Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 23

Anorexic?

Is she? Sorry, I'm not American, I don't know much about her, so this isn't really a personality comment, but she looks anorexic to me.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.209.103 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 August 2007

A sense of proportion

This is a long article. For me, it is overly long for the subject. It seems to me that how it got that way is by a disproportionate coverage of trivia. For example, I am puzzled as to why the sections NASCAR coverage and Canadians fighting in Vietnam are each over 300 words. It looks to me as if the contributors to these sections, in trying to make the point that Coulter is sloppy with fact-checking, end up inadvertently sending the opposite message: "All we can come up with over her huge output is a tiny handful of trivial errors from years ago."

Despite surprisingly resourceful efforts at rehabilitating her error, Coulter did, in 2005, make a mistake over Canadians in Vietnam. In 2001, Coulter did misrepresent the NY Times's NASCAR coverage. Are these, at the encyclopedic level, worthy of 300+ words each? It seems to me that Joe Average Pundit regularly and frequently slips up to a far greater extent than this without such a fuss. If we're dealing with a special case, we should explain what's different here. As Samuel Johnson didn't say: "Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a Coulter and a Franken."

It seems to me that we can make the point in about 100 words that Coulter has been accused of carelessness and has made errors of fact. Nat 09:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

References

I notice that there is not one in-line reference from any of her own books. Is this because she is only a blonde TV commentator and nobody has actually bought any of her books? Maybe she bought them all herself... --andreasegde 23:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If any of her quotes are appropriate to support important article points, please feel free to add.207.69.137.10 12:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Be wary of WP:SELFPUB. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, secondary sources are preferred.--ZayZayEM 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Heavy-handed on the "controversy" section refs

At least 40 (nos. 70-110) of the 110 references for the article (i.e. 36.36%) is dedicated to the "Controversy and criticism" section. And if you include the "Legal and professional disputes" section (which is just another "Controversy and criticism" section with a different name), that means 52 of the references (47.27%) are about controversies and criticism.

Nope. No bias there. Jinxmchue 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Reference are obviously more needed when someone makes a controversial statement. The line "Coulter is the author of five books. All have appeared on New York Times Best Seller list." is unreferenced - and it should be - but it is not the end of the world. Critical unreferenced statement are removed - or a referenced is found. Jon513 07:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonable and legitimate counterpoint. Please note that wide variety of sources are used to verify most of the material in tehse sections. And as mentioned, this is preferred for anything controversial. Please look beyond simple percentages.--ZayZayEM 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

She gets all of her attention through controversies though, so it kind of makes sense. --Ubiq 22:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Grownups read her books. Good Cop 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means there are a lot of dumb grownups then. --Ubiq 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What wit, what humor... Algabal 09:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Intentional Humor

(still being actively debated)

Citations in the lead and applying WP:LEAD

I'm noting a number of citations appearing in the lead that simply shouldn't be there by design. As per Lead, the first few paragraphs of the article are supposed to be an overview of the article, and not introduce new information to the article, which is specifically what is happening when there are citations in the Lead.
I would suggest that a re-evaluation of the Lead take place, to make sure it is acutally representing the article body. Those new bits of information currently in the Lead (with citations) should be incorporated into the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reintegrated the the citations into relevant parts of the article, removing them from the Lead. The Lead might need more work in providing a better and more accurate overview of the article. Let's try to avoid offering up statements that require citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations in the lead section actually seems to contradict the rationale you are putting forward, Arcayne, though I agree that the lead could use work as an overview, and that we should avoid needing citations in it, in so far as may be. -- Lonewolf BC 18:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Canadians-in-Vietnam question

All the crazy back and forth in the section containing the Canadian soldiers in Vietnam needs to draw to a close. Perhaps both sides could meet here and hammer out your differences, instead of playing Duck Duck Goose with all the low-grade edit-warring. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Any edits that would be substantial changes from the standing consensus need to be discussed beforehand, and particularly the re-introduction of material making out that Coulter was right and adding further material on the issue.
That does not disallow minor refinements to the section, which do not move it away from the standing consensus in relation to the lately resurfaced disagreement, or have a bearing on that disagreement. -- Lonewolf BC 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not agreed. The title of the sub-subsection is original research, since nothing at all in the references mentions "fighting." The subsection is "Allegations of factual inaccuracy," yet anonymous editors delete the facts of Canadian involvement in Vietnam, based on some notion of "consensus." The sub-subsection needs to be renamed, and the well-sourced facts about Canadian involvement in Vietnam need to be returned, as does Coulter's well-sourced question about "Indochina." Otherwise, the section is libelous and puts the Project at risk. It also includes copyrighted material, which must be removed. Please, somebody who is registered, take care of this. 71.245.188.100 01:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Intentional Humor

There seems to be disagreement on this talk page on whether she is being funny on purpose. Here is are some references to her humor:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1794552,00.html

"John Cloud, who profiled her for a cover story in Time last year, ended up thinking she was so funny it must be some kind of stand-up routine, that she was like a right-wing Ali G. Coulter tells me that she once went on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and Leno came into the green room holding a copy of her book. 'You know,' he said to her, 'I've heard some of these jokes before, but now that I'm reading your book, I see that they kept dropping the punch line - this is very funny.'"

And here's a quote of here's that I could only imagine is her being funny on purpose: On her Muslim ex-boyfriend

'The relationship was complicated by his interest in committing jihad. I took away his box cutters. ' 75.36.162.230 09:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's in the Cloud article that she says she says the things she says mainly to entertain herself and her friends. It's caustic humor and hyperbole, a tone I've tried to demonstrate in a rewrite of the lead, in my first edits here. (The gloss on her trope that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they vote Democrat was previously that she'd made "statements that women are mentally inferior".) Andyvphil 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we aren't in her head, and have no way of knowing whether she's engaging in ego-masturbation or seriusly believes the things she says. We just note the things she says, and note any noteworthy retractions. That's all we're allowed to do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. We have her on record saying things are said tongue in cheek and to amuse. This isn't a "retraction", it is -- as I said -- an acknowledgement that she is engaging in hyperbole. We don't have to pretend we're literal dullards who don't get it. And saying she said "women are mentally inferior" isn't "noting the things she says", it's a distortion. Andyvphil 23:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We also have her on record saying that she sincerely believes everything she says, by the way. 1of3 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether she believes what she says. The question is whether you take everything she says literally. When she says "If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those 'Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident' bumper stickers?" she ought not be understood to be alleging that such bumper stickers are actually on John Edwards' cars. To think so is, as she says, "retarded". ("...you have to either be retarded or work for the Soviet thought police not to understand that much of what I say is a joke (admittedly, never as funny as the reaction)." [1]) Andyvphil 10:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me, Andyvphil; I am not suggesting that we distort what she says, but we should not play down anything she says because of some sweeping statement about how everything she says is hyperbole and for entertainment purposes only. She isn't Miss Cleo; if she says something and doesn't immediately say she's joking, our encyclopedic viewpoint is that of noting these references, not soft-pedaling them and playing the role of her personal assistant. If she says specifically that everything from her mouth is nonsense, then we can cite that, put it in the lead and add her to the category of famous liars and polemics and be done with her. In fact, we need to add very little else to her article, aside from updating it with her most recent sweeping genralization and her eventual fall from fame.

