Jump to content

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

Personal blog, anonymous source

The section titled "New York Times Christians/Nazis controversy" has only one source, a post on "World O'Crap," the personal blog of an anonymous person identified only as "Scott C." The use of such a blog as a source, particularly in an article about a living person, is a violation of WP:BLOGS. This section should therefore be removed.71.126.189.217 (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Typo by the end

"Ed Schulz, who sated that "You...". Should be: stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.54.22.17 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

—It is not necessary to note (let alone start a new section over!) obvious, routine, trivial typos on the talk page. Just kindly fix any you might find. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.88.100.178, 27 May 2011

Political activities and commentary - Controversies and criticism - Comments about the New York Times

Last sentence should read "Colmes continued in vain..." not "in vein".

24.88.100.178 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it probably should have read "in the same vein," which is a bit interpretive -- but, more important, just repetitive of the other reported Colmes comments, therefore removed as redundant. It's not terribly encyclopedic to list all of the sarcasic comments he made at her expense, much as some readers would enjoy them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Polemicist

The following sentence, or some variant thereof, is in this article repeated three or more times at the beginning of various sections:

Ann Coulter has described herself as a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and doesn't "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do".

It's a fair description, and sourced, and I suppose it fits in a lot of different places, but do we really need to repeat it over and over? Maybe we should just leave it in the lead and take it out of the other sections. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede usually summarizes the article, so repeating lede material in the body is ok and expected. To hammer a point multiple times is not needed. I haven't looked at this article, lately, so won't make a suggestion either way. You are free to copy edit and then see waht others think about your editing. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, her quote is actually mentioned 4 times in the article which seems silly, we get the point. I removed one of them, so we have one in the lede and then the quote is mentioned again twice, I would probably get rid of another mention of the quote but whatever. Maybe somebody with better skills could help. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't edit this myself due to the page protection, but the "1" footnote link doesn't lead to annecoulter.com, but annecoulter.org, a site that is just a placeholder for other links to conservatives sites, and, once loaded, if you try to click that site off, like I did, it keeps on trying to open more windows. Very irritating. Could somebody fix this?108.66.52.137 (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. It was pointing to .org instead of .com. Thanks for noticing that! –CWenger (^ • @) 15:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing vs Conservative

While I understand it is okay to label her a "conservative political commentator" it should be stated that her views are roughly right-wing. Her comments about jews, poor people, illegal immigrants, democrats, homosexuals, liberals and 911 victims hardly align with mainstream conservatism in the U.S. --Drdak (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The right-wing politics article does not accurately describe her views, in my opinion. I would say she is more an extreme conservative, although it is hard to say exactly because she may often just be trying to inflame her opponents. Right-wing also has more negative undertones (at least in the U.S.), unlike conservative, so for a BLP I think we should go with the latter. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Except for some comedians, nobody makes a career saying inflammatory, hateful, race/jew-baiting things that "they really don't mean" just to inflame opponents (and why are they her "opponents" to begin with? Because she's a right wing conservative extremist and they aren't). They say such things because, ultimately, they are serious about such things.108.92.142.100 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Well the right-wing politics article describes her views a heck of a lot more than the left-wing politics article.108.66.52.81 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
What's your point? The debate is right-wing versus conservative, not right-wing versus left-wing. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you read her views, she clearly is a right winger. She's a huge advocate of unregulated free market capitalism, of the "tradition" of religion (even advocating a bloody crusade against all muslims), she regularly uses terms like "liberals" and "left-wingers" as insults, she's a proponent of jingoistic patriotism, she seems to think that if you don't support in a knee-jerk manner US military action (at least those undertaken by Republican Presidents) than you must be an evil, anti-American traitor, she despises communism and is a devotee of Joe McCarthy, she happily muses that if women couldn't vote, the democrats would never have another President, she hates John Edwards simply because he sued doctors for malpractice, much in-line with the view most extreme right-wingers have that the rich and "job creators" can do whatever they please without consequence and all trial lawyers are evil. With all this, how is she not right-wing??? I mean, she's clearly not left wing, nor a centrist or moderate. She isn't somebody who keeps quiet about her views. What else is there? She's a "right-wing conservative", pure and simple...and if, given her views, she isn't right-wing, then who is right-wing? 108.92.142.100 (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Since when has Wikipedia been in the business of protecting connotations and undertones? Aren't we in the business of telling the truth?--Drdak (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
No, we're not interested in the truth. Lionel (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Lionel is right: we're interested in verifiability, not truth. Calling her conservative is more verifiable than right-wing. If you have a source where she calls herself right-wing I would reconsider. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, conservatives are a subset of right-wingers (along with moderate republicans, etc.), so if she's a conservative she's also right wing, just as moderate democrats, liberals, socialists, communists are all on the left wing spectrum.108.66.52.81 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
If that is the case, then we should use conservative as it is more precise. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, no. Actually, not all conservatives are right wing (and there are many types of conservatives). Some democrats are social/religious conservatives (like, for example, some african/latino americans who are fiscal progressives but are totally opposed to gay marriage). If you look at Ann Coulter, it really would be more precise to call her a "right-wing conservative", for both terms clearly describe her and leave little room for doubt about what sort of conservative she is.108.92.142.100 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


About verifying that she is right wing, how about this: At an event for gay republicans, the chairman of GOProud, called her the "self-professed 'right-wing Judy Garland'" http://news.change.org/stories/ann-coulter-the-right-wings-judy-garland This other link then has this Jimmy LaSalvia guy, also from GOProud, saying that Coulter suggested the Judy Garland line http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/weigel/2010/08/06/ann_coulter_the_right_wing_judy_garland.html For this article, are these sources enough to call her right-wing or is more needed (I'm saying this sincerly, not sarcastically).108.92.142.100 (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not enough.– Lionel (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, not wanting to beat a dead horse here, but according to annecoulter.com, the site linked to the first reference for this entry, right on the first page, on the tabs located right under her picture, there is a link for "Reading for Right-Wingers". Since this is Anne Coulter's personal website, and she clearly has some control over it, if she wasn't a right-winger herself, why would she have this tab for "right-wingers"??? Come on now, she is a right-wing conservative and this should be mentioned in the article. As it is, in the article she is listed as a social and political conservative. Is it really possible, in the modern age and in the US, to be a social and political conservative and NOT be a right-winger? Do you know of any ppl who are both social AND political conservatives who are centrists or left-wingers?99.103.231.241 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral POV issue in Books section?

The section on Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right strikes me as not balanced. It mentions some accusations of inaccuracy without going into specific examples (which strikes me as the correct way to handle the issue--there are citations for people to read if they want the details), and states that she responded to these criticisms in a column (also cited, so far so good), but then goes into her specific refutations. By presenting only her responses but not the accusations, the article leaves the decided impression that she has fully refuted her critics. I would like to strike everything after "...in a column called 'Answering My Critics'" and also the sentence from the middle of the paragraph "He also accused her of citing passages out of context." (I can do this myself, but I'd like to avoid an edit war by mentioning it here first). Edmund Blackadder (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Her IQ?

How come there is no mention of her extremely high IQ in the article? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think the comments she makes, especially in regards to religion, are proof enough of her colossal intelligence.99.152.117.79 (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to provide your source, and even to integrate it in the article. Of course, "claims to have" and "has" depend on the source being used. --174.95.113.92 (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Irregularities, Inaccuracies, NASCAR, Jersey Girls, etc.

These things were in the article long ago, and consensus was reached that they should be deleted or moved to the articles on the books that they refer to. Now somebody has brought them back. IMHO, if one of these matters appears in the book article, it shouldn't be repeated here. Also, IMHO and that of many others, these matters are so minor that they shouldn't appear in an article that is already too long. Those who think this old, previously deleted or moved material should be put back in the article should make their arguments here. Lou Sander (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The material in question, if pertaining more to criticism of her books, should be in those particular articles about the books in question. With specific attention to the 9/11 Jersey girls issue, why would that be placed under 'controversies and criticism' anyways? Is that really a ***current*** controversy? It happened 10 years ago! One could say the same thing about the New York Times comments and the terrorism/arabs sections as well. I don't think this is really all that controversial anymore, since it happened quite a while ago.
The other big issue with the article, in particular the latter half, is that much of it is turning into mostly just a collection of her quotes, instead of an actual article about the person. I think it was recently pointed out that the "polemicist" quote was in the article like four times or something (it's now just in there twice). But we need to keep in mind that we're writing an encyclopedia article about a person, and not just providing a soapbox for repeating her quotes ad nauseum. WTF? (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a lot of the article consists of something she said, followed by tons of well-cited material from people who reacted to it. There is often an unbalance in favor of the critics -- way more from them than from the subject of the article. Maybe undue weight is given to what the critics have to say. Lou Sander (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The removal makes no sense whatsoever; the material demonstrates a common thread of criticism -- Coulter's reputation, in many quarters, for inaccuracy in pursuit of partisan purposes. Splitting the content off into the individual articles therefore has a sanitizing effect, and is a subtle form of NPOV violation. The excised text has common themes, and shows what is said to be a longstanding course of conduct. Saying it's not "current" as an excuse to remove it also makes no sense whatsoever, since the article isn't about "Ann Coulter (current press coverage), but about her entire career. Coulter is a much less prominent and influential figure than she was ten or so years ago, and removing information like this essentially censors out of the article content that's useful to a reader in inferring why this occurs. The articles on the books themselves are quite dreadful -- no real identification discussion of overall content, nothing reflecting reviews, commentary, etc. -- rather like articles about, say a World War II movie that doesn't discuss the plot or storyline, doesn't discuss reviews, criticism, etc., but spends 90+% of their length discussing perceived anachronisms and various ways the movie departs from the historical record. In short, removal makes things worse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. It makes a great deal of sense to put criticisms of books in the articles on the books. Lou Sander (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. So the undeniable (if unstated) fact is that she is dirty, because not to make this clear is to "sanitize" her? This seems a possible case of mistaking POV with Truth. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simply not Wikipedia's job to make sure an article repeats every quote that someone said about something over and over again. Plus, the Neutral Point of View policy must also be balanced out with the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Just because some right-winger slanders the left in her books doesn't mean that Wikipedia has the right to slander that person. WTF? (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal Health

