Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

BLP CAT concerns

The following CATs are a concern per wp:CATDEF, "Category:Opposition to Islam in the United States", "Category:American conspiracy theorists". To use a category on a BLP it needs to be something we could say in wiki voice. The second one is easy as we are dealing with a single conspiracy theory. That is not sufficient to call Coulter a conspiracy theorist in wiki voice and thus is not enough to include the category. The same is true of the Islam tag. It seems her comments, per this article, are primarily related to Islamic terrorism and again, per CATDEF, this must be a central aspect not just one of many. That she is a conservative commentator is a central aspect. Her views on Islam are not. @Grayfell and EricSDA: as recently involved. Springee (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

These categories are supported by content in the article. So, if this about BLP, the burden would be on you would first have to explain why this reliably-sourced content, which is already in the article, is either not in fact reliably-sourced or doesn't belong for some other reason. If you want to discuss whether or not these categories are proportionate, do so on their own merits. Source pretty clearly and consistently support this, to to invoke BLP preemptively is either ignoring sources or is using WP:CRYBLP to escalate a relatively minor content issue. Since that would be be tendentious, I will assume you have some specific, good faith reason to challenge this content. If this is indeed strictly about categories, please explain this in a less inflammatory manner. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is inflammatory. To be clear, this is specifically about the inclusion of the categories, not the article content. Do any of the sources actually say she is a conspiracy theorist? Same with the other cat (does that cat even have a clear definition?). If no sources say she is, then we certainly cannot in wiki voice. Remember, the standard for a category is at minimum we have to be able to say it in wiki voice (even if we don't specifically say it). Additionally, since this is a BLP contentious claims need consensus to include. This is currently a local, no consensus. Consensus aside these are simply aspects of the person, not a defining characteristic hence why the cats violate BLP. Springee (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Absent follow up I've removed the conspiracy theorist CAT as violating CATDEF and NOCON to keep (contentious claim about a BLP subject). I think the same applies to the Islam CAT but most of this discussion was related to the conspiracy CAT. Springee (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The article already states this, per multiple reliable sources: Coulter is an advocate of the white genocide conspiracy theory. Your stated inability to understand why this is inflammatory is also irrelevant. BLP is not served by being over-cautious, and neutrality is harmed when we preemptively exclude content because it might be unflattering. Other than this, I still have not seen anything close to a compelling argument for why this is a BLP issues. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it is trivially easy to find reliable sources which describe Coulter as a conspiracy theorist (which should be obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with her work)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/26/pipe-bombs-false-flag-claims-ann-coulter-rush-limbaugh-conspiracy-theories

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/06/18/migrant-kids-are-child-actors-ann-coulter-says-on-fox-news-telling-trump-not-to-be-fooled/

etc.

Further, many, many sources will describe something as a conspiracy theory and then mention Coulter as a proponent of it. Any ambiguity here is only superficial. These sources are saying that she is known as a conspiracy theorists as the term is commonly understand. Expecting a juicy pull-quote for every statement is unrealistic, among other problems. Grayfell (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Much of what your claim supports the tag isn't in the article and the limited information in the article doesn't satisfy DEFCAT. Per NOCON the tag needs to be removed until there is consensus to include. That some key word searched sources say she promotes a conspiracy theory is not sufficient to call her a conspiracy theorist in wiki voice. Per BLP standards that must be a high bar. Springee (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Grayfell I looked over your sources. Neither are sufficient to describe Coulter as a conspiracy theorist in wiki-voice. That is the standard needed to apply a contentious tag to a BLP article. None of your sources say she is a conspiracy theorist. Per CATDEF, "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people)" Sources consistently define Coulter as a pundant/commentator and as a conservative. They do not consistently define her as a conspiracy theorist. In fact I don't think we have a single source that says she is a conspiracy theorist. As such the tag violates CATDEF as well as BLP. Springee (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Repeating the claim that this violates BLP does not make it persuasive nor does it make it accurate. As I specifically explained, source do define her as a conspiracy theorist. This includes both existing, already cited sources, and additional sources that can be added with relative ease.

