Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about Ann Coulter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

So I am not sure what I can do or should do

I admit it: I think she's a bad joke. Her whole schtick is to make outrageous statements, and then to get indignant when them mean old liberals dare to criticize her. Her act might be funny were it not for the fact that her fellow rightwingers actually take her seriously, even after (just to name one example) personally harassing John Edwards and his family. I have been trying to replace some of her statements with short summaries, partially because much of what she says is hate speech which doesn't really belong in a source like Wikipedia and also (frankly) to mock her by pointing out the flaws in her logic. Case in point of a flaw in her logic: when confronted with the fact that she blatantly lied about the New York Times's coverage of Dale Earnhardt's death, she defended herself by stating that the Times made some errors SEVENTY YEARS EARLIER while covering the Soviet Union. This makes virtually no sense on the face of it, and it makes even less sense when you actually look into the lifestory of the reporter she attacked, the late Walter Duranty. TimothyHorrigan 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of Taylor's book says it all, Stalin's Apologist : Walter Duranty: The New York Times's Man in Moscow. AC made a mistake about NYT's coverage of Ernhardt's death. The NYT denied several million deaths. AC is making a point about the significance of her error. This is not a "logical flaw". Andyvphil 04:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, misinformation is misinformation, and liars are liars, last time I checked. Let's say this: Ann is a liar, and so is Walter Duranty. The circumstances may differ, but for all intents and purposes, and for the sake of this discussion, we will assume that much. However, Ann is trying to act as though the New York Times has these types of problems regularly or is somehow worse by drawing up a single incident from a single other writer. This is absurd. She, the one author who lied, is far less credible than the newspaper that is regarded as the country's newspaper of record. Now, if you want to know the exact name for this type of logical fallacy (ie. an argument that is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form), it is called Proof_by_example. Vordabois 04:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a debate. This discussion seems to be a step removed from the article. It doesn't really matter whether or not her arguments are, in fact, absurd. What matters is the existing coverage of them. Coulter's public distaste for the Times is well-known and backed up with reliable sources. It does not appear to be undue weight, since it is mentioned in secondary profiles on here. That's the end of our inquiry. Cool Hand Luke 07:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, actually, it is a "debate". One function of the "Discussion" page is very much to debate our understanding of the materials we are dealing with so that we can form a consensus about how we are to edit the article.

Vordabois, you are in error. If AC were asserting that Duranty's errors (or lies) mean that everything the NYT prints is an error (or lie) then she would indeed be guilty of the logical fallacy you mention. But that's not what she says. She says that she has been accused of lying many times in her three books, but that only a few actual false statements have been found, that this was the worst, that she corrected it, and that in any case it was an trivial error, not to be compared with, say, the NYT missing the Ukranian Famine. The may be problems with her line of argument, but logical fallacy is not one of them. Nor need I assume any of your silly assumptions in order to engage in this debate. Andyvphil 05:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. She is not saying everything they print is error at all. (Let's not get into hasty generalizations too, ok?) This is instead an issue of her attempting to equate her credibility level to the NYT using a single incident. (Is she or is she not saying "Hey, well, they're worse than me"?) Problem is, drawing both her book and the newspaper into comparative analysis is not proper... it's a faulty comparison. It should be noted: After Duranty wrote his article denying Gareth Jones' claims, Jones made another reaffirming his earlier report. And who published that article? None other than the New York Times, that's who. Beyond that, the New York Times has discredited all of Duranty's input on the matter and have no objections to the revocation of his Pulitzer Prize. (Twice they've tried to revoke it.)

The objection lies in using the collective "New York Times" label... She is talking about the whole paper and everyone who contributes, right down to honest-to-goodness principled journalists (like Gareth Jones) that uphold its highly-respected journalistic integrity, direct conflict and all. The struggle for truth is always there in responsible journalism. It does not entail making partisan assumptions about something like coverage of Earnhardt's death before actually checking the facts... particularly with something as easy as that to confirm. And while the New York Times relied on Duranty's reporting through Stalin's filtered channels initially, Ann Coulter has no single person to deem responsible but herself. Vordabois 09:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that this isn't a debate forum about the relative absurdity of her comments. Due to the fragility of language, as well as Coulter's oft-inscrutable quips, we can't really be sure of what she meant. I suspect it was a light-hearted passing comment not worthy of this analysis, but it doesn't really matter in any case. It was reported, it is not a mischaracterization, and there's no claim that the remarks are undue weight. We don't need to ponder whether it's a brilliant remark; it should stay no matter how we might interpret it.

Hate speech is just one possible interpretation of Coulter's remarks, and we do the encyclopedia a disservice by not retaining the quotes. But it doesn't matter whether she commits logical fallacies or not. We don't need to answer that question. Cool Hand Luke 06:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, let's stay specific. AC should have said "somewhat" instead of "vaguely", and I'm hesitant accept her assertion that she hasn't been accused of other substantive errors, but a debate on her meaning is legitimate even if Vordabois' arguments aren't. Remember, this goes back to my reversion of TimothyHorrigan's substitution of "She also pointed out that 70 years earlier, the New York Times' Walter Duranty had failed to report on the Ukrainian famine while covering the Soviet Union during the 1930s" for AC's "At least I didn't miss the Ukrainian famine." TH's version misses her point entirely (and Vordabois insists on missing it as well). But there is nothing "inscrutable" about this quote.

InCorrect. She is not saying everything they print is error at all. Vordabois, since the second sentence is precisely my dispositive refutation of your assertion that AC committed the "logical flaw" called Proof_by_example you need to correct your first word as shown. Then you spiral into irrelevance. AC says nothing at all about the "collective 'New York Times' label". She admits to an error, but claims it is both rare and trivial, with Duranty's as an example of a non-trivial error. She may not think the NYT is reliable, but the idea that she said anything about that in this quote is entirely in your imagination. And, incidentally, your admission that Coulter probably "ma[de] partisan assumptions about something like coverage of Earnhardt's death before actually checking the facts" flatly contradicts your earlier assertion that she "lied". If you really don't understand the foolishness of your assertion that "misinformation is misinformation", I'll just have to watch your edits very carefully until you show some sign of being able to draw distinctions. (Hint - some misinformation is lying, but some is merely error. C.f., Judith Miller.) Andyvphil 21:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I need to clarify my meaning of the word "lie" in reference to AC’s statements. She is not merely guilty of lying to her readers. This actually is an example of someone lying to herself. She deceived herself into believing her own biased assumption as a fact when, evidently, she could not have known. Now, whether it is others you deceive or it is yourself that you deceive, it is still a lie. She lied to herself so completely that she allowed her own inaccurate statements to be published. This cannot in any sense be likened to mere "error”. What she did was conscious -- her claims were so easily verified that she neglected to do so for reasons that are clearly dubious.

I also understand what you're saying in regards to the logical fallacy -- it is certainly rooted in my opinion. Given her history (particularly with Slander), I think it goes without saying. To me, it's akin to the thought that Wile E. Coyote is buying those roller skates merely because he wants to skate. Conversely, there is evidence that you made that distinction as well in your writings. On this thread, you stated that "The NYT denied several million deaths" (it didn't, Duranty did), then, on your talk page: “[S]he wasn't ‘pointing out’ Duranty, she was making an ironic reference to the NY Times' fiasco.” Point being, she never referred to it as the "NY Times' fiasco". She DID point him out, and it would be more proper to refer to this incident in that fashion, as the New York Times ultimately included both viewpoints. The labeling of the incident is minor (to you) to be sure, but her neglect in mentioning Jones' piece nonetheless allowed her readers to glibly attribute the error to the NYT rather than to Duranty precisely as you did.

