Using "admitted" was probably a bad call, but I'm comfortable that the readers will come to the right conclusion when they read the quote sans the passage you took out. --kizzle 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Coulter a fascist?

Perhaps somewhere in the article we should mention that Coulter is essentially a fascist. Would this be appropriate? She is a textbook example of one, if there ever was one. I don't think this would be pov so much as a fact. I'm not experienced with wikipedia, so I don't really know how this works. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.17.57.123 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Is she a facist, or does she just play one on TV?
But joking aside, Wikipedia's policies strongly discourage making such sweeping claims in the biography of a living person. We must use reliable sources, avoid original research, and write from a neutral point of view. Cool Hand Luke 01:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, to qualify two things would need to happen. First someone notable would have to put that opinion forward in some kind of recognized media so that the idea of her being a fascist isn't an original idea put forth here. Second another notable would need to publish an opposing view in the same manner, to provide balance from a POV standpoint. Whether she really is a fascist appears to be irrelevant as truth is less a concern than NPOV.
Personally I don't think she is anyway, she is too religious. It could be argued that she has many traits in common with fascists, but their ideology puts nationalism above all else. Anynobody 02:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you look at the characteristics for Fascism; nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, totalitarianism, anti-liberalism, and anti-communism. Nationalism, "the claim that the nation is the only fully legitimate basis for a state," I've never really ever heard her say anything to that effect... Authoritarianism, again not much past what many people often say (note: "even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent"). You might have a bit more evidence in the militarism department, though... Whatever; For Corporatism, which, apparently doesn't really have much to do with modern corporations. Being religious (church) she's definately not totalitarian (which doesn't like churches), even if you do think that she uses 'secret police, propaganda, restriction of criticism, and widespread use of terror tactics'. Anti-Liberalism. Ok, you've got one on her there. If there ever was a single person in the world who was anti-liberal, it's her. Anti-Communist, second strongest arguement for "Coulter the Fascist". So, as far as I can tell, there's really no arguement to it. Ok, now that I'm past my own "POV rant", I would concur with others in this regard, in that you can't say it in the article unless you have a credible source saying it, AND a credible source disputing it, to balance the viewpoint.

Mediation

The argument over the fifth estate and C-SPAN interviews has been continuing for some time with no end in sight. I propose we take this to mediation. Please indicate if you agree or disagree. Sixth Estate 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Anynobody 05:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:RfC comes first. Lou Sander 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. However, RfC rarely generates any response these days. We can do mediation now and save time if everyone agrees to it so, do you agree? Sixth Estate 07:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agreed to mediation knowing about WP:RfC, because I believe we are past the point where new comments would really do any good either way. Unless somebody finds a really great way to to prove/disprove the arguments on both sides, the debate will continue. As I understand it, except for some anons, all but one of the editors think some mention of the Fifth Estate interview merits inclusion. Hypothetically we could end up with an all against two situation or be right back at the current situation with RfC. I'm willing to accept being wrong, but we need some kind of authority and not more new comments. Besides, a couple of new editors joined the discussion over the past few days and I thought this accomplished the point of RfC to put in new perspectives. Anynobody 08:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If we must. I think it's obvious that it should be included. See Time, ect., but if comments add nothing more, we must do something more binding on the issue. Cool Hand Luke 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's bury this C-SPAN thing, eh?

So I decided to try to find an actual verifiable source on this C-SPAN interview, somthing no one has apparently tried to do. Here's a transcript—still not a reliable source—but it's not edited to make Coulter look like she's confessing. Notice that she does seem to be a bit sarcastic about being wrong on "Americans born in Canada" because she later claims that she was right. She seems to assert that she was talking about Canadians serving in the US the whole time (whatever, Ann) and that's why Baxter's a "bubble head". So, we used a completely unsourced trascript that was highly misleading. I think we can safely keep it out of the article.

Moral of the story: follow WP:BLP, find reliable sources, watch for red flags, and don't do OR, especially not from misleading sources. Cool Hand Luke 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Coulter became involved in some controversy[20][21] for a statement she made on CBC Television's news program the fifth estate. During a conversation with the host, Bob McKeown, Coulter asserted that "Canada used to be...one of our most...most loyal friends, and vice versa. I mean, Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" McKeown disputed her assertion by saying "No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam," to which Coulter eventually said "I'll have to get back to you on that". In a subsequent C-SPAN interview, Coulter justified her statement by referring to the 10,000 Canadians who voluntarily signed up with the American troops, though admitting she was wrong that the Canadian government had sent troops but claiming that she was right that Canadian soldiers participated in the Vietnam War, as well as taking a shot at McKeown:[1]

Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. There is a War Memorial to them, at least for most of that. The Canadian Government didn't send troops [...] but [...] they came and fought with the Americans. So I was wrong. It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada... I didn't believe him because I had read about Canadian troops in Vietnam, I was right. People keep saying: "well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans..." I don't think he knew, he's a bubblehead Ted Baxter

For more information on Canada's involvement in the Vietnam War, see Canada and the Vietnam War.


Is that a better assessment? (BTW thanks for that new source, I know it's not reliable but it still helps us better understand the interview) --kizzle 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


"but right that Canadian soldiers had joined the US effort in the Vietnam War" is misleading. Canadians who join the US military are US soldiers, not Canadian soliders and, in any case, they never discussed whether or not individual Canadians signed up with the US military but whether or not Canada sent soldiers. That Coulter claims after the fact that this is what she meant is fine (if not very convincing) but it's not for us to say she was right or wrong. We just put out the information and let readers decide. We certainly shouldn't be agreeing in the article that what she meant was Canadians signing up with the US military and fighting as US soldiers, particularly when that assessment is POV and contestable. Dimitroff 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"Claiming she was right..." sound better? --kizzle 22:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"Canadian soldiers" is still misleading since they weren't Canadian soldiers but Canadians-born US soldiers. Dimitroff 23:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


By the way, I called CSPAN and asked why it wasn't showing up in the results on the online page, and she fixed it so the program shows up now, so if any of you want to shell out $30 be my guest ;) Nevermind... they took it back down for some reason, the ID # is still the same but they're figuring out why the video doesn't show up. The date of broadcast is February 18, 2005 IIRC. --kizzle 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is about factual inaccuracy, not her taking pot shots at reporters. It's certainly not worth such a long quote, if it deserves any mention at all. The quote is also edited beyond recognition, encompassing the answers to more than one question; that's original research at best and possibly deceit. Unless you have a secondary commenting on it, it's not worthwhile to reproduce text from an unknown, unreliable, and unverifiable source as an enormous blockquote. It's against our policies. Cool Hand Luke 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, interpretting Coulter's comments, as you propose, is original research, even according to definitions of OR that you acknowledge. It's not clear that Coulter admitted anything wrong; she's known to be enormously sarcastic. In this case she said "I was wrong" followed by an absurd and untrue statement (Americans born in Canada served in Vietnam?—no, she seems to be sarcastically drawing attention to her supposed claim that Canadians participated even if they did so in the US armed forces), later followed by her insisting she was right. Her admission may or may not have been sarcasm as I suggest, but calling it either way moves us outside of the realm of verifiability. Well-informed verifiability is essentual for including primary sources.
Imagine if we sumarized Coulter's Dale Earnhardt error by saying that she congratulated liberals for their fine fact checking. You're making a similar mistake here, and you're violating WP:OR to boot. Cool Hand Luke 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter CSPAN source