For example: 'Conspiracy theorizing: “From the Haymarket riot to the Unibomber, bombs are a liberal tactic,” she tweeted on Wednesday after CNN offices in Manhattan were evacuated when one of the bombs was found there.' from this Washington Post article This source says she is a conspiracy theorist in direct terms.

Your implication seems to be that we must include a simplistic pull-quote. This is both unrealistic, and frankly, seems legalistic. Sources must define her as a conspiracy theorist, and they absolutely do. They do not have to explicitly say "Coulter is a conspiracy theorist" in exactly those words. This is an encyclopedia, and our job is to summarize sources.

Further, your contention this is a BLP issue is, as I already tried to explain, contradicted by your admission that the sources do support this information. If you want to make the case that this is accurate but fails to raise to the level of CATDEF than it is not NOCON, it is merely a content dispute. Per NOCON, this content was already in the article and therefor you lack consensus for a change to the status quo.

As I said earlier, I am assuming good faith that you have some actual reason to oppose this beyond CRYBLP. So far, your reasoning seems to be that you personally don't agree with the existing summary of sources. This is insufficient. Perhaps a noticeboard would be a better place. Before that, please consider whether or not it is a productive use of your time to remove information which is supported by sources merely on technical grounds. Nothing about this category is an extraordinary claim based on existing sources. I would also advise you to take a look yourself for additional sources if that's your concern. Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that it doesn't violate BLP is wrong. To put a tag on the article the information the tag implies must be something we can say in wiki-voice. This hasn't risen to that level. That sources you link do not call her a conspiracy theorist even if they say she is promoting a specific conspiracy. Even if some sources call her a conspiracy theorist, to put such a contentious label on a person it has to be widely used, else it must be attributed which means it isn't sufficient for a tag. Additionally, CATDEF says this must be commonly and consistently. You haven't shown that. I think this needs to go to BLPN. Springee (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"Your claim is wrong" is not a compelling argument. It is something we can say in Wikivoice, because per reliable sources she is a conspiracy theorist. Your (apparent) definition of "conspiracy theorist" is too vague to be workable, and also incompatible with both sources and Wikipedia's own article on conspiracy theories. As countless reliable sources explain, any conspiracy theory that can be proven is not a "conspiracy theory" it's just a conspiracy. Therefore, all conspiracy theories, including the ones promoted/created/spread by Coulter, by definition include plausible deniability. This doesn't mean they are not conspiracy theories, nor does it mean that people who spread them are not conspiracy theorists just because they don't call themselves that particular term. A person who is notable in part for spreading conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist. The disputed category is not a subcat of "category:people who promote conspiracy theories" because that would be both unworkably euphemistic, and also condescending to readers. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Which sources say she is a conspiracy theorist? Not which sources imply it or which sources are compatible with such a view. We don't say it in wiki voice in the article. I don't have a definition here and you seem to be engaged in your own research to say what you think the standard should be. I'm saying the article doesn't say she is so we can't use a tag that says she is. If you have sources that say she is, not just she has promoted a, but that she is, then quote them and then show they are sufficient to say she is in wiki voice. Regardless, I've posted at BLPN and we can get some additional views there. Springee (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To say that Coulter is a conspiracy theorist, we'd need it to be the case that reliable sources say that Coulter is a conspiracy theorist – that is, apply the label to her. Contentious labels like these, applied to BLP subjects, are the last place to be inserting your own original research. WP:CATDEF is firm on this matter too, as we'd need it to be the case that reliable sources regularly and consistently apply the label to her, which hasn't been demonstrated here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

