Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 21

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 19

Controversy and criticism

I removed two sections from the article

=== Homosexuality===

On July 26, 2006 she said former president Bill Clinton "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.^[1]

===Confederate Flag===

In one column Coulter stated "The Confederate battle flag today has nothing to do with race. It stands for a romantic image of a chivalric, honor-based culture that was driven down by the brute force of crass Yankee capitalism..."[3]

The problem with these sections is that they are under the 'controversy and criticism'. By definition, everything under this section must relate to a controversy or criticism she has received. However neither of these sections establish that what she said he was controversial or was criticised. It's important to remember something is only controversial if we have reliable sources which establish it is not because we personally feel it is controversial. I personally wonder if the article should be restructed. As it is, I feel we risk violating undue. Although she acknowledges she is a polemicist who likes stirring the pot so it's not surprising there is a lot of controversy surrounding her, we still need to cover who she is. We actually do a resonable job of that by documenting her views in the controversy and criticism section but the problem is by putting this section as a controversy and criticism section we are explicitly claiming we should only cover stuff about her views that are controversy. While all her views are probably controversial this still makes it seem like the article is just criticising her rather then documenting who she is. Editors may want to read the essay WP:Criticism Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually on second thought I don't think we're doing that great a job of covering her. For example, she is clearly opposed to abortion. However the only way you will know this is from the controversy surrounding her abortionist comment. I don't really know her nor do I really give a damn but I suspect there is a lot more we don't cover that well. Remember she may be an idiot and it's not that hard to show she's one but it doesn't mean we have to be idiots as well. The article needs to demonstrate who she is and what she believes, not just that she says a lot of dumb things. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So if she is an idiot, wouldn't we have to demonstrate just that? --Raphael1 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

She is a well-credentialed author and public intellectual. To call her an "idiot" is to express a non-neutral point of view that is controverted by the facts. Lou Sander (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just say she is an intellectual?F33bs (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This removed "information" was spun back into the article earlier. Removed per Nil's comments above. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion (non-neutral?)

Hi people,

I just read whoever "has avoided disclosing her membership of any particular denomination." What is the meaning of this way to write something about someone on Wikipedia? If you want to discredit and knock down someone, go make a website in HTML or whatever and attack Coulter. You have to open up your mind and think: Just because someone is a Christian does not mean they have to be part of a denomination. When Protestants separated from Catholicism, with Martin Luther, they were separating for a fundamental reason, not to mention the indulgences tax. Many denominations though are formed just by human bickering, which pollutes the religion in a way. If a Christian doesn't feel they need to belong to any denomination, and that believing in Jesus is enough and the core principle - that's their belief. You don't just deem it "avoiding disclosing..."
DISCLAIMER: This is a general comment and if she really does belong to a denomination and doesn't want to tell people, please disregard this comment. But if that is the case, still the writing should be changed to "she chose not to" or "she hasn't disclosed...". Not "she avoided." It goes back to the comment earlier about the TOO NEGATIVE discussion. You need to write this article, as any article, fairly and neutrally. Again, if you want to attack people, go make your own website and don't pollute Wikipedia.
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the text to address your concern, I hope. Andyvphil (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andyvphil, I tweaked it abit as well. --Tom 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can some one add this quote from Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion:

"The American Taliban' is a particularly rich source of obnoxiously barmy quotations, 'beginning with a prize one from somebody called Ann Coulter who, American colleagues have persuaded me,is not a spoof, invented by The Onion': 'We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

The second part of the quote is already listed, but it interesting to know what he thinks of her!!! ((unsigned))

Mostly illustrates that Dawkins doesn't know anything about Coulter and was persuaded to read her words with a simple literalism... If we find a RS discussing this phenomenon (of which this article has been an example in the past), Dawkins might be a good example of the effectiveness of anti-Coulter propaganda. As a serious comment on Coulter, his confessed ignorance disqualifies it. Andyvphil (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Ann Coulter called a "creationist" in this article? It is true that Ann does not believe in evolution. However, this does not make her a creationist. Neither of the links used as sources for this paragraph call Ann a creationist. In her book Godless, Ann says that she is not a creationist. Rather, she gives more credence to intelligent design. Someone please fix this erroneous claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.98.168 (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Believing in intelligent design doesn't seem to contradict the definition of creationism in Wikipedia's article, but if she has objected to the term I'll rewrite accordingly. Please supply exact text and citation details. ... As an aside, this series of articles is interesting and may have or point to content both worth including and RS: [4]. Andyvphil (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Boondocks

Err where can i add about her being mocked up in boondocks for t3h 1,2 K.O DESU shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.190.97 (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"t3h 1,2 K.O DESU shot"? Huh? Anyway, first find a reference to it in a WP:RS. Here's the episode, btw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7PJtvos3Ug. AC shows up around the 15 min mark. We can have "caricatures of AC in popular culture", but only if it gets noticed by secondary sources. Andyvphil (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to archive some of this?

I think so. Lou Sander (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Coulter supports Hillary Clinton

Wait, what?!?!?!?!

And here's the source,... Could hardly believe that myself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek.cashman (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ann's birthday

Ann was born in 1961. You can look on any public information server like intellius and get this information without paying a cent for it. I agree on second thought my wording was loaded, so I took it down regardless. The section about her age is still confusing. She is 46 years old. I'm asking before I add anything further about it, but is anyone disputing adding that fact to the section about her birthday and true age, just to make it more clear? If you guys think it's fine as is, that's okay too. I am just curious what everyone thinks. ~~TwoLittleDolls~~

We follow reliable published sources about the dispute. We do not conduct original research. The wording about her being a "biological female" was furthermore biased and asinine. Cool Hand Luke 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Intellius is not a reliable source. The information provided is gathered from paperwork that Coulter herself filled out. If she's put down different dob on different forms, intellius chould be showing any of those. The way to find her actual age would be to contact the hospital and/or municipality where she was born and have them check their records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.168.191 (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Time quote

On June 17, 2007, editor User:Treybien, with no mention of this in his edit summary (you'll be hearing a lot about this edit) "improved" a direct quotation from Time magazine with his own version (still implying it was a quote by retaining the block quote format).[5]

For the record, here is the old version:

Coulter's first national media appearance came after she was hired in 1996 by MSNBC as a legal correspondent. Time magazine said this about her tenure there:

The network dismissed her at least twice: first in February 1997, after she insulted the late Pamela Harriman, the U.S. Ambassador to France, even as the network was covering her somber memorial service.... Even so, the network missed Coulter's jousting and quickly rehired her.
Eight months later, Coulter's relationship with MSNBC ended permanently after she tangled with a disabled Vietnam veteran on the air. Robert Muller, co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, asserted that "in 90% of the cases that U.S. soldiers got blown up [in Vietnam]—Ann, are you listening?—they were our own mines." (Muller was misquoting a 1969 Pentagon report that found that 90% of the components used in enemy mines came from U.S. duds and refuse.) Coulter, who found Muller's statement laughable, averted her eyes and responded sarcastically: "No wonder you guys lost." It became an infamous—and oft-misreported—Coulter moment. But her troubles with MSNBC only freed her to appear on CNN and Fox News Channel, whose producers were often calling.^[2]

Here is User:Treybien's version with the significant changes marked.

The network dismissed her at least twice: first in February 1997, after she insulted the late Pamela Harriman, the U.S. Ambassador to France, even as the network was covering her somber memorial service.... Even so, the network missed Coulter's jousting and quickly rehired her.
Eight months later, Coulter's relationship with MSNBC ended permanently after she tangled with a disabled Vietnam veteran on the air. Robert Muller, co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, asserted that "in 90 percent of the cases that U.S. soldiers got blown up [in Vietnam] — Ann, are you listening? — they were our own mines." (Muller was misquoting a 1969 Pentagon report that found that 90 percent of the components used in enemy mines came from U.S. duds and refuse.) Coulter [~~, who found Muller's statement laughable,~~] averted her eyes and responded sarcastically: "No wonder you guys lost." [ ~~It became an infamous—and oft-misreported—Coulter moment.~~ ] [~~But her troubles with MSNBC only freed her to appear~~] [After MSNBC, she began appearing] on CNN and the Fox News Channel [~~, whose producers were often calling~~ ]. ^[2]

Gee, those "accidental" omissions conveying a different story and attributed to a cover story of the highest circulation national news magazine in the country (circulation 4.0 million) and their website (persistently ranking above the 2000 most visited on Alexa.com) hardly casts Coulter in a sinister light at all, now does it?

Will someone, over 8 months later, please replace User:Treybien's paragraphs with the correct paragraphs? 216.165.199.50 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems Treybien makes a remarkable number of edits, mostly Wikilinks if this one is any example. He may not have realized he was editing within a quote. Should slow down, of course, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions about his POV. Anyway, I've restored the missing text. Andyvphil (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to check accuracy on the blockquote but TIME has made the article pay-per-view since I last looked at it. Ran across this picture of Coulter though, back when she had chubby cheeks. She's credited with it, otherwise you'd think it was the wrong girl.[6] Andyvphil (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

One of Time's sister organizations within Time Warner, AOL News, picked up the story and reprinted the cover story in full here. The earlier Wikipedia version I am championing omits the phrase "The Washington Post and others turned the line into a more personal attack: 'People like you caused us to lose that war.'" It's misleading because it was accidental, as was described in the following paragraph: Howard Kurtz says he called Ann on the phone, and created the quote making use of Ann's recollection. The article doesn't need to belabor itself over what Ann didn't say. Especially when you consider Wikipedia didn't mention the strange claim concerning landmines that Coulter was responding to when she said "no wonder you guys lost" until 23 consecutive months after it first appeared on Wikipedia in August 2004. [7] [8] 216.165.199.50 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the availabity of "Ms. Right". No time to fix it right now, but I will if someone doesn't beat me to it. It's cited about five times. Only have to change it twice, though. Andyvphil (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That "Factual inaccuracies" description is unbalanced

Recently I took out the substance of AC's "Answering My Critics" claims because the description of her critics (who are many, and of different political beliefs, from very liberal to very conservative) is so scanty. The article used to mention the web sites by people who've read her books and fact-checked her citations, with plenty of specific instances; why is all this gone, when AC's belittleing characterizations of her critics' statements is given pretty generous treatment? It's really disingenuous to pretend that people are objecting to her just because she made a mistake about Evan Thomas.

Anyway, I took that out, and the result seemed to me to show the tension between her critics (such as Franken) and Coulter without tipping the balance toward either side. Now I see someone has reverted the sentence to restore all of AC's verbiage.

I stand by my cut. The section as it is now really makes it sound as if AC's critics hadn't laid a glove on her. I beg to differ; we need to try again to fix this. I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. Rousse (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution, dear Rousse, is it to include actual instances of criticism against Coulter. They used to be there, but the Ann Coulter article reflected Ann's opinion of her critics in general: the supposedly worst instances of inaccuracies kept changing: They glommed on to some goofy charge, and then when it was proven to misdirected, the critics barrelled on to another one without correction--and certainly without apology.

You mention a bunch of websites with fact-checking: They were mostly blogs. There were a few that weren't, and are still available to be quoted if desired. It's a bit ridiculous to employ that kind of scrutiny to humorist whose stock in trade is exaggeration for the sake of emphasis or horse laughs. Furthermore, because she's successful enough at spotting contradictions by liberals that those two aims serve her purposes; being a lawyer and a conservative she knows exaggeration for the sake of deception or misdirection will only give her critics ammunition. Media Matters is still up there, while even it often creates a false picture of Ann by giving undue emphasis through bold lettering to the employment of subtle irony-and that includes both herself and her critics as we saw in the Coulter-Alan Colmes exchange found in the article.