I read a report that she has Marfan's Syndrome. Can anyone confirm? 24.11.102.141 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Dr. Dale

Can you not bother to tell us where you read that? μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Googling this issue yields nothing but unverifiable personal attacks, hoaxes, and yahoo answers questions. I think we can dismiss it as dubious at best. VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, she does look like she might have that condition, but a verifiable source is required before anyone can include such an assertion in the article. JimFarm (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ann Coulter by Gage Skidmore.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ann Coulter by Gage Skidmore.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011

Remove photo at top left of article and replace with a photo of the subject of the article. There are plenty available on-line, even in this article.

75.215.91.120 (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What photo at the top left? The lead photo is of Coulter. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If you meant the donate banner, that's not something we can change on this article. If you sign up, you can turn it off in your preferences. — Bility (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012

In the paragraph entitled "Early life" (right below the table of contents), there is a discussion about a dispute over Ann Coulter's age:

"Coulter's actual age was disputed in 2002 while she was arguing that she was not yet 40, yet Washington Post columnist Lloyd Grove cited that she provided a birthdate of December 8, 1961, when registering to vote in New Canaan, Connecticut prior to the 1980 Presidential election. Meanwhile, a driver's license issued several years later allegedly listed her birthdate as December 8, 1961. Coulter will not confirm either date, citing privacy concerns."

The two dates are identical, but it is clear from the text that they were intended to be different.

71.59.243.45 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You need to make a specific request, with a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail, to use the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 Time shots

  • 1
    1
  • 2
    2
  • 3
    3
  • 4
    4
  • 5
    5
  • 6
    6
  • 7
    7

I thought I took several good shots of her - I put up the one I liked the best, but here are alternatives. --David Shankbone 01:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Birthdate

The "early life" section makes reference to an ambiguity in her birthdate, but the two potential dates it lists are the same. Does anyone have information that can clarify this issue? --✶♏✶ 12:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote about women voting - footnote

This is my first posting on Talk so please forgive me if I'm not doing it correctly & feel free to correct me so I can learn.

There is a quote attributed to Ann Coulter under the heading, "Political activities and commentary." The quote is about women voting; in an October 2007 interview in the New York Observer by George Gurley. The reference given is footnote [71]. I clicked on this link and found the quote; however, I am confused by the article itself.

First: The article, named "Coulter Culture" by Staff, 10/02/07, 12:28 PM - The quote about women voting is given.

Second: However, at the end of the first paragraph, the article says: "[UPDATED: read the complete interview here.] The word "here" is a link that takes you to the George Gurley interview, "Tea with Miss Coulter," dated 10/02/07, 11:42 PM. I read the entire article and the quote attributed to this article is not in the article at all.

Confusing! Starsmark (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Birthdate

The article reads, in part: "Coulter's actual age was disputed in 2002 while she was arguing that she was not yet 40, yet Washington Post columnist Lloyd Grove cited that she provided a birthdate of December 8, 1961, when registering to vote in New Canaan, Connecticut prior to the 1980 Presidential election. Meanwhile, a driver's license issued several years later allegedly listed her birthdate as December 8, 1961. Coulter will not confirm either date, citing privacy concerns."

NH registration - 12/8/1961, driver's license - same date, but "Coulter will not confirm either date"? Huh? --CPAScott (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The second date should read December 8, 1963. This is the date on her Washington D.C. drivers license per.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutholm (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The 1963 date is correct. She is 48. 24.91.215.243 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

9/11 widows comments

How come there is no section about some of her most infamous comments about the widows of the victims of the 9/11 attacks? Can we add it, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.120.119 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Post a citation, and it might be considered. TheNewKarl (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of those comments are in her book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, so there is a section in that book dealing specifically with the 9/11 widows. Since they deal specifically with one of her books, the comments are best left to the article on the book. WTF? (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

sexual identity

There has been a lot of talk on the internet over the years of her being a transexual. Has she addressed this issue? If anyone has any information on this topic, please post it. Thank you. 180.180.166.193 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to research the discussions of this issue in the talk archives on this article; it is a dead horse that has been flogged beyond all resemblance to horseflesh. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Talk over the internet" is insufficient as grounds for inclusion in this article. If you can find a reliable source, then it can be added. WTF? (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at her body it is very unlikely she is a transsexual. These are rather fantasies of males who think that a tough woman with an oppinion (like it or not) can't be a "real" woman. In short: This is bullshit. (And I strongly dislike Coulter, but hate sexist remarks about woman who act in puclic in general). --94.223.9.134 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

NOT ONE MENTION ANN IS DATING BLACK COMEDIAN JIMMY WALKER

--69.150.233.39 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

SO WHAT. IF YOU THINK IT'S RELEVANT ADD IT YOURSELF. BUT YOU SHOULD PROBABLY TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK. Primium mobile (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Extending lede as requested

Bit of a contradiction here. You've asked us to extend the lede to make a fuller summary of the article - but the article is locked!

May I suggest adding the following 3 paras to the existing lede?

From 1998, Coulter published a series of eight books, most of them with one-word titles that focus on specific areas of liberal hypocrisy. These have sold over 3 million copies. The first book concerned the Bill Clinton impeachment, a cause which first brought her to public notice when she wrote a column about the Paula Jones case, as well as writing legal briefs for Jones's attorneys. Others dealt with Cold War liberal treason, racial demagoguery, and victim culture.

At the same time, Coulter's syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate began appearing, and featured on major conservative websites. She also worked as a regular columnist for George magazine. It is a measure of her potency that the Augusta Chronicle reluctantly dropped her column because "she was the issue rather than what she was writing about."

Coulter has successfully established a niche for vitriolic attacks on liberal values that many hold deeply sacred. For example, when Muslims wanted to boycott US Airways because of the ejection of six imams from a plane, Coulter wrote 'If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.' On the prospect of whites becoming a minority in the US, she wrote 'One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been.' 109.154.5.166 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012

In the 2012 presidential election portion of the Wikipedia entry, there is a typo that states "incombant President". It should say "incumbent" Hadskunwar (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently done by someone else. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

University of Ottawa controversy

I'd argue the sentence, "liberal protestors conspired to stop Coulter's speech," is value-laden and biased. Perhaps, "protests influenced Coulter to cancel her event in spite of..." and leave the rest as it. The presence of liberal is questionable, and the verb 'conspired' has too much of a negative connotation to make this a properly neutral description. Eastwood414 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Eastwood414, Aug. 9 2012— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastwood414 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that this is strongly biased, especially because there have been several public remarks made by fellow republicans / Conservatives that they dislike her, too and don't want to be identified with her. And to say "conspire" it takes evidence to say so. --94.223.9.134 (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that certain financial concerns over the much larger than normal number of police and other government employees required to assist with security at the private event played a significant role in the decision to cancel. Ms. Coulter and her security detail were advised that they would be responsible for paying the costs of providing additional security and any damages related to her appearance. The decision was made to cancel the event immediately upon being advised of this development. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Thank you! Freshnrg (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to the use of the word is political. It's quite obvious Coulter's use of it was intentional. We cannot address every prvocation of hers and every response to her provocations by non-notable parties. If this becomes the subject of hard copy, we can revisit it. Until then it's webfluff. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