A BLP doesn't protect the person from themselves. If she says something, it's going in, just as she said it. If she retracts it later, we can note that, but the statement should stand, as its cited and had an impact. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We are not here to decide whether she's "serious" or not, but Andyvphil is right that the statement was a distortion. In any case where it's even possible she's joking, we should just quote it, not interpret it as a flat statement of women being mentally inferior. Cool Hand Luke 08:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

i think that the statement made in the article that Ann believes that: "the U.S. should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" should be cited.... sure, i have seen it on t-shirts too, but this opinion of hers if it has been publicly declared, should be cited or removed.... i am not saying she hasnt said it, but if so... it needs to be backed up or removed. 208.34.82.6 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)BIG franky

I completely agree. I don't care if Coulter is considered the Ho Bag of Satan by her detractors; as a BLP subject, anything negative needs to be cited or removed. Period. Not up for discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the BLP bit, but it was already cited in the article where it's quoted. WP:LEAD says it was right before, but I agree it's fine when sensitive quotes are cited in the lead. Cool Hand Luke 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I myself fought very long and very hard to even get the bit about how cites in the Lead should be discouraged, as there are lots of folks who tend to think that any contentious info needs citing in the Lead (See the Discussion section for WP:LEAD for more).

The Lead for this article is shambolic, btw, and needs a major rewrite. Adding in every friggin criticism about the woman is just plain stupid, and reeks of pov. Say that the woman has inspired significant controversy, and leave it to the various sections, one of which is actually called - oddly enough - "Controversies and criticism".

The Lead should be an overview of the article, and not read like a criminal indictment. Focus less on her controversial nature and spend a bit more time on the other 5 or 6 sections that are essentially ignored by the Lead. If no one else addresses it by the weekend, I'll take another crack at cleaning it up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add to the lead a summary of sections you think are ignored, I don't see a problem with that. But I'm going to resist deleting material from the second paragraph, which I don't see as an indictment or list of criticisms but rather as an effective illustration of her actual tone, as opposed to the obtunded literalism I found when I began editing this article. Andyvphil 12:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my apologies. I didn't notice how much WP:LEAD has evolved about citations. This is all consistent with BLP, I suppose. At any rate, I agree, with you about the current lead (especially the possible WP:UNDUE weight for her views about women). Lot of junk in the lead now, but quotes like the "kill their leaders...convert them to Christianity" are among her most famous and widely-repeated, even on her own promotional materials. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me; I am not advocating that we ignore these statements whatsoever. I am noting that the Lead is in fact a summary of the entire article, which means the entire article gets summarized, not just one section. If one section is getting undue attention over another, material will have to be let go - especially that material which would need to be cited - and is already cited in the article. Again, this isn't about wholsesale deletion. Perhaps Andyvphil is concerned that my earlier removal of apparent uncited info from the Lead is the shape of actions to come; it was removed for BLP reasons, and I had been unaware that the info already appeared in the article.

I think that if we use the Lead as an introductory segment, a summary of the article, the article will be better. Out of the article, the Lead is that one thing that will usually change the most, simply because it is a summary of the article, which changes over time. Alluding to these controversies without giving undue weight to any (but perhaps those that can be cited here as the most significant) allows us to avoid a great many citation s in the Lead.

Not that it matters, but allow me to be clear: I don't like Coulter; she is a polemic ego monkey and feeds off the base fears of people. That said, we need to treat this article as if it were about our own grandmother or personal icon. If we don't defend Coulter article from those who would trash her article out of dislike, then all articles are weakened. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my talk page contributions should reflect that I'm in full agreement with you on your last point. Editors frequently make excuses for sub-BLP work because she's such an unlikeable subject to them. I support your work on the lead. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with anyone who says that the current second paragraph in the lead doesn't belong in the lead. I will back anyone who deletes it, moves it somewhere else, or whatever he/she/it deems is proper. That kind of stuff does NOT belong in the lead of an encyclopedia article. DCLawyer 03:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay--I put my neck on the chopping block, so to speak! Second paragraph is deleted. For a long time, the lead did just fine with the first paragraph, in more or less its current state. I think that's all it needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marieblasdell (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Another controversial comment

Columnist Ann Coulter Shocks Cable TV Show, Declaring 'Jews Need to Be Perfected by Becoming Christians' seemed important, but I was hoping another editor could work it in to the article.. --134.68.77.116 17:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just did. oopsie daisy! — Rickyrab | Talk 18:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Ann Coulter anti-Semitic?

See Rosner's Blog and other sources. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait?!> What!>!?!#@? Ann Coulter said something that was controversial, attention grabbing, and offensive? This is all starting to be rather non-notable. I think maybe we need a separate page just for "all the crap Coulter has said that people of various groups don't like and vociferously condemn." But in all seriousness unless this actually becomes an issue that is more controversial than other things she has said it is not really biography material. --Rtrev 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point can we change her political views to the American Nazi Party? Her most recent comments I believe, reflect more of a Nazi ideology than a conservative one. In fact, I believe calling her a conservative gives the misperception that conservatives are racist and against women's suffrage.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.135.224.110 (talk • contribs)

Last time I checked, the Nazi's were conservative extremists, just look up the definition of fascist. Mortello —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually what Ann espoused on The Big Idea was standard Christian doctrine. That a Wik editor (apparently in good standing to boot!) would liken STANDARD Christian doctrine (all men need to be saved - Jew and gentile alike by the precious blood of Jesus) to Nazism kind of proves Ann Coulter's point...once again.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.68.127 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Don't recall anyone here comparing Christianity with Nazi-ism. Call me crazy. Mortello