The reason major media opponents of her viewpoints won't examine the truth of her work, is because the substance of her books examines the failed veracity of liberals, and pointing out the few errors she does make rehearsing the conservative viewpoint can be shown to be, by the demonstrable record of their own journalistic history, a case of selective prosecution.

That is why I think what you cut should be restored. I think Ann's errors are negligible in proportion to the errors of the liberals she criticizes, are subject to overintense scrutiny relative to the genre in which she works, observational humor, and know that they be elaborated by anyone who thinks otherwise with a fundamental grasp of her and her critics arguments. That no such persons have added anything to the article recently is no reason to exclude Ann's response to false or hypocritical accusations in the past. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rousse, deleting material is not going to be an acceptable answer to your concerns. What crit would you like to add? Andyvphil (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments about Jews on The Big Idea

We have another case of misquoting in the Wikipedia article that I just discovered tonight. In this case it was done by Donny Deutsch.

During an interview with Donny Deutsch on his CNBC program The Big Idea (8 October 2007), Coulter stated that the United States is a Christian nation and suggested Christians viewed themselves as "perfected Jews".[137] Deutsch, a practicing Jew, told Coulter he found the comments personally offensive and anti-semitic; Coulter replied that she could not understand his reaction.

DEUTSCH: You said -- your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.
COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.
DEUTSCH: But that's what you said -- don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic --
COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?
COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.
DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK -

The problem is, the "quote" of Ann was made up out of whole cloth by Donny Deutch! Here is the actual transcript:

DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We're going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your -- forget that any of them --
COULTER: I like this.
DEUTSCH: -- are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's -- with abortion -- what would this country look like?
COULTER: It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like.
DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?
COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I'm talking about this country. You don't want to make this country -- it's not about Republicans. I'm saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.
COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], the Republican Party would look like [Rep.] Duncan Hunter [R-CA] --
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don't want -- I'm not talking about politically the landscape. What would our -- would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more --
COULTER: We would be a lot safer.
DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be -- would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription -- prescription. What -- tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because --
COULTER: Well, all of those things.
DEUTSCH: -- I can give -- I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate --
COULTER: Oh, no.
DEUTSCH: -- that there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other -- tell me what -- why this would be a better world? Let's give you -- I'm going to give you -- say this is your show.
COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they --
DEUTSCH: Christian -- so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?
DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?
COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.
DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But -- so we would be better if we were - if people -- if there were no Jews, no Buddhists --
COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by --
DEUTSCH: -- in this country? You can't believe that.
COULTER: -- you know, liberals on diversity --
DEUTSCH: Here you go again.
COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And --
DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.
COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.
DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some Seinfeld episode? OK.
COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches -- the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.
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.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly -- you're too educated, you can't -- you're like my friend in --
COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey [laws].
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean --
COULTER: We have the fast-track program.
DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.
COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.
DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --
COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.
DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?
COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?
COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners --
DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued -- when you say something absurd like that, there's no --
COULTER: What's absurd?
DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself --
COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.
DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more Big Idea when we come back.

[...]

DEUTSCH: Welcome back to The Big Idea. During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?
COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.
DEUTSCH: You said -- your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.
COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.
DEUTSCH: But that's what you said -- don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic --
COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?
COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.
DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK -
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian(sic) is not offensive at all. [1]

Since Coulter explains what she means immediately afterward anyway, your might ask "What difference does it make?" The problem is, is that when Deutsch is seen as being truthful when he quotes Coulter as saying "Jews need to be perfected" rather than Deutch being seen to be failing to tell the truth, it makes Coulter appear to be back-pedalling when she says "No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is," when actually she hadn't even misspoke, much less intended anything that she subsequently wanted to retract.

As for the change in meaning of Ann's words themselves by Deutsch, I am content to quote Jewish movie critic and cultural commentator, Michael Medved, with whom, on October 15, a week after the encounter, Coulter had this conversation:

COULTER: I'm sorry. I just can't take this seriously, Michael. I don't know when Donny Deutsch became the Al Sharpton of the Jews, but I don't think it's working.
MEDVED: Well, the problem here is that a lot of the major Jewish organizations --
COULTER: Are lying. But they attack me -- I mean, it's -- from what I can tell, it's all the usual suspects. It's always the same thing. Actually, the only thing that is different here is usually I have told a joke. It is a satire. Here it is just a straight, plain, non-controversial statement of what all Christians believe. Of course, all Christians want everyone to be a Christian, like all feminists would like everyone to be a feminist, though it's maybe a little more important to us.
And yes, of course, we accept the Old Testament, which is what I said. And as I say in my current book, if the things I say are so outrageous, why won't they quote me accurately? I am never quoted accurately and, once again, I'm not being quoted accurately here.
MEDVED: And, I tell you, right in the interview itself, I noticed that -- listening to it a couple times -- you never said that Jews must be perfected. You said, "As Christians, we want Jews to be perfected." So, just a small, but very significant variation.
Ann Coulter, appreciate you coming on the show. Appreciate your getting some clarifications on the record. Not retreats, not apologies -- clarifications. [2]

Firstly, Ann, we apologize for getting so many things wrong in your biography.

Secondly, I propose that we include in the section the fact that Donny Deutsch failed to tell the truth when he recounted Coulter's remarks.

Thirdly, I propose that we include background material that demonstrates the orthodoxy and antiquity of Coulter's remarks, rather than using framing that suggests they are novel or extremist.

I hope we can begin to repair the damage to Coulter's reputation with as little delay as the damage was inflicted by the rapid misreporting of her remarks as described. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the difference is all that significant. Neither Deutsch nor Medved were consulting a transcript as they spoke, and they both misquote Coulter, though Medved is not misrepresenting her meaning and Deutsch is. But I think its obvious already in this article that Deutsch was being a jackass, taking offense when none was offered. You've come up with two useful quotes though, "It's always the same thing. Actually, the only thing that is different here is usually I have told a joke. It is a satire. Here it is just a straight, plain, non-controversial statement of what all Christians believe. Of course, all Christians want everyone to be a Christian, like all feminists would like everyone to be a feminist..." and "if the things I say are so outrageous, why won't they quote me accurately?", and I'll see if I can't work them in, next time I have time, if someone else doesn't... Andyvphil (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that saying Jews "need" to be converted is redolent of the Inquisition, while "wanting" them to be converted is simply confident belief that one's own religion is true through one's spiritual experiences and relationships together with an informed interpretation of certain historical events in which one can simultaneously admit that honest people can vary in opinion.

Another good Coulter quote from the interview is MEDVED: Ann, before I have to let you go, can we just get a couple things very clear on the record? You do believe that Jewish people -- believing Jewish people, who believe Judaism, not Christianity -- have a place in America? COULTER: Not only that, as I said, we think they go to heaven.

Not to be too contrarian against your argument, but also, Medved is really paraphrasing Coulter, while Deutsch can't be paraphrasing Coulter when he says things like "your exact words" and "those are the words out of your mouth". I'm not really concerned about contradicting Deutsch either, in my proposed additions, it just seems like a quick (and appropriate) way of correcting the false picture he created. Including what Coulter actually said while letting the reader draw his or her own conclusion won't cause me to lose any sleep, and may hit the reader over the head less. Coulter spoke sarcastically somewhere of the benefits of a secular education that thinks a continuously held 2,000 year old belief is a surprising intrusion, which also seems appropriate, but maybe the details of that can be dug into only if someone protests the two quotes you proposed for use in the article containing Coulter's sweeping generalizations employed for rhetorical effect. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the difference between what Coulter said and what Deutsch said she said, but I'm not sure that pointing it out isn't underlining the already obvious. I didn't say I'd put the two quotes in -- just that I'd look and see if they fit somewhere. I haven't even reread the section yet to see where it is... Andyvphil (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems the Deutsch misquote went viral, so I've added a footnote. I used to know what was significant that Media Matters left out of its transcript that CBS restored in the corrected version, but I've forgotten. Save me some work if you'll look at it and remind me. Andyvphil (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Case of the Missing Edit Summaries

I don't see any of the records of Andyvphil's recent four or five edits to the article on the history page, even after refreshing the page five times. You can see the edits are still there if you select the edit before his contributions and use the scrolling feature at the top of the page.

What leaps to mind is the question whether this is the work of a busybody administrator or developer who has violated the integrity of the Wikipedia database (as well as the bedrock egalitarian principles of Wikipedia) as a first step to make or threaten to make Andyvphil some kind of an unperson (as George Orwell put it)? Let us hope that this is far from being the case, though who can fault me for my suspicions when he's frequently targeted by captious cavillers of a liberal strain? 216.165.199.50 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I see plenty of edits from Andyvphil in the history page. eaolson (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They were still gone as of two hours later, but I refreshed it one more time, moments ago, and they all came back. Could be a squid (one of Wikipedia intermediate servers serving different parts of the world) that burped. Or maybe I scared the busybody after I shook my fist at him/her. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You sure you weren't looking at the discussion page history rather than the article history? I usually don't put edit comments on the discussion page edits. Andyvphil (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, 4 or 5 of your edit log lines on the history page of the article disappeared. It happens sometimes (something about a buffer needing to be purged, I've heard it described), but I've never seen that many disappear at once. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever noticed this phenomenon. Sometimes I hit the save button before I remember to add a summary, but I'm much more likely to be editing the section name and picking out unnecessary spaces in order to fit in what I have to say. Not worried about nefarious sysops, here. POV mobs including admins are a different issue. Andyvphil (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes in this article

It seems like so many sections here, particularly in the latter half of the article, are too heavily dependent on reproducing various quotes that she has made, without providing enough actual discussion on the topic itself. Wikiquote actually exists for a reason; to move all of these quotes over there, so that the article can concentrate on the topic itself and not be a collection of quotes. I think we need to look at exactly what quotes are important here and move the rest over to wikiquote. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the quotes as concise summations of her opinions and responses to the controversies those opinions engendered. Coulter is fairly topical, so that may be why I don't see much interpretation of her opinion; everyone else is discussing the same thing using their own opinions instead of responding to hers. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the quotes as making Wikipedia an online Soap Opera Digest. A few of the things she says DO engender widespread controversy, and might possibly be suitable for an encyclopedia. Many or most of the ones used here are just cherry-picked examples to "demonstrate" one or an other negative quality. There are almost no quotes illustrating the political opinions that are central to her popularity as a writer and public intellectual. Lou Sander (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Lou that many of the issues presented are non-issues. I was just trying to defend their use in the form of the biography as opposed to the use of descriptions. I think Coulter's opinions are best presented in her own words. But too often her words are picked out in isolation by the media and others as allegedly controversial to smear or to make an example of her for expressing opinions that don't agree with liberal opinions that the media likes to present as generally accepted American orthodoxy. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't say that I see "too many quotes" as a problem. Her quotes are indeed "cherry-picked... to 'demonstrate' one or an other negative quality"... by, say, Media Matters. The appearance of the same quote here is an opportunity to provide context in an NPOV fashion. Andyvphil (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And on the other hand, it's an opportunity to publicize the Media Matters responses, under color of "Neutral Point of View," isn't it? Where are her subtantive opinions? Lou Sander (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Coulter tends to work through concrete examples of liberal contradictions. Maybe the article could use summaries of Coulter's pet peeves regarding various issues and events by gathering them together with her illustrations of media double standards. Once I documented Coulter's animus concerning the New York Times, but someone erased the the citations that demonstrated it. At that time if I had presented that opinion without the citation, it would have been quickly erased as lacking documentation. Now at least her opinion is there. I attempted the same thing with the Colleen Rowley section. Maybe cooler heads are now prevailing, and such summaries can be included.