(Moved to here from my talk-page, where it was posted while I composed the below. -- LW)
Thanks for reading the talk page and adding a source. This source can't stand either because it's a blog, but I have no intention of editing the article again. Cool Hand Luke 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The C-SPAN bit is now adequately sourced. The video itself is available from the C-SPAN archives. The transcript at CBCwatch would be unacceptably shaky on its own, but it agrees with the video on CBC, thus proving it records a real occurrence and confirming the veracity of its contents. Further, the material there includes a link to the C-SPAN video. The link no longer works, but it is unreasonable to suppose someone included a link to a video that would show the transcript was wrong. While a more authoritative transcript, or the video itself, would be much preferable, there is no reasonable cause to think the transcript is incorrect except perhaps in trivial detail. -- Lonewolf BC 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the CBC transcript. It's relevant, non-trivial, and verifiable. However, the C-SPAN video is not available, and the source itself is to a blog, which is not reliable. While it might normally be acceptable to lean on the transcript unless someone shows it to be wrong, WP:BLP demands a higher standard.
That said, if someone can meet this burden, I still believe editorial concerns would keep us from including such a long and frankly toothless block. We'd have to give the quoted excerpt some semblance of context, which demands it be even longer. As it is, selectively quoting Coulter's response from several different questions is misleading, possibly drawing readers to conclusions not in the source. Policy in either case forbids us from drawing conclusions for the reader as kizzle's proposal does. Cool Hand Luke 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Given the choice between calling my passage original research and intentional deceit, I hope you're assuming it's OR. We have a long quote here that is highly salient to a topic which has already been determined to be notable. Excluding this passage would greatly disservice the reader, but it needs to be done in a fair way that doesn't take up too much space, thus the presentation on how to include this quote is up for debate. I think that how it currently stands, with Coulter both saying she was wrong about Canada's government sending the troops but claiming she was right that Canadians participated in Vietnam is fair to her. Now, how we chop up the salient points in this long quote is tough, so maybe you'd like to help contribute a version of the quote that you think accurately portrays both her admission of being wrong about Canada sending troops and her affirmation that she was right that Canadians participated in Vietnam. It doesn't necessarily have to include the Ted Baxter remark that some editors on this page just absolutely love, it could be trimmed a bit more, but those two points should remain. This isn't about WP:OR anymore, as we know the words were spoken on national television and that no original analysis or point is being advanced: this is about WP:NPOV and fairly characterizing and condensing her quote so that if Coulter visited this page, she would be happy as well. --kizzle 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please at least cite the blog transcript?
I don't imagine it's deceit on your part, but it quite possibly is on the part of whoever wrote the original excerpt. I assume you did not write the edited block; its orgins remain mysterious. But yes, the author of edited block carefully removed context to make it seem like a confession although the overall tone is ambiguous. In particular, "Coulter justified her statement...though admitting she was wrong...but claiming that she was right", is OR. The transcript is not crystal clear on any of these points.
But again, this is still moot because we have no reliable source for this transcripts because blogs and personal websites are not acceptable sources, most especially not for the biography of a living person.
Incidentally, I noticed Lonewolf's reference to MSNBC, which is a good find. The transcript is apparently not available online, but I retrieved it from LexisNexis, so it's reliable. I've copied it into Lonewolf's subpage for easy reference. Cool Hand Luke 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I just set out the reasons why the transcript is reliable. It would not be on its own. It is, given the support of the CBC and the C-SPAN archives. And by the way, it is surely available from those archives because everything on C-SPAN starting in 1987 is available. There seems to be a temporary problem with on-line ordering, is all, which is all Kizzle said. -- Lonewolf BC 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I like Ramsquire's recent edit, it takes up way less space and doesn't editorialize. --kizzle 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because, at the very least, it took out too much. If you don't know that 10,000 Canadians fought under the American flag, then Coulter's statement is utterly incomprehensible. Raul654 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I adjusted my edit to include more of the original text, but simply removed the editorial about whether she "admitted" anything. That would need to be sourced per BLP and OR.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 05:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Which it is, 2 sentences later: "So I was wrong" It doesn't get much clearer than that. Raul654 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Except when she follows with something sarcastic and then "I was right", perhaps? We should edit to make it more comprehensible, but not editorialize from a primary source, I think. Cool Hand Luke 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
She said she was right about something else. She admitted she was wrong about Canada's government sending troops but asserted that she was still right that there were technically troops in Vietnam who came from Canada due to the 10,000 volunteers who came from Canada to sign up with the U.S. Of course, Ramsquire's edit makes this way simpler and takes up less space. --kizzle 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Or she could be saying she was wrong that the troops that fought were Canadian. They turned out to be Americans born in Canada. Only Ann knows for sure what point she was trying to make with that quote.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 05:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is why we use your version to sidestep guessing what she meant and let the reader decide. --kizzle 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my point Luke, she says "I was wrong" and "I was right" in the same quote. And the entire thing is dripping with sarcasm. I normally don't like quotes in articles but if we are going to have this in the article, let's just use the quotes with very little summary or comment. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Could not agree more. --kizzle 05:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, without secondary analysis, the article should not reach any conclusion. I personally doubt Coulter would ever humbly admit an error (see: CONGRATULATIONS LIBERALS!). I do think she's being sarcastic, because she immediately talks about the Americans born in Canada, then claims she knew what she was talking about from her reading while McKowen did not. But none of this analysis has a place in the article either, I just mention it to emphasize "admission of error" is not the only likely interpretation.
I'm happy to call this a consensus then. Just add a comment on the transcript footnote that we would appreciate a better source for the C-SPAN transcript. I don't like that it's a blog, but as long as there's no original analysis I think we're avoiding the bigger sin. Cool Hand Luke 05:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Holy crap :) I'm happy with the way it is right now as well. What do others think? --kizzle 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Since Lonewolf just blanked it (temporarily for a attempt to fix a bug), I like it! Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me :) Anynobody 05:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Others have investigated these charges, with equivocal results.[61]

This does not reflect what the authors of the cited source wrote. 'CJR checked out a sample of forty alleged errors — some backed by footnotes and others not — and found that nineteen were either accurate or could generously be considered fair comment and criticism. (Though some of the latter were hyperbolic or oversimplified to the point of absurdity — "Liberals have been wrong about everything in the last half-century," for example.) If a number of those nineteen would have raised the eyebrows of any good fact-checker, the remaining twenty-one would not pass without major debate.'

Suggest the following change: "Others have investigated fourty randomly selected charges by Coulters' critics, and found about half of them justified.[61]" - i.e., some charges are (thought to be) justified, while others are not. Equivocal means that you cannot come to a clear conclusion, and that's not the case here. --Rolibaer 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