Will help you out here: "Her most recent comments (presumably, those that we're talking about here: that Jews need to become Christians to save their souls) ...reflect...a Nazi ideology...". As 71.238.68.127 points out, what I put in parenthesis is standard Christianity, so 198.135.224.110 is saying pretty exactly that Christian doctrine is like Naziism. Actually, what the transcript shows is Coulter being amazingly inarticulate in the face of similar dumfounding stupidity. If "anti-semitism"(Deutsch) is anything it is hostile to Jews. But if Coulter said much more on this occasion than that it would be a good thing if Jews saved their souls by adopting a more perfect religion I must have missed it. She's not even being hostile to Judaeism -- the whole point of the "perfected Jews" business is clearly to allow that Judaeism is a good thing, if less good than Christianity. Calling this "anti-semitism" is idiocy... Btw, is there a transcript for Praeger? We've quoted a couple idiots saying idiotic things. It would be good to quote someone saying something sensible with more content than what we have now from him. Andyvphil 14:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC) ...Looking at the Praeger site, I see that it looks like he produces transcripts regularly, but with some delay, which delay is not yet over. Andyvphil 12:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I can see people viewing her as anti-semitic, but who here is saying christianity equates to nazi-ism? Sounds equally idiotic if anyone remotely suggested that her opposers are saying that. However, I do not doubt that some view her as anti-semitic, she certainly seems to act with a lack of manners, but if and when she pertains it to a certain religion that goes against their views or them as a people...well, that implies itself. Mortello 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

you mean to say she's a female Archie Bunker? 204.52.215.13 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some important details like who the host was, the date, and the show. I also took out the blockquotes and attempted to simply integrate into the article. However, I must say that this smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a section on her views on religion, surely that would be the right place for it rather than creating another controversy section. And I'd say they remarks were antisemtic, but I'm not going to add her to 'category:antisemite':)Ticklemygrits 07:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm someone has already done that. I don't know whether it's recentism Ramsquire, Coulter has expressed a view on religion and it's been added to that section.Ticklemygrits 08:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't object to Ann Coulter being placed in the 'antisemitism' category - if reliable sources can be found that call her antisemitic, rather than just on the basis of that quote. At the moment, that's probably not the case. I wonder if we could justifiably call her views Dominionism, though? Terraxos 15:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To the person who called her a Nazi, you not far off, i don't think she can be called conservative or republican, more 'right-wing', as many Republicans do not are with her ideology. You can't lable some one on what they call them selves. Hell, Hitler said he was peaceful! - dave

Um, is it too much to ask the little gaggle of amateur political pundits to re-focus on the article? This isn't the place to vent how much you hate Coulter - there are plenty of forums and the like for your tepid little comments to reside. This particular page is for discussing the article's construction. If your comments aren't specifically dealing with that - and please, the Hitler comparisons are both passé, overdone and ill-conceived - I would ask that you take your squeaky soapbox elsewhere.

This isn't me being mean, this is me responding to rather clownishly immature behavior. Cowboy up, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm sorry I agree in most circumstances that comparison to Nazis is over the line. But as soon as someone says "Jews should be perfected" I really don't know how you can think that the parallel is so out of line. I seem to remember a certain leader of Germany saying the same thing a while back...

In case some people still haven't gotten it, Nazis didn't want Jews to convert; they wanted Jews to die. Her remarks can be anti-Semitic (& yes, for the record, I think they are, but not in an active way) without being Nazi-esque. If you want to call her a Nazi, you're going to have to find much more solid (as in "actual") evidence elsewhere.FlaviaR 07:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, please stop beating a dead horse. The argument is stupid and wasteful of both bandwidth and brainpower. Speaking of which, you might be interested in knowing that anti-Semitic does not equal nazism. One can be anti-Semitic and not want Jews to die. Knowing this distinction is rather important if you are going to discuss the topic.

Now, can we take the friggin' emotion out of the conversation and refocus on the article? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a dead horse yet. In the article Deutsch and the ADL says the remark was anti-semitic, Praeger say its not, and it's unencyclopedic to state the slur but omit the arguments. Andyvphil 09:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but it is beating a deceased equine to do naught but weigh the notability of the cited references on both side and cite them. Period. No more need to argue it. You cite it and move on; you don't bitch about what a bad person she is here. It is unconscionably stupid to use this discussion page to carry on the outrage and chitchat better reserved for forums and blogs. It's nonsense like that which leads to all sorts of flame wars. No one here is any less intelligent than anyone else (except for the dolt who compared Coulter to Hitler - that was inexcusably, Fox-Reality-Show-Developer stupid), so perhaps we can leave the blue-state, red-state nonsense at the door and edit using the gray matter between the ears. Everything in the article needs citation, simply because she is a controversial personality and a living person.

Ev. Ree.Thing. Guh.

If it seems like I am being harsh, its because some people (and I am not including you in this group, Andyvphil) seem to think that if Coulter has a GA or FA article that it somehow legitimizes her edgy little antics. I am here to tell you it does not. Everyone gets the same treatment here. Hate or love her, I don't care. But leave your angry little monkey in the closet, because this is the responsibility clause of freedom in action, WP says everyone gets to edit, but only those people who can edit and follow the rules gets anything approximating any play within an article. Use the Discussion page to discuss the article - which is what is written at the top of this page (in the brightly-colored box), and not your personal feelings on the matter.

Okay, rant off. Andy, none of it was directed at you. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You certainly seemed to be responding to FlaviaR, but misreading her, since she clearly did not need to be told that "anti-Semitic does not equal nazism", as she made exactly that distinction. She doesn't follow the logic of her own argument to see that Coulter is not being anti-semitic either, but I see no reason to think it would be unfruitful to discuss it with her. And it is worthwhile (not a dead horse) to have that discussion here. Whether or not it is reasonable to think that Coulter is anti-Semitic informs what we will think it is worthwhile to put in mainspace. Speaking of which, I've added some of the ADL argument, which I still think is idiotic (supersessionism is not anti-Semitism either), not to mention misleading (rejection of hard supersessionism does not mean that any of the Christian churches listed think individual Jews shouldn't accept their teachings and become Christian), but at least points in the direction of showing that the discussion is serious, with considerable history, not just something wacky that Coulter said.