References

a pseudoscientific antievolution ideology

Coulter advocates intelligent design, as stated in the article. Article then says ID is "a pseudoscientific antievolution ideology". Which is true, but nonetheless UNDUE in an article not on intelligent design, evolution, or anti-evolution ideologies. The more specific problem with "pseudoscientific" is that it is in effect being applied to Coulter rather than ID per se, and doing that in a BLP would seem to require some parsing (or rather, a source that does that parsing for us) of the arguments made e.g. in her book chapter on this subject. I think from having looked at that chapter recently that she essentially repeats the ID arguments of Michael Behe against "macro" evolution while treating "micro" evolution as obviously correct. It's not entirely clear how much is merely criticism of some (possibly reasonable) interpretation of Darwinism versus actual advocacy of nonsense (e.g., deferring to Behe as a supposed expert, which she does do at some point, is not the same as stating he is correct), and Wikipedia should not SYNTH this into the latter without a source assessing Coulter's writing on ID in its own right.

Also, the general tone of sticking labels like "pseudoscientific" and "conspiracy theory" (which was only recently removed from the article) anywhere they could possibly apply is gratuitous, politicized (in the case of Coulter) and patronizing to the reader. This is an encyclopedia, not a name-and-shame database for everyone who holds nonstandard beliefs of some sort. My understanding is that WP:FRINGE does not require this kind of hyper-labeling occur every single time a fringe topic arises within some other article. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The word "pseudoscientific" was added here and "antievolution ideology" was added here by Hob Gadling. The cite is to Borderlands which calls itself "a radical publishing space untainted by big corporate profitmaking and neoliberal elitism". I'd agree with removing the words after "intelligent design", but would also agree with removing the whole sentence (poorly sourced). But I acknowledge that Hob Gadling had an edit summary saying "see talk", so perhaps something has been discussed somewhere before. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

At the top of this Talk page is a field where you can enter a word such as "evolution" or "design". If you do that and then click on the "Search" button, the Wiki software will list those archive pages which contain the word. Then you will find this: Design. You will also find other prior discussions about this subject.

I don't care whether Borderlands is used as a source, or whether the article does not mention Coulter's propagation of stupid ideas pretending to be science, such as evolution denial or climate change denial because of a lack of good sources. But if it does, it should not call those stupid ideas "theories". "Pseudoscience" is good, and "ideology" is good. We do not need both. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll guess that you were trying to link to this which doesn't show there was any consensus for your editing. I'll hope that your post on the fringe noticeboard doesn't give people a wrong impression about why you don't appear to be getting consensus for your editing here either. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct link. My 2018 edit was an obvious correction of a piece of misinformation, since no one has ever been able to give a "theory of intelligent design", and nobody opposed it for three years. That is not a situation anyone who is here to build an encyclopedia would characterize as "no consensus". You should stop trying to suggest that my edit was a mistake, it won't work.

The FTN guys will see who is here and what they are trying to pull, and they will see why I called them. I am trying to prevent a local consensus based almost exclusively on users who have no experience with, or interest in, handling fringe subjects correctly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems like calling it a pseudoscientific antievolution ideology is contradictory. It would seem to either be a pseudoscientific theory or an ideology, not both. A quick key word search for Coulter and ID turned up this article [1]. I'm not sure if Live Science is a reputable source or not (too many familiar sounding but not good sites out there). [edit]Reading through it the author argues that Coulter is actually shooting down ID arguments, not supporting them. Searching more sources from around the release of the book in question it seems that some sources assume she is making a case for ID while others argue she is trying to show the issues with their arguments. As is so often the case with claims like this, it would be better to say what they actually believe (right or wrong) vs trying to dumb down their actual views and then apply the warning labels. That's just poor editorial practice. It's not clear how much of Coulter's work has related to ID/evolution content. If we have to dig for sources that discuss the two then perhaps it's not DUE. If it is included then perhaps we should have more than one source (is the one I liked sufficient to be #2) and just say she supports ID, an ideology that says evolution is guided by [god/something]. We don't need to include all the labels. Springee (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added an update above. Having read through the article a bit more it's simply not clear what Coulter believes and we have conflicting views. RSN discussions of LiveScience are thin but support it as a RS. Unless there is something newer than 15 years old that shows she is pushing ID, I would get rid of the whole sentence. Springee (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The ultimate source is her book Godless where she goes into this for the length of a chapter. I looked at it a while ago in connection with this article. She definitely attacks "Darwinism", repeating some ID-type arguments and at a minimum promotes the legitimacy of some of its proponents (Behe and/or Dembski). Whether she was making the stronger assertion, that these are winning arguments against evolution or a proof that an intelligent creator must exist --- or something weaker like "evolution is far from proven scientifically but is nonetheless used as a religious dogma by the Left" --- isn't clear without looking at the book again more closely. Any other sources are derivative of the book or loose paraphrases (even by herself) of what is there. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. The problem we have here is two contradictory sources telling us how to interpret what she has said. The source I found is 15 years old. The book is even older. Has this been discussed more recently? If not, should we remove it on the grounds that the limited sources conflict on what "she believes" so it's probably best just to remove it as not significant. Springee (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