C-SPAN summary, as re-written

With all due respect Lonewolf, I believe that Ramsquire's version without any sort of editorializing and just the naked CSPAN quote got concensus from Anynobody, Ramsquire, Cool Hand Luke, Kyaa, and myself. --kizzle 10:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I re-wrote the passage in question to take out any hint of "original research" or opinion. Whereas those were the issues upon which was based the previous agreement that it was better to have nought (at least so it seems from reading the talk-page), that agreement does not exactly apply. In other words, in re-introducing the material in the differing form which I have, I am not attempting to go against consensus, but to seek a new and (in my view and hope) better consensus. If most people also judge that nought is better than what I wrote, then so be it. There is also the potential of further refining the bit at issue. But perhaps the general thought is that it is simply better not to have anything more than the quote. If so then, again, so be it (though of course I disagree).
Please, folks, read the passage in the form I've given it, and if you still have objections to it then say what they are and let us examine them. -- Lonewolf BC 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What both Ramsquire and Luke said: the fact that most of the time she's sarcastic renders it pretty hard for us to determine what she meant. I'm not saying you haven't found a good way to describe it, but its much better to let Coulter speak for herself without us explaining what she meant (especially when multiple editors on this page have different interpretations on what she meant). Please respect the concensus that was reached so we don't have to go through this all over again. :) --kizzle 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What Kizzle said. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, precis is not original research, and although Coulter's fondness for irony, among other things, makes her exact meaning unsure in some respects (in particular, unsure whether she admitted to being wrong) I have stuck to what she surely did mean. If you disagree, please be specific, and further refinement can be considered. No offence meant, but being tired of talking about it is not a good enough reason to ossify part of the article. Further, the consensus that was reached did not consider my wording, so I show it no disrespect by proposing something other. -- Lonewolf BC 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No precis is not original research, but your edit is. From WP:OR: "(OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to ... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is included in an article and appears to advance a position." Here you are advancing the position that Coulter "admitted" she was wrong. Two problems, she also says she is right and where is the third party source that she "admitted" anything. ("[A]ny facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.") There isn't any. So your edit IS original research. Please note that a consensus has been reached on how to present this blurb, and you have shown no evidence that consensus has changed. Please also note that there is no support for your version at this time. With that being the case, please revert to the consensus, non-OR version. Or at least to a version that does not contain synthesis.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, sir, I took care not to say she admitted she was wrong. I make no synthesis or analysis, nor advance any position. I give a simple and accurate description of what she said. Your remarks about sourcing needs are therefore irrelevant, as being based on false assumptions. There is no original research involved here. For your remarks about consensus, see the end of my last post. -- Lonewolf BC 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I support Ramsquire's version. Sixth Estate 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. --kizzle 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but why? -- Lonewolf BC 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
C'mon, man, I just told you. Given the fact that she said she was both right and wrong, and that certain elements in her quote were sarcastic (i.e. "It turns out 10,000 Americans were born in Canada"), your descriptor is not the only way of accurately describing it. There are editors here who believe that her "admission" was made sarcastically, which is a valid possibility, thus rendering your characterization incongruent with her meaning. Given the choice between editors deciding what she said and letting her speak for herself, especially in a quote that may contain sarcasm, we should always choose the latter. The passage you keep re-inserting is superfluous at best, as the reader can decide for themselves what Coulter said without us telling them what she said. --kizzle 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone thinks she was being ironic when she admitted that the Canadian goverment did not send troops? Who? (This is to be distinguished from her, "So I was wrong.") -- Lonewolf BC 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I do. We don't know if she was being sarcastic or not, and the passage you keep inserting is superfluous at best, as the readers can decide for themselves what Coulter said without us telling them what she said. --kizzle 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So far I'm getting out-voted, but I this oughn't be a mere vote. There is no "original research" in my version, so to take it out on that basis would be silly. -- Lonewolf BC 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)This is pointless. You have no support, and you're purposely working against consensus (Anynobody, Kizzle, Cool Hand Luke, Kyaa, myself and now Sixth Estate) for no stated reason. Does the consensus version violate any policy? You certainly haven't made that argument. You just want it they way you want it. That is not how WP works. Also you need to re-read what you wrote. You took care "not" to say she admitted anything? Well what's this? While admitting that the Canadian government had not sent troops, Coulter insisted, on the basis of those volunteers, that she was right that Canadian troops had joined the American effort in the Vietnam War, and she criticised and insulted McKeown. So you don't use the word "wrong" but your position is clear. Which is fine, as long as their is some source supporting your position. Please see WP:Concensus. Please show that a) concensus has changed, or b) file an RFC claiming the edit violates some policy. But in the meantime please revert to the consensus version. Enough!Ramsquire (throw me a line)
No, sir, I say that I took care not to say she admitted she was wrong. She did admit that the Canadian govermnent did not send troops, and so that is what I say. (As for my opinion, it is that Coulter did not admit to being wrong.)
(I am sorry to see the somewhat personal tone of you last post. Please keep to a discussion of the text, without ascribing motives to me or lecturing me on what I ought do. This discussion shan't be pointless if all stick to the point.) -- Lonewolf BC 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you've re-added my post which was removed (with my belated consent) by Kizzle, let me respond. There is nothing meant to be personal about the tone of my post. You may be sensing my admitting frustration with your tactis re: the edit. You have made an edit, which is apparently against consensus. I am asking you to show why the consensus is wrong (what policy is being violated) since the consensus is that your proposal does violate policy (original research). I then characterized it as "you just want it the way you want it". I could be wrong in my characterization and am apparantly so. That's fine! Finally, instead of simply ignoring your position, I then pointed you to your options if you sincerely feel consensus is wrong. No lecture.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. Everyone who is weighing in here has already participated above. Ramsquire's version removed what you're trying to add back in, and everyone voiced their opinions for his version back then. --kizzle 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That's my point: this is not (or at least ought not be) a mere vote. Moreover, there is a critical difference between what it was formerly agreed be removed, and what I have re-introduced, so it needs to be assessed freshly. -- Lonewolf BC 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been assessed. You have no concensus. --kizzle 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I removed Ramsquire's last comment, he said it was ok, and you dig it up again and then refrain from answering the substantive post I left for you? --kizzle 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... no. Of course I could not have known about the behind-the-scenes between you and Ramsquire. I put his comment back in conjunction posting my already-written reply to it -- edit-conflict, you know, I suppose with your post that you want, or wanted answered. (Most likely I've already answered it, meanwhile. If not, I'll get to it shortly). -- Lonewolf BC 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If I remove my comment, please refrain from re-adding my comment in the future. It wasn't an edit conflict. I removed his text and then notified him on his page, where he said it was ok. I removed this immediately prior comment because I saw that you did, in fact, reply above. Please respect my right to remove my own comments. --kizzle 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If one party makes a comment and a second party troubles to write a reply, and meanwhile the comment is deleted, I think it is only fair to restore the comment and post the reply. Contrary to what you seem to think, this was an edit-conflict in both cases -- in the latter case a manifold edit-conflict ... perhaps in the former, too; the details blur.
-- Lonewolf BC 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take off for a while. As it stands, 6 editors on both sides of the fence have agreed to Ramsquire's version which was proposed to specifically exclude any sort of editorializing about the CSPAN quote. Lonewolf, your version is re-inserting text which is entirely superfluous, does not serve the reader, and given the sarcastic nature of some of her comments, is disputable on whether Coulter "admitted" anything or not (especially since she also said she was right). Your proposal has been assessed. It has no concensus. --kizzle 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not an altogether accurate description of how matters stand. In truth, only four editors have said that they prefer having nought to having the re-written version: Ramsquire, Cool Hand Luke, Kizzle (yourself, that is) and Sixth Estate. I suppose you would raise that to six with Anynobody and Kyaa, but their opinions on this particular matter are really unknown:
Anynobody agreed to having nought over having the earlier version, but it is unclear whether "Works for me" was a statement of preference or merely one of acceptance and gladness at seeing agreement. Further, Anynobody has not commented at all on having nought versus having the re-written version. Kyaa merely made a jocular comment about something else entirely, within the former discussion, and has not actually taken a position on having either version as against having nought.
Of the four, Sixth Estate has said, "I support Ramsquire's version," but has not said why -- which is fair enough, although as a mere vote it carries less weight than does an explained position.
The other three of you prefer having nought over having the re-write (and over having any such summary, unless I have misunderstood any of you) foremostly because, you claim, the re-write is (and any such summary would be(?)) "original research". I think that you three are wrong about that. The question then becomes: is the re-write truly "original research"? I suggest that we concentrate on examining and resolving that.
I hope there shall be no more of this personal stuff about how I'm a bad, bad wolf for raising this again, seeking a new consensus, and for trying to reason, alone, against a few people who presently disagree, and about how I am hopelessly outnumbered and should just bog off, and so forth, and worse. That sort of stuff is neither reasonable nor collegial.
More to follow. -- Lonewolf BC 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Lonewolf, this is most definitely original research because it's a primary source. If we were paraphrasing a reporter, it would be no big deal, but WP:OR especially forbids analysis on a primary source. This text has absolutely no consensus, and your continual reversions resemble something else. This is not the first time you've seemed to assert ownership against many different editors. Please let us move on. At the very least assume that our readers are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions; these lines are completely redundant. Cool Hand Luke 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Sorry for the tardiness of my post, in a nutshell: I think you are both right and wrong, let me explain: Cool Hand I agree that there shouldn't be any commentary about her comments in her article to avoid a biased POV. (Lonewolf BC I personally agree with info you are trying to include, but including it just plays into the "Liberal Media" label people like Coulter use. The interview speaks for itself without our help.) I do have a question though Cool Hand, why is interpreting a primary source WP:OR? If others have interpreted the source the same way it doesn't seem original, biased maybe, but not original. To quote WP:OR:

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution; Lonewolf BC isn't the first person to make the assertions he/she has been trying to add in the cases I've seen.
  • It introduces original ideas; Lonewolf BC hasn't introduced anything new (some say she admitted, some say she didn't).
  • It defines new terms; I didn't see any new terms introduced by Lonewolf BC.
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; I didn't see any terms redefined by Lonewolf BC.
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; I may be wrong, but I thought FAIR pointed to her "admission" on CSPAN.
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;Lonewolf BC hasn't synthesized new opinions or facts.
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. This obviously doesn't apply, unless I missed the new neologism. Anynobody 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong about FAIR. They say nothing of the sort. That's one of the reasons I originally didn't want the C-SPAN quote in the article, but Kizzle convinced me that we could present her words without analysis, which avoids original research. If a secondary source had previously interpretted her statements, we could use that without it being original research, yes. But appears no reliable source has ever commented on her C-SPAN interview, so we are forbidden from doing it ourselves. Cool Hand Luke 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, note that my response to Lonewolf contained no mention of "original research". The problem is, why is it so imperative that we have to spoon-feed the reader as to what Coulter said in her C-SPAN quote? They can figure it out for themselves. Lonewolf's passage is superfluous at best and serves no purpose for the reader. Let them read her words without any filter of editorializing or summarizing what she meant. --kizzle 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry kizzle, my last post on OR was actually intended toward Cool Hand and his point regarding it, which could be valid. I had thought I saw something in the FAIR article mentioning the CSPAN interview admission. Turns out the most important word in my last sentence was "thought" because having reread it there is no mention of CSPAN in it. No disrespect meant to you kizzle, but given the wrong impression I was using I couldn't understand why Cool Hand kept arguing OR. Now it makes sense. Though I should point out that I did make the same point as you to Lonewolf BC, the CSPAN interview itself needs no commentary. Though I agree with his perspective personally, I was trying to explain that by adding commentary against Coulter it gives them an excuse to point to the "biased liberal media" once again. Even if I was right and FAIR had mentioned the CSPAN interview in an article, I didn't think it worked for NPOV. Anynobody 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Ramsquire also sees this as OR, but even if one doesn't, it's redundant to include the intrerpretation. This is the editorially best solution, and it avoids pushing the line on original research. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Structured Canada Discussion

The unstructured discussion has obviously dengenerated. Please use the below structure for discussion regarding the Canada issue. No threaded discussion. Not helping. Make concrete proposals only - no politics. Not helping. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Good Cop

I've been away. I don't know if this is the place for me to post this, but it looks like it might be. Sorry if it isn't. Also sorry if it's a great wall of text. This stuff isn't simple.

