Talk:Ann Coulter

Editors, to improve readability, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). This will help everyone know who to whom they are talking. Thank you! Template:Todo priority

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, 8/24/05 to 9/8/05 09/08/2005 to 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 to 10/10/2005 10/10/2005 to 06/08/2006 June-ish 2006

---

Creationist

In her new book she goes on about how Creationism is the correct "science". That would make her a creationist would it not? -- Archeus

All creationists fall into two overlapping classes. They are either fools or liars. Coulter, is, without doubt, a deliberate, public liar on this subject, since it is very hard to believe someone as well-educated as she is supposed to be would get the subject so wrong, unless with malice aforethought. For refutation of any and all of her published opinions on evolution see almost any reputable scientific web-site. 85.210.98.125 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC) G. Tingey.

I'm glad you aren't allowing any of your own bias to leak into your remarks. As to if she's a Creationist or not, the answer would be she is. - Temillion

Hey, I'm pretty open-minded on evolution vs. creation, but my faith in the liberal scientific community was shaken by one of her recent chapters: Proof for How the Walkman Evolved into the iPod by Random Mutation. Its main thrust wasn't to promote creationism, but to show how liberals cling with herd-like religious fervor to Darwin's theory, and how they react when it's challenged. Post-publication, they have reacted as she predicted. Doesn't that move her viewpoint a tiny bit closer to "theory?" Lou Sander 01:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If by "theory" you mean some sort of theory on the behaviors of the thin-skinned and how best to manipulate them, then yes, Coulter may indeed be a theorist of some note. :P As a firm supporter of the theory of evolution, it always upsets me when people allow themselves to be provoked by challenges to it. They miss the entire point of science, which is to always be challenging yourself. When some people, including those Coulter mocks, hear of a challenge to evolution, they foolishly try to squelch it, to shut the person up. When I hear of a challenge to evolution, I dare them to bring their best shot, because I don't think creationists have a real case to make. Some of my fellow evolution supporters like to constantly make snide comments about the mental cowardice of those who feel the need to believe in a creator, but I have a bigger problem with so-called supporters of science who don't have the mental courage to give an opposing view a fair hearing.

Don't get me wrong, though... I have studied the so-called Intelligent design theory in great detail and have concluded, like most scientists, that it is a work of unmitigated bullshit. However, at least I read it first. Kasreyn 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

legal correspondent for HE?

When does Coulter write seperately for Human Events? I don't think she does seperate work for Human Events. Perhaps she does, but I did not find it anyhwere. Perhaps her HE column ended up going into syndication once she hit the big time. Or perhaps she writes occasional pieces for HE. Or perhaps I am wrong and she DOES write additional pieces for HE. 136.215.251.179

I looked, and I agree that she doesn't seem to write separately for them. I've sent them an email inquiry about it. If they answer, I'll do the right thing in the article. Lou Sander 14:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you RTFA, you'll find out that her column is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate, and appears in a wide variety of publications, Human Events being just one of the many. Read through some of her columns listed in the 'references' section, and you'll find that her column appears in many publications (Jewish World Review, WorldNetDaily, and even her own website). Dr. Cash 18:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Cohn: Civil rights adovcate? Roommate from yester-year? So what?

Why is this woman described as such in the Ann Coulter article? What is the source for granting her that august title? And why do we care who her roomate was? Its not like Cohn is someone people will recognize - and even if they did, why would the name of a college roomate be noteworthy in a bio? 136.215.251.179

I agree. I suppose I never even paid much attention to it before, as so many other issues were being debated so hotly, but there doesn't seem to be much that's notable about it. If no one objects within a few days, I'll remove it. Kasreyn 11:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please DO remove it. And at the risk of starting another all-consuming debate, I'm compelled to point out that Ms. Coulter's yester-year litigation work for the Center for Individual Rights, while marginally more important than the identity of her law school roommate, isn't notable enough to be included in the lead paragraph of her Wikipedia article. Lou Sander 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody fix the Notes section?

Notes 1-8 in the main article are kind of flaky. #3 doesn't work if you aren't registered with the NYT. A bunch of others could use plain text explanation, with the URL hidden. I'd do it, but I still lack the skills. Lou Sander 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have a go with it, but it is quite a bit of work getting them into the right format, and since I would enter about 20 edit conflicts in the time it would take me to fix 'em, I think I'll pass now. I wonder if a {{underconstruction}} tag would even do any good... --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I did it with this edit. I also removed [1] because it doesn't discuss Ann Coulter. — getcrunk what?! 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... It says, "This page was last updated on: June 13, 2006." So they took her off... can't imagine why. :-0 I'll try and scrounge up another source for it. Good catch though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. See the cached version of the page for the reference. [2] Someone wanna add it? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And this pdf, the DG publication, has her listed "In the News". It's page number 16 of the publication, page 29 of the publication. Hope this helps some more. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the cached ref; PDFs make my computer run slow. — getcrunk what?! 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough... just trying to provide multiple sources. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The garbled Notes have been fixed. Thank you. Lou Sander 21:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a WP policy on links to the NY Times? Registration is free and most current events articles are provided free to the public with registration. Should it be added to the ref that free registration is required? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of such a policy (but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist!). But I don't see why we would need to specifically note this anymore that we need to specifically note that one must purchase or locate a copy of a referenced book or journal article. Just because something is referenced doesn't mean that it will necessarily be easy or even possible for everyone to verify the citation. It would be nice if that were the case but it's simply not practical. --ElKevbo 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Girls?

The article says that the 9/11 widows Coulter criticized are known as the Jersey Girls. If I am not mistaken, Coulter refers to them that way, and it is not a universal term. If someone knows differently let me know, otherwise I'll make the edit to reflect that. Ramsquire 22:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here ya go... [3], [4], [5] ;-), [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Just the first bunch of Google hits (minus one www.jerseygirls.com that seemed to be talking about some other type of girls from Jersey. ;-) Not that I looked though...). Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And this is why it is a good thing Wiki has a talk page. I had only heard people who opposed the women viewpoints refer to them as the Jersey Girls, so I was afraid it was some perjorative term for them. But since it does seem to have widespread use across the board, I have no quarrels. Ramsquire 23:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersey girls is also a term for women with teased hair who have atrocious accents and a frequent need to visit the clinic. Rich Doctors For Choice 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, however, you wouldn't be suggesting that Wikipedia engage in POV editorializing by using such terms without attribution, right?  :) Kasreyn 09:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pronounced "Joisey Goils." Lou Sander 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Coulter and Madonna

I have read that Coulter is provocative, self-confident and sexy, (and to many outrageous and annoying) like Mrs. M. L. Ciccone-Ritchie. I would add that unlike Ciccone-Ritchie, Coulter is coherent, intellectual and supportive of a truly uplifting culture. Perhaps the article should mention this Madonna comparison. 136.215.251.179

I'd say no. Not a notable comparison. Maybe if it was widely discussed. Any sources? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Lord (click on "LV"). Interesting, but not notable. Lou Sander 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just passing through. Anon, that's one hilarious comment, even if it's not tongue-in-cheek. That's it. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Position of the bibliography within the article

Archived Talk pages have briefly discussed this, and there's some current discussion on user talk pages. Here are the issues (doing my best to get 'em right):

• Bibliographies are usually at the end of articles
• Those bibliographies are usually lists of books used as references or in creating another work. They usually include formal bibliographic information such as publisher, year, ISBN, etc.
• This bibliography is a list of Coulter's books, which is a somewhat different thing
• Some sort of list or discussion of Coulter's books belongs high up in the article, since her books are arguably her main claim to fame

Probably there's a good solution, maybe by a text description of her works high up in the article, plus a bibliography (with ISBNs, etc.) at the end. Based on my understanding of past discussions, the text description, if any, should be brief in its descriptions of the books, an should include links to the separate, more detailed, articles on the books themselves. Lou Sander 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing a reference section with a bibliography section. A reference is for all information used in the article. A bibliography section is a list of books (or articles) written by the subject. By its nature, it should be near the end of the article. The article should start with the person's bio, followed by discussion of the work, with a list of their work at the end. --Asbl 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, a bibliography can also be a section of works cited. They are sort of interchangable. But as there is no other section detailing her books, it should be near the top. The rest of the article would make no sense if the books were not laid out. References to Slander, Godless, etc. would be very confusing to readers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at writing a proper section out of the list. I used whatever information was there. We can rename the section to something like "Coulter's books", "Books", or "Writings" (and include stuff from her columns). Thoughts? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I like LV's result. I'm strongly in favor of calling it something other than a Bibliography, since that word is understood by many to refer to a listing of sources. I like the idea of "Coulter's books" or, even better, "Coulter's writings." But if it's "writings," there's the challenge of how to include her columns (plus, somebody has to do it). Maybe a brief discussion of their general nature, followed by a link to some sort of archive of her columns, would work. Since she's a controversial writer, Wikipedians should have an easy way to get to her actual writings (so they can be inspired by them one way or another, so they won't say foolish things about them, etc.) Lou Sander 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

She appears to have an archive of her articles so I don't think it would be difficult at all to include them in a "Writings" section.

Incidentally, I don't really think we need to prepend "Coulter's" to any section title. The entire article is about her, after all. --ElKevbo 22:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

GMTA! I thought the same thing after I posted the above. Lou Sander 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all combined, and it's looking pretty decent. I think there should be lines skipped between each book, and I'm not excited about all those ISBN numbers interrupting the descriptive wording. Lou Sander 02:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're right... Perhaps we should flesh out some of the book's paragraphs. That way they can be separate paragraphs, but would past editorial muster. Should we list the books with ISBN at the bottom? Might make it more readable. Kind of duplicates the work though. Thoughts? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Liner notes from the books could provide some "fleshing out" material. So could some published reviews. I dunno about the ISBNs. All I know is they seem out of place right now. Lou Sander 03:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Improper citation?

Note #17, on Al Franken, links to a Wikipedia article. Did I read somewhere that this isn't something we do here? Is there a better citation somewhere? Lou Sander 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversies section

A lot of this section is devoted to matters that are not controversies. I think this needs to be fixed, hopefully after discussion. Point-by-point:

• Introductory paragraphs. Except for the kente cloth stuff, this is all about controversies. It's been a while since "citation needed" was added to the assertion that the kente stuff is controversial, but so far nobody has provided one.

• 4.1 Speeches at college campuses. All well-sourced controversies. The proof of the pudding is in the thousands of rowdy students.

• 4.2 Investigation of alleged voting irregularity. This is an important item, but not a controversy. It should stand by itself. BTW, her 30 days is up. What happened?

• 4.3 Coulter on domestic separatists. Not a controversy. Modestly notable, perhaps, (or perhaps not) but where to put it?

• 4.4 Coulter on Arabs and Muslims. Not a controversy, just a list of not particularly notable quotes. It says they are controversial, but it doesn't provide justification. Danish cartoons are controversial. This stuff isn't.

• 4.5 Coulter on women. Another bunch of sub-notable quotes with no evidence of a controversy.

• 4.6 Coulter on Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. It's a joke, not a controversy. The author even says so. Get rid of it or move it to the Jokes section.

• 4.7 Coulter's role in Paula Jones-Bill Clinton controversy. It's about a controversy, maybe, but it's hardly an Ann Coulter controversy. Like the voting irregularities, it's important and ought to stand by itself.

• 4.8 Coulter on the four 9/11 widows known as "the Jersey Girls". Like the college speeches, a well documented and well sourced controversy.

• 4.9 Coulter and Christianity. Not a controversy, but a series of points about one of her animating beliefs. Important, but belongs elsewhere.

That's it. Does anybody out there agree with any of this? Lou Sander 03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Her opinions are so out of the mainstream, that her opinions in and of themselves are controversial. If you would like to add the critics' response to sub-sections that are lacking, go ahead; but please do not move or remove the useful information. --Asbl 03:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that book of opinions #5 being #1 on the NYT best seller list, and books of opinions #1-#4 having done well on that list as well, are indications of being in the mainstream, both now and over the past few years. I'm not about to remove any of the stuff that's in this section now, except maybe the joke. In fact, I try hard never to remove anything unless many seem to agree with doing so. That's the reason I put all the stuff in Talk. Lou Sander 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I hate to disagree with you because I think we agree politically, I like your edits, you discuss things on the talkpage, and most importantly you said something nice to me on my userpage. ;-) However, I'm sure if Charles Manson wrote a book it would be on the NYT's bestseller list and you wouldn't argue that his opinions are mainstream, would you? Be that as it may, while I disagree with the bus he's taking, I'm on board with Lou's destination. I agree Coulter has some radical opinions that are totally out of the mainstream, but if her wikipedia entry doesn't present a documented argument directed against her for holding that opinion, then it isn't being presented as a controversy, it's simply a mention of her opinion on a topic. And isn't it unbalanced if her only political viewpoints that get mentioned are ones that are radical? Unless critics' responses are added to her mentioned opinions (thereby presenting them as truly controversial), shouldn't her opinions be removed? Lawyer2b 05:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. 84.etc has already been successful in removing some of the comments of critics of Coulter. We had them before. We can't use that as justification for further removals. If we need x to keep y and x was removed some time ago, we shouldn't remove y without first discussing whether it would be better to simply restore x. Kasreyn 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The woman makes outrageous remarks, every one of which is controversial to some, but obvious truth to others. Some of her remarks are so controversial that, for example, student riots ensue. To me, the latter merit being in a "controversies" section, but the former do not. All I'm proposing is to put the notable controversies into the "controversies" section, and to put the other stuff elsewhere. (Please carefully read what I said at the start of this section.) Sometimes Kaseryn's "controversial" quotes are Lou Sander's "boldly speaking truth to power" quotes. Lou Sander 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The solution is to expand on the controversy surrounding her radical opinions, not to whitewash them. --Asbl 05:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Radical?" Sounds POV to me. (I don't think her opinions are radical at all. Neither do a lot of book buyers. Please try hard to understand us.) An encyclopedia should try hard not to label something as a "controversy," then to solicit further opinions that it IS a controversy. Jesus fucking Christ, Asbl, can anyone honestly call a retelling of her religious beliefs a "controversy?" Lou Sander 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Asbl. Lou, there is such a thing as keeping an article encyclopedic by good and careful trimming. I understand and support that idea. In this case, though, you're proposing that we go too far. Coulter's opinions are wildly beyond the mainstream. You are essentially proposing that we trim all her non-mainstream or outrageous comments. This would result in an article that would misrepresent not just who Coulter is, but also what others think of her. "Evidence of controversy" in several cases was removed by 84.etc's editing spree. "Jokes" are what Coulter calls some of her remarks; are we to implicitly support her characterizations of her remarks by titling a section "Jokes"? Clear structural bias. The article was more NPOV the way it was a day or two ago. Also, Lou, I'm curious why the information on Coulter's political campaign on the Libertarian ticket was removed. I've been watching this article for months, and I've seen the description of her remarks get milder and milder, until today she merely "troubles" some. I hardly know what to say to that. You honestly think that's all she does? Kasreyn 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view that Coulter is out of the mainstream. I hope you appreciate mine that she is not. Both of us, and all of us, should guard against our legitimate points of view coloring our edits in an encyclopedia. Maybe the description of her remarks has gotten "milder" because the editing community believes that's the right direction. And why do the comments of critics of Coulter so easily and numerously get into an article about Coulter? (We don't put polish jokes into the article on Poland. At least *I* don't.)

