Talk:Ann Coulter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Peer review Ann Coulter has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ann Coulter article.

To-do list for Ann Coulter:

 edit - history - watch - refresh
Archive
Archives
  1. Before 2005
  2. Criticism, Quotes, Racism/Sexism, Idle rich
  3. Vietnam comments on the Fifth Estate
  4. Ext links, Transsexual, Birthdate, Plagiarism
  5. More racism, Quotations, Length, Photos
  6. Pictures, Canada/Vietnam, 8/24/05 to 9/8/05
  7. 09/08/2005 to 09/30/2005
  8. 09/30/2005 to 10/10/2005
  9. 10/10/2005 to 06/08/2006
  10. June-ish 2006
  11. 06/28/2006 to 07/08/2006
  12. 07/08/2006 to 29/08/2006
  13. September 1, 2006 to October 31, 2006

Contents

[edit] Public Intellectual

She is far from self-described as a public intellectual. She was heavily covered in a book about public intellectuals a few years back. she was definitely in the top 100. I think the author was Posner or Poser or something like that. Good Cop 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember that too. By the way El Kevbo, I think you are the one who asked for a citation? The "public intellectual" comment comes from the Time magazine cover story piece by Cloud. Except it's not a direct quotation. Cloud says something like "Coulter sees herself as a public intellectual". 216.165.199.50 05:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I was the one who requested a citation. I cleaned up the intro and noticed that phrase was not cited. Thanks! --ElKevbo 19:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Is the statement from the same Cloud article already cited in the article or a different piece? I'm just trying to track down the necessary bibliographical information to cite the assertion and double-check it. --ElKevbo 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's the same one 64.154.26.251 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The article should mention Ann Coulter made an anti-Semitic comment in writing so she cant deny it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.27.83 (talk • contribs) 07:42, November 6, 2006.

[edit] Registration and Voting / Innuendo and Libel

Somebody needs to rewrite the "Registration and Voting" stuff, since it's outdated and based on innuendo. Somebody could/should get in big trouble over it. Wikipedia says Coulter "is under investigation." The source of this is a gossip column (see its URL) that says officials are "reportedly investigating." I wouldn't want to explain the difference to a judge in a libel case. The next part says the officials gave her 30 days to explain. That was seven months ago (>210 days). Yet this "encyclopedia" still says "is". The judge would have a fit. Not to mention that the cited source is no longer available unless you pay for it. I'm not paying, and I don't trust that it says what Wikipedia says it does (see above for the reason). Also, what does the minor age dispute in the third paragraph have to do with alleged improper conduct in registration and voting? Good Cop 01:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What did you think of my fix, Good Cop? Any suggestions would be welcome. Let me say this, though, the articles (the free ones) form a coherent story. I also read somewhere that Coulter got legal assistance from somewhere. But there was no "allegation" in this episode yet, just an investigation, and I changed the article to reflect that. 216.165.199.50 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference to the political party of the election official who is investigating Coulter, it's not relevant to the article.

I can't be bothered checking through the history but from memory, there was a dispute as to whether the was born in 1961 or 1963. Given when she first voted, if she was born in 1963, she would have been breaking the law in the US. I believe this was the relevance between the age dispute and voting Nil Einne 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's still in the article. Basically, she registered to vote in 1980 supposedly. But it's unclear if she were born in 1963 or 1961. In the US state where she registered to vote, the voting age is 18. Therefore, if she were born in 1963, she would be 17 at most in 1980 and would have broken the law if she voted (and I guess if she registered to vote) Nil Einne 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada and Vietnam/Indochina (again)

Once again people want to include this in the article. As usual, they are newbies, semi-anons, and other types who aren't very familiar with the article. The Canada matter has been discussed at great length, and consensus reached to eliminate it. Look HERE to see a lot of the most recent discussion. At one time, all the links and explanations of these matters were in the article, but then the whole silly business was removed, the links and explanations along with it.

If you doubt that Canada sent troops to Vietnam/Indochina during a time when the borders in that area were in a state of flux, please read the article on International Control Commission (it will help if you follow the links). If you still doubt that Canada sent troops, it may help you to look HERE to see the medal that Canada awarded to them for their service.

Will somebody PLEASE put this topic out of its misery and totally and forever delete this item from the article (yet again)? Lou Sander 21:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What I see there is you attempting to whitewash her comment. She clearly did not know what she was talking about, and no one has yet provided a cintilla of evidence that Canada sent one fighting soldier to vietnam. Raul654 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, Coulter's statement (that Canada sent troops to Vietnam) might be true in its most literal, least meaningful sense (in that more than one - and not very many more - troops in the Canadian army were physically present in Vietnam during the time period); however, her comment was clearly intended to convey that she believes they sent sizeable numbers of troops to fight there. Claiming that she meant otherwise is (at best) intellectually dishonest. Raul654 21:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It would really be helpful if someone could show the rest of us how "fighting soldier" applies to this incident, and if someone could point out specifically what would make anyone think that she "clearly intended to convey that she believes they sent sizeable numbers of troops to fight there." The facts of Canada's troops in Vietnam/Indochina stand on their own. Confident assertions about Ann Coulter's thought processes do not. And I do not appreciate assertions about "whitewashing;" please try hard to assume the good faith that underlies bringing out the facts about Canada's troops in Vietnam. Lou Sander 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue is NOT whether Canada sent troops to Vietnam. The issue IS whether the facts of the paragraph are accurate, which they are. If Coulter was shown to be correct, then by all means add sourced information to the paragraph to that effect. But don't effectively deny that the exchange between Coulter and McKeown occurred by deleting the paragraph, which contains accurate quotes. I wrote the paragraph, not to prove Coulter right or wrong. I wrote it because the events occurred, and the section title is "Allegations of plagiarism and factual inaccuracy." Ward3001 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
But why the hell does any of this matter? Why should this particular incident be included in a biographical encyclopedia article? What evidence is there that this event was noteable? --ElKevbo 22:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly this is simply not notable per WP:NOTE. The point it not whether it is true or not... most of that discussion is WP:OR and irrelevant. The point is the entire section is utterly non-notable. Wikipedia biographies should not be lists of factual errors. Especially in biographies of living persons. Even if you look at a highly odious person like Saddam Hussein you don't see his article detailing every factual error he has ever said or written. That seems solely resident in articles about controversial political pundits. Litanies of errors are simply not what encyclopedic articles are for. I am going to go ahead and remove that comment unless someone can come up with a seriously compelling argument for its notability. --Rtrev 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this incident has nothing to do with Ann Coulter's notability. I would, of course, be open to a clear demonstration of its relevance to it, as is insisted on by WP:BLP. Lou Sander 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a memorial in southwest Quebec honoring the approximately 5,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam, it's on Hwy 132 between Beauharnois and Valleyfield, north side of the road. If it would be helpful, I can snap a photo the next time I am by it, and upload it. There is also mention in Wilbur Morrison's book The Elephant and the Tiger, of about fifty Mohawks from the Khanawake reservation (just across the Mercier bridge from Montreal) who served in Vietnam. I am acquainted with one of them who lost most of a hand in combat. I also know a retired Kirkland (Montreal) policeman who served in Vietnam during the early advisory period. I don't think that any of them were there technically under the Canadian flag though, but were volunteers who served with American forces. www.thevirtualwall.org allows searches of The Wall database by different parameters, such as home town, etc., and quite a few Canadians can be found listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. - Crockspot 15:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a minor incident from almost two years ago, about which a consensus was once reached to eliminate it from the article. If you would like to put it back in, please provide a clear demonstration of its relevance to Ann Coulter's notability, in accordance with WP:BLP. Lou Sander 16:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out that it is a fact that Canadians fought and died alongside of Americans in Vietnam, which I can verify with some effort. They were not sent by the Canadian government, but were volunteers who I believe were fighting under the American flag. I'll let you all hash out whether or not it is notable enough for inclusion, I just wanted to make sure that the Canadians who sacrificed on the behalf of the US for the freedom of the Vietnamese people were not dismissed or swept under the rug in this discussion. - Crockspot 17:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot - Oops! I seem to have misdirected my above comment. Sorry. It was meant for Ward and whoever else keeps reinserting the Canadian TV interview. There is no doubt that many Canadians served in the U.S. armed forces during the Vietnam War, and no intention by me to diminish their role there. (Neither is there any doubt that the government of Canada had troops in Vietnam/Indochina from August 1954 through January 1973.) Lou Sander 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ward, you keep reverting (three times now), and you haven't responded to the charges of non-notability established a long time ago, and rehearsed again here. As for Coulter's response, Here is the interview. And is it really fair to make us presume your non-reasoned claim to notability is correct, and insist that we do the leg-work of making a capsule summary of the reasoning about notability and Coulter's point of view from the arguments, when the arguments have been archived exactly for the purpose of educating new-comers about the work of their predecessors? I think it would be more fair if you would read the archives, make an argument and then revert. 64.154.26.251 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Although I think it would be better if someone with a different perspective add Coulter's response. Ward3001 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. This event is not notable for a biography.
  2. Canadians participated in the Vietnam War.
  3. The Canadian government did not send troops to Vietnam, as the phrase "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" uttered by Coulter means.
  4. Raul is spot-on: simply stating that Coulter was right because technically speaking, there were Canadian citizens who were participating in the war is intellectually dishonest at best. I agree with you Lou, assertations about Coulter's thought processes are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Consequently, she might have meant to say "Canadians participated in Vietnam" rather than "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" (which is clearly a different meaning), but it is inappropriate for us to defend Coulter as what she "really meant to say". --kizzle 09:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