Thus, the logical fallacy. You stated that the New York Times denied several million deaths... Does that mean the NYT always denies deaths? See, that's not the point. The fallacy means that, in this case, she used one example (The New York Times publishing Duranty’s stuff due to some ulterior motive or incompetence) to make an "ironic" general statement that the newspaper has some ulterior motive or is incompetent. We could argue over whether she intended this (I'm inclined to think that she did and you're apparently inclined to think that she was referring to it benignly) but the evidence of how her words affected your judgment is fairly damning.

In any event, I do concede that it's not encyclopedic even if it is true.Vordabois (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The NYT is responsible for every word it prints, regardless as to who authored the article. 12.216.240.130 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"...some misinformation is lying, but some is merely error." Each of us should repeat these words before making any edits to this article. Lou Sander 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

V, you are really torturing the English language in the effort to get out of the hole you've dug for yourself. That AC's contempt for the NYT deceived her into believing that it was plausible that the NYT would not put Ernhardt's death on the front page reflects on her judgement, but not nearly so badly as your argument that that entitles you to assert "Ann is a liar" without any mention of your idiosyncratic definition of the term.

And, yes, in her choice of a counter-example of truly egregious error, it was no accident that she chose the NYT's publication and endorsement of Duranty's pro-Stalinist propaganda. (Btw, do you hear the echo of Stalin's prose in that sentence, or was it lost on you?) Just because the example was pleasurable as well as apt was no reason not to use it. But just because she enjoyed an allusive reminder to her audience that the NYT, too, has a history of being credulous about assertions that fit its ideological predispositions doesn't mean that she was making any particular inappropriate assertion about how often that happens, which was your allegation.

And I stand by my assertion that the Ukranian Famine was a fiasco for the NYT, not merely Duranty. ~"The New York Times didn't deny several million deaths, Duranty did"~??? I think not. Choosing, and relying upon, a pro-Stalinist apologist is an editorial choice conditioned by an editorial viewpoint and dominant corporate culture, which is very much what one means when one says "the NYT denied...". If they published Jones later,[1] it was a retreat forced by the accumulating stink of millions of corpses. Andyvphil (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"alleged" factual inaccuracies

I created a wiki account for the sole purpose of changing a sentence in this section. I guess I will have to wait because this is a semi protected page. I was annoyed to read the comment something about how "liberals" use her DEFINITE factual inaccuracy about the dale earnhart article to "smear" her. Irritating. That is obviously a BIASED accusation! I alwso think that if it was proven that she had factual inaccuracies that the word "alleged" should be dropped from this section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rissawiki (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I reverted it. I also agree about the "alleged" part of the title. It was a blatant inaccuracy, not merely "alleged".Vordabois 04:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It was drivingme CRAZY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rissawiki (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing I would like to change is the sentence "She pointed out that Annie Lee Moss, among others, was correctly identified by Joseph McCarthy as a Communist." There is actually no solid evidence that Annie Lee Moss was a communist. I would suggest removing the word "correctly" or even deleting the sentence entirely. Jhobson1 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've bluelinked Moss for you, above. She's already bluelinked in the article. Read the cases for and against her. Also see, e.g., [2]. Read apologias like [3] after familiarizing yourself with the facts. Or this one, where the oblivious defender writes "That year, the name 'Anna Lee Moss' appeared in the cp membership rolls in Washington, subsequently revised to 'Annie Moss' and 'Annie Lee Moss,' but always attached to one of Moss's addresses",[4] and doesn't appear to realize the implications of what he's said (a common failing of "grassy knoll"-type theorists.) The Cold War was real and Moss should not have been allowed anywhere near sensitive information. Fringe theorists don't get to add "but some disagree" to every statement of fact. Andyvphil (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds very wiki: More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) 207.118.129.172 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC) anonpig 19:24, 6 May 2008

Guccione

The Wiki has her going out with Bob Guccione Jr but then misdescribes Bob Guccione Jr by atributing him with the career of his father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.206.194 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody substituted Penthouse for Spin. I've undone that. Andyvphil (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How can we claim who John Edwards dates is irrelevant while documenting who Ann Coulter dates? Very inconsistent.

"Inflammatory"

This word should appear somewhere in the lead. The words "confrontational style" definitely apply to her interviews, Q&A's, etc. but they can't really apply to writings, where there is nobody present to confront. On the other hand, all of her work includes inflammatory comments. I would change the lead to say "Known for her inflammatory comments and confrontational style..."

Also, the "Christian first..." stuff, while true, isn't really an overall description of her work. It's far less key than the inflammatory nature of what she says, IMHO. Best would be:

Known for her inflammatory comments and confrontational style, Coulter describes herself as ~~"Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second", and also as~~ a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not pretend to be "impartial or balanced".

That would give us a short sentence that describes the essence of her work. (The underline shows new material, the strikeout shows material to be deleted.) Lou Sander 13:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We have just archived a discussion where this suggestion came up,[[5]] but I will expand my comments to say that I don't see the sense of describing her in terms of the reaction of a mere portion of her audience. Those who join her in despising a target of her militant hostility (a majority of her readers and a substantial portion of her viewership, in most cases) tend to be entertained rather than inflamed. And we have her on record saying that is her intent. Andyvphil (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe she only inflames Wikipedia editors. Lou Sander (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah. "Her colorful, inflammatory style has made her a well-known figure on television talk shows and the subject of a Time magazine cover story in April 2005."[6] But I don't want to use "unapologetic demonization", either. Andyvphil (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Well done," to whomever came up with "known for her biting irony and sarcasm." It describes the situation perfectly, IMHO. There's no longer any need for "inflammatory." Good editing.

Now somebody with some judgment needs to do this: "Known for her confrontational style, Coulter describes herself as a ~~"Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second", and also as~~ "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced"."

This should be done on the following grounds:

The struck-out material is thinly-disguised anti-Christian POV ("Oh, she said it herself, so it CAN'T be POV," they will say.)
It is thinly-disguised anti-conservative POV. (Same as above.)
She is not primarily a religious figure, therefore religious references, especially potentially demeaning and/or controversial ones, do NOT belong in the lead of her article.
The deleted words are an example of her irony, a fact which will not be understood by many Wikipedia readers. Misleading material shouldn't be put into leads.
This is a biography of a living person, where there is zero tolerance, or at least near-zero tolerance, for three of the four points above.

Lou Sander (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be me, so thanks. Couldn't have done it without Sophroniscus, who kept reverting "sarcasm" back to "satire", forcing me to think about why the latter was wrong.