  • 1. Coulter is constantly accused of lying, plagiarizing, etc. This fact is notable.
  • 2. In quite a few cases, maybe/probably most, responsible people look into the accusations and find them to be untrue, unimportant, etc. This fact is notable.
  • 3. There is a tendency for editors to include all the details of all the accusations in the main article, and NOT to include the other side, or to diminish its importance, etc. This fact is regrettable, but understandable due to the inflammatory nature of much of what she says.
  • 4. The amount of article space devoted to these accusations & responses is pretty large. I think undue weight is given to them.
  • 5. The Canada business is mainly notable because Internet people seem to have picked up on it as some sort of argument Coulter lost, or some sort of egregious error she made, etc.
  • 6. When you look at the facts of it, there is much less than meets the eye. Coulter said, almost in passing, "Canada sent troops to Vietnam." The host picked up on it as though someone had demeaned his country. The discussion was mostly/exclusively the host saying that Canada sent NO troops and Coulter politely saying she thought he wasn't right. (That is a little bit different than if she had insisted that Canada HAD sent troops.)The "outspoken comments" that the narrator identified were NOT from Coulter. They were from the host.
  • 7. The facts of Canada in Vietnam are: a) she was officially neutral, b) there is lots of citable evidence, scholarly research, etc. that she actually helped the U.S. c) The Canadian government, including perhaps some of its crown corporations, has an extremely strong interest in upholding the claim of Canadian neutrality in Vietnam, no matter who may challenge it. d) Neutral or not, Canada actually did send troops to the ICS and ICCS or whatever they are called. They went to Vietnam and Indochina, which is a collective term that includes Vietnam.
  • 8. For whatever reason, some editors will not accept 7d. No amount of denial, or claims about the troops' mission, or opinions about what Coulter "really meant," or demand to see the troops referred to as "troops" can change the facts of 7d. No amount of insistence can make the fact that Canada sent troops irrelevant to a discussion most of which involved the host's strong insistence that she didn't.
  • Good Cop 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard the mantra that Lou and other pro-Coulter people have constantly re-asserted: Bob McKeown was wrong. Why was he wrong? Because you say that Coulter didn't necessarily mean "military" troops when she said: "Canada sent troops to Vietnam". The word "troops" could mean non-combat "troops" as well as combat "troops". Thus, there are two issues to consider: First, whether Ann Coulter was right:

    1. That Coulter was referring to the non-combat definition and referring to the 240 non-combat peacekeeping troops in order to "contain" the "threat" that Vietnam posed, and thus, while her mea culpa subsequent to the interview never mentioned these non-combat troops, she was absolutely right.
    2. That Coulter was referring to the combat definition, and, like she explicitly said on CSPAN, she was wrong.
  • The second issue is whether or not McKeown was right:
    1. That McKeown was referring to the non-combat definition of "troops", and thus was absolutely wrong, as at least 240 non-combat peacekeeping troops were sent to Vietnam.
    2. That McKeown was referring to the combat definition of "troops", and thus was absolutely right, as Canada never sent any combat troops.
  • My question to you then: If we're going to give Coulter the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she meant non-combat, then why can't we give McKeown the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant combat troops? Is it also our place as editors to determine who was "right" in this case? --kizzle 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong. We should focus on what was said, not attempt to editorialize upon the statements made. Overall, this does not seem like a big deal nor warrent inclusion in the article, but I do not seek to argue against inclusion in this case, simply to keep the editorializing to a minimum. Kyaa the Catlord 12:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on above process

While I think this may have been of use a week ago I think it may be counterproductive now. We basically have a consensus and there's no point in re-opening old arguments. Sixth Estate 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can reach consensus without the minority of editors who oppose such admitting that consensus has gone against them - "standing aside," in formal terms. It's not clear their concerns have been adressed, yet. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about a single editor. All the other editors on both sides of the issue are in agreement. Sixth Estate 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, Hipocrite, Ramsquire's version that reached concensus was proposed specifically to remove the kind of editorializing Lonewolf is trying to re-insert. This is just re-hashing the same debate again. --kizzle 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I should add that consensus and unanimity are two different concepts. We should certainly discuss with Lonewolf and try to convince him of the consensus position but one person cannot veto consensus. Sixth Estate 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Slightly biased?

This article looks like it was written by Coulter herself, or by her personal fan-club. I can't believe nobody has thought to point out that she's obviously [contrary to WP:BLP].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.122.5 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Refactored potentially libelous statement about Coulter's mental health. Kyaa the Catlord 12:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(Restored, but w/o BLP violation. The opinion of bias in the article is fair enough. -- Lonewolf BC 06:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

Rotten Editing

Why would anyone archive a talk page and include the current discussions? Maybe there's an agenda there. Maybe they just don't know any better.

Why would anyone include Keith Olberman's hateful remarks in an article about Ann Coulter, especially when the incident being reported on is under extreme discussion? There is absolutely an agenda there. The agenda is to say nothing good about Ann Coulter, but to include as many criticisms of her as possible. Who can tell which editors have the agenda? By their fruits ye shall know them. There is absolutely no comprehension of WP:BLP. The same editors have a big problem with WP:CIVIL. Look at some of their edit summaries. Reject the hate. It's time to just pull this whole episode from the article. It is an embarrassment to all ideas of fairness, "NPOV," and all the other smoke. DCLawyer 21:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The incident may be embarrassing to Ms. Coulter but it is well documented and just as Ms Coulter's criticisms of others are worth mentioning so are the criticisms of others (such as Olbermann) of Coulter. Balance, NPOV and BLP does not mean bios of controversial figures should be white-washed puff pieces. They should be fair and balanced and that means including the good and the bad. Sixth Estate 01:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are any discussions people believe aren't concluded, feel free to reproduce them here. I just thought we had reached a concensus on the CBC thing. --kizzle 01:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Then bring it back so all of us can see the same concensus that you did.
The paragraphs about Coulter's Canada incident are not fair and balanced at all. They give undue weight to her outspoken critics. Her article is in no danger of becoming a white-washed puff piece. What it is is a hit piece, mostly put together by people with an agenda, some of them acting with the advice of Mr. R. DCLawyer 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. R? Kyaa the Catlord 02:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to specify what editors have this malicious agenda you speak of in order to cement your violation of WP:AGF? --kizzle 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
DCLawyer I think what kizzle is saying is that you should copy the parts of the discussion you are talking about and paste them here. Further I believe kizzle is referring to the consensus that he, several editors, and I came to after much discussion. Nobody is saying that the issue is written in stone, as new editors come and old editors go the debate on controversial pages like this continues. On a related note, could you elaborate on Mr. R? Anynobody 03:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As a Canadian my agenda is to ensure that our history is not distorted or misrepresented by overenthusiastic editors who want to "prove" that Coulter didn't make a mistake. My second agenda is to represent the view that the Coulter gaffe is worthy of inclusion and isn't just dismissed in an attempt to hide something that might be embarrass the subject - part of this means countering the tendency to dismiss the incident through misrepresentation or degradation of the status of the well-respected and venerable flagship documentary program of Canada's principal broadcaster. A few editors, in an attempt to advance their views, have either dismissed the incident because it occurred on the CBC which they seem to represent as a minor news source of no importance or because it occurred on Canadian media instead of American media. As to Ms. Coulter herself, her personality or her political orientation I have no particular opinion or agenda. Sixth Estate 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this but I think by Mr. R he meant Ramsquire. Ramsquire's been one of the best additions as an editor of this article, in terms of upholding wikipedia policies, and being neutral and civil. Not sure why he'd be a target but maybe DCLawyer meant someone else. --Ubiq 06:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lonewolf, as the sole disputant of the current passage, you brought back the CBC discussions from archives but didn't add anything to the discussion. Is there something else you or anyone else wants to say so that we can archive and move on to other issues? --kizzle 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer -- Lonewolf BC 00:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Trimming the categories