People who believe in pseudosciences rarely change their minds because they have immunized themselves against any counterarguments. That's why they believe in that crap in the first place.

Also, we cannot know what someone believes, only what they say. So, replace the word "believe" by another, more testable one, such as "propagate", "defend" or something, in the past tense, and your give-the-conservative-person-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-maybe-she-stopped-believing-that-one stance does not apply anymore. After all, Wikipedia biographies are supposed to reflect what the person did in her whole life, not just what she does now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

What you say is generally true but ignores the issue here. What we have is two reliable sources which attempt to summarize her views and reach opposing conclusions. The other issue is if this is something that needs to be in the article at all. Let's take for granted that she 100% believes in DI. Does that mean it needs to be in the article at all? If it's something that comes up again and again, absolutely. However, we are dealing with someone who gets a lot of media coverage. If these few articles from a decade and a half back are the only sources we have then why would we put this in the article? I admit, it's a single sentence so not much weight there but now we have two sources tell us differing things. One says she advocates DI, the other says that she argues against it. This would mean we either expand the material to describe the opposing views (giving the whole topic more weight) or just drop it as not a topic not covered significantly by RSs. Springee (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If she had "winning arguments against evolution", she would be the first one who had. WP:FRINGE tells you that we should not assume that. ID is a fundamentalist PR action full of hot air, and always has been. We will not quote her anti-science propaganda, unless we afterwards quote someone who refutes it. So, if all we have for that subject is a primary source, out it goes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This is partly my fault for recently adding the word "advocates" to the sentence about Coulter and ID, which is stronger than the previous language. But SYNTH and OR from primary sources is a necessary staple on talk pages to determine how much weight to give to different secondary sources. Nobody is saying to quote the arguments from her book within the article. Sesquivalent (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course it's not contradictory. Several pseudosciences, especially denialist ones, are rooted in ideology. Show me an evolution denier, and I'll show you a religious fundamentalist. Show me a climate change denier, and I'll show you a market fundamentalist. Show me a Holocaust denier, and I'll show you a Nazi. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither of your examples are sound as in both cases you, illogically, assume the venn diagram of group A is entirely made of B vs having overlap. If you were correct then you would have to conclude that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Nazi. I will amend my earlier claim to say that Pseudoscience can be born from a need to support an ideology but they aren't inherently the same thing and you certainly can have one without the other. None of that addressed the concerns with the need to place scarlet letters in articles just incase a reader didn't realize that DIID( per comment below corrected obvious typo ) wasn't considered a legitimate scientific theory. Springee (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, but replace "Nazi" by "someone who wants as many Jews dead as possible" and you got Ahmadinejad.