"Proposing that we trim all her outrageous comments?" Gimme a break. Please read my suggestions again, and show me where you think I propose such a thing (as opposed to moving them outside the Controversies section). The problem is that things which only Joe and Mary and their friends think are controversies are listed here as controversies. For example, isolated outrageous remarks.

On the political campaign, I didn't know it had been removed. Somebody relabeled it as a "fling at public service" or something like that, which I thought was inappropriate for a self-admitted "spoiler" effort. I didn't change it, though. (I'm bold, but not about editing controversial articles.)

As for "troubles," I'm pretty sure I was the one who put it in there, replacing an overlong, badly-worded phrase or two. I never liked the word that much, and more recently I changed it to "grates." I hope you like that word better.

As for "jokes." Do I understand you as disbelieving a joke-teller when she says she is telling a joke? Do I further understand you to then advocate putting her joke into a "controversies" section. Lou Sander 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether Coulter is not part of the mainstream is something that can be sourced, and was, previous to the arrival of 136.etc/84.etc/goodandevil/whatever other names he has, if I remember correctly.

As to the comments of Coulter's critics, I'd say that when she says something that sparked controversy (i.e. notability standard passes), then we should quote both her and her critics, and if she then defended her statement, we should quote that as well. I will agree that when I first came to this article, it was over-heavy on criticism, but I feel that's already been taken care of and then some.

As for jokes, no, you don't understand me. I am saying that calling a section "Jokes" is inappropriate because it implicitly accepts Coulter's characterization of her remarks. Putting Coulter's remark on Justice Stevens under "Jokes" implies that Wikipedia agrees it is a joke. Putting it under a section called "Death Threats" would be equally biased, in the opposite direction. Putting it under a section called "Coulter on Justice Stevens" is NPOV because it does not imply that any of the various characterizations of her remarks is "right"; it lets the reader decide. We can, and in fact already do, note that Coulter calls her own remarks jokes; that is as far as we can go. Kasreyn 00:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears no one was listening when I said the above. To put the remark about Stevens in a subsection labelled "Joke" is to insert a structural bias in favor of Coulter's characterization of her remark. This is POV. If it weren't a WP:POINT violation, I would retitle the section to "Death Threat against etc." to demonstrate how structural bias works. I have altered it to "Remark", which is NPOV. Please, whoever changed it, do not do so again unless you have a good reason. I'd love to hear it. Kasreyn 22:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversial statements are one thing, controversies are another. The strong reactions by broadcasters and lawmakers to the Jersey Girls statements, and Coulter's in-your-face responses are a notable controversy. So are catfights with auditoriums full of rowdy students, covered by newspapers and involving multiple ejections by ushers. Tasteless jokes about Supreme Court justices, while offensive to some, aren't controversies. Neither are religious beliefs, statements ridiculing women, or hyperbolic epithets about turban-wearers. Lou Sander 08:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, I don't know what everyone else is talking about, but I think you're right, Lou. There's a difference between significant controversies and presenting them in an encyclopedic manner - and listing a bunch of quotations that many people consider controversial and many people don't. Also, maybe if Charles Manson wrote a book it could be on the best-seller list, but 5? All 5? All five of Coulter's books have been on the best-seller list. Oh, and her widely-read column. I would argue that she's on to something mainstream there. So while I'm not against keeping things in the article, many subsections in the Controversies section desperately need clean-up. It's not about listing quotations - if you want to list quotations, it should be in wikiquote. BUT actually about writing specific people who have found her statements controversial would constitute a controversy. Also, one could argue that EVERYTHING Coulter says is controversial, so why don't we just write EVERYTHING about her and that anyone can think of and everything she has said under the "controversies" section. Otherwise, we're not being very encyclopedic, since we're not fully expounding the immense controversy of this controversial woman: we're just picking and choosing which controversial subjects to list under her controversies. Stanselmdoc 13:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw my two cents in here. The Charles Manson and Coulter comparison does not serve to make the point or, clear anything as regards book sells versus agreement or disagreement with mainstream thought. It is a bad analogy. While Manson's book might reach the bestsellers list out of society's morbid curiousity. Coulter is not a criminal so people could hardly be motivated to buy her books for that same reason. No one is guessing at what Coulter's politics are when they buy her books, either they are buying because, they want to know more or, they're buying because they already knowing they want to read more. Obviously, Coulter could not have sold five bestsellers if the majority of mainstream society could not relate to her politically - I do not think anyone would disagree that Coulter's books are political. I don't know why an encyclopedia entry on Coulter has to catagerize her as mainstream, radical, or controversial. Just state the facts and let the reader make up their mind if she's any of those, if the so, desire. To describe her as popular with the book buying public is accurate, irregardless of going into the reasons why people buy her (since an encyclopedia shouldn't claim to know the impossible to know) It would be fair to say that Ann Coulter would not be able to engage a majority of book buyers to buy her work if she were not popular with them for whatever reason. I hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.131.45.44 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sooo...Is it okay if I try to clean up the "Arabs and muslims" and "Coulter on women" sections to make them NOT a list of quotations? Writing the quote doesn't prove it's controversial. There has to be some reaction to it - so I'd like to go looking for some statements or reactions to her quotes, but I don't want to put in the effort if people are going to go against it anyway.Stanselmdoc 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do! I agree that the current layout and composition is very poor and would love to see someone with the time and motivation improve it. --ElKevbo 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a "Controversies" section and a "Controversial statements" (rename it as you wish) section? The first would include firestorms, riots, etc., while the second would include whatever people found controversial. Lou Sander 15:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm amenable to that. But that doesn't remove the necessity for better clarifications of the quotes already listed. Some of them just read "Coulter once said this:...." which doesn't qualify it as a controversial statement. Sorry to the editors who want to put it in because they believe it is controversial, but it'd be great to actually find some source saying "and when Coulter called muslims this....blah blah blah...I was so angry and..." <-- THAT qualifies as something to be written. Oh, and can we remove the bullet points of them? It looks so tacky and it's hardly encyclopedic; wouldn't it be better if it were all separate paragraphs? Stanselmdoc 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Even better, IMHO: "Notable controversies" for the firestorms, and something else for the rest of the stuff. Lou Sander 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering no one else has chimed in on this subject, I guess I'll call it my leave to start doing what I think should be done. If people disagree, they can discuss it on the talk page. I'm going to start with removing the bullet points. Then I'm going to look up sources for the controversial quotes, and if I can't find any source that says the quotes actually sparked controversy, it's gone. Stanselmdoc 16:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! The more I look at this article the more I go insane!!! This wiki is getting REALLY frustrated with editors' ideas that any kind of quote they think works constitutes noteworthiness. Not to mention the relative impossibility of finding sources for things that weren't even controversies! I changed my mind. I think I'm going to present this again in a discussion down farther on the talk page, to see if more people will notice. Stanselmdoc 16:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Media career section

Rather than her "Career" section describing what should be, by any account, an illustrious career (increasing popularity, readership, TV appearances, etc.), it instead reads like a "bad things that happened to Ann in her career" section, as if the only things that are notable are when she was either fired or her article was dropped by a newspaper. Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b 11:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

POV? There's no POV here. Just move on and look at the rest of this proudly uncensored article. By the way, do you know that this homophobe once said "gay boy?" It says so right here in the article, and it's sourced. And no, there's no elephant in the middle of the room. Wow! Look at those tusks! Maybe we could get Jumbo to poke her in the eye with one. ;-) Lou Sander 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (If you want to see a truly balanced article, take a look at Godless.)

Hahahahahahahaha I think I just peed myself laughing. And that's bad because I'm at work. You two are both refreshingly amusing. Stanselmdoc 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad the ironic "Stan" seems to have appreciated the Horatian satire in my comment above. It might help people appreciate the less nuanced Juvenalian satire in Coulter's work.

I just re-read the Media career section, and overall it's pretty fair. The firings are notable, and they appear after several paragraphs of the kind of thing "Lawyer" wants to have in there. The last paragraph is pretty horrible, though. It used to be much fairer and more accurate (after much work and discussion), but a possible POV-pusher reverted it, without discussion, to its pre-discussion form. The editor it quotes was new when he said what he said, and he left a few weeks later, citing personal reasons. His dropping Coulter's column isn't notable at all, and his remarks, IMHO, are notable only because they're a hyperbolic attack on Coulter. The piranhas need their bits of meat, no matter how old or small. Lou Sander 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Years of schooling, and I still don't know why you called me ironic. For the life of me, I hinted at no irony in my statement - mere exaggeration. About the peeing part, not about the "refreshingly amusing" part. ; ) But...for my opinion, I'm kinda leaning toward maybe some rewording within the Media section. I don't think it's really POV; however, I do think that it would be great if we could mention when she was hired for NRO instead of presenting it like "oh yeah, and she was reprimanded by this group she worked for but we forgot to tell you about" hahaha. Also, there's a whole lot of internal links there, and all the blue kinda looks messy. Is it possible to remove some? Stanselmdoc 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I said "ironic" because as I understood you, there was "a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says, and what is understood." I thought you were saying stuff was funny, while meaning that it wasn't. My bad, and sorry about the "Stan." All that blue does make things look messy, but the links are often helpful. I'm thinkin' that the "satan," "corn-fed" and "hippie" links might be more trouble than they're worth. All the blue in the names of the TV shows is majorly distracting, but some readers might not be familiar with the shows. (Coulter readers, for example, only watch Fox News, the 700 Club, and the country music channels.) Lou Sander 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha it's okay, I forgive you. And on the contrary, I think I'd rather wrap my entire body in duct tape and have it ripped off as fast as possible than watch the 700 Club. Can we remove April 25 as well? I wonder if there's a way to expand or move things around in order to spread out those show links. Any ideas???Stanselmdoc 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Political Activities

I think that Coulter's voting problems belong under Political activities. Another editor thinks they belong under Controversies. What do YOU think? Lou Sander 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A view from the "other editor": Voting is a civic responsibility, not a political activity. --Asbl 21:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I edited the lead sentence in the current "Political activities" section to remove "voting" as I don't see voting as a noteable political activity. Accusations of voting irregularities belong in Controversies, IMHO. --ElKevbo 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, agree. It's not a "political activity" as such. It is a controversy. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Asbl, except that voting is both a responsibility and a privilege. Voting irregularities are a matter for the controversies section, if included. Kasreyn 22:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly respect your opinions, but at this point I don't see any rationale for them. That may be blindness on my part, of course, or maybe you just feel they are valid, without any need for rationale. I teach critical thinking at an inner city postsecondary school, and I like to give my students real-world examples. I'd like to use your opinions as one of them. It would help if you could shed some light on: 1) The grounds on which you believe that voting is not a political activity. 2) The grounds on which you believe the voting issue is a controversy and belongs with the other items currently under that heading. Any help you care to give will truly be appreciated. Lou Sander 03:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Kasreyn, but my point of view is that the "Political activities" section of this article is for extraordinary political activities. Everyone votes (not really, but they should!) so it's not noteable. Not everyone is publicly accused of voting irregularities and so it best belongs in "Controversies." I certainly see and understand your point of view. I just happen to think mine is better. :)

Off topic: The idea of an entire class dedicated to critical thinking is a bit silly. It should be pervasive throughout the entire curriculum. Wishful thinking, right? :) --ElKevbo 17:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For the life of me, I can't see why a literate, thinking person would call the voting stuff a controversy under even normal circumstances. Words have meanings. This one means, very briefly, this. Controversy is also a special subject with Ann Coulter, since she specializes in controversial remarks that might cause it. Some of those remarks, such as the Jersey Girls stuff, spark very notable controversies. Others don't. The voting stuff, IMHO, has nothing to do with controversy (= debate, discussion, strife). That's why I'm so interested in learning why people think it does.

Off topic: The course I teach was formerly called logic, and used a logic textbook. It was renamed critical thinking, and has a sort of pre-logic textbook. I have some theories about CT, as the experts in the field call it. If you look at the people in the CT field, they tend to be from schools of education, community colleges, and other places that are wonderful for what they do, but are not thought of as centers of intellect, high SAT's, etc. My theory is that CT courses are aimed at, and are helpful to, mostly students that aren't in rigorous courses at traditional universities. This is borne out by my current experience with my students, who don't naturally grasp the nature of argument in the sense of using facts to support reasoned conclusions. Some of their eyes light up when they see how that is done. So it's not that they can't do critical thinking on their own, but that life hasn't given them the tools to do it. Their sense of argument is fighting with the bill collector or the baby's daddy or someone who disagrees with them, and that's about it. Lou Sander 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more like "rhetoric" than logic or critical thinking. It used to be a staple of formal education but at some point (perhaps due to specialization i.e. majors, minors, etc.) it fell by the wayside. Now we spend effort and energy trying to infuse back into the curriculum in topics like "Information Literacy." --ElKevbo 05:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a little bit. But mainly CT just teaches students to think before they speak or act, and to argue by supporting their assertions with evidence. It also studies fallacies, which helps the students to identify weak/false/misleading arguments. And thinking about it, the subject isn't really so far off topic. Ann Coulter spends a lot of energy making logical arguments and pointing out logical fallacies.

Even this discussion started with a request for justification that the Coulter voting matter is a "controversy," and that voting isn't political. I'm hoping to show my students the critical thinking behind those assertions. So far what I see is "it's so because I think/feel/say it's so," which I suppose is a kind of appeal to authority. There's also a bit of argumentum ad populum, when an editor says "it's so because Tom, Dick, and Harry and I say it's so." And I don't remember the name for it right now, but the voting comments have a lot of "Socrates is not a man. He is a human being, and a Greek, and a dead white male, so he definitely isn't a man." I remain hopeful that I'll see some sound arguments for both the things I inquired about (especially that voting isn't political). Lou Sander 12:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that voting is an inherently political action. But I don't think it's a significant political action in the context of an encyclopedia. The issue is present not because Coulter voted but because she is alleged to have screwed up when registering. If it was accidental, then I don't think it even deserves mention. If it was intentional, then it deserves mention not in a political context but in a criminal or controversial context. --ElKevbo 01:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I respect you for understanding that voting is political. I originally put it under the political heading when I was grouping stuff there and I only had two really obvious political activities. The voting stuff was off by itself, or maybe in the Controversies section, where I thought it definitely didn't belong, at least according to Wikipedia's definition of controversy. (Far from actively arguing about it, Ms. Coulter is even declining to answer letters.) Since voting is the quintessential political activity, I put it under that heading. I won't be surprised if someone makes up a "Felonious acts" section and puts it there. I will then avert my eyes. Lou Sander 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Widows Controversy

I just added back the sentences about the Lauer interview and the criticism from Emanuel and Roemer. Before I added it back, there were 3 long paragraphs describing what she said, another describing how she was responding to the criticism, and only one 2 sentences about what the criticism actually was. The Lauer interview is notable because that's really the begining of the controversy. Emanuel's criticism is notable because of what he said and where he said it, not just because he criticized her. Roemer's criticism is notable because of his status as a member of the 9/11 commission and also because he told people not to buy the book out of respect for the widows. Maximusveritas 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO you did the right thing (explained it well, too). That whole section does a pretty good job of laying out Coulter's views, presenting the criticism, and presenting Coulter's response. I don't see any reason to delete any of the criticisms, provided that Coulter's response to them is given as well.