Not that Coulter is incapable of seriously saying wacky things or of not thinking through the things she says. I've also been editing in the area of the Edwards kerfuffles, and on my playgrounds there is no question that calling someone a "fag" was very nearly exactly the same as calling him a "homo", and very different than calling him a "wuss". No question she thinks of Edwards as a "girly man"(Schwartzenegger) and that she stretched most unbecomingly to make the connection to the Isiah Washington story...but no, I believe she didn't intend anyone to think Edwards had sex with men or actually had "Ask Me About My Son" bumperstickers. And that understanding informs the edits I make. And discussing questions like that here will hopefully (begone, grammar police!) better inform the edits of others. Andyvphil 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that the "response" didn't seem to be logically directed at me. However, just because I can see that Coulter is not a Nazi in no way means that "logic follows" that she's not anti-Semitic, either - that would be playing into the "anti-semitic automatically = Nazi" argument (which now does seem to be resembling a deceased equine....). And, on the other notes you raised, calling someone a "faggot (which is the word I believe she used)" is actually considered worse than calling him a "homo." The latter is more like slang, the former a decided insult (& "girlie man" is another euphemism for fag). I am unsure as to what she wanted people to think in the "sex with men" area - I know for certain she was playing into the homophobia of her support base, which is pretty much the same thing. My point is that if she is a bigot, it's that she's a casual, non-violent one, certainly not an active one. Unless she keeps up saying bigoted things, or worse bigoted things, I don't think it should go into the article as such.FlaviaR 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I love how you got so outraged that someone saw a parallel between a woman saying "Jews should be perfected" and Hitler. Oh my God! That is so out of bounds!!!

real perfection

Judaism is about following the koran and kabala to become a perfected person. And in Christianity we follow a similar idea of following Christ to become like him a perfected priest the same as Melchisidech.

So she said, Christianity is just a fast way to perfect any person as a Jew vs the Judaism procedure which is far slower. That is what she meant by her remark.

But to any listener it did sound as wildly anti-semetic when in fact, it was only quick commentary about that far broader religious subject of perfecting the individual (same as Masons claim to be doing with the ancient rites - perfecting an individual via working the rites). (posted by 76.230.159.228 21:31, 14 October 2007)

Hmm... you may be on to something here. I found the "FedEx" comment puzzling, but maybe she was saying that Christian belief was a lot easier way to go than Torah study. Andyvphil 12:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• And who's to judge the quickest way to perfection? Anne Coulter of course! ^_- Mortello 03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Eight Circuit Court of Appeals is NOT in Kansas City

The article states that Ann Coulter served as the law clerk to Pasco Bowman at the US Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in Kansas City. This is an incorrect statement. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals is not located in Kansas City, it is located in St. Louis, Missouri. Bowman may live in Kansas City, but the actual location of the Court of Appeals, where oral arguments are heard, is in St. Louis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebkesq (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He sits in Kansas City, MO. His chambers are there. The Eighth Circuit embraces many states including all of Missouri, and she worked for Bowman in Kansas City. Oral arguments are not always held in St. Louis. Like other circuits, they often hear arguments in cities where each of the judges sit. The clause does not refer to where the Eight Circuit is headquartered, but where Bowman sits. Cool Hand Luke 18:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems fairly clear to me. What's the problem? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG! It's the Lead!!

Okay, now that we have rid the Lead of that toxic dumping ground of a second paragraph, let's look at incorporating the rest of the article into the summary. We can summarize info about her early life and education, her religious views (which I think should logically be arranged before descriptions of her media career). I think the same goes for her political activities, as it is a natural sequé into her media career before moving into her legal and professional disputes and them controversies and criticisms. With this arrangement, the Lead reads like something a bit more reliable and solid. thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also brought over a recent edit that was notable in that it provided citations for statements in the Lead...that appear nowhere else in the article! This is an unacceptable state for the Lead. It is supposed to summarize the article, and not introduce independent info. I am putting the info here so happy homes can be found for the statements before (and not after) they can be replaced in the Lead. I am thusly removing the non-Lead material from the Lead.

Known for her controversial style, she has been described by The Observer as "the Republican Michael Moore", and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt"..

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, I notice that you reverted my addition of sources to the Ann Coulter article, stating, yeah, revert, as per Discussion page discussion on fixing the Lead statements. Pls direct your comments to there before adding in the kitchen sink again. I guess this is the discussion section that you're talking about? Your above statements in this section seem to suggest that I am responsible for statements in the lead that appear nowhere else in the article. I am not. All I did was add citations to statements that were already in the lead. WP:LEAD specifically states: Contentious material about living persons must be cited at every iteration, regardless of the level of generality. The Ann Coulter article, by its very nature, is "contentious material about living persons." Since it's easy to use ref tags to cite the same source several times, there is no reason not to completely blanket this article in footnotes. Footnotes are vital to Wikipedia's role as a research tool, and they provide great protection against vandalism and inadvertent errors. --M@rēino 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mareino, no ill intent was meant towards you, and I apologize for not either contacting you directly or being more clear in my post here. You were correct to add the citations to the material in the Lead that had no other occurrence in the article. That was part of the problem with the statements and, after I reverted you addition of the sources (which I thought was a duplication of the sources), I went back and removed the info that didn't appear anywhere else in the article. The discussion referred to in the edit summary refers to prior and recent discussions about the Lead statements, and not the one I made immediately above your reply.

It is my goal - and should be yours (and the community's) - to avoid the usage or necessity of citation usage in the Lead if possible. It makes for some really ugly looking, and less-inviting introduction to "blanket" the Lead as well as the article in footnote tags. The Lead is a summary of the article; we don't introduce new info there if we can paraphrase or allude to cited information within the article instead. The Lead is supposed to entice the reader to read further, and tons of citations in the Lead is just ugly and daunting. I know about what WP:LEAD says - I helped work on it. The every iteration clause of that means to cite contentious (ie, likely to be contested) material. Currently, the Lead indicates her as a self-described polemic - ergo, no contestation of the characterization. However, that information is cited where it appears in the article, better to be seen in its proper context.

I appreciate your vigilance and politeness in your post. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I think we have a philosophical difference, in that I think citations are pretty and inviting. Otherwise, I agree with your general point that Leads should be streamlined and readable, and I'd welcome further experimentation. --M@rēino 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

formatting

It seems like some of the sections in the article were misplaced and are subheadings instead of new headings... or am I going blind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.108.68.40 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation for quotation

The first quotation under the section labeled "Comments on Islam, Arabs, and terrorism" is marked "Citation needed", so here's an archive.org URL for her the original article from September 14, 2001: http://web.archive.org/web/20010914225811/http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.124.214 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The later uncited quotation (from the New York Observer) is still available on observer website at: http://www.observer.com/2007/tea-miss-coulter 76.235.124.214 21:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you see it, just do it. I just added your cites as inline links. Not fully Wikified, but better than . Andyvphil 13:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotes of Ann Coulter

The quotes I added were actually made by Ann Coulter - they are not questionable or potentially libelious. She stands by every comment she makes.. Why did you remove them and threaten to ban me for this?