I take your point about her Christianity being tangential to her public persona, but disagree with your other points. Her words are such blatant irony that any one who doesn't pick that up is dumb as a rock, and while we have such readers (and editors) I'm not going to agree to restrict out writing to that level. Further the fact that they are her words has value beyond the specific content in that it serves as a concrete illustration of her tone. And I don't see the anti-conservative or anti-Christian POV except in that she is making an ironic reference to it. Andyvphil (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be original research if the sentence read, Known for her confrontational style and sense of irony, Coulter describes herself as a "Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second", and also as "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced"? Everyone here seems to agree that the description is one of irony, why not place the descriptor in the sentence so every reader can understand the context of the phrase. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No matter how innocently the words "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative" are inserted into the lead of this article, they can easily be seen as presenting the encyclopedia's point of view that Coulter IS a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative. It may warm one's heart to see those words here, and it may warm it even more to see that they are from her own mouth, but they present a judgmental point of view about this living person, and they need to be removed. (And, by the way, it is VERY hard to believe that they are in there innocently.) Crap like that doesn't belong in the lead of any article. Neither does irony. It's an encyclopedia, Jim, not an ironic essay. Lou Sander (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a chill pill, Jack. Where do you get the idea that anything in this article "warms my heart"? I'm trying to help form a consensus or compromise, and your hostile attitude isn't going to get it done...I'll just stop there. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies, Ram. I didn't mean to sound like I was speaking to you personally. I've fixed it up above to say "one's." Also, in case your name is Jim, The "Jim" was a reference to the famous Star Trek line "I'm a doctor, Jim, not a (fill in the blank)." It is just incomprehensible to me that anyone would want that "mean-spirited, bigoted" stuff in the lead of a BLP article, or anywhere, unless with the intent to defame. Lou Sander (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ramsquire, your version works ok for me, though I'm not too unhappy with what's already there. Actually, the quote that's problematic is "does not 'pretend to be impartial or balanced'" which in its original context is an allusion to the hidden agendas of news anchors and such rather than a confession to any unusual lack of fairness. ... Lou, I don't know what to say about your lack of comprehension except that maybe you should reread and address my last response. I don't see the anti-conservative or anti-Christian POV except in that she is making an ironic reference to it. I read AC for entertainment. I assure you my intent is not to defame her. Andyvphil (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about the "lack of comprehension" to which you refer? Lou Sander (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen an encyclopedia article in which such an ironic reference is in the lead. Sheesh. The lead is the place to paint a simple, unbiased picture of the subject of the article. What is the justification for including such questionable material in the first place? (To some, the justification is that she is defaming herself with her own words. Imagine that. Imagine Administrators and a Bureaucrat furtively supporting such stuff. Naah. Couldn't happen.) Please, folks, just describe her. That's what encyclopedias do. IMHO the existing version does very well at that, once the "Christian...bigoted...conservative" stuff is removed. Lou Sander (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence regarding Coulter describing herself as bigoted has to go. It was clearly meant as irony and is just too ambiguous for the lead. Just because Coulter said it and I agree with it doesn't mean it is NPOV. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I like how the lead cleverly introduces her style of humor. I like it a lot, actually. I think it's stylish. However, I've come to believe that Lou is right: it's too clever by half, and it's not encyclopedic. Lou's point #1 about making an irrelevant statement about Christians also concerns me. It should go.

I resisted this conclusion because I also believed that it would be easy for readers to pick out her irony. However, the history of this article shows otherwise. People continually edit her obvious humor into absurd statements like "on numerous occasions, she has advocated the intentional death or attack of people because of their religious and or political beliefs." In an encyclopedia, we often choose clarity over style, and this quote should be taken out of the lead. I hope, however, that another characteristic quote can take it's place, which would still help introduce the subject. Cool Hand Luke 06:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead of the article is no place to illustrate her style, or to quote her. There is plenty of space later on to do that. More than any other section, the lead needs to distill her essence and present it in a way that cannot be interpreted as demeaning her or presenting a point of view. This would do it:

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

Probably "conservative" deserves its own sentence. And while she IS an attorney, it's a minor attribute and shouldn't be mentioned first (if at all). Her confrontational style in interviews probably deserves mention, but it needs to be more skillfully done than at present. IMHO, it might be OK to quote her "stirring up the pot" remark, even though quotes aren't normally put in leads. (A notable exception is Nathan Hale.}

It takes skill to do all this in a proper fashion. I claim to have that skill, and I can back up the claim (see HERE). So can a relatively small number of other editors. But skilled people aren't much interested in wasting their time where others, even those with writing skills, mainly seem to want to venomize every paragraph. See the famous Ikkyu2 example, by clicking HERE then scrolling down to "What's wrong with Wikipedia" (you can also use the Table of Contents to get there). Lou Sander (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this suggested lead paragraph. It's quite neutral and sounds very much like what I would read in a traditional encyclopedia. It doesn't seem right that quotes are used in the very first paragraph of an person's article no matter how quotable that person is. There's plenty of space in the second paragraph or even later in the article to quote her biting irony. --seav (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One nice thing about using AC's own words is that they resist entropy. If it's in quotes you can't legitimately change the words (though I've had to change "Muller was quoting" back to "Muller was misquoting" inside the Time blockquote TWICE in the relatively short time I've been editing this article), whereas once you start characterizing her you're on a slippery slope that requires constant attention. Anyway, I simply disagee with the dicta that "The lead of the article is no place to illustrate her style, or to quote her" or that it is somhow "unencyclopedic" to do so. Anyone who thinks she's admitting mean-spiritedness or bigotry is welcome to his stupidity. As I noted, there's a problem with her "pretend balance" quote, but only because it is too incomplete. Andyvphil (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The very nicest thing about using AC's own words is that she calls herself horrible, hateful things. It sets the tone for everything that follows. The second nicest thing is that people can "simply disagree" that that's what's going on. There is no hope for Wikipedia. Lou Sander (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No. She doesn't. Andyvphil (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Irony

Do the currently active editors think we should point out that "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" is an ironic comment on Islam's historical treatment of conquered people, or do you think that most of our readers "get it?" Lou Sander (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that that's what Christianity tried, I'm sure the irony is lost. CMacMillan (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as a brief look at the Crusades entry indicates, the Crusaders wanted to restore and secure access to lands already considered holy to all the surrounding peoples for 900 years, rather than to occupy Muslim nations and exact conversions there. And the authorities of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches didn't exact conversions at that time in the first place; on the rare occasions it was done, it was done by sovereigns acting to maintain control of their territories. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't even thinking about the crusades, although I think your reading is missing its persecution of protestants, but more specifically the inquisitions - Spanish and otherwise. CMacMillan (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite think Lutherans and Calvinists were considered non-Christians who needed conversion as you suggest, but I really don't think the Spanish Inquisition applies to the case--it wasn't an invasion, it was the Spanish leaders who invited the Inquisitors in! But with certain jihadists having wreaked havoc in many countries throughout the world today, it's easier to realize that in some eras Muslims can have, as Coulter recently quoted Michael Medved, "a special violence problem". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.199.50 (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In an interview with the New York Observer promoting Godless, Coulter stated that when frequently asked whether she meant the inflammatory things she says, or that they were rather "hyperbole" or "satire", she could only reply that such questions were "unanswerable".

Later, in an interview in Human Events, she recounted how, while having trouble writing High Crimes and Misdemeanors, she complained to a friend in an email recounting the difficult situation she was trying to describe. That friend suggested that Coulter describe it in the book in the same manner as she had just written about it to her--as if she were writing about it in an e-mail to a friend.