I did not say that pseudoscience and ideology are the same thing, I said they are not contradictory. BTW, "DI" is the Discovery Institute. It propagates "ID", Intelligent Design, which this is about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry DI vs ID appears to have caused confusion. I have corrected the typo. The problem with your reply now is you are back pedaling based on your prior examples where you say group A must be part of group B. If that wasn't your intent then perhaps you shouldn't have used that as an example. If it was off topic, again, perhaps it shouldn't have been used as an example. Springee (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I was not "back pedaling", I was correcting a minor detail because someone picked a nit. Calling people Nazis is usually not appropriate, but someone who wants all Jews dead is pretty close. My point was that there is no contradiction between the two words "ideology" and "pseudoscience". So, please focus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

So you are admitting you are back pedaling a bad example. Springee (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

So, you refuse to WP:FOCUS and instead try to get a win, no matter how tangential. My example was merely badly worded. If you insist on calling that "backpedaling", I cannot prevent that. Are we finished here? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what you are trying to do here? Else, why did you return to this 2 days after the discussion had moved on? Springee (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Hob_Gadling will tell you that I did not edit Wikipedia for two days, so there you have the answer to that question. For the third time: Get off my back and WP:FOCUS.

Your claim that pseudoscientific antievolution ideology is contradictory stays false, no matter how much you try to distract from that by chatting about other stuff like Ahmadinejad or backpedaling, or by misrepresenting what I said ("they aren't inherently the same thing"). --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the only reason you are replying to my comments is to "win" an argument. Does it really matter at this point? Perhaps you should FOCUS on the bigger issue and not an argument with me? You made a claim that A must be part of B. I don't agree. We can try to civilly disagree. Springee (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't, and should not, attach a patronizing warning label like "Nazism, a dangerous racist mid-20th century ideology" to each and every reference to someone being a Nazi party member, collaborator, foreign supporter, etc. Or "conspiracy theory" to every mention of the John Birch Society which unquestionably promoted a Literal Conspiracy theory, probably using the actual word "conspiracy". Wikipedia has full-length articles on these topics, and policies and quasi-policies like FRINGE and DUE and FALSEBALANCE merely say that when presenting those ideas certain things should and should not be said. It is always possible to just say "person X advocates intelligent design" without additional verbiage. Sesquivalent (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"Intelligent design" is an seemingly innocuous term not familiar to most people. Nazism is not. So, bad example. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if ID is any more obscure to people today, especially outside the United States, than the John Birch Society. A closer example is Jews for Jesus, which like ID is a Christian movement clothed as something else. We do not make a point of revealing the ruse every time the group is mentioned, with a warning label like "Christian missionary front". Not unrelated is that the lede of almost every page for one of Coulter's books calls her a "conservative" or "far-right" author, while no political label is applied to Noam Chomsky, Bill Ayers or any other far-left author for which I checked this, on any page about a book they wrote. The politicized overlabeling is a misuse of Wikipedia to fight the perpetual revolution, not part of its mission as an encyclopedia. The Birchers seem to have mostly escaped it because they are antiquated and outside the frame of recent politics --- the exception that proves the rule. Sesquivalent (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

We have guidelines saying we should handle fringe ideas differently from scientific ones. We do not have any guidelines saying we should handle certain political ideas differently from other political ideas. So, all your examples are whataboutism, red herrings, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you do not like the way political groups are handled, this is not the place for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If it claims to be scientifically based and it's not, its pseudoscience. However we also only need to say it once.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure sounds WP:DUE to me. "Intelligent Design" was a deliberately deceptive label chosen to make a non-scientific ideology sound scientific; it's our responsibility to clarify such things, and a few extra words is an easy way to do that. Regarding the Live Science source mentioned above, it reads rather tongue-in-cheek, calling Coulter's writing a clever satire because it is too absurd to be taken seriously. (There are also some things I don’t fully understand, for example several references to bestiality and some seemingly nonsequitur remarks about Cher and Elton John. Considering how wonderfully multilayered Coulter’s writing is, I am sure there is a perfectly logical explanation. I mean, come on.) So, even apart from any reliability concerns over Live Science, I'd put very little weight on that. Coulter herself is unambiguous: Roughly one-third of my 2007 No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," is an attack on liberals' creation myth, Darwinian evolution. I presented the arguments of all the luminaries in the field, from the retarded Richard Dawkins to the brilliant Francis Crick, and disputed them. [2] XOR'easter (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Here she is in 2011 calling evolutionary biology the primitive religion of Darwinism [3]. And here she is in 2019 promoting some evolution-denial by David Gelernter [4]. Creationism is not just a habit she dropped 15 years ago. XOR'easter (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