As for Media Matters, we had the misrepresentation of the Colmes-Coulter exchange, and now the mistake or misrepresentation about whether Coulter was misquoted when speaking to Deutsch. I don't think it would take much digging to document even more mistakes by Media Matters. Unfortunately, aren't they the only source for the complete Deutch-Coulter exchange to begin with? If quoting from Media Matters seems to establish their credibility when it can be shown they routinely misreport, we should definitely look to alternate sources for the quote. But the same applies to Time magazine. Time often pushes a point of view in its reporting, yet Coulter herself recommends their cover story of her on her website. So if on the other hand Media Matters is the only source that shows that Deutsch contradicted himself, shouldn't it be reluctantly allowed? Maybe it would be enough to remove them as an external link, once bad habits of reportage can be established. I have heard on the radio by sources credible to me that Media Matters often presents things out of context. However not wanting to give them any extra attention, the persons who say so don't document the cases. I myself have recently focused on removing misinformation from the article as per Biography of living persons guidelines, but would welcome and support such investigations into Media Matters. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The amended CBS News article replaced the Media Matters version of the transcript with its own more complete version, so MM is no longer needed for Deutsch's words. Anyway, I don't mind "publiciz[ing] the Media Matters responses" as long as we simultaneously debunk them when they are wrong. You read something by MM or a similar source about Coulter, you can find here what it amounts to. Useful. Andyvphil (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Useful for Soap Opera Digest. Not useful for an encyclopedia. Use Wikiquote. Lou Sander (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, obviously. We don't quote her just to quote her. We quote her as part of NPOV treatments of criticism of her speech. Wikiquote doesn't do that. And what SOD has to do with anything I can't imagine. Andyvphil (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The essence of WP:NPA is "comment on content, not the contributor." Your words about "You're missing the point, obviously" constitute a personal attack. Please apologize for it. Lou Sander (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Settle down. That's not a personal attack, he's talking about your reasoning, not your character.F33bs (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Darwinism

She claims to not believe in Darwinism, but as far as i can tell she has no alternative view. Does anyone know what she does think? Personally I think anyone who rejects Darwinism is loony already, but hey why look at evidence when you have "the word of god"? John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure she's an IDer if I'm not mistaken. --Ubiq (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

She indeed subscribes to Intelligent Design, as she explained in Godless. She consulted Michael Behe for the sections of that book on the evolution v creationism controversy. Nightscream (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ann Coulter/Archive 21. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ann Coulter/Archive 21 at the Reference desk.

While all this does seem very enlightening please remember that it is not the place for general chat about Ann Coulter, but must be about improving the article. Thank you! BicMacDad18 (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood, I would love to add what she does believe. As it think her insane view on the fantasy she believes to be reality is quite an interesting alternate reality. I propose a section dealing with her ID views... insane they may be... John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, what Coulter and other conservatives mean by "Darwinism" has little or nothing to do with Darwin's actual work and even less to do with present-day evolutionary theory. Coulter went even farther afield from reality than most of her counterparts, however, when she claimed that Darwinism was a religion... for the simple reason that Darwinism lacks any of the social structures of a religion... i.e., there are no Darwinist sacred spaces, there is no Darwinist clergy, and there are no specifically Darwinist organizations. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed trimming of controversy section

Can we do something maybe to trim this article down a bit? The controversy section makes this article seem unnecessarily long. IMO the last three sub-sections in the controversies section could either be removed or summarized in a sentence or two. The voter fraud part doesn't really go anywhere, and it looks like the last two sections are of quotes that haven't really gotten much play in the media and aren't too important to her life in respect to her BLP. --Ubiq (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ann has made ethnic slurs, insults, and controvercy her business. I would suggest expanding this secton to include more incidents. However each section could be summarised to reduce space a bit. I find her commments about Native Americans especially offensive. Rascist comments of Ann Coulter. Sadly, her cutting wit is what makes her so popular and wealthy as book sales and speaking fees increase. I know the greed "motivational factor" is never mentioned in wikipedia because it is too controvercial but perhaps it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.175.89 (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Best Selling Author Globally? Methinks Not

Oddly enough, I'd never heard of this person until very, very recently (i.e. within the last 3 weeks). I have never seen any of her books on display or on sale here in the UK. I know that viewers here in the UK can see here if they have satellite TV and watch Fox News, but not everybody has satellite. The New York Times bestseller list isn't really a representative guide to global reading habits or sales. So I've reverted the previous change back for the time being. UnsubRum ^{No NeoCon deceit here!} 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked the NYT books list page on-line. It quite clearly states there that the figures used to compile the best sellers' list are from the US only (except for multimedia/online/download sales):

Rankings reflect sales, for the week ending Apr. 19, at many thousands of venues where a wide range of general interest books are sold nationwide. These include hundreds of independent book retailers (statistically weighted to represent all such outlets); national, regional and local chains; online and multimedia entertainment retailers; university, gift, supermarket, discount department stores and newsstands.

Last time I checked, the rest of the world isn't part of the US therefore the NYT best seller's list is not representative of her book sales globally. UnsubRum ^{No NeoCon deceit here!} 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

She is clearly an American figure. In the first sentence of the article, the adjective "American" applies to everything that follows. No sensible reader would draw the conclusion that the article is claiming that she is a global bestselling author (or, for example, that her political commentary extends to "British" or Nepalese or Indonesian politics). The "in the U.S." business should be deleted. Lou Sander (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Lou here. "Global" doesn't seem to be implicit in the bestselling descriptor. While I'm not necessarily opposed to clarifying where she is a bestselling author, it seems if we were to use this clarification that we'd have to sift through every other mention of bestselling authors on wikipedia to do the same there. Seems like it'd be a lot of tedious, unnecessary work. --Ubiq (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Lou. Returned the lead to the original wording. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While you are working on the lead, maybe you can deal with the word "attorney," which IMHO gives undue weight to her long-ago legal work. She is trained as an attorney, and has achieved some distinction in the field of law, but those things are not much involved in her current notability. Yet "attorney" is the first descriptor of her in the lead. Her legal career is described in detail in the "Early life" section, and seems to have ended in the late 1990's.

Maybe there's a good way to work "attorney" into the lead, but I don't see it. I would just delete the word, and let the "Early life" stuff take care of it. Lou Sander (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that she's been disbarred or anything. She may not be practicing law, but I'm not sure if being an attorney expires. And I have no idea how to word it differently.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If being an attorney means being licensed to practice law, then yes, it expires. It varies state-to-state, but if you don't keep up with your dues and your continuing legal education requirements, after a certain period of time you will have to retake the bar examination to be readmitted. Of course, one might consider anyone who graduates from law school as being an attorney, even though they would not be licensed to practice in any state. I have no idea if Coulter has kept her license to practice current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.168.191 (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, her "My Life" portion of her website lists her as a legal correspondent for some television program. I've temporarily removed attorney from her lead pending further discussion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing why she would first be described as a lawyer. Seems she's more of a political commentator and columnist/author. I think given the current length of the article, the lead might also need to be expanded quite a bit. Perhaps a few paragraphs could be added. I also think the controversy section could be reduced. If you guys could take a look at the above section and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. --Ubiq (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Book: Treason

A recent revision of this section claims about the previous version that "this is pretty POV and sounds like the sort of thing you'd read on a dust jacket." I agree that it sounds a bit like dust jacket copy, but I don't see any point of view being expressed. Please be more specific about the non-neutral point of view being expressed by the encyclopedia about this section.

The former version stated, in factual terms, what the book is about. The present version does not. It is bad work, and should be replaced with something factual. Lou Sander (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I undid the POV rejection and reverted back to my text, which is NOT POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjaklitsch (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious Denomination

I found this video[9] of Ann answering questions after giving a speech at Xavier University[10], and came across her saying (at about 19:45 on the video) that she was raised half a catholic and half a Presbytyrian; also, that she considers herself to more Protestant than anything else. Furthermore, she frequently watches DVDs of sermons from a Presbytyrian Website [11], since she travels a lot. Just thought I would put this on the talk page, so that someone can add the information if they find it worthy.74.244.29.221 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Coulter April 2008 article - Obama

Coulter directly quotes Obama in unflattering light, but this wiki article obfuscates that aspect of her criticism. I belive that we need to clarify that it Obama's direct quotes from his book that she is mocking. [12]

Pierre.cardoone (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently published study on Coulter

If anyone has the time or inclination to add this, it could go a long way towards expanding and deepening the article's coverage:

Samuel A., Chambers (2008). "Ann Coulter and the Problem of Pluralism: From Values to Politics". Borderlands. 7 (1). Retrieved 2008-07-27. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Skomorokh 03:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Early Life

IMHO there is too much detail about her father's legal career here. It is probably sufficient to say that he was an attorney. Lou Sander (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose to remove this material, which is about her father's career, not about her or hers: She has described her family as "upper middle class" and has termed her attorney father a "union buster".^[3]^[2]^[4] He was a nine-year FBI agent who worked on the William Remington espionage case and, later as a labor lawyer was involved in defeating a 1983-1985 strike by the United Steelworkers against the Phelps Dodge copper company that ended with 30 locals being decertified.^[5]^[6] Lou Sander (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Probably could go ahead and remove it. --Ubiq (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the material in question. The article changed slightly since the original proposal, though, so it's not exactly as described. The idea is that the article is about the daughter, not the father. Lou Sander (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Election Campaign

I deleted some stuff immediately and without discussion, per WP:BLP. More specifically,

"Harshly critical..." unsourced original research.
"Muslim father..." unsourced or badly sourced contentious material.
"Bob Smith..." badly sourced contentious material (insufficient detail).

Lou Sander (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay Lou, I'll add detail, which can be easily obtained through the YouTube video I pointed to in my edit summary. Just to be sure my meaning was clear, I objected to the content being sneaked out through the back door on a technicality. I don't have any objection to it being thrown out the front door because it's insignificant. Contentious? I can't document this, because it happened on the Sean Hannity Show radio show, but I heard Coulter defending the sobriquet "B. Hussein Obama" (which is his actual middle name) saying something along the lines of "To me it's worth pointing out that the middle name of the `party of surrender in Iraq`'s presumptive nominee is Hussein". Perhaps we should add a note saying Hussein really is Obama's middle name. 99.165.237.233 (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions from a single link? Not gonna fly. Beware of 3rr, btw. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at it really closely, but it seems to me that the "frequently called him B. Hussein Obama" stuff was supported by several examples. (I read only one of them, in one of her columns, linked to by the reference that had been provided.) Lou Sander (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of her calling him Hussein, which after all is his name and he should not be so ashamed of, we need a source criticizing her for doing so. So far just noting that she does this regularly seems to do so is rather undue weight. Seriously, youtube video as a source? Come on Lou, I know you know better than trying to support that sort of sourcing. Foxnews' website does not note her being on Hannity and Colmes, nor does the transcript of that day. 99 keeps replacing this completely unverifiable information with the exact same empty sourcing. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Kyaa you have stepped far enough out on this limb. Let me try to reel you back in.