I think the title of the section is too long and too awkward, however. Most of its words are repeated in the first sentence below it. Maybe somebody can come up with a better one.

Also, there probably should be a sentence about the Lauer questions or comments that Coulter thought were "testy." It should go between "...interviewed Coulter." and "She defended her statements..." The present version leaves us wondering. Lou Sander 04:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the title and about the need for an additional sentence about the Lauer interview. I tried to come up with a sentence originally, but I couldn't find a good quote from the interview or a neat way of summarizing it. Perhaps someone else can. Maximusveritas 04:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I extracted a short quote and wove it into the paragraph. Lou Sander 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Messed up citation

The citation for the voting irregularities stuff is somewhat cockeyed. Clicking it leads not to a citation, but to three references identified only by number. One of them leads to an external article that provides support. One leads to a place where you have to be a member to sign in. Another leads to the entrance of somebody's archive. Can somebody please clean it up? Lou Sander 09:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Two of the three sources are definitely only available to subscribers of the respective publisher/archive. We'll either need to accept that (which is okay with me; we do that all the time with citations from scientific journals) or find alternative sources. --ElKevbo 17:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The first source is pretty inclusive, and IMHO it would be strong enough to support the stuff that refers to it. The other two could just be dropped. It would also be good if the link to the first one could include more self-description, as most of the others in the area do. One of these days I need to learn how to do this stuff myself. Lou Sander 19:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can expand on the first link. I am loath to remove the other two references without further discussion (it's difficult to reach consensus with only two people). I may go ahead and remove them anyway to see if anyone screams - file under "bold."

With respect to references in Wikipedia: Good luck. It's a big mess of inconsistency. IMHO, Wikipedia's "let everyone do it their own way as long it's consistent in the article" way of working doesn't work so well with references. The various citation templates are okay but their display in the article leaves much to be desired. I try not to get worked up over it; I'm usually pleased as punch when editors make a good faith effort to cite their sources at all. --ElKevbo 21:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You're definitely right about the diversity. In the Coulter article, most of the references contain some plain text describing what they're about. I haven't figured out the different formats, but at least when I look at one of them, I've got some idea of what I'm looking at. Right now, only one reference consists only of a number. Two of them consist only of a URL. The other 50(!) pretty much tell you what they are. I have to say, however, following them doesn't always lead to where they say it will. Lou Sander 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

References which are not what they say they are or which do not support the assertion to which they are attached should be removed AND the assertion also removed (since it's not supported by evidence). --ElKevbo 05:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but personally I'm very reluctant to delete things from this article. Too many people take offense or consider it a personal attack. Lou Sander 12:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Deadhead

Lou tried to change the title of the "Hobbies" subsection to "Deadhead." I reverted the change. I agree that "Hobbies" is not a very good title. But I don't like the title "Deadhead" as a don't think that's a term familiar to everyone, particular to international readers. It could have unintentional negative connotations (or denotations, for that matter) for those people who don't know about the Grateful Dead. Would "Grateful Dead fandom" be an acceptable title? --ElKevbo 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, do we know any other of her hobbies? I tried to find a source for her "reading anything by Dave Barry", but was unsuccessful. I definitely like "Hobbies" better than "Deadhead". Do we even need to have two separate subheadings under the section? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember guys, this was moved out of a trivia section and placed in the biography section. It is therefore borderline superflous. Perhpas we can take it out of the biography, and ressurect the now defunct trivia section. --Asbl 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia section was removed for a reason. The article is too long, or at least Wikipedia keeps telling me it is. Hobbies are not notable. People keep warring over this non-notable, doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia, subsection. Delete it. Lou Sander 01:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I belive the message was put for technical not style or encyclopedic reasons. Don't give too much attention to the 32 KByte warning. If you use explorer or netscape, then you should not have any problems. --Asbl 02:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not like it really matters, but I don't even see the point in HAVING this mentioned. Why is it encyclopedically necessary? How many real encyclopedias tell us what bands Oscar Wilde or John Donne or Samuel Johnson were fans of? Is it really that important? And even if it is, why does every one sentence piece of information on this page get its own heading? ONE SENTENCE IS NOT A PARAGRAPH!Stanselmdoc 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with Stan, only not so emphatically... one sentence is not a paragraph. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I relocated the Grateful Dead material to a new "trivia" sub-section, and shortened it as well, as per space considerations. J.R. Hercules 17:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And I undid your change as we had removed the Trivia section (a few weeks ago?) for good reason. I'm sure we're all open to revisiting the issue but I think the reasons for which we deleted the section are still very good reasons. --ElKevbo 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you summarized those "very good reasons" in your response to my comment, otherwise I have no idea where you're coming from. As it is, the discussion regarding the trivia section is pretty lacking an in-depth rationale for removing the section. So why did I move and trim the Grateful Dead information? Because it looks extremely odd to have such a trivial piece of information concerning a subject located at the very beginning of an article, not to mention unwieldy due to it nearly being a paragraph in length. The reader wants to get right into the meat-and-potatoes of a subject; they don't want to be sidetracked from the very get-go with humorous and flimsy anecdotes; those are for later -- much later. J.R. Hercules 03:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the trivia section and moved the Grateful Dead reference back to biography. Trivia sections as a whole are generally frowned upon as un-encyclopedia, as they merely tend to just be conglomerations of non-notable, unreferenced information. For the sake of this article, since it's fairly controversial, it's also a bad idea to have the trivia section since it would tend to provide a very easy place for vandals and conspiracy theorists to insert crap. The Grateful Dead part is somewhat notable, though, since it does say something interesting about Ann Coulter that is a bit unusual for someone as conservative as she is; Deadheads are generally more associated with the marijuana-smoking, 'hippie' crowd, which tends to be a bit more liberal. I also located a much more suitable reference for this as well. Dr. Cash 18:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree on killing the Trivia. It has been in and out several times, and IMHO most people think it should be OUT. I also agree that her being a Deadhead is notable enough to be included, and pretty much for the reasons you stated. I didn't check your reference, but there was a very recent interview about her Deadhead stuff, and it was very enlightening. It was formerly one of the references on the Deadhead stuff, and I think it still belongs there--it was unbiased and covered things very well, IMHO. I don't know how to find it and restore it, though. Lou Sander 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Headings? Inconsistency in Headings?

The article keeps getting longer and longer, and it seems to me that some of the sub-sub-sub-headings are unnecessary.

In the very long Controversies section, some paragraphs now have their own sub-sub-headings. Even some single sentences now have their own sub-sub-headings. If we are going to put headings before every single item or thought, we should do it for the whole article, not just for one sub-section under Controversies. If you are in favor of having all these headings, which section should be the next to get them? If you are NOT in favor of having all these headings, which should be the first to go?

This user is NOT in favor of having all these headings, and thinks that those under "Speeches at college campuses" should be the first to be deleted. Lou Sander 02:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I think they improve readability and help summarize the long article. --Asbl 02:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree, I just don't think that's the problem with the controversies section. As stated in the previous discussion above, I think the problem is the general outlay and presentation of it. Half of it isn't even controversies - it's just a list of things editors themselves call controversies. If we work to fix the general outlay of things, the sub section headings may actually just disappear on their own. I plan on working on it, but I have to take a pseudo-break for a while. I have school work to do. Stanselmdoc 18:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism Allegations

Why was this section pulled into an archive? It most certainly is current.

Plagiarism claims in today's New York Post. So charges are not just limited to the blogs anymore (Raw Story and Rude Pundit, for example). The NYP article refers to three instances of "textbook plagiarism" in Godless as well as "verbatim lifts" in her weekly columns. The claims are made by John Barrie, creator of iThenticate and CEO of iParadigms -- putting his company and software on the line! Why is a conservative newspaper the first print media I've seen attacking Ann Coulter with plagiarism charges? Anyone bold enough to add a plagiarism section yet? --Richard 23 07:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad that a plagiarism section has been added but it references blogs and not the New York Post article. That's why I added this section again. I don't feel comfortable with citing the NYP as a source in the main article because I don't really think the NYP is a serious publication but it is print media. I leave it to somebody else to decide whether or not to include the NYP allegations in the article itself. --Richard 23 02:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Umm... how is the New York Post not "a serious publication"? Although the paper tends toward sensationalism, as a major New York daily it's certainly a more credible reference than some unknown blog.--Pharos 09:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Pharos, you are a light in a sea of darkness. Lou Sander 10:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with the title, "Liberal critics allege plagiarism"? "Liberal" should be removed, unless one can demonstrate otherwise. --George100 10:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the footnote by the word "Liberal". Rawstory and rudepundit were the citations for these allegations of plagiarism. Both are liberal websites. One is a blog, the other a Drudge-a-like. I noticed no other sources in the section I have been editing. 136.215.251.179

I suppose. What I'm more interested in is why you removed mention of the alleged plagiarism of the History Channel. (You seem to have left the source, though.) I'm also curious as to what your reasoning is for considering "Dealing with Hecklers" to be a fair and NPOV section heading. I would agree that the previous heading was also inappropriate, though, so I've taken action to render the section heading NPOV. Kasreyn 11:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the new UCONN heading. On plagiarism (and voting irregularities), I don't see how there is controversy enough to put them under the Controversies heading. (Please look at the link, which provides a helpful definition.) Both these notable matters relate to accusations of wrongdoing, but there aren't any notable active arguments about them. Coulter is remaining silent about them, and her supporters aren't arguing that she's innocent. Where's the controversy? Maybe "Allegations of wrongdoing" would be a section into which they could be put. Lou Sander 12:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I wouldn't mind that. If, as you say, there's no real public furor going on, I don't see how we could call them "controversies". I suppose I merely assumed that any point one side makes about her would be instantly and fiercely rebutted by the other. Perhaps some issues just fly under the radar? Kasreyn 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people want to say nasty things about her. Some of 'em just want to show off by mimicing her outrageousness; some are offended by her dismissal of what she calls their religion (see odium theologicum); some just hate her; some disagree with her but aren't very articulate, etc. Given that situation, I think that we all need to work hard to insure she gets a fair shake. Just because Nellie hates her doesn't mean there's a notable controversy. Lou Sander 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep "liberal" out of it. Plagiarism is independent of someone's part on the political spectrum. --Cyde↔Weys 12:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First, the leftwing blog rudepundit was the source for the History Channel item and rudepundit has retracted that allegation noting that Coulter actually did attribute the info to the actual source (WaPo). Second, both RawStory and Rudepundit are leftwing/liberal/progressive (you pick a name - it all means the same thin in this context) websites. These liberal (and always anti-Coulter) websites are the source of the plagiarism allegations. It is both factual and relevant. As is the dearth of "plagiarism" allegations despite 5 best-selling books and several years' worth of weekly columns. 136.215.251.179

I agree with Cyde. I don't see how the liberality of the sources (which itself I don't dispute) is notable in this context, unless you are wishing to imply that the allegations are solely politically motivated. But I don't think we're in the business of implying things with section headings. Kasreyn 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

136.215.251.179 is a known disruptor and sockpuppet (click on user's ip); disregard his/her statements. J.R. Hercules 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's 136 who is disregarding my (and Cyde's, and most others') statements... Kasreyn 13:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The partisan source of criticism is notable - especially when the allegations are so minor and from such overtly partisan sources who are on record as being anti-Coulter. If someone wants to source a non-partisan story, then that would be a good idea. So far, the paragraph in question has used partisan links. 136.215.251.179

135.etc

Once again, as before, you don't have consensus for removing the Tucson paper quote. You don't have consensus (as far as I can tell) for saying "Liberals" allege plagiarism even if they ARE Liberals. And you haven't answered my question as to why you removed allegation of plagiarism of the History Channel. Scroll a few paragraphs up to my conversation with Lou, and look at how he behaves. That is how to behave in a collegiate manner here: you listen to what the other guy has to say, you respond in kind, and you wait on declaring victory until he's had a reasonable time in which to respond. Kasreyn 14:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already responded to your History Channel question above (perhaps you did not check for my response before complaining), and in addition I explained the edit in an edit summary at the time I made the change. When people shit on the article, I tend to clean it up rather than wait for a consensus to remove the excrement. Can you imagine if we flushed toilets by committee consensus? Here is the retraction located on the home page of rudepundit under the July 3 entry:

• Correction: One of the pieces of the Coulter plagiarism puzzle must be tossed. It was always the weakest example. For this passage: "A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil," Coulter does cite an August 24, 1982 Washington Post article by Jay Mathews that reads, "The worst -- and most mysterious -- break occurred on Feb. 15, 1978, when someone, in an apparent act of sabotage, blew a hole in the pipeline near here that spilled about 550,000 gallons of oil."

(NB: Rudepundit does not concern itself with the fact that the History Channel did not credit the WaPo for the information on its website...)

136.215.251.179

Ah, I see now. I didn't understand your edit summary or what you meant by WaPo. There still remain the issues of "Liberals allege" and the Tucson paper. If you feel upset that I complain a lot, it might be because I have to do a lot of it just to get you to discuss a single issue at a time on the talk page. It would probably be a more efficient use of our time to handle everything at once. Kasreyn 14:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's consensus from me on removing the Tucson paper quote. Here's why: 1) It's in the citation. 2) It uses inflammatory words. 3) The guy asserts that conservatives knocked her, but IMHO his assertion is questionable. 4) The guy resigned a few weeks later, under circumstances consistent with being fired. 5) One paper dropping her isn't notable. 6) There's always the suspicion that the quote is in there just because it's particularly hateful (or uses particularly strong words, if you prefer.) Lou Sander 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I admit to lack of patience. But I won't admit to not earnestly seeking a quality article that fairly and accurately portrays the notable facts. Lou is right on the Tucson thing. During the invasion of the left-wing Coulter haters to this article, of course there was lots of sentiment for highlighting everything negative. An honest assessment of ONE PAPER dropping a column carried by over a hundred would be that the fact is NOT material for an encyclopedia article on Coulter. Coulter did not advocate firebombing the editors house and there was nothing else of n ote regarding the actions of this editor. He did not think the column was appropriate for the paper he edited, so he axed it. Fine. So what? There is nothing more to that story. How can it be considered something of note in the life of Ann COulter? What is funny is that the continued wide popularity of her column (which is noteworthy on its own) would not have even been added to the article if it had not been for the overzealous editing of the Coulter-haters who wanted to make it seem as if Coulter had her back against the wall. I laugh at the plagiraism stuff, too, becuase all that is resulting is that people who would never hear of the gross tax-funded art projects or foolish environmentalist fit set off by a weed are now made aware of how right Coulter is on those points! 136.215.251.179

Coulter's style

Ann Coulter makes sweeping and provocative statements. She seems to court controversy. It's hard to tell just how serious or "satirical" she means to be.