--Medeis|μηδείς, Please support your characterization that opposition to use of the word is political. The word has been removed from the federal vocabulary==http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c1116EqxLc::, and many states have done this as well. The federal law was passed more than two years prior to these events, and the vast majority of states have followed suit. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/intellectual-disability-bill-replace-retarded_n_1837476.html. The intellectually-handicapped community has voiced its opposition to use of the word, particularly in the way it was used here, for a long time now. I am not sure what your definition of "non-notable parties" is, but this goes along with your broad painting of the issue as political in a conclusory fashion, which minimize its significance without any clear justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.18.112.127 (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Defining it as purely political is also puzzling because it would seem to imply that conservatives have some sort of animosity or at least indifference to disabled people. Several notable conservatives, such as Michelle Malkin, have voiced strong displeasure with Coulter's actions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeroyJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Proposed edit challenged which is the equivalent of being reverted. See WP:BRD. The thing to do now is discuss here on the talk page. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, why is this being challenged when there have been no reasons given for the challenge? Medeis did not offer anything that resembles a substantive criticism or reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeroyJ (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Challenging an edit is equated to reverting it? Since when? I wasn't aware of this (though I'm not saying I'm right... just point me to the policy). However, Nathan, in this particular instance I believe you're wrong. This user is already discussing the issue on the talk page. User:Medeis has not corroborated his description of "retard/retarded" as a "political" term or that Coulter's use of it falls under that banner either (no in both cases, I feel). I think it's more than a little condescending (to the requester) to refer to it as a "challenge" - it's pretty flimsy at present. Coulter is using "retard" as a term of derision and derogation. I don't see how that is in any way a "political" act. Disabilities and those who are disabled are not typically the purview of self-proclaimed "commentators". I have absolutely no idea though, since I have no interest in paying any attention to what this irrevocably inane woman has to say. Anyway, I'll reveal my bias: I believe Ann Coulter does not actually deserve a life - seeing as she's squandering her current one - but that's just me :P. Peace. Psychonavigation (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-neutral quotes in lead

  • Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American conservative social and political commentator, author, syndicated columnist, and lawyer. She frequently appears on television, radio, and as a speaker at public and private events. Well known for her conservative political opinions and the controversial ways in which she presents and defends them, Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot", and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do".

This is the lead section of the article. After describing who she is and where she frequently appears, it being talking about her opinions and ways she presents/defends them. It describes them as "controversial". Immediately afterward, there are quotes of the subject defending her actions, in which she describes herself as a polemicist, claims she presents her views the way she does to "stir up the pot" and justifies her actions by saying that others only pretend to be impartial. These quotes are fine and in my opinion essential to this Wikipedia article. However, I believe the way they are presented in the lead section violate Wikipedia's policy on having a neutral point of view. Why? Because it doesn't "represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It just gives the subject's own side on the issue. To me, reading the lead section feels like the editor who put it together that way was trying to give me a positive opinion of the subject, preparing me for when all of the sides are actually present later on in the article. And in addition, it surprisingly doesn't even inform readers what controversy it is that the subject is defending herself against! The reader isn't told why the subject is defending herself, just that she is doing so. Just that fact alone is enough to remove the quotes from the intro. Again, the quotes are already present later in the article, and they're fine there because they're in a paragraph that is more neutral. And if the lead could be rewritten to adhere to WP:NPOV, then of course the quotes could be in the lead. But the way they are there now is clearly a violation of the policy. Trinitresque (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Funny, I just left a comment on your talk page before I saw the above. I agree that having only two sentences in the lead, one of which is her own self assessment, was unbalanced as a percentage of the text, if not actually unneutral. I have expanded the lead a bit and mentioned she gets criticized by the right as well as the left to try to add balance. There's nothing wrong with her comment per se, which seems pretty accurate. I think if we can expand the lead just a little further, perhaps mention her defense of creationism, her odd attitude towards gays, or the subjects of some of her books, the article will be much better off. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My extended lede - deleted

In response to your tag, requesting a fuller lede, I inserted this new version, which someone deleted, and I can't find it on the History. Unless anyone objects in the next week or so, I propose to re-insert it.


Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American conservative social and political commentator, author, lawyer and syndicated columnist. She frequently appears on television, radio, and as a speaker at public events and private events. Well known for her conservative political opinions and the controversial ways in which she presents and defends them, Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do".[1]

From 1998, Coulter published a series of eight books, most of them with one-word titles that focus on specific areas of liberal hypocrisy. These have sold over 3 million copies. The first book concerned the Bill Clinton impeachment, a cause which first brought her to public notice when she wrote a column about the Paula Jones case, as well as writing legal briefs for Jones's attorneys. Others dealt with Cold War liberal treason, racial demagoguery, and victim culture.

At the same time, Coulter's syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate began appearing, and featured on major conservative websites. She also worked as a regular columnist for George magazine. It is a measure of her potency that the Augusta Chronicle reluctantly dropped her column because "she was the issue rather than what she was writing about."

Coulter has successfully established a niche for vitriolic attacks on liberal values that many hold deeply sacred. For example, when Muslims wanted to boycott US Airways because of the ejection of six imams from a plane, Coulter wrote 'If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.' On the prospect of whites becoming a minority in the US, she wrote 'One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been.' 109.157.18.114 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Her High IQ

There is nothing in this article about her IQ, her extremely high IQ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.138.64 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Any source for the claim that she has an "extremely high" IQ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.156.82 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Not so sure this is relevant. Even the article on Albert Einstein makes no mention of his IQ. WTF? (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ann Coulter Ancestry

Ann Coulter's patrilineal ancestry is Irish (James Coulter), a family of plumbers but has several German ancestors too. Many of her antecedents were Southerners from Tennessee. [2]

She was born to John and Neil? Sounds like a mistke there.77Mike77 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nell, darling. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


I am not sure that she supports Drone strikes on American citizens (maybe drone strikes), or outwardly said that she supports torture and profiling Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.112.140 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Book Count

The article credits her with publishing eight books, but then lists nine. (Note that the third and fourth to last are in the same paragraph, if counting.) The article says "Coulter is the author of eight books, all of which have appeared on the New York Times Best Seller list." I do not know if the NYT placement is true of the book that was omitted from the count, so I have not updated the article myself. --67.166.129.98 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the sentence to state nine books. I really have no idea specifically which books of hers have been "bestsellers", and not sure if that's really relevant anyway, so I altered the sentence to state that many of them have been bestsellers, without citing a specific number. WTF? (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Net worth

I removed the net worth line from the infobox. The "source" provided links to this article, which was posted by "some guy" named "Sammy S." with no date of posting or other sources of where s/he got the information. As far as we know, the numbers could've been pulled out of his/her ass. She probably has most of her money tied up in the stock market anyway, so an actual number of her net worth would fluctuate regularly anyways.

I don't think it's really relevant anyway -- it was only stating a net worth of $8.5 million -- hardly notable. There's lots of millionnaires now. She's not on the list of billionnaires, and it's rather trivial to consider that a woman with her book publications and appearances probably has a few million anyways. WTF? (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity

I realise that claims of ethnicity are a problem throughout Wikipedia, but you've got to start somewhere, don't you? The category "American people of Scottish descent" seems to be motivated by her surname, which is an OR conclusion and could easily be wrong (for example if there were a case of adoption in her relevant line of ancestors, or if the name is an Anglicisation of a foreign, say German or Dutch name), and ethnicelebs.com (unfortunately used throughout Wikipedia) seems to be a kind of blog or (non-transparent) wiki whose reliability has been denied before. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

GOProud is an affiliate of a party, not a party. 198.151.130.64 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. GopProud is not equivalent to a political party. Since someone else posted this first I will edit the infobox accordingly. Purplethree (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Well I tried and couldn't do it. I hope someone will trim the reference to GopProud as an actual party.Purplethree (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2013

Ann Coulter does NOT support "torture" but does support what many have been called "enhanced interrogation techniques" - often, even usually, referring to water boarding. To declare water boarding as torture is debatable and not settled fact. Therefore to simply state she supports "torture" based on one side of the debate is politicalization and NOT reporting. Tensace (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In the video cited for this claim, she very clearly uses the words "waterboarding not bad though torture would have been better". No "enhanced interrogation techniques" euphemism, but those exact words. In light of this, we cannot remove the claim unless a better source supports the claim that she does not support it. Whether waterboarding is or is not torture is not relevant to this. --Stfg (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement attributed to is not supported by citation

Re her political views, the article has, "and (supports) the use of drone strikes on American citizens." The link is to a video of a TV panel discussion, where they are talking about traitors, i.e. American citizens who go abroad to join the enemy in trying to kill Americans. Coulter said she supports the use of drones in defending against these traitors. This article reeks of propaganda, and is semi-protected, so it cannot be made neutral. Basically, most political articles on wikipedia are propaganda that violate NPOV, but this one is an extreme example.77Mike77 (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This alarmed me as well. I've removed it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Books

The items about her books "If Democrats..", "Guilty", and "Demonic" seem to need some polishing. They say or imply that Coulter herself published these books; I believe they were published by Crown Forum. In addition, the paragraph about "Demonic" is pretty awkwardly worded. Maybe someone who is currently up on this topic can fix these things. Lou Sander (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am looking at articles on her books sales and will try to get all the info in here cited to good sources or corrected, etc Feel free to check what I am doing. Trying not to add content, just cleaning up and verifying sources CammieD (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Grammar Nazi time

The sentence structure/grammar in the intro is awkward, particularly the 3rd paragraph. I am going to source that material and try to make the sentence less convoluted, which may mean separating the factual items into new sentences. Feel free to check/correct my edits. Not adding content CammieD (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to introductory section