I ALREADY corrected the so-called "empty source" back in my first reversion. It turns out her appearance was on May 29th not May 30th as I first stated. Big deal, you could have looked at your transcript list and corrected the mistake yourself. If you look at the video, there is a scroll at the bottom. At one point it says "Harvey Korman dead". He died on May 29th. If you go to the bottom of the "Quotations from Chairman Ann" section on anncoulter.com, you'll find a link there that says "Item Archives". Click the link. Now go down to May 29, 2008. It says COULTER TV: THURSDAY, MAY 29 -- FNC, 9PM: HANNITY & COLMES. It's surrounded by two references to Scott McClellan, a discussion of whom was included in the video clip I referenced. You scorn YouTube as a source, but I am actually using Hannity and Colmes as a source. I watched the show live. YouTube is merely a useful confirmation.

We don't need a source "criticizing" her for using the appellation "B. Hussein Obama"; it's just a funny thing she is doing during the 2008 election. Please explain what you mean when you say it gives "undue weight?" To what? An account of her activities regarding the 2008 election? If so, why not describe what else she is doing and include it also? And in fact we DO have someone criticizing for the use, which, again, you would have seen had you bothered to read the reversion. If Colmes, Coulter's frequent foil, calls it stale material, it's probably an opinion shared by others. Shouldn't we include Coulter's defense, since it's her article, after all?

I ALREADY suggested to Lou that we state explicitly that Hussein is Barack Obama's middle name, and in fact did so in my correction. We are well aware of that fact, so there is no need to say "After all" as if you were saying something that we didn't know.

One of the problems with politicized subjects on Wikipedia is that we don't get the whole truth. Since Wikipedia has presented the "B. Hussein Obama" remarks in its half-truthed manner for months, I think we owe it to Wikipedia readers to provide the whole truth to them, or at least as much of the truth as possible, for at least an equal amount of time, just to be fair. I resisted providing details because the article already has a Colmes/Coulter tête-á-tête, and I didn't want to give the issue "undue weight". But of course, people objected to that, too. 99.165.237.233 (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources on Wikipedia MUST be verifiable. I cannot find any evidence to prove this from a reliable, verifiable source. Your claim from behind an IP address is not acceptable. You may have watched the show. You may have been high on acid at the time. I can't prove either. And neither can you apparently. You suggest I leap through hoops. Not my problem, the onus of providing sources for controversial, challenged statements on Wikipedia lies with the one who wishes to add the status. Find yourself some sources, then readd the material. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The UExpress reference provides links to many Coulter columns that refer to "B. Hussein Obama." IMHO, that is sufficient to say that she "frequently" has called him that. It's not kosher to characterize that as "criticism," though, and I don't think that 99 has done that recently. It doesn' matter to me if we do or do not point out that Hussein is his real middle name; readers' general knowledge and his own article provide that fact.

On the alleged Hannity & Colmes patter, IMHO we need a reference that takes us to the actual words. IMHO just referring to a show that we can't look up isn't enough. BLP's need to be meticulously verifiable. Lou Sander (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is still original research for us to draw a conclusion that she frequently calls him B. Hussein Obama. She normally calls him Barry, if you listen to her speak about him (I'd suggest listening to the exellent John Caldara Show on 850 KOA (available via the tubes of the internets if you are in America) where she regularly calls in. (They're drinking buddies.) I'd add that to the article, but just because I know she's on his show and makes statements doesn't make it any less OR for me to say that, just like its OR for 99 to make an original claim about her use of B. Hussein. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

>sigh<. In my edit summary I asked Kyaa to do a YouTube search of "McClellan", "Coulter" and "Hannity", meaning those three keywords in the YouTube search engine, to verify the quote. That's because such a search turns up exactly ONE video, the one containing the very quote we're discussing. To assume such a clip could have been doctored to prove something nobody really cares about to begin with is simply beyond belief and over the cliff. An the UExpress search engine is simply the equivalent of the index of a book, and is not any kind of "research" on our part. Give me a break! 99.165.237.233 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The references go into the article, not the edit summary. If you can't put 'em where they belong, your material won't survive. Lou Sander (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lou I keep hearing people on Wikipedia say "Don't ever use a YouTube location as reference, it could be a potential copyright violation." That's why I am using Hannity and Colmes as the reference, and inviting folks who challenge it to make "fair use" of the YouTube video at the location I hinted at to satisfy their doubting curiosity. If there is a large enough pool of people who see it, we'll be able to keep the reference even if the video gets removed from YouTube. 99.165.237.233 (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought there might be something like that involved. But if the source isn't verifiable, people aren't going to allow contentious material in a BLP to stay. And I have learned that nearly EVERYTHING in the Ann Coulter article is contentious. Lou Sander (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that the source isn't verifiable, since Hannity and Colmes episodes are, technically, available (in this case at the Library of Congress [in fact you can have a copy sent to you for a hefty copying fee and a permission letter from the copyright holder]), it's that YouTube is not a particularly good source as a reference. Here is one such intelligent discussion on Wikipedia about the problems of YouTube as a source. In short, it's appropriate to think of YouTube as a very large blog. You can use a high-quality blog to learn things about a great many primary reliable sources, through its links and excerpts: in this case about part of a particular episode of Hannity and Colmes, where you can make arguments, as I have done, for its authenticity. But because of its informal nature, it allows for much material whose copyright status is undetermined, and the form in which the various excerpts take fall under the category of self-published material.

For example, let's say a blog website says "There's a continuity goof in the second hour of the movie Titanic," and they show a video capture of the goof. It would probably be best for a Wikipedia editor not to link to that page of the blog, so as not to create link to arguably copyrighted material, and secondly because it's self-published material, but he or she might want to learn from the website by watching the video, and recollecting in his or her mind whether that scene matches what he or she saw in the movie theatre, then post a report of the goof, and if the person wants to thank the blogger, add a reference in the edit summary or talk page. 99.165.237.233 (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Without a better source, then, you might have a REAL hard time getting the item to stay in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Poorly sourced. Just as bad as unsourced in my opinion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to please you guys, I looked one more time on the web for text version of the exchange and found This where she and Colmes basically say the same things, but in a less concise way. Whatcha think? 99.165.237.233 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What aspect of that source do you want to include? --kizzle (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is in the source, you can use. If it ISN'T in the source, people will probably remove it. This is a highly contentious biography of a living person, and editors don't get much slack to editorialize, to modify the exact words said in sources, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I gotta admit, that's not a very flattering picture

Even though I hate Ann Coulter with a passion, I have to admit, the main picture is kind of odd and would probably be good fuel for people who want to claim that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias", so I would suggest changing it to a picture of her with a normal facial expression. :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippie Metalhead (talk • contribs) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't polish a turd. Besides which, I don't think it's a terrible photo of her.Ticklemygrits (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of the photo seems to come up every other month. Basically, we would welcome a 'better' photo, but we can't magically make one appear. This is currently the best 'free' photo we have and until a better one is contributed then it is what we have to work with. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What about a pic that highlights her adam's apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.189.28 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several pictures of her on the article and, let's face it, she's no honey in any of them. It's not so much a liberal bias as just the fact that the people who are normally polished and airbrushed in all the right places in the media are at the mercy of Wikipedia's editors, who I doubt are all hippies trying to defame Ann Coulter. I'm sure if she was a nice person no-one would mind an odd photo (look at Billy West's profile) but there it is.--Joncheetham88 (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from the Anti-Defamation League - includes incorrect information

Editors, please review my comments below. I'm not too familiar yet with Wikipedia, despite having read the help pages. Thank you.

RE: In response to Coulter's comments on the show, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement saying it "strongly condemns Ann Coulter for her anti-Semitic comment", and that to "espouse the idea that Judaism needs to be replaced with Christianity and that each individual Jew is somehow deficient and needs to be 'perfected,' is rank Christian supersessionism and has been rejected by the Catholic Church and the vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations."[157]

Please remove the Anti-Defamation League quote--The ADL is not authorized to speak for the Catholic Church or for the vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations. To leave it as the last word in this section is deliberately misleading, as well as false information.

Classical Christianity, that understood for 2000 years, and not suddenly amended in this era, is based on the Bible itself, in which Jesus Christ teaches that the only way to salvation is through believing that he is the son of God. The Jew who then believes in Jesus Christ is "perfected", ie brought to salvation, by his faith in God, which makes the Jew just like everyone else, since, according to the Christian faith, only those are saved or "perfected" who believe in Jesus Christ. Judaism is not so much replaced with Christianity, but completed by it. That's the Christian view. The Catholic church has certainly not condemned this basic Christian teaching, nor have any churches of consequence. As to what is meant by: "The vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations", I have no idea, since the vast majority of American Christians are not in the mainstream Christian denominations. (Vivianclare (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Coulter herself demonstrated the mainstream acceptance of her "perfect" terminology in an interview, so in appropriately presenting Ann's side of the story against the ADL's position, we don't even need to exert any labor comparing it to biblical doctrine ourselves:

Right Wing News: Your comments about Jews being "perfected" -- wasn't that just standard Christian doctrine? That, yes, Christians do want to convert other people to Christianity and that, yes, we do think the whole world would be better off if everyone shared our faith?

Coulter: Yes. As the Oxford University Guide to the New Testament describes Paul's argument in the Book of Hebrews, "Christianity represented the perfection of Judaism. Christianity was the religion foretold by the prophets."

And the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the New Testament says, "between the New and Old Testaments there is a direct but not revolutionary succession as a superficial observer might be inclined to believe; just as in living beings, the imperfect state of yesterday must give way before the perfection of today."

I guess the public schools are doing their job if half the country is unfamiliar with the most basic, bare bones description of Christianity.

99.165.237.233 (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be better for the article if we just remove that entire subsection. It's a very long subsection over a controversy about nothing. --Ubiq (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, how is the position of the Catholic Church relevant here? Isn't it up to Jewish people to judge about this? The ADL can't be "wrong" because what these other sources say are not facts, but just their teachings. It should be clear that while her arguments may not be new and may even be Paul's, that doesn't make them not anti-Semitic in Jewish eyes. Removing this section is just one thing: right-wing Catholic POV. --84.153.106.83 (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary section and 'perceived' bias

First the "2008 presidential campaign" is completely irrelevant. It has no encyclopedic value. This is not a news website. Coulter's various 2008 election endorsements simply are not relevant to her biography.

-I completely disagree, her views are the reason she is noteworthy enough to be considered in the wiki. It is her stock and trade and also this is not "her Biography" this is an encyclopedia entry. The "2008 presidential campaign" is a historic event worthy of notice and note. I am not sure why there is a sudden effort to white wash conservative political speakers, but it is getting out of hand. --wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Second this whole article is biased. For example the said "2008 presidential campaign" quotes sarcasm in an attempt to make Coulter appear racist. To clarify, Coulter writing a racist column about a black candidate (if she had) should be included in her article, whereas a quote of a single sarcastic phrase does not contribute to her biography and only serves to mislead unassuming readers.