Did she really literally mean that she advocates the domestic terrorist bombing of the New York Times building in Times Square? According to "E&P Staff", she:

"refuted the notion that she is only joking" [12]

However, in addition to this interpretation they quote her at length:

• "No, I think the Timothy McVeigh line was merely prescient after The New York Times has leapt beyond -- beyond nonsense straight into treason, last week," Coulter replied.
• "This is great humor," Colmes replied, sarcastically. "This belongs on Saturday Night Live. It belongs on The Daily Show. "

Note that the Editor & Publisher article characterizes her tone as speaking "sarcastically". [13]

Note further that they quote hes as saying "This is great humor".

This would seem to contradict E&P's own view, in which they cite her as denying that she is only joking. Perhaps she is being half-serious, or using sarcasm and exaggeration to make a serious point.

Satirist Jonathan Swift suggested (in apparent seriousness) that the Irish Famine could be solved via what he called A Modest Proposal: to wit, that the British should literally eat Irish babies.

I submit that an essential aspect of satire is to blur the distinction between straightforward serious assertions and obvious joking. In fact, the Wikipedia article about Swift's Proposal states:

• This is widely believed to be the greatest example of sustained irony in the history of the English language. [and]
• The satirical intent of A Modest Proposal was misunderstood by many of Swift's peers (emphasis added for talk page), and he was harshly criticized for writing prose in such exceptionally "bad taste". He came close to losing his patronage because of this essay. The misunderstanding of the intent of the satirical attack came about largely because of the disparity between the satirical intent of the cannibalistic proposal and the sincere tone of the narrative voice.

I think we should hestitate therefore to characterize Coulter as "refuting the notion that she is only joking". That should not be the POV of the article but perhaps of E&P magazine. --Wing Nut 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

npov-section plagiarism

NPOV can easily be reached in this section by adding no extra information, reporting exactly who and what said what. From a starting point, it is clear that the allegations are mereley allegations, and such must be repeated each time they are discussed. Additionally, "From among her five books and hundred's of weekly columns" is the inclusion of unrelated information to diminish the severity of the accusations - this is a violation of our policy on undue weight. If coulter says "in my five books and hundreds of weekly columns," quote her. Do not put her defence in our mouth. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources in that section are reliable, except for the one that asks us to compare two columns, which is origional work. I have rewritten it for the NYPost only. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the section. WP:RS is a guideline, not policy. While blogs and personal websites may be questionable, the information is verifiable by references to the source of the alleged plagarism. If the authors of the sites simply stated that Coulter was a plagarist without giving citations, then they would not be appropriate. But here we have two different sites giving two different examples. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please put back in the information about the NYPost, put your two bloggers in their own section, and tag your section with {{Not verified}}. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Beyond that, I am honestly shocked that you are using "guideline not policy" to ignore WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If editors must revert the section in question to one with either the two blogs mentioned, one that describes her critics as liberal or one the describes the alleged plagurism as "almost verbatim," please insert the relevent dispute tag - either origionalresearch, not verified or pov-section. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberal POV warriors - what does including two blogs do for your cause that just including the NYPost article does not more than adequately do. Think about how much stronger your case is with just the Murdoch owned rag as the one alleging plagurism! Kick those bushco cronys where it hurts!

Conservative POV warriors - Do you really want all that text there? It's not like you can get rid of the NYPost article, so why let the liberuls link to their loonyleft websites?

Editors of the encyclopedia - WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing illumination of potentially embarassing career ending professional impropriety with a point of view. Illustrating alleged plagiarism has nothing to do with politcs. Please see plagarism#Famous accusations and examples of plagiarism and Mike Barnicle. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rudepundit is NOT a reliable news source - it is a partisan blog. One of its recent headlines notes that "Ann Coulter is a cunt". Sorry charlie - that site cannot be a NPOV source. ANy mention of info from that site will need to have a qualifier that the source is a liberal blog. 84.146.214.111

Rawstory is also not a reliable news source - it is a self-proclaimed liberal/prigressive website that has political aims. Again - it cannot be used as a NPOV source. ANy mention of info from that site will need to have a qualifier that the source is a liberal news blog.84.146.214.111

By Coulter's standards, a reference from The New York Times would require a qualifier that it comes from a liberal source. Allegations of plagiarism have less to do with politics or POV and more to do with journalistic ethics, see Mike Barnicle. Thus, the political leanings of the source are irrelevant. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We're not using her standards here. If you can source accusations to the NYTimes, there is no need to qualify them whatsoever. Please review WP:RS. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I don't see anything in WP:RS that requires labeling a source as conservative or liberal. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources applies here. We are not utilizing the blogs to report events that may or may not have occured. We are using the blogs to show that there is controversy as to whether Coulter committed plagerism. The blog has enough references to make the accusation credible. --Asbl 20:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you can only use them as such. Right now, one of the blogs is sourced the following: "Thou Shall Not Commit Religion" was shown to have segments taken almost verbatim from several sources including The Flummery Digest, Jeff Jacoby's 1995 Boston Globe article, and the magazine Counterpoint." One of the blogs (more accuratly, the reader is invited to engage in WP:OR) is sourced the following: "Her sentence is an almost direct copy of one found in an article from the Portland Press Herald. In the same chapter, Coulter references an attack on the Alaskan pipeline. Her sentence is similar to one from the History Channel." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You lost me. Where is the problem? The blog shows the extreme similarity between Coulter's writing and the other writings. --Asbl 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources for facts. You yourself said that "We are not utilizing the blogs to report events that may or may not have occured." However, we are using the blogs to that purpose - specifically, the blogs are used to state that "was shown to have segments taken almost verbatim from several sources." Blogs are not WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a blatant misquote. I wrote report events that may or may not have occured. The blog shows you Coulter's writing write next to the similar text that was written earlier. Those are certainly verifiable facts, and I suspect you have nothing to debunk them. This is why you are engaging in ad hominem. --Asbl 20:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that they are right does not make them acceptable for inclusion. The standard for wikipedia is not truth, it is verifiability. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you have truely lost me. As I pointed out in the post above, all those facts are easily verifiable. It seems to me that you are running out of arguments for removing the allegations of plagerism. --Asbl 21:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:V does not mean that anyone could do the math to figure out something is true, rather it states that someone else must have already done the research - and that someone else must be a reliable source. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If it were reported by Drudge would it be less reliable? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The drudge report is not a reliable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what all the fuss is about here. If there are passages of 24, 25 and 35 words each - word for word identical to someone else's published writings - in some of Coulter's books or columns, what's wrong with saying so? The question is what is the threshhold of "plagiarism"? I'd personally say 200 words. --Wing Nut 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC). personal attacks removed by Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing plagiarism with copyright infringement. Plagiarism is passing off someone else's ideas as your own. There's no need that the texts match verbatim. Guettarda 13:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I meant: do you still consider it a violation of this web site's rules?

• If some quotable source (i.e., someone other than a Wikipedia contributor) wants to use these 3 instances against Coulter, it only illustrates her point that liberals don't like to discuss issues but prefer to make ad hominem attacks. --Wing Nut 21:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Review WP:TALK. Talk pages are for discussions of articles, not for engaging in political slapfests. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I only meant that I think it would be a service to your readers to include as much of the accusations of plagiarism (and evidence about it) as will fit. Then readers can either see (1) how much of a cheater Coulter is or (2) how much her opponents blow things out of proportion. I mean, isn't it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions, based on the reliable facts presented in this encyclopedia? --Wing Nut 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the amount of plagiarism, please note this quote from John Barrie: "It didn't take long to find evidence of plagiarism, Barrie said. "After we found three in the book, we called it quits. I think we found four of her syndicated columns that had problems." But the task proved draining, he said -- on himself, not his technology. "After combing through Ann Coulter for a while, it doesn't take long before you want to call it quits. I want to prove the technology, but I don't want to make my eyes bleed."[14] Guettarda 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then the article should say that Barrie found 7 passages (and maybe quote a couple of them?). Also, it should quote Barrie's hint that there are probably more. --Wing Nut 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually TPMMuckraker is a reliable source - it isn't a blog, it's written by real journalists. On the other hand, I disagree with WN's interpretation of the quote. Barrie found a few and quit looking, so the number if irrelevant. Guettarda 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Justin Rood, the author, is a real-journalist, and as such that is a WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Something bad is wrong here

Notes and References goes crazy halfway through. Somehow it is interfering with editing, at least in the Controversies section. Lou Sander 13:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. (Is it appropriate to remove sections like this when the technical, non-content-related problem has been fixed? Seems to me it ought to be.) Lou Sander 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged plagiarism

Now that we've agreed to write about Barrie's research, what can we do with this blog entry?

One of the pieces of the Coulter plagiarism puzzle must be tossed. It was always the weakest example. For this passage: "A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil," Coulter does cite an August 24, 1982 Washington Post article by Jay Mathews that reads, "The worst -- and most mysterious -- break occurred on Feb. 15, 1978, when someone, in an apparent act of sabotage, blew a hole in the pipeline near here that spilled about 550,000 gallons of oil." [15]

Is this one of Barrie's examples? Did the NY Post article even give any examples? (Or just assert "He found a 24-word passage"?)

Anyway, these things usually end with either an apology (and correct citation) by the publisher - or for egregious cases, a withdrawal of the book, possible what Liberal (non-Wikipedian!) opponents hope for. Sometimes it goes to court - which would drive up book sales, hmm... Anyway, it's breaking news. --Wing Nut 14:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Justin Rood at TPMMuckraker has compiled a list of allegations [16] Guettarda 06:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversies Section Cont'd

Above, there is a lovely beginning discussion on the atrococity of Coulter's controversy section (particularly the Muslim, Women, and Confederate flag sections). I would like to clean it up and fix it. Here are my problems:

1. One sentence is not a paragraph. If Coulter created a noteworthy controversy, it has to be able to merit at least three sentences. If you can't think of three sentences to write about a controversy, how can it possibly be THAT notable as to warrant a mention? Everything Coulter says could be argued as controversial, so unless it created a BIG controversy (i.e. the Jersey-girls and the other things listed in her article) it shouldn't be listed as a controversy.

2. Half of the things currently listed have no mention of controversy. Basically the entire "Coulter on Muslims" and "Coulter on women" sections are just lists of quotes that some editors thought were controversial. Well, they might be controversial statements, but that doesn't mean they are a controversy. It means Coulter says mean things, oh nooooo...STILL, unless there is some article out there where some guy says "Ann Coulter said this about women and I'm angry blah blah blah", there is no controversy. If no one has responded to a statement she has said, it's POV for an editor to decide to put THAT quote in her article.

3. Speaking of all the quotes, we have wikiquote for a reason. Now, I'm SURE someone as controversial as Coulter has an excellent wikiquote article. I'm not opposed to finding sources for the quotes and saying, "when Coulter said this ... she made people angry and they ..." In fact, I would like some help in finding sites like that (since for some reason, I'm having trouble finding people who were angry about every quote listed). However, if someone didn't go "WTF? That stupid Ann Coulter!" when he read what she said, and he THEN wrote his opinion down in a news article or some other source, WHERE IS THE CONTROVERSY?? The quote should be removed from wikipedia and placed in wikiquote.

Sorry if I sound angry. I am a frustrated wiki! Stanselmdoc 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't the place for political commentary, see WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. 196.201.79.242 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of these things aren't, technically speaking, "controversial". That is, they did not spark controversies. Rather they are offensive to liberals, i.e., typical Coulter-style remarks.

Every other word out of her mouth is calculated to offend liberals, garner applause from conservatives, or make a point sarcastically. She's the skinny, ugly, female version of Al Franken (or that's how someone talking like Ann Coulter would describe her!). --Wing Nut 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's more accurate to call her the "Skinny, ugly Christian female version of Al Franken." Franken, of course, is the "Chubby, ugly Jewish male version of Ann Coulter." The only similarity between them is the initial letter of their first names, but Al thinks Ann is lye-ing about that, just as she does about everything else. Coulter declines to produce a birth certificate, which is further evidence of her rabid anti-semitism and hatred of men. (And possibly of her illegitimacy. Many of the ideas in her books are illegitimate, so it's reasonable to assume that she is illegitimate, too.) Lou Sander 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Stanselmdoc, Hipocrite, and the others, and I think Stanselmdoc sounds logical, not angry. Many of the "controversies" aren't "controversies," and many of the latter are quotations that should be moved to Wikiquote. Lou Sander 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree and would welcome changes to address the issues you have raised. --ElKevbo 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for it Stan. But just go slow as to not throw everything into chaos. Oh, and I believe the term is Wikipedian, not just wiki. A wiki is something totally different. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Her anti-Arab and anti-Muslims statements may not have caused as much commotion as did her comments about the 9/11 widows, which suggests a lot about the feelings towards Arabs and Muslims, but nevertheless, they have angered many people, been condemned by media-watch groups, Muslim groups, and writers, so I can't understand how you did not find anything on this because I found many sources quite easily simply using Google. Examples: http://www.therationalradical.com/diatribes/ann_coulter.htm http://mediamatters.org/items/200410050004 http://www.coulterwatch.com/files/BW_2-003-bin_Coulter.pdf --Inahet 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"What we got here... is failure to commuuuunicate." If we all read the article on Controversy a couple of times, our communication might just improve. Lou Sander 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, and I am only one editor among many, the following subsections, taken individually or as a whole, are the major contributors to the section's current atrocity: 1) Criticism of her style; 2) Domestic separatists; 3) Arabs and Muslims; 4) Women; 5) Confederate flag. The one on Factual disputes isn't an atrocity, but it isn't something to be proud of, either. Lou Sander 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I happened to like the "Coulter courts controversy" line and have refactored the heading to include this. She's a self-described polemicist [17] so it's not POV to say that she actively tries to "stir the pot" (her own words). I've added a lead for this section that justifies this (with a reference). I hope this helps. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks okay to me. I don't particularly care for using the word "Coulter" to begin the section name but that's a very minor issue and I don't have a ready suggestion to fix it. --ElKevbo 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Implementing these changes, I think we should determine which things are actual controversies (the point of the changes :-)). I'd say, off-hand and from my memory banks, the only real "controversies" are pretty sure the bombing of the New York Times quote, definitely the "Jersey Girls" stuff recently, probably the plagiarism, and perhaps the voting stuff. Other than that, it is just polemic speech that some people don't like, but has not caused real "controversy". Did I miss any? Most of the other stuff may have a place in the article, but perhaps not under the heading of controversy. Thoughts? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, LV, a looooooong time ago, there were two separate sections: Controversy and Criticism. I think they were merged into one "Controversy" heading, but I could be wrong. It was over a year ago. I'm not necessarily opposed to creating a "Criticism" section again and placing the other things in that section, but my main problem is the fact that none of it is sourced or even written well. I just didn't want to start making changes on it until I'd commented on it on the talk page to see if people were amenable to the idea. It seems the many people agree things should change a little, so I might get a little bolder. Stanselmdoc 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read these parts of the article many times, and I've thought them over a LOT. It helps to look at the Wikipedia entry for controversy. IMHO, the "Allegations of proper conduct" are exactly that, and should not be in a "controversies" section, because they really aren't controversies. I believe the college stuff, the Jersey Girls stuff, and the New York Times stuff are "Notable controversies" (because of the riots etc. at the colleges and the wide discussion in the media of the other two). I don't bother too much with the material in the "Coulter causes controversy" section, because IMHO it isn't well-written, has a lot of material that isn't presented from a neutral point of view, and is strongly but not necessarily reasonably defended by people who like it.