I deleted the references to George which has been gone for over ten years, and to the Augusta newspaper. Her column there was no doubt from syndication, rather than as a column from the paper itself. This material didn't seem suitable for the introduction, but remains in the body of the article. Lou Sander (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'm filling in citations where there aren't any and then will look at content that might need updating. Will try not to step on anything you are editing CammieD (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Plagiarism claims

The publisher investigated that and dismissed it saying it had no merit. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/07/10/syndicator-dismisses-coulter-plagiarism-charges/ Even DailyKos (very liberal) did their own checking and said the plagiarism claims were bogus. It looks like nothing came of it, but it definitely made news at the time. I can add that it was investigated and found untrue or should the reference to the plagiarism claim just be removed? CammieD (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph, 2nd sentence after "polemical style" goes onto describe her style in quotes. The source is an announcement from a speaking engagement at Cornell that is a 404 now. I've seen the quotes elsewhere will try to preserve the quotes or at least the description with a current source and a little better sentence structure CammieD (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Niche

'...vitriolic attacks on liberal values that many[who?] hold deeply sacred.' I don't think there can be much doubt that millions of liberals have been offended by her. Valetude (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

On first reading, I thought it was referring to her vitriolic attacks as being held deeply sacred by many. Could use a rewording to avoid ambiguity. 24.118.76.70 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It could use a source. It is an opinion and original research. Lou Sander (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I got rid of it.. already a controversial statement, without a source, it simply shouldn't be there. It contributes little to the article that isn't later explained. I also got rid of the accompanying quotes about muslims from the lead (why are two specific, unsourced quotes in the lead?). They're far from her most.. noticed quotes. Flipandflopped (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dated... Who cares

Why is there a paragraph listing people Ann has dated? Why is it news worthy or informative that a 52 year old women has dated men in the past. I looked though the extensive archives and found only one real discussion about her dating and it basically concluded with people agreeing that it wasn't relevant. There were a few other mentions of her dating this person or that but no one cared. Still no one cares. I only care because it seems so odd. Its only a short paragraph and I am sure most readers just skim over it like me. Why not just delete the thing and add save room?Mantion (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I cared. I also wondered how old she was and if she ever had an children. These experiences are core experiences in life and tell me about the person in a way that other information cannot.2605:6000:1800:6D:5576:96D3:6A36:D8C2 (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how you got lost. I didn't say remove her age or if she had kids. Age, children, parents, spouse or significant others are all useful information. A play by play of random people she dated is completely silly and cheapens what is a decent article. If she had lived with a man for sometime that might be useful. If you had a quote she made about one of her dates perhaps it would be useful. But we have a quote from the Andrew that they dated briefly? Since no one can justify the paragraph it seems obvious we should remove it. I am all for relationship information but 3 months of casual dating is not Wikipedia worthy.Mantion (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Remove the information about who she has dated. Lou Sander (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Need mention of Climate change skepticism or delete category

While working on Category:Climate change skeptics, I noticed that this article has been added to that category, yet there is no mention in the prose of this article that this article's subject is considered a climate change skeptic (complete with reliable sources). A quick online check showed that reliable sources do exist showing this to be the case. Please add this to the prose to this article or delete the category from this article. Prhartcom (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: Unfortunately, no one who watches this article has responded to this. The Climate change skepticism category will be removed from this article soon. Prhartcom (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Protestant Christianity

Ann Coulter in this most recent debate over the morality of pizza, has said she is a Presbyterian. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/03/ann-counters-passionate-appeal-to-christians-to-go-out-and-fight-amid-religious-freedom-debate-eternity-is-already-taken-care-of/)

Should the Infobox be updated? 173.20.25.190 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Coulter told said France?

"In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, Coulter told said France “needs to move to the next step” in dealing with terror."

Think this is just a typo. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Fixed it. Lou Sander (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Does "Political activities and commentary" Section need to be updated?

This article consists mainly of the section labeled "Political activities and commentary" which deals with a few of the many controversies she has gotten herself involved with over the years. I am wondering if some of the older items need to be supplemented with (or maybe even replaced by) more recent items? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


F'ing Jews

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/193633/ann-coulter-whines-about-f-ing-jews-on-twitter-anti-semites-rise-to-her-defense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.113.203 (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2015

170.24.140.3 (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as how there was no proposed edit... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ann Coulter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Stumbled on to this one...

I was sent a link to this article: Ann Coulter Thinks She's Native Because She Descended From Settlers; which is a PhD academic's rebuttal to her semantic argument that: as she is descended from original settlers who created America, she cannot be considered to be an immigrant.

Anyway as I am someone who knew nothing of this person, I do the usual perusal of this page. Conclusion, this article is an indictment as to why the Wikipedia site is now the butt of internet jokes. There are more than a dozen pages of talk page notes on someone who makes a living spouting hate speech but who is not called a "hate speaker". Wikipedia has a policy called WP:SPADE. It states: To call a spade a spade is to describe something clearly and directly. Rather than using oblique and obfuscating language, just "tell it like it is". Which in a nutshell explains why there are so many talk pages, her language towards immigrants is both negative and pejorative, in one recent instance she called them "losers" who are dragging the USA into the Third World. What is this language if not hateful?

In conclusion it's plain to see why this article is so hotly debated (and why Wikipedia is an internet joke) - on one side you have people who side with this person so they want this article to reflect that. Then you have the other side that just has to apply WP:SPADE. I'm not even American but it obvious that she like making hateful generalisations but to read this article you wouldn't think so.

PS Maybe the right-wing editors who worked their magic here could spin their charm on the article of the guy who was a vegetarian, conservationist, nationalist, enacted whole scale work programs using private contractors, anti-immigrant, and had a robust foreign policy agenda: yep Hitler! ;-)

Would there be dozens and dozens of talk pages if "a spade was called a spade"? My view, no. Maintaining lies takes effort, lots of effort. Why do you think North Korea or China have such large propaganda agencies?

Please readWP:NPOV... People who say things controversial isn't necessarily labeled as "hate speech". Also, please read WP:FORUM. If we label her as a "hate speaker", for the sake of WP:SPADE, then why is the worder "murderer" not found on the Adolf Hitler page once?. Also, her argument that she is a "Native American" is valid, in the sense that she is native to the country of the United States. Please make an account so we can continue to improve this article. -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To the original poster, it can also be seen why this article is a joke by the level of "American" intelligence on show. A neutral point of view just means stating facts without adding WP:WEASEL words. Coulter is by any stretch of imagination an "evil bitch" who makes a living stoking up hatred. But take your pick: Gingrich, O'Reilly or Beck, you'll find them all listed on Wikipedia as "conservative commentators" which is a euphemism for "right-wing whack job". You are right though, this article sucks because evidenced by the number of talkpage archives there is a never-ending battle between stupid and common sense. (BTW to the American: Hitler is not called a murderer because he would have had to have killed someone in cold blood. Whereas Coulter has quotable comments akin to hate speech as long as my arm. Furthermore: what?? "her argument that she is a "Native American" is valid, in the sense that she is native to the country of the United States" OMG did you actually read the academic article that rebutted this stupidly thick assertion? Evidently not. The fact that you actually think she is correct only reinforces the original posters objection that this article is a stitch-up job by people of right-wing, low IQs.). Meanwhile here's my prediction, the talkpage of this article will just keep on growing because apparently white middle class conservatives are not "hate speakers" just generators of "controversy". Internet parlance that's "LOL GTFOOH!" 81.129.127.138 (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

POV tag

The article requires the inclusion of the substantial criticism Coulter has received, to achieve NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I was expecting a pretty hefty section on criticism in this article. 73.136.92.159 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ann Coulter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Ann Coulter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ann Coulter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

White nationalist? Anti-suffragist? Are you crazy or you don't hide anymore what you are, the Leftpedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.67.249.75 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Those categories were added 19 March in this edit without explanation, references, or support in the article. I have removed them. Marteau (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Conservative political commentator?

In the introductory sentence, why is she a "conservative social and political commentator" and not just a "social and political commentator"? I noticed that left-leaning public figures are not labeled "liberal political commentators." This seems biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.11.23 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2016‎ (UTC)

I see no problem here; "conservative" isn't a slur. Perhaps biographies of far-left commentators ought to describe their subjects as such, but that's to be decided there, not here. Rebbing 00:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is a libertarian???

