Talk:Ann Coulter

Archives

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

---

Out of Control

This article is out of control. It displays the worst tendencies of Wikipedia. In 10 years time, this person will be barely remembered. Why is this article longer and better researched than Einstein or Lincoln? Why the incessant desire to flaunt opinions about current events? This is an encylopedia, not a blog.

That is a really good point. I have followed this discussion for months and made a couple contributions. It's clear there are die hard fans and detractors who will continuously fight. Anyone sayng the page looks good is nuts. The attempt to create a section titled 'faggots' stands out. Also the CBC issue was especially noteable. Case in point, all the irrelevant material on the CBC Vietnam comment. At the time every other q&a she was in had a fan stand up (like this was actually helping her) and offer the points about Canadian peacekeepers and such. At the one I was at at Florida she made jokes and then said basically that's not what I meant, I was wrong, I've said as much, let's move on. Separate but similar comments were referenced in the UofT paper. But here the issue is misrepresented. Her detractors and her supporters both have little reasonable perspective.

Perhaps because Einstein and Lincoln are not alive and still generating new news that is documented before the entire public in their daily news consumption, thereby providing plenty of sourced information to be included? Further, Coulter is a contemporary advocate for a political party as well as a source cited and provided air-time on a number of national outlets and has an ongoing impact on politics and American life. Why should such a person not be thoroughly covered? And why should any attempts be made to not include all aspects of their contributions? Why should her comments about calling multiple political candidates "f****ts" and calling Iraqi people "towelheads" be kept out? There are facts and non-facts. If something is a fact, then why cry "bias"? Should we only allow contributions to articles about people and topics that certain editors feel are acceptable? In ten years time, this person may barely be remembered. If every event and person was eternally memorable, what would the point of an encyclopedia be? And while you and I may not think she is very memorable, the fact that she was chosen (repeatedly) by one of the most prominent political gatherings of the year says that she is of some significance.

Cordell 02:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that Wikipedia did not exist in the days of Einstein and Lincoln, I think it's safe to say that if it did, we'd likely have more-detailed articles. That aside, given how "sensitive" people have become in the past few decades, it's easier to offend people, especially demonstrated by how PC our society has become, and what happens to people who "speak out of turn" like Coulter did; I doubt the same furor would have been incurred a few decades ago. I don't think Coulter will be "barely remembered" in ten years time, but that's because even though there are plenty of people like her out there, she's one of the few the mainstream media pays attention to. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The original poster does have a point that recent articles get way too much attention here. It seems that editors (myself included) have a tendency to want to add things they've heard or read to articles, without first analyzing whether it is relevant. That's why George W. Bush's article is almost three times as long as say Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, even though Jefferson and Washington are clearly more important and historically significant than Bush. But such is the nature of the beast. Persons and subjects who make the news in the present is emphasized more than persons and subjects in the past. Over time it is easier to comprehend whether an event or controversy should garner a mere sentence or a full section. But in the present there is no way to objectively figure that out. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, just have the article conform to events that actually was a defining moment in the person's life. Look at the celebrity article for Stacy Ferguson of the Black Eyed Peas to see what I'm talking about. She peed herself on stage, while funny has nothing to do with her career and no one can reference anything to the contrary. i'm sure that Lincoln must have done something embarassing. Maybe he sneezed all over the Gettysburg address. You wouldn't know from the article on Wiki but I sure know that George W. Bush recieved a drunk driving ticket when he was 30 and inexplicably the locked door incident? The hell? Its a real shame because when I come to Wiki I just scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the references to get the story on a subject. --Art8641 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards comments

File:MargaretHamiltoninTheWizardOfOz.jpg

Ann Coulter "demonized" as the Wicked Witch of the West with faggot (wood) in hand

It only distracts from the truth, try and find a OB-GYN in West Virginia, I guess a 'bundle of sticks' is more a threat to our well-being than proper medical care.

I suggest at least a week's moratorium on including this in the article to see the extent of coverage, if any, but here's another Coulter gem: Source w/Video

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot' – so... Kind of at an impasse. Can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions." - Coulter at this year's CPAC.