I've deleted this incident, since there has not been a clear demonstration of its relevance to Ann Coulter's notability, as is insisted on by WP:BLP.
Additionally, for some reason, a few editors insist on believing that Canada "did not send troops to Vietnam" (perhaps they believe the erroneous assertion of the broadcaster, instead of the well-documented historical facts). Canadian troops were sent to Vietnam in August 1954 as peacekeepers during the partition of Vietnam. They stayed through January 1973. They were Canadian troops, sent by the Canadian government. They incurred casualties and at least one death. For further information, please read the articles on International Control Commission and International Commission of Control and Supervision (it will help if you follow the links). If you still doubt that the government of Canada sent troops (= military personnel), it may help you to look HERE to see the medal that Canada awarded to 1,550 of these troops for their service. Lou Sander 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, 1,550 people got medals for "90 days consecutive or non-consecutive service as a member of the commission"? That's almost as hard to get as a purple heart (translation: these medals have nothing to do with combat). The part where you equate non-combat "peacekeepers" with combat troops is what Raul and I are talking about when we say intellectually dishonest (and trying to pass off non-combat participatory medals as more than they are). Canadians were there to "supervise the cease-fire, the withdrawal of troops, the dismantlement of military bases, the activity at ports of entry and the return of captured military personnel and foreign civilian", not engage in combat. Like I said, she might have made a verbal gaffe and meant to say "Canadian peacekeepers were technically present during the Vietnam War, albeit in a non-combat manner" (which is a far cry from "Canada sent troops to Vietnam"), but, as you say, "confident assertions about Ann Coulter's thought processes do not" belong here. And thanks for the condescending "it will help if you follow the links" comment, I never knew how to click on a hyperlink before today. You have shown me the light. --kizzle 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. You might want to revise your comment that they stayed through 1973, at least for the ICSC specifically... source taken from your own link that you provided: "Much of the work was done from 1954 to 1955 and Canada had only token representation after 1958. The commission withdrew completely in 1969." - [1]... it will help if you follow your own links. --kizzle 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - -
Coulter is notable for, inter alia, having "[a]llegations of ... factual inaccuracy" made against her -- thus the existence of this section of her article. The CBC bit is an instance of this -- and rather a better example of it than some of the others. Beyond that, it is given from a neutral point of view; it is not "biased or malicious content" at all. Therefore, there is no excuse for deleting it from the article. Please do not do so again.
Your comments regarding Canadian participation in the ICC and ICCS, while interesting in themselves, do not bear on the issue of whether the CBC bit should be included.
(Neither do said comments bear on the separate issue of whether Coulter was actually correct, whereas the Canadians in question were a small number of peacekeepers (133 at a given time) supervising cease-fire terms, troop withdrawals, refugee movements and the like, while Coulter's claim was that Canada sent troops to fight in support of the United States. Even Coulter herself does not, that I have seen, attempt to claim she was right on such a basis.) -- Lonewolf BC 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Kizzle: It seems to be original research (or at least fractured thinking) to say that "troops" have to be "combat troops." Ask your teachers about it.
Lonewolf BC: IMHO you have not provided clear evidence that this incident is relevant to Coulter's notability. Many besides me have studied the incident at length and in depth, and have concluded that it not notable. I hope you don't think that Wikipedia should include every instance of someone alleging factual inaccuracy. This incident was a short interview on an obscure program; the disagreement about troops was a minor one, and subject to many interpretations that have been discussed at length on this page. The incident did not receive any sort of important media coverage. Past consensus was that the incident is not notable. It hasn't gotten any more notable in recent months. If you have something to say to counter these points, you will get a fair hearing here.
Also, (though it has nothing to do with the notability of this minor, long-ago incident), where do you get the idea that Coulter's claim was "that Canada sent troops to fight in support of the United States?" Lou Sander 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
In the context of discussion, especially with Coulter's followup before she was corrected by McKeown: "Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat...", troops meant "a group of soldiers" or "military units" as the definition of "troop" means. If she meant to say "non-combat peacekeepers", she sure messed up the phrase. I don't need to ask my teachers about it, I'm a big grown boy now and out of school! For Lonewolf's assertion perception of Coulter's view that "Canada sent troops to fight in support of the United States," I'm surprised you're not grasping onto that justification with both hands gripped tightly, as that's the best though (highly) charitable interpretation where Coulter is not wrong, as there technically were Canadians (that were not sent by the Canadian government) who signed up in the United States Army to fight in Vietnam. Finally, your silence on your error in ICSC's "token" (according to their own website) participation (and no participation after 1969) is noted. My teacher didn't even need to show me that one. --kizzle 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure you have rightly understood me, Kizzle. I have not asserted that "Canada sent troops to fight in support of the United States". I've said that "...Coulter's claim was that Canada sent... [etc.]"(italics added). -- Lonewolf BC 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what I meant, edited to make clearer :) --kizzle 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Before I make additional changes to the article, I propose that we try to come to a consensus about selecting one of these two possibilities:

1. Include information about the Canada-Vietnam issue as it was most recently presented, with the understanding that information about Coulter's response might need to be edited. OR,
2. Delete ALL information about "factual inaccuracies" (no changes to information about plagiarism) and re-title the section "Allegations of plagiarism."

My rationale is that, if the Canada-Vietnam issue does not rise to the level of notability, then none of the "factual inaccuracy" issues rise to that level. Note, however, (and this is not a veiled threat, just an observation; I have no intention of making other deletions), deletion of non-notable material opens up the possibility that other sections of the Coulter article might be challenged on the basis of non-notability. Ward3001 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your line of reasoning. Reading this article it is pretty clear there are some striking POV and notability issues. I have never seen a bio of a writer with a list of "factual inaccuracies." I realize she is a total lightning rod for controversy but its a bit much the way it is now. I would say that no factual inaccuracies should be included unless they somehow caused a situation more notable than being a mistake or play into some larger event. The WP is not a clearinghouse for pointing out inaccuracies in writing no matter how disliked the author may be. I just don't see "Misspelling the name 'Feldt" as "Febit'" as a notable item.
I have gone ahead and added a POV tag to the article. From reading through the talk page it is pretty clear I am not the only editor that thinks this is warranted. --Rtrev 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The Canada interview is not notable. Coulter is a writer, and if some of her writing is legitimately challenged for accuracy, it might possibly be notable. A factual challenge of what a writer said during a television interview is very, very, very far from being notable in itself. Good Cop 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the other "factual inaccuracy" stuff, the Franken challenge and the Dale Earnhardt matter seem to be notable, since they were widely discussed over time. The Reagan percentage business doesn't seem to be notable -- it is a mildly disputed minor fact. The iThenticate stuff isn't notable at all (some nobody alleged plagiarism, the allegations were investigated and dismissed by a responsible non-nobody publisher, and the story ended there). The Media Matters stuff was about same -- a minor muckraker made allegations and nothing came of it anywhere else. Good Cop 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed things from the factual accuracy section as non-notable especially the iThenticate stuff. That is clearly a non-issue. The Media Matters stuff I also took out because of discussion here. Also there are not citations for all of the arguments. The ones that have citations are also open to discussion and the links are being used as WP:OR because they claim Coulter is wrong based on the citation not how it should be done which is a tertiary source comparing two citations per WP:OR. --Rtrev 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
For this specific issue, I don't see it as that notable, but I see nothing wrong with a one sentence blurb about it, but I'm not really partial either way. As for Media Matters, it may be partisan but it's a legitimate source, especially considering the ease of meeting the verification criteria; most articles are based upon transcripts or video clippings from actual news sources, thus any reader can go lookup the transcript themselves to see whether or not the claim is true. If it were up to me, I'd much rather see a paragraph or so saying something that "occasionally," Coulter has been accused of factual inaccuracy, go briefly through iThenticate, Coulter and CBC, the other examples, but making sure to consolidate and keep to one paragraph or so with nice prose while making sure to represent that in most cases, nothing came from it. I'd rather have a limit otherwise we get into discussions like the title of this section with people bending over backwards to justify or discredit Coulter's claims. --kizzle 08:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems we now have several choices regarding "factual inaccuracies":
1. Select which items are notable enough to be included.
2. Revert the section back to its status on Nov. 3 WITHOUT the paragraph about the Canada-Vietnam issue.
3. Revert the section back to its status on Nov. 3 WITH the addition of the paragraph about the Canada-Vietnam issue as it was last written.
4. Eliminate all items related to factual inaccuracies and retitle the section "Allegations of plagiarism."
5. Write a briefer summary of the factual inaccuracy issues.
I think option 1 is difficult because there are many different opinions about notability. I think option 5 will likely appear biased because of space limitations and, consequently, omission of important information regarding either the allegations, or Coulter's responses, or both. But if someone wants to try writing a briefer version of the section I certainly would consider its merits. I continue to believe, however, that we should select either option 3 or option 4 because I don't consider any of the alleged inaccuracies to be any more notable than the others.
Regarding plagiarism, I consider the plagiarsm issue important enough that it should be restored to the article. If the factual inaccuracy issues are retained, I think plagiarism should be placed in a separate section because the two issues are quite different. Think back to your undergrad days in English classes. If you put a few factual inaccuracies in your paper, you could be graded down. Plagiarize and you could be kicked out of school. Ward3001 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the cleaned-up article is fine the way it is. Thanks to whatever hero did it. The remaining factual inaccuracy stuff is sufficient, IMHO, to illustrate that she has been accused of inaccuracies and that she has answered the accusations. In the case of Franken, she defended her facts. In the case of Earnhardt, she admitted her error and her publisher corrected it. Both instances were notable, in that they received widespread coverage in a variety of media.
The other "inaccuracy" stuff that was cleaned out was non-notable finger-pointing, not at all suitable to a biographical article in an encyclopedia. The plagiarism assertions were investigated by her large and reputable publisher and found to be groundless (and therefore not notable, IMHO).
For examples of assertions of plagiarism and factual inaccuracy that had notable results, see Rigoberta Menchu, Michael Bellesiles, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Ward Churchill. Also note the evenhanded way in which the encyclopedia discusses them. Lou Sander 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That is a very useful lists to compare to. Thanks. --Rtrev 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Though I differ strongly with Lou's personal assessment on the veracity of Coulter's statements about Vietnam, I agree with him that much of it is non-notable finger-pointing, I think there should be a section but very brief, concise, and making sure to point out the instances in which nothing came out of it, and those where she changed the facts. --kizzle 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I think an important point about this that is being missed here is that this comment and the ensuing controversy is, so far, essentially the only significant publicity Coulter has gotten in Canada at all. Those of us who follow American news know of her, and that's a substantial fraction. But for many people she was merely some American who came on Canadian television and made absurdly false claims.
I should say that, to one relatively familiar with the Canadian perspective on the Vietnam War (as much as someone born after it can be), these comments bringing up Canadian citizens enlisting in the U.S. army or the non-aligned Canadian peacekeeping force in Vietnam seem very much like apologetics for Coulter. Frankly, she was wrong, and I simply don't understand how this can be disputed. --Saforrest 09:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Bottom line: Not Notable Lou Sander 13:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lol

It turns out that if this DemocraticUnderground.com quote is correct, The dialogue between Allan Colmes and Ann Coulter reported by Editor & Publisher about wishing Timothy McVeigh to go to the New York Times building, namely:

[Colmes] asked her if she wanted to take back the earlier statement that Timothy McVeigh should have bombed The New York Times office, especially if reporters were inside. She responded, "No"...

was made up out of whole cloth!

Watch this Youtube video if your ISP can carry videos. Allan Colmes asked her nothing of the sort; instead he attacked her, accusing her of making the statements on the basis of being a closet liberal!

If you can't watch it, here is my summary of the exchange:

Alan Colmes mentioned Salem's claim, and said to her that remarks like saying "Timothy McVeigh should have bombed The New York Times building" were "laughable happy satires, right?" then said he now realized that Coulter was "actually a liberal who is doing this to mock and parody the way conservatives think." She responded, "Well, it's not working very well if that were my goal. I think the Timothy McVeigh line was merely prescient after The New York Times has leapt beyond -- beyond nonsense straight into treason, last week," Coulter replied (referring to a Times report that revealed classified information about an anti-terrorism program of the U.S. Government involving surveillance of international financial transactions of persons suspected of having Al-qaida links). Alan Colmes continued in this sarcastic vein when he responded, calling her remarks "great humor", and that it "belongs on Saturday Night Live. It belongs on The Daily Show."

The "account", if you can call it that, even contains the made-up detail that Colmes said "especially if reporters were inside."