Fable1984 04:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they're POV pushing -- the way they are presented pushes your own point of view. And I gave you a level 3 warning because you already had a recent level 2 warning. That's how warnings work. Gscshoyru 04:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

They are also not suitable for an encyclopdia article. Please take them to wikiquote if you must. Kyaa the Catlord 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, quotes (particularly the ones that stand out) are a valid source of information that pin-point and describe the person with accuracy. If you took out one persons qoute (that describes the person and their views well) would be no different than taking out Franklin Roosevelt's famous qoute that can be found here in wikipedia. So on Fable's defense, it sounds like the way you're editing out Fable's qoutations is presented in a way that doesn't push your POV, but almost pushes out what validity you don't want people to know about our extreme conservative Anne, Gscshoyru. Wouldn't it be accurate if we trialed your manifest autonomous judgement on the table in order to appreciate the virtue and reason of why you took out Fable's qoute? Perhaps we should take out every qoute in wikipedia after all. And while were at it, let's give me a warning (or worse) since I made you feel uneasy as any empirical tyrant would do. Mortello —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I take offense to your assumptions about my political views-- not that it matters, but I'm a serious liberal, and despise Anne Coulter. But it doesn't matter -- my own personal opinions have nothing to do with the content of the article, as per WP:NPOV. And trying to discredit my edits by attacking me by calling me conservative is an ad hominem attack -- a standard fallacy. The section as presented is there expressly for the purpose of making people dislike Anne Coulter, which is against the neutral point of view policy, and therefore was removed. And the only thing here you've done that's warnable is come close to personal attacks -- as of yet your comments don't quite yet merit a warning, but if you persist in your unfounded accusations, you may end up with a warning template. Gscshoyru 03:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh? Okay, just tell me this: when did I ever call you a conservative? Aren't you the one discrediting Fable here (along with me)? After all, an ad hominem is an attack on the person rather than an attack on the arguement, when did you ever attack Fable's arguement without attacking him and discrediting him by using the old fashion "your POV" arguement? Sounds a bit of switching the burden here, not to mention false allegations which only furthers my initial stanza. Sometimes when I get angry, I have trouble seeing the trees in the forest, but I don't think I'm alone in that. Mortello

Huh. I never noticed that. That is an excellent point -- "your POV" really should be "a POV," but since it's in common usage as your, then I and everyone else will continue to use it that way -- for better for or worse. But that is in fact an interesting point. And as for you accusing me of being conservative --

"but almost pushes out what validity you don't want people to know about our extreme conservative Anne, Gscshoyru"

That line is a bit ambiguous. It seems I may have misread it, so I apologize for misunderstanding the meaning. But the reason I removed it has nothing to do with what he thinks, as you put -- it has to do with the fact that it's pushing a POV, which is against policy. Doesn't matter whose POV it is. And I'm not discrediting him. Other than the "your" which may or may not be true anyway, everything I said was true and had nothing against him. In any case, the quotes, in that form, don't belong, POV or not. What article on a person has a large long list of quotes they've made? Some may be interspersed to support a statement about them, but quotes are mainly supplementary, they aren't supposed to be part of an article on their own. Gscshoyru 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

His Dark Materials Reference

Should we mention that it has been speculated that the fictional child torturer Mrs. Coulter is considered to be a reference to Ann Coulter? The Fading Light 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is exactly the kind of stuff we should exclude from biographies of living people. See also Mrs. Coulter#Trivia. Cool Hand Luke 18:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. Also, the telepathic mind witches that speak to me through the dust mites in my pillow concur. lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree completely, if it were true. But, as CHL notes, it's not. Andyvphil 13:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If it were true we wouldn't say that some have "speculated" that the character "is considered" a reference to Coulter. Speculative OR is precisely what we should keep out of BLP articles, not cultural references in general. Cool Hand Luke 00:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on who so speculated and in what arena. If, say, a serious literary critic had seriously argued for that theory in a serious journal (i.e., if we had a RS) we might very well want to note that Coulter's status as a bete noir of the left had reached the level at which appropriation of her name for a literary character had arguably been counted on, in far off England, to provide overtones of evil. Sadly, it seems to be a myth. Andyvphil 06:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Coulter says we should throw away Judaism

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then?, or -- COULTER: Yeah. 132.241.246.224 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I dig that she's gone and upset the applecart again. That does not give contributors cause to be adding their personal outrage to the article. Cite your comments, cite them reliably and well, or go off somewhere and cool down. This is not a place for anyone to sopabox. Period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely she is a comedienne, rather than a serious commentator, is she not? On that basis she might have been cut a bit of slack before she recently went way too far.... Masalai 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We've gone back and forth on your Talk page about this. Please do not pretend that you don't know her current job occupation. If you can somehow prove that her job description dovetails that of a comedian, then we can discuss it. Until then, its a POINT debate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Prager is quoted in this subhead along with a link, albeit one that goes to a general-page reference and not to one that states exactly what his argument was/is. A link ought to be added to the following reference, which states clearly why exactly he thinks accusing Ann Coulter of anti-semitism is nonsense ("There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?") That link is as follows:

• Ann Coulter Wants Jews to Become Christian -- So What? by Dennis Prager (October 16, 2007)

Ideally, the following quote should also be added to the article, which puts things into perspective: ("Liberals yearn for a world without conservatives at least as much as most believing Christians want a world without non-Christians. The difference is many liberals are immeasurably more likely to impose their views on others than Christian Americans are.") Asteriks 10:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"It’s by their actions that I judge people" adds Burt Prelutsky in the Jewish author's piece, Ann Coulter's Big No-No. "And in my experience, American Christians are essentially kind, tolerant, admirable people. I did not take Ann Coulter’s statement as an example of hate speech. Frankly, I don’t believe she has an anti-Semitic bone in her body. What I do find bizarre is that so many Jews, who side with the Arabs against Israel and whose children applauded Ahmadinejad at Columbia University, are demanding Coulter’s head on a pike." Doesn't that quote deserve to be added somewhere? Asteriks 15:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, there are a few Jewish authors out there who weren't offended by Ann Coulter's statements. Then, of course, there are some American journalists that believe that Jews are the cause of all evil and Coulter was totally correct to say what she did even when interpreted in the most slanderous way. We've had this discussion before, and I concede that that opinion should be represented, but I just wanna reiterate that I'm a little leery of seeing op-eds cited because things like that "liberal" statement are so often included when they are spurious and completely irrelevent. Vordabois 20:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Coulter's Connection to Barbara Olson