--kizzle 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits to the title of your post to avoid any BLP issues. This way the reader's know you are simply relaying Coulter's words. I hope there is no offense taken. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mine was a direct quote, so I don't see how that violated BLP (but no offense taken :) ). --kizzle 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Any (possible) BLP issues". I am not sure if it did or not, but I figured let's move on the safe side. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia, or a catalog of Coulter comments, anti-Coulter comments, and slurs from folks with agendas? Lou Sander 02:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant by "slurs from folks with agendas" (are you talking about kizzle or Ann Coulter?) but the remarks from the CPAC event have already generated note: [1] [2] [3]. That only within a day or so of it happening. I assume we're waiting a while to include it because it has yet to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. --Ubiq 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course he's talking about me. --kizzle 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Total wikiquotebait. Let's avoid recentism. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 04:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said let's wait a while to see if it gets picked up...if not, then pass it up. Just giving you guys a heads-up. P.S., I can't wait until someone tries to defend this comment. --kizzle 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of humorous as a play on both political correctness, the recent rehab spate of everyone and the feigned impasse. Vitriolic to be sure but not anything more than what is routinely thrown her way. It got picked up [4]. --Tbeatty 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like non-trivial coverage thanks to Howard Dean. Will probably become even more significant if Republican candidates comment on her remarks, but it should certainly find a home in the article now. Thanks for the tip, Kizzle, and thanks for waiting on reliable coverage. Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edit war, let's hold off on adding this if we even decide to add it at all until at least a week, so we have a good idea as to the media impact. As it stands, Fox News covered it, Editor and Publisher covered it, Michelle Malkin condemning it, Captain's Quarters condemning it, Howard Dean condemning it, Olbermann's show covered it, and more coming, this may have some weight to it. --kizzle 06:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The John Edwards comments are part of a pattern in her speech where she makes accusations about an individual's supposed homosexuality. It is a significant distinction within her style and since she is a unique political and social commentator the pattern deserves recognition. Since it has been used repeatedly, it has become a important and meaningful part of her message. Txjeffrey 07:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's part of political satire designed to needle her political opponents. --Tbeatty 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, she isn't a comedian she is a political partisan who is engaging in antilocution and hate speech in an attempt to degrade and intimidate he political opponents. It is not satire and to characterize it as such is misleading. Txjeffrey 15:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is not recognised as a political satirist, nor have any of her numerous controversial comments been interpreted or reported as satire in either the traditional media or online media. Her comments are clearly non-satirical. Kronix1986 17:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is we just don't know when she's being satirical or sarcastic. However, if we just stick to issues of whether this comment is notable, and simply report on what happened, the reader can decide for themselves whether it is "political satire" or "hate speech". --kizzle 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kizzle, I agree. My opinion is she isn't a satirist and her remarks are meant to belittle, not humor. But that isn't the main point of my argument which is this is another occurrence of a rhetorical pattern--part of a theme which I feel is now noteworthy because it has appeared repeatedly. Since yesterday two speakers at the conference have condemned her remarks which arguably gives her remarks more weight. Because she is unique among her peers with a unique style and with a wide following, I feel it is appropriate to present a thorough citation of her work.Txjeffrey 19:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The "theme" of her using derogatory terms towards homosexuals is something we may want to discuss if the passage ends up meriting inclusion, but let's hold off a while to avoid Kyaa's correct point about recentism, as we're not a news site and we need a better assessment of its notability. --kizzle 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have major concerns regarding recentism, the introduction of personal analysis and the fact that quotations should be placed on wikiquote, not here. Kyaa the Catlord 08:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For recentism, I agree. We need to hold off for a little while to assess the media impact and notability of the comment. I also agree that there shouldn't be any personal analysis calling it "hate speech" or anything else similar. However, if it ends up satisfying notability, then we only need to word it into prose and not just a naked quote, just like many of her other quotes that are contained within this article as well as wikiquote. --kizzle 18:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand, Kyaa. Many see this article and its discussion page as places to express their disdain for Ann Coulter. That is their total motivation. Lou Sander 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessary, Lou. Lots of people have worked hard to improve this article. --Ubiq 16:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To overlook the widespread opposition to her ideology and condemnation of her comments would be omitting crucial information from the article. The only "motivation" of people editing the article is to accurately and non-pejoratively catalogue her views for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. Kronix1986 17:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. --kizzle 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested some help from AN/I. We shouldn't need to edit war over this. (Strange bedfellows recently, eh?) Kyaa the Catlord 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, to understand the "recentism" we need to keep in perspective it's reference to the "Gray's Anatomy" reference that this is made contemporaneously. This is the satire part of it and is important part of the context. [5] --Tbeatty 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, according to googlenews we now have many sources mentioning the topic. While not all of the sources there are WP:RS, enough are that it is hard to argue against inclusion at this point. JoshuaZ 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link... checking the mainstream sources, I find this incident covered in the New York Times [6], Washington Post, Editor and Publisher, even Hotline (National Journal), along with UPI, Fox News, Countdown, and probably others. I'm also asserting it's notability for inclusion. Does anybody disagree? --kizzle 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to include the context of Grey's Anatomy to be NPOV. Tbeatty 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I certainly concur and feel it worthy of a subcategory similar to the ones currently existing. Also, Tbeatty has a valid point regarding the reference to Grey's Anatomy and giving the reader a clear understanding of the origin of the rehab portion of her remark.Txjeffrey 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. --kizzle 22:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the well demonstrated WP:OWN violations going on here, and defended by Kizzle and Kyaa on the AN/I, I've opted for Boldness, and restored two sections which were both fully sourced, and repeatedly added by editors who feel the sections are worthy of inclusion. factor in the comments by editors shocked that Wikipedia FAILED to include such well sourced information, and it's clear that this addition corrects a failing on the page. ThuranX 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the WP:CIVIL, the WP:NPA and the obvious mischaractizations by ThuranX on Kizzle, I'll be bold and revert. Are we having fun yet? Kyaa the Catlord 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa, your edit summary was a WP:NPAvio. I'll let it go this time, but you need to rein it in. I made the edit based on the comments by editors here and on the AN/I, where people expressed surprise that with as much coverage as it has, it's NOT on wikipedia, and given the list above by Kizzle, INcluding FOXNEWS, and teh NYT, if both sides of the fourth estate are covering it, if her fellow speakers are responding to it, and if readers are looking for it, we should include it. it is well sourced, and if we chose to, we could use all of Kizzle's list to make it one of the single most extensively sourced paragraphs ever on wikipedia. that's not a POINT violation, it's being bold in the face of obstructionism citing 'recentism' as a reason to not include an event on the national news. I'll ignore that PA this time, but I suggest you let it stand. Numerous additions, citations and so on extensively support it's inclusion. ThuranX 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an directory of quotations. We've simply asked that we wait for some evidence that this is a notable controversy. Newsworthiness does not equal notability. If we listed every time that Coulter shot off her mouth, this article would challenge the library of congress in size. Is this a notable spouting of nonsense by Coulter? Probably not. Is it the most recent, yes. Gaming the system to try to overcome consensus is not cool. Kyaa the Catlord 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Coulter's spouting is always notable. She's got a major national following and deliberately seeks media attention to garner more sales and attention. This time, she's managed to insult a major political figure at a level which skirts slander with the thinnest of veneers. AGAIN, I reassert, the massive coverage, response from within her own party and the expectations of readers to see such information substantiates that it is NOT transitory, and DOES belong in the article. Should she do nothing more along this line, then in six months or a year, it can be collapsed into a general 'Other controversies' section, perhaps. but for now, it's relevant and noteworthy. The NYT, and FOXNEWS, and WashingtonPost are all carrying it, in addition to wire services, major blogs, and on, and on, and on. Stop making your baseless personal attacks aabout me gaming the system, and making POINT violations. One more out of you and I'll take this right back to AN/I. You argued it's content, I came back and argued the content. Your reply, Personal Attacks. Irony much? ThuranX 00:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's review. ThuranX hops onto AN/I and starts attacking myself and Kizzle, accusing her of being a "freeper" and protecting conservatives. He throws out some baseless arguments about WP:OWN when I was reporting some sock infringements by our old friend GeorgeBP, as reported by Cool Hand Luke (an admin in good standing). Then he comes and decides to be bold and restart the revert wars on his own. This is the end of our review. Kyaa the Catlord 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are entirely mischaracterizing what amounts to a satirical comment about a) our culture of redemption through rehab and b) the shock value of language a la George Carlin. She essentially said "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" but with the "Grey's Anatomy" twist. She didn't call anyone a name. It's a biting style considering the word she used, but it's satirical humour nonetheless. Also characterizing her comment as "spouting" is not very encyclopedic. --Tbeatty 00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she referred to the Grey's anatomy "rehab" nonsense. However, in doing so, she called Edwards a "faggot". It's not like it was the first time she used the word, she also called Al Gore a "total fag". --kizzle 01:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, she said she couldn't talk about Edwards. That's the humour part. And the Al Gore quote was a total deadpan humour line. This is very similiar to Al Franken. I find them both very funny with very biting satire. --Tbeatty 01:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But the logical implication is that she would use "faggot" as a descriptor, no? The presence of sarcasm in a statement is not a license to freely interpret meaning, as sarcasm indicates that the meaning is opposite of its intention. Thus, the sarcasm directed towards Isiah Washington (which I fully agree is a bullshit remedy a la Mel Gibson/Ted Haggard/Mark Foley) still does not negate the logical implication that she was referring to Edwards as a "faggot". That's my take, at least. It's also the take of Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney, all of whom condemned her statement. --kizzle 03:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was serious so I am not sure how to interpret it. I think the word choice is condemnable and is why they condemned it. But I think the humour that was both meant and understood by the audience is lost in simply a literal/logical interpretation. For example, if she was making a joke about how stiff Al Gore is and said something like 'I'd talk about Al Gore but I was taught never to speak ill of the dead.' There would be no claims that she was threatening his life (or if there, they would be silly). There would be no literal intrepretation that she was saying he was actually dead. It would simply be picked up for the word play that it is. The issue here isn't that she called Edwards "a faggot", but rather her word choice may be seen as offensive even in the context of joke. There is no reason though to try to turn the quote into something other than a joke. Highlight it's offensiveness of the word but the context is still an attempt at humour. --Tbeatty 04:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The of my favorite programs used to start with a statement "may offend the easily offended...." This is also Coulter's schtick. Kyaa the Catlord 04:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, Your points are excellent but her comments, however interpreted were either a joke or not. Was she wrapping a personal attack within a joke? This can't be concluded, just as it cant be concluded whether it was just a simple botched attempt at humor.Txjeffrey 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you actually read the sources for these, you see that the quotes were cherry-picked and lacked the satirical context in which they were made. Kyaa the Catlord 00:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. I'm not going to watchlist this page, in little time, I'm sure all of the bad about Coulter will again be gone. yet again, Agenda of Encyclopedia. I'm done with this issue, someone else can fight it. ThuranX 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

K, bye. --kizzle 01:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this article listed on ANI, and have had a longtime interest in Ms. Coulter. I think her McVeigh/NY Times comment was my favorite! What's yours? I will study the situation closely and post my assessment and conclusions soon. - FaAfA (yap) 04:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is looking pretty good. I have not viewed it for some time. Kudos to everyone who has contributed. I agree that she was attempting to be satirical in this instance tho she is in general not a satirist but also that that should not factor into whether or not this comment should be included. The comment does not carry the weight of controversy that it would if spoken by some other pundits. By her extravagances Coulter crosses the line into being an entertainer and so I think a lot of poeple take what she says with a grain of salt. As others have noted the reaction is more important and needs to be gauged. (Trajancavalous 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

The disagreement above by kizzle and Tbeatty can easily be resolved by including the quote, without analysis as to whether it was a joke or not. I also think relevant, agreed upon context can/should be provided. If we're going to include the reference to the cast members of Grey's anatomy, we need to find a reliable source for this (I'm sure it's not lacking), as otherwise it would appear to be original research. The title Use of the word "fag" or "faggot" albeit a neutral one, seems a bit odd to me. Maybe it's just me. However, it's better than a title like Accusations of homosexuality, which seems to imply that her comments weren't jokes. I don't think we can know if she was joking or not, and therefore it's not in our place to be deciding such things as editors.