While looking for a copy of that 2011 column from her own website [5], I found another from the same time period too [6]. And more promotion of Gelernter on her Twitter feed [7]. No jokes, no satire, just creationism of a very tedious variety. XOR'easter (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of American Loons has several links to, um, unorthodox views she has uttered, but it is as unusable as her Twitter feed. I would not go into too much detail. The usual way to handle ID proponents is to say they defended "the pseudoscientific Intelligent design idea" or something like that. Coulter quotes on that are not needed. The ones that originate with her, such as the raccoon thing the Encyclopedia of American Loons mentions, are just absurd, childish attempts at insulting science. Refuting them in accordance with WP:FRINGE, using only sources which mention her because of WP:SYNTH, would be silly. Those that do not originate with her are standard off-the-shelf ID produce and not worth mentioning either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Do sources actually agree that Coulter supports/promotes/advocates/etc ID? I think Sesquivalent's review of the primary source, described here, is significant [8]. Regardless of how ID should be described, if RSs disagree on Coulter's support of ID, and Live Science looks like a RS [9], then we can't claim she supports it in Wiki voice. Given the very limited material regarding Coulter and ID ("Ann Coulter" returns 1.6m Google hits, almost 95,000 in a Google news search) I would suggest the material should be removed as disputed by RS and UNDUE. That would certainly sidestep the question raised here. Springee (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Recycling other people's pseudoscientific arguments is still advocating pseudoscience, even if one does not present oneself as a scientist. The LiveScience.com item is a joke, taking at face value the premise that Coulter is a serious thinker and arguing that her book is so absurd it must be satire. Nothing stops us from describing her as an ID supporter in wiki-voice; with her columns and social media, she's kept on being one for years after that book. Nor does including a sentence or two in an article as long as this strike me as giving the topic particularly undue weight. XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

As posted in the FTN discussion, she is not directly an IDer and even "promoting ID" would be a stretch, contrary to my article edit and my formulation of this question on the talk page that use "advocates". (I realized this only after reading her evolution chapters in the book). She is an anti-evolutionist without any doubt, it is notable and should be said. But her recycled-from-ID arguments are contra evolution only. Her positive comments on ID are generally about ID people and their work, not the content of the theory, which she does not undertake to advocate. I don't care if ID is mentioned in the article or not (as an addition to anything said about anti-evolution) but if it is then the accurate phrasing would be something like "promotes the legitimacy of ID proponents". Sesquivalent (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

She endorses the specific arguments of ID "theory" like Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity", for example here. Saying that the "theory" of the ID advocates is correct as part of her anti-evolution diatribes makes her a promoter of ID. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not logically sound. First, acknowledging that you think something is correct doesn't mean you are promoting that thing. I might acknowledge that research saying chocolate has harmful, addictive properties is true. That doesn't mean I'm giving up chocolate or even suggesting as much to others. Second, even promoting some aspect of A doesn't mean I support all of A. I might think some Mormon practices based on their religious teaching are a really good idea. That doesn't mean I'm promoting Mormonism. This is certainly a case where we need to be accurate to avoid reporting something that is false. Springee (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing to ID other than its spurious arguments against evolution. Promoting those is promoting ID. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

So if I argued that evolution didn't make sense and that the whole of the universe was created by a giant sneeze I'm promoting ID? Proof that I'm right, don't panic, the guide tells me I'm right. I don't think such claims would put me in the ID camp. Saying I support aspects of communism doesn't mean I support communism. Springee (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