I think regardless of how she meant the comment, it ought to be mentioned why she has a right to make the comment, namely that her close friend Barbara Olson had been killed in the commercial jet that Islamic highjackers crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. Certain editors have deleted this circumstance three times now. Concealing this material fact defames Coulter as well as the United States as it shows a reason why our country departed from its usual clemency. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It was User:BillSpike who deleted the reference on March 8, 2007. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Observer quote, for the curious. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Some critics don’t think Ms. Coulter believes the things she says, I told her.

“Yes, liberals would like to think that—as the entire country turns my way,” she said. “Let them comfort themselves with that little fantasy. It’s not only ‘Are you a satirist?’, but ‘Did you really mean that? Was that a joke? Are you saying that to get a reaction? Is that hyperbole?’ All those sort of questions are all unanswerable.”

"unanswerable" by her, if she doesn't want to be (mis)quoted as saying she's "just kidding". She does say something about writing as if to entertain her friends in the Time cover story, if I recall correctly... And though it was clear that she was being ironic in her rejection of "why don't they like us?" responses to 9/11 I hadn't made the connection to the wars of Moslem expansion (but agree that she might have been) so if someone is found making that interpretation I wouldn't be opposed to working it into a discussion of her tone. Andyvphil (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a 2003 article from FrontPageMag by editor-in-chief David Horowitz who said:

"I began running Coulter columns on Frontpagemag.com shortly after she came up with her most infamous line, which urged America to put jihadists to the sword and convert them to Christianity. Liberals were horrified; I was not. I thought to myself, this is a perfect send-up of what our Islamo-fascist enemies believe – that as infidels we should be put to the sword and converted to Islam. I regarded Coulter’s phillipic as a Swiftian commentary on liberal illusions of multi-cultural outreach to people who want to rip out our hearts."

216.165.199.50 (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've stuck it in the article. You could have done it. Andyvphil (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the strengths of Wikipedia is the ability of users to employ the counsel of outside experts with knowledge on the subject. When the project page is semi-protected, that is what anonymous users, at best, become by default. And those who aspire to a kind of leadership role on a given subject, in this case about Coulter, ought to have a decent familiarity with the available materials about that subject.

Nobody was in a big hurry to address my concerns about essential information deleted from the article, so when I offered help on an issue that I had stated was tangential to my concerns, but upon which you expressed an interest, I didn't expect the suggested material to be treated as if delay upon including it would be deemed by myself as any way inappropriate, much less that its rapid employment in the article would be thought of as a way of dispensing with my original concerns. I doubt if you can argue they dispense with Lou's inquiries either, unless you consider yourself the representive of "the currently active editors". 216.165.199.50 (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't saying you had done anything inappropriate, just encouraging you to go ahead and edit the article. And I don't "aspire to a leadership role", I just fix bits here and there that I can see how to improve. Btw, if she was a personal friend of Mrs. Olson, I think it ought to be mentioned, but any conclusions you want to state about that have to be found in your sources. Andyvphil (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good of you to want to be fair, but my request is a very simple one. If you will, please do me the favor of restoring the clause "spiked" by User:BillSpike, highlighted here in bold:

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, Coulter has advocated a more warlike response to terrorism. On September 12, 2001, the day after the attacks (in which her friend Barbara Olson had been killed), she wrote in her column:

That she was a friend of Coulter is documented in Coulter's article (which can be read in full by following the link found by clicking the footnote after the quotation) which actually served as a memorial for Olson.

One other request I have concerning the quotation is that there is a paragraph break (as seen in her original column) before she starts to say "We should invade their countries...." This is another error that has had to be corrected at least three times. The error resembles vandalism since it changes the tone of the phrase from one with a dignified pause before proposing a serious course of action to one reading like a breathless rant. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph break disappears if you put both paragraphs in a single blockquote, so it may have disappeared inadvertently. As I said, I thought her friendship with a 9-11 victim should be mentioned, so I've undone the deletion you complain of. Why don't you register a nickname? Andyvphil (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going to object to the phrase "known for her biting irony and sarcasm" in the lede. (Personally I don't think her writing is particularly ironic. Over the top hyperbole, aggression, and eliminationist rhetoric in an attempt at humor and to stroke the ego of her readers, maybe. Irony, not so much.) My objection is that she is not particularly known for her irony. On the contrary, most of the (pro-Coulter) commentary I can find seems to take the things that she says more or less at face value. Look at the reviews of her books at Amazon, for example. eaolson (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

She's known for her irony even by some of her enemies. Consider this hostile analysis in the NY Times: "Her sincerity is beside the point as long as people keep taking the bait. Mrs. Clinton, who is the perfect foil for Ms. Coulter — ambitious, allergic to irony... — simply added fuel to a fire that she was presumably trying to douse...Without the total package, Ms. Coulter would be just one more nut living in Mom's basement. You can accuse her of cynicism all you want, but the fact that she is one of the leading political writers of our age says something about the rest of us."[7] Andyvphil (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is rich!

Looking at the above sections and recent edits to the main article, people can't agree that Coulter is "inflammatory." Neither can they agree that her work features "biting irony and sarcasm."

Privately and through their edits, some people, even (especially?) administrators and bureaucrats, proclaim that she and her comments are reprehensible and racist.

Who is able to put aside their personal points of view and write a neutral lead to this article? (I don't see that ability in the currently active editorial pool, but that's only my opinion.) That is a rare skill, and its general absence here is why many who have it won't waste it on Wikipedia. (See Ikkyu2, above.) Lou Sander (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm both confused and supportive of your post. Do you truly believe that there isn't a neutral person available - who has the time - to create what you believe to be a non-POV lede? That's my confusion. Is it POV now because you don't agree with it or because it truly is? The supportive side comes in because I see that you do support Ann Coulter, so should refrain from editing the article, as I do (refrain from editing, not support). Although I will revert vandalism. CMacMillan (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting. It's a matter of the ability to project neutrality. It is lacking here, as is very much judgment about what is encyclopedic and what isn't. Lou Sander (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the presence of a neutral person to write the lede, most might believe that a lede is "good enough" for them to avoid going through the trouble of researching in the discussion section the part of the article that often has a long discussion history in order to prevent a new one being erased by one side or another of conflicting parties.

And you feel you support Lou because 1. You presume he wants to help Ann Coulter 2. You further presume his presumed desire to help Ann Coulter reaches the point where he should refrain from all editing of an article about her. 3. You admit you partake of what you had presumed to exist in Lou, a desire to help Ann Coulter to the same degree to which you had further presumed his presumed desire to be: to the point of being obliged to refrain from editing the article. 4. You want him to imitate you in applying the same draconian cure to himself for the problem you admitted to needing yourself.

CMacMillan, do me a favor—don't "support" my opinions.

Lou was probably refering to a recent edit by User:Eaolson in which he erased in the first phrase in the lede (reprinted in bold)

"Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American attorney, conservative columnist, political commentator and best-selling author, known for her biting irony and sarcasm.

To which he added the edit commentary:

Again, you have provided no evidence that she is not sincere in what she says or that she is generally regarded as a satirist, Horowitz notwithstanding. hyperbole, maybe.

What about Ann's own admission in her recent best-selling book?

"As for my own — as yet — uncensored language, 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). But apparently, in the early sixties and seventies, a medical procedure used to be performed whereby a person’s humor was removed at birth. Fortunately, this practice was outlawed years ago, but you still see a few such people wandering around, helpless in the world of rhetoric. They simply lack the enzyme that detects irony. These are the kind of people who say, “What do you mean ‘is it hot enough for me?’ I hate it this hot!”