And whoever included the "account" apparently plagiarized large sections of the E&P article, then went on to make "improvements" like having Salem "saying" Coulter was a brilliant satirist, rather than "suggested". [This may have been the work of a later editor, 64.154.26.251 09:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)]

Here is another source for the article.

I don't have time, right now, but does Coulter actually "periodically wish death and violence on liberals and other traitors", as the plagiarized version now reads? I don't recall Coulter calling all liberals traitors in the first place, and she said she refused to name any traitors, except one, Pinch Sulzberg. If anyone would like to help, jump right in. It should be easy if we can dismiss Editor & Publisher as an unreliable source as the two internet copies of the article would suggest that we can. 64.154.26.251 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the version where it was introduced by user:wv235. To correct myself as soon as possible, I'm not sure whether it was NewsMax or Editor&Publisher that did the hatchet job. 64.154.26.251 08:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

It definitely wasn't Newsmax. Editor&Publisher said a conversation with a "New York weekly, Coulter refuted the notion she is only joking [about "wish[ing] death or violence on liberals and other 'traitors' {a turn of phrase I find dubious to begin with}]". Yeah, refuted it in E&P's "opinion", I bet, just like the misleading account about the Hannity & Colmes conversation that E&P [surprisingly, even though I have two sources with similar material, I can't confirm that E&P presented the erroneous Hannity and Colmes material] WV235's source presented would tend to refute it in the opinion of anyone who didn't actually witness it. I wonder what weekly they are washing their hands off on? 64.154.26.251 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC). Lou, did you see the E&P story? You complimented WV235 on his user page about him being fair with his sources back in July. 64.154.26.251 09:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information about Coulter's family

How much of this is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article? Most of it, I think.

Ann Coulter was born to John Vincent Coulter (born 1926) and Nell Husbands Martin Coulter, (born February 28, 1928, Paducah, Kentucky). Her maternal grandfather Hunter Hart Martin (1897-1954) was originally named Hunter Hart Weissinger, but changed his name.
After her birth in New York City, the family moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, where Coulter and her two older brothers (James M. [born 1957] and John) were was raised.

The struck words are not notable and not sourced. They should be struck from the article. Good Cop 00:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Better it were sourced, but such material is common in biographies. Perhaps you should look for who introduced it, and ask them to give references. Lonewolf BC 00:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the struck words above are not at all notable. I also don't believe such material is at all common in Wikipedia biographies of living persons. It would be helpful if somebody could provide a few examples of such material from contemporary people whose positions in life are similar to Coulter's. Lou Sander 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to get a source, I think basic biographical info includes father, mother and siblings. This may very well be the only biographical material in the entire article. Needs a source though. --Dual Freq 02:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Her siblings should only be included if for some reason it is notable. Parents follow the same metric. If their is some reason to name them specifically then include otherwise not. For example: Barack Obama includes parents only because it is notable because of his racial background, Rush Limbaugh includes neitherm, Keith Olbermann mentions neither, Adlai Stevenson's page mentions the politically important family members, Bill Clinton's article mentions the family extensively but because it is important to his background.
Unless Coulter's siblings/parents are important and notable there is no reason to include them. --Rtrev 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I can not imagine an obituary or biography not including reference to parents and siblings. If the subject of this article is notable, then certainly the names and certain details of key relatives are notable. Lack of inclusion in other articles indicates an oversight in those articles. Albert Einstein is a featured article listed at wikiproject biography and it includes references to relatives especially parents. These people are not notable on their own, but they are notable for inclusion as it relates to the subject of this article. --Dual Freq 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
For obituaries, you're right. But for biographical articles in encyclopedias, try imagining Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, or Tom Clancy. IMHO for the most part, parents are included when they are important in their own right, as in George W. Bush, or when the article's subject has reached a place of unusual eminence, as in Einstein, Laura Bush, etc. But Ann Coulter's maternal grandfather, or her parents' dates of birth, or her brothers names and ages? Don't waste the bandwidth. Lou Sander 04:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are some strong objections, I propose to make the following changes to the article:

Ann Coulter was born to John Vincent Coulter (born 1926) and Nell Husbands Martin Coulter, (born February 28, 1928, Paducah, Kentucky).
After her birth in New York City, the family moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, where Coulter and her two older brothers (James M. [born 1957] and John) were was raised.

The purpose of the change is to bring it in line with other biographies by removing non-notable material. I looked at a bunch of biographies of people with notability similar to or greater than Coulter's, and didn't find any that went beyond parents' names and occasionally their place of residence. Given the vandalism-proneness of this article, IMHO her parents' names probably ought to be sourced, too. Lou Sander 14:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that statement is fine. More than that is just too much info. I say put it up as is and then maybe source the end of the paragraph with a link to a bio or some other source talking about her history. Go for the edit. --Rtrev 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I mostly agree. Leave "...and her two older brothers...", though, as it says something about the family circle in which she was raised. We don't need to know their names or anything else about them unless one of them is of some interest in his own right. (Keep in mind, though, that this does not need to be much interest. Some professional standing or merely local prominence would suffice.) -- Lonewolf BC 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] '61 or '63? Only her hairdresser knows. NOT!

Use the article talk page if you truly believe there is anything left to say about this. Repeatedly putting known falsehoods into an article is vandalism. Lonewolf BC 00:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So why did she have a licence that says otherwise?
132.241.246.111 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Use the article talk-page. I will move this to there momentarily.
Lonewolf BC 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The foregoing portion of this section has been transferred to here from the talk page of 132.241.246.111. That IP address is registered to California State University, Chico and may be shared by multiple users. It is suspected that 132.241.246.111 might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Grazon, of Devilmaycares, of 63.198.18.163, or some combination thereof. See the user and talk pages of the 132.241.246.111 for further information. Lonewolf BC 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that her age discrepancy might merit brief mention in the article, but I'm not sure where it should be or how it should be stated. The facts are that there is some question whether she was born in 1961 or 1963, with 1961 being probable due to an early driver's license and voter registration. The discrepancy has had minor media coverage, so is therefore minorly notable, IMHO. On the other hand, it isn't uncommon for entertainers, sports figures, women, etc. to tell their publics that they are younger than they really are (e.g. Zsa Zsa Gabor). Maybe something like "born in 1961 (some sources say 1963)" would do it, if it even needs to be mentioned. Lou Sander 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not put about proven falsehoods as if they ought be taken seriously any longer. Her year of birth is a matter of fact, and it was 1961. There was some question about it. Now there is not. I suspect that not everyone is abreast of this, though. The discrepancy between what really is and what she has claimed is already mentioned, further down in the article. -- Lonewolf BC 04:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Got it—Thanks! For some reason I thought the stuff further down had been removed. It DOES seem pretty verbose for such a small matter, though. Maybe cut it back some? Lou Sander 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life

Why was my edit not approved? She's dating some country singer. Why delete that ?

Ann dates singing democrat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericg1 (talk • contribs) 02:23, November 9, 2006.

We'd need a much better source than a blog to add information to this article. It's also a blog entry that is over a year and a half old. --ElKevbo 13:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lou Sander got rid of all one of the reports of Ann's dating partners. He says they're not sourced well (which I disagree with) and says the article is not a gossip tabloid. Ann's dating doesn't interest me personally, but I'm sure it interests some people. In general, I'm reluctant to remove what I see to be good faith contributions to the article, but I agree with Lou somewhat about limiting the scope of the article to significant information. Coulter herself doesn't seem to mind people discussing it (in the "Coultergeist" article she says "I've dated [Dinesh D'Souza], I've dated every right-winger").

I'd like to know what Lou and the rest of the editors think about this. 216.165.199.50 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lou, I assumed you removed both persons from the article because of your edit description. The "Coultergeist" article that I referenced that you were dubious about is a pay-to-see article, but the page with the quote about Dinesh D'Souza is available here. 216.165.199.50 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I followed the references and didn't see D'Souza or even a mention of pay-to-see. For Guccione, I didn't think an "arm candy" discussion in a gossipy place was suitable backup for the claim that she "dated" somebody.
As a basic proposition, I'm not very much in favor of "personal" sections in encyclopedias. There was some discussion of it a few months ago, and the personal section was deleted (as I remember it, anyway). It came back, and wasn't worth going through a lot of stuff to get rid of, at least for me. IMHO it just isn't real encyclopedic to list the people that somebody dated, their favorite books and music groups, etc., at least for a serious writer. Lou Sander 21:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone needs to fix this section. Listing Guccione only would be inaccurate.
I will restore for now in deference to the person who thought it notable enough to add. It's gossipy, but Coulter herself wrote in to respond to the gossip according to the source. What do others think about keeping it? I have a pretty strong opinion that misinformation or out of context information doesn't belong in the article, but for other things, like what people think is significant or interesting information about Coulter, I tend to defer to others. 216.165.199.50 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Would someone please explain how Coulter's "dating" these people, or ANY people, is notable? While you are at it, you might want also to explain the notability of the other material in the "Personal" section. IMHO, none of it is notable at all, and none of it belongs in an encyclopedia. (It would be enlightening to be referred to some other biographies of living people that include information on dating, favorite books, etc.) Lou Sander 02:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Tyra Banks, Jennifer Lopez, Larry King? 64.154.26.251 22:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a few entertainment personalities whose articles mention dating. Now give us a bit of explanation about how Coulter's "dating" relates to her notability. (Try something like this: Jennifer Lopez is a popular singer. The "relationships" of popular singers are important parts of their public images. Their handlers and publicists try hard to keep those things in the public eye. It's an entertainment thing, and part of the fluff that influences their continued popularity.) Lou Sander 11:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. For instance, no one cares who Bill Clinton's schtupping now. (I strongly doubt it's Hillary.) It only mattered when it was a celebrity spectacle.  ;) Kasreyn 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Well, I personally think it's funny that it says that she likes the Grateful Dead. Ann a dead head? Haha, yea right.

[edit] Creationists, intelligent design supporters categories

It's been a month, so I'm removing the Creationists, Intelligent Design Supporters categories as per the reasons in the October 2006 archive. 216.165.199.50 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No such decision was made. Concern was expressed that if all mention of Coulter's support for ID and Creationism was removed from this article, then some editor would be tempted to remove the categories, also. She does belong to those categories, which therefore must remain. Lonewolf BC 22:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I'd like to keep them in. They're accurate descriptors, and it's not like it's a negative thing. --kizzle 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the quote in that section, she is anti-evolution, but she is not a supporter of either Creationism or Intelligent Design. She is agnostic on the issues, calling the questioned raised "unanswerable". Doesn't Coulter have a right not to have an opinion on the matter of the origin of life on earth? 216.165.199.50 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Her right to her opinion is not in question. Neither ought be the nature of that opinion. -- Lonewolf BC 22:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course I didn't say that, I said she had a right to not have an opinion. Also known as suspending judgment. 216.165.199.50 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, she doesn't belong in either category. She's not any sort of main supporter or promoter of either belief. Like hundreds of other authors, she has written on the topics, but in her case they were only used to illustrate a not-very-closely-related point: that liberal beliefs are religious in nature. Look at the other articles in those categories. With a few mostly hard-to-justify exceptions, they are about people who had major writings or major interests in the field.
It would be interesting to see some reasoned justification for her inclusion in the categories. ("Because I think so" doesn't count, and neither does "because she believes in creationism and intelligent design," or "because she wrote about it once." If those were valid justifications, the categories would be orders of magnitude larger than they are. Where are all the Popes, by the way?) Lou Sander 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Ann Coulter defends Irreducible Complexity, a cornerstone of Intelligent Design: At least we finally had a clear admission that the irreducible complexity argument had not been answered before this. But look at the allegedly "complex" mechanism that scientists asserted -- not proved, asserted -- might have arisen by natural selection: a two-part molecular mechanism, the hormone and its receptor. Two parts! Even a mousetrap -- Behe's simplest example of a complex mechanism -- has three parts. And, of course, they still hadn't shown that the hormone-receptor pair could be produced by natural selection, only that this simple two-part mechanism might be produced by natural selection. That's front page news for the state religion. Pgs 209-210.
  2. Coulter cites Intelligent Design Advocates: I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski, all of whom are fabulous at translating complex ideas, unlike liberal arts types, who constantly force me to the dictionary to relearn the meaning of quotidian.
  3. Coulter also endorses Behe's viewpoint: "[l]ife at the molecular level, he [Behe] concluded, is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design."