I removed the majority of the categories she was stuck in boldly. I'm not against readding some of them if a case can be made that they can be linked to her notability. I believe the guideline is five or less is preferred, she's at four now. Kyaa the Catlord 13:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the guideline I'm alluding to [22]. The discussion on anti-islam sentiment can be found in archive 15. (just an fyi, I'd rather not have reverted but the reversion by Halaqah readded all the removed categories.) Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Please point to opposition, Lonewolf. I checked the archives, there was no serious opposition. Please discusss why you readded them. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more Kyaa, especially given the "Limit the number" passage:
Limit the number: Try to limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor that holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. However it is also important to ensure that categories contain all of the most relevant articles. This means that some prominent people, such as senior politicians who have held many different offices, will be in a considerable number of categories. Apart from these factual categories, for those categories that require an assessment of personal characteristics (e.g. art movement style...), try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."
--kizzle 02:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that both Kyaa and Kizzle where editing this article during past wrangles over ID/Creationism and anti-Islamic categories. I suspect deletion of some of the other categories would be un-contested. We should consider them one at a time, or a few similar ones at a time, is all, and delete only after general agreement. -- Lonewolf BC 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the main problem with the "anti-Islamic" one is that "Anti-Islamic Sentiment" keeps getting added when it should be "Critics of Islam" if anything. One of the two ID/Creationism cats may be ok, as long as it is supported by the article. Kyaa the Catlord 05:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "sentiment" does not rightly apply to a person, but that's off the list now. -- Lonewolf BC 05:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll give on the Critics of Islam category, since this is shown through the article, but some of these cats are simply wrongly applied. Case in point "Anti-Communists", the category is primarily applied to politicians, Presidents and american Generals. Coulter may be a capitalist, but she doesn't seem to fit in the same category as Patton, Eisenhower and JFK. Its like one of those questions ona standardized test, which one of these does not belong. Coulter doesn't. Kyaa the Catlord 05:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Category Creationists. This category seems to be filled with preachers and Christian musicians, not political columnists like Coulter. Again, this seems like an odd choice of category for her, especially in light that there is no evidence cited of creationist belief or that she write on creationist topics or for creationist publications. (Same with ID advocates, really.) Kyaa the Catlord 05:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And definitely not one of the top 4 or 5 descriptors for Coulter. Should be removed per policy. Also, the answer here is not to start with a million categories and consider dropping each one. We should start with the most basic ones, like she's a lawyer, author, american conservative, pundit, maybe cornell grad, and then discuss the controversial ones for inclusion next. With the explicit wording in policy stating that our category list here contains too much fat, let's start with the basics and carefully move out. --kizzle 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I had done the remove thing and prepped this area for further discussion, but my removals were reverted. :P Kyaa the Catlord 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
K, I'm going to remove all categories except for lawyer, political writer, pundit, american conservative, and best-selling author. Then let us talk about adding other controversial ones while keeping the above quoted passage in mind. Anybody have an objection? --kizzle 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Mine stands, of course. -- Lonewolf BC 06:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

These are "factual categories", as the guideline puts it:

  • Cornell University alumni,
  • University of Michigan alumni,
  • People from Connecticut,
  • Delta Gamma sisters,
  • 1961 births,
  • Living people.

So they must stay, and do not count toward the recommended "4 or 5". -- Lonewolf BC 06:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the boring ones that fit can stay. :P Kyaa the Catlord 07:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

For convenience, here are the rest of the cat's she's in now:

  • American columnists,
  • American political pundits,
  • American political writers,
  • American federal lawyers,
  • American anti-communists,
  • Creationists,
  • Intelligent design advocates,
  • Critics of Islam,
  • Global warming skeptics

Kizzle's recommended list:

  • lawyers,
  • political writers,
  • pundits,
  • american conservatives,
  • best-selling authors

Keep in mind that the guideline recommends "4 or 5 ... categories that require an assessment of personal characteristics, not counting ones that are matters of plain fact. So that's not a call to cut to 4 or 5 categories in total. -- Lonewolf BC 07:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The "four or five" is clearly a metaphor, not a guideline in itself; it is simply reinforcing the general theme of that passage. Don't stick to it too tightly.
Didn't she write a book which spent a large portion of its text advocating intelligent design? I'd go include, but not vehemently.
Her being a lawyer is different though; it's apparently not linked to her notability. It's only briefly mentioned in the article, as her "background". The quoted passage explicitly refers to an almost identical situation, in which an actor holds a law degree; such a person should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. I don't really know, but either include relevant information regarding Coulter's legal career (what's there now would not be notable in its own right), or remove that category.
My proposed list then:
  • Political writers
  • Political pundits
  • American conservatives
  • Best-selling authors
  • Intelligent design advocates
~Switch t c g 08:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
As you say, it's more of a metaphor. Also, I think we need to keep things in perspective. Political writers and best-selling authors are more of factual categories then "categories that require an assessment of personal characteristics". And it's important to remember that especially with controversial, outspoken people like Ann Coulter, there is likely to be greater need for categories then more 'ordinary' people. Given her extensive support of ID, clearly she belongs in that category. "Critics of Islam". Global warming skeptic doesn't appear to be reported on much in the article so at the current time, I think it could be removed Nil Einne 15:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to mention I'm not saying we should keep all factual categories. Obviously ones like the lawyer bit which doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the article should be removed Nil Einne 15:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism

Is there a single person here who doesn't agree with the fact that Ann Coulter is a racist islamophobic? Calling them ragheads, saying the US should invade their countries and convert them to christianity... I mean, she's as much a racist as Hitler is. It's a fact. Any objections? GeorgeBP 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The source you provided doesn't really match up with the line you're attaching it to - you state "She often makes racist remarks about muslims, calling them ragheads." - the source refers only to one incident, which doesn't really qualify as "often". The lead paragraph is probably not the best place for this assertion, either - it's already addressed in this section. I understand you want to emphasize this particular issue, but please try to maintain WP:NPOV in this article - it's always hard with a figure this controversial. RJASE1 Talk 23:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Ooooh, you lost already. Godwin's law is invoked! :P Kyaa the Catlord 23:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
George, it's not our job to make conclusions for the readers as you suggest. All we can do is simply quote her more notable comments, the "raghead talks tough" and "camel jockey" being among them, and let the reader come to the correct conclusion. --kizzle 00:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter's racism is always a part of her political ideas. Wikiquote is full of examples of her racism. The beginning of the article is too vague about her ideas, making her sound like a regular conservative. Hitler's Wikipedia article, for instance, mentions his anti-semitism right in the beginning. Why did you allow that, if you're not suposed to make conclusions for the reader? If we followed that rule literaly, Wikipedia would be just a collection of quotes. Ann hates muslims. Ann's racism is as much of a fact as Hitler's. You're right, I shouldn't use the word 'often'. I suggest changing the paragraph to this, so as to remove the word:

"Known for her controversial style and unabashedly conservative views, she has been described by The Observer as "the Republican Michael Moore", and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt". Coulter has described herself as a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and makes no pretense at being "impartial or balanced". Among her controversial opinions are her blatant racism towards muslims, at one time calling them ragheads, and her self-confessed hatred of democrats."

What do you think? GeorgeBP 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it stands. Kyaa the Catlord 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, Kyaa, I'm not surprised to see that you've already been accused of being a islamophobic. GeorgeBP 01:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Are Muslims a "race"? RJASE1 Talk 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at racism in the Wikipedia, you will see racism against muslims and jews. If anti-semitism is a type of racism, so is islamophobia. But if you prefer, I have no problem with changing the word to prejudice or bigotry. You still haven't answered whether or not the paragraph I wrote had any problems. GeorgeBP 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"Semites" are a race. Islam is a religion. There are Semitic muslims, Asian muslims, Indian Muslims, African/Black muslims and gringo-muslims! Islamophobia isn't a type of racism, its a fear of Islam. Kyaa the Catlord 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I have no problem with changing the word to prejudice or bigotry. And muslims ARE an ethnic group AND a religion, just like jews. GeorgeBP 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. A Muslim is one who submits to Allah, not a race of people. You should learn more about Islam. Kyaa the Catlord 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, I've already said I can change the word to prejudice or bigotry and you still don't agree with it. GeorgeBP 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear George, please follow WP:NPA, accusing me of being islamophobic is uncivil. Kyaa the Catlord 01:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it. Someone else did. All I said was that I wasn't surprised. Apparently, you're quite sensible about it. GeorgeBP 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm terribly amused by people who label others. Its whacky fun. Kyaa the Catlord 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny to hear that from a Coulter lover. You must roll on the floor laughing every time you see her. GeorgeBP 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I enjoy laughing at Ann, yes. How does this help improve the article? Kyaa the Catlord 02:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You tell me, you're the one who mentioned it. GeorgeBP 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You describe her opinions as racism, as would many others, with some justification, but still, calling her a racist is an opinion, not a fact. --rogerd 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"Some" justification? She called muslims ragheads. She said the USA should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to christianity. She said news magazines don't kill people, muslims do. If that's not racism, prejudice or bigotry, I don't know what that is. It's a fact, not an opinion. Are you going to argue that calling Hitler a racist is debatable? GeorgeBP 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
All of these allegations are discussed in the article. The lead is no place to make allegations. A lot of Coulter's more inflammatory statements are exaggerations which are taken at face value by people with an agenda. Kyaa the Catlord 02:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Really??? You DO think that? That saying she is prejudiced, bigot or racist is an allegation? That calling muslims ragheads, saying they, as a people, killed 3000 americans, that they should be forcely converted to christianity, you think all that is just an intellectual "exageration"? What does THAT say about YOU? GeorgeBP 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what it says about me, I'm not the subject of this wikipedia article and your obvious attempts to attack me are failing. Kyaa the Catlord 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not attacking you, buddy, I just want you to make a little reflection about your own personnal feelings. And you seem to be pretty sensible about it, I wonder why... If Ann Coulter would say the same things about black people or jews, would you still say it is an exageration that is taken at face value? GeorgeBP 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:DFTT. RJASE1 Talk 02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't want to get into this too much but note that she has made comments that are widely considered anti-Arab racism (indeed in her anti-Muslim sentiment she usually doesn't appear to consider the difference between Muslims and Arabs). Nil Einne 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Islam Sentiment