Also, I'm in favor of heading each of the college controversies with the name of the school, and nothing else. That gets rid of the edit skirmishes that the headings have inspired in the past. And I don't like the unwieldy title on the New York Times allegation. I prefer "Bombing" the New York Times or something similar, using the quotation marks to show it wasn't an actual event. Lou Sander 17:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Accused or not

User 196.201.79.242 changed the sentence "Coulter has been accused of courting controversy." to read simply "Coulter courts controversy." in the Notable Controversies section. I reverted the edit, but the user has simply re-reverted it. I think it reeks of POV. Rather than getting baited into a reversion war, I thought I'd mention it on the discussion page and let some others make the decision. badmonkey 00:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that, short of an explicit quote from Coulter herself stating that she "courts controversy," the statement is by necessity a POV statement and your edit is the correct one to retain NPOV. --ElKevbo 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's POV. Coulter calls herself a polemist. Of course she courts controversy. It sells books. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If we have a verifiable source for that quote then I'd be okay with shortening the sentence and citing the source. --ElKevbo 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

She's skinny, too, but hopefully we don't have to cite references. I'm not at all bothered when someone characterizes her as a polemecist, as controversial, as shocking, or anything else that she obviously is, but fails to quote a source. But when they line up a jillion Muslim quotes, all properly cited, and leave readers to infer that she's some sort of an anti-Muslim bigot, it kinda starts to bother me. I think of it as maybe, just maybe, sneaking somebody's point of view into the article. But I might be wrong on that. Lou Sander 01:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you can find quotes where Coulter talks about her desire to give every Muslim in the world a hug and a flower while standing under rainbows and petting kittens, be my guest - add them to the article. Because I don't really think such quotes exist. The nonexistence of a positive angle to a particular issue isn't a valid reason to suppress the negative angle, vis-a-vis "undue weight". Cheers, Kasreyn 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(To Lou) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Raul654 03:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kase And Raul654, I understand your point of view that Coulter is anti-Arab/Muslim, anti-Woman, and anti-domestic separatist (I infer it from "walks like a duck," etc.). I just wish you wouldn't ask us to infer its validity from a series of sourced but out-of-context minor quotations. I'm somewhat familiar with Coulter's work, and those three subjects are not important themes in it. In fact, she hardly mentions them at all. At best, her words on them are hyperbolic obiter dicta. Coulter's important themes are the flaws in liberalism and the Democrat party. She advances those themes with articulate tightly-reasoned arguments, whose insight and validity underly her importance as an author. Since there's almost nothing in this article about the major aspects of her work, it's particularly unsuitable that there's so very much material about the trivial ones. It's as though the article on Joe Biden consisted mainly of a collection of his controversial quotations, grouped to encourage the (incorrect) inference that he's a fool, long sections about his alleged plagiarisms, and barbs about his baldness and hair replacement. But the Biden article is well-policed by important Wikipedians, and those very sourceable topics aren't even mentioned. That is as it should be, of course, and I wonder why important Wikipedians don't grant the same basic courtesy to Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 01:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. It went from a sentence in the controversies section to the new title. It may be tongue-in-cheek, clever and even a statement I agree with, but it now reads like a sensationalist headline. As much as I dislike Coulter and her views, controversial articles like this need to be as neutral as possible. Telling the reader what to think of her controversies is wrong, IMHO. They can easily come to that conclusion themselves. Lets stick to the facts and trust the reader to be able to make their own judgements. As for me, I'm not going to edit this article any longer. The opinion war here is too volatile for my taste. badmonkey 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pastel boxes for blogs.

Neither http://rawstory.com nor http://rudepundit.blogspot.com are reliable sources. Requests that the reader compare and contrast two things to see they are obviously similar are violations of WP:NOR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The text attributed to these non-reliable sources should be removed. -- Dcflyer 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the retraction about the History Channel allegation located on the home page of rudepundit under the July 3 entry:

• Correction: One of the pieces of the Coulter plagiarism puzzle must be tossed. It was always the weakest example. For this passage: "A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil," Coulter does cite an August 24, 1982 Washington Post article by Jay Mathews that reads, "The worst -- and most mysterious -- break occurred on Feb. 15, 1978, when someone, in an apparent act of sabotage, blew a hole in the pipeline near here that spilled about 550,000 gallons of oil."

I have removed POV commentary inserted by Hercules that is not aimed at a better article. Talk page is not a place for posting anti-Coulter POV editorials. What IS relevant is that Rudepundit has RETRACTED an allegation that the wikipedia article still cites. Your dumbass POV pushing is now exposed for all to see. Botttom line: the wikipedia article now contains retracted material as a source - becuase jackasses who hate Coulter, such as Hercules, do not have any interest in an unbiased article. 84.146.243.10

(Re-insertion of the post deleted by 84.146.243.10)

• Not so fast. Here's the rest of Rudepundit's retraction, just to make things where they stand more clear:

While no doubt some will look at this and go "A-ha, all the allegations are false," nothing could be further from the truth. The Rude Pundit stands by, and re-emphasizes, motherfuckers, every other instance of plagiarism in Coulter's work, especially now that it's been backed up by the New York Post. Coulter's plagiarism is at least as bad as that of Kaayva Viswanathan, whose book, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life, was recalled by its publisher.

Oh, by the way, Coulter does not cite any source for her main point of the example: "Six weeks later, the birds were back." Indeed, Prudhoe Bay is more or less fucked up for the birds. http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/07/late-night-new-york-times-in-smoky.html

J.R. Hercules 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yo, anti-Coulter jackasses

Your plagiarism section, as has been pointed out repeatedly in the talk section, is all dicked up. Its as POV as it gets. In addition to relying on left-wing blogs, it also contains an allegation that has been retracted by the leftwing blog that is cited as the source (the History Channel allegation is just plain false and ridepundit has even admitted that to be the case). So stop the bullshit. If there was even half of an attempt to fix this section the article would have some credibility. As it stands, it sucks as the anti-Coulter POV oozes from the article. 84.146.243.105

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and we'll get back to you. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cilivity will be shown to people following the rules. Otherwise - fuck off. 84.146.228.83

Note

If you care about the content of the articles, then I suggest you become a registered user instead of contributing via an unregistered IP. That will help us take you more seriously.

If, on the other hand, you don't care about the content of the articles... why are you here? DS 22:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. --ElKevbo 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No. This article is as biased as can be. Folowing the civility rules has gotten registered level-headed editors like LouSander absolutely nowhere. The NPOV and source rules are being blatantly breached and the leftists here don't give a damn. SO fuck off. I am glad you have to lock down the article. It demonstrates how fucked up wikipedia is in general. I will continue to edit this article until editors start following the content rules. 84.146.223.217

DS, I'm surprised you blocked an unregistered troll for just an hour. You're way too nice. BTW, said unregistered troll is using an IP located in Germany, probably abusing U.S. military base web resources either in person or by proxy. J.R. Hercules 02:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Indiana University

Short version: "Gay boy" stinks in the heading. Get rid of it.

Long version: It's pretty clear that the incident at Indiana was mainly notable for the heat that was generated in a large audience. The headline of the cited article is Coulter Splits IU's Crowd. Much of the article is about the disruptions to Coulter's speech, and the accompanying actions of the police. Much of it is about her attacks on public figures and institutions such as Howard Dean, the Democrat Party and the "liberal media." A very small part of the article quotes Coulter's response to three "fans and protestors," one of whom was the "gay boy." A larger part quotes student leaders defending Coulter and deploring the rowdiness of the crowd. The wrapup is six paragraphs discussing people's reaction to the evening's events, pro and con.

IMHO, the Indiana sub-sub-sub section of our article is a reasonably fair summary of the controversy at IU. But its title is improper and should be changed to eliminate "gay boy." No controversy over Coulter's "gay boy" barb is reported in the source, and as far as I can tell from other research, there was no controversy surrounding it. It was just another exchange between Coulter and a boorish heckler. In other words, the word "gay boy" was in no way a notable factor in the activities of the evening, as we all can see in the source. Yet we title it as though it's about "gay boy." Puzzling, eh? Not very professional, IMHO. Also not very indicative that the article is written with a neutral viewpoint.

I think that fairness, truthfulness, honesty, and respect for our readers and our subject all say that the heading of this sub-sub-sub section should be about the "splitting of the crowd" (or like that), which is, of course, what the sub-sub-sub section is about. The same principles say we should abandon the words "gay boy" in the heading. This is not a supermarket tabloid, and those words, though definitely spoken during the evening, were in no way notable to the audience or the IU newspaper.

Others say that the controversy in this speech is about the use of "gay boy." Nothing I see supports that view. It seems to be pulled out of thin air. We can't have a "This is What *I* Think" (TWIT), and "If *I* Think It, It Must RULE" attitude. TWIT isn't good enough. TWIT needs some factual material behind it.

I believe that using "gay boy" in the sub-sub-sub heading is very, very, very improper. Our common interest says we need to send it packing.

Please comment. After all, I may be missing something. Lou Sander 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your analysis is correct. I'd go even further and ask: what is noteable about this speech at all? I move we remove it entirely. --ElKevbo 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both sentiments. This speech is non-noteable. -- Dcflyer 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Proposal: It's notable that Coulter inspires controversies at college speeches. I didn't like all the sub-sub-sub headings when they first appeared, but now I'm coming to see their benefit. They're a bit long, though, since the stuff they head consists of short paragraphs that link to some very good sources. They also tend to create unproductive disputes. I propose that the sub-sub-sub headings just state the name of the school. The material below them will summarize the specific controversy, and the references will provide the details. If the proposal is agreeable, the sub-sub-sub headings would be University of Arizona, University of Connecticut, Philander Smith College, and Indiana University. Then we'd have a section on Notable Controversies, a subsection on Speeches on College Campuses, and several succinct examples, complete with useful, non-objectionable sub-sub-sub headings and solid references that provide the details of each controversy. IMHO, the result would be a subsection that is notable, informative, and presented from a neutral point of view. Lou Sander 14:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Dcflyer; it is an illustrative example of Coulter's public speaking style, in which she hectors and abuses her audience. The speech derives its notability from its ability to describe her speaking style. Otherwise the argument could be made that any particular sample of Coulter's writings, behavior, speaking, anything is not "notable" in and of itself. Their purpose here is to help describe the person herself. Kasreyn 23:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kasreyn that the IU speech is a good example and should be kept, provided it can be reported from a neutral viewpoint. I'm sort of surprised that Kasreyn, a notable advocate of "NPOV," seems only to see one side of the Coulter/audience story. At IU, for example, student disruption of the program is in the lead of the news report; Coulter stops speaking "more than ten times" so that unruly students can be removed by the ushers; one student wears a KKK-like costume and a crudely humorous sign; others act rudely and ask rude questions; Coulter responds in kind. This is hardly, IMHO, a story about Coulter "hectoring and abusing her audience." Neither are any of the others. Lou Sander 23:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This version avoids biased untrustworthy sources and also does not give undue weight to the matter, while preserving the fact of the allegations and pointing readers to the links for more details:

• Coulter has been accused of several instances of plagiarism. Thus far, critics point to five instances where a factual sentence or list appears to have been copied from another source without attribution. [18] [19] A representative of the distributor of Coulter's weekly column, Universal Syndicate, stated that the company is looking into the allegations. [20] The publisher of Godless, Crown Publishing, has stated that the allegations regarding the book are "as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible" and that "the number of words used by our author in these snippets is so minimal that there is no requirement for attribution"; the publisher also pointed to the "19 pages and hundreds of endnotes" contained in the book as evidence of proper attribution by Coulter. [21] [22]

____G_o_o_d____

I like this version, which IMHO presents the pertinent facts and conveys a neutral point of view. Plagiarism is an important subject among authors, and when an important author is accused of it, it is worthy of prominent mention. When the important author is controversial, and when many people have the point of view that she should be discredited wherever possible, responsible encyclopedia editors need to try very hard to avoid edits that might disrupt the article's neutral point of view. Lou Sander 14:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No link to "rawstory.com" please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Goodandevil. I was wondering when you were going to stop hiding behind anon IP's. My guess is that the sprotect did it. Nice to finally have a name to know you by.  :) Kasreyn 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I figure if Plagiarism can feature so prominently on leftist Ward Churchills wikipage, accusations of Plagiarism should be posted here, too.

Some more dirt to be added when the article is unprotected:

It’s been five days since the New York Post reported at least three instances of “textbook plagiarism” in Ann Coulter’s latest book and found “similar patterns of cribbing” in the last 12 months of her columns. Yesterday, Coulter’s syndicator, Universal Press Syndicate, announced it was going to probe the allegations, itself. And she remains under investigation for voter fraud in Florida, a third degree felony. (with links to all of the allegations) [23]

Signed: Travb (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Churchill is a professor being fired from his position because of plagarism, one of the most serious offense a scholar can commit. Why does that merit adding "dirt" to this particular article? If there are legitimate accusations against Coulter then by all means add verfiable, noteable references to those accusations. But to try to add material to one article because "another article has something similar" is poor logic and has no merit in Wikipedia policies or practice. --ElKevbo 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's critics have glommed on to non-academic writing that contains hundreds of footnotes but left out attribution of a few short factual sentences that her publisher considers trivial. Thats it: a few instances of what her liberal cirtics consider to be plagiarism. Whereas with Churchill, a university committee agreed unanimously that as a professor he had engaged in "serious research misconduct," including four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to “comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.” In addition, the committee found him "disrespectful of Indian oral traditions." And by the way, the CHurchill article does not even use the word plagiarism in any subheading despite his being fire for it. Whereas COulter is merely accused of it by leftwing political enemies, and some here treat that information as if it defines her.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.217.186 (talk • contribs) .

I pretty much agree with the thrust of the anonymous words immediately above, but not necessarily their strong expression. IMHO the article should definitely mention the allegations of plagiarism and describe what is alleged. (Plus, of course, anything notable that contradicts the allegations or responds to them.) Also IMHO, we should avoid quoting from a jillion references that report the allegations, report new items that have been found that seem to have been plagiarized, throw in their opinion that Coulter is a serial plagiarist, etc. Put the references in, if you want, but try hard to avoid looking like Wikipedia has a point of view on this matter. Just because you can reference it doesn't mean that it belongs in the article. Lou Sander 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous? You mean you aren't aware that 84.146.etc is Goodandevil? Kasreyn 02:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't follow all the changes of disguise. It's hard enough to remember my own name. (Thank heaven for those four little squiggly things.) Lou Sander 03:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to quote one example of a "factual sentence or list ... copied from another source without attribution".

Additionally, if there is a dispute between Coulter opponents and Coulter supporters about how serious the "plagiarism" charges are, why not describe the dispute? Is anybody (outside of Wiki contributors) saying that Coulter should:

have her book(s) withdrawn from publication?

be considered a sloppy, deranged, unreliable kook?