Does anyone still doubt that Coulter advocates Intelligent Design? Now whether Wikipedia protocol requires her to be notable for advocating intelligent design to be included as a member of the category I'm not sure, I'm just refuting earlier comments such as "She's not any sort of main supporter or promoter of either belief" and "she is not a supporter of either Creationism or Intelligent Design. She is agnostic on the issues, calling the questioned raised 'unanswerable'." Of course no one claims to know the answer to life, but given the evolution/creationism(intelligent design) dicothomy, it is crystal clear on what side she places her faith in. --kizzle 04:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, she wrote about it once. So have hundreds of others. Not a justification for putting any of them in a highly specialized category, IMHO. Lou Sander 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No, in other words she has written a book in which her support for ID -- which is nought but a guise of Creationism -- features prominently. Not only that, but this fact has attracted much public notice. She did not merely "once write about it", which could mean that she mentioned it in a private letter. -- Lonewolf BC 06:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It is really, really, really difficult to see how writing a single book that prominently features Creationism/ID, but is not ABOUT Creationism/ID, puts one in the same category as those whose work is all, or mainly, about that subject. She wrote about it once in a book. The entire discussion took four chapters. The book was about liberal "religious" beliefs. The four chapters were about liberal "religious" beliefs in Darwinism, and used Creationism/ID for purposes of comparison and contrast. They did not involve new theories about Creationism/ID, but only described the work and theories of others.
Compare that to the other 66 people in the Creationists category. Please try hard to show us how, other than by writing those three chapters, she belongs in that company.
(So far, all I've seen is "she wrote about it once, but she wrote a LOT about it, and, hey, "writing about it once" could mean "wrote a sentence about it," and four chapters is WAY more than a sentence, therefore she belongs in the same league as Barry Setterfield and Duane Gish, especially since she seems to BELIEVE in Creationism/ID rather than in Evolutionism, which is believed in by her adversaries the liberals.) It doesn't seem to be much of an argument, but of course I may be missing something.
If I wrote a popular book about great pole vaulters, and if I really, really, really liked the pole vaulters I wrote about, but scorned other pole vaulters I didn't think were very good, would you put me in the category of great pole vaulters? Based on what you've said so far, I have to believe you would. Lou Sander 10:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You're confusing being a creationist with being "as big a creationist as Gish". What she has done suffices; no further argument is needed. -- Lonewolf BC 19:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You might be confusing your own unsupported opinion with something that might be convincing to others. As far as I can see, you don't seem to understand that there's a difference. If somebody rejects "wrote a few chapters" as sufficient reason to include her in the category, what else is there? Lou Sander 20:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Sander, what she wrote is plenty to show where she stands. If you believe that it is not enough to have her listed in those categories, on Wikipedia, then you should go research Wikipedia guidelines to see if they support your position. Also, cease the snide personal attacks. Lonewolf BC 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I am in half agreement with Lou, I'm not sure what kind of protocol is involved with attaching category headings to people, as Coulter is also a woman, are we going to add an "American woman" category or "Alleged to have slept with Bill Maher" to her as well? She has expressly supported ID positions in her books, but whether or not she is a notable ID advocate, I'd lean towards no and thus should not be included in the category heading. --kizzle 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Whether a category ought be on Wikipedia is a matter quite apart from who belongs in a category that is on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had those categories then Coulter would belong in them (assuming that the said allegation has been made), but that's really neither here nor there. Coulter's support for creationism has become fairly notorious, and the facts that she is not known foremostly as a creationist, and that she is not one of the foremost creationists, take nought away from the substantial notice she has gained as such. But this "notability" business is being mis-used, anyhow: In Wikipedia, it is really just a criterion for whether articles should exist, unless I am much mistaken. -- Lonewolf BC 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what I mean... yes, Coulter believes in ID, yes there is a category that goes along with this, but taking a cursory look at Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation, which states:
Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."
I doubt that I would stick IDer or Creationist as one of the top 5 descriptors for Ann Coulter, especially considering much more appropriate ones as American author, Conservative, NYT Best-selling Author, Media Personality, etc. (along with a few choice inappropriate categories I'd love to stick on as well). --kizzle 03:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Coulter doesn't defend Irreducible Complexity in the paragraph you have just cited, she attacks certain scientists who are defenders of a natural selection theory simply for not answering the arguments contained in Irreducible Complexity, and then again for only offering only a weak reproof. Her observations in your example have much more to with the manner in which certain scientists engage the issues, rather than the issues themselves. If that accidentally causes someone to lean towards the theory of advocates who are less discredited, that doesn't make Coulter herself an advocate of a particular explanation.
  2. Coulter "cites Intelligent Design advocates". I never said Coulter didn't consider the merits of opposing arguments in the question of how life began. In the first paragraph you list, she also "cites" advocates of evolution.
  3. Coulter doesn't endorse Behe in the paragraph you have cited, she merely quotes him.
You seem to missing the point. Coulter is taking the role of an intelligent juror on the issue of how life came to be on Earth, not an advocate. She shares with her audience the arguments she has diminished in her own esteem as a result of her own reasoning as contradictory, weak or unproven. And she is like an alternate juror rather than one called on to judge, because she has declined to render a final decision. Just like "agnostic" in its more common sense is understood as undecided between various forms of theism as well as atheism, Coulter regards herself as agnostic, being undecided among the various explanations for life on earth, all the while not regarding them all equally persuasive. 64.154.26.251 20:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


  1. By including the passage in her bookincluding the passage with a sympathetic tone while treating evolution arguments with a critical tone, she's expressly supporting the viewpoint; you really can't tell me that she's just regurgitating two viewpoints without prejudice for either side. If you actually disagree with that, then we'll just be talking past each other.
  2. Right, but there is clearly a sympathetic tone to the ID people she "cites" whereas the evolutionists she "cites" is met with a critical to the point of dismissive line of querying.
  3. Umm, that's what supporting means. She's citing an expert to support her own argument. You don't think she's just writing a historical narrative on the evolution/creationism debate, she's advancing her own argument and using what she considers "expert" advice to bolster her case. Once again, if you really think she's not taking sides, then we're just going to be talking past each other.

"Taking the role of an intelligent juror on the issue of how life came to be on Earth," I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, as well as "she has diminished in her own esteem", or what exactly an "alternate juror" does in your legal analogy. I don't know what to say except we're reading the same passages, but somehow where I see an apple, you see an orange. My personal belief is that it is absolutely incontravertible that she is advocating an anti-evolution pro-ID argument (especially considering she thanks all ID "scientists" and no evolution scientists in her book), but while you're not entitled to your own facts, you're entitled to your own opinion. --kizzle 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So she sympathizes in certain respects. If a juror has sympathy for a defendant, does that make her the defendant's advocate in his case that he's not guilty? Since you have difficulty with analogies, this is analogous to Coulter having sympathy for certain points of an argument, expressing that fact, but not going so far as to advocate the viewpoint.
Taking the role of a juror, means listening to the arguments of the advocates, and weighing the merits, and perhaps coming to a few preliminary conclusions about the details of what isn't true. Being an alternate juror means being that juror, but not rendering a verdict in the case, as regular jurors do.
"Diminishing in her own esteem" the arguments of whomever makes them, is deciding that some arguments are unsound, invalid or unpersuasive, according to her understanding of the matters involved.
So you think Coulter was not being truthful when she said she was "not particularly interested in the details" about how life appeared on earth, and that she found questions about means of causation unanswerable? That's possible, but to me your examples from her book don't show this. 64.154.26.251 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the question Coulter answered in an interview she gave to belief.net:
So what do you think really happened? Did God create the world in six days? Did he create each species separately? Did he set a chain of causation in motion? Did he "cause" evolution in the sense that all the species are related to each other but God guided their descent?
"These are unanswerable questions--except the latter. God did not "cause" evolution because evolution doesn't exist. Thus, for example, He also didn't "cause" unicorns. My faith and reason tell me that God created the world and I'm not particularly interested in the details. I'll find out when I meet my Maker."
64.154.26.251 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"evolution doesn't exist." I rest my case. --kizzle 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
So does that make a deist or an agnostic who says "God exists" an "Theist advocate"? 64.154.26.251 22:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
When someone, regardless of label, says that "God exists," it means they believe in God. When Ann Coulter says she that "evolution doesn't exist," it means she doesn't believe in evolution, which is a far cry from the level of indifference you are attributing to her. I stated before, she may not be notable enough according to Wikipedia protocol for her ID beliefs to be included in a category heading on her bio, but from her numerous statements on the matter in her books as well as that illuminating quote you have provided, it is clear that she is advocating a pro-ID anti-evoltuion argument. --kizzle 22:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"Not believing in evolution" is not equal to "Believing in intelligent design or creationism".
"Concurring or sympathizing with certain ID arguments" is not equal to "Advocating a pro-ID argument".
64.154.26.251 23:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
What part of "Ann Coulter is not an important person in the fields of creationism or intelligent design" are people having a hard time with? Lou Sander 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
None of it, I'm on the same page, Lou. I think this is more off-topic. 64, your first assumption taken within a vacumn is true, but not after reading Coulter's words on the matter, especially the lengths through which she criticizes evolution arguments and sympathasizes/regurgitates ID arguments while citing ID "scientists" to help her case. We know several things, that evolution and creationism/ID are mutually exclusive, that Coulter doesn't believe in evolution, that Coulter thanked only ID scientists for their viewpoints, and that the passages in question are critical of evolution and supportive of ID. If you look at all these premises and conclude that she is not supporting ID in her book and arguing against evolution, then there's nothing I can say further to convince you otherwise. Your second assumption is simply false: if you agree with, endorse, and use an ID argument by an ID "scientist" to support your argument, you are, in fact, espousing that belief as well. --kizzle 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Coulter may have contradicted her expressed view that she doesn't take an interest on the details how life on earth came about, but you have presented no such evidence that she did. And we don't "know" that evolution and ID are mutually exclusive; there are many who embrace both. And as I said, the support or "endorsement" she herself (not through quoting others) gave to Intelligent Design in your example would only have been accidently bestowed: through someone negatively assessing, along with her, her report of the means by which the evolutionary scientist presented his case! I don't think I need to add, except perhaps to you, that one merely agreeing with particular details of a position or presenting the position at some length means that one has a prior or posterior intention of championing that position. I agree with Lou that Coulter is not an important person in the fields of creationism or intelligent design, and Coulter's expressed lack of interest in the matter indicates she is not even a non-important advocate. 64.154.26.251 03:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Evolution and ID are mutually exclusive... irreducible complexity, a cornerstone of ID, is simply not congruent with the basic concepts of natural selection through mutations: evolution fundamentally asserts that the complexity of organisms originates from a process of natural selection through periodic advantageous mutations in offspring whereas ID fundamentally asserts that this complexity does not originate from natural selection or advantageous mutations but from an intelligent designer, therefore they are, in fact, mutually exclusive, as their fundamental assertions cannot both be true. Once again, Coulter specifically expressed that she belives that "evolution doesn't exist." She uses ID arguments and only thanks ID "scientists", while at the same time being critical of the basic concepts of evolution. I have no idea what "one has a prior or posterior intention of championing that position" means, as once they have agreed with (and not merely cited) a position (i.e. "evolution doesn't exist") and used it to support their own arguments, then they have expressed that position themselves. Like I said, you may be free to your opinion, but not your own facts. --kizzle 04:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't LoneWolf be the one responding to this? He is the one who thinks Coulter belongs in the two categories. 216.165.199.50 aka 64.154.26.251 03:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Now that I know you're also 64, your non-response to my specific points is noted. As for LoneWolf, there's still my question above that I'll re-post below if he feels inclined to continue the debate later.--kizzle 00:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be obvious to all that it's appropriate to make enquiries in order to avoid the continued discussion of a moot question. 64.154.26.251 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(copied from above to remain germane to the topic) Whether a category ought be on Wikipedia is a matter quite apart from who belongs in a category that is on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had those categories then Coulter would belong in them (assuming that the said allegation has been made), but that's really neither here nor there. Coulter's support for creationism has become fairly notorious, and the facts that she is not known foremostly as a creationist, and that she is not one of the foremost creationists, take nought away from the substantial notice she has gained as such. But this "notability" business is being mis-used, anyhow: In Wikipedia, it is really just a criterion for whether articles should exist, unless I am much mistaken. -- Lonewolf BC 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I mean... yes, Coulter believes in ID, yes there is a category that goes along with this, but taking a cursory look at Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation, which states:
Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."
I doubt that I would stick IDer or Creationist as one of the top 5 descriptors for Ann Coulter, especially considering much more appropriate ones as American author, Conservative, NYT Best-selling Author, Media Personality, etc. (along with a few choice inappropriate categories I'd love to stick on as well). --kizzle 03:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
There are no valid reasons to assign Ann Coulter to these categories. Period. Lou Sander 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Umm, she does believe and endorses Intelligent Design in her book, it's just not one of the top 4 or 5 descriptors for her, which according to Wikipedia guidelines renders such inclusion inappropriate. So it's not as open-and-shut as you make it out to be. --kizzle 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
She isn't a notable figure in creationism or intelligent design. The others in those categories ARE notable figures in those fields. Creationism and intelligent design do not mean anything to her notability -- they are merely two of many subjects discussed in one of her books. She is an amateur who doesn't belong in either category. Good Cop 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, as you can see from my statements above, I was just trying to mollify Lou's comment disagreeing with Lonewolf. --kizzle 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Info