- There are her words, perhaps you should provide descriptions of her satirical works to valence out the possible perception but the elimination of information because you personally feel there is a bias is unacceptable and counter to the collection and distribution of knowledge. If you think the picture of the nature of her works and actions are incomplete then by all means add to it, but do not subtract. - --wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is biased by the "controversy and criticism" sections.

- Her career is controversial, this is the nature of her trade and relevant factual information about the subject. as said if you feel that there is more information to be given to balance out the information you see here then contribute. --wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of presenting Coulter's supposedly controversial ideas/actions/quotes and then explaining the reaction, these sections fully and firstly explain the criticisms and then grudgingly introduce Coulter's ideas or intentions. An example of this is the 'Jersey Girls' section: "These statements received national attention after an interview on The Today Show, and were widely criticized. Coulter refused to apologize, and responded, "I feel sorry for all the widows of 9/11...[but] I do not believe that sanctifies their political message....They have attacked Bush, they have attacked Condoleezza Rice, they're cutting campaign commercials for Kerry. But we can't respond because their husbands died . . . I think it's one of the ugliest things 'the left' has done...this idea that you need some sort of personal authenticity in order to make a political point..."" What the article claims to be controversial, Coulter's ideas about personal authenticity in order to make a political point, is presented only in the last sentence, whereas the quote was followed immediately by "... was widely criticized. Coulter refused to apologize."

Every section under "Controversies and criticism" is unnecessary and they are included either because they garnered limited media attention for a short time or because liberal contributors try to use them to negatively characterize her ideology. I suggest that the Criticism section be completely reworked so that is serves the purpose of summarizing and characterizing criticism of Coulter (for and against), instead of using criticism to negatively extend her portrait. For example, a sentence should have a tone more like,

- I disagree this is an attempt to remove relevant factual information about the subject. --wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"-So and so with a notable reputation- criticizes Coulter accusing her of being -something- because of -these statements- she made in -this book- while describing -this subject-."

(INSTEAD OF: "CONTROVERSY OVER -THIS SUBJECT-: -quote comments-[-cite-] -very little or misleading context to cover bias or appease discussion page arguments-)

It just can be done better. An honest article would strive to fully present Coulter's biography and the ideas and themes from Coulter's career and then describe the criticism to detail the impact or polemic effect.

- As stated before, this is not "Coulter's biography" this is a encyclopedia entry on a subject. - --wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The article currently has the philosophy that it should include a lengthy criticism section to 'balance out' the rest of the article.

--Techn0scho0lbus (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Interview on McCarthy

In an interview with Süddeutsche Zeitung on Nov. 14, 2008, Coulter told i.a.

Joe McCarthy was "sent by god".
"the american elite [...] spent 50 years to build up a negative legend about McCarthy."
"But McCarthy saved America, 20 years before Ronald Reagan came to free the world from communism".
"Basically, the liberals hate Palin for the same reasons as they hated Joe McCarthy. The instances of Palin and McCarthy are very similar, on the level of classes."
"a long time bevore it became cool, he (McCarthy) hired gays, jews, catholics, evangelicals and women". (*)
"(the difference between) liberalism and communism? I think, liberals have better teeth and prettier clothes."
that democrats are no-goods, "that just want to hush up their treason".

(*) By the way, do people hire minorities because it is "cool"?

The german text can be found at http://www.sueddeutsche.de/451385/472/2632337/Von-Gott-gesandt.html

--Derbeobachter (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ann Coulter's Jaw Wired Shut

http://www.oregonlive.com/idahosportugal/index.ssf/2008/11/ann_coulters_jaw_broken_and_wi.html Пипумбрик (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No reliable source yet. Seems to be sourced from a gossip column in the New York Post, which was picked up by Huffington Post and Women on the Web.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11252008/gossip/pagesix/we_hear_______we_hear_140601.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/ann-coulters-jaw-wired-sh_n_146248.html

http://www.wowowow.com/post/ann-coulter-jaw-wired-after-fall-148205

The reason I suggest handling this with extreme care is that there doesn't seem to have been any attempt by any reporting party to contact Coulter or her spokespersons for comment. --TS 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.207 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments about Jews (again)

The "Comments about Jews" thing is obviously a little controversial. However I note that this led to a condemnation by the ADL. That isn't the kind of thing we would normally want to brush under the carpet. What's up? I notice that whoever is trying to insert a piece about this incident keeps getting reverted, which is fine if the description is distorted. But just because somebody may be trying to insert distortions (if that's what's happening) doesn't mean we shouldn't have something on this subject. --TS 21:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was a dispute over inclusion of this. I removed it somewhat recently (along with some other parts) because I felt it was a relatively minor controversy that was discussed too extensively in the article, and per the arguments of a few wiki users in the Comment from the Anti-Defamation League - includes incorrect information section on this discussion page a few sections up; given the scriptural context, it seems the comment was blown out of proportion. However, this is not to say any discussion within the article about the controversy should necessarily be brushed under the carpet. At the time I was removing multiple things that I felt were just unimportant in respect to her BLP and gave unnecessary length to the article. This particular section has been reinserted but I really think it should removed for the reasons that it's too long, her comment seems to be consistent with Christian doctrine (it's just that her wording seemed to be what made this sound offensive), and the basic idea that she was putting forth is consistent with what she believes (which is that white Christians are essentially better than everyone else), so there's very little to distinguish this comment from her other comments about Arabs, gays and lesbians, or black people. That's basically why I refer to it as unnecessary length. Anyway, it's up to the editors here to decide on inclusion/exclusion; I'll yield to consensus, but I would encourage anyone who has the energy to do so to consider rewriting it so it's not so lengthy but still includes the relevant context. --Ubiq (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Victor over Kwanzaa" section

As this topic has garnered no significant independent coverage, I removed this as simple WP:RECENTISM. Nandesuka (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: editors coming; Drudge claiming she was "banned" from NBC

It appears (according to Drudge Report, in huge blazing text) that Ann Coulter has been "banned" from NBC. Expect a lot of edits imminently. rootology (C)(T) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

She was on the Today show, well, today. --64.9.97.44 (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Troops in Vietnam

I reverted an edit that deleted some well-sourced material and, through apparent carelessness in editing, left some unsuitable material about FAIR and also an extra double quotation mark. This section has been pretty stable for a long time, after extensive arguments about the nature of Canada's involvement in Vietnam. There is a well-researched description of that involvement, the fifth estate interview, and related topics HERE. I sure hope we aren't going to re-open this painful discussion. Lou Sander (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

books.section needs fix.

Someone needs to edit the books section here.

"Her most recent book" is outdated since the release of her new book on Jan 6.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.166.5 (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

CofCC controversy

Could someone please add a reference to this [13] to the "Controvery and Criticism" section of this article? In her most recent book ("Guilty") she defended the Council of Conservative Citizens and denied that it was racist, but the Southern Poverty Law Center has taken her to task and provided plenty of evidence that it is, indeed, a white nationalist group. The SPLC has long been one of the strongest opponents of racism in the US, so I think any criticism coming from their direction is automatically as notable as any criticism could possibly be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I added it. Thanks for pointing it out. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The SPLC has no credibility, it is an anti-white racist hate group. I've viewed the CofCC website and see nothing racist other then few things like over blowing the crimes of blacks and non-whites. But then again because no one else is reporting on crimes by non-whites on whites, I see why the CofCC would report on it.

I don't see racism in disagreeing with interracial marriage and forced intergration. Infact forceing people to like interracial marriage is racism, races have a right to exist and not be destroyed through a process of that form of racism which is interracial racism.

Nothing is more racist then race mixing because race mixing is genocide and ruins a races right to self determination. So they have a right to oppose it, if people want to race mixs fine but don't force it down my or any other persons throat, because that is racism in of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.244.154 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

This article is getting very long. I'm wondering if we could spin the "controversies and criticism" section off into a separate article, possibly calling it "Ann Coulter Controversies", "Criticism of Ann Coulter", or something like that, which mirrors existing articles such as Criticism of Noam Chomsky. The main article will then be a more manageable length. What do you think? I'm not going to do it unilaterally, but I'd like some feedback. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favor of it. And BTW, the article is about Ann Coulter, not about the people who criticize her. The recent stuff about her book starts off with something the Southern Poverty Law Center said about something she said in her book. The right way is to cover what she said in her book, then (if appropriate) mention those who criticized it. The material in the book is what is important. Criticisms of it are a footnote. Lou Sander (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I recognize there is a precedent with Chomsky, but is there a less pov fork suggesting title? Viewpoints? Discussion of Ayn Rand? Any ideas? Ayn Rand dissected? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "Public Perception and Assessments of Ann Coulter"? That would mimic the existing article on George W. Bush, and would have a far more NPOV-sounding title. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The name would be an attempt to conceal the information. While in the Case of the existing article it is relevant because the criticism and public perception of him is also linked with George W. Bush's administration and not necessarily those of his direct actions or words. However In the case of Mrs. Coulter this is not the case, the criticism is not of the perception of her status or the actions of her company, but a direct response to her actions and words(or should be). Like it or not the criticisms are relevant to the information on the subject of Mrs. Ann Coulter. I would say that it would be better to separate the critique f her written works from those of her public statements. These are separate subjects, book and author. wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.142.63 (talk)

I restored the deleted information and made the new article (which had a very poor title that did not describe its contents) into a redirect back here. In theory, a spinoff article might not be a bad idea, as long as the main article contains some mention of the controversial things she has said and then the spinoff article goes into the details of the controversies over them. However, as it was, this article on Ann Coulter omitted any mention of the most controversial things she has said. The article on Ann Coulter must at least mention her statements about the "Jersey girls", invading and converting the Muslims, bombing the New York Times, and the other things in that section, otherwise it is not really an article about Ann Coulter. By the same token, the attempted spinoff title, Public perceptions of Ann Coulter, was misleading at best. In fact, the article was not really about public perceptions, it was about the most controversial things she has said, which had been removed from the main article. A better title would have been "The Other Half of the Ann Coulter Article." In any event, that article is now a redirect. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to give so much attention to all these controversies? Ann Coulter says a lot of controversial things, and we repeat them in detail, including everything that anybody says about them. Jay Leno tells a lot of jokes, but we don't recount them here. Louis Farrakhan says a lot of controversial things, but they don't get more than passing mention. Why is Coulter different? 173.75.41.215 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can call the entire section Louis Farrakhan#Controversy, which discusses about a dozen of Farrakhan's controversial quotes and the reaction to them, not "more than a passing mention." It looks like a pretty extensive mention to me, and it is consistent with the Coulter article. Admittedly there is more attention paid to Coulter than Farrakhan but that is typical of the "recentism" that pervades Wikipedia; Farrakhan was big news 20 years ago, in the pre-Wikipedia era, while Coulter is big news right now. That is a problem for Wikipedia, but it is hardly unique to this article, so this isn't the place to start fixing it. And anyway, the fix would be more material about Farrakhan and his controversies, not less about Coulter and hers. And the fix certainly is not shunting off the most controversial stuff to a separate article called "Public perceptions of Ann Coulter." 6SJ7 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First you're "not sure" about something that is there in black and white. Then you say "certainly" about something that's a matter of subjective opinion. Do you maybe have it backwards? Sorry I didn't check the Farra article before I commented -- my recollection was faulty. Now that I've looked at it, IMHO the section about Farrakhan treats his controversies pretty evenhandedly, and the one about Coulter does not. Also, he is the leader of an important group of people. Coulter is a lone voice. Maybe this IS the place to start toning down the recentism. Somebody might have been trying to do that when they moved the controversy cruft to its own article (though they didn't do it very well, I agree). Lou Sander (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is not "cruft" -- it is the essence of the article, because it is what Ann Coulter is all about. She lives to create controversy. She freely admits it. She revels in it. Taking this stuff out of the article would be like having an article entitled "Muhammad Ali" that said nothing about Ali being a boxer. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your non-neutral point of view is showing. Unfortunately, your article is awash in it. Lou Sander (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Objecting to an article being gutted is not "non-neutral." And it's not "my" article, I made one edit to it (I may have edited it sometime in the past, but I don't recall doing so.) Anyway, the article seems fairly well balanced to me. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the objecting that's so non-neutral. It's the bold resurrecting of page after page of detailed one-sided discussion of objections to what the subject of the article said. Cruft. Lou Sander (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with 65J7, Coulter has made several controversial remarks that received wide attention. I don't think it makes her look bad, as like he says, she freely admits it. She revels in it. It's her schtick. Is it cruft? Nope. If you have an alternate version that you believe is NPOV, why don't you propose it here on the talk page and we can look at it? --kizzle (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then it makes her look good? It doesn't matter if she lives and loves by controversy or not.