In the categories section of the article it say that the subject Ann Coulter is a libertarian however the article itself says that she tried to run with the Libertarian Party in order to prevent the Republican incumbent from gaining re-election & even then the Libertarian Party of Conneticut declined to endorse her. Her political views are also quite contrary to libertarian philosophy as well as to the Libertarian Party's platform. In conclusion I suggest removing the category of "American libertarians" as well as "Connecticut libertarians" from the article due to these inconsistencies. Thank You for understanding. 2602:304:B166:58B0:15DE:C497:EC29:FFEA (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Consensus is not required to remove a BLP violation. There are no sources in the article saying she's a libertarian. I'm going to remove those categories. Should someone come forth with reliable sources saying she's a libertarian, they can be added back at that point. Marteau (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the context and time period. Some politicians do change political affiliations and party membership over time, sometimes burning bridges as they go. In Greece we have the recent example of Adonis Georgiadis, a vocal critic of the New Democracy party and known for his insulting references to political opponents and their party base. Not only he ended up joining the party himself, he has attempted (and failed) to elevate himself to its leadership. Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Libertainism is a very ambiguous term. Ann Coulter said several times she's more libertarian than most self described libertarians. Some of her idols, like richard epstein and milton friedman. Her policies are very much in line with libertarian ideology on economic issues. https://coulterwatch.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/delusional-new-ann-coulter-book/ AHC300 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comedy Central Roast of Rob Lowe

Ann Coulter was a roaster on the dias of this television show initially broadcast on Sept. 5, 2016. It appears she was included in the program mainly to serve as the object of numerous jokes told by the other roasters and the guest of honor. It appears she agreed to appear on this program mainly to promote her newly published book. She did gain noticeable fresh publicity as a result of this appearance. 76.16.93.184 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016

Please add a dubious template for the source of this alleged statement. There is not enough facts provided in the source to confirm any such remark was made. "I know at least half of you are totally against gay marriage." she said. By the end of the dinner, they agreed with her.[3]

129.74.160.133 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: The statement is made very clearly in the source, so I'm not quite sure why it should be considered dubious. Topher385 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: EvergreenFir (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - Al Franken
  2. ^ http://www.wargs.com/other/coulter.html
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference broadly.vice.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Nice work, but perhaps an update?

The page is very non-biased, which is great, considering Ann Coulter's controversial nature. There are also many sources from credible journals and newspapers. However, the roast of Rob Lowe and other recent events should probably be added as a new section. Kdeterin (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Gay Marriage/Promiscuity Anecdote

"During a night out with John Phillips, Coulter told John's gay friends that she knew they really did not want to get married and were more interested in promiscuous sex than in traditional family structures. In a view very similar to radical queers' opposition to same-sex marriage, Coulter argued that same-sex marriage would ruin gay culture, because gays value promiscuity over monogamy. She said, "That's the whole point of being gay, so stop the bullshit," and "I know at least half of you are totally against gay marriage." By the end of the dinner, they agreed with her."

This is nearly verbatim from the cited article and it's an ancedote that was told to the author, not something the author witness. I don't think it's encyclopedic to include this. --Ceaseless (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ann Coulter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"Intelligent Design"

The current version of this page, under 'Religious Views,' states:

"Coulter subscribes to "intelligent design," a theory that rejects evolution."

While Coulter's beliefs may reject evolution, the concept of "intelligent design" does not deny evolution in and of itself. Intelligent design is defined as:

"the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity."

As such, a sub-sect subscribers of intelligent design very much do believe in evolution, but as being controlled, driven, or sparked by a "higher power."

To the point, it would either be more accurate to refer to Coulter as a "Young Earth Creationist," (a term more fitting when referring to the denial of evolution) or remove the section of the sentence claiming intelligent design is a theory that wholly rejects evolution, or (perhaps) replace evolution with "natural selection."

Kulag (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Officially a white supremacist

Coulter is officially writing for "American Renaissance", a white supremacist site.

https://twitter.com/jartaylor/status/819603261112061953 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.210.91 (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

update to Ann's politics

[1] Ann Coulter recently tweeted "14!" referencing the "fourteen words" or "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children", a nazi quote. This points towards Ann sympathizing with fascism, which might be something to add to her political beliefs.

How long have you been following her? She tweets a new number every day: She's counting down to Trump's inauguration.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Pretty hard stretch there when she has also been hired as a writer for "American Renaissance", a white supremacist publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.210.91 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/817022914004447232

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

Coulter is officially writing for the white supremacist site "American Renaissance" now. Article should be update to reflect that she is now an admitted white supremacist. https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/817022914004447232 73.155.210.91 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JustBerry (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Source has been provided, public statement by the owner of the white supremacist site in question. Site IS a hate site, see https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-renaissance
Coulter has also been lobbying and promoting white supremacist groups https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/12/21/ann-coulter-attends-vdare-christmas-party-%E2%80%93-her-second-white-nationalist-event-three-months — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.210.91 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Site page listing her as a hired author: https://www.amren.com/author/ann-coulter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.210.91 (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

Djwebb79 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Polemicist?

Anyone got any opinions on describing Coulter as a polemicist? We already mentioned in the lead that she has described herself as this. I moved the word into the first sentence with the summary "She describes herself as a polemicist, and I don't think anyone would disagree. This is a very good description of her, so I think it should go in the first sentence." This was reverted by Peter Gulutzan with the summary "Why we would throw out "writer" and add a word she used 15 years ago in the lead, I don't see."

I don't have strong opinions either way. I just thought, as I said, that it was a very good description of her, and so worth putting in the first sentence. Perhaps we should discuss it here. I am happy to go with the consensus, either way.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually the edit by Yaris678 did not merely add "polemicist" to the first sentence, it removed "writer" etc. However Yaris678 is correct that "polemicist" was in the lead previously (in the third paragraph), I should have acknowledged that. Well, we'll see if others care. Incidentally the cite for "polemicist" is to a second-hand possibly-not-notable source, the original statement was in: publisher = The Sunday Times, date = July 7 2002; title = Right's avenging diva in US book coup; Author = Sarah Baxter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Good point about "writer". I was thinking that "syndicated columnist" covered this, but she has also written several books. I'd be happy to come up with a version that includes that too. But let's see if anyone else has an opinion on when we should mention "polemicist". Yaris678 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ann Coulter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

when does the objectivity begin?

An interesting collection of Coulter trivia, but not really much of a WP article. For instance, Coulter's claims are left as fact, rather than meeting any sort of explanatory balance. Easy target: LGBT conservatism, where she told gay Republican Taylor Garrett that "The gays have got to be pro-life," and "As soon as they find the gay gene, guess who the liberal yuppies are gonna start aborting?" She claims it, WP repeats it, & suddenly absurdity is Truth.

While I'm there, I note there's frequent lapse of simple English: She … opposes transgender individuals to use bathroom usage.

Someone else's project; I don't even know where I'd begin.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Misinformation

Under Religious Beliefs, it's stated that Intelligent Design rejects Evolution. This is not only incorrect but inflammatory, reflective of bias, and must be changed or removed immediately. While some who believe in intelligent design may reject evolution, certainly not all do as evolution could still be a part of the intelligent design. At dispute is not the method but rather the propelling force behind the methods.

MarkoOhNo (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

An excellent example of where NPV fails

This entry on Ann Coulter shows the terrible consequences of tit-for-tat editing by Coulter's fans and critics - a 9,300-word, barely coherent mish-mash of why each Wikipedia contributor loathes or loves Coulter. Contrast this entry with Wikipedia's 8,500-word lovefest for Stephen Colbert, cited as a "media and drama good article" despite nary a mention of his recent scandalous "c**k holster" comment.

Perhaps more telling are the talk pages for these two entries. Colbert's talk page consists of about four brief paragraphs while Coulter's talk page has 22 massive archives filled with raging disagreements over the article's subject.

It would appear that Wikipedia's liberal contributors have been paying meticulous attention to critiquing Coulter's entry while Wikipedia's conservative contributors have been far more lax in policing Colbert's entry. Whether this is due to differences in numbers or priorities, I have no idea. The consequences for Wikipedia's much-touted NPV are obvious, however.

I never cease to be amazed at (1) the constant challenges that Wikipedia faces in dealing with a myriad of such issues and (2) how problems such as this are not far more prevalent - testimony to the robustness of the Wikipedia concept, I suppose. 

 Profbird (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017: Columns Puplication Update and Description

The list under 2.2 Columns seems outdated, and the description of the websites is inaccurate.

It seems like Coulter hasn't been published by Jewish World Review since 2015 1. She is however now published by American Renaissance 1.

Suggestion: Remove "Jewish World Review" and replace it with "American Renaissance" (with the appropriate inter-wiki link).

Regarding the description: Some of the websites are clearly conservative, but WND and FrontPage Mag are likely better described as far-right (see for example their Wikipedia entry), and VDARE and American Renaissance are clearly white supremacist.

A change likely requires some consensus building, but I think that it is unacceptable to lump these different ideologies under the same incorrect "conservative" label. A temporary measure would be to simply remove "conservative" from the phrase "six conservative websites". Zukorrom (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: We could use some reliable sources for Coulter's current syndication reach. If you can provide this, that would assist in making this change. I have been unable to verify this information, but I did find one source claiming she is syndicated not by Universal Press, but instead by Andrews McMeel Syndication so it likely needs to be updated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ann Coulter on climate change

It's been my experience that every Wikipedia article about an American who has publicly and strenuously doubted climate change over a period of years has had that fact noted about them in the article.

With the exception of Ann Coulter. From the article one would gather that she has no position on the matter.