As I said in the section above, (aptly entitled "Irony"), "Those who aspire to a kind of leadership role on a given subject, in this case about Coulter, ought to have a decent familiarity with the available materials about that subject." You know, the kind of leadership role where one tries to edit the lede. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lou Sander's concerns about the neutrality of the lead would have made sense as regards earlier versions, but are currently inane. Andyvphil (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to get too personal, but I would prescribe a Wikibreak for you, Andyvphil. You may have some passive-aggressive issues to work out. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be a neutral person to write a neutral article. One can despise (fill in the blank), but still write a neutral article about him/her/it. That sort of thing is just near totally absent from this article. For example, it is just freaking lunacy to include, in the lead of an encyclopedia article, something like "I am a hateful bigot." Why is it freaking lunacy? If you don't know the answer, or if you can come up with arguments about why it is NOT freaking lunacy, maybe you shouldn't be involved in editing encyclopedias. That's your own call, though. (But remember, William Hung thought he was a pretty good singer.) Lou Sander (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not "freaking lunacy". It is a demonstration in the lead that idiotic literalness in reading AC is just that. We have a statement that she speaks ironically. Then we have an example. Your objection that some will, unlike you, be unable to draw the connection between the nearly ajacent sentences is inane. Andyvphil (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that when a new editor comes to a subject and gives his opinion, it is very common for the older editors to place him into a box based on that first post. That response can chill further discussion toward neutrality, as it contributes to two sides butting heads on a particular issue. It is unfortunate, and I admit to doing it myself, but it is one of the problems of a collaborative effort everyone should be mindful of avoiding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Freaking lunacy is freaking lunacy, whether anyone groks it or not. Lou Sander (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting tactic: if you don't know what it is, well then I guess you just don't understand. That's both silly, and a patently ridiculous statement. You see her as a brilliant satirist, a humorist with saracasm and irony. I see her as the Whore of Babylon who peddles hate for an hourly wage, and who's only use of irony is to call herself a Christian. As for humor, I'll try her Benefit-from-the-death-of-your-husband joke at the next funeral I go to and see who laughs. Who's right? Both you and the lede use her words to justify the point of view. 12.202.209.46 07:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, none of you should be editing this article. 12.216.240.130 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

minor comment

I found this article doing research. The subject is not very familiar to me. After a first reading I would like to commend the editors on doing a very good job of letting the facts speak for themselves and writing an interesting coherent article on a polarizing topic. Now the but (you knew it was coming).

I apologize in advance if this brings up old wounds as I have not read the discussions. The phrase at the end of the lead, "and also as a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and unlike broadcasters", is not clear to me. I don't understand which broadcasters are being referred to as many broadcasters do not pretend to be impartial or balanced. (Is it all, most, some, TV, radio, mainstream, ..., broadcasters?) I looked for a citation to lead me to a source that might clarify but did not find one. Anyway, minor, feel free to ignore. Ward20 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The phrase was until recently present without the reference to broadcasters, which makes it misleading, as I pointed out on this page a couple times above without getting any response. The "broadcasters" are in the original quote, as you can see if you look for its more complete appearance further down in the article, where I was earlier responsible for modifying it to add the clarifying tail of the quote. The problem is that the phrase was being used as if she was confessing to unusual unfairness or unbalancedness whereas in actual fact the most important word in the sentence is "pretend". She is saying that unlike journalists and anchors who are no more non-partisan than she and whose words and actions actually reflect their hidden biases, she lays hers on the table. But she implies all this by brief, passing, allusion, and her meaning is lost on those who "simply lack the enzyme that detects irony" (see above) or who will simply not acknowledge the possiblity of a meaning that detracts from the usefulness of the phrase to them. If Lou Sander were attacking the lead on the basis of the presence of the ~"does not pretend to be impartial or balanced"~ phrase I would not be so dismissive of him, as I doubt it ought to be there at all. Andyvphil (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Too Negative

In my opinion, this article looks like it was written by people who had serious bones to pick with Ann Coulter, and as a result reads as very NPOV. Look at the relative amount of words in the article devoted to criticisms and "controversies" in her article, then compare and contrast it with the articles on Al Franken and James Carville, similar pundits on the left.

Furthermore, the criticisms echo factual inaccuracies made by people criticizing her. For example, her Jersey Girls quote was about four very specific 9/11 widows, but the criticisms portray her as being critical of all 9/11 widows. Reading the criticism section, one is left with the latter impression, which is not correct. A simple google search can turn up as many relevant supporting documents as you need to back up this point, for example: [8] being one of the first I found.

Overall I think the article makes the same mistakes that her detractors make, which is to read her quotes as something besides humor, and taking her witticisms much too seriously. How many sources do you need to understand that her quotes are all jokes? The wikipedia article on Dave Chappelle, for example, doesn't suggest that he seriously supported using crack. 75.31.172.212 (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything implying she had criticized all 9/11 widows, but neither did I find the claimed repetion in the columns cited, just in some videos of interviews. So I replaced that claim with an actual response. The criticism on this subject now needs some beefing up, rather than merely being alluded to. Maybe the Clinton quote...? Andyvphil (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't be "neutral" about Coulter. --Jammoe (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can't be "neutral", you have no business writing for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.34.204 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The unsigned comment is sad but true... POV is paramount. ask123 (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's negative enough, in fact I think the article could do with more negative comments because it's the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.42.152 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Another defamatory omission

Someone deleted the motive for Coulter's heightened rhetoric in the Arabs and Muslims section. I have reprinted the original paragraph, which I wrote, and highlighted in bold the deleted section.

Coulter also called for increasing the power of U.S. law enforcement agencies to search Muslims, describing the testimony of Coleen Rowley, an FBI whistleblower who argued before the Senate in 2002 that in cases where Muslims suspected of a crime are known to be affiliated with radical fundamental Islamic groups or even simply had lived in England, authorities should be granted a search warrant based on probable cause, neither of which could have been considered a factor before 9/11, and which actually prevented Zacarias Moussaoui, later convicted of conspiring with the 9/11 hijackers, from being searched prior to attacks. Coulter cited a poll by the Daily Telegraph which found that 98 percent of Muslims between the ages of 20 to 45 said they would not fight for Britain in the War in Afghanistan, and that 48 percent said they would fight for Osama bin Laden, said she agreed with Rowley, "certainly after Sept. 11", and concluded: "The FBI allowed thousands of Americans to be slaughtered on the altar of political correctness. What more do liberals want?"

The omitted facts are all contained in the column cited. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a dreadfully confusing sentence. It's presenting as fact that Moussaoui wasn't searched because he was a Muslim. Looking at the referenced column, it's only a claim made by Rowley that an being an English Muslim is probable cause for a search. If you take out the "neither ... 9/11" descriptive clause, the sentence reads that probable cause prevented Moussaoui from being searched, which makes no sense. eaolson (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not Shakespeare, but it presents the facts. You are mistaken that Rowley "claimed" that being an English Muslim is a probable cause for a search. She said it ought to be considered probable cause, because of the facts presented. But I agree with you that the antecedent of "prevented"--as well as the descriptive clause you mentioned--is unclear. I have come up with a corrected version below with new additions in bold and new omissions struck out:

Coulter also called for increasing the power of U.S. law enforcement agencies to search Muslims, describing the testimony of Coleen Rowley, an FBI whistleblower who argued before the Senate in 2002 that in cases where Muslims suspected of a crime are known to be affiliated with radical fundamental Islamic groups or even simply had lived in England, authorities should be granted a search warrant based on probable cause, it being FBI policy that neither of the cases ~~which~~ could have been considered a factor before 9/11, ~~and~~ policy which actually prevented Zacarias Moussaoui, later convicted of conspiring with the 9/11 hijackers, from being searched prior to attacks.