Coulter should be on the anti-islam sentiment category. One thing is to criticize the way some muslims handle their life and their political views, another is to say they are ragheads and that we should invade their countries and convert them to christianity. If that's not an anti-islam sentiment, just a mere criticism, then there is no reason for that category to exist. I'll put her on that category until a moderator tell me otherwise.

This has been discussed as above. This continued use of categories as an attack on the subject of the article is against BLP and the consensus built on this talk page/archives of the same. Please self-revert. Kyaa the Catlord 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not an attack, my friend, it's a fact and you know it. She's not ashamed of hating islam, so you shouldn't think it's an attack. If putting a person on that category is an attack then Jesse Lee Peterson shouldn't be there either. I will wait for a moderator to tell me to change it. Interesting thing: the word raghead is in that category. GeorgeBP 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There aren't moderators on Wikipedia. You have been asked multiple times to avoid making changes which could be taken as against consensus or as vandalism on this article. We keep asking you nicely to stop acting unilaterally against the consensus built by active editors of this article. She does not fit the category as has been discussed before and has been found unsuitable for it. Once again, I ask you to self-revert rather than reverting your change. Kyaa the Catlord 03:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, you are so polite I think you won't mind waiting until the editors come here and give their opinions, okay? Tell me, why doesn't she fit that category? Give me just one good reason. Do you think she doesn't hate muslims? If so, why? The "ragheads" and "convert them to christianity" comments are not enough for you? Would you be convinced only if she murdered a muslim on live TV? Explain me. GeorgeBP 04:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You're using the category improperly. If you look at the articles listed under anti-islam sentiment, you will see they are organizations not individuals. The proper category for persons is Critics of Islam. Kyaa the Catlord 04:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're making arguments based on your point of view. The article must not draw conclusions, and categorizing her based on your feelings is violating NPOV. Kyaa the Catlord 04:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, there was Jesse Lee Peterson there, but conveniently and strangely after I mentioned him someone removed him from that article. And I'm not basing it on her feelings, I'm basing it on her spoken opinions. Why don't you erase the information that Hitler is an anti-semite in his article? Both him and Ann Coulter admit to hate a specific group. GeorgeBP 04:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, you keep repeating yourself, saying "that's just your opinion" and all that crap, but you KNOW what I'm saying is true. Ann Coulter ISN'T ASHAMED OF HATING MUSLIMS. She ADMITS IT HERSELF. Why should we think putting HER OPINION on her article would harm the NPOV? I'm not making conclusions out of her actions, I'm simply putting her opinion on the article. GeorgeBP 04:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried reason. Kyaa the Catlord 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will sum up my points: 1) Ann Coulter hates muslims. That's a fact, she admits it, and even you has to admit it. 2) The Anti-Islam Sentiment category is not exclusive to institutions. There are other types of articles in there. The description says it's for articles which are RELATED to Anti-Islam Sentiment. This article is related, whether you want it or not. Now, if you think ANY of these points are not true, tell me why.


GeorgeBP I believe you have a valid point, but please do not violate the 3RR as doing so can cause much distraction from the actual point you are trying to make. Kyaa the Catlord why is including Ms. Coulter in a category of Anti-Islam Sentiment an attack? I can't accept your argument that the category is for groups and not people because it also includes: Jerry Klein’s 2006 Islamophobia Radio Experiment. She does use the term raghead more frequently than any other mainstream media figure I can think of (I don't even think Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh say that). When a person continues using racial/cultural pejoratives without apologizing, it seems to be at the very least an anti sentiment. To work it another way, can you cite pro-Islamic comments she has made? Certainly if she were saying nothing but nice things about Islam it would be an attack for somebody to say she had an anti-Islam sentiment. I don't remember her going out of her way to rave about Muslims before 9/11 either. Anynobody 06:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Klein's experiment, and even CAIR agrees that it was an experiment, was an attempt at getting people to show that there are problems with Americans expressing an anti-muslim sentiment on his medium. It was an experiment to show the anti-islam sentiment, not that Klein is anti-islamic himself. And, as Coelecan points out in an edit summary of the anti-islam sentiment cat, it is not to be used with biographies of living people. Kyaa the Catlord 07:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa the Catlord not to sound sarcastic (really), but assuming I accept that someone has sole ownership of the category; How does an experiment conducted by an individual skirt by the group requirement. To be clear, I was not implying Klein is anti-Islamic. I'm not sure how I gave you that impression, but I thought it was understood that said category was about the issue of anti-Islam sentiment. This would include people working to eliminate anti-Islam sentiment as well as it does those who spread it. Anynobody 07:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In common usage, Cat:AIS is not used on BLP articles, Cat:Critics of Islam is. We should continue this trend, using AIS for institutions not individuals. This doesn't seem to be an issue to anyone but edit-warriors. Kyaa the Catlord 08:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, not wanting to change a trend doesn't make logical sense Kyaa the Catlord. A person or group can be critical of the actions of a religion without being against it, such people/groups would belong under the critics category. A person or group who advocates elimination of Islam would be espousing anti-Islamic sentiment. The trend you are citing has any person with any negative view of Islam as a critic of Islam, yet if the same views are expressed by a group they should be included in Anti-Islam sentiment because that is where groups belong? If the categories we were talking about were Groups critical of Islam and People critical of Islam, you would have a valid point. The issue I am concerned with is the logical fallacy of segregating people from groups based on that criteria alone. I don't mean to give the you the impression that I am an edit warrior. Frankly if I believed in such tactics I would just jump in and start reverting information I disagree with and refuse to discuss my opinions like edit warriors often do. Anynobody 08:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not including you as an edit warrior. Tonight's blocked user was just another in a long line of them though and it is tiresome, you try to reason with them, get flamed and eventually they get blocked. My problem isn't that they want to get it included in another category, but that they want to force it into another category and leap to attack rather than coolly discuss the issue on the talk page. Inclusion in AIS has been discussed previously, if there is a change in consensus, I'd be willing to live with it, but there doesn't seem to be one (since there was an previous discussion on categories open and noone was suggesting readding AIS to the list.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you look at the discussion for Cat:AIS, consensus there is that it is not to be used on persons, rather to use the more neutral Critics of Islam cat. Kyaa the Catlord 08:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's funny for you to say that because you haven't refuted any of my main two arguments, and just kept changing the article without a response:

1) Ann Coulter hates muslims. That's a fact, she admits it, and even you has to admit it. 2) The Anti-Islam Sentiment category is not exclusive to institutions. There are other types of articles in there. The description says it's for articles which are RELATED to Anti-Islam Sentiment. This article is related, whether you want it or not. Now, if you think ANY of these points are not true, tell me why. 201.9.107.92 13:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

George, you've made it abundantly clear that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. If you believe that we should change consensus on the use of that category, make your case for that, do not make slanderous claims about the subject of any article. I'll clear up your mistakes above. Kyaa the Catlord 13:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, and, again, you haven't refuted my arguments. And I haven't seen any consesus here or anywhere, in fact, a lot of people agree with my points. Refute my (and others) arguments before changing the article.