Yet in a 2014 interview she said "No, I mean, I'm sure he doesn't believe in global warming as I don't, as the majority of the Americans don't." and "you're talking about you know, entire genocide if we don't have fossil fuel. We can't go back to selling food at fruit stands on the corner. We need energy to live." And in a 2015 tweet she wrote "Climate change: I'll send money to any candidate who calls it bullshit."

All of this and much more is easily googled for.

It was my impression that some years ago Wikipedia had her in the category of climate skeptics, and rightly so judging by these more recent remarks of hers. So what happened in the meantime? Has she changed her position on climate change? Did she threaten to sue Wikipedia if it said anything about her position on the matter? Did some editor delete everything about her position on the matter and she didn't think to complain? Or what?

All very mysterious. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ann Coulter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Critics"

When did racism become "critics"? Are the KKK "critics" of minorities? JanderVK (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are for the improvement of articles via the discussion/evaluation of Reliable Sources, not a forum for personal views. Do you have a RS for improvement of the article?104.169.39.45 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Public perception section

I would like to suggest that the entire "public perception" section at the end of the article be deleted. It is merely a collection of opinions that adds nothing to the piece; furthermore, there are 200 citations above it, which means that the article would be unaffected by the section's removal.Polkadreamer (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"reared" vs "raised"

To "rear" a child is not incorrect. Traditional rule is "Rear children", and "Raise chickens." That rule is becoming old-fashioned, and seldom used today in North America, where it is viewed as "British English". So it is not a "correction" to change "reared" to "raised" or "brought up", but merely a stylistic change. Personally, I don't object to the change, just noting that it is not a "correction". http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reared77Mike77 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"Put a form in Trump, he's dead"

Under "Political views" she's quoted as saying "Put a form in Trump, he's dead". While this is consistent with the cited article, the correct quote is "Put a fork in Trump, he's dead." as per her Twitter post here: https://twitter.com/anncoulter/status/908279228126416898?lang=en Rperlberg (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

Not a complete sentence:

“In 2016, former executive chairman Steve Bannon,[145] who declared Breitbart News Network "the platform for the alt-right".[146]”

Suggestion: remove “who” from sentence. 2600:1010:B05D:CDD6:F8D1:9C26:4917:7569 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Reference number 78 (Youtube) is dead. Can someone fix this? --2.104.86.226 (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I want you to either mark the link as [dead link‍] or find a link that works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.86.226 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done I've tagged the link as dead. NiciVampireHeart 14:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Introduction does not seem neutral

I think the introduction does not seem neutral. It may need re-drafting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.49.71 (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

This page reads "Coulter subscribes to intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution." Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive in everyone's mind. Belief in Creation doesn't necessitate the rejection of evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.210.89 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The question is whether she rejects evolution. This kind of thing [1] implies she does, but I couldn't find a succinct quote. I would challenge that "intelligent design" qualifies as a theory, rather than as less than a hypothesis, more of a surmise. --Hugh7 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I removed the "theory" wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html

Coulter's most recent book

Coulter, Ann H. (2018). Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind. New York City: Penguin Random House LLC. ISBN 9780525540076 (hardcover); ISBN 9780525540083 (ebook). It's listed on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.86.4 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

Please include Ann Coulters newest book "In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!" under the books section 165.204.55.250 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Look again, it's already there. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

WND and TownHall sources

I removed a quote sourced to WorldNetDaily because this is not a reliable source, even for opinions. In the same edit I removed a Dennis Prager quote sourced to Townhall because the opinion of a columnist is unlikely to be notable and may be considered a WP:FRINGE view. –dlthewave ☎ 10:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Considered by whom? If you wish to remove an opinion because it is "fringe" one would like to see evidence of that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, editors wishing to add or retain an opinion will need to show that it is has been published by reliable sources; otherwise it fails WP:WEIGHT. –dlthewave ☎ 21:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
That's an illogical response. I pointed out that those who wish to remove opinions as "fringe" need to provide evidence that they are "fringe". If you respond to that by saying "editors wishing to add or retain an opinion will need to show that it is has been published by reliable sources", that's changing the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
By "fringe", I meant that it is a minority viewpoint that has not been demonstrated to appear in reliable sources. WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT all apply here. –dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE: "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Not appearing in a reliable source isn't part of the definition. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, but it's still "a minority viewpoint that has not been demonstrated to appear in reliable sources." We should not be giving Prager and Horowitz the same weight as prominent organizations such as the ADL and American Jewish Committee. –dlthewave ☎ 21:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, not idea if WND should be reliable but Prager would be a notable opinion on conservative/libertarian matters. Here is CNN including Prager on a panel discussing antisemitism [[2]]. Certainly an opinion with a POV and not one that should be typically delivered in Wikipedia voice but still notable. Since this is appears to be a direct quote WND would only have to be evaluated with regards to truthfully quoting Prager. The RS concerns could be bypassed by finding an alternative or second source for the quotes in question. Springee (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave:, this looks like a bad reversion to me [[3]]. The material has been in the article for some time. @FreeKnowledgeCreator: has challenged the removal, I noted problems with the justification for removal and the talk page discussion has not reached a consensus. The WND sourced material might fail RS but the claims aren't extraordinary (thus a lower quality source may be OK). The opinions of David Horowitz and Dennis Prager are both notable in this area so it would be hard to argue they don't have WEIGHT for inclusion independent of sourcing. Springee (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: We must have a different understanding of WP:WEIGHT; I don't see anything in the policy that gives weight to an individual's opinion due to their notability. The policy concerns the prominence of a viewpoint among reliable sources, and it does not appear that Horowitz's and Prager's opinions on Coulter's remarks have been published in reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 13:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
WEIGHT allows inclusion of views/opinions of notable commentators/experts in cases like this. I would start by noting that the claims of antisemitism are being made by people who are no more notable, and perhaps less so, than those defending Coulter. For instance Horowitz is quoted several times in the article so I don't think we can claim his opinion suddenly doesn't have weight this time. WND cites Horowitz's blog as the source of the defense. Perhaps you should change the reference to his blog instead. Springee (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
First, if Horowitz is a notable opinion on the subject then it shouldn't matter where his defense is published. Second, it was incorrect to remove the Prager material in your reversion since it was not related to the WND issue. Third, I've added a HuffPo article that also talks about Horowitz defending Coulter. Thus at this point the HuffPo establishes the WEIGHT and the Horowitz article simply fills in the details. Springee (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nomoskedasticity:, there is not consensus for removing the material. The material is party of the long term stable version of the article. The Horowitz material is now supported with two sources (Horowitz's own writing and the HuffPost) so removal of that content was sloppy and unjustified. The Prager material removal is also questionable given there is no doubt he said it. Please justify the removals individually here. Remember you are removing long term stable content so the onus is on you to get consensus for the change. Springee (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Prager's column is also a primary-source opinion with no reliable secondary coverage. Editors who wish to add or reinstate the content will need to demonstrate that it is a significant viewpoint, do you have other sources that support this? We need to be particularly careful when sourcing opinions in a BLP, whether positive or negative. –dlthewave ☎ 12:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree it would be better to get a second source to confirm weight. However there isn't consensus for removal and we are dealing with removing stable content. The Horowitz material did have a secondary source and thus was removed improperly. Springee (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is not under a restriction that requires consensus to remove content. What was the secondary source for Horowitz? The HuffPost ref was missing the URL. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Here is a source that says Prager defended Coulter. [[4]] Springee (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that would be an acceptable secondary source for Prager's comments. –dlthewave ☎ 12:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I would use that and keep the existing Town Hall article. Since the one references the other. Springee (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@JzG:, the Horowitz material was discussed here. While WND is not considered a reliable site for facts etc it is considered reliable for the views/opinions expressed by the authors. There is a very good reason for keeping the actual Horowitz material. The HuffPo article (the second reference) says Horowitz defended Coulter and cites the article WND article. However, since the HuffPo author disagrees with Horowitz it's better to include both so readers can see both what Horowitz wrote and what was said about it. Finally, RS doesn't say this material can't be included, only that we need to use it carefully. Anyway, the material was included after the discussion above. Springee (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

We have a (just about) reliable source for this material. Linking the original is unnecessary and a violation of WP:FRINGE, since WND is a fringe publication. It's a redundant unreliable source, and adds nothing. In fact I would remove the entire sentence as WP:UNDUE unless it's mentioned in something more weighty than HuffPo. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It isn't fringe since Horowitz is a well know commentator. Unless you are claiming the article isn't actually by Horowitz or the material was altered. Also, we already have a consensus for inclusion based on the discussion above. Springee (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Someone says something on a far-right fringe website and the only source that reports it is a dodgy left-wing tabloid. Including that, is undue. Doesn't matter if it was the King of Siam who said it, the lack of commentary in substantive independent sources is what makes it undue. We're not supposed to scour the internet for primary sources supporting or debunking a specific POV, we are supposed to reflect the consensus view of reliable sources, which, in this case, is "meh". Guy (Help!) 23:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Horowitz's views are mentioned several other times in the article. Why do you think this one time, when he is defending Coulter, is fringe and can't be included but the other times are OK for inclusion? I think your POV would be stronger if this was the only time Horowitz was in the article. Springee (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed a Horowitz quote which was sourced to Front Page Magazine. The other mentions of Horowitz come from sources that are at least marginally reliable.
You're continuing to imply that Horowitz himself carries some sort of notability or weight that applies to everything he says. That is not how it works. We may choose to include comments which have been prominently covered by reliable secondary sources, while policy requires that we exclude comments which do not meet this standard. –dlthewave ☎ 05:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Springee: You've asserted several times that the opinions of notable commentators inherently carry a certain amount of weight, including the extraordinary claim that "WEIGHT allows inclusion of views/opinions of notable commentators/experts in cases like this." This is a misrepresentation of our policies, in fact WP:WEIGHT concerns the prominence of a viewpoint among reliable sources and says nothing about the opinions of notable individuals. –dlthewave ☎ 23:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Then why were you ok with the material until Guy came along. Springee (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Jews