I am totally for creating a "criticisms of ann coulter page' for all the crap. For a similar forking see feminism.--Altoids Man (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rage against the machine incident

I think the RATM incident with Zack and Ann should be mentioned. You know, where Ann very maturely said: "They are losers and their fans are losers." Check it out here: Rage against the machine.

On a side note, reading this article it seems like she's totally nuts o.O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.41.77 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Rumors or Transexuality

Should there be any mention made in this article regarding the rampant rumors that Ann Coulter underwent a male-to-female gender reassignment procedure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.172.155 (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be. Lets work on adding it! 71.107.83.141 (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rumors are unencyclopedic. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That rumor was done to death in 2005. See talk archive 4. And like all psychological accusations, raising it says more about the accusers than the accused. Ann Coulter is a satirist and polemicist who likes to peeve people off til they can't see straight. Apparently, it's working. (I bet the "or" in the title was supposed to be "of": that's what happens when you allow someone who wants to get under your skin do so.) Naaman Brown (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ann's controversy regarding religion.

[Removed] Please see the Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living people. This extends to the talk page as well. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

I think the "controversies" should be on a different page, possibly as a "See Also" link. I don't believe that all of these criticisms should make up the bulk of her article. This article is about her, not her controversies. -Axmann8 (Talk) 06:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So, basically you're recommending we break out information critical of the subject into a separate article and bury it in a See also link. That's not going to fly. Please review Wikipedia:Content forking for reasoning as to why this is not only a bad idea, but against our WP:NPOV policy. Warren -talk- 06:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia:Content forking section Article spinouts - "Summary style", there is nothing at all wrong with moving stuff to its own article, provided that a summary is left in the main article.

If there's opposition to that in this case, the offending material should just be removed from the article. Right now, most of the article isn't about Ann Coulter, but about people's negative reactions to her work. That reaction can be summarized in a few sentences. As it stands, the article has a strongly non-neutral point of view about these matters, because it provides paragraph after paragraph of detailed critical remarks, and almost nothing about the other content of her work. If these criticisms are to be in an article at all, they must be summarized in a non-neutral way. Or at least they should be balanced by a similar amount of material discussing the other points she makes in her columns and books. There is almost no such material in this very biased article right now. I think the best solution is to get rid of the NPOV material. The second-best solution is to spin the negativity off into its own article, leaving a brief, NPOV summary in the main article. Lou Sander (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See, the problem here is that a lot of Coulter's notability/popularity/what-have-you comes from her remarks about racial, ethnic and political groups. If you make a career out of being insulting of others, and reliable sources document this repeatedly and prominently (which they do), it would be inappropriate (and against our NPOV policy) for Wikipedia to avoid documenting it. If you think that there isn't enough information about Coulter's non-controversial work, then by all means, go ahead and expand those parts of the article! That's what we're here to do. But. you are going to have to accept that there are 156 references in this article for a very good reason -- there is a lot out there on Coulter, and most of it is about the controversies she has been involved in. Wikipedia is here to document what others say, not to cherry-pick and make a person look "better" or "worse" than they are. Warren -talk- 02:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And those 156 references do a lot to promote the hate industry in whose publications so many of them appear. One is reminded of soccer hooligans. BTW, weren't there some Canadian troops in Indochina once? Lou Sander (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Canada, along with Poland and India, sent peacekeeping troops to Vietnam in 1954, and in 1973, along with Hungary, Indonesia and Poland sent troops as peace observers. Both missions ended when it became evident that peace agreements would not be followed. (See: Canada and the Vietnam War.) The Four Deuces (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So my question is, what did Coulter mean when she said on February 18, 2005, "The Canadian Government didn't send troops [...] but [...] they came and fought with the Americans. So I was wrong. It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada."? --kizzle (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what she meant was 10,000 Canadians - and it may have been 20,000 or more - joined the US forces and served in Vietnam. Some of them might have been living in the US, had dual nationality or been drafted, but I don't know why she would refer to them as "Americans". There was no recruiting drive aimed at Canadians, they were not placed together and they were mostly unaware of other Canadian soldiers. Together they made up a very small fraction of soldiers sent to Vietnam. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I agree with you. If we were having this discussion about whether a Canadian citizen participated in Vietnam, I'd have no quarrel. My point is that the Canadian government sending troops to Indochina, peacekeeping troops to Vietnam in 1954, and in 1973, is not what Coulter was referring to when she made that statement, hence the "The Canadian government didn't send troops" and "So I was wrong." Do you see my point? --kizzle (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what "hate industry" are you referring to? And as for the Canadian troops in Indochina, I'd like to know why you bring it up, because I would absolutely love to get in another discussion about that section and Coulter's quote I see that has been removed. --kizzle (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For hate industry sites, check this one and, more seriously, this one.. 71.240.123.50 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a "hate industry"? Might as well call me a towel. --kizzle (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah let's bring that argument back just for ol' times sake. How 'bout it? --Ubiq (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy needs to be corrected.

I would fix it myself, but I just made my account and the article is protected. Under comments on Islam, it says "One day after the attacks..." That whole point is untrue. I followed that article, it was published on the 28th of September, 17 days after 9/11, not 1. It's blatant lying, and definitely needs to be corrected. Maybe the person who made the edit tracked down? Also, the headings on this page are all wrong. The only heading below the contents is "Biography," and then everything else is below then, even stuff that clearly has nothing to do with the biography. Thanks! Ungeniusman (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, a simple search will find an instance of the term "in vein", which should read "in vain". (I cannot make changes from this, a public, computer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.11.116 (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is so much info in Lisa De Pasquale's exclusive profile of AC, Being Ann, that it merits a space in the external links. Asteriks (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There really is not much there of substance, and to the extent "exclusive profile" implies a work of journalism, this isn't one. It is more like a "love note" written by one of her friends, on a web site that seems mainly dedicated to promoting books and magazines written by authors of the same ideological stripe. I think the article can live without it. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 presidential campaign section

To me, this section seems a little weird in it's implications.

Coulter began endorsing Governor Mitt Romney as her choice for the 2008 Republican nomination, ... Romney suspended his campaign 22 days later on February 7, 2008.

Coulter claimed that, ... she would support and campaign for Hillary Clinton, ... Clinton withdrew from the race in early June.

three days before Hunter dropped out of the race, Coulter began endorsing Governor Mitt Romney

Does this seem a little odd to anyone else? To me it seems like the author(s) are trying to credit/blame her for these events in some way, perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it really does feel to me like someone is trying to make a correlation that establishes her importance, i.e. cum hoc ergo propter hoc type fallacy.

Anyone agree? Should we try and reword this somehow?

Gdfgrsegyjhcc (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that as well when I read the article. Indeed, it looks like some writer has weaseled in some anti-Coulter sentiments. I plan on fixing that part when I quit being so lazy, but you can be be bold and do it yourself. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I pulled out those few lines that I felt were bad. If anyone disagrees with this change, please discuss this here before re-adding. Gdfgrsegyjhcc (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

criticism

I've moved several sections dealing with criticism of her books, such as Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right and Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America, to the respective articles about her books. Since it deals specifically with comments she wrote in those books, I think that the most appropriate place for criticism about it is in the articles dealing with those books. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find where you put the section about Coulter's comments on Canadian troops in Vietnam? --kizzle (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Try the 'television and radio' section. Since the comments were made on a talk show, it seems more appropriate there. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The remaining items under the old 'criticism' section have been cleaned up and moved into the 'political activities' section, renaming said section to 'political activities and commentary'. I think if we can fix up the lead section, we might be looking at a possible good article -- maybe eventually featured. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

General Article Cleanup

Someone needs to go through and just put everything in the same tense - some parts say, "the book was published" as in the past, and then go on to say "then she says" as in the present. Let's pick one or the other and stick with it through out. Bigdatut (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious Views Section

All the material attacking Ann in the Religious Views section has been deleted. If it belongs at all, it belongs on a page of criticisms of Ann Coulter. It certainly did not have anything to do with Ann's Religious Views. What remains is a nice summary of her views, to the extent that they are important at all. It certainly does not merit half a page. That goes for a lot of the remainder of the stuff on this page, where the lead paragraph, instead of being about "ann coulter" is about "attacks on ann coulter" "criticism of ann coulter" and the like. For a view of what this page should look like, go over to the page feminism where there is a summary paragraph about criticisms of feminism. This page should be similarly constructed. --Altoids Man (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me also add that the minority view taking something she said out of context and trying to stretch it into anti-semitic propaganda is too minor a viewpoint to merit a mention here.--Altoids Man (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've partially reverted you in restoring the second paragraph that you deleted. I'll agree that the Donny Deutsch material is basically one incident, and not really all that important. But there's some interesting insights into her views in that second paragraph, particularly in dealing with her views on evolution and darwinism that I think is important. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Religious Views

Ann Coulter made a splash in religion, and here are two references from Ann Coulter's web side, that seems to be oblivious to that clown parade here. The Jerry Falwell tribute, "All men will hate you because of me" according to Jesus Christ; and it is true, there is a religious war by people who exchanged a truth for a lie and then worshipped the creation instead of the creator, and God gives them over to their perverted natures and unnatural relationships; it is no accident homosexuals & lesbians freak out as they really embraced the lie and now are caught in their fraud. Ann Coulter is Christian, despite the desires of the anti-Christ group, and she has openly published it including in her book Godless about the godless. source (the real deal): www.anncoulter.com Jerry Falwell - Say Hello To Ronald Reagan! -- 16 May, 2007 If We Could Talk To The Animals -- 21 May, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.57.200 (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Books

