Talk:Ann Coulter

Archives

Before 2005 Criticism, Quotes, Racism/Sexism, Idle rich Vietnam comments on the Fifth Estate Ext links, Transsexual, Birthdate, Plagiarism More racism, Quotations, Length, Photos Pictures, Canada/Vietnam, August 24 2005 to September 8 2005 September 08 2005 to September 30 2005 September 30 2005 to October 10 2005 October 10 2005 to June 08 2006 June-ish 2006 June 28 2006 to July 8 2006 July 8 2006 to August 29 2006 September 1, 2006 to October 31, 2006 October 31 2006 to December 25, 2006 December 25 2006 to January 31, 2007 January 31, 2007 to February 17, 2007 (CBC, College Speeches) Feb 17, 2007 to March 1, 2007 {Canadian troops, Anti-Islam category Mar 2, 2007 to October 9, 2007 {lots of wacky stuff

---

Intentional Humor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another controversial comment

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

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

Is Ann Coulter anti-Semitic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It's equally idiotic to accuse others of comparing christianity to nazi-ism when one fails to have a supporting quote that concretely points it out. Perhaps it's the "if you stop acting like your comparing christianity to nazi-ism, maybe I wouldn't call that out", but that same logic could also be said about our conservative extremist Anne in the sense she should stop ACTING anti-semitic by presenting Jews to be inferior to Christians, but I know I wouldn't go so far, that's just an example of course. You're right about one thing, it woud be good to quote someone saying somthing sensible. Mortello —Preceding comment was added at 21:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

real perfection

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

So she said, Chrisitianity is kjust a fact way to perfect vs the Judaism procedure which is slower That is what she meant by her remark. But to any listener it did sound as wildly anti-semietic when if fact it was only quick commentary about that far broader religious subject of perfecting the individual (same as Masons claim to be doing with the ancient rites - perfecting an individual via working the rites).

Perfecting Ann Coulter

Does anyone else see this woman badly needs perfecting, like a little sound, woody advice ?

Eight Circuit Court of Appeals is NOT in Kansas City

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

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

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

OMG! It's the Lead!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

formatting

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

Citation for quotation

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

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

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

Quotes of Ann Coulter

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

Fable1984 04:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His Dark Materials Reference

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

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

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

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

Coulter says we should throw away Judaism

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

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

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