If so, these opponent POVs could be added to the article, along with any balancing POV from defenders, couldn't they? --Wing Nut 13:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's reasonable to include some of the stuff that Wing Nut suggests, particularly as long as the plagiarism flap is a current event. Both sides should be presented though, and we should guard against this section becoming a long anti-Coulter rant, complete with highly documented references. (The plagiarism stuff shouldn't be longer than its importance within the article merits, and it definitely shouldn't be an anti-Coulter rant. Each of us should treat her fairly, even if we hate her guts.) Lou Sander 13:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggested re-write. The tone is dismissive about the plagiarism, which makes it inherently POV. It also doesn't correctly use the <ref> tag. Previous versions provide more detail and give examples. Efforts should be made to re-word these versions than to introduce completely new text that gives no context to the allegations. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is ok for the tone to be dismissive about the plagiarism, if the plagiarism is not real. Does anyone know either way? Probably not. So, just report the facts. The facts are: 1. She was accused of specific problems. 2. Her publisher has denied it with elements of a clear defense. --Blue Tie 02:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't followed this section closely, but my impression is that previous versions have glorified in mentioning every allegation of plagiarism, putting in references to each, and in general magnifying the "allegation" side of things. I appreciate that someone might think that it's some sort of "inherent POV" not to cover every little detail, but I have to say that those people are wrong in their thinking. To "pile on" is to express a point of view. So is to defend "piling on." To me, it's proper to say that allegations have been made, while providing some detail to put the allegations in context, and posting a roughly equivalent amount of material about defense against the allegations, opinions that they are groundless or nitpicking, etc. Lou Sander 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I just re-read the plagiarism section. Right now, it's a long list of well-referenced blah-blah about all the instances of "copying" that anybody could find. It's sort of like the "Coulter is an habitual offender of Islam" section further down in the article. Aren't people ashamed to post this stuff? Do they have any idea about writing from a neutral point of view? (I kinda think they don't.) Lou Sander 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, it should be shortened, but the re-write is dismissive. To say that critics (what critics? this is a weasel term) have pointed out five instances without referencing a single instance and then giving quotations to both her column publisher and book publisher denying the charges is dismissive and POV. Re-wording is appropriate, re-writing and whitewashing isn't. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Critics have made allegations of plagiarism. Her publisher has dismissed the allegations as baseless. Her syndicator is investigating but the most credible source will not provide the syndicator with the evidence it claims to have. Not much else to report. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but she is a popular author, not an academic or a journalist. Plagiarism is a bigger deal in academia and journalism than it is elsewhere. Also, I really appreciate it when people say stuff like "POV," when they also say what they mean and why. I know words written from a neutral point of view when I see them, and a lot of times I don't see them when somebody shouts "POV!" Lou Sander 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why is the article completely lacking a neutral tone? If plagiarism isn't a big deal for columnists, then the Boston Globe would have never fired Mike Barnicle. I suppose it would be okay with you to insert the phrase, "However plagiarism is excusable because she's just a columnist and doesn't need to be taken seriously." Yeah, I think that would fit well with the current tone of the section. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not really see the lack of neutrality. Before you consider that I have a partial view, understand: I am no fan of A.C.'s but I am also not an enemy. I don't really care either way whether she plagiarized or not. However, I know she upsets people and so, people hating her may try to edit toward her in a negative way and I would object to that. --Blue Tie 02:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

This paragraph focuses on a minor event and gives toomuch detail for an article that is actually about Coulter, not some newspaper that dropped her column. The precise date it happened is a minor piece of info, as is the nameof the small-time edior and the small-time paper. The comments of several readers is also not something of value for an encyclopedic article.

• Current version: On August 28, 2005 {why is the precise date given?}, Coulter's syndicated column was dropped by the Tucson newspaper Arizona Daily Star {how is the name of a small state paper important in an encyclopedia article about Coulter?}. David Stoeffler,{how is this guys name - a nobody who is not even at the paper anymore - important?} the editor and publisher said, "We've decided that syndicated columnist Ann Coulter has worn out her welcome. Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives." {is the important fact that the column was dropped, or what the editor claimed as the reason? - agan this is supposed to be an encyclopedia}[15] Despite this sentiment, Editor & Publisher magazine {this information belongs in the footnote, not the article} wrote that she "hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients, or the support of her syndicate, Universal Press Syndicate," despite the swirl of negative press that has accompanied the release of her latest and most controversial book, Godless. [23]

• Proposed version: In 2005, one newspaper dropped Coulter's syndicated column citing reader complaints. [15] But none of the more than 100 newspapers that carry the column have dropped it due to the controversy surrounding the 2006 release of Godless. [23]

I agree with your rewrite, whoever you are. Somebody fixed it in a similar way a week or so ago, but somebody else reverted it. All your points are valid. The way the article stands right now, with some minor guy's strong anti-Coulter words about a non-notable event, makes it hard to believe that this section is written with a neutral point of view. Lou Sander 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[ec]Let's see - precision and accuracy are two reasons in favour of the current version. The latter version is vague, conveys very little information to the reader, and is more difficult to verify. Vague is never an improvement over specific. Guettarda 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fallacious reasoning, Guet. A straw man. The current version is faulty on the grounds proposed by the anonymous proposer. It also, IMHO, makes the article seem to be written from a highly biased point of view. (Specifically by including the colored words "shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited." Yes, he said them, but to put them into an encyclopedia is hardly an act of neutrality.) The guy who said them, by the way, resigned a few weeks later under mysterious circumstances. And his "many readers" are, of course "weasel words." His assertion that the weasel readers "identified themselves as conservatives" is unsupported by any reference. But then it couldn't be, could it? Lou Sander 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw man? How so? Guettarda 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous poster gave some very specific arguments for why he/she advocated a rewrite. Your answer didn't address them, but addressed something else: the desirability for precision and accuracy (a generality that might or might not be pertinent to his specific reasons). I was probably too quick in saying "straw man," but I think a more specific response would have been in order. ("Straw man" is putting an argument in somebody's mouth, then legitimately destroying that argument. This wasn't quite that. Sorry.) BTW, I wondered what "[ec]" meant. Is it a typo, or an abbreviation I probably should have understood, or ???? Lou Sander 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to shorten the section but I'm not sure I follow either the original section or the rewrite. The first "half" is about a newspaper dropping the column because of reader complaints. The second "half" is about many newspapers retaining the column. The entire "controversy surrounding the 2006 release of 'Godless'" seems to come out of nowhere and I don't see the connection between the first and second halves of this section. --ElKevbo 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo: IMHO the important fact is that in spite of all the talk against Coulter, her column keeps chugging along, and people aren't dropping it. To mention, yet alone quote some guy's rant about, the occasional add and drop is just a waste of bandwidth. And quoting the rant smacks of a biased point of view. Lou Sander 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lengthy quote from the Arizona newspaper editor needs to go - it's giving undue weight to that particular issue. What confuses me is the jump from one newspaper citing reader complaints to someone else defending against Coulter against unmade accusations of decreasing popularity because of her most recent book. The sections just don't really follow one another logically. --ElKevbo 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody tried to balance a "took it out" with a "didn't take it out." Lou Sander 03:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a likely explanation. I appreciate the attempt at balance but it just doesn't work in this case. It would work much better if the mention of "Godless" were removed as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the issue at hand: the non-decreasing numbers of newspapers publishing her column. The point is that the Arizona paper cancelling their publication is an isolated incident. Correct? --ElKevbo 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes - its an isolated incident that does not even belong in the article. The whole idea of adding the continued popularity of her column was to add a balance to the silly addition to this article of one small Arizona paper's temporary editor dropping the column a year ago - followed by no other papers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.217.186 (talk • contribs) .

ElKevbo - I think that Godless is mentioned only because it has created a firestorm, and that people are saying that her column is defended and kept, even in the face of that firestorm. Lou Sander 14:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why doesn't the article just say that? I don't see anything about a firestorm resulting from the publication of Godless in that section. --ElKevbo 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberals and sexuality

in the link it sayes,anal sex and fisting ,not anal fisting.Someone made a creative reading.--87.65.137.22 20:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What?!--Wakefencer 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Delta Gamma Membership

I removed the google cache link reference from the article [24] because the link goes to a google error page that doesn't tell us anything. The current page on Delta Gamma's website is [25], and doesn't mention anything about Ann Coulter. Either (a) she was never a member of the sorority (or "women's fraternity", as many "sororities" are actually called) or (b) they removed her from the noteworthy members page on their website because of all the controversy she's involved in (which is plausible; I know of another unnamed greek letter organization that took similar steps a couple of years back when Bill Clinton was impeached). I left the text there and changed the reference to the 'citation needed' tag. Dr. Cash 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, she definitely is. It used to work, but I guess they removed her from the page. You can still see her in the "From the Pens of Delta Gammas" in this pdf. (Page 29 of the publication, page 16 of the pdf) The cached link used to work, but I guess no longer. Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured she was a member. Just trying to find references for stuff and clean-up the existing ones. Not surprised that Delta Gamma seems to have 'downplayed' her membership a bit, considering all the controversy she's involved in,... Dr. Cash 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A tiny bit of discussion is also above. Not much help, but thought it wise to have a note to that talk as well. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work, you two! Thoroughly and rationally discussed, and I cannot detect your points of view about Ms. Coulter. Lou Sander 12:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Naturally?"

Since the publisher and syndicate could have fired Coulter, the insertion by Malber of the word "naturally" - as in "they naturally have defended Coulter's work" or words to that effect - is pure POV assserted as fact. No way! Knock it off. ____G_o_o_d____ 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Religious Views

This subject has grown to take up half of her Biography. That's way too much, IMHO. I'm in favor of keeping only the first paragraph, and either deleting the others or moving them to their own section further down in the article. Such a section would fit well immediately before "Political activities." Lou Sander 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea on the move, not sure about the trim but it does seem to be too long. I'm sure we can hash out which ones should be kept and which ones should be removed with a little discussion. Specifically, I'd say the quote on premarital sex is rather muddled and doesn't seem to fit well, while the mention of the quote from scripture in Godless (the "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie" bit) speaks to her assertion that Christianity fuels her writings, so I'd say that bit's notable. Kasreyn 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved "Religious views" into its own section, after "Media career." (Decided not to leave the first paragraph in "Biography," since it didn't look as good there.) Now the article moves from Biography into Media career, (which extends her life story into her recent notable activities), into Religious views, (which is part of her life story mostly visible from her writings and closely related to them, and therefore follows them), into Political activities, (which is more life history stuff that seems to fit here), into Allegations of improper conduct, (which are serious issues, and the first to involve outside criticism of her), to Notable controversies, (which are a bit less serious, and also about outside criticism), to another section on outside criticism, to the general sections that end up the article. I mention all this stuff to show what is, IMHO, the natural and logical flow of the article as it is after the move. Lou Sander 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kasreyn 06:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It's another proof that GMTA. ;-) Lou Sander 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Do any other editors besides Lou and I have anything to say on the subject of whether, or how much, the religious views section should be trimmed? Kasreyn 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I like the work ya'll are doing and the direction it's heading. If I have an objection or other comment I won't be shy about speaking up. :) --ElKevbo 22:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lou Sander says: I'm thinking that the section could be trimmed quite a bit. Suggestions:

Coulter openly professes her Christian religious beliefs. At one public lecture she proclaimed her faith in Jesus Christ, saying: "I don't care about anything else: Christ died for my sins and nothing else matters."[25] Time magazine's John Cloud also reported that he attended a service at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City with Coulter, where she worships and often brings guests.[2]

When asked during an interview about the morality of non-marital sex, she replied: "Christians are the most tolerant people in the world—because we know there's original sin. We know people do bad things. But it seems to me it's a much worse thing to go around saying that it isn't a sin to commit a sin. I mean—at least feel guilty about it."[1]

She has stated that her Christian faith, "fuels everything," she writes, and that it particularly fuels her book Godless.[26] In that book, Coulter says in a footnote, "Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others." Coulter has stated: "Although my Christianity is somewhat more explicit in this book (Godless), Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism."[26]

In a commentary on Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" she wrote: "Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity. (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed')."[27]

Coulter also quotes Christian scripture in her work. Godless begins with: "They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the creator.... Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor, for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature. — Romans 1:25-26"

Some of the transitions could be better, but I didn't want to cloud things up with them right now.

On the deleted stuff: 1) Sex: not notable in the context of a biographical encyclopedia article. 2) "fuels everything": some is repeated later; the rest is from a footnote, and is therefore probably not worthy of mention. 3) "As opposed to...": Inflammatory stuff that detracts from the point being made, plus we already have a boatload of anti-muslim stuff (see below about losinthe point).

I'd maybe get rid of the whole Mel Gibson paragraph, except that she definitely isn't nice to people, and some think that's grossly incompatible with Christianity. This corrects that misperception. The "smell bad" stuff isn't central to the point. In the paragraph before that one, the "do battle" stuff, similarly, makes explicit the connection between her religion and what she does in her work.

As changed, we'd have a section that: 1) Editorially states that she's a Christian. 2) Quotes her basic profession of faith. 3) Discusses her church attendance (not a huge deal, but readers might be curious). 4) ID's her religion as her fuel, and quotes her on what it fuels her to do. 5) Explains that niceness isn't central to her religion. And finally, 6) gives an explicit example of Christianity in her work. Lou Sander 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say either keep the entire Gibson quote, or delete the whole thing; keeping the part where Coulter outlines a positive guideline, but deleting the part where she immediately fails to follow that guideline herself, risks losing out on one of Coulter's many "jokes".  ;) The only other quibble I have is that I think we should keep the sentence on her claim that Christianity "fuels" her work, and the source for that claim - I think that sentence should go first in the section, because it's the real reason we even have a section on her religious views, ie., it's why the section is notable. All the rest of the material you struck, I would support removing. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should see what people say about what stays and what should go, then rearrange and polish it. Lou Sander 00:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just some initial thoughts, I think we should eliminate the whole Gibson quote, as removing the second part alters the entire context of the joke. This is not really descriptive of her belief in Christianity, so I'd sooner see it go than stay, as long as it was under the part about her views on people from the Middle East. --kizzle 01:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I removed some NPOV material and irrelevant material, and I would like to comment that this page is not as NPOV as it should be. I hope that I helped. Neutronium 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind being more specific? What is so POV? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of avoiding the abbreviations "POV" and "NPOV" when discussing this article. If somebody thinks that something does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view, I'm in favor of their explaining why. That helps the rest of us understand what they are talking about. Lou Sander 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a few minor things in the "Jersey Girls" section caught my eye. Namely, the line "The partisan activities of the, 'Jersey Girls' have also been documented by other observers." seems kinda irrelevant; the only reason I can think of for it's inclusion would be to make a point about the Jersey Girls. I think that an article about Ann Coulter should only contain material relevant to Ann Coulter. The Jersey Girls' activities can go somewhere else. Also, the line "makes no apologies" kinda sticks out to me as something she herself would say, and should probably be omitted or replaced with something like 'defends her stance'. But anyways, that's just me... Neutronium 01:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not really an NPOV issue, it's a notability issue. The reason for the inclusion of the section on the Jersey Girls is due to a recent controversy over Coulter's comments on the Jersey Girls, which went so far as to earn her not one but two scalding remarks on the floor of Congress itself. Now that's what I call controversy. I would say that if we're interested in reporting on controversies involving Coulter, this article would definitely be the place for it. Unless there were an "Ann Coulter Controversies" article. Kasreyn 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kasreyn. The Jersey Girls stuff definitely belongs in the Coulter article: it's current, it's a controversy, it's the kind of thing Coulter often gets involved with. I think that the stuff about other people ID'ing the girls as partisan is important in putting this controversy into context. "Annie ain't the only one saying some of this stuff, she's just saying it more rudely," ya might say. Lou Sander 03:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken I suppose Neutronium 06:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Coulter on Women

Can anyone explain why this entire section was removed? It has been in the article for a long, long time. There have been disputed over what should be in it, but I don't recall anyone arguing the entire section should just be deleted. Kasreyn 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I've long wondered why it was there. Maybe somebody thought it wasn't very important. I suppose that Coulter definitely said all those things, but who cares? Is she noted for her comments about women? (IMHO, no.) Do encyclopedias usually regurgiate a bunch of a subject's words on a topic, without discussing why that topic is important in the subject's work? (IMHO, no.) Could readers infer that showing a bunch of well-sourced quotes "against" women means that Coulter is an anti-woman sexist? (IMHO, yep.) Should we make a special effort NOT to include things that might erroneously be interpreted as trying to paint someone in a negative light? (IMHO, yep.) Lou Sander 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I care. And as far as I'm aware, her comments sparked a good deal of outrage. Is it survey figures you want from me or something? As far as I can tell, "notability" is wrangled out between editors based on common sense and their gut feelings. I've never seen any really objective standards proposed for determining it. And I feel Coulter's comments about women are notable. I can't speak for anyone else.