The event is already notable. That it's recent has little to do with anything pertaining to notability. We need to be careful in assessing the quote and presenting it as a joke or not. I'm sure some sources will say "it was just a joke" and some will say "she called Edwards a faggot", and unless we're quoting these sources, we need to assert nothing of the sort. --Ubiq 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good point in the preceding two comments. I too think this needs a new subtitle. For consistency, similarity to the other subtitles seems more appropriate. Comments about individuals is the most generic. Perhaps a more specific title to consider is Comments about politicians and public officials. The allegations of homosexuality are just part of her rhetorical style. Another consistency in her style is her advocating justifiable death of public officials which has similarly created notable controversy and could be included in this section at some point if deemed appropriate.Txjeffrey 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Coulter's known for making attention-grabbing comments, and this isn't the first time that she's used or seemed to infer use of the words "fag" or "faggot". That having been said, the media hasn't and the Democratic party have not flipped out every other time she's used the word, so I fail to see what's different other than the fact that they cared to look NOW. If nothing else, it should be noted in her article that she's prone to using derogatory language about gay people (or accusing people of being gay); if we covered every instance where she used the word, this article would be a LOT longer. --PeanutCheeseBar 14:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Coverage has also now occured in the New York Times- [7]. Also, it isn't our job to decide if she was attempting to joke or engage in satire. JoshuaZ 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Coverage is now also ongoing on the front page of CNN.com. I think the burden of inclusion has been overcome (very much so) -- we're doing a disservice by not including this event. Both political parties, several presidential candidates, and other pundits have issued statements regarding COulter's comments. Unprotect and add. /Blaxthos 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --kizzle 21:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be handled similarily to the John Kerry botched joke controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right Kyaa? The "botched joke" controversy ended up turning into a huge edit/revert war, and was listed as such on Wikipedia's lamest edit wars. Anyways, it can be included, but it shouldn't be a section all of its own; Coulter's made comments like this several times in the past, the media has reported on it, and life goes on. If anything, a list should be made, but that's about it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, it doesn't seem like some people will give up without including it. So let's do the timewarp again. Kyaa the Catlord 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think people are reluctant to give up including it because of the amount of mainstream sources that covered it, along with Republican presidential candidates, Michelle Malkin, Howard Dean, and a bunch of other people, all of which makes the incident notable. --kizzle 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely notable for all the reasons said above. Makgraf 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So, if I understand this correctly - we should avoid recentism unless something is picked up and carried throughout the press? It's not enough for something to be a fact or a documented or cited fact. It has to be a fact that is popularly covered wide and far? Does this mean that since very little to no coverage has been afforded to, say, Darfur - it should be ignored and not covered as a historical article or issue of current event? A comment of significance should most certainly appear in your article on wikipedia. Especially if it has caused a significant stir as this has. I fail to see how there should be any discussion as to whether it should be included or not to begin with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cordell (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I think the answer to your question is that quotations within Coulter's bio requires a higher standard of notability than other articles, simply because she makes so many controversial statements. Of course a detailed article on Darfur is justified, and should contain as much information as possible based upon verifiable and reliable sources. The Darfur case also contains a high amount of non-controversial concrete descriptive facts, whereas here we're discussing whether one controversial statement out of a million that have already been spoken deserves inclusion. In the case of Coulter, if we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard of notability, this article is going to be a repository for every dumb thing Coulter has ever said in the past. Kyaa's initial concern of recentism was entirely justified, as she says shit that pisses off liberals every week, and even gets some media coverage for those statements almost as often. We had to wait until it was absolutely clear that this incident rose above the rest of the dumb shit she says, and in mine and others' opinions, when all top-tier Republican presidential candidates weighed in, as well as Michelle Malkin, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Amaechi, in addition to being covered on almost every major news outlet, it showed a clear demonstration of the incident's notability. We ended up only waiting a few days, and I believe such caution especially on this page is justified in order to prevent this article from becoming "What dumb shit did Coulter say this week?". --kizzle 03:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend that the heading be changed back from "2007 Homosexual Slur Controversy" to something more neutral, like: "2007 CPAC Controversy"Marieblasdell 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets back?

Based on the recent edits adding the contentious category and 'see also' (see archive 17) I'm thinking another sock may have raised its head. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Already filed another check request, although I'm not familiar with what they want exactly (feel free to help add evidence). It seems especially clear to me that Jill is GeorgeBP. Some of the others are more into vandalism, and some just want a "faggot" section, so I'm not sure. Could be socks of two or more people. Not a lot to work off of. Any ideas about which are connected? Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, GeorgeBP was the one I was thinking of - the Jill edits were identical. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Gods, I do what Jossi suggested last time and AN/I is like "the editors there have WP:OWN issues". Admins suck. (with notable exceptions) Back to the war. Kyaa the Catlord 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware she was a suffragess

Exactly how does her quotes on the political/comedy/commentary program Politically Incorrect relate to her notability? Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, they were covered in multiple other sources such as the Guardian. JoshuaZ 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And? Why are these quotes notable to her? She makes a lot of off-hand remarks, especially ones where she's "joking", as shown by the Guardian's "she said laughing". Honestly, four words, huge out of context quote, does not meet the wikistandards. Why we're discussing an edit made by an indef blocked vandal is beyond me, in the first place.... Not everything should be included. Wikipedia is not wikiquote, if you want to have nearly naked quotes without framing them in how they relate to her notability, put them on wikiquote. Kyaa the Catlord 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My sentiment is that this particular quote isn't that notable. Reproduce coverage from more mainstream coverage like NY Times, WaPo, etc., and you may change my mind, but the Guardian quoting a Bill Maher interview.... ehhh. --kizzle 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The first "source" seems to be some wingbat blog as well. Kyaa the Catlord 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's documented in the Time article. I never knew Ms. Coulter's personal religious practices were of such import. Is it encyclopedic and NPOV to expound on Ms. Coulter's religiosity at such length? To give the issue about 5 times the amount of weight as the voting irregularities issue? - FaAfA (yap) 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm game for cutting the hell out of her religious views section. Kyaa the Catlord 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, what? How are her religious views not notable? She's been very loud about what they are and has made clear that they influence her decisions deeply. The section isn't that long in any event. JoshuaZ 15:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to pile on Kyaa the Catlord but how can you ignore a prominant American saying that islam ought to be replaced by Christianity? Especially when there are fundamentalist Muslims out there who point to remarks like that and say we are trying to eliminate Islam. Muslims in poor countries without access to independant sources may actually see her as the embodiment of everything we as Americans stand for if that's what the propaganda says. I'm not saying what I just said should be included in the article, but given the state of the world today how can her religious views don't matter? Anynobody 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is not covered, nor was it covered, in her personal religious views subsection. Kyaa the Catlord 09:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the way Kyaa trimmed it. JoshuaZ 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential Edwards facts for inclusion

Obviously not all will make it in to avoid violating due weight, but just putting up facts that people can use.

• YouTube link
• "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions," said Coulter, whose comment was followed by applause. [8]
• Audience members appeared startled, then many clapped, and she opened the floor to questions. The event was carried on C-SPAN. Many newspapers, including The New York Times, covered the event but failed to mention the Coulter slur at first. (Editor and Publisher)
• Mr. Edwards’s aides responded with an e-mail message that attacked Ms. Coulter and urged supporters to donate to Mr. Edwards’s campaign. “John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power,” said his campaign manager, David E. Bonior. “Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter’s resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion.” [9]
• "Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible," Edwards said in a posting on his Web site, www.johnedwards.com. "In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large." [10]
• Edwards' campaign posted the video on their Web site, and asked readers to help them "raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry." [11] "I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it."
• Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.” [12]
• “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said [John McCain's] spokesman, Brian Jones. [13]
• Mr. Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.” [14]
• Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.” Mr. Romney preceded Ms. Coulter at the event and mentioned that she was speaking later — he jokingly referred to her as a “moderate.” But he was not in the room when she spoke, Mr. Madden said. [15]
• The remarks also drew disapproval from some popular conservative commentators. Ed Morrissey on his Captain's Quarters blog wrote: "Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann." [16]
• In a written statement, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said, "Ann Coulter's words of hate have no place in the public sphere much less our political discourse. Not only should she apologize but those who participated in the conference with her should denounce her shameful and divisive actions." [17]
• "Ann Coulter's use of this anti-gay slur is vile and unacceptable," said Neil G. Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, "and the applause from her audience is an important reminder that Coulter's ugly brand of bigotry is at the root of the discriminatory policies being promoted at this gathering." [18]
• Michelle Malkin expressed disapproval, and at her Hot Air site regular contributor "Bryan" wrote: "I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying. Last year it was 'raghead.' This year it’s calling John Edwards a 'faggot.' Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come. Thanks, Ann." [19]
• Democratic Party chief Howard Dean weighed in later: "There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans -- including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today -- should denounce her hateful remarks." [20]
• John Amaechi response on YouTube.
• Coulter's response on her website: "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!" [21]

--kizzle 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably the entire quote plus selected reaction. Probably something like this (not fully developed):

In an allusion to the Grey's anatomy stars' (I forget who it was) use of the slur 'Faggot' and his subsequent rehab stint, Ann Coulter made the following statement <full quote> at a speech to CPAC in <wherever it was>. The audience appeared startled but responded with laughter and applause. The slur was roundly condemned by politicians, gay rights organizations and pundits from around the political spectrum.