- If someone steps up to apply my corrections, please don't forget to wikify Zacarias Moussaoui. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the column, and Rowley didn't say what the paragraph in the article or your revision/restoration said she said. That was Coulter's parsing, the most dubious part of which is her conclusion from the polls quoted. Anyway, I've rewritten it. Andyvphil (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Coulter was not accurate on source of poll.[9]Pg 31.

"Citing a poll by The Daily Telegraph which found that 98 percent of Muslims" should be changed to something similar to, "She indicated a poll by The Daily Telegraph found that 98 percent of Muslims", because:

Poll conducted by Asian radio station Sunrise.

Poll Reported Nov. 4, 2001, by Sunday Times, "Britain is in denial about the angry Muslims within"

Ward20 (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Ward20 (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ward20, what makes you so sure The Daily Telegraph didn't also quote the same Sunrise poll? 216.165.199.50 (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at the new version which I have brief comments about. But since Andyvphil often changes things very quickly, let's reprint it here for the record. I have indicated in bold the portions I have comments about.

Coulter also called for U.S. law enforcement agencies to use racial profiling against Muslims. She cited the 2002 Senate testimony of FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, who was acclaimed for condemning her superiors for refusing to authorize a search warrant for 9-11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui when he refused to consent to a search of his computer. They knew that he was a Muslim in flight school who had overstayed his visa, and the French Intelligence Service had confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups. Coulter said she agreed that probable cause existed in the case, but that refusing consent, being in flight school and overstaying a visa shouldn't constitute grounds for a search. Citing a poll by The Daily Telegraph which found that 98 percent of Muslims between the ages of 20 to 45 said they would not fight for Britain in the war in Afghanistan, and that 48 percent said they would fight for Osama bin Laden, she asserted "any Muslim who has attended a mosque in Europe -- certainly in England, where Moussaoui lived -- has had 'affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups'", so that she parsed Rowley's position as meaning that "'probable cause' existed to search Moussaoui's computer because he was a Muslim who had lived in England." Because FBI headquarters rejected Rowley's racial profiling they failed to uncover the 9-11 plot, Coulter asserted. "The FBI allowed thousands of Americans to be slaughtered on the altar of political correctness. What more do liberals want?"<

I highlighted "racial profiling". How does one "racially profile" a Muslim if Muslims come in all races?
You write Coulter said "refusing consent, being in flight school and overstaying a visa shouldn't constitute grounds for a search". Shouldn't that be "refusing consent, being in flight school and overstaying a visa alone shouldn't constitute grounds for search," because otherwise it sounds as if she's slighting the supporting evidence?
You write Coulter "parsed Rowley's position as meaning that probable cause existed to search". To parse means to string together key propositions in order to briefly recount the meaning. That's not how she came to the conclusion that probable cause existed, she brought in other evidence and showed that that conclusion followed logically by applying the situation the evidence presented to Rowley's reasoning on the matter. It ought to read something like "Coulter concluded from Rowley's position and the pertinent facts she described that probable cause existed to search".
You write "Because FBI headquarters rejected Rowley's racial profiling [sic] they failed to uncover the 9-11 plot, Coulter asserted". In your recapitulation of her reasoning, this time you slight the supporting evidence listed in point 2. by failing to mention it all. And you compound it by failing to annunciate the causation of key piece of evidence that is, Moussaoui's computer not being searched with his plot not being thwarted. The parts follow a logical sequence, but you'd never know it from the contempt you show for it.

I'm out of time but not out of comments.

Andyvphil, you and the person who deleted the Zacharias Moussaoui paragraph make a great team. You'd want to laugh if it didn't deal with the manipulation of the presentation of issues so vital to our nation's security as well as an intelligent woman's reputation. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comment, "Ward20, what makes you so sure The Daily Telegraph didn't also quote the same Sunrise poll? 216.165.199.50 (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)". Her column did not say the The Daily Telegraph reported on the poll, it indicates they conducted the poll, "A poll by the Daily Telegraph found." This is in error. Coulter further attributes specific data to the poll. The WP article wording, "Citing a poll by The Daily Telegraph which found" appears to corroborate a poll by The Daily Telegraph found the specific data Coulter wrote about. This is inaccurate as to who conducted the poll and there may be further inaccuracies or omissions in Coulter's assertions concerning the poll. For example, this source is slightly different, "in a survey conducted by the Asian radio station Sunrise among 500 Muslims in Greater London. While 98 percent of them said that they would not fight for Britain, 48 percent said they would fight for bin Laden and Islam." This is still not the original source (radio station Sunrise).

I am not saying the differences are significant, or that Coulter manipulated data. I am merely saying Coulter's writing asserted the source and the conclusions of the poll and the WP article has no cite of the original source material of the Poll. A simple change in the article will make the text verifiable to the cite, "Coulter indicated a poll by The Daily Telegraph found that 98 percent of Muslims...", and not support an inaccurate statement, "Citing a poll by The Daily Telegraph which found that 98 percent of Muslims...".Ward20 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph did quote the Sunrise poll, and Coulter made an error in attribution (as well as unjustified extrapolation) -- I've clarified this with a note.

As to 216.etc's points, (1) ask Coulter - "racial profiling" is the term she uses; I've rewritten a bit to make this clearer. Also see the 2nd paragraph above the one we're discussing. (2) No, she explicity rejects any idea of cumulative probability. She's clearly right as to refusal -- that cannot be used any part of a justification for a search. And since she's the lawyer I assume she may be right as a matter of law on the other two elements. But dropping those elements entirely is crucial to her conclusion... (3)Which brings us to "parsing". No, in this case "parsing" does not mean "to string together key propositions in order to briefly recount the meaning." It means breaking down a formal logical proposition into its elements. Thus, she agrees A("Muslim") and B("Europe") and C("refusal") and D("pilot") and E("visa") imply X("probable cause") is TRUE, but that since C,D and E are all irrelevant (the value of the function is constant, i.e. 1, whether the proposition is true or false) she concludes that she can reduce the logic to A and B implies X. Andyvphil 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil, I think your changes addressed the issue better than my suggestion. Thanks. Ward20 01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Andyvphil 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Troops in Vietnam

I've always wondered why this incident is reported in Wikipedia with such vigorous dishonesty and distortion. Now there's a clue: It comes from the Canadian Broadcasting Company. Sue Gardner, head of the Wikimedia Foundation, was formerly the head of CBC's web site. Not that Sue is dishonest herself, but her Administrators and Bureaucrats know where their bread is buttered. Sophomoric editors jump to follow their lead.

The dishonesty begins with the CBC broadcast itself, which starts by saying that Coulter "base[s] outspoken opinions on misconceptions." Look at this short clip and tell us where Ann is outspoken (she is polite and reserved throughout, IMHO). The deception continues with the section heading in the article, and goes on from there. Most of it consists of pathologically omitting/misrepresenting facts.