You ask, what use are a "bunch of a subject's words". Here's a use: Ann Coulter is a polemecist, self-described. She makes her living off of saying outrageous things. Whether you see her as a vindictive hate merchant or a brilliantly witty satirist, either way you slice it, she makes her living off of saying outrageous things. Throughout the article, we cite sources who say essentially that - "Coulter says outrageous things to make a living." So I ask, why do you think the article would be complete without examples of what we are discussing? In the article on Degas, some photos of paintings would be in order. In the article on Lance Armstrong, a discussion of his favorite custom bikes might be handy. In the article on Ann Coulter, some examples of the more widely remarked-upon of her stock-in-trade: polemics, and the reactions thereto.

You say that you feel it is incumbent upon us to make a "special effort" to avoid anything that might be "interpreted" as trying to paint Coulter in a negative light. But consider for a moment: what if Coulter really were, as some people believe, a truly bad and awful person? (Hypothetical, mind you.) Would we then also be required to avoid anything that could be interpreted as trying to paint her in a negative light? The NPOV policy mainly refers to the verbiage used, but there is a section on "Undue weight". It essentially says that if in the real world, one viewpoint on a subject is more widespread than another, we should give proportionate amounts of our time and space for those viewpoints. (This is my interpretation of the Undue weight section. If I'm mistaken, the following reasoning of course, would be voided.)

So the question is, what is the balance of opinion on Coulter out there, in "real world" land? What proportionate balance should we be emulating? Note that I've raised this issue here before, if I'm not mistaken, and don't recall engendering any real debate. No one was interested. I doubt I can judge this sort of thing based merely on personal experience. An overwhelming majority of people I have spoken to offline have expressed to me negative opinions of Ann Coulter, ranging from the garden variety "she's right about some things but she's way over the top" to "she's an evil fascist b****", etc., etc. But perhaps I move in rarefied circles. Perhaps I have asked all the wrong people by sheer chance. Perhaps I have an unconscious talent for only asking people who dislike Ann Coulter. I'm willing to acknowledge all these possibilities. But the problem remains: how do we at this article figure out what the balance of opinion on Coulter is, and represent it proportionately? Aaagh!!

Frankly, I can't keep up. This article has gone through roughly 50 edits a day for weeks now. It's too much to cope with. I previously had my hands full just reverting the jagoffs who thought it would be cute to insert "Ann Coulter is a C***". Then there are the editors who obstinately refuse to engage in any dialogue or collaboration unless you kick and scream and hold your breath (and revert). Then, you get a grudging and terse reply, and whee, they're back to the 30 edits in a row with practically no edit summaries! In particular, 136./84./whoever the hell he is today appears to have very little interest in debate or obtaining any consensus. No offense, Lou, because I think you're one of the saner and nicer people at this talk page, but you and him put together do not equal consensus.

I'm at my wit's end. There is a poisonous atmosphere at this article. There is not enough communication between editors, not enough collaboration, and certainly not very much in the way of consensus for many of the recent changes. And this isn't necessarily because all those changes are "bad"; hell, most of them would probably have consensus if there was time to ask people what they thought, or if anyone bothered to. I'm sure I would have agreed to quite a few of them if anyone had tried to persuade me. Most editors here, myself included, are reasonable and can be debated with and convinced of points. That sort of discussion is how we forge a consensus article out of our varying knowledge, experiences, and viewpoints. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. But no, apparently no one can stand to wait around and TALK when there's reverting and blanking to be done. By definition you can't know whether an edit has consensus if you never bother to stop and ask anyone.

So tell me, Lou. You're a teacher. How do YOU deal with a situation like the one I've described? Best regards, Kasreyn 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How I deal with it. The biggest way I deal with it is to avoid making substantive edits myself. I just put out what I think are sound facts and well-grounded opinions, and hope that people agree. It's pretty hard to get agreement on the talk page, even to very uncontroversial proposals, but sometimes somebody will make a substantive and unreverted edit that seems to have considered my (hopefully) sound facts and well-grounded opinions.

When I do make an edit, I try to include a fairly thorough edit summary, and often to explain it further on the Talk page. I hope that doing such will not only help the edit not be reverted, but also might inspire others to do likewise.

Also, I avert my eyes when a part of the article is, IMHO, just outrageously stupid, biased, or whatever. No sense shoveling sand against the million gallon oil spill.

Stupidity (IMHO). My favorite stupid part of the article is the business about kente cloth (now titled Confederate flag, and not as stupid as it once was, but still reasonably stupid). When I first saw it, it presented a quote about "kinte cloth" in such a light to show Coulter as saying nasty things about Negroes (that racist b****!!!). One of my very first edits was to fix the red link by making it kente cloth (Hey, not every encyclopeddia editer knows how to spel, expecially when dealing evenhandedly with a racist idiot like Ann Coulter!!!)

Later on, I looked at the reference, and found that it was a column about the Confederate flag. It argues (as I recall it) that the flag stands for a great many good and wonderful things, that its "racist" aspect is minor and pretty much made up, and that those who promote condemning it as a racist symbol are loony liberals full of hot air. The mention of kente cloth is just a small part of the column, used to illustrate liberal one-sidedness: "if C.F. is demeaned by liberal loons because of its minor connection to slavery, why are they not also demeaning K.C., which has a similar connection to slavery? And even more, why are the same liberal loons promoting K.C. as a glorious symbol of historical pride?"

IMHO, the kente example is trivial and not worth mentioning, unless of course, somebody wants to make Coulter into a racist by quoting her words out of context. (That context being a long column showing that liberals demean the Confederate flag on loony grounds that are full of hot air.)

It was as if the Emancipation Proclamation had used the word "darky" in one minor paragraph, and a bunch of editors thought the use of the word was the really important thing about the Proclamation.

The kente stuff is still in that part of the article, but at least it's not the highly-emphasized big deal it used to be. (I'm thankful for small favors.)

Coulter on women. On the women quotes, I acknowledge that you and your many acquaintances find them them outrageous and notable, and that you do so on grounds that are very important to each of you and all of you, and that you care very deeply about the subject at hand. But until I see a bunch of stuff showing that Congressmen denounced a group of Coulter anti-woman quotes, or that CNN did a show on Coulter's anti-woman side, or that credible people did some articles on it, or something similar, I'm not going to agree that they're notable enough to put in an encyclopedia article about her.

She says a lot of outrageous stuff, and she's an equal opportunity offender, but IMHO, she mostly attacks/makes arguments against liberals and Democrats and their (according to her powerful, well-reasoned arguments) loony ideas and behavior. I keep wondering when that stuff, (the meat of her work), instead of her outrageous obiter dicta will work its way into our encyclopedia.

I also observe that the article is not in any way lacking examples of Coulter's polemical style. And I think that picking out 27 anti-ostrich quotes and putting them in a section on "Coulter on ostriches" would be something more than an effort to demonstrate her polemical style.

"Undue Weight." I think that the world at large is divided about Coulter. Maybe 50-50, maybe 80-20 (I'm not sure in which direction.) Many hate her and many love her, and it's our job not to emphasize one or the other view just because we and all our friends hold it, or because we feel it's so very obvious, or meritorious, or blessed by our personal gods, or whatever. Lou Sander 14:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)\

This article is still riddled with POV potshots at Coulter. Editors who hate her feel the need to fill the article with comments or quotes they think make her look bad. But that is not what this article is for. It is to provide objecitve factual information in a neutral way. The article could be filled with comments in praise of Coulter just as easily as it could be filled with critiques. Sadly, those who hate her are way too excited about including the latter. As usual, despite her obvious popularity, some editors feel that the mainstream view is that she is a hated bitch and want the article to read that way. 136.221.66.16

Please don't try to paint yourself as guardian of neutrality. It's not convincing. A choice gem from today: "a liberal fat comedian slings mud at her, so what? why should a bio include such trash?" I dunno, maybe because Al Franken's criticism, in his book "Lies and the..." etc., has been widely published and read and is therefore notable? You say our job is to provide objective factual information. That is what you have been removing, such as Franken's criticism (reported in as NPOV a manner as I've ever seen), the kente cloth furor that Lou went to the trouble to fix (and which IMO is one of the only reasonable things Coulter has ever said), and on and on.

Get it through your head. This encyclopedia operates on consensus, NOT unilateralism. I shouldn't have pussyfooted around the topic in my above comment, I should have been clearer that I was largely referring to you when I spoke of editors who do not bother to try to establish consensus for their changes. I can tell you this, though, with certainty. Either you will begin to discuss major changes beforehand with your fellow editors, or your edits will be seen as vandalism and treated as such, as they rightly have been today. Frankly, I don't care which you wind up choosing. Kasreyn 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to touch all this debate with a 20 foot pole, but I just thought that I'd point out that I removed the 'Coulter on Women' section recently, because it was only a collection of quotes, most of which were already on her Wikiquote article. So I moved the one quote that wasn't to wikiquote and deleted the section. If you think you have something more to write on that topic, please do so, but also please do more than just citing a bunch of quotes that are better put elsewhere. Dr. Cash 17:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Doc, I think you offer a good justification for removing the 'Coulter on women' section, and I'm not displeased that you moved it. I'm not a wikiquote expert, but it seems to me that quotations belong in a book on quotations. Lou Sander 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable controversies

I restored this heading over the Colleges stuff, the Jersey Girls, and the bombing the Times stuff. Those three have been pretty heavily discussed, and are widely agreed (IMHO) to be past or present controversies (follow the link, please), and to be notable, either because of repeated student uprisings, or especially strong reaction by public figures, TV folk, etc.

The various topics covered in the next section (I called it "Other criticisms," but maybe there's something better) either do not represent controversies, or are maybe not highly notable, or both.

All this stuff has been thoroughly discussed up above. Though there may or may not be consensus about it, at least all who read this page can have an understanding of the rationale behind these things. Lou Sander 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Raw Story: Acceptable Reference?

It looks like several people seem to want to add the following reference from The Raw Story to the 'plagiarism' section:

Brynaert, Ron. "More examples of 'possible plagiarism' from Coulter's 'Godless' book." The Raw Story. July 10, 2006.

To me, I don't think this particular reference follows the guidelines of reliable sources, as this is a very controversial and politically motivated publication, and relatively new as well, being founded only in 2004. What do others think? Personally, I would much rather see a more conventional source mentioned for the particular area that is being referenced. Dr. Cash 17:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the part of the article in question, and I don't know enough about The Raw Story to have an opinion one way or another about them. If they are anything higher than absolute garbage, I would NOT be strongly opposed to including them as a reference, on the grounds that we should try to give all opinions fair exposure. But I would BE strongly opposed to putting their rants (or anybody's) into the article itself (or paraphrasing their rants in rant-like words, etc.). Lou Sander 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Raw Story, but the information in the article looked sound and the WP article on RS makes it seem like a solid news organization. Gamaliel 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is in regards to the plagiarism section. If so, it's important to include this to illustrate who made allegations of plagiarism. Raw Story gives evidence to their allegations, so it's not just a "liberal" rant. It also backs up the story from the NY Post so it doesn't look like just one person is making allegations. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rush

The words "Rush", "Limbaugh", and "miniskirt" should be kept paragraphs apart at all times. It sickens me, and makes me desire to end it all.

I'll admit, those two words used in the same sentence are a bit scary,... hehehe. I definitely do not EVER want to see the REAL Rush Limbaugh in a mini skirt (the goggles really will do nothing there)! But given the context in this case, I think it helps the article to have a comparison to not only Rush Limbaugh but also Michael Moore, as both are particular well known for their highly critical views. Dr. Cash 20:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph

I don't really love "controversial" in this paragraph. Although it DOES describe her, IMHO lead paragraphs in encyclopedias don't include adjectives like that. She's an "author," and that belongs in there. She's a "bestselling author," and that probably belongs in there, just because it focuses a little better on what kind of author she is. (Not "struggling," or "science fiction," or "academic," for example.) "Controversial," etc. comes out throughout the article, but maybe it could be explicitly covered in a mild, factual sentence or two immediately following the "Media career" heading.

I'd be VERY much in favor of removing "former litigator with the Center For Individual Rights" from this paragraph, too. Reasons: 1) Yes, I know it's an accurate statement, and it isn't unimportant, but it's not what she's noted for rignt now; it's a fairly minor chapter in her past. 2) It IS mentioned later on, in the "Education and early career" section of her Biography. It belongs there, and it's not notable enough also to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Lou Sander 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading the lead paragraph again, I'm thinking that the rest of the paragraph adequately conveys the idea of "controversial" -- the stuff about polemecist, Moore, and Limbaugh do it pretty well, IMHO. And I still think the "former litigator" stuff needs to be deleted. Lou Sander 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your second point but not your first. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that controversy has been foundational to her success and noteability. Maybe she is intelligent, persuasive, and original enough to have succeeded without courting controversy. But she has chosen a different path in life and I think it's important to state that in the introduction. --ElKevbo 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "controversial" is fine. I was the one who added it (probably back) a while ago. It describes her perfectly. Regarding the former litigator stuff, to quote Bread: It don't matter to me. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

ElKev and LV -- I'm not saying it isn't warranted or isn't important -- it just seems that it's a bit unsuitable in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article. Most such sentences are dry and factual, no matter how heroic, evil, or controversial the subject. They just say "AAA is a B, C, and D." Babe Ruth's first sentence doesn't mention home runs, for example. Also look at Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh, and even Adolph Hitler. The first sentence is short and limited to basic facts. Then the other stuff is brought in. In fact, the Michael Moore lead paragraph might be a good model for the Ann Coulter one. Lou Sander 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I would understand if you or someone else removed the adjective for the sake of consistency with other articles. I still don't agree with your point but you've provided clear evidence that I am in the minority (I would probably support changes in those other articles but I am positive that such change would not be consistent with the consensus of other editors). --ElKevbo 22:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I found an article about somebody even more polemical than Ann Coulter, and every bit as well-known. I kind of like the way the lead sentence just presents the facts as they apply today. (No historical stuff about jobs held many years ago, for example.) No adjectives except where absolutely necessary. The sentences immediately after the lead maintain a similar tone and content. Who is this controversial person? CLICK HERE to find out. Lou Sander 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic NPOV essence of the plagiarism thing

This is the NPOV version of the facts with proper weight for a biogrpahical encyclopedia article:

• Critics claim there are several instances of plagiarism in Coulter's book Godless and other examples in her syndicated columns. Both the publisher of Godless and the syndicate that distributes Coulter's weekly column have dismissed the allegations as meritless.