I'm not sure if there is room for each individual condemnation and it would probably be hard to decide which is more worthy. Maybe John Edwards response is notable along with the fundraising aspect of it. --Tbeatty 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to note that while she was alluding to the Isaiah Washington situation, that almost all news sources are reporting that she was referring to Edwards as a "faggot":

• CNN - "condemned right-wing commentator Ann Coulter for her reference Friday to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot.""
• ABCNews - " Coulter made the comments on Friday during a speech at the influential American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference, calling Edwards a "faggot."" [22]
• Fox News - "she called the former North Carolina senator and presidential hopeful a "faggot"" [23]
• NY Times - "Ann Coulter...offered an example of it when she used an anti-gay epithet on Friday to describe John Edwards" [24]

--kizzle 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured that using the full quote would make it obvious about who and what she was saying. --Tbeatty 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that the media has jumped all over this while taking the joke out of context is much more notable than the fact she said it. She made her point and they added an exclamation point to it. Kyaa the Catlord 00:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My take (citations will be turned into ref tags to look cleaner)

---

Coulter drew considerable criticism for statements she made at the 2007 CPAC, where she referred to presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot" in an allusion to Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington's use of the word and his subsequent stint in rehab: [25] [26] [27]

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions." (Video)

The audience appeared startled, but then applauded Coulter's statements [28]. Edwards responded on his website by characterizing Coulter's words as "un-American and indefensible" [29] and asking readers to help him "raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry." Coulter's words also drew condemnation from Republican presidential candidates John McCain [30], Rudy Giuliani [31], and Mitt Romney [32], as well as conservative commentator Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters [33], Michelle Malkin [34], Howard Dean [35], the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation [36], Ted Kennedy [37], and John Amaechi [38]. Coulter responded to the controversy in an e-mail to the New York Times: "C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean." [39] She also posted a response on her website: "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!" [40]

---

--kizzle 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would change 'she referred to presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot"' to 'she used the slur "faggot" in reference to presidential candidate John Edwards'. I think it's more accurate. I have no problem with it though. --Tbeatty 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's what I said before. Fox News said "she called Edwards a "faggot"". NY Times said she "used an anti-gay epithet on Friday to describe John Edwards" E&P's headline is that Coulter "called Edwards a "faggot"". Subsequently, I believe "Coulter called Edwards a "faggot"" is a safe statement to make. --kizzle 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add "where she referred to" as "where she jokingly referred to". The media may have missed that she was telling a joke, but we shouldn't. Kyaa the Catlord 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding "jokingly referred to" presents the problems Ramsquire brought up when we were discussing the CBC: with Coulter especially, and given her frequent but not uniform usage of sarcasm, it's tough to say what is a joke in the official tone. My proposed passage does, however, quote Coulter saying "It was a joke", so hopefully that will be good enough. You said we should treat this like the Kerry botched joke, it's the same thing: we don't say whether it was a botched joke or not, we just report what she said and that she claimed "It was a joke". --kizzle 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Kizzle especially because concluding that the tone was joking constitutes WP:OR. JoshuaZ 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kizzle, you're spot on and I agree with Tbeatty's suggestion.Txjeffrey 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Coulter drew criticism for statements she made at the 2007 CPAC, where she used the slur "faggot" in reference to presidential candidate John Edwards in an allusion to Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington's use of the word and his subsequent stint in rehab: [41] [42] [43]

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions." (Video)

The audience appeared startled, but then applauded Coulter's statements [44]. Edwards responded on his website by characterizing Coulter's words as "un-American and indefensible" [45] and asking readers to help him "raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry." Coulter's words also drew condemnation from Republican presidential candidates John McCain [46], Rudy Giuliani [47], and Mitt Romney [48], as well as conservative commentator Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters [49], Michelle Malkin [50], Howard Dean [51], the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) [52], Ted Kennedy [53], and John Amaechi [54]. Coulter responded in an e-mail to the New York Times: "C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean." [55] She also posted a response on her website: "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!" [56]

---

I think it's okay not to characterize it as a joke. I'd prefer not to characterize it at all (jsut quote it) and leave it smaller but I have no problem with longer as long as it includes her response. I touched up with my additions. My shorter version is up higher. Maybe wehn it dies down, it might be more appropriate. --Tbeatty 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work. Job well done.Txjeffrey 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you changed but I think i'm fine with your version Tbeatty :) I'll compromise on the "in reference to", as long as we're indicating the term was used towards Edwards. --kizzle 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A question on audience laughter: It's clearly audbible. It's in some of the first hand accounts in the sources [[57]. But I haven't seen it characterized anywhere byt the press. Does the laughter deserve mention as audience response? I don't think there's a question it was there, just whether it can be reliably sourced. --Tbeatty 01:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins: un-protection please? --kizzle 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To request un-protection, go to WP:RPP. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

About "the audience appeared startled". I don't get that impression from watching the video. There was immediate chortling, then applause, then more applause and she finished up. I don't see any startled-ness there, despite what the cited source states. (Do we keep their words even if they are obviously incorrect?) Kyaa the Catlord 09:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. There's no need to include clearly wrong information, even if it is sourced. That part of the sentence can be removed, I think. ~Switch ^{t c g} 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

sources for the "faggot" remark

[58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]

I know that people are complaining about the number of sources for her remark against John Edwards, so here are a number of sources that show how notable it is and also helps to verify the infomation. dposse 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think notablility will fade. It's a current event. Last year at the same conference, one of the sources pointed out she used the slur "raghead". It's essentially a sentence today as part of a larger paragraph. I suspect this will fade into a sentence or part of a sentence as time fades. Unfortunately a real time encyclopedia seems to emphasize the immediate. I think this is just the nature of the beast and simply needs to be as concise and neutral as possible given the amount of detail that people want for current events. The hard part is not to do an injustice to the subject. --Tbeatty 04:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, it would be interesting to have a moratorium on all but the most basic current events for 6 months on BLPs just to see what would happen. Or maybe have a biography section and a current events section. I suspect that most biographies of contemporary controversial figures need to be rewritten every 6 motnhs or so because they become a jumble of random events, quotes, and tidbits. --Tbeatty 04:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible, but irrelevant at the moment. This is getting a lot of coverage. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not paper. If someone gets to be sufficiently controversial we can always split the controversy off to another article and only have the major ones on the main article. At this point Coulter's article is short enough that we dont need to worry about this at all. JoshuaZ 05:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with JoshuaZ. The notability of these comments may or may not fade, but it certainly deserves a place in the article now because Wikipedia is niether paper nor a crystal ball. We often must trim articles to avoid undue weight. At any rate, it's rare she provokes such a response from prominent Republicans. For this reason, if I were in the prognostication business, I think her Edwards remark might become one of the classicly-repeated Coulterisms. Maybe right up with converting them to Cristianity. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And the difference between an encyclopedia and a tabloid newspaper is? Lou Sander 13:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR come to mind. But I do get your point. And people are right that she will probably not be terribly notable in the distant future. But we're not editors of a paper encyclopedia in the year 2100. We're editors of a non-paper encyclopedia in 2007, and this article is being fed traffic from people searching google in conjunction with her latest attack. Trying to omit tabloidish New York Times stories before they're X days old underserves our readers and is quixotic at best. Incoming readers view it as an omission and add it in whether we take the hundred-year view or not. It's better then to make such coverage accord with N, V, and NOR. We'll trim for undue wieght later when we have better perspective, but lacking the future wisdom of August or 2100 is no reason to leave cited stories out. Cool Hand Luke 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it wrong that this piece of vandalism made me chuckle? "becauthe thith wath very, very hurtful to Gay Americanth, not to mention mean-thpirited" Kyaa the Catlord 14:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an advocate of perpetuating stereotypes (or hatred) but I can't deny the fact that it made me laugh a little when reading it for the first time. Laughing is natural though. What can ya do? --Ubiq 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't get it. Is that what John Edwards sounds like? Nil Einne 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It's a stereotype of gay males, that they talk with a lisp. like this: lisp -> lithp --Ubiq 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember the test for notability isn't enduring notability. All that requires is that at one point it was notable. I don't think there is any serious question that these comments are notable right now. Therefore inclusion is proper. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial statements at the 2007 CPAC: allusion needs referencing