For the record, Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. (Ask Ned Memnook's survivors.) The Wiki-Administration just prevents us from acknowledging it. RaulTheFool (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When AC's demeanor is polite it doesn't mean she's not being outspoken. And in this case, under the misconception that Canada was an ally in the Vietnam war. Yes, Ned Memnook died in VN (of illness) on a peacekeeping mission, but that merely means that McKeown should have spoken more carefully (and the voiceover, with time for editorial review, should definately not have seconded him without reservation or good grammar, which it did - see the quote I put in the ref), as the ceasefire mission is clearly not what Coulter had in mind. The spin that this means Coulter is an ignoramus is completely unjustified as Canada is simply too insignificant for an American to waste too many brain cells remembering that we tend to be friendlier towards them than they are towards us. There's nothing wrong with the section head, nor am I aware of any pathologically omitted or misrepresented facts. And Wikipedia admins don't get bulletins on what the company line is from Gardner. They're just editors with a bit set in their profile. The suggestion is absurd. Andyvphil (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Every one of us should look up the word "outspoken." Then we should parse Ms. Coulter's words for outspokenness. After that, we should read definition 2 of "sophomoric." Finally, we should vote for that definition's poster child. RaulTheFool (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll save you the trouble. "outspoken":Speaking, or spoken, freely, openly, or boldly. As to poster child for sophomoric... look up "mirror". Andyvphil (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Using both words in a sentence... "It's pretty sophomoric to parse words like "I think you're wrong," and "I think Canada sent troops," and find them to be outspoken." RaulTheFool (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grammar, false content. Coulter can usually be relied upon to express her disagreement freely, openly and boldly, and this was no exception. "...actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam. AC: I don't think that's right. M:... C: ... M:... C: I think you're wrong... M:... C: I think you're wrong... M:... C: I think Canada sent troops... M:... C: Well, I'll get back to you on that." She may have been wrong, but she didn't back down unnecessarily, which unlike yelling or other impoliteness is central to outspoken speech. Maybe when you get to he a junior you'll learn to read the dictionary with more insight. Andyvphil (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sophomoric is as sophomoric does," as it says in the movie. What about the lying/misleading/Wikislandering in the section heading? You know, the place where it says "fighting?" How subtly the bureaucracy does its dirty work. RaulTheFool (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Wikipedia's 1300+ admins knew that Sue Gardner led the CBC web site, much less that the website once hosted a negative story about Ann Coulter, much less that we must include links to this story at all costs. I didn't previously know that one of Wikipedia's officers had connections to the CBC. This is one of the strangest conspiracy theories I've seen. Then again, maybe I'm just saying that because I'm part of the conspiracy. Cool Hand Luke 06:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Feed it not! ( * ) -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is crystal clear to reasonable readers that this article is hugely biased. ("Oh, no!" Says the sophomore chorus, "WE don't think it's biased, so SURELY, it can't be biased.") Example after example are given, usually on this page. Sometimes the bias is removed (as recently happened with "fighting" vs. "troops"), but after time has passed, the offending words or ideas reappear. When somebody points out the recurring outrages, the perps do what they can against him or her.

There are entire web sites devoted to demonstrating that this sort of thing isn't just confined to a few articles. You can look them up. But of course, only a troll would give their URLs here.

Would you like to see a clear example of the bias in this very section of this very article? Just let us know, and we'll describe it. (Don't expect that a correction will be allowed, however.) RaulTheFool (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking away women's right to vote

I'd just like to point out something about one of Coulter's statements in this section:

"...It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.

Did anyone else notice that this quote is completely factually wrong? For example, Jimmy Cater DID win the male vote in 1976 (he got 50% of the men's vote, which was roughly the same as the percentage of women's votes he got). In addition, Bill Clinton also received a plurality of the male vote in 1992 (around 41%), although it was smaller than his total margin of victory.

With these taken into consideration, the ONLY election where Coulter's quote even applies is the 96 election between Clinton and Dole, during which most media commentators noticed the "gender gap." I just thought that a point relating to this matter should be mentioned (a la the "Canadian troops in Vietnam" section), since the section as is now creates the misleading notion that Coulter was correct. (unsigned, by,71.98.74.129, 17:43 8 December 2007)

No, nobody's noticed, including the media, so far as I know. We need a cite to mention it (some Wikilawyer may yell "WP:SYN,WP:OR!", but I will support a footnote) but I suppose something can be found at gender gap. Andyvphil (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC) ...No, nothing there. Hard to believe we have Veepstakes but not Gender Gap (elections). The usage is controversial (there are complaints about the media saying the Republicans "have" a gender gap when the difference obviously cuts both ways), so you'd think there'd be an article. Andyvphil (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While not surprising as Andy said, no one noticed. It's not that surprising I guess I mean no one ever said she was smart (that's probably why she thinks women shouldn't vote she presumes everyone else is as dumb as her) and most people don't really have time to analyse everything she says since most of what she says is dumb and often wrong and no one really cares. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I despise Coulter as much as anyone, but I don't think it's fair to say she's unintelligent. According to this article she graduated summa cum laude from Cornell and has a law degree. I also really doubt she "believes" in taking the vote away from women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.168.191 (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Arguably," "allusion"

Unencyclopedic. They make a horrible article even worse. Get rid of them. Lou Sander (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume this refers to the paragraph about her comments on John Edwards. I agree that she did not "arguably imply" that she would have to use the word. She SAID: "Can't really talk about Edwards", because you get sent to rehab for using the word. I think that saying she was making an allusion is fine, because the comment was in the same time frame as Washington going to "rehab".Paisan30 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should mention the allusion to historical muslim practices in the "kill all their leaders and convert them to Christianity" remark, shouldn't it? Lou Sander (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It does. See the Horowitz quote. But she didn't say she would have to refer to Edwards as a "faggot". She might have meant that, or she might have meant that she would have to refer to him by some word (unspecified) which would have been equally non-pc. You can't say she said something she arguably didn't mean. And your declaration that something is "unencylopedic" is just opinion until you support it with an argument. Andyvphil (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if we just don't attempt to draw a conclusion about what she meant in regards to Edwards. I removed the "implication" line, so we are just reporting what she said. I think that contextually, it is important to include the Washington comment.Paisan30 (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I added a citation to Coulter saying that she was referring to Isaiah Washington, so we don't have to say it was "apparently" an allusion Paisan30 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've found Coulter making the same point about what she didn't say that I did, above: "COULTER: ...by the way, I did not call John Edwards the 'F' word. I said I couldn't talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word."[10]

More Christian Hate from Wikipedia

I know whoever STARTED the article with " Coulter describes herself as "Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second"[1]" thought they were being cute and could defend their cheap shot against Christians born of abject hatred of Jesus rivaled only by that Church shooter in Colorado by saying "Well, she said it man!"

But, guess what? She was mocking YOU GUYS when she said it. Sorry, the joke's on you. Now, please...take it the HELL out of the first pargraph. And, oh yeah, try not to be so obvious next time. 69.244.181.184 (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an atheist, but I agree that the statement should not be in the first paragraph. With all the crazy things she says, any number of them could be listed in the lead... but I don't think they should be there.Paisan30 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well i disagree, if anyone has EARNED the right to be quoted for that why say, its her. --IceHunter (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Coulter - An anti-Semite?