I would like to again suggest that the racism voiced in her statements to wards Islam is enought for the cat called Coulter, Ann. Wiki is not about whitewashing racism. And playing two ruled games, if she said what she said about Jewish poeple there would be no debate. And hence we must show balance.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Kyaa, that's just an "intellectual exageration".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.167.168.130 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
A question to the anti-islam sentiment pushers, how do you justify [23] to WP:CANVASS? How do you justify the meat puppetry that is being down on this article by (assumably) GeorgeBP? Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You did the same thing with RJASE1. And you also called someone to modify the Jesse Lee Peterson article. Go watch Pokemon and leave this article to other people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.167.168.130 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason not to put Coulter in the "Anti-Islamic sentiment" category is only that she is a person, not a sentiment. It has nought to do with keeping a neutral point-of-view or with the guidelines for biographies of the living. -- Lonewolf BC 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no "sentiments" in that article. There's Jerry Klein’s 2006 Islamophobia Radio Experiment, Vatican Islam Conspiracy, ACLU of N.C. & Syidah Matteen v. State of North Carolina and Jesse Lee Peterson, neither of which are "sentiments". Don't be silly.

Indeed, this is why we have a Critics of Islam category, which she certainly belongs in. There might be reason to create a new category for "Anti-Islamic people" (cf Category:Anti-Semitic people), but if Coulter is your only candidate, forget about it. No sense trying to pound a round peg into a sqaure hole in the meantimer. Cool Hand Luke 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, one category doesn't excludes the other. There is Critics of Islam, which is self-explanatory, and there is Anti-Islam Sentiment, a category that, according to its own description, is for articles RELATED to anti-islam sentiment. This article is DEFINITELY related to anti-islam sentiment, something everyone here seems to agree (except for the Pokemon guy).
As the Pokemon guy, I'd like to point out that I, Luke, and pretty much everyone else have come to the agreement that this article does NOT belong in the category you demand it to be placed in. Representatives of both sides of Coulter's love-hate spectrum have agreed to this.... And please sign in and sign your posts. Kyaa the Catlord 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen this "pretty much everyone", in fact, I've seen people wanting the category Anti-Islam People to be created, just like Anti-Semitic People. As long as we don't have that category, and knowing that the Anti-Islam Sentiment category is not unfair to Coulter (only to people who don't believe what she says is what she thinks) Coulter stays where she belongs, with her "intelectual exagerations". I want only one person to refute these two arguments: 1) Ann Coulter hates muslims. That's a fact, she admits it.

2) The Anti-Islam Sentiment category is not exclusive to institutions or "sentimens". There are other types of articles in there, including people. The description says it's for articles which are RELATED to Anti-Islam Sentiment. This article is related, whether you want it or not, just as much as Hitler's article is related to Anti-Semitism. GeorgeBP 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia where everything is edited, there's simply no reason not to make a subcategory for people. This follows the precedent set at Category:Antisemitism and, um, Category:Anti-Mormonism. I prefer the less POV system in Anti-Mormonism, but that's what I know. Oh, and good luck with the inevitable XfD you'll attract. Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to characterize Ms. Coulter as "Anti-Islam" or as an "Islamaphobe" (whatever that means), which are negative characterizations, then we would need a high quality reference supporting the characterization, per WP:BLP. Please note, that it violates BLP to call someone a racist based solely on their statements. There should be some third party source supporting the characterization, or at least some unambigous statement from the subject that would place them in this category, for example "I am a white supremacists". If it requires analysis from the editor, then it should not be here unless there is a reliable third party source supporting the editor's opinion. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re add the category, she is a bigot, Look at her website. She isnt a mild racist, a slip of the toungue, this is a full blooded bigot, I even think she would agree with the cat. My boy in Iran got labelled antisemitic for far less, he actually said he loved the Jewish religion, but for wanting to blow up Israel got the cat. Go and look at the arguments for inclusion there. So why have two rules?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
We have two policies we need to apply in these cases, NPOV and NOR. Drawing conclusions as you have been violates both. Kyaa the Catlord 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Still u have not explained why Critic of Islam is okay, Antisemitism is okay but this cat isnt okay.Is whitewashing bigorty okay?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not repeating myself. Sorry. Kyaa the Catlord 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point, man. Her quotes are just "intelectual exagerations", we can't use what she says to confirm what she thinks. I think the only way to write an encyclopedia is to somehow have acess to her own thoughs and feelings by supernatural ways. If her own quotes and writings don't represent what she thinks (and I will repeat them, just for the sake of it: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", "They're never very high in anyone's caste system, are they? Poor little Pakis", "Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do", "I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences'"), well, then WHAT does?
i ACTUALLY DIDNT KNOW SHE SAID ALL OF THAT. this is very sad very sad that these editos who are human beings are here defending this horrible person and protecting her hatred of another people based on the color of their skin and the direction they pray. We need a new cat call bigot or racist.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramsquire's suggestion: CAIR et al says she's an Islamophobe

Oh, and just one more thing: The Council on American-Islamic Relations has stated that the views of Ann Coulter are Islamophobic [24] . That's in the Islamophobia Wikipedia article. There... you people happy now about the high quality reference? Other references: [25] and [26] GeorgeBP 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to put in the article that she is an Islamaphobe in the opinion of CAIR, I would have no problem with that. However, we cannot extrapolate from the CAIR position that she is, IN FACT, an Islamaphobe due to the restrictions of WP:BLP. We would need a higher source than an opinion piece from an advocacy group to make this categorization. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't written anywhere in the article that she is, in fact, an islamophobic (even if everyone knows she is). What I did was put the Islamophobia article in her See Also list, because she is mentioned in that article and by many sources as a islamophobic, so the article is pertinent to her. I also put her in the Anti-Islam Sentiment cat because that category was created for articles related to anti-islam sentiment, something this article definitely is. That category wasn't created for "sentiments" or groups, otherwise it would have been said in its description. Not a singe person has refuted these arguments.
I support this; you are correct. Including such a statement is entirely factual and verifiable (with a smattering of secondary coverage on CAIR's label backing it up). It therefore does not violate WP:BLP. Cool Hand Luke 04:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I also support including her in the category. Seriously, she is Islamophobic by her statements alone. When she calls Muslim ragheads, and doesn't apologize it's obvious she has something against them. The citations provided by GeorgeBP show Muslims think so too. Anynobody 10:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Finally some good sense. I'm happy Wikipedia hasn't sucumbed to whitewashers and bigoted hypocrites.
1. If you want to link Ann Coulter to the Islamaphobia article, then please do so under the section of the article that discusses her controversial comments (see the Canada/Vietnam section as an example of what I am talking about). To do so at the bottom of the article is misleading (as it suggests that her notability is related to hatred, which it isn't, and therefore may violate BLP) and implies that she is a known Islamaphobe which violates WP:BLP. 2. The "Anti-Islam Sentiment" category simply is NOT appropriate here as it is not supported by high quality sources. Her listing as a Critic of Islam is sufficient and well sourced. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Her notability is related to hatred, in what world are you living in? You think she's famous because of her skull face? Or because she is a tall woman? She is a known islamophobe. For god's sake, she even said muslims smell bad! What more do you people want? Bunch of hyprocrites. Jill DeRay 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: it is quite permissible to say that this Council has deemed Ann Coulter Islamaphobic; what is not permissible is then to do our own original research synthesis and then say that she is Islamaphobic. As such, this category simply cannot be added, nor can the article say that she is an Islamaphobe, which would also fail WP:BLP. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think a couple editors misunderstood what I am agreeing about. We can say that CAIR finds her Islamophobic, but the category would not be appropriate because labelling her as such suggests she's Islamophobic as a flat fact. We should be very careful with the categories of living persons. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Is is a flat fact. My god... "muslims smell bad", "we should invade their countries and convert them to christianity", "news don't kill people, muslims do"... are you people insane? What more do you want? A new holocaust? Jill DeRay 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to reaffirm that we are pointing out that CAIR sees her as an Islamophobe. The comment about her use of ethnic slurs is meant to explain why I was earlier campaigning her inclusion in the anti-islam sentiment list. None of us can call her anything without a RS. Anynobody 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The article should include that CAIR says she is an Islamophobe. The article should not link to Islamophobia in the "See also" section, although a link would be appropriate in the relevant paragraph. I'm really not seeing a reason to remove the "Anti-Islam sentiment" category. The section is for "articles related to anti-Islam sentiment" - Coulter is discussed in the Islamophobia article ad has been criticised as an Islamophobe. The category is not saying that she is an Islamophobe, only that she has been linked to the... er... "phenomenon." It's not a BLP violation, and I'm not convinced it shouldn't be included. ~Switch t c g 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
strongly agreed. Gzuckier 17:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are afraid of Islamists, you are not an Islamophobe. --Vladko 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevance? Coulter is not afraid of Islamists, she is a zealous hateful bigot who says Muslims should be forcibly converted to Christianity, that they "kill people," et cetera.~Switch t c g 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
also strongly agreed. Gzuckier 17:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Since she's a living person it's prudent to have a very high quality source (preferably several) confirming her Islamophobia. Mainstream sources simply don't call her that, and it should give us pause. Either it's because they're afraid of libel, or they suspect she's joking (which notable coverage like the Time article hints at). Either way, we should include relevent coverage on her like CAIR's label, but placing in her this category seems to be against WP:BLP. Cool Hand Luke 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The category does not say that she is an Islamophobe. I fail to see how it's a BLP violation. It simply does not say what you keep implying it does. It doesn't. Does not. That is not said anywhere. The "Critics of Islam" category, by the way, was just deleted because it was being used as a catch-all for bigots and other opponents, rather than scholarly critics for which it was created in the first place. The result of the first CfD discussion was that "Critics" would be for reasonable scholarly criticism, and "Sentiment" would be for other cases. Lumping legitimate criticism in with bigotry got the category deleted. I see no reason to exclude her from the category, especially now that it's the only one of its kind. ~Switch t c g 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Women's right to vote

There are people here who seen fanatically intended in removing any new information that could harm the already harmed reputation of Ann Coulter. I've just written a paragraph that is properly sourced, including her own quotes. She said women shouldn't have the right to vote. I've put this information there. How is it POV?