Ann Coulter repeating KKK speak. "I mean, you have the Muslims and the Jews and the various exotic sexual groups and the black church ladies with the college queers. The only thing that keeps the Democratic base together is for them to keeping focusing on, ‘No, white men are the ones keeping you down. You must hate white men."

https://forward.com/fast-forward/415931/ann-coulter-jews-hate-white-men-like-rest-of-democratic-base/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That's an unreliable source and I can't find a reliable one, but if there were one, it would probably merit inclusion. If no RS is presented in 48 hours I propose to remove this section per WP:BLP but there are enough mentions in unreliable sources that it deserves at least a short time for people to think about it. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

This unexplained revert by Chowbok of a recent edit by me, for which I gave a clear explanation, is inappropriate. As noted, the term "sexual intercourse" refers to heterosexual genital sex, or more specifically the insertion of a penis in the vagina. It does not include homosexual activity, making "same-sex sexual intercourse" an incorrect expression. It is unfortunate that an editor would choose to restore such an inaccuracy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

How do reliable sources describe Coulter's views on the subject? –dlthewave ☎ 01:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know that there is a reliable source discussing Coulter's views of homosexual sexual behavior. The term she uses in the article used as a source is "sodomy" so it describes her views more accurately to use it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Well if it's not discussed by a reliable source, then it probably shouldn't be covered in the article per WP: WEIGHT. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say that there is no reliable source discussing her view of this subject, only that I wasn't aware of one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
dlthewave, this edit by you is misconceived. I am aware that people's views need to be described neutrally, but "same-sex sexual intercourse" is not neutral or even an accurate use of the English language. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia support a broad definition of intercourse which covers various types of sexual activity. More examples can be provided if needed. Which sources support your definition? –dlthewave ☎ 03:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The primary definition of "sexual intercourse" according Merriam Webster is "heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis". The term can be used other ways but it is desirable to avoid a mistaken expression such as "same-sex sexual intercourse" given that the primary meaning of "sexual intercourse" is penile-vaginal sex. The Wikipedia article Sexual intercourse similarly begins with, "Sexual intercourse (or coitus or copulation) is principally the insertion and thrusting of the penis, usually when erect, into the vagina for sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I came here from the note at the Conservatism WikiProject. Pretty obviously, what we should not do is to use the word "sodomy" in Wikipedia's voice, although it could potentially be attributed in a quote. As to "intercourse" versus "behavior", I don't think that editors can definitively determine whether intercourse can be same-sex; there will be too many differences of opinion in general culture. But I see no need to force the issue. I see nothing wrong with calling it "behavior" or "sexual behavior". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

former member of GOProud

"She is a ... former member of the advisory council of GOProud since August 9, 2011." Since 2011 until when? The word former could mean she quit, or she was a member until it ceased to exist.--2607:FEA8:D5DF:FEF6:45D5:59C4:CE26:3B41 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"Put a form in Trump, he's dead"

Yes the linked article has "form". Her actual tweet has "fork". https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/908279228126416898 If the purpose of footnote 116 is to provide a real source for her comment, maybe this article could use her tweet, and get the word "fork" right. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:FEF6:45D5:59C4:CE26:3B41 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

The link for note 179 in the References section is broken. It redirects to a New York Observer article about customized handbags. 208.38.246.47 (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed Springee (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

References errors

Hi wikipedians, There are many CS1 errors related to publisher= markup in the References section in this article. I have cleaned up CS1 errors in this article by removing the quotes. @Kiwifist: Among them, one is recently inserted by User:Kiwifist at Feb 26, 2019 edit with errors Perhaps an admin can stop the incoming errors. It is currently growing at 65,000. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ann Coulter on same-sex marriage

I need to find the clip, but since immigration has become her number one issue Ann Coulter has been one record calling SCOTUS's legalization of same-sex marriage a "settled issue" and expressing her feeling that she's glad it's been settled so the country can move on to "more important things." I did not change it because I haven't yet found the source, but her support for a Federal Marriage Amendment is no longer current. References to come ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.15.41 (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems to suffer from a general lack of neutrality and some disorganization. Has anybody taken a closer look at the "Early Life" section? I tried to clean it up a tiny but, but it is wild and seems somewhat xenophobic in its intentions. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrf233 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If you can improve it, please do.

I would relish the opportunity to improve this article, but alas you've locked it. The lack of neutrality throughout this article, as with similar locked articles, highlights the dilemma that Wikipedia faces; not because of warring contributors in pitched battles vying to get their version on the page but because Wikipedia and its staff simply cannot observe its own stated principles.

The use of "far right" to describe Ann Coulter is good example - a limiting case if you will - demonstrating how differently such descriptors are used within the political universe of Wikipedia. We as contributors are held to one standard while the staff who police the contributions are exempt from these same standards when applying their judgment of whether content meets those standards.

Instead of precluding the use of politically subjective and overtly biased descriptions, Wikipedia throws away principle and leans on select rules and guidelines to justify skewing the distribution of such politically *non-neutral* descriptors while remaining satisfied that their judgments are in line with the principles of their organization. It's a neat trick (a slight-of-hand) that we see increasingly utilized among social media companies.

The examples here are virtually endless, but here's a sample comparison that should illustrate the point. Compare Ann Coulter's Wikipedia description with the following Wikipedia descriptions of left-leaning political commentators: Chris Cuomo, Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, Matthew Yglesias, Van Jones, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chuck Todd, Ezra Klein, Don Lemon, Maggie Haberman, and on and on and on....

Nowhere in their descriptions do you find the words "Left" or "Far-Left". In fact, with the exception of Rachel Maddow, not even the word "liberal" is used anywhere in the Wikipedia entries to describe these left-leaning political commentators! Indeed, you could barely find the word "liberal" in any of these entries, most instances of which were contained in the references. Lawrence O'Donnell's entry contained the most uses of "liberal" at a whopping 4 instances, but those were his own words as he was describing how farther to the Left he is from most other liberals. In Coulter's entry, however, the word "conservative" is used 17 times, not counting the references.

But then we all understand what's going on here. Wikipedia's funding is overwhelmingly sourced from the Left, from Progressives, from Liberals...whatever label you wish to conspicuously deny. As such, the constituent content follows.

I know, this will be removed. Deleting honest and objective content is the signature of what Wikipedia does best. 72.169.80.159 (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.80.159 (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that calling Coulter "far right" is absurd, she's a long way from being a fascist. Actually of the sources linked to back it up, the one from the Guardian is referencing someone else criticising Coulter and saying she was "dog whistling" to the "far right" - someone needs to remove it. The BBC refers to her only as either conservative or right-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:987:BB00:81EC:3936:D2B8:9C72 (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

far right

Heavily biased description in the lead:

The bestselling author has been criticized for dog-whistling to the far right.

the guardian— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.238.129.115 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you requesting a change to the article? Sundayclose (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

Change: Ann Hart Coulter is an American far-right media pundit, best-selling author, syndicated columnist, and lawyer.

To: Ann Hart Coulter is an American conservative media pundit, best-selling author, syndicated columnist, and lawyer, commonly associated with the far-right.

Because the articles describing her as "conservative" are more numerous. This way it's more fair. One such reference is here:

[1] Helloagain04 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change before making such a potentially controversial edit request. See also the various notices at the top of the talk page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "'I Give Up': Ann Coulter Has Had Enough, Says Dreamers 'Can Stay' But Trump 'Must Go'". Newsweek. December 11, 2019. Retrieved April 4, 2020.

I have seen the notices above and both of the people who posted disagree with the current terminology. The article described Ann Coulter as just "conservative" for years and only with comparative recency has it called her "far-right". Surely mentioning both public perceptions is more fair?