Moved the paragraph citing unproven accusations, criticisms to the end of the book section. It belongs in a 'criticism of ann coulter' page, which does not seem to exist. There is no reason for that material to appear as the lead paragraph in a section of books. Go take a look at the Al Franken section on books... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_franken#Books it just lists his books. The material does not belong on the Ann Coulter page, but perhaps elsewhere. There certainly are plenty of negative views of that blowhard Al Franken yet his page seems.. alarmingly clean of criticism. --Altoids Man (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think moving that to the end of the section is fine, though I disagree strongly in suggesting that it belongs in a criticism of ann coulter page. The best place for criticism is not in a separate page nor does it belong in a special "criticism" section. The best place for criticism is in sections dealing directly with the issues (her books, her columns, her television appearances, etc). That way, both sides appear right there in a neutral fashion. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Cash -- I hear your view on this. What do you say about how it is done on feminism? Over there, a single paragraph section summarized the criticism... and directs the user to a main page. I'll bet that I could find a hundred pages like that if it made a difference. There does not seem to be any 'one' way of doing it... On the other hand, if the page was about YOU Dr. Cash where would you want the criticism? If you had a choice? Basically, that is how the feminism page evolved. There was NONE at one point, now there is a tiny paragraph pointing to another page. Admittedly, that is how it is done with a 'topic' I have not looked for other people, except please see the Al Franken page where there is none. Basically, I'm asking for you to substantiate your view with a reference to other biographies that are similar to Ann Coulter. And kindly make them Liberal persons. Thanks. Just to eliminate perception bias... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altoids Man (talk • contribs) 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly accurate to compare Ann Coulter to feminism, considering that one article is about a person, and thereby covered by WP:BLP, while the other article is about a general philosophy, and so you want to cover the pros and the cons of that particular philosophy. Yes, feminism seems to cover this very well. But I don't think that's appropriate here -- criticism sections are very dangerous in BLP articles, as they generally tend to become sounding boards for people that are opposed to someone's views. It's better to cover the person themselves, their history, and their accomplishments. If their accomplishments are criticized, then that should be noted in the appropriate section. But a general "catch-all" section for criticism is not a good solution for BLP articles, particularly once the articles become more developed (in an article's early editing stages, it's more acceptable, because at that time, you're simply trying to collect as much information as possible from as many people as possible). Dr. Cash (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Barry Lynn and Coulter's Antisemitism

Ann Coulter not only thinks that Reverend Barry Lynn is not a real minister, she has also hinted that she believes he is secretly Jewish. [14] [15] Stonemason89 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So? Neither of those sources provided are what I would call reliable. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, the first one is since it's an article she wrote. Second one isn't because it's a blog. AFAIK this hasn't really received much, if any attention from other sources so it should probably stay out of her BLP. --Ubiq (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with UBIQ. Not only that, u go down a slipper slope arguing that she is antisemitic by simlpy thinking someone is Jewish. She wouldn't be anti-Barry Lynn because he is Jewish, but because he is a phonie. 76.79.9.129 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Its best to avoid its inclusion per wp:primary and wp:blp.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"After her birth" line

This line is, sorry to put it so bluntly, but it is, stupid. What? She did things before she was born? Seriously... this entire sentence needs to be reworded, but the article is locked or I'd change it. 206.24.49.1 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Article doesn't say that she did anything "after her birth, but that her parents moved after her birth.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Woman Suffrage

Ann Coulter is well known for, and proud of, her anti-feminist stance, especially her serious opposition to woman suffrage. This is not one quote, but many statements, and a lobby for the repeal of Amendment 19. She is alone in this battle of course as even the most radically conservative proponent of woman's proper role and "place" supports women's suffrage nowadays. However, this is an issue with which she has legitamate concern, and a cause for which she has been active. In addition, it is a large part of the intro and does not fit well there as all other political positions of a considerable length have a suntitle in that section. US2010 (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Coulter's Columns Work

Where are the extensive references on articles? There is almost no references to the extensive work on Ann Coulter's columns, as she is a media personality and is well published. This month is the communist convention at Copenhagen (ironically the site of Albert Einstein and his physics gurus who set measurement standards in quantum physics on something we cannot physically see), and they intend to tax the United States of America calling us thieves for having an industry, for all the miracles of the 20th century those people were alive for and experienced, and they call it fraud and this is a luddite convention: Under the guise of Global Warming is a tax to punish Americans. Ann Coulter has an article on the Global Warming fraud this 2 December 2009; one example out of the many articles, and we see something more than Jews and homosexuals, that seem to be guilty and panic at a media personality as extensively noted on this web site, but almost no information on all of the other works. Global Warming is found to have cooked data, as we see fraud in science making an angle for government funding and willing to say anything and remove truthful other voices; and Ann Coulter wrote an article, much more than the Jew rant on this web site as she does not focus upon Jews: FYI, in science cooked data is fraud, because it removed every chance to verify anything, just like Socrates told us 2000 years ago through Plato that the Sun is a stone and no one to check it out, except Aeries that claimed we will die by heat and desert by global warming during the Roman Empire for the false god of war, and Mars by irony is a vast cold planet named after the false god; fraud in science is non-trivial, and in the face of mathematics it is moral turpitude and a crime of such magnitude they can be banned from being witnesses on science councils. Cass Sunstein, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, claims global climate change is primarily the fault of U.S. environmental behavior and can, therefore, be used as a mechanism to redistribute the country's wealth: This means taxes, as Ann Coulter is a hard hitting reporter reporting the fraud, and we see political opponents going for the racist charge against a known Christian, as other people do find their beliefs really was only about them and no one else, and those other people are offended at Ann Coulter of the media market that is vast. Where are the other works? There should be so much more, and we see this trivial site lack, but does accuse of hatred in fraud, because the published works are so much more, in view of the narrow-minded attacks. Sources (the real deal): Do Smoking Guns Cause Global Warming, Too? -- 2 December 2009 ; Meet Obama's climate 'experts': Socialists, conspiracy theorists, supporters of spreading wealth -- 2 December 2009 ; http://www.anncoulter.com/ ; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117804 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.52.53 (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am at a total loss as to even where to begin responding this this. Wow. Just . . . Wow. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like someone is on wrong drugs, or just another brainwashed fascism supporter.

--62.142.117.62 (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Created "Controversies" section

It seems inappropriate to have the second paragraph of the personal biography imply that Coulter is a liar. If women dissembling with respect to their age is so awful then nearly every woman is so awful. I think this should be left out completely, or at least placed in a less prominent position. I'm curious how often disputes over age appear in other bios. I think this reflects on Lloyd Grove more that Coulter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angloguy (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The uncertainty about her age is a pretty minor thing. Why is it covered at such length in this article (or at all)? It seems to me that a sentence or two about it would be enough. Lou Sander (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The section was removed, as it didn't seem to fit very well with the article. The article should be about the person, Ann Coulter, and while there is certainly a good deal of controversial things that this woman has said and/or done, a section about criticisms or controversies does very little to tell the story about Ann Coulter, and mostly just seems to serve as a sounding board for her critics (which isn't what wikipedia is supposed to be about). As for her age, that issue seems to be in the category of "old news", and isn't particularly important. It can mostly be summed up in a single sentence or two. WTF? (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I've noticed now that the text was simply moved to the new 'other controversies' section from where it was under 'personal life'. I don't think that was in any way appropriate, as it goes against the very grain and fiber of wikipedia, so it was now moved back. The paragraph probably can still be shortened a good deal, though. WTF? (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fanboy Bias tone

Parts of this article read NPOV to me:

"She was dismissed from the network at least twice. [snip] They missed her jousting and quickly rehired her..."

"But her troubles with MSNBC only freed her to appear on CNN and Fox News, whose producers were often calling."

Ew! Sounds fannish to me--they "missed" her "jousting"? And the second sentence (with words like "only" and "freed" sounds like it's trying to spin her firing into something more positive.

There may be other examples--I stopped reading after that.

64.132.218.4 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Alternative rock bands?"

Grateful Dead, Dave Matthews & Phish are not Alt Rock; they are jam bands and should be noted in the article as such. 209.136.161.135 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coulter and the jews

Hello,

I find it absolutely crazy that the section on religion does not contain Coulter*s statement on the Jews, who in her view should be "perfected" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wnPHFSdrME

Regards d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.122.4 (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Find a secondary source, not a random Youtube clip. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html read it an weep Coulter lovers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.46.89 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a small reference to this interview. I think it's neutral and should pose no issues for anyone. Ccrashh (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all neutral. He asked her to hypothesize about her ideal world. Then he pressed her again and again to narrow her responses. Finally she said that in her hypothetical world according to his demands, the people would be Christians. She talked a lot about the loving and diverse atmosphere of the Christian mega-churches with which she's familiar. She spent quite a bit of time explaining the "perfected Jews" notion, which is basically that Christ replaced the old religion with a new one, without rejecting the old one (my summary). They had quite a little discussion of theology. It's pretty disingenuous to summarize this whole dialogue by saying she said... "that Christians consider themselves "perfected jews" and that it would be better if everyone was a Christian."

This is an encyclopedia. It's not proper to remove all the context of such a discussion and leave only parts that make it easy to assume that a participant is anti-Semitic and wishes that everyone were of her religion. It's particularly improper to do so when a major part of the participant's contribution was that in her ideal world, people would love one another, be tolerant, etc. Please either insert the context, fairly stated, or remove this paragraph entirely. Lou Sander (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Then be my guest and either edit it so it is more balanced, in your opinion, or remove it entirely, which would be a non-neutral thing to do, imho. Frankly, I think we only need to summarize, which I did, and put in the salient points - which I also did. From reading that, I would, in no way, think she was being anti-semitic, but I guess I am more discerning than most. But to appease you, I will throw in a longer quote from her which hopefully "explains" her position. Ccrashh (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only the Jews:

Coulter holds views similar to this for every visible minority. It would not be biased to put that ALL of these views are those of an uninformed bigot and that her irony in saying she wishes the world was "tolerant" and like the republican convention. She is spewing intolerant remarks almost daily. These additions to the article would give readers a more complete understanding of what Coulter is. --99.225.224.133 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Change the picture

I think Ann Coulter's picture in this article should be changed. Whether you agree with her or not, the picture at the head of the article shouldn't be one that makes her look like a deer in headlights.