Coulter is single and lives in a home in Palm Beach, Florida, that she purchased for $1,800,000 in 2005. Prior to moving to Florida, Coulter resided in New York City. [citation needed] She owns houses in New York and Florida.[1][not in citation given]

I moved this here because I am not really sure that is notable. I generally have not seen property value and dating status listed in WP:BLP unless it is somehow relevant to a larger fact. Especially since these are tagged with both "fact" and "failed verification" tags. --Rtrev 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It's personal information, none of which applies to Coulter's notability. Lou Sander 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not advocating for inclusion, but the PB, FL home price and location was cited with a PB Cty tax link, which can be located with very little difficulty if someone feels this needs to be included. I think it was probably originally included to "prove" her residency for the voter fraud paragraph / section. Someone may have removed the link for WP:BLP reasons since it included her actual home address. The source was added by an anon, [2] --Dual Freq 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well other parts are not verified and had fact templates that were added back and removed a few times by a new editor. Dominick (TALK) 03:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV template

With respect to the NPOV template prominently placed at the top of the article: Exactly what part of this article is disputed? --ElKevbo 07:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I was looking through it today and I am not 100% sure. I think that this still reads like a litany of offenses. Does any other WP:BLP have sections like "Negative reactions from publishers" "legal and professional disputes" and "notable controversies..."? I guess she is just plain controversial. I guess I don't have an objection to removing the template but I think editors should try and keep an eye out for WP:POV and scale back where appropriate instead of adding flourishes. --Rtrev 03:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind the template being there (or anywhere) but I don't care for a template that says it's explained in Talk not actually being explained in Talk. If someone wants to replace it then I hope they explain their rationale. --ElKevbo 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like there is very little of her mainstream work in the article, and a super amount of criticism. Not balanced at all. Where what she actually says and writes is included, it seems to be chosen because somebody else has criticized it. This is a good encyclopedia in many ways, but where Ann Coulter is concerned, it's just a little bit pathetic. Good Cop 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The discussion of her work is supposed to be in the daughter articles about her books. I myself have only looked at two of them recently. High Crimes and Misdemeanors contained some old false reports that Coulter was accused of plagiarism. Not by any recognized responsible journal she wasn't. I removed the reference. What's left is a half-baked summary of the book. Godless had a sort of report added by Ed Poor, I believe, which was added to a long (blog-sourced) attack on Coulter and Intelligent Design with which Felonious Monk had filled the page beforehand. At this point, I don't think it would take too much time for someone to go to the library and open up Book Review Digest. As to whether there would be any intelligent reviews found there is anybody's guess. 216.165.199.50 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"Intelligent" being here defined as positive? Please explain to me why you consider the article on Godless's section on Science and Intelligent Design to be an "attack", or for that matter, "blog-sourced". Also, please explain on the talk page why you consider yourself justified in removing the note of the allegations of plagiarism. I have reverted your removal and await your reason (blanking half of an article with no explanation is not how we do things here). Cheers, Kasreyn 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, as I stated in my edit summaries, Felonious not only cites but actually quotes two different non-notable blogs to support his case. As I said on the talk page, Felonious also will not cite evidence from the book that the book Godless "attacks science"; that in the book Coulter uses "Darwinism" as a synonym for "Evolution and science" or that by such alleged usage she acts, in his words, "in keeping with the religious right".
Also, I explained the removal of the plagiarism section in the edit summary and so doing, I removed the section with more explanation than it was added and with much sounder reasoning. Why should there be long quotations of duplicate content (longer than the description of the book itself) between two authors presented in a manner that imports to the reader it is the primary criterion for judging whether the supposed (and blogger-accused) plagiarism has occurred? Especially when alternate explanations are available? If you would look at the archive box, item #4 contains the title "Ext. Links, Transsexual, Birthdate, Plagiarism". Which means it was already discussed a long time ago. Why not read the archive so I don't have to repeat the full discussion all over again on another talk page? 64.154.26.251 04:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't someone with the book simply post what Coulter means by "Darwinism", as if she wasn't referring to evolution in particular, she hopefully defined what exactly "Darwinism" is before arguing against it. --kizzle 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am in agreement with the anons and with Coulter's publishers that the accusations of plagiarism are ill-founded. Many attack her for "false" statements and "copied" material, which upon analysis are found to be very much less than what is asserted. The article, to Wikipedia's great discredit, is full of this cruft, with the attacks getting great and ponderous weight.
I also agree that the criticisms of by Felonious are often ill-founded or misleading, or both. My favorite example is that in Godless, Coulter cited Piltdown man, Galapagos finches, and several other famous examples of longstanding and now-discredited arguments in favor of evolution. Poor Felonious twisted the wording to make them seem as though they were longstanding arguments of anti-evolutionists. He/she apparently has a flock of like-thinkers (if it can be called "thinking") who support this sort of thing, also to Wikipedia's great discredit.
Add to that the almost-daily instances of slanderous vandalism, and disinterested readers can see that, regardless of Wikipedia's excellence in many non-controversial areas, there are places (such as the Ann Coulter article) where it cannot at all be trusted. Some of us keep trying to improve it, though. Lou Sander 13:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record "we" anons (64 and 216) are one person. As you may know, it doesn't take much to get accused of sockpuppeting around here. 64.154.26.251 18:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry I confused the two one of you, but I hope you'll understand how hard it is to keep track of folks whose only names are strings of numbers. There's a solution to the problem, you know. ;-) Lou Sander 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll show responsibility for my contributions here as soon as Wikipedia shows to me its responsibility for its supposed commitment to the principle of NPOV. 64.154.26.251 19:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as due weight is considered (one para at most I'd say), the answer is not to wipe the entire section from the article entirely, but rather to state the allegations and the response. We are not here to analyze the veracity of plagiarism claims against Coulter, but rather to report that such allegations were made, while being absolutely meticulous about when she was exonerated. --kizzle 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this article does a little too much apologizing and explaining for Ms. Coulter rather than provide an encyclopedic-entry. Maybe a seperate area to address the controversies would help. I think this article is very well-written and well-organized as well, its just too pro-Ann for my taste. Lincoln187 08:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Column archives

How many links to her column archives do we need? The list under 'external links' seems to have grown quite a bit over the past few months. We could probably remove a few, particularly if some of the column archives only provide duplicate info from what's already on her own website. Dr. Cash 19:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

LS: Her "official" site, but only covers 6/30/04-present. All links are on one page, making it easy to use. A keep candidate because it's official, a delete candidate because it only starts in 2004.
LS: 10/7/02-present. Has one-line summaries and links to comments on specific columns. Said to have links to video appearances, but a quick look didn't see any. Shows 20 items per page, making it burdensome to find older columns. A keep candidate because of the summaries and links.
LS: Indexes 468 articles from 10/1/97-6/03. Shows oldest ones first, but with 50 items per page. A a bit inconvenient, but useful for looking at older columns. Seems to have other search capabilities, as well. A keep candidate because it shows more articles/columns than the others.
LS: 7/2/00-present. Includes votes, discussions, etc. Tabbed by year published, making it easy to find stuff. A keep candidate because of votes, discussions, ease of use.
LS: 1/10/00-8/3/06 All on one page, so gives the big picture. A keep candidate because of ease of use, a delete candidate because of limited number of columns.
LS - 6/26/00-9/13/01. The least complete archive. A delete candidate because it covers so few columns.
LS: 7/28/99-present. When you click "headline archive," you see them all on one page. A keep candidate because it goes back to 1999 and is easy to use.
It looks like serious overkill to me. I DO seem to remember that one of the sites has only her early columns; maybe it's the only place they are found, but I don't have any information on that. Other than that, I'm in favor of making sure we give access to all her columns, and not to duplicate that access, except perhaps leaving one backup site. Lou Sander 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I just took a quick look, and the situation seems complex. Jewish World Review goes back to 2000 or 2001, but stops in August, 2006. Her own site is current, but doesn't go back very far. Somebody needs to look at all these archives and get the links to tell us what time period they cover. Then delete the unnecessary ones, of course. Lou Sander 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of the above archives have been removed, maybe prematurely. I numbered all the archives and categorized them (in italics, in the original list above)--some have valuable features. We might want to make some changes. IMHO, #6 should be the first to go, #5 should be next, all the rest should be kept because each has its own usefulness and redeeming value. Lou Sander 13:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanese Mother