You've got THREE Jewish people calling her one (including that NOBODY YouTube singer who's hardly a notable source so please delete that useless reference asap) and one Jewish guy defending her.

But, truth be told, the reaction fell almost PERFECTLY along ideological lines. (Shocked!) David Horowitz, Prager, Rabbi Lapin and almost EVERY other well known conservative Jewish pundit defended her.

And every left wing critic (aka the editorial board of Wikipedia lol) slammed her.

It might be wise to make that point... 69.244.181.184 (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunno who "the editorial board of Wikipedia" might be, but I'm not authorized to "make points". If you can cite someone notable saying the reaction broke perfectly along ideological lines provide it here and I'll consider it for inclusion. Better yet, get an account and -- after a few days, since this is article has a low-level protection -- include it yourself. Andyvphil (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not an anti-semite. Christians believe humans are perfected through Christ. That's not Coulter's "theory" that is a biblical fact and cornerstone of Christianity. 69.86.52.123 (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Implying that Jews are "imperfect" is like saying that blacks are "inferior" -- inherently bigoted and tremendously offensive. It may be the "cornerstone of [your] Christianity," but that just reveals your brand (not all!) Christianity to be anti-semitic. Oh, and "biblical fact" is an oxymoron. The Bible does contain "truth," but it is embedded in myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.168.191 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia entry fairness

please take care as this article has been edited and re-edited in order to slant or color the details or facts in this article.. If taken into context more then 70% of the edits made to this article have a political or biased agenda.. a full 25% of the edits were made by the US Army 5th signal core both in the US and in US bases located in Germany; as well as a non-trivial number of edits by military subcontractor haliburton (64.154.26.251) this is a copy of material deleted from the article page, written by User:Phar --Raphael1 09:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikiscanner tool only tracks anonymous edits, and from a certain period of time that was put in its database. Since everyone has biases I assume the number of biased edits in this article approaches 100%, excluding typos and bots, but your link doesn't demonstrate that. And this article is now semi-protected, so the percentage of anonymous edits for Wikiscanner to analyze is now zero. Andyvphil (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good sign that users have accused this article of having both a liberal and conservative slant. Cool Hand Luke 00:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If many people from both sides accuse it of being slanted, it certainly isn't written from a neutral point of view, is it? Lou Sander (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Many biased people accusing it of being slanted doesn't tell you much one way or the other. Andyvphil (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It tells you that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. Neutral things are not plausibly accused of being slanted. Example: the words "union buster" are not neutral words. Lou Sander (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point; if liberals accuse the article of a conservative bias (because it doesn't call her a racist) and conservatives accuse it of a liberal bias (because it includes quotes like "hateful language") it's obviously merely their own biases dictating what they expect of the article. I think the article is very NPOV. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How sophomoric. "You may be missing the point," indeed. RaulTheFool (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my chatty point above. I would be alarmed if this article was only ever accused of having a liberal bias. Cool Hand Luke 09:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about "plausible" accusations? For example, it's not plausible to accuse the article of exhibiting POV when it reports that she said her father was a "union buster" when the quote in the cite is "'My father was a lawyer. He was a union buster,' she says with pride."[11] It may be your POV that being a "union buster" is a bad thing, but Wikipedia doesn't take a position on that. Andyvphil (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What truly twisted thinking. If you can call it that. Tell us why "union buster" is in the article. (Oh, yes. She said it, and somebody commented on it. My tenth-grade teacher told me so.) RaulTheFool (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Union buster" is in the article to describe her father. What part of that simple sentence eludes you? Andyvphil (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want adults to listen to you, you will have to clean up your 15-year-old mouth. (PS - The words "union buster" don't do much to project a neutral point of view. That's a bit of a problem in this article.) RaulTheFool (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't tell you. You have to ask her. We have no idea why she's so proud of it all we know is she said it Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Baselessly calling Ron Paul a "Neville Chamberlain" on defense

In the interest of thwarting slander and baseless vendettas, there should be some mention of her misrepresentation of Congressman Paul on National Defense, which she did during an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News in late November 2007. Perhaps we could mention the fact that Paul receives more campaign contributions from active duty officers than any other presidential candidate, and, oh I don't know, the fact that he wants the National Guard defending AMERICA and not countries thousands of miles away, oh, and maybe how he wants to restore the U.S. Military to what it was before it was broken and over-extended. The fact is, Ron Paul is the best candidate on National Defense, and Coulter is shamelessly supporting the over-extension of the American Military, which weakens American Security. Ann Coulter is no stranger to lobbing slanderous feces indiscriminately at people, and once again it is time to call her on her BS. Toddsteroni2008 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this isn't a WP:WEIGHTy critique of Coulter. It doesn't even have a small fraction of the coverage that some of her other incendiary remarks have had. This is a biography on Coulter, not a Ron Paul campaign fact sheet. Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue remains: Ann Coulter comparing Ron Paul to the most notorious Nazi appeaser in the 20th century is in no way controsversial or relevant? I see. Toddsteroni2008 (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This IS a biography on Coulter. As a biography, it contains far too many of her remarks, and far, far too many responses to her remarks. It even, from time to time, has responses to responses to her remarks. It is as though the biography of David Letterman included mostly his jokes and people's reactions to them. Lou Sander (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I'd include her remarks on Ron Paul if anyone other than blogs had taken note of them, but that doesn't seem to have happened. If you can find more biography, add it, but don't get in the way of what Wikipedia actually can do fairly well, which is clarify internet kerfuffles. Andyvphil (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to "thwart slander", support Ron Paul's candidacy, or even stenograph every comment Coulter makes on the news. This happened almost eight weeks ago, and didn't make a blip on the national radar, so it hardly belongs in an encylopedia article. eaolson (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do "we" stenograph so many Coulter comments from the point of view that she's a bad person? Her real views and pithiest comments are almost totally ignored in favor of other things like calling her father a "union buster." There just isn't any justification for including the latter, is there? Yet it's in there. Possible reason: Shows her in a bad light, which is the main purpose of many editors, administrators, and bureaucrats. (BTW, where is the summary of her views? Encyclopedia articles usually have such things, don't they?) RaulTheFool (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Add it. If it's NPOV I'll let it stay. Andyvphil (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is somthing i read somehere sorry but it said somthing about her being a dirne in her teen years i think it was news week i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.161.253 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the section entitled "Homosexuality" doing in this article? The section states that Ann has accused "several" public figures of being homosexual. If this is the case, let's get "several" examples (more than 3), not 2 that were clearly humorous charges. Ann was obviously joking when she referred to Clinton and Gore as gay. What was Ann's book High Crimes and Misdemeanors about? Oh year, Clinton's lies and the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which involved Bill Clinton's sexual relations with a WOMAN. I think it is pretty clear that Ann was jokingly referring to Clinton as gay. As for Al Gore, she said herself that she was joking. January 3, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.98.168 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the summation was inaccurate so I removed it. But in the case of Clinton, did you read it? ' "shows some level of latent homosexuality." The next day, she also described former vice president Al Gore as gay, "But Al Gore -- total fag." She then said she was "just kidding" about Al Gore but that she was serious about Bill Clinton.'. Clearly she does think Clinton has some 'latent homosexuality' Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)