There should probably be a mention of the fact that Ann has made a career off of effectually continuing Barbara Olson's life where it was left off. Without this information, people might operate under this misaprehension that Ann is an 'original', instead of realizing what a truly horrible person she in fact is. How do we propose this information gets integrated? 24.46.123.100 13:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The usual way. Find a reliable source that makes the appropriate point, and add it to the article. Then see if other people agree that it's accurate, and worth including. Personally, I'm not sure what connection there is between them, other than their both being female conservative commentators. I notice that Coulter got her first book published several years before Olson died, so the first part of her career, at least, was achieved without the benefit of Olson's death. Marieblasdell 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you were a lot more polite than I was thinking of being. I guess I cannot mention the conservative cloning machine, the telepathic mind witches from Mars, the vast, right-wing conspiracy, and of course the Horrifying Truth™ behind Twinkies. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. How has Ann Coulter "made a career" off the death of Barbara Olson? I see zero connection, except that Ann, like a lot of conservatives, misses and admires Olson. The only connection I remember about Olson and the left is how they hated her books, and how on 9/11 (ON 9/11, not the day after), leftists were cheering that Olson died in the Pentagon terrorist attack. (To be fair, some leftists did try to shut them up. Initially. For a week. Maybe.)172.165.13.222 15:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bull. I am a leftist; many of my friends and co-workers would call themselves leftists; and I never once heard any of them cheer the death of Barbara Olsen or anyone else. 74.130.83.210 (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Inflammatory generalizations. I'm sure some "leftists" response to Olson's death was "good riddance" (after all, there was a MediaWeek columnist who suggested, in a column, that Coulter do everyone a favor and kill herself -- I kid you not) but attributing an actual death wish to "leftists" is uncalled for. The business about Olson as an excuse for Coulter going "over the top" in her "kill all their leaders" statement appeared at the time of her falling out with NR, and assumes something not in evidence, namely that she did go over the top. For those of us who think it's vintage Coulter -- angry, allusive, smart, biting -- the idea that she needed an excuse is just stupid. Andyvphil (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiWorld illustration

I'm a bit uneasy about this. What is the connection of WikiWorld to Wikipedia? It's an editorial cartoon (note the dragging knuckles) and could easily be interpreted as expressing Wikipedia's editorial position. I'm generally a strong anti-deletionist... but I think maybe a disclaimer is in order in the template. Andyvphil 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the cartoon unsourced? If sourced, it constitutes a verifiable, reliable opinion by a noteworthy political cartoonist. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. If that's what it was, it probably would not merit inclusion in the article; plenty of cartoonists more notable than ours have satirized Coulter. I'm generally wary of inter-wiki links being used to take an end-run around BLP. For example, I don't see why wikinews articles should be linked more prominently than actual reliable sources. That said, I think the comic is small enough that it's not hurting anything. Cool Hand Luke 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't considered that, Luke. If there are better sources of editorial cartoons re: Coulter, then they should be substituted. We cannot give undie weight to inster-wiki links when there are more noteworthy sources to be had. If we do, its a slippery slope. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced here, but I don't know how Greg Williams' opinions became either notable or "reliable" (whatever that means). Rather less notable and no more verifiable than this image, I think -- if Maxim agreed to put it under Creative Commons licencing, would you put it in the article? Suppose the monkey arms were on a caricature of Barack Obama (or Clarence Thomas) rather than Coulter? It is interesting that the placement on the page is so obscure -- was that the result of an earlier discussion? The image dates from July... Andyvphil 13:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter's Latest Controversial Statement

Coulter's latest controversy is covered twice in the article. The first mention is in the Religious views section, and then in its own section. One section should be deleted, where would the editors here like the deletion to take place? My preference would be to remove it from the religious views section. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If the comment is about religion or religious views, it should remain there, as sections are meant to corral like-statements. Unless its something like announcing that she is in possession of a nuclear bomb, and will be detonating it unless the Democrats surrender Congress, it shouldn't get its own section. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So should I delete it from the controversies section, and merge any additional details into the religious views section? On another note, I think we may be reaching a point to where a spin-off article may be necessary. It seems like she gets into these controversies every other month or so. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what's in the controversies section belongs there. You could perhaps prune some of the recitation of the controversy from the religion section, leaving the statements of views, but it's not a high priority in my view. Andyvphil 13:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please give a reason why it is necessary to have one controversy covered twice in the same article? Twice now editors have pointed out the redundancy, yet any attempt to fix it is quickly reverted. Please explain how the redundancy is encyclopedic? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1of3's edit comment did explain the reversion. Nor do you seem to have read what I wrote immediately above. Clearly there is material in this incident for both sections. Just deleting what is in the Religious Views sections is merely lazy. Andyvphil 22:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your first two sentences and the lazy comment, because clearly I don't think 10f3's "explanation" is sufficient, and you are not in a position to tell me what I have read. I asked a question, and you have responded that there is sufficient room to have it in both places. It's not how I would handle it, but since I seem to be in a minority, may I suggest putting the quotes in the religious views section, and trimming out the show information (specifically the Date, and Channel) from the lead in the controversies section with a quick summarization. As an example of a less redundant lead, "Coulter was embroiled in a controversy for stating that Christians are perfected Jews while a guest on CNBC's the Big Idea..." with the rest of the section remaining the same. Just so everyone is clear, I have never called for the outright deletion of any of the information section. I am only asking that if it is going to be covered in two sections, it doesn't read as identical information and the sections complement each other better. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No one said that the repeition could not be improved upon. In fact I said it could, just that it wasn't a high priority. But just deleting mention of the incident from the Religious Views section, as you did, was lazy because, as 1of3 said, it was clearly revealing of part of her religious views. And your proposed lead misstates the basis of the controversy. She was not embroiled in controversy for saying Christians were improved Jews. She was accused of anti-Semitism by the host for saying all Jews (and Buddhists) should become Christians. And the slur got undeservedly approving attention. Andyvphil 23:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the redundancy is a high priority for me as it affects the "readability" of the article. Also, you will notice that I didn't "just delete" the info. I've been attempting to discuss it here and have specifically asked editors for their thoughts on fixing it? Secondly, I am not giving a proposal of what the lead should read, it's an example of the format it could take. Admittedly, I could have been more clear, but I have no opinion on how to phrase the actual controvery. I would only suggest that it take the form of one or two sentences. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"a spin-off article may be necessary"

In the grand scheme of things, this article already is way too long. You might say that we are giving Undue Weight to Ann Coulter. If WP were a paper encyclopedia she might rate two paragraphs. Granted, WP is not a paper encyclopedia, but compare this article to (e.g.) Thomas Edison or Bill Gates. Whether you are for her or against her, the amount of time spent on this article is almost ridiculous. Sbowers3 03:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't, Showers. This is called the editorial process, and it works like sculpture in that it starts out super-bloated and eventually gets whittled down to something that mosre closely resembles the articles you just mentioned. I would suggest that you take a look at what constitute the vast numbers of discussions buried within the archives of those pages, or go back to the first edits of those articles and watch them develop.