Umm....... Ann Coulter's mother is of Lebanese descent, so why is it always getting deleted when i write it??? left unsigned, by Jimmo bobo 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, her mother's descent has nothing to do with Ann Coulter's notability. Lou Sander 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
More to the point, that claim needs to cite a source. But neither the claim nor the editor making it ought be taken seriously, considering the latter's editing history (under 144.136.152.17 [3]) of adding unsourced and highly doubtful, if not patently false claims of Lebanese ancestry -- Berber, in one case -- and briefer history [4] of other vandalism to two of the same articles, under "Jimmo bobo". -- Lonewolf BC 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious views - change the section name to reflect intended meaning

Consensus sought: Is this subsection meant to reflect Coulter's personal spirituality or is it to reflect on her wider views on religion? This subsection is not in the area where the article is discussing her political statements, rather it is in her "biography" portion. Can we get a consensus on what was the intention of this so we can stop the edit war that Raphael1 has decided to wage? Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The section is intended to discuss Coulter's personal spirituality, and that is what it does. Raphael1 has no way of knowing "intended meaning," and seems to have a history of disruptive edits. Of course if he/she has something to discuss, he/she can easily bring it up here. Lou Sander 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-----
Whatever the best section-heading would be, I strongly suggest keeping personal remarks out of the discussion. Accusations and insinuations of the kind are rarely helpful, and contrary to the assumption of good faith.
As for the heading, I wouldn't get too hung up on its "intended meaning". Only whoever first made the heading might know the answer to that (might not, either), but in the end it does not matter because we are not constrained by that intent. The proper question is whether it makes sense, in terms of the organization of an encyclopedic article, to consider Coulter's personal religious beliefs under a common heading with her opinions on those of other folk. I think that it does, and that "Religious views" makes a reasonable heading for such a section. Sub-headings for "Personal beliefs" and "Opinions of other religions" might be in order, given enough material. Further, if the section is to be limited to Coulter's (ostensibly) Christian beliefs, then it would be better to have a heading that reflects that. -- Lonewolf BC 01:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Calling an edit war an edit war isn't a personal remark. Its a simple statement. Kyaa the Catlord 02:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Kyaa is certainly right about that. It is also a simple statement to say that Raphael1 has no way of knowing "intended meaning," and seems to have a history of disruptive edits. (Follow the link, read what you see, and judge for yourself.) Lou Sander 03:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please, ad hominem is ad hominem even if it is true (which I neither say it is, nor say it is not, nor wish to argue about here), and it should be kept out of the discussion. -- Lonewolf BC 05:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
If we think someone is a fool, or a nostril, or a bloviator, etc., we keep it to ourselves. If we think someone is causing problems, we say so. Or at least a lot of us do. Lou Sander 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-----
I propose to delete the "smell bad" quotation. It wasn't made in connection with Coulter's personal religious beliefs, and it is taken out of context in the column it comes from (which is about a movie and liberal interpretations thereof). It really belongs in Wikiquote. Maybe it's already there, in fact. (It's been in the encyclopedia article before, and was removed after discussion.) Lou Sander 13:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
When was that, Lou? -- Lonewolf BC 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Long ago. It's archived somewhere now. Lou Sander 23:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That is an utterly inadequate answer. If you cannot point out more precisely where this supposed discussion may be found, then you ought not even bring it up. Any such past outcome is not binding, anyhow, but it is not even worth considering merely on your say-so, and it is not reasonable to expect anyone to search for it "somewhere...[l]ong ago" in the archives, so as to judge its merits for themselves. -- Lonewolf BC 01:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Please assume my good faith in recounting the history of this article, to which you are very newly arrived. If you are interested in finding the discussion, it's there. That's why we save this stuff. And please be careful about scolding other editors; it violates WP:CIV. If you have some justifications for keeping this offensive material in the article, just post them so we can evaluate them. Lou Sander 01:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not accused you of bad faith, sir. I have noticed that you have a tendency to make vague reference to "past discussions" in attempted support of your positions, and I wished to point out the flaws of doing so. Among those is that, given the volume of the archive of this article, it is not reasonable to expect anyone to search the haystack for something you say is "in there somewhere". If you wish to introduce such matter into later discussion, the onus is on you to give a better indication of where to find it. If you disagree with me on that, then so be it. I do hope you give the matter some thought, at least. If you feel that I was too blunt in saying this .... well, then I am sorry you feel that way, but respectfully disagree. -- Lonewolf BC 05:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Lonewolf's right, if you can't cite exactly where the discussion is, the onus is on you to reproduce it, not for us to simply "trust" that such a discussion occurred. If it's there, you should have no problem finding it, if it's not the links Dual Freq has produced already. --kizzle 03:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, and please refrain from using article talk pages to instruct other editors. If you want to see the past discussions that somebody mentions, it's pretty easy to find them. Lou Sander 04:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith has nothing to do with it, I am assuming good faith, but if you're going to cite a prior discussion, cite the prior discussion, don't just say sometime somewhere a long time ago we talked about it and there was a concensus but you go find where it is. --kizzle 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from using article talk pages to instruct other editors. The talk pages are for substantive discussions of the articles. Lou Sander 15:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Awaiting your link to the prior discussion you mentioned, until then, this conversation is moot. --kizzle 00:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'd prefer to keep that in, though maybe move to post-9/11 Islamic commentary...either place is fine. --kizzle 21:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the justification for keeping it in? The justification for getting rid of it appears above (it's not part of her religious belief, it's taken out of context, and it belongs in Wikiquote, if anywhere). There is possibly other justification in WP:BLP. Lou Sander 23:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The justification is that your reasoning for removing the passage is entirely fallacious. You are arguing three reasons for removing it:
  1. "It wasn't made in connection with Coulter's personal religious beliefs"
  2. "[It] was taken out of context in the column it comes from (which is about a movie and liberal interpretations thereof)"
  3. "It belongs in Wikiquote"
Moving the quote to opinions post-9/11 would place the passage in a more germane section and thus satisfy #1. #2 is patently false: The answer is to supply the missing context rather than delete because the context is lacking. Please illuminate us all by either enlargening the quotation or providing the necessary lacking context in order to achieve proper context and thus satisfy your second objection. As for moving to Wikiquote, we don't vacumn every single quotation from this article into Wikiquote. As long as context is applied and it is not a simple naked quotation, it belongs in the article. After #1 and #2 are dealt with (#3 is just wrong), I see no further standing objections besides a "possible" and as-yet uncited, imaginary BLP violation. --kizzle 03:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
What part of "provide some justification for keeping it in" don't you understand? If you're able to supply the missing context in a way that improves the article, go ahead and do it. Lou Sander 04:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh, if you can't provide a reasonable justification for removing it, then don't remove it. It's not up to me to defend the status quo, its up to you to justify removing a passage, which you attempted to do and I responded already. Why don't you try responding to my points about your justification for removal? --kizzle 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for substantive discussions of the articles. Lou Sander 15:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes they are. They're also for responding to other people's arguments about content on the page, i.e. the one I posted above which you haven't addressed yet.--kizzle 00:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See also previous discussions:/Archive 12#Religious Views and /Archive 12#Religious Views 2 --Dual Freq 13:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mr. Sander, but whitewashing Coulters racist and bigoted views (as you tried here already) is not going to work. According to WP:BLP#Writing_style a sympathetic POV has to be avoided. Raphael1 00:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Try showing us some of her racist and bigoted views, then. All I see are some tiny quotes that are not what their advocates want us to think. The silly one that will not be in the article much longer is a parenthetical comment from an article about American liberals misunderstanding a Christian movie. It is already in Wikiquote. If you can find it as part of someone's discussion of her anti-smelly-people outlook, for example, it would help us all to understand what you are talking about. Lou Sander 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I've collected some links for you: [5][6][7][8][9] Raphael1 03:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to use these links, you need to write something up in an encyclopedic NPOV fashion, show its relationship to Coulter's notability, and put it somewhere appropriate in the article, supported by the material in the links. It's a good idea to discuss it here first, since this is a controversial article. Lou Sander 04:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, we know you'd fight tooth and nail against any of that being included, as it would be comprised of several sentences that could possibly shade Coulter in a negative light. --kizzle 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Not if it is written from a neutral point of view. That takes a bit of skill, but a lot of people can do it. Lou Sander 15:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"The silly one that will not be in the article much longer"... Cute. And yes, Mr. Sander, despite your opinion, calling an Arab a "raghead" and saying they all "smell bad" are bigoted remarks. Period. --kizzle 03:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
And how does that relate to Ann Coulter's religious beliefs? Lou Sander 04:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing, it relates to your conduct on this page. I already expressed my view about Coulter's religious beliefs above and the passage in question, which I still think should be moved off to post-9/11 commentary. --kizzle 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks on other editors and on the subjects of biographies of living persons. They are not helpful to anyone. It's better for us all, and especially for you, if you try to do something positive. Lou Sander 15:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Commenting on your conduct on this page is not a personal attack, and I'm allowed to refute your statement "Try showing us some of her racist and bigoted views, then. All I see are some tiny quotes that are not what their advocates want us to think" without you waving WP:BLP or WP:NPA over my head when they're not even applicable in this situation. --kizzle 00:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued conflicts