This allusion in the aforementioned section, "...where she used the word, 'faggot,' in reference to presidential candidate John Edwards in an allusion to Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington's use of the word and his subsequent stint in rehab..." needs to be cited as the citation provided does not include the above citation. Mystyc1 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that took ten seconds. Kyaa the Catlord 05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

I discovered that the bit about Coulter on Hardball was lifted directly from Media Matters for America and removed it. Sorry. Kyaa the Catlord 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i though the tag system got deleted

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 5 tags on this one person around 1 statement he made. so 2 rules in place? y dont you guys bring the arguments used here over there.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"y dont you guys bring the arguments used here over there" Probably because Coulter is arguably a political satirist and Ahmadinejad isn't. Don't vandalize other talk pages because you lose arguments on other pages.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How did this user vandalize anything here? --Ubiq 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shreveport Times Citation

In the section on negative reaction to her column, the article implies Coulter was dropped from the Shreveport Times and supports this with citation #40. She was not dropped and is still a weekly column to this day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkrell (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Removed from list. I'm trying to check the other papers, but not having much luck. Kyaa the Catlord 06:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They had discussed dropping her previously, but apparently have done so after her latest comments. [64] and [65]. I put this info back in with a citation, but if this list gets much longer we might need to make a table or list. R. Baley 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter NOT on Michigan Law Review

I attended Michigan Law School at the same time as Coulter, one class ahead of her. I was on the Law Review and served on the executive board my third year (her second). She WAS NOT ON the Michigan Law Review. Would/could somebody edit the article so that it is accurate on this point?

There were several other law reviews at Michigan at the time, and she might have been on one of them. I don't know. I vividly remember her starting the Federalist Society at Michigan during her first year and that was her claim to fame around the school.

Amk49709 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. We seem to have a reliable source that says otherwise. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have no choice but to go with the reliable source. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking in more detail, I can't find the claim in the source given, so I've removed it. JoshuaZ 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Found it. JoshuaZ 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I will call michgan shortly to confirm the 1988 and 1987 mastheads. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's on the masthead of vol 85 No. 1 (October 1986) as an associate editor, "Ann Coulter of Connecticut". She became an article editor by vol. 86 No. 5 (April 1988). Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work, all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"CPAC" vs. "Homosexual Slur"

The name of the section regarding Coulter's most recent controversy has been changed to "2007 CPAC Controversy". I think the homosexual slur title is more accurate and appropriate as the controversy concerns Coulter's use of the slur and not her attendance at the CPAC. In addition there is no controversy with the CPAC about Coulter's appearance there. The controversy is about Coulter and her use of the slur, therefore the title should be changed back. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm against this change. The title appears to have been changed during the morning "vandalism" spree. :( Kyaa the Catlord 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't live in a society where "faggot" is unanimously considered a slur like "nigger" is, and thus is a controversial label. Subsequently, while I believe you are right Ramsquire, I'm going to have to lean towards the "2007 CPAC Controversy", though of course I wouldn't mind if we ended up adopting your suggestion. --kizzle 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the current title better illuminates that it is what Coulter said at the event that is controversial. So my objection is duly withdrawn. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kizzle's current version of the caption: 'Controversial statements at CPAC.' seems just fine to me.

I don't see a problem with the 'homosexual slur controversy' subsection title. The problem I have with '2007 CPAC controversy', is that readers not familiar with the subject are not going to know what the hell 'CPAC' is, and spelling it out is going to be way too long. '2007 CPAC controversy' is probably the kind of thing that will only be seen on wikipedia and nowhere else. Dr. Cash 05:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia isn't censored let's just make it say "Faggot controversy" No POV issues or confusion there. JoshuaZ 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Heck, if we are going to do that, why not just use the same format as the "Comments on Islam, Arabs and Terrorism" and just call it "Comments on faggots"? Please. --Tbeatty 07:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Faggotgate?" or "Queer Smear 07?" :P Kyaa the Catlord 07:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's call it gay controversy. This controversy is gay. Kyaa the Catlord 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares for my opinion, i think the current "2007 John Edwards controversy" is perfectly fine. dposse 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How about it gets reduced back to the single paragraph and it's not a section? This is way beyond undue weight if her comments at CPAC are covered in depth. Her comments last year at the same conference were just as controversial and also included a slur. Scale this back to te original paragraph. --Tbeatty 06:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I question why the tiny newspapers are notable as well. Kyaa the Catlord 06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the tiny newspapers are worth mentioning. We certainly don't mention it when a newspaper picks up her column, right? Now, if there's been a significant decrease, (or increase, for that matter), in the papers that carry her column, that'd be worth mentioning. Is that information that's available?Marieblasdell 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No way! There is no way wikipedia is only able to refer to the biggest papers. If it is public & distributed publicly it can be refered to! There is no way that only the biggest networks or papers in whatever country we are talking about are of note. If i wish to refer to a small independent paper, in Russia lets say, i have a right to, just because the large ones currently dominate or are under a common rubric doesnt mean they are the only notable ones, and this applies to every country on the globe including the US, people can refer to whatever paper they wish, hopefully they choose articles that are well reported and accurate, but if someone has issues with that referal then they can post counter references with a different side to the issue, or if they can show it was patently false or inaccurate or misleading in a discussion they can remove it, but take this tyranny of the majority argument back where it came from. Anyways a small US paper has a right to be represented if an editor so wishes to refer to it, and as i said before this particular issue of her latest controversial remarks should be reasonable in length to other sections, yet I am against deleting a bunch of information just as a couple of editors really want to spend some time with something compiling stuff, even though my opinion is this is one of the least of the controversial things she has said and she is being unfairly attacked over it, there are other things far more controversial and potentially highly inflamatory.