84.146.253.64

IMHO, 84 etc. has capably written this material for a proper encyclopedia. It is limited to facts. Its length is appropriate to the weight of the matter under discussion. There are references to both the critics and the defenders. And, above all, the material, its presentation, and everything about it bear not even a hint of the encyclopedia's point of view about the merits of either side. Thank you very much, 84 etc., whoever you may be.

Now, everybody, take a close look at the subsection entitled "Coulter on Arabs and muslims." Does anybody think it might need a little work? Lou Sander 02:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel the subject of the allegations of plagiarism deserves a bit more explanation than a brusque "someone said something and someone else said nunh-uh". I'm certain a way can be found to do so which is NPOV. Kasreyn 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not limited to facts. It is free of facts, which have all been taken out and replaced with vague allusions to events. Gamaliel 05:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. Kasreyn 06:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are to build consensus, it's important that we agree on basic terminology. There are some important disagreements here. I see the passage as totally factual and absoluetly free of vagueness. Others see it differently.

The passage in question is quoted a few inches above. Could someone please help by showing why "Critics claim there are several instances of plagiarism in Coulter's book... is "free of facts." (Use another extract from the passage if you like.) It would also be helpful to know what parts of the passage or its references ("allusions?") are thought by some to be vague. Lou Sander 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with specifically identifying the "critic"? Why is "critics claim" superior to "John Barrie of iThenticate"? Why this drive to remove the specific facts? Gamaliel 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the anon (84.whatever) seems to claim in his edit summaries that citing the maker of iThenticate - a program designed to catch plagiarism - amounts to "advertising" that product, a belief I couldn't disagree with more. Personally, I would think an expert on plagiarism-catching software would be precisely the sort of person who would count as a reliable source. Kasreyn 01:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree, per lack of Wikipedia:No_advertising. --kizzle 02:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it really were inserted just to advertise something, I'd think it would fall under WP:SPAM. The fundamental difference of opinion here is that the anon feels the mention of Barrie and his software is "advertising", and I feel it's quoting a source on a notable subject. Kasreyn 02:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

True, I should have actually enunciated my point :) ... removing info that is actually germane to the topic due to considerations for advertising is wrong, unless it's "iAuthenticate, now available at a low low price of blah... this sunday sunday sunday only!" --kizzle 04:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should specifically identify the critic. The vague term "critics" is a textbook example of a weasel term. I admire the struggle for conciseness and agree the statement/section should be as brief as possible to accurately address the topic but I don't think identifying the specific critic(s) adds unjustifiably to the length. --ElKevbo 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo: It isn't a weasel term at all -- there are references (three of them, I think) that specifically identify the critics and detail what they have to say. Also, this critic and his firm aren't exactly household words (in other words, what they say isn't highly notable). Also, encyclopedias aren't like tabloids that reproduce every word in a quarrel -- they summarize important issues, and in the case of online encyclopedias, they provide links for those who want to know more.

Gamaliel: Why do you answer a question with a question? ("Free of facts?" "Vagueness?") I really would like help in understanding why people hold those beliefs about the paragraph at the top of this section. Lou Sander 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If what they say isn't noteable then why is it in Wikipedia at all? --ElKevbo 01:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo: It's notable that an important author has been accused of plagiarism and that the accusations have appeared in newspapers. It's notable that her publishers have investigated the accusations and dismissed them. Encyclopedias sometimes report things like that, at least while they're in the news.

Encyclopedias do NOT report the details of things like that -- the specific accusations, their number, their source, etc. -- because the nature of an encyclopedia is to be neutral and to stay above the fray. (Show us a few examples if you disagree.) Online encyclopedias have the advantage of including links to all this stuff, so readers can follow them and make their own judgments. Lou Sander 02:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal would seem to turn any article dealing with accusations into a repository for links, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Neutrality can still be achieved without whitewashing details, as long as due weight is considered. The answer is not to "NOT report the details of things like that" but to make sure each side is given a chance. Of course, we want to be smart about it and not write an article where 80% of Ann Coulter's life are these charges of plagiarism, especially when her publisher defended her. But 84's proposal and your approval of such is not the way to go. --kizzle 02:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something here. Would somebody please provide links to two or three other Wikipedia articles where this sort of thing goes on? (Reporting the details of contemporary accusations against the subject of the article, devoting entire sections to criticisms of his/her work, etc.?) Lou Sander 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill_Clinton#Monica_Lewinsky, Air_America_Radio#Controversies (implication according to Matt Drudge? Priceless), Al_Franken#Controversies, if by contemporary you mean within the last few months I can't for the life of me think of a current accusation scandal, maybe you can supply a counterpoint? Also, pointing at other articles does not justify the content here (otherwise I'll simply go to the page you cite and change the content to fit my point ;) )--kizzle 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle: Thank you for the links. The controversies in Franken and Air America are kind of like those in the Coulter article's "Major controversies" section -- more or less thorough discussions of big deals, including both sides, written after the dust had settled. The one in Clinton is the same, but in a class by itself due to its huge weight.

You gave me what I asked for, but what I'm really looking for elsewhere is the focus on minor utterances or events, current and past, presented in a way that is negative to the subject of the article, and easily seen as being in the article because of their negativity. By "contemporary," I was trying to exclude scandals of the past like Watergate, ABSCAM, Lewinsky, Teapot Dome, etc. I refer you here for a notable contemporary scandal that is covered as it should be, IMHO: in a separate article, with lots of discussion, etc. Also see here. Are these things anything like those in the Ann Coulter article?

Some specific sections of the Coulter article that I believe are unlike anything seen elsewhere are: 1) The plagiarism bit, when it includes details of the accuser(s), their companies, etc., but not when it omits them. 2) Coulter on domestic separatists. 3) Coulter on Arabs and muslims. 4) Confederate flag.

IMHO, none of the above are notable, none belong in an encyclopedia, none present anything but the slightest discussion of a tiny event(s), if even that, etc. It is very hard for me to see a neutral viewpoint in any of them. (Yes, a lot of them are well sourced. That doesn't mean their effect is neutral. Individually and collectively, their effect is to embarrass the subject of the article.) Lou Sander 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What about:

• Critics, such as John Barrie of iThenticate, claim there are several instances of plagiarism in Coulter's book Godless and other examples in her syndicated columns. Barrie claims to have found at least three instances of plagiarism in "Godless" as well as several more instances in her weekly column using his proprietary plagiarism detection software. Both the publisher of Godless and the syndicate that distributes Coulter's weekly column have dismissed the allegations as meritless. Lee Salem, editor and president of Universal Press Syndicate, defended Coulter against such accusations by saying that "there are only so many ways you can rewrite a fact and minimal matching text is not plagiarism."

Feel free to change any minor mistakes above, but you get the gist. --kizzle 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

kizzle, I think this is a good paragraph. And you know where I'm coming from. ;-) I changed the software to it's actual title though, "iThenticate". --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

Taking a look at the 'external links' section, we could probably trim these down a bit. I don't have a problem with the three links at the beginning, and the 'column archives' seems to be appropriate as well. But there seems to be a lot of stuff we possibly could trim up under the 'book reviews' and 'interviews' sections. Some of these could have something written up in the article and moved over to the 'references' section; like Flatulent Raccoon Theory or the fifth estate. Others come from somewhat questionable sources (spinsanity.org, talkreason.org, countercurrents.org, crooksandliars.com). Not so sure that these follow WP:RS guidelines. Dr. Cash 21:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the three links at the beginning and on the column archives.

I don't find anything of merit in "Book reviews and criticism." If they're book reviews, they belong in the articles on her books. If the links say stuff like "screed" and "new low," readers might infer that this article fails to present a neutral point of view. All else I looked at was inappropriate to be referenced from an encyclopedia. (I didn't look at everything, though.)

I only glanced at the "Interviews." Some of them might be useful for understanding Ann Coulter, but they don't seem to be of encyclopedia quality. Do other biographical articles include interviews?

Also the section above "External links," called "Further reading," has nothing at all of merit. It deserves to die. Lou Sander 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberal != unreliable. Crooksandliars.com is mostly a repository for video links from news sources, so I'm not sure how that violates WP:RS. An attempt should be made to view the article and make sure it's not someone going "Ann Coulter sucks because she's a bitch", but rather "Ann Coulter's source on page 136 removes the context, here's her source with the context put in"... as long as the claims meet WP:V I think the links should stay in. --kizzle 03:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the external links that aren't officially related to Ann herself should be removed. See WP:EL ... all the book reviews shouldn't be there and the interviews. There's no need for them. --EmmSeeMusic 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I highly disagree with your conclusion. Interviews and notable book reviews should not be on a page about a notable author? --kizzle 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No they should not, look @ Stephen King's page and other "notable" authors. They stick to official links. If you're going to have reviews and interviews, have 2 of each... from professional respected reviewers that give a "good review" and a "bad review" same with the interviews: from WP:EL - "For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment." --EmmSeeMusic 00:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You do realize the policy refers to articles on "albums, movies, books" which is substantially different from articles on authors of these works. In addition, Stephen King is not as controversial as Coulter, nor are his works a) non-fiction or b) contain highly disputed assertions. --kizzle 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

More reason they shouldn't be there if they're just reviewing her as an author and not a specific work. I'm just trying to keep the article clean of links to sub-par websites that have no business being linked to from an encyclopedia. --EmmSeeMusic 00:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I was responding to your assertion that "all the book reviews shouldn't be there." The policy you cited states no such thing, as it wouldn't make sense to limit one book review on an author's page who has multiple books. Secondly, the interviews do add something to the article that mere prose cannot, and is once again not prohibited by the policy you refer to. What links specifically are you talking about that link to "sub-par" websites? --kizzle 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't see the complexity in the WP:EL article. You can read it yourself. It clearly speaks about what should be allowed for External Links and what shouldn't be. CrooksandLiars.com - TheRationalRadical.com - SpinSanity.com - WhatLiberalMedia.com ... I could go on. Those websites clearly do not meet the standards that the WP:EL sets forth.

It would help me, and I'm sure it would help others, if editors would be more specific about what parts of Wikipedia policies they are talking about. Sometimes I can't follow what they are saying.

I agree with those who don't want this article to include links to book reviews. Each of Ann Coulter's books has its own article, and the book review links should appear there, not in the article about the author. WP:EL says, under OCCASIONALLY ACCEPTABLE LINKS, For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. This article isn't about a book. Neither are the links typically to "professional reviews" -- for the most part, they are links to opinion columns with strong anti-Coulter points of view, dedicated not to reviewing Coulter's books, but to bashing them.

Under WHAT SHOULD BE LINKED TO, WP:EL says On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. The number of links dedictated to anti-Coulter points of view is six. The number dedicated to pro-Coulter points of view is two (maybe). Only one link has a detailed explanation, and that is to an anti-Coulter site. Lou Sander 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For me, the bottom line of WP:EL is that if there are external links, they should be small in number, directly applicable to the article, explained in detail, and balanced as to point of view. The links in this article do not comply with that. The effect, for me, is that in its choice of External Links, Wikipedia is presenting an anti-Coulter point of view. I say: Be bold, Dr. Cash! Lou Sander 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, no book reviews. Pro or Con, they should all be on the actual books sites. It clutters the article and makes it look unprofessional when there's links to non-professional or sites. --EmmSeeMusic 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotations section

Someone removed the quotations section citing a discussion that took please in the archive. I have taken a look at that discussion and despite what this person may believe there was anything but consensus reached. As such I am renewing the discussion in the hope of achieving this goal. Quite simply these quotations, or soundbites are Coulter's trademark. Almost every media appearance involving her leads in with one of her intentionally massively over the top and completely outlandish statements. Whether it be about the 9/11 wives (or Jersey girls) enjoying their husbands' deaths or bombing the NY Post building or Liberals being Goddless and worse than terroists; she uses these statements for their shock value to gain more media attention. They are an integral part of Coulter's MO and I think that this article leaves a gapping whole in describing Coulter if left out. - Glen 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Quotes should be worked into the content of the article if they are truly necessary. Quotes that can not or should not be worked into other content explaining their context and why they are noteable should, at best, be put into Wikiquote. --ElKevbo 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm not sure how we'd work statements about Bill Clinton's mastabatory habits, or anorexics having/not having boyfriends into the article's content - yet its these exact kind of statements that get her into cable news shows or onto the front page of the political papers... she is so incredibly blatant in her use of such statements for publicity that they cannot not form part of her bio. I am curious, what harm do you think such a section causes? - Glen 15:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If these kinds of statements are indeed why she is famous then *that* fact needs to be cited. In the course of citing that it may be helpful or appropriate to also include some examples as those would surely also be in the cited source or directly referred to by the cited source. To otherwise state that "she's famous because of ___" is WP:OR regardless of how obvious such a statement may seem to some people.

An entire section of quotations presented without context or explanation is a magnet for POV and OR since there must be justification (i.e. noteability) for their inclusion beyond the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. --ElKevbo 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It did take place (almost once a month for a year+ now), and almost every time most people have said that an indiscriminate list of quotations shouldn't be there. For awhile it was just trying to par the list down to a workable number (6 was the common suggestion), then we moved away from this unencyclopedic version, and started working the quotations into the body of the article. This helped with flow and style. It also helps prevent things from being taken out-of-context. See Wikipedia:Quotations for a proposed guideline on this subject, and more discussion on why WP is NOT a random list of quotations (i.e. Wikiquote). Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I am aware of WP:QUOTE and that "Second, editors should try and work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand alone quote section." - however I remain steadfast in my opinion that Coulter is one of the rare exceptions where such a section is relevant. Again, I fail to see how we'd work subjects such as Bill Clinton's mastabatory habits, or anorexics having/not having boyfriends or her opinion that God gave us the earth for us "to rape" into the article - yet, again, these are the EXACT types of sound bytes that get her into the news on a daily basis. She uses these outlandish little blurbs so blatantly that they are most definitely notable. I am happy to work these into the article but I think that would require such a dramatic skew off topic in order to be worked in that a stand alone section is the most sensible way to note them. Look forward to your thoughts. - Glen 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Voldemort. Raul654 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Her quotations are definitely one of Coulter's trademarks, so there's more than the usual justification for keeping some of them. But IMHO they need to be in the context of the discussion that prompted them. Usually, the quotations are just the exclamation point at the end of a discussion of something notable. I'm in favor of having just a few of them, carefully explained, and each instance presented from a neutral point of view. Lou Sander 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for a quotes section in a Wiki article, I vote to take the whole "Ann Coulter on" section out. People can find a million websites with just Ann quotes. --EmmSeeMusic 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)