It's a process, and while a lot of the emotional wanking pro or con against Coulter is a an incredibly stupid waste of everyone's time, the discussion regarding content is not. The better article is one written wherein a better overall picture is formed from many points of view. I imagine that, were Wikipedia and the internet tubes were around during the time of Edison's outright theft and skullduggery in appropriating patents, and Gates' controversy regarding the cloning of the Apple GUI, there would be quite a bit more argument back and forth in the discussion. Coulter is controversial, and the matter is currently unfolding. Learn to "Love The Crazy™", Showers; youwill be alot happier in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. One of the challenges of an all-volunteer encyclopedia is that you can't force people to work on subjects they don't want to work on. As a result, popularly loved and reviled topics get disproportionate attention. Cool Hand Luke 05:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Resignation"

Well, "Ann Coulter" claims that she's quitting the media or something on her home page I am betting it's a hack and it is probably worthwhile to wait until tomorrow afternoon at least, but hey just wanted to drop the source.--Mr Bucket 07:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a hack. As if the text of the supposed letter, as a whole, leaves any doubt that it is a hoax, look at the bottom where the hacker taunts the website admins. Also, change the "214" in the URL to "215", to see some more comments from the hacker about the website's security. The hacker has somehow slipped these two pages into the "Archive" of Coulter's columns, but into two of the otherwise empty spaces that will be used for upcoming columns. The slots below "214" are empty back to "211", which yields the article currently on the website's homepage, and then the older articles go back in sequence from "210" on back. The "Archive" directory page does not show anything above the "210" article.
-- Lonewolf BC 08:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. The last thing we need is to spend time on false claims. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Judaism

We should point out that Coulter said on The Big Idea that she believed Jews go to heaven but that Christian just have the fast track. This radically changes her beliefs on Christianity if she implies that Jews go to heaven considering Christians generally believe this not to be true. Secondly, it should be also noted that Coulter's comment was simply the basic christian concept of "there is no more Jew or Gentile, all are one in Christ". The New Testament states that Christians are the true spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham through faith. She just added "the perfected jew" thing to stir the pot and make it appear controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.75.107 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's remember that Coulter's not a theologian and that these comments show her lack of knowledge of her own faith. Seriously, the inclusion of this material really needs some weighing vs WP:UNDUE. Her religious beliefs and especially these dumb ass comments related to such really have very little to do with her overall notability. Kyaa the Catlord 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Coulter said nothing specific about going to heaven, or not going to heaven, or the existance of heaven. She said Christianity is like "FedEx" but what you get in the box, aside from greater "perfection" went unspecified, so far as I recall. I don't think she was very articulate when attacked, but for dumbassness a lot of the comments on this page on this incident far outdo her. Andyvphil 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

These are not "dumb ass" comments. Coulter is expressing the correct belief that those who have not accepted Christ are "imperfect". It may not be your belief, but it should come as no surprise that Christians actually believe in Christ.

Mattsanchez 18:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean the correct belief according to Christianity is that those who have not accepted Christ are "imperfect". --kizzle 08:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add this article to the mix

Ok, to Andy, Coulter specifically stated that she believed "Jews go to heaven, and Jerry Falwell does to". Watch the entire interview and you will find it there. The Fed-EX comment was that she believed that Christians have the "easier" way to heaven than the Jews. Coulter is using Christians to fuel sentiment against her just so she can then plead that she was right all along. That is her ploy. The Bible does state that Christians are the real Jews by faith; sons and daughters of Israel and Abraham. Coulter could've worded this simple basic Christian concept much better than how she chose to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.101.88 (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was relying on the MM excerpt as reprinted in various places. Deutch-Coulter is on YouTube or somesuch? Her statement that Jews go to heaven is certainly an example of something that should go in the Religious Views section in addition to being considered for the Controversies section. NB: While I see no evidence that Coulter is anti-Semitic, if Arabs or Muslims had a similarly well-known term they'd definately have a case for applying it. Andyvphil 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see MM cropped the final exchange (last ten or fifteen seconds here) from their transcript. Did't fit with their script, I guess. Andyvphil 08:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jews and Christian support Coulter's Comments

Many prominent Christians and Jews have come forward to support Ann Coulter and her statements.

"Coulter is Right"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58139]

Just added this and referenced it with articles. Mattsanchez 18:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your picture is very interesting and probably adds to the article, but I think these supporting comments are not so notable, except for maybe David Horowitz. It would be better if we had a secondary source about those who are supporting Coulter, rather than primary sources in the form of op-eds.Cool Hand Luke 19:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, op-eds are often the worst sort of citable material we use. As op-eds don't have to use citable info, they can turn out to be wrong. While the criteria of WP is verifiability and not truth, including material that is often totally incorrect causes us to have to work jarder when it comes time to add refutations to those statements. A better source would be really nice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when did a few Jews count for many? Does this mean if I can get four American kids to say they believe in fairies, then I have right to suggest many Americans believe in faries or is there something wrong with that? Mortello 05:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Many Americans probably do believe in fairies, given that there are something like 300 million Americans. Algabal 10:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And so do Jews! Point taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.29.223 (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to add that she denied stating that jews "need to be perfected" today at a talk in Tulane University, but I don't have a source (besides a blog) yet. --SeanMcG 05:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I add that those Jews who agree w/ Coulter's statement might also believe that Christianity is polytheism or idol worship (an opinion fairly common among Israeli ultra-orthodox).