for instance this controversy over the word "faggot" is not going to produce a bunch of violence, yet her remarks using the word "raghead" for instance, while i do support her free speech, and her ability to make jokes or slurs about something she feels she needs to, just as I should be able to make sarcastic remarks about a really stuffy arrogant thick-skulled christian for instance, or the way they dress, if I wish... none the less, in the circumstances of her making that remark, considering the extremely tense violent situation at hand globally, she was within her rights, yet was just not wise, as she has further polarized her own country with it, is encouraging her country to make broad general swipes or accusations at all muslims or arabs when only a minority is responsible for the actions she is especially upset about, and on the other side, inflamatory remarks such as this by a well known highly publicized individual undoubtedly encourage further extremism if they are picked up in that part of the world, and undoubtedly would then increase the size of the minority she takes issue with for its violent means, and would thereby further increase the violence they would perpetrate to her own nation and people, so she had a right to this, yet in the particular climate it was an unwise remark, I would tell her she should be able to say what she wishes, yet unfortunately the current state of the world is not such that people in high profile positions such as hers should utilize their natural rights to full freedom of speech in highly public mass media forums thereby possibly inflaming or enraging people and creating potentially violent reactions...so she should be able to express her extreme anger, even call publicly for invasion of all muslim countries and to "christianize" them, yet to resort to ethnic-religious slurs in calling for this is the unwise part which is uncalled for and is actually perhaps more inflamatory than simply calling for retributive invasions...85.1.223.203 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make myself clear. It looks as though we're detailing every small newspaper that drops her column. What's notable about that? If we could show a trend toward less readership because of controversies, (or more readership), that would be notable.Marieblasdell 23:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement has so far gotten more coverage than her statements at the CPAC last year. I don't see any undue weight issue with it currently. If in 3 months this seems like a much smaller issue then we might consider an undue weight response. But in any event, it isn't like this page is so long (only 63 kb). I would furthermore suggest that if the various controversies are getting too long to just have the major ones in her article with mentions and have a fork of "Ann Coulter Controversies" And I still favor "Faggot Controversy" as NPOV and easy to locate. The other option would be "Edwards Controversy" maybe? JoshuaZ 08:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure...To everyone on wikipedias suprise I am "coming out of the closet" as a "friend of Ann Coulter"...it may indeed shock people familiar with my editing and writings...I have never met Ann, yet I am indeed perhaps even starting an advocacy group in support of Ann Coulter named "Friends of Ann Coulter"...My call is for the section to be renamed "controversial use of first ammendment rights to free speech"...and I think she has been unfairly targeted, she has a certain style, her style is often provocative or over the top, many times this is an attempt at humor, in any case she has a right to use the full extent of the english vocabulary to express her opinions without being demonized for it, and as long as she isnt advocating violence she is well within her rights, attack her for the content of her arguments, not for her sometimes flashy provocative style, some arent happy with her latest attempt at humor, yet whether you appreciate the joke or not, she has a right to full use of the english vocabularly, she did not tell people to head out to "hang all the gays" or something, she made use of a term, not even considered a profanity, such as others might use the term "red-neck", or a hip-hop singer might use the term "nigger", (these even ethnic based slang!)...people use terms like "commie scum", or "pinko", to talk about those on the left, or "nazi" or "fascist scum" to those on the right, for instance, based on ideological differences, and to advance their own position using a rhetorical flair, while some may think these slurs deflect from the substance of the discussion, and that they actually may end up hurting the users position in some cases, the user has full right to the full extent of the english language to express whatever opinion they may have. If anyone has a case against her for something she has said it would be the New York Times bombing remark, and I would tell her to be careful with such talk considering the laws in place in the US right now, and for this remark i would rebuke her to be more thoughtful about her highly public statements, as with her wide popularity it could indeed stir some in her fan base that lean towards the violent extreme to actually carry out such attacks, yet I still would argue she was within her 1st ammendment rights and was using the remark in a rhetorical sense to advance her position and argument and didnt actually plan such attacks to be actualized in reality. Anyways i certainly do not agree with many of the things Ann Coulter has spouted out, yet I believe in this instance she has been unfairly attacked while trying to use light humor to poke fun at something she doesnt believe in: homosexuality. And i have another confession to make actually...I'm coming out of the closet yet again.......indeed i admit here on wikipedia...that once...and its the only time it has ever occurred...once several years ago i indeed vandalized an ann coulter book...(it was a library book, and it wasnt exactly extreme vandalism, i think i took issue with something she said about Harry Truman)...anyways...yet indeed i wrote in a couple sentences explaining a few facts to dispute the argument Ann was purporting in her book...(in fact its the only thing i have written in an officially publicized form, the only thing I've ever written in a published book was in a copy of an Ann Coulter book)...anyways, you cant exactly call me a huge Ann Coulter fan, at least not until now...but after the attack on her for her use of freedom of speech and using light humor i have come to her defense, even to the point of incriminating myself if I were to come before a US court...anyways I'm not saying i agree it was wise or appropriate to use the joke or whether i thought it was funny, yet i believe it unfair to deprive her of free use of her most effective weapon to advance her positions and views on the subject of homosexuality or any other subject: her tongue...and i feel it highly hypocritical for people to attack her on this recent escapade when she has used the term "raghead" in the past which is quite plainly a much further and greater controversial remark as it is somewhat of an ethnic or religious slur, yet i do believe once again she was within her rights to express her opinion, if she is in a state of mind to be so put off by those she slurs, she has a right to this vocal catharsis...indeed in some countries she might be killed or beaten for such a remark, yet in many countries we have established a tradition of allowing people to express their minds even if it is controversial or "politically incorrect" language, plus they would not experience violent retribution or stir riots using this freedom in these countries, and the targets of these slurs would most often just laugh it off being sure enough of themselves to weather the verbal blow and perhaps even have a quick comeback to denigrate the user of the slur in like terms, so it is allowable...85.0.218.125 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is questioning the legality of her ability to utter the word "faggot". I'm just questioning her judgment. --kizzle 05:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus I'm boycotting Verizon, Sallie Mae, and Netbank, as well as The Oakland Press in Michigan, The Mountain Press of Sevierville, Tennessee, and the New Era in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, as the simple fact is she has made other statements of far more concern than this latest attempt at humor, if they had any backbone they would have discontinued her column or dropped sponsorship over more serious offences or the substance of some of her ramblings, yet of all the things Ann has said it is this that gets people to drop her column?, she didnt even actually use the word directly on anyone, only indirectly & on someone married with children in an attempt at a joke towards someone clearly even immune to the joke...85.0.218.125 05:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious views subsection

Well, apparently Lonewolf doesn't like the tiny amount of trimming, I did to religious views a week ago. Anyone else? If not, I'm taking it back out. Kyaa the Catlord 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the additional details add in any useful fashion. I'm fine with the trim. JoshuaZ 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and retrimming. I left this article alone for 24 hours to see if anyone would flesh out their rationale for inclusion. Kyaa the Catlord 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Coulter Article Falsly Says Jones Suit "Summarily Dismissed."

The Jones suit was not "summarily dismissed," as the Coulter article falsely claims. It was dismissed on April 1, 1998, almost four years after it was filed on May 6, 1994, and after extensive discovery, including the deposition of President Clinton, which later touched off the expansion of Independent Council Starr's jurisdiction, and eventually led to a referral to Congress and the first impeachment of an elected President in American history on counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Before the case got to stage of the Clinton deposition, it had already been to the Supreme Court, where the court issued a historic ruling that the District Court may take discovery in a civil case against the President based upon alleged acts before the President took office. All of this important context is not conveyed by the outright false statement that the Jones case was "summarily dismissed."

The article contains the additional demonstrably false statement that the Jones case was settled for $850,000 "in exchange for Jones' not appealing the decision." In fact, the settlement was reached on November 13th, 1998, several months after Jones' lawyers filed an appeal of the District Court's dismissal on July 31st, 1998. In the interim, oral argument on the appeal was heard by a panel of Eighth Circuit judges on October 20, 1998. The settlement occurred while the appeal was pending a decision by the Eighth Circuit.

All the facts above are back up by the Washington Post time-line of the Jones civil suit, found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/timeline.htm

Bcrago77 09:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bcrago77 09:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bcrago77 09:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary judgment is a term of art that has nothing to do with how long the case persisted (being delayed by interlocutory appeals), and the district court judge did eventually grant the motion for summary judgment. I think it's been incorrectly changed to "summarily dismissed", and you're might that this gives readers the wrong impression. The article simplifies all of this which creates a highly misleading picture. Would appreciate it if someone fixed this. I shouldn't theoretically have enough time to correct it now. Cool Hand Luke 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes based on the above discussion. If they are incorrect, please feel free to make additional changes. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

chain smoking?

IN HER PERSONAL LIFE SECTION, WHY NOT MENTION THAT SHE IS A CHAIN SMOKER? by user 68 33 144 238...

i reinstating that, that is a valid question for the talk page by that user, why exactly was it considered vandalism Rtrev?...I'm starting to feel some of the wiki-bio pages are maintained by fans and might get a little out of control, remember people, you may adore your favorite entertainer, but we do try for an NPOV here, to even blank something from just a talk page that just asks a question is a little excessive...while you may wish to hide the fact that your favorite star is a chain smoker, its just not NPOV, especially not to even remove another user from asking if it is OK to place that in the article...anyways...is she a chain smoker???...in terms of placing it in the article if she is...I'm not sure, we do in fact tend to report on the drug habits of our entertainers so maybe its allowable...what do some other people think? it is true a lot of entertainers besides ann coulter chain smoke (if in fact she does)...do we put that in their bio?...I lean towards we have a right to if someone wishes to include it and its documented...just as we havent uploaded it to other peoples bios doesnt mean we cant store the info on those someone has taken the trouble to load on the page...85.1.223.203 09:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Got a reliable source that states she is a chain smoker? Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 10:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Because its a complete smear job as it is and anything more would be over the top. Is it relevant that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are chain smokers? Of course not. It would be relevant if any of the three were smoking illegal substances....user 69.232.222.5