Helloagain04 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for a change to the article

I am requesting that the use of far-right be changed to conservative or right--leaning. Far-right implies that she is a fascist, or a nazi, etc.. I understand that this issue has come up often, but if so many people have complained, what do you think that means? Ugla'a (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Blatant leftist bias

Any reason Ms. Coulter is described as "far-right", while the articles for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Don Lemon, etc, etc, etc, etc don't describe them as "far-left"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.34.253 (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Far-right claim

Only two of the four sources provided actually label her far-right. The other two use the words alt-right, but do not label her as such. The two misused sources should be removed. Whoever entered them is probably an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:714:EE00:39FA:E04F:6DF2:BB88 (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a reference to Coulter as 'far right' in all of the articles that I checked. Looking more closely at her views in the article, it's very clear that she's a far right personality. Far-right and alt-right aren't mutually exclusive. -- IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the first insertion was by Kiwifist, here. Looking at earlier threads about this on this talk page, I see that there have been objections by Helloagain04 and Ugla'a and 93.238.129.115. The first cite is to Washington Post's "The Fix" which is a blog according to this and this. The second cite is to "Paste" (whatever that is), which doesn't say she is far right, but says "far-right politics is the only arena where Coulter really does know what she’s talking about". The third cite is to "Times of Israel" which indeed says she is a "far-right pundit". The fourth cite is to a headline in "The Guardian". I'd call "far-right" poorly sourced, but won't remove. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm assuming that's Paste (magazine), which is a reliable source for pop culture, but the last RfC on WP:RSN was closed as no consensus as to how reliable it is for politics. Better sources exist. Also, Chris Cillizza is a reputable reporter (he's also employed by CNN)... Likewise with Amber Phillips. She's an analyst. You'll notice that those aren't blogs: they're labeled as "Analysis", which actually means it's in the news stable, and not considered opinion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I would agree we don't have sufficient sourcing to use "far-right" as that can be seen as a controversial label. Are editors OK with changing it to "right-wing" or "conservative" and dropping the associated citations out of the lead? Springee (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
No. If these sources are insufficient, then more sources can obviously be found. By that, I mean that it's obvious that she's regularly characterized this way in media, unless you actually think she's not a figure regularly associated with the far-right? These sources obviously exist; a good-faith effort should be made to see ascertain whether this is a label applied with any regularity, rather than simply throwing in the towel because it's "controversial". In just a cursory search, I found over two dozen such sources. Not counting at least half a dozen more examples from the Guardian alone. And about two dozen which associate her with the far-right, but don't label her as such exclusively (usually opting for "contoversial"; most of these are related to the Berkeley event of alt-right speakers). A few of them: Forbes[1], Associated Press (News)[2], another Guardian one (there are several, as I said)[3], The Jerusalem Post,[4] LA Times[5], Business Insider[6].
I think that's sufficient (ten total?), especially with the existing Guardian and Times of Israel. There's more too, if that's necessary. Also, as I said in my response to Peter Gulutzman, both of those writers he named for "The Fix" actually write news analysis; they're not opinion columnists. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Far-right is a controversial label and shouldn't be applied in the opening sentence or in wiki voice. Please see this current VP discussion [[5]]. We can't show this is a universal description nor is it a objective description. Thanks to key word searches we can find examples of sources that use the term but consider how many articles mention Coulter vs how many justify the term. It's better to describe her positions and actions vs force the description into the lead. This is especially true since the body doesn't say why this label is used in the lead. Springee (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
It's nearly impossible to ask that all our sources be in agreement at all times in their characterization of a subject. Asking that any descriptors be "universal" and "objective" is far too high of a bar that's rarely achievable. It's always contentious. And arguments of special pleading are always used to try to remove generally-held descriptions of the ideology professed by BLP subjects. I also disagree that "far right" is overly controversial; if we were claiming she were alt-right, that would be a different matter. But "far right" is not some bogeyman or insult, but something with a generally understood meaning that's used not only in commentary and journalism, but in academia as well.
I reiterate that I find it hard to believe someone doesn't think Ann Coulter is far-right and/or regularly says things that would be classed as talking points of the far right. Assuming you read her work and see her on television, which I assume most of us have, a great deal of what she says is little different from the sorts of things that Milo Yiannopoulos is famous for saying. It's what she's primarily known for, and arguably a large part of what makes her notable. She doesn't typically comment on issues of traditional conservatism or classical liberalism, but is known for saying provocative things about culture, religion, race, and ethnicity that fall outside the expectations of typical conservative commentary. As a few of the sources I linked essentially state (though I'm paraphrasing), she's seen as one of the "faces regularly associated with the far right". It would be contrary to NPOV actually omit that characterization. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
We know this is your view -- and we also know that others take a different view. With sufficient sources ("sufficient" as judged via the discussion/consensus here) it can/will happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
IMPARTIAL and BLP are both policy and apply to this article. Springee (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Come to think of it, reading this over, I'm a little concerned that there is a bit of a case of moving goalposts here. Your initial argument in the proposal to change the label to "conservative" or "right-wing" is that the sourcing was inadequate/too weak to support the prior label. Now that the sourcing is adequate, you're opposed based on the fact that you don't like the label "far-right" being applied, at all, on principle? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a difference between "conservative" or "right-wing" and "far-right". How do we define where the line is between right and far-right? It's a subjective determination and one that is often controversial. I suspect Coulter would self identify as conservative/right but would she agree with far-right? Again, consider the current VP discussion regarding the use of labels in lead sentences (or the lead in general). Springee (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
When I wrote that The Fix "is a blog according to this and this", the references that I supplied were merely to show that The Fix is a blog. Google "The Washington Post's political analysis blog" and you'll find plenty more saying that is what The Fix is. The reply from Symmachus Auxiliarus is not relevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I did indeed misspeak there. You're correct, it is a political blog, giving analysis and commentary on news from other sources. It also seems to predate Cillizza's work as a correspondent, or as an analyst at CNN. I agree that it should classed be a second-tier source, as its primary purpose is obviously commentary (and thus, entertainment). I wouldn't use it for this purpose any more than I would the Paste reference. Regardless, the rest of the sourcing that I provided is more than adequate. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/07/10/ann-coulter-endorsed-a-democrat/
  2. ^ https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-rush-limbaugh-ann-coulter-immigration-eugene-robinson-35a0c976eacb4100a3bb2539d3247b38
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/21/ann-coulter-berkeley-protesters-arrests
  4. ^ https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/ann-coulter-slams-asians-jews-who-think-theyre-black-re-immigration-580104
  5. ^ https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-berkeley-free-speech-week-20170914-story.html
  6. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-katie-hopkins-donald-trump-retweets-migrants-cockroaches-2019-7

Anne Coulter states Kyle Rittenhouse for President of the United States.

Anne Coulter supports <blp violation> (Kyle Rittenhouse) and would like him to be president. Mmm123n (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

[6] Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The edit was rightly removed as it had no citations and the claims being made were clear BLP violations against Coulter and Rittenhouse. As a minor point it failed to mention Coulter's comment was a tweet reply and more a comment of support vs clear statement of her intent. More importantly, Mmm123n's edit stated Coulter supported a "white supremicist" and "serial killer" for president. That sort of implication needs clear RS which neither the WP nor this source support.[[7]] Second, it makes accusations against Rittenhouse, who is not a public figure, that are both serious and again unsubstantiated. That is why the post from a novice user was rightly removed. You restored it and clearly saw at least some of the issues as you removed some text here [[8]]. I've removed additional BLP violations as part of this edit. Springee (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I've removed the Rittenhouse controversy material from the article. People like Coulter make many provocative comments. Their BLP should not turn into a laundry list of every thing they said that caused a stir among the various talking heads in the media. Additionally, this is an extremely RECENT event so we have no way of knowing if this how this will pan out in the end. Treating this with the same WEIGHT as other controversies is simply not DUE at this time and likely not due in the future. Springee (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I added this to controversies, but I do understand it being a very recent event. It will likely deserve at least a line at some point. I tried to add balance in my edit, at the very least, and did not reference Rittenhouse as a serial killer or white supremacist. One, Rittenhouse is a spree killer by definition; and two, although information proves that he was a strong police supporter and militia supporter, there has not been official information alleging white supremacy yet. Coulter's page overall needs some editing and rearranging though, so hopefully this will draw attention. PickleG13 (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the BLP comments above relate only to what Mmm123n said. I didn't see anything in your edit that violated BLP rules for Coulter or Rittenhouse. My concern is only that the comment is RECENT. We run into this on a number of BLP pages. We have people who say things that get reactions from others. That Coulter says things that cause angry reactions in the media/talk shows etc is worthy of inclusion in her BLP. Each individual example/instance that supports the general idea that she says provocative things isn't DUE. A decent way to structure this sort of content in the article might be "Coutler's public comments have frequently received criticism by other commentators. Examples include X, Y, Z" We wouldn't do a subtopic on each X, Y and Z. Springee (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Springee about the issue of WP:DUE weight, Seems a lot of pages with political figures have problems with WP:RECENTISM , personally I find the way to deal with recentism is to give the criteria a WP:10YT. This is an encyclopedia after all, not a gossip blog. EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Source for publication date of post-Sept 11 column

The article quotes Coulter from an article "one day" after the Sept 11 attacks saying that 7000 had died. This is cited to an article that appeared in Jewish World Review on Sept 28, 17 days after the attacks. Is there a source to her regular column confirming a date of Sept 12, or very close to the 11th? It looks like JWR may have published her syndicated column with the date of their then-current issue rather than the original syndication date. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter/Archive_22&oldid=1140014673"