I suggest changing it to something like

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2009/01/AnnCoulter.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by McTricks (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think the photo was all that bad but there are in fact other photos in the article which might be more neutral in voice. If the one you suggest fits in WP policies and all permissions have been followed by all means include it. Malvenue (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The picture looks fine to me, it shows her Adam's Apple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.241.232 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Brief Congressional candidacy

Until recently, this short section was "Aborted Congressional candidacy". An editor renamed it to "Ended Congressional candidacy". IMHO, "aborted" is the better term, since it implies an early termination, and since all candidacies "end" when the election is held. I've changed it to "Brief Congressional candidacy", which IMHO falls somewhere between the two. Lou Sander (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

University of Ottawa talk

Ann Coulter had a talk at the University of Ottawa. First page of March 23, 2010 editions of Metro News Ottawa and Ottawa Citizen show Ann Coulter complaining that she's a victim of a hate crime because she's a conservative (because of a letter from the university stating that she should be careful with her speech because inciting hatred may be a criminal act). In that speech at Ottawa U, she told a muslim student to "Take a Camel". Notable? --15.195.201.87 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In the full video of the talk it is 'obvious'''Italic text that Coulter did not tell the girl to take a camel. In fact she gave a fairly long reply to her question. The "take a camel" comment was a reply to the hecklers in the audience who were chanting. The mainstream media cut this part from the tape to make it look like she was rudely dismissive of the questioner, which in fact she was not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGjB2oq9o8Q Jlawest (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Sabrina

The talk at UO hasn't happened yet. She told a female Muslim student at Western to "take a camel." Personally (ya, I know), I think the letter was sent more because she's Ann Coulter, and likely had little to do with her political affiliation. Many Canadians consider her to be a promoter of hate too, well, those of us who know of her. 216.13.105.50 (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been a fair amount of press about the (upcoming) UO talk, as well as the one yesterday at Western in London. However, it only really seems to be local press making a big deal, and I'm pretty sure it will blow over. After her three "Coulter in Canada" talks are finished (the third is in Calgary on the 25th), the press coverage can be evaluated and a summary can be added if notable. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The talk at the University of Ottawa has been cancelled due to security concerns. According to the news sources, thousands of people have been protesting. The Calgary talk will probably go on as scheduled. Two solitudes. <g> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.78 (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is complete OR, but only about 150 people incl press actually got in to the auditorium as planned; Marxist-Leninists protested/rioted and blocked the enterance, pulled a fire alarm, and caused general commotion. After a while it was decided, per police recommendation, to cancel the event, and all inside were directed to exit through a back door. I expect there should be a fair amount of news coverage tomorrow. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? I had not thought there were that many Marxist-Leninists in all Canada. Even when their votes are combined with the Communists, they only got about 12,000 votes in the last federal election, and that's across all of Canada combined. Surely they don't all live in the Ottawa area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.72 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Marxist-Leninist" was a term being thrown around, but I haven't heard any news sources mention it, so it was probably just name-calling. More on topic, a section has been added at University of Ottawa#Controversy (though it may still merit mention here). -M.Nelson (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You could add that it was Coulter's security which decided to cancel, not the police; and that although there was a demonstration, there were no threats, not even threatening or intimidating words beyond quotes of Coulter's own words (which, of course, are not threatening or intimidating in the least). Despite what Levant says ("who chose to silence her through threats and intimidation"), when faced with a crowd armed with nothing but free speech, it was Coulter's own people who made the choice for her not to talk. (Google News has the sources.)

Marxist-Leninist? Wow. Yeah. You don't have a POV as far as this article goes. I'm pretty sure the participating group was a student group from Ottawa U. There may have been some anarchists there as well. I think this news item definitely needs to be part of the Ann Coulter article. There isn't any lack of news coverage for this event so there are lots of citations. It was the first time Coulter was ever cancelled because of demonstrators as well.Mundilfari (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

First time ever? That would be notable, if it can be sourced. Even more notable is that the cancellation occurred solely because of lawful assembly exercising the same right to free speech Coulter expects for herself, and that it did not occur in a place where it is every human's right to bear arms. Can't put it into this article, but back when Kissinger was invited to speak at UWO (it would have been around 1983), the protests were just as large, the security equivalent, the speaking venue much less secure, and his people did not cancel.

Ann herself says it was the first time any of her speaking engagements was ever canceled. She also called the university of Ottawa "bush league" (that's lowercase bush not to be confused with bush league. Mundilfari (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is a "master manipulator" who, March 23, 2010 self-canceled the first of her scheduled Canadian speaking dates. She then “justified” such cancellation at the Canadian university in Ottawa with the false claims of a “riot” and “threats” to her personal safety. The result of Couter’s staged controversy was the creation of a nation-wide media interest in Coulter that did not previously exist in Canada.

It seems that this article is edit protected, so I am asking that a more senior editor will add the above referenced information into the main article. 137.186.233.42 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Since it's reached enough of the media, added here. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

2008 and 2006 Voter fraud investigations

I had followed this but can't find any resolution to it. http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/02/08/2009-02-08_celebrity_side_dish_ann_coulter_under_in.html

I feel it would be notable if the Connecticut’s Elections Enforcement Commission mentioned in the article has come to a conclusion. Also, there was a previous election fraud charge 2006 in Florida which was dropped, (I am not sure of that) which alone would not merit mention in this article. Mydogtrouble (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"University of West Ontario

The actual name is University of Western Ontario. Simple mistake, simple edit, someone do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.67.154 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 March 2010

Two minutes late? Also, that mistake was made within the past hour for something that wasn't yet completed, meaning that it's most likely something that would be corrected by the author of said paragraph. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed university is spelled wrong in the entry on UWO. Perhaps this should be fixed by someone who has the power to do so. Babobeebo (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Libertarians

Please let's leave the information about Libertarians (with a capital L - members of the U.S. Libertarian Party) out of this article. They are not a major party, but a fringe group, whose candidates for President haven't received more than 0.4% of the vote in recent elections (see the article about them). To include their opinions of Coulter here obviously violates WP:UNDUE. It was also wrongly sourced, since the source used ( this article) refers only to lower case-l libertarians, not members of the Libertarian Party. UserVOBO (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that letter should probably not be added, as the person who wrote it doesn't seem to be anybody official or big enough to matter as a source. However, to consider the Libertarian Party (or libertarians) a fringe group is wrong. Not to mention, whether they are that or not doesn't mean you can exclude sourced information dealing with them or their opinions. It just means you must be clear about who has said what and that it does not reflect everyone's opinion. Yes, the Libertarian Party might not get a huge vote, but that's because most third-party people vote for the two big parties as they are the only ones likely to win. Libertarians and libertarian views, however, are not on the fringe. 76.114.42.231 (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a clear distinction between members of the Libertarian Party, a specific political group, and libertarians in general, who are extremely diverse. Plenty of people who define themselves as libertarians don't support the Libertarian Party, for whatever reason. The Libertarian Party is a fringe group, and there's no sense in suggesting otherwise; that libertarianism broadly defined might have more support doesn't change this. UserVOBO (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Right Wing"

The article rightly, and from a cited reference, states that Coulter has "right wing" views. It wrongly links the statement to the Right wing article, which has mostly to do with French politics, and certainly is off the mark with regard to the use of the term in the U.S. An important and repeated claim of the "right wing" article is that "right wing" politics is strongly connected with the support of social stratification, as illustrated in the article by references to France, and to the social stratification that existed before the French Revolution. If someone can show that Coulter somehow supports social stratification, I have no objection to the link remaining in place. In the absence of that, the link is, IMHO, pretty misleading and should be removed because this is a BLP. Coulter's views are pretty accurately described in the Conservatism in the United States article which is linked to under "conservative" in the first sentence of the paragraph that contains both links. I'm going to remove the link again, with a reference to this discussion. If an editor wants to restore it, they need to somehow justify it. Lou Sander (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work in noticing that. --Ubiq (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter and her hate speech

I'm curious as to why there isn't more information about some of the hate that Coulter promotes. Obviously a lot of public people have said things now and then that were considered "bad" by many and things of this nature are usually covered in some sort of "Controversy" section here on wikipedia. Considering especially that this is much of what she has based her career on, though, I would think that there would be much more to say about this. Coulter is not JUST an opinionated woman that many disagree with or something, she actually talks quite a bit in an insulting and hateful manner towards many groups. She has made racist, prejudiced and degrading comments about people of other ethnicities, religious groups, etc. The sources that support this are never ending. Articles such as this even come from legitimate sources that talk about hate groups. 76.114.42.231 (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether you like her or not, it is well known that she has made many racist comments and the such. It mentions very little of this in the article, though. She's made many anti-homosexual remarks as well. Also not mentioned. The one thing that is mentioned, but even then only briefly, is her anti-feminism. Bordering on misogyny. Even then, it only mentions that she doesn't think women should vote (although she votes?). I'm curious as to whether this article is being protected by some of the more...far-right persuasion. This is an accusation that I cannot back up, though, so I will go no further with that other than to say that this article seems to portray Coulter in a positive light instead of being unbiased and factual. 76.114.42.231 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all living people, however apparently reprehensible. Per WP:NPOV, a treatment of how Coulter's comments have been regarded should include not only "controversy" for which she has been criticised (however rightly), but also praise that she has received (however wrongly), giving appropriate weight to each side in accordance with the amount of coverage received in reliable sources. The reformulation of "Criticism of Barack Obama" as "Public image of Barack Obama" provides an excellent example of this fair and balanced approach :) It should go without saying that any controversial content added to this article must be scrupulously well-sourced. Emily Jensen (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"constitutional" attorney!

always the fanboys must lead with this nebulous nonsense, now "sourced" with a link to — wait for it — anncoulter.org. funny. "constitutional attorney" is the puff equivalent of "concert pianist". sounds impressive; means nothing tangible to match the weight imbued the term. worse, "constitutional attorney" in the US generally means someone who argues a fantasy far removed from the constitution — that dogma compiled by years of blatantly ignoring the constitution except as a figurative touchstone or excuse; posturing nonsense to lend undue credence to a perpetual broadway act in a skirt. 70.90.84.254 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please keep conversation germaine to improving the article and be respectful of other editors. See Wikipedia:Etiquette for help. As to your point, please see http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-constitutional-attorney.htm or any of a hundred other sites for information on what this means. Rapier (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Alexis W.! fascinating. you may call me Sparky D. see WP:SPS for help. 70.90.84.254 (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing important comment about 9/11 widows

This to me was the most unforgivable thing she ever said. I don't have the exact quote handy but it was something to the effect that the widows are happy their husbands died in 9/11 because now they can be famous." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.99.80 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

?

why such a long article about this person? is she that notable? 89.216.196.129 (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter at GOProud’s “Homocon” last night: “Once they find the gay gene, guess who’s getting aborted”

This article should be reflected in her wiki-article.
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/09/26/ann-coulter-at-goprouds-homocon-last-night-once-they-find-the-gay-gene-guess-whos-getting-aborted/
Bay Area Native (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortuntely, the website http://prop8trialtracker.com/ does not satisfy WP:RS. So that article would not be an acceptable source. WTF? (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

American anti-illegal immigration activists

Category:American anti-illegal immigration activists was added without comment. While Coulter has written about illegal immigration, it is not one of her main issues and she does not appear to be an activist concerning that cause. I'm removing the category pending sources which characterize her this way. Will Beback talk 21:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Jailed Journalist Controversy at CPAC

Another Coulter controversy should be her comments at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where she responded to a question about Israel jailing jornalists by saying "I think there should be more jailed journalists." She recieved rapturous applause from the Conservatives present. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nw4gyBdGjY I would have written it myself, but (unsurprisingly) the page is blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArinArshavin (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

^ "On MSNBC, Coulter called Gore a "total fag," while Matthews said "we'd love to have her back"". Media Matters. 2006-07-27. Retrieved 2007-10-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c Cloud, John. "Ms. Right". Time Magazine. April 25, 2005. Retrieved on July 10 2006.
^ «John Vincent Coulter» by Ann Coulter, FrontPage Magazine, January 11, 2008
^ Freedland, Jonathan "An appalling magic". The Guardian, May 17 2003. Retrieved on July 10 2006.
^ John Vincent Coulter - HUMAN EVENTS
^ Morenci Mine Strike of 1983

[1] "On MSNBC, Coulter called Gore a "total fag," while Matthews said "we'd love to have her back"". Media Matters. 2006-07-27. Retrieved 2007-10-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[timemag-2] Cloud, John. "Ms. Right". Time Magazine. April 25, 2005. Retrieved on July 10 2006.

[JVC_memoriam-3] «John Vincent Coulter» by Ann Coulter, FrontPage Magazine, January 11, 2008

[appmagic-4] Freedland, Jonathan "An appalling magic". The Guardian, May 17 2003. Retrieved on July 10 2006.

[5] John Vincent Coulter - HUMAN EVENTS

[6] Morenci Mine Strike of 1983

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]