There's two tests that we'd need to pass. The first--providing evidence that she IS a chain smoker, which hasn't been done so far. The second--showing some reason why it's important to mention it, assuming that it's true. If she were a passionate anti-smoking crusader, I could see a point to it--the old hypocrisy issue. If she did a lot of pro-smoking advocacy, it might be relevant. If neither of those is the case, why is it any more notable than the model of car she drives, and her favorite dress shop?Marieblasdell 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

speak for yourself user "69"...for instance it has been stated that the right leaning conservative leader in the UK, David Cameron, smoked ganga while in college, now i might still vote for the conservative leader knowing this and that the left leaning labour party leaders did not (and even have a policy of not allowing past ganga smokers to work in their government), frankly I am more concerned with his & their policies on the issues at hand!...yet I am happy with the information on Mr Cameron's drug habits during college and also currently, on the other hand if I knew that Mr Cameron was currently a chain tobacco smoker, (which i dont think he is) I simply would be very unlikely to vote for him as he is clearly making choices by chain smoking that are extremely detrimental to the health of his own body, the solvency of the health care system, and also he would be creating a bad public example, (for instance 440,000 people die each year in the US from tobacco, and more & more public figures smoking constitutes a bad example to others clearly!) so how could i trust him to make healthful choices for the UK?...while it might not be a deciding factor by any means, it would be points against him and if he couldnt demonstrate a great advantage over the other leaders, his chain smoking could lose him my vote!...while there would of course be many many other factors in my voting for him or not, it would be nice to know whether he is a chain tobacco smoker, whether he smoked ganga during college a few times is totally irrelevant as regards whether i would vote for him and only interesting to note...If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain or anybody else in such positions is currently a chain tobacco smoker i would like to know, just like I would like to know if they are currently a chain ganga smoker, it doesnt necessarily mean I wouldnt vote for them, but I want some public info about their habits and preferences and how they treat their own bodies before i come to conclusions to their ability to hold sway over the body public!...and its nothing to do with a smear job, its wishing to acquire information about public figures, including entertainers that are highly politically involved like say ann coulter (I'm actually a fan of hers after her latest troubles, yet wasnt before especially)(I still will be a fan even if I know shes a chain smoker, she can be highly entertaining, it just will cement my view that shes maybe upset about not having kids or something and that its just another thing like her aggressive sensational tone)...83.79.148.111 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus! my main concern was really that the user "68" etc. had their question for the talk page removed as vandalism! That user added a legitmate question to the discussion pages!...I am concerned that some of these pages are just maintained by a fan base and that the articles can get inaccurate because of that and lose their NPOV...There is clearly some clear vandalism to anns page and her talk page, yet i really dont think that question by that user was such!!!...83.79.148.111 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to read all that. I had to skim over. Just keep these things in mind:

1. No articles or sources have been provided that she's a chain smoker or that she smokes at all.

2. That a person smokes is hardly notable enough to make it into their wiki article, so even if she did smoke, the only reason I can think of that that would warrant inclusion is if say, she was harshly critical of smokers/smoking and it was discovered that she smoked too. Then we'd have to see how much note the fact that she smokes generated.

3. This article is not maintained by a "fan base" of Ann Coulter. At least I'd hope not. --Ubiq 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if its a fact she (or anyone else notable enough to have a wiki-bio page) is a chain smoker, an editor can legitmately add that to the article, if its true and documented somewhere. Simple as that. In fact its just as notable as mentioning some random town they happen to be born in, its information, its notable,...period...(they shouldnt write a paragraph on it unless its somewhat highly notable and controversial such as you suggest, as if they were vehement anti-smokers, but a single sentence mention is allowable, if its true)...83.79.183.169 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about would satisfy notability, in addition to "chain smoker" not being the most NPOV way of putting it. --kizzle 03:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Chain smoking is the common term, and its not really necessarily derogatory. Well I'm doing an internet search to find out...this mentions it [66]...this [67] also [68]...in fact i see 33,000 entries for "ann coulter chain smoker" on yahoo...it does seem the more liberal sites or the centrist sites are the ones that typically mention this fact, and you dont see the right wing ones talk about it publicly...liberetarians arent lefties though are they?...it certainly seems it is something notable and that the left really picks up on, I suppose we could have the sentence say "those on the left frequently remark on Ann Coulter for her chain smoking"...as it seems they really typically do...even the muslim community seems to know she is and remarks on it! maybe we should make it "A variety of people comment on her chain smoking, usually in negative terms" 83.78.128.62 04:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The links you provided are blogs and aren't reliable sources. Again, the smoking issue has come up for other people too, and like this case it is usually dismissed, for the reasons of it not being relevant. I like to point to the essay WP:SMOKERS for a good take on the subject. --Ubiq 07:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

a true act of vandalism!

someone...I'm supposing an ann coulter fan like myself, has just redirected her page to uncyclopedia!...and that is true vandalism I'm afraid!...83.79.148.111 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been worse cases of vandalism to this article. One single act of it doesn't necessarily warrant its own section on the talk page. Alleging that whoever did it was an "ann coulter fan" isn't really necessary either. Just try to focus on improving the article in what ways you can. --Ubiq 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

i cant edit the article, only the talk page, so I have to bring it to other users attention when there is an act of vandalism on a locked article so they can in turn remove the vandalism!...83.79.183.169 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Or you could actually establish a user account... RJASE1 ^Talk 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Appeal for Even-handedness

This entry is excessively editorialized.

While Coulter is famous for her purposeful jabs at secular progressives, her quotes are no more incendiary or controversial than the likes of, say, Garrison Keillor, whose anemic entry makes no mention of controversy. In fact, it reads as though Keillor is the incarnation of the wise and kindly Will Rogers. Worse yet, the hypercontroversial Al Franken’s entry presents none of the editorializing comments that Coulter’s does.

Compare some of Coulter’s quotes to the following examples from Keillor’s HOMEGROWN DEMOCRAT (which are NOT cited in Wikipedia's entry, though Coulter's controversial statements are): Keillor calls Republicans as "hairy-backed swamp developers, corporate shills, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, hobby cops, misanthropic frat boys, lizardskin cigar monkeys, jerktown romeos, ninja dittoheads. .. .tax cheats, cheese merchants, cat stranglers, grab-ass executives, gun fetishists, genteel pornographers, nihilists in golf pants."

While claiming that his book describes "the politics of kindness, Keillor also says that Republicans are "criminal" and worse, "evil, deeply evil."

In 1999 Keillor told THE GUARDIAN (London) "Republicans might be heathens out to destroy all we [sic] hold dear; but that doesn’t mean we take them seriously. Or be bitter because they are swine.”

Worse yet, Al Franken's entry--perhaps sanitized for his recent run for the Senate--might link to sites that would reveal some of Franken's highly provocative, inflammatory remarks; however, none of these are quoted in his entry, nor does the text contain any narrative descriptions of events such as the following:

As a promotion for one of his books, Franken recorded a creepy spot that shows him engaging an actor who is playing a conservative reader. In this "ad," Franken kicks the conservative in the groin and smashes him over the head with a chair. The "skit" closes with Franken grinning broadly, holding up his book, and saying, "That felt good." To see this ad, go to www.michellemalkin.com/archives/003777.html

I fail to see why Coulter's many controversial statements (most of which contain liberal "rebuttals," as if the article is trying to prove a particular point) are cited in quantity and at length, while secular progressives such as Franken and Keillor enjoy entry that omit their equally incendiary statements and behaviors (all of which are accessible and documented).

I have often used Wikipedia entries (and have directed my four children toward them) when doing research. I have found them to be accurate and very helpful. This entry, however, has caused me to question the integrity of this service and to wonder about, or perhaps simply to recognize, a political bias that distorts the accuracy of information presented.

To maintain credibility, Wikipedia needs to amend its approach to use a more even hand when representing highly outspoken and controversial figures on both sides of the aisle.

Sixbrocks 04:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)sixbrocks

1. If you feel that other entries are lacking in information that satisfies WP:N and is based upon reliable sources, please add them.
2. If you think that some of these quotations on this page are lacking in WP:N and are not based upon reilable sources, please mention them here in talk to discuss a proposed change. --kizzle 05:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note. Wikipedia isn't a "service" as you mentioned.