No, but if you said that evolution didn't make sense and all your arguments were exactly those of the ID variety of creationism, attributed to ID creationists, then you'd be promoting ID. There's no fuller, more sophisticated, actual theory of ID, just bad arguments of which Coulter has endorsed the most common. XOR'easter (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Her arguments aren't "exactly the same". ID is (1) anti-evolution arguments + (2) a plausibility argument that, if evolution doesn't work, some Designer must have done it. Behe and IDers use "irreducible complexity" for both purposes, Coulter only endorses it as (together with all the other anti-evolution arguments) a disproof of evolution. The whole point of the "irreducible complex" blahblah is to suggest that something must have been designed, as it's a complex watch- or eye-like mechanism, etc. Other than ambiguous and plausibly-deniable snark and jokes here and there, Coulter sidesteps this, the defining feature of ID, entirely. What she does directly say is how great the ID people are and so forth -- approval of the proponents rather than the theory. Clear now?Sesquivalent (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you see anti-evolution, creationism, and ID as interchangeable. That's fine for most purposes but not for Kook Identification statements in a BLP on a world top 10 website. If you want to authorize wikivoice BLP inferences that arise from taking the three to be fungible with each other that's a question of general FRINGE/FTN policy and should be raised there before doing it here. Sesquivalent (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

They're not interchangeable, but her attacks on evolution use spurious arguments of the ID kind from ID people, rather than other varieties that don't bother to mention biochemistry. XOR'easter (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Her book, which is by far the weightiest source on this from her, gives all the usual arguments including the non-biochemical ones. The space of anti-evolution arguments is rather small, so of course the IDers and creationists and all other flavors of evolution skeptic/critic/denier are going to say very similar things and if you acknowledge that these are not the same species of fringe you have to look beyond Name That Argument to figure out which bird you're watching. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You are making this far too complicated. If some anti-science crackpot writes nonsense and nobody serious comments on the crackpot writing that specific nonsense, we ignore it. If reliable sources say the crackpot defended ID, we say that. If not, we don't. We do not need to do research based on what the crackpot wrote. Reliable sources do that for us. If they do not, we ignore the whole thing.

The Zimmer piece says she tried to "[demolish] evolutionary biology", misrepresents science, and does not understand biology. That should be enough. We do not need to mention intelligent design.

And of course, we should not take that hoax source literally. See also WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Citing a Carl Zimmer blog post

XOR'easter: I think the cite to a 2011-08-25 blog post that you added to the article yesterday linked to National Geographic is actually of a blog post written for Discover. Carl Zimmer's blog went to National Geographic on 2012-12-11. I don't believe you should have added this cite. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems within the letter and the spirit of WP:NEWSBLOG, wherever it was originally hosted. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody agree with XOR'easter? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup. I see nothing wrong with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see where it is listed as a blog/editorial. While it clearly is analysis/commentary unless we can show that Discover/NG didn't apply editorial review I can't see objecting on the grounds it is a blog. Springee (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I was willing to accept the word of Carl Zimmer that The Loom was a blog and he was a blogger. But I acknowledge that most people support XOR'easter's edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see he calls it a blog. I would say NEWSBLOG applies to this content. Since it is being used as a second source I don't think it's needed. I think it is violating the text of NEWBLOG since it isn't being used as an attributed claim but I don't think this would violate the spirit since we have a first source that was saying the same thing. If this were the only source I would say it needs to be attributed. As is, not worth too much effort either way. Springee (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kayla.kingston.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversies

Coulter has maintained for years that she doesn't think women should have the right to vote. Here. Here she elaborates that women "have no capacity to understand how money is earned." There are many other citations about Coulter's controversial statements about women. Why isn't there anything in the Controversies section? MarkB2 ^Chat 04:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

Change "Coulter advocates intelligent design, a pseudoscientific antievolution ideology." to "Coulter advocates intelligent design."

The clause is irrelevant commentary and indicates bias. Simply footnote the wiki entry for intelligent design. Gsurf76 (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)