The first one is a quote from a web page dedicated to finding Coulter's embarassing quotes. It's a partisan source, is by no means notable, and you can't rely on it quoting her in context. The second one is at least from a real source, but it's still partisan, and seems to be an editorial, not a news story. The idea that a single rhetorical flourish means that she is genuinely opposed to the idea of women voting is a POV. Ken Arromdee 20:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The sources are there to show that she did say that, not to judge what she said. The two quotes are also in her Wikiquote page. Google this: "It would be a much better country if women did not vote" "Ann Coulter". You will see that she DID say that, which is what the paragraph is implying. It does not judge what she said, only informs it. Oh, and I'm so sick of people referring to her quotes as "intelectual exagerations" and "rhetorical flourishs". Every time she says something stupid, people come with these arguments. It's ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.167.168.130 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

3RR

Please read WP:3RR, Thank you. --Dual Freq 04:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm going to copy this to the 3rr noticeboard. Thanks Dual. Kyaa the Catlord 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam and Judaism

Within both groups you will find Ethnic Muslims and Ethnic Jews, you will find both are religions. Submitting to Allah is Islam, but it is also a classification of a group of people. Somali are Ethnic Muslims. Cleary the bigger issue is what do you call this statement "Islam is Evil", or "Jews are Evil", "Muslims are Evil". Critic isnt the correct cat for these kind of people. That is the bottom line. hatred against a religious group is a form of racism. dont mangle lingusitics to mask reality. and the term antisemitic rarely refers to hatred of Arabs and Ethiopians. If ann is so uneducated she doesnt know the difference between Arab and Muslim, we must then judge only what she says, Arabs are Christian as well so she must be talking about Muslims in general. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 15:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam is neither an ethnos nor a race. Hence there are no 'Ethnic Muslims' (the ones called so in Bosnia are actually Boshnaks), and people who don't like Islam cannot be called racists. --Vladko 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Pokemon guy keeps repeating his so called consensus when in fact there is none. And he doesn't bother to refute the arguments in this page, he just keeps reediting the article. GeorgeBP 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The pokemon guy, the DualFreq, the Ramsquire, the Cool Hand Luke, the RJASE, the Rogerd do not count towards consensus apparently. Its ok though, this category is being discussed formally regardless. Kyaa the Catlord 00:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Kyaa, you don't seen to understand the meaning of the word. Consensus means an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. Me, HalaTruth, Cool Hand Luke and Anynobody agree that islamophobia is pertinent to Coulter. So, care to discuss this, or are you too busy watching Pikachu and friends? CuriousDog 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
George--That usually happens when an edit violates BLP. We are supposed to remove it first, and then have the discussion. As your attempts have been deemed to violate BLP, it will be continuously removed. If you attempt to keep re-inserting it, you will be blocked for violation WP:3RR. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is what i c as 1/2 truths, yes editwars are bad, yes controversial content is best left off until a verdict is reached. But from my perspective this woman is a very racist person. so why play games with a cat that fits her stance. this is not little annie we are talking about.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"From my perspective" means "In my opinion..." Check that POV at the door! Kyaa the Catlord 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Computers dont edit here humans do, everything on this site is a opinion. a pov. Is it fair to say she is a bigot--yes. We should blow them up, funny when my boy in iran said that all hell broke lose. he got pasted as an antisemite, funny thing Arabs are Semitic. Ahh we should call her Anti-Semitic.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPOV. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Editwarring

One of the involved editors has been blocked for violation of the WP:3RR rule. I can see that other involved editors believe that reverting each other to death is a useful device. It is not. Editwarring accomplishes absolutely nothing. I am placing this article on my watchlist from now on. Any further editwarring will surely result in the article being protected, at best, or at worst other editors getting dinged for 3RR violations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Although none of the editors involved in removing the misused category for BLP/ATT/V/OR/NPOV rationales have broken 3RR, I'd like to remind the admin of the following phrase from WP:BLP: "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply." I'd also point out that a 3RR report was placed nearly 30 hours prior to the blocking of GeorgeBP and untouched by admins. A checkuser has shown that GeorgeBP was using sockpuppets to hide his breaking of 3RR, but he was not blocked at that time either. A report was placed on the BLP noticeboard nearly 12 hours ago in relation to the misuse of this category. We have tried to discuss this to death on this talk page and on the category talk page. It is all swell and happy and sweetness and light to come here and give us a nice warning, but damnit, please take care of problems before they escalate like this! Thank you, I'm just a bit frustrated right now. Kyaa the Catlord 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Kyaa if you are frustrated it is best you lie down and rest for a little. because your frustration clouds your reason, then your poor reason clouds GeorgeBP and the cycle goes around. I think defending something bad would make me tired and frustrated as well.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Bless you Hala, bless you. This is today's moment of zen. Kyaa the Catlord 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa the Catlord: remember that it takes two to tango. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the two were incorrect and BLP trumped them. Period. Kyaa the Catlord 16:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to you, Kyaa. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
And I refer you to WP:NOT a soapbox. I'm frustrated with the lack of handling of this case by the admins of wikipedia, there were numerous attempts made to have intervention taken to avoid this, thousands of kb of attempts at discussion on this page and that of the category. Lecturing us for handling the situation as best we could due to a seeming lack of interest in the problem resolution process by the admins of wikipedia is questionable. Kyaa the Catlord 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On my watchlist now as well, but I'm pretty much with Kyaa here. BLP violations are something up with which I will not put. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. :P Kyaa the Catlord 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that categorization of living people should be handled very carefully. What I was referring to is the ease about which some editors use the revert option as the means to assert their viewpoints. If there are users that are in your view violating WP:BLP, place a notice at the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard or at WP:ANI, rather than editwar about it. The categorization of Coulter, an indisputably controversial figure, is by the look of it a dispute between editors of this article and not a clear case of BLP violation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It was posted at the BLP noticeboard. A check user was requested and fulfilled which returned confirmed and likely results for all referred socks. No blocks were done on the checked sock puppeteer or his socks. No admins stepped in on the BLP request. The lack admin actions resulted editors punting as best they could and, in my case at least, a loss of faith in admins as a whole. And your responses are only verifying my feelings. Kyaa the Catlord 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd also refer you to the CfD discussion which shows that there is a likely consensus that the use of this category IS a BLP infraction in cases like this. Kyaa the Catlord 17:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but editwarring is still not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you see a case where a user is blocked for 3RR but the socks are not, let me know and I'll block the socks. I will not initiate admin functions related to this article though because I'm much too involved with it. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I will be more than willing to block any confirmed SP accounts that have been involved in disruption. Just drop me a note in my talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppets that have been confirmed by WP:CU have been blocked accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a quick friendly question, ≈ jossi ≈. WP:CU links to WP: Clean Up, did you mean checkuserWP:RCU? Anynobody 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There's been a fairly solid consensus on the categories issue. There are parts of this article that seem to be more and more solidified due to previous edit warring, discussion (arguing), and then consensus. Oftentimes it's automatic to revert what's already been decided should not be included in the article. So calling what Kyaa did as participating in edit warring seems a bit absurd at this point.

And Kyaa, I've got all the symapthy in the world for you on the admin intervention issue. I had an IP user harassing me for quite a while (stemming from my involvement in this article), and I got minimal /poor/no help from a couple admins. It took a case of the user threatening my life for an admin to ban him for six months. Sad that vandals/disruptors can be given so much leeway. Just hang in there and try not to let it get you down. --Ubiq 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And be sure to document any harassment. Sooner or later your new "fan" will say something stupid. Anynobody 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sticks and Stones, the fifth estate, CBC Television, aired January 26, 2005
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter/Archive_17&oldid=1136316294"