Coulter Ploy

Shouldn't we write about how Coulter's comments are a ploy to rouse attention and sentiment against her. If you really read and listen to all of her controversial comments, they can be interpretated in different ways. Take for instance her "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity". Now ironically while people were upset at these horrid comments, the United States had actually done the first two in Iraq and Afghanistan. She was purposefully trying to stir the pot with this statem in order to then turn it around on her detractors. THAT IS HER GAME. It is the same thing with her "perfected jew" comment. She just wants to get an unfriendly reaction out of people left of center, and it is scary to read or hear what people would do to her if they ever had the chance to do anything about her. Point is, her comments always APPEAR anti-semitic, anti-this, anti-that AT FIRST (she does this to show how reactionaty we "liberals" can be). But then she tries to explain them in a way where she thinks they were witty or funny. It would be best to expose this ploy that way so she can be ignored in the future for her unfunny, unwitty comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.101.88 (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

not that i disagree that she a conniving bitch, but is wikipedia supposed to be a political sounding box or an encyclopaedia? if her tactics are sufficiently reported elsewhere to be notable, then by all means gather some references and summarise the subject, if not, it isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.253.80 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 23 October 2007

Investigation of possible voting fraud

Something is wrong in the wording of the second sentence but I can't figure out how to word it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs302b (talk • contribs) 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Better, now? Andyvphil 08:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is, thanks. The other question I have about this section.. What does the possible stalker have to do with the voting fraud?

cs302b —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it'd be considered a possible mitigating factor--evidence that her 'falsification of residence' was not from a desire to commit voter fraud, but rather, from a desire not to have her true residence a matter of public record, for any crazy person to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marieblasdell (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from the template near the top of this page"Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)" Andyvphil 22:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we put that in (or find a clearer reference that states the same)? The wording is confusing and isn't explained enough.Cs302b 00:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the ajacency of the prior sentence, the implication pointed to by Marieblasdell seems clear to me, but we -- namely you -- can try to state this more explicitly. It's minor stuff, though, so far, so verbosity will be cut. Andyvphil 01:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice to find a reference that states that, but if we just put it in on our own, that'd be WP:OR, (original research), which we're not supposed to add. Marieblasdell 06:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I do remember to sign most of my posts! Marieblasdell 06:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition?

In the Jersey Girls section, should it be noted that she has not commented on Jim Ogonowski?

Also, it is standard procedure to put state of origin in the intro pp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Coulter is a self-described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative"???

In the FIRST paragraph? Who's watching this article, Randi Rhodes after 14 rum & cokes? If Ann described herself that way, it was clearly tongue-in-cheek. I guess only a LIBERAL would try and DISTORT her encyclopedia article by LAMELY trying to use that throwaway line against her in an introductory paragraph. Nice try. Take it out or I will. 71.238.68.127 22:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'll revert you. And I'm about as right-wing as AC, albeit on a rather different axis. Yes, it is clearly tongue-in-cheek. She talks that way. And that should be established in the lead. Trust your readers not to be stupid. Or at least care only about those who are not stupid. Andyvphil 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? I don't think we should write the article in the style of Ann Coulter, but this is a great introductory sentence. It's one thing to say that she likes to stir the pot, but this quickly establishes her tone of writing in a way that only direct quotes can. I would agree with you if the sentence didn't go on about how she also calls herself a polemicist, but it's a compact synopsis as written.

The part of the lead I dislike is "...causing even some conservatives some discomfort with her positions." It implies, incorrectly, that she's an especially notable conservative thinker. Ann doesn't speak to or for "some conservatives," so it's not surprising these "some conservatives" often disagree with her. Cool Hand Luke 02:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we are going to keep the mean-spirited part in the Lead, we are going to have to cite it. And I with Luke's assessment of the 'even some conservatives' statement. It's poorly written, and I'll square it away in two shakes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice Lead picture, btw. Whoever uploaded it deserves a cookie. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO this is a bad lead for a pretty bad article. We need to resist the temptation to denigrate this woman in every sentence we write. We also need to understand the difference between a wisecrack and a serious proposal. The lead could be cleaned up like this (new material underlined):

Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American conservative columnist, political commentator and best-selling author. She frequently appears on television, radio and as a speaker at public and private events.

Known for her confrontational style and highly inflammatory comments, Coulter is a self-described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative" and has also described herself as a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot." and does not pretend to be "impartial or balanced". On numerous occasions, she has advocated the intentional death or attack of people because of their religious and or political beliefs, causing discomfort with her positions on both sides of the political spectrum.

The result would IMHO be accurate, fair, free from the appearance of an anti-Coulter or sensationalist point of view, and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. DCLawyer 12:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now that I look at it, the lead had begun to stink of obtunded literalism again. "On numerous occasions, she has advocated the intentional death or attack of people because of their religious and or political beliefs..." Sheesh. Illiterate too. Got rid of all that. Anyway, the phrase "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative" appears, cited, later in the text. I think duplicative cites in the lead are silly (the lead implicitly cites the article, and practically every other cite we provide is to a whole article) so I haven't added one, but you can if you wish. Andyvphil 13:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, DC, I tend to agree with you on your edit. I think, however the bit: 'and does not pretend to be "impartial or balanced"' should be included in the Lead, because it is pretty much a hallmark of the subject that she specifically states that she doesn't pretend to be such. As this behavior IMO is part of what people get up in arms about, it shoudl be included. I like the rst, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. I agree with you and Arcayne about "Coulter describes herself..." I think it's contextually clear that it reflects her style and sense of humor, and that it is not an indictment. However, I would not be opposed to a different construction that might make this more clear. Cool Hand Luke 06:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got to get "inflammatory comments" in there somewhere. It's not her style so much, but her inflammatory comments, that get people up in arms. If you doubt it, look at the rest of the article. Inflammatory comments inspire section after section telling us how hateful she is. DCLawyer 12:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't say her comments inflame me much. Watching her targets get red-faced and pompous is certainly part of the fun, however. If you want it in there "somewhere", though, I could maybe go for "her entertainingly inflammatory comments". Andyvphil 15:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't do that, as its just you that finds it all entertaining. i find it rather distracting, like the clown who cavorts while his/her partner steals your car or wallet.Politics is filthy business, and I cannot help but think her contributions help to make it even more unsavory. but then, that's my take on it.

Let me think on it. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll give it a whirl at revising. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on or even promoting "entertainingly inflammatory" (though it's certainly not "just" I that finds her entertaining), just observing that "inflammmatory" without "entertaining", as DC advocates, is misleading. Andyvphil 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)