BLP requires that negative material be sourced from a neutral, third party source. Rapheal's latest agenda push is citing non-neutral sources, these need to be removed until he can find a secondary, neutral source for his statements. Direct sourcing from agenda pushing websites does not cut the citing requirements. Kyaa the Catlord 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am preparing to remove the last sentance in the "Arabs, Islam and Terror" section per the following portion of BLP: 'Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.' The cited sources are ALL partisan websites and are calling her a bigot. BLP trumps agenda. Kyaa the Catlord 12:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
NPOV does not stand for NO POV. Otherwise we'd have to remove all quotes from Coulter, since she's obviously partisan herself. NPOV (in a controversial matter like this one) means to represent all POVs. Raphael1 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. But BLP requires that you cite to a higher standard than using a bunch of partisan websites.... If you don't provide them, we MUST remove them content period. Kyaa the Catlord 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
We'll have to remove a lot of article text by your interpretation of WP:BLP (in particular all text originating from partisan writer Coulter herself). Raphael1 12:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Fundamental misunderstanding. Some of Coulter's writing *might* be removed from the BLP of another individual, if she is viewed as a "partisan" source for text used in someone else's article and if the text is deemed less than reliable, but her own writing is most certainly a valid source for her own article: your argument that it would be removed because she is "partisan" is incorrect. Statements form other sources *about* her, that don't rise to the level called for in BLP, should be removed if they can't be adequately sourced. Sandy (Talk) 13:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Only in some circumstances should the article document, what the subject may have published about themselves. (WP:BLP) Raphael1 14:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with her being quoted as long as the quote is wrapped in context. It is about her afterall and her notability hinges on her writings and television appearances. I'm NOT ok with negative material being sourced badly and the complete disregard of BLP.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you disregarding BLP, if you disagree to include "negative" material, since BLP clearly states, that a sympathetic POV should be avoided. Raphael1 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disregarding BLP, I'm holding you to it. I'm not saying there should be no negative material, I'm simply requesting you source it properly per WP's guidelines and policy. Kyaa the Catlord 13:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Any source publishing positive or negative material about Coulter is partisan per definition. Raphael1 14:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • rolls eyes* You just don't get it. I'd explain it to you, but you'd get offended. Kyaa the Catlord 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:RS primary sources can be used as long as anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source is able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. The critique on Coulter is IMHO pretty easy to verify. Raphael1 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see BLP/Biased or Malicious sources, you really need to learn to follow the policies of Wikipedia if you wish to continue editting here. BLP trumps RS in these cases, per Jimbo Wales. If you don't like that, take it up with Jimbo, but you'll lose. Kyaa the Catlord 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that most source publishing about Coulter are partisan but to extend that to all sources publishing about her is clearly a logical fallacy. I also think you're either misunderstanding WP:BLP or misusing it as the point is that negative material can be included but must be very strongly sourced. --ElKevbo 16:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you are intent on continually readding the out of context passion quote, please write it up in such a way as to make it be less than simply quote that provides 0 encyclopedic value to it. Once again, if you want to post pure quotes from her work, see wikiquote is the proper place. A quotes section has been discussed on the talk page and consensus was not to include one. Kyaa the Catlord 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree, that this quote provides 0 encyclopedic value. Raphael1 12:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Dumping an out of context quote in a place where it is out of context in her article pretty much equates to vandalism. Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no "right" context for such an insane remark. It is out of context in Coulters article as well, which doesn't make it less important for the WP article. Raphael1 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to write on the internet, you should learn to read first. Context means something, you can't simply ignore it to make "points". You should also understand that sometimes people say absurd things to illustrate a point. Kyaa the Catlord 13:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from getting personal. Anyway, I'd be interested to know in what context you see the quote and what point - you think - she tries to illustrate. Raphael1 14:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
She was being Coulter. She uses far out blurbs in the same way that Michael Moore does, to draw attention to herself. It is her "style". It is despicable, but... amazingly... people still fall for it which in her publishers eyes makes it valid. Does she mean it? Probably not, but it gets you to pay attention to her and possibly read her columns. Discussing what the column states is off-topic for this talk page, if you'd like to write about that, you could quote her in the article and discuss her viewpoint on Christianity there. (And oddly enough, that would make it on topic for the section, unlike taking her words out of context.) Kyaa the Catlord 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


  • For BLP Applicability:
From WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.
We are not analyzing the validity of the allegation as to whether or not Coulter, in fact, made bigoted remarks. Instead, we are reporting on the incontravertible fact that she has been accused of bigotry by notable and prominent Islamic advocacy groups such as:
  • Council on American-Islamic Relations ("a major non-profit, non-governmental, Muslim organization in North America, funded by American Muslims and also in significant part by Middle Eastern sources such as the Al Maktoum Foundation, which is headed by the crown prince of Dubai and which owns the deed to CAIR's headquarters in Washington, D.C.")
  • American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee ("With headquarters in Washington, DC, ADC operates offices in Boston, Dearborn, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, and San Diego. ADC welcomes members of all faiths, backgrounds, and ethnicities. Former US Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar is currently ADC's president.")
  • Muslim Civil Rights Center (taking a cursory look at their website, they might qualify as fringe, I'll let you decide)
BLP itself mandates inclusion by critics if the views are "relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." Coulter's comments on the Islamic world since 9/11 has been an integral part of her television coverage and public visibility along with her book releases, and this is just another example. Including criticism from fringe groups is one thing, but as demonstrated above, at least the first two groups can hardly be called fringe. As for reliable sources, here's one from LexisNexis so that we can use in addition to the primary source:
  • Jim Ritter, "Muslims see a growing media bias", Chicago Sun Times, September 4, 2006 - Anti-Islamic prejudice "is increasingly bleeding into mainstream media," [Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations] said. After Sept. 11, columnist Ann Coulter wrote, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Before Sept. 11, Coulter "would have faced swift repudiation from her colleagues," Hooper said. "Now it's accepted as legitimate commentary."
  • For lack of context:
Once again, the answer is to add context and not to remove the passage entirely. I will try to add in a bit more context around the quote as long as people don't start screaming at me that it's giving undue weight.

--kizzle 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

From what you quoted: "If the view represented is that of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." The view that Coulter is a bigot IS that of a tiny minority. Very few Muslims globally know who Coulter is and of them, a very small minority have ever read her writings. Sounds tiny to me. Ritter's quote has no bearing on the portion of the article we are discussing, the portion I was having problems with was the one that called her straight out a bigot. Kyaa the Catlord 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
On top of these being partisan websites, as I pointed out above, libelous material needs to be removed immediately and the person adding that material is required to give proper sourcing for it. It is not a case of adding context, BLP requires it be removed immediately per the box which is pasted on every talk page of a BLP related topic. If you can't play by the rules, don't play. Kyaa the Catlord 02:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but a prominent Islamic lobbying group that is spending over $50 million on a media campaign run by a former Congresswoman and Saudi Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal does not count as a "tiny minority". We don't phrase it like Raphael wants; Wikipedia can't say that it is bigoted or anti-Islamic, but it can report that allegations have been made by a highly prominent Islamic lobbying group using the Chicago Sun Times or its own press release to satisfy WP:RS while making sure to satisfy due weight by keeping it under a few sentences so that not too much space is taken up with the section. [Insert trite catchphrase to emphasize my point]. --kizzle 06:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Partisan groups should not be used per BLP. A lobbying group is INHERENTLY partisan. It should die. NOW. Kyaa the Catlord 06:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd also suggest that you read Raphael's sources. They seem to be sorely lacking period. (They pretty much boil down to "Coulter says Muslims smell bad, burn her". Kyaa the Catlord 06:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No, BLP does not state that partisan groups should not be used. What it does say is "Information available solely on partisan websites" should not be used. As you can see, I have produced a citation from the Chicago Sun Times, which is not a partisan website, that documents that CAIR did, in fact, criticize Coulter for her statement. We're not here to judge the verity of such a claim, but rather report that the event occured. --kizzle 08:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And please watch your tongue about equating my edit with lying, I was using the Ritter source rather than the townhall source. Wikipedia:Assume good faith is still in effect (Lou, this is an example of a breach of WP:AGF). --kizzle 08:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sick of arguing this, I'll just remove it every time I find it sourced badly. If you do not wish to follow BLP, fine, I will and I will remove badly sourced content as it gets replaced. If you have personal comments for Lou, please use his talk page, this page is for discussion of the article, thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 08:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fine if you're done arguing, it doesn't mean you're right. As I just said, I am following BLP, as it says absolutely nowhere that "partisan groups should not be used". --kizzle 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." CAIR calling Coulter a bigot is derogatory so, per BLP, should not be used at all. Direct quote. What part of that is unclear to you? Kyaa the Catlord 06:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The part where I quoted the Chicago Sun Times. --kizzle 07:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And the fact that you found a CAIR apologist who reprinted their press release has any bearing on the article as it stands? The four "sources" in the article are from partisan websites. If you added a valid source to the article, maybe I'd take you more seriously. Right now, I believe you are simply trying to troll. Kyaa the Catlord 07:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Right now, I could honestly care less what you think I'm trying to do. I've cited a non-partisan reputable newspaper documenting salient claims of Anti-Islamic allegations by an extremely notable Islamic group, thus satisfying WP:BLP and WP:RS. Nothing in your post has refuted any of these facts. --kizzle 07:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, simply because a lobbyist group spends $50mil doesn't mean they're not a tiny minority. They're backed by the Saudi's and because of their natural resources, they pretty much can print their own dollars. A lot of money does not mean that they aren't a tiny minority, it just means they have solid backing. Kyaa the Catlord 08:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The "tiny minority" clause is meant for conspiracy theories like 911truth.org, not the views of a powerful Islamic lobbying group funded by a Saudi prince and the crown prince of Dubai. --kizzle 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The "tiny minority" clause should also include special interest groups, regardless of how well funded they are. Aryan Nation and such groups rake in huge amounts of capital from their followers, but we should not use them. Partisan is partisan is partisan. Kyaa the Catlord 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Debating whether or not part of policy "should" cover something else is inappropriate to discuss on this talk page. May I refer you to Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons if you want it to change how policy is phrased? --kizzle 07:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you sidle past the meat of what I said and try to wander to a tangent. Minority views should not be given undue weight. Minority views from partisan websites should not be used to add derogatory, libelous content to wikipedia articles. If the view that Coulter is a bigot was that of a larger minority, we'd find many news articles decrying her in support of the contested text that Raphael1 added. You found 1. Tiny. Minority. View. Check. Kyaa the Catlord 07:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
So according to your logic, the Chicago Sun Times is a "partisan website"? Also, undue weight does not equal not being mentioned at all. And as it stands, we're talking about a sentence, two at max. --kizzle 07:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm done. You're not worth any more words. Kyaa the Catlord 07:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Jim Ritter piece in the Chicago newspaper: Have you done a google search on Jim Ritter and CAIR? The results are intriguing and revealing. Kyaa the Catlord 07:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued concerns, continued

Outstanding issues: The claim that Coulter is a bigot by CAIR still needs support. Kizzle found 1 additional article to help source it but the article was written by someone who's neutrality is in question. The claim that Coulter is a bigot by CAIR may be giving undue weight to a tiny minority opinion. This view seems to be only found on partisan websites, and as above, the single source that Kizzle has uncovered. The claim that Coulter is a bigot may be better expressed already by the article and adding this potentionally libelous one-liner should be weighed against the rest of the article for inclusion. Is it redundant? Does it add anything to the article that isn't already there? Kyaa the Catlord 07:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved material from the terrorism subhead to the columns subhead. CAIR et al are complaining about what she's written for the most part. Kyaa the Catlord 08:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image/Free image