It could be that there haven't been that many critics of Franken and Keillor or that they don't receive the same attention that Coulter does. But if that's not the case, feel free to find reliable sources that might discuss certain events and criticisms and that these events satisfy WP:N and WP:BLP. --Ubiq 07:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

-What??? How does she compare to kind Mr. Keillor? 66.177.204.252 3:58 11 march 2007

if someone feels they need to add Garrison Keillors quips about american republicans I'd say head to his page and go ahead if thats what you want to do. You will then deal with the editors that keep an eye on that page. Maybe they will be glad to have some of his sarcastic remarks included, I dont know. I know for sure that on this article there are several loyal Ann Coulter fans that keep an eye out to have the rightwing position presented. Go ahead Sixbrocks, start trying to put in some derogatory dirt on Ann Coulter to her article page! See what happens! Your going to need a bunch of references and maybe even then you'll just be blocked. In fact head to any republican personality or politician and start trying to fill the page with comments from the hard left...see what happens!...you'll never get away with it, there are hundreds of editors from the right watching over all those pages! Look at the edit histories for either right or left politicians, your going to find massive editing wars on each one between left leaning and right leaning editors!...maybe one side or the other has a slight advantage on any particular page you check, it just depends...on top of that your going to get editors from other countries come to english wikipedia and say the entire thing has a right-wing bias, the slightly left in america could be distinctly right of center to them, and of course you may find some editors from certain countries that would say wikipedia english does seem to have a left bias from their country perspective...its really a hard call to designate objectively where wikiepdia english stands right or left, all depends on the relative position of the observer...yet I'd say there are enough american editors, from both the american left & right, to keep it teetering rather near the center, looking at it from an american perspective as the observation point...and if the teetering on ann coulters page seems to be off center, well perhaps its as near 2/3 of americans are ticked off about the Iraq War and she was a big proponent, so maybe her page isnt looked on quite as fondly as a couple years ago, and of course as time passes her opponents will have more and more stuff she has said to add from their perspective...if anything wikiepdia english has an american bias, it certainly doesnt have a chinese or russian bias for instance! A Bahamian bias?...no...it likely does tend toward the most internationalist of the various wikipedia language sites, with at least some contribs from a wide variety of lands and perspectives, yet the slight american bias would be the biggest tilt currently i would think...83.78.128.62 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:SOAP. Your accusation that editors of this article are "loyal Ann Coulter fans" is amusing, but false. Please try to focus your attention on improving this article. As it appears, some of your posts are borderline trolling. I'm sure you mean well, but accusing people of bias and writing out endless posts with no constructive direction are not good ways to go about improving an article. Again, we're not Coulter supporters. We must stick to the policies and guidelines though, and that means not inserting trivialities into her article (like if she smokes or not). --Ubiq 07:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If your going to tell me that there arent any Ann Coulter fans that edit on this site its others that will do the laughing, she likely has about half of america counted as fans of a lesser or greater sort, so you'd basically have to say that this right of center half never edits on the Ann Coulter page...no way...of course there are ann coulter fans that edit on this site, and the whole paragraph was just responding to accusations of bias, so tell it to the first person! If they want to try and say wikipedia is biased, then someone can respond and say, ya sure it is, but its not quite like how you think, and if there is a bias its surely a partial american bias!-get real Ubiq!-did it say everyone editing on this page was an ann coulter fan? NO! It was even made clear that wikipedia has lots of people from both the right and left that edit and so that tends to keep pages relatively in the center somewhere...maybe next time you could actually read the paragraphs you are responding to Ubiq!-83.78.136.13 22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing this talk page with a discussion board. The purpose here is to discuss specific edits or specific passages that need to be edited. I think we all understand your general concerns, but so far you have not provided any actionable items. Like I said above:

1. If you feel that other entries are lacking in information that satisfies WP:N and is based upon reliable sources, please add them.
2. If you think that some of these quotations on this page are lacking in WP:N and are not based upon reilable sources, please mention them here in talk to discuss a proposed change.

Also, the less words you use in your upcoming specific suggestions, the easier it is for all of us to respond to it. A lot of us are lazy and don't respond to mountains of text. --kizzle 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

in the last ten edits youve got Ubiq trying to argue people can't even call her provocative, which isn't really even a negative adjective, and you've got an editor removing "although she is known for preaching what many consider unprecedented hate" (clearly put there by someone on the left, and promptly removed by someone on the right surely!)...don't try and pretend to me Ubiq that editing wars don't occur on all politician and political personality bios on wikipedia!...That is patently false, all these types of pages are subject to constant edit wars, its why I rarely even go near them, its just a waste of my time, maybe in 50 years once they are long gone, but even then i doubt it will change! This entire section was started by an editor saying the there is a bias in that leftie personalities arent given the same treatment as righties, do any of you even read things??? plus it was pretty darn long! Yet no one comments like that to him! I have responded to that first editor, and the rest of you have just been sputtering that I cant respond to him! and its why I stay away from pages like this usually! PS: if you cant read a couple hundred word paragraph in a minute or so you dont belong editing on wikipedia!.83.78.136.13 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing this talk page with a discussion board. The purpose here is to discuss specific edits or specific passages that need to be edited. I think we all understand your general concerns, but so far you have not provided any actionable items. Like I said above:

1. If you feel that other entries are lacking in information that satisfies WP:N and is based upon reliable sources, please add them.
2. If you think that some of these quotations on this page are lacking in WP:N and are not based upon reilable sources, please mention them here in talk to discuss a proposed change.

Also, the less words you use in your upcoming specific suggestions, the easier it is for all of us to respond to it. A lot of us are lazy and don't respond to mountains of text. --kizzle 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

well, it clearly seems you dont read things kizzle...exact repeated postings is the epitomy of laziness...please dont waste wikipedians time with posting the exact same message, was going to erase, yet its nice to leave it, and for Ubiq who claims there isnt a two sided edit war on pages such as this..."Regarding the latest edit war" (added by kizzle march 3 6:45)...as after all she has opponents, she has those in the middle that dont really care, and as after all she has fans, (like me after her latest exploits, and especially after being snubbed unceremoniously by the reeper candidates despite clear utter loyalty, and she is after all a brilliant entertainer)-83.78.136.13 04:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

anyways for the originator of this little discuss (sixbrocks), who expressed concern about liberal bias on wikipedia, there is now yet another editor looking at this page that could even be described as an ann coulter fan, and who doesnt even try to hide it!, I will look over the entire article and give my opinion as to what needs to be done...83.78.136.13 04:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

improvements to the article

First of all she also needs a section on positive reactions from publishers!...quite frankly this woman is worth some serious gold, and I'm sure many a publisher would like to have her, and in that vein I think we need some statistics on how much money this little lady is making! With all those bestsellers!, someone got some stats on number of books sold and how much they go for!...I might not vote for a chain smoker, but I just might hire her to write a book for me as its gonna be worth some serious bucks!...I think the smoking thing does belong in here, I have heard on some blogs maybe she has stopped? we need mention of the current status of her smoking yet just a sentence or two...I also think we need a section summarizing her views, with quotes from her on all the main policy issues...& sections of background and personal life should be expanded...currently there is a lot of coverage on this page about some of the controversial things she has said, I think thats OK, people on all sides want to know about these things, (plus some may actually like what she has said, and others may not) I just think for a little more balance it needs to be more clear that the bottom line is this little lady is worth a fortune and is a brilliant entertainer/writer, she has made a good living with this character she has created of "ann coulter" and as I'm not one to remove things that are valid and true that other editors to wikipedia have contributed, my proposition is not to shrink this article down to bring more balance, but instead to beef up some of the other sections like background & personal life, and create a couple new ones such as 1-"positive reactions from publishers" 2-"number of books sold and earnings/book price" (plus other salary type figures if possible to find), 3-"stances on the issues" 4-"positive comments about Ann from other notable people" -83.78.136.13 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

as one of my propostions on pages with edit wars, at least for some of them, is for the editors on both sides to back off each other a little, and allow the pages to expand from both viewpoints, instead of constant bickering and battling over every little entry addition, I think a lot of valid info from both sides may get left out when there is so much battling...83.78.136.13 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(a disclaimer) PS: I'm certainly not saying I agree with everything the character of Ann Coulter has said! I'm just a fan of hers...despite it even!...and of course as she is a savvy entertainer/writer-83.78.136.13 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to talk about her Adam's apple. It is nothing personal, just a photographic fact that she has a prominent one. Why does the reference always get deleted? 66.177.204.252 4:52 11 march 2007

you've got us a little scared user 66.177.204.252...does someone have some proof Ann is actually truly a woman!...there is the no kids thing, now this adams apple thing...I'm starting to get paranoid! someone please bring some info that proves she is a woman!-83.78.136.13 05:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

337,000 entries in yahoo search for "ann coulter adams apple" !!! here is one from a blog with several pics! [69]-83.78.136.13 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)