There exists a free image (Image:Ann Coulter.jpg) which replaces the fair use image (Image:Coulter-Silver-dress.jpeg). According to policy fair use images should be replaced with free images. Several users have reverted this: ([10]) ([11]) ([12]). The old image, which lacks source information and a detailed fair use rationale as well, has been tagged for speedy deletion since it also is a replaceable fair use image.--Oden 09:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In the past there was a conflict over this image, please do not ignore consensus by trying to replace this image, regardless of your rationale. It is very rude. Kyaa the Catlord 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available." --Oden 09:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Quit wikilawyering, its only the internet. Kyaa the Catlord 09:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that messing with images on this article is a "do at your own risk" experience. We like having new people come over and breathe life into our article, but darnit, don't touch our lady. (or whatever you call her. :P) Kyaa the Catlord 10:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This statement sound suspiciously like a claim of ownership over this article. Jean-Philippe 10:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I own miss Ann. :P And, I'm not royalty, I can't use a royal we with a straight face. Kyaa the Catlord 10:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't understood that. Jean-Philippe 10:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your crusade against the picture that was agreed upon via consensus either. We're even. Kyaa the Catlord 10:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This image is so much prettier than that the old colorless, grainy one. I don't think there's a need to be so dramatic about it, either. Jean-Philippe 10:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to be a stick in the mud either. The usual image was chosen by the regular posters after a large amount of discussion and debate, simply ignoring the consensus is bad form and downright rude. Kyaa the Catlord 10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You've called Oden legitimate concern "wikilawyering" and warned him that changing the images was done at his "own risk". You told him "Thanks for visitting." which I interpreted (maybe in error!) as telling him to piss off. Who's being rude? Nevermind that, all we want is a free image. Don't you think it's prettier too anyway ^.^ Jean-Philippe 11:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The risk was that changing pics on this article leads to this sort of crap. Pages of pages of drivel over the changed bloody picture. We'd FINALLY gotten settled on the one we were using and Oden decided unilaterally to toss that aside and change it. Legitimate concern? What bloody concern? After having the revolving door of pics, we'd finally gotten one that noone was arguing about for a change. You want a free image, fine, post a free image on your own website. On wikipedia, go with consensus and consensus was happy with the gray dress shot. Then again, maybe we'll just start changing the image willy-nilly again! It will be fun! Kyaa the Catlord 11:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, WP policy is WP policy. If there is a free image and a fair use image, WP policy does not give us a choice. We either use the free image, or no image at all. The only thing that made a fair use image acceptable at all was the non-existence of a free one. That is the only justification available under WP policy.
Additionally, your comments on this talk page have been uncivil, to the point of hectoring. I strongly recommend you reread WP:CIVIL once more. Oden provided you with the link to the policy, which if you had read it, would have shown you that Oden's concern over the image was a matter of policy and not personal. Please don't leap to negative conclusions about other editors' motives in the future (ref. WP:AGF). Kasreyn 07:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for visitting. If you'd like to make constructive suggestions, there is a more current discussion on these images below. This discussion page is for discussing edits to the Ann Coulter article, not for labelling others. Please kindly stay on topic. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't censor or attempt to re-direct Kasreyn's comments, his input on the matter is just as valuable as anybody else's. --kizzle 07:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
This thread is only a couple days old. Granted, the talk page is moving very fast, but this one always does. I feel I placed my comments where they would do the most good.
I have no intention of labelling anyone. The purpose of my comment was to inform you that your comments towards Oden were uncivil and disruptive of this discussion. Naturally, this is the proper place for such a caution to be given. I only mentioned it because you seem to have ignored a previous attempt by Oden to inform you of this; I figured repetition might help. Kasreyn 07:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for misrepresenting what was done. I simply removed a personal attack per the wikipedia guideline on doing so. Nice try, kizzle. Kyaa the Catlord 07:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Kasreyn's above comment. --kizzle 08:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course you do, she's here on your request afterall. Kyaa the Catlord 08:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe respond to the comment rather than my concurrance? Just a thought. --kizzle 08:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Why? Because three days after the fact she's decided to come in and start tossing around personal attacks? No thanks. I'd rather not feed... Kyaa the Catlord 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you submit Kasreyn's comment to WP:PAIN then? I'd absolutely love to hear what they think on the matter. --kizzle 08:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Why bother? My panties aren't in a wad. Someone else's sure seem to be though. Kyaa the Catlord 08:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sigh... so many words to avoid responding to a valid point. Seeing as you'll shamefully never actually answer Kasreyn's point, and the image debate is over anyways, I'll let you finish with your trademark money quote. --kizzle 08:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
We should start with this one: http://www.breitbart.com/images/2005/12/7/D8EBR6D00/D8EBR6D00.jpg Hawt. Kyaa the Catlord 11:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, if it's a free image and you think it's more appropriate, go for it :) Jean-Philippe 11:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Who cares if its free? You guys can just switch it back. It will be fun! (Just like what you and Oden have been doing, in our viewpoint.) Kyaa the Catlord 11:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to point out anything too obvious, but it does say "Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia" in the upper left corner, there's also an article on Free content. The fact that the photographer is Jimbo Wales who licensed the image under the Creative Commons is also interesting (but not relevant to the issue of free images, check out his page on Flickr). --Oden 12:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but you really need to realize the history behind the picture choices on this article before you go changing things. Every time the picture gets changed, this place goes bloody insane. As evidenced by my reponses tonight. I should refactor or something, this is just dumb. Kyaa the Catlord 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand that this is a controversial topic, but every editor must remember that no one has ownership of an article. And when it comes to policy, consensus concerns not only this article but all of Wikipedia. --Oden 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the consensus in this case was to use the fair use image which was ignored by those who keep removing it. I've not replaced it, just wanted to point that out. Again. Kyaa the Catlord 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yse, but regarding Wikipedia's policy's (such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V WP:FUC, WP:BLP etc.) the term consensus is in relation to all the editors of Wikipedia. Even if all of the editors in this article agreed to, for instance, introduce original resarch or disregard neutrality it would still be a violation of Wikipedia's policies. The same is true when it comes to the use of images which violate Wikipedia's policy. As a last resort users who continually violate Wikipedia's policies and interrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point risk being banned. --Oden 13:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Disruptive editting is also against Wikipedia's policies, so... en guard. Kyaa the Catlord 13:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I started an entry at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-28 Image:Ann Coulter.jpg. I guess it has become superfluous since the article currently is in line with Wikipedia's policy on the issue. --Oden 13:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I love how you ran to mediation when you didn't think you were going to get your way. Now that's bold edit warrioring. Kyaa the Catlord 13:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Another policy on Wikipedia is no personal attacks. See also Wikipedia:trolling. As difficult as it is to accept, and as harsh as it sounds to say it, there are only two rights for users who disagree with Wikipedia's policies: the right to fork and the right to leave. --Oden 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Trolling? You seem to be the one trolling here, edit wars, which you started here, are trolling. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please. This discussion was over once Oden cited Wikipedia:Fair use criteria and your only response was "Quit wiki-lawyering, it's only the internet". Also, once again WP:AGF please, "I love how you ran to mediation when you didn't think you were going to get your way. Now that's bold edit warrioring" is entirely inappropriate, as getting outside opinions on the matter in a dispute is entirely acceptable if not encouraged. Regarding the content of your lack of AGF, I guess we were under different perceptions of the argument, as I thought he had you from the very beginning. --kizzle 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please. The moment that Oden started quoting policy he revealed that he was simply creatively trolling. He's a one trick pony and knows it. Kyaa the Catlord 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I must be living in Bizarro world where quoting applicable and relevant policy is tantamount to "creatively trolling". --kizzle 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hiding behind "policy" in order to make edits which are viewed by other editors as disruptive is very definition of creative trolling. Please read WP:Trolling, you'll become enlightened. Kyaa the Catlord 06:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And I highly doubt Oden is trying to cause a disturbance by citing a very relevant Wikipedia policy, but I guess AGF is not one of your strongpoints. Policy is policy, either live with it or go to Wikipedia_talk:Fair use criteria and complain. --kizzle 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Kyaa, I am unaware of anyone here except you who thinks Oden's edits were disruptive. I certainly don't. Do you have any evidence to support your accusation? Because if not, the one being disruptive here is you. Kasreyn 07:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
And you should listen to your own advice. The above discussion referring to CAIR calling Coulter a "bigot" was over when I cited Wikipedia:BLP and you continue arguing a lost cause. Quit being condescending and practice what you preach. Kyaa the Catlord 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The only problem is you didn't cite BLP, you paraphrased BLP, and paraphrased it incorrectly. See above where I reproduce the actual citation from the page if you want to discuss further. --kizzle 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The one where I quoted the actual statement from the BLP page which you continue to ignore? I thought so. Kyaa the Catlord 06:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"Continued to ignore" seems a bit incorrect, seeing as you posted it 18 minutes before complaining that I "continued to ignore" the passage. I thought so. Thanks for actually responding, I'll continue the thread above. --kizzle 07:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In light of this debate (which has become quite heated) I thought I would make an edit I think can be considered a compromise... if only a temporary one. It is true that free and open images are preferred. It is also true that free alternatives to fair use images should be of similar or greater quality. The current free image is simply of poor quality. It is out of focus, poorly lit, and not what I would consider fit for an encyclopedia no matter who the photographer may be.
For now I say we go sans photo until a more acceptable replacement can be found. Please discuss. --Rtrev 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I say we go with no images at all in protest. Kyaa the Catlord 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to get Oden's opinion on this one, as he found a perfectly legitimate and arguably superior image (it being free rather than fair use). Such a good idea shouldn't get the cold shoulder, but I'll defer to his opinion in the matter. As for quality, I agree with Rtrev, it's a matter of balancing the value of free vs. fair-use over a slight but discernable difference in quality. --kizzle 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the views of those who have participated in this article prior to Oden's "changes" should be observed and given more weight than someone who comes in and disrupts the article. Kyaa the Catlord 06:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in a while. I'm surprised someone who didnt like Coulter didnt just upload a photo of a dog turd, name it Ann Coulter.jpg and insist that because it was a free image it had to be used to replace the legitimate fair use image that was there. The concept of using free images vs fair use images is good in theory, but the way it is being implemented here appears to be nothing short of a demonstration of zealotry or fanaticism. The image offered as a replacement is crap (excuse my francais). The quality of the image has to play a role, and no one can honestly say that is a good photo of Coulter. Better no photo. Congrats guys. You have really improved wikipedia.Caper13 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the crazy opinion that there is no "seniority" here and that every editor's opinion is welcome here, even those who haven't been around here as long as others. If you were correct, Kyaa, I'd pull rank on you as my first edit to Wikipedia was on this page on September 2, 2004, a full year before your first edit. As for the legitimacy of the new image, it's about balancing the value of free vs. fair-use over a slight but discernable difference in quality. I'm not familliar enough with how beneficial it is to have a free image over a fair-use image, so I'll leave that to people more qualified. Let's decide this through a reasoned and calm debate over the merits of fair use vs. free image and the difference in quality between the two images rather than posit ridiculous theories of editor seniority. There is a valid concern for both sides here, let's not immediately assume the other side is a moron. --kizzle 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
slight difference in quality? Lets at least be honest here. The page looks better blank. Caper13 07:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, I'm not defending either way, as I don't know how beneficial having a free image over a fair use is, as I was indoctrinated that free is way better for some legal reasons, but like I said, I'm deferring to someone who knows a bit more about licensing and copyrights. --kizzle 07:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes yes, you're an old fart at wikipedia. I prostate myself before thee. Happy now? Wikiality prevails! (Of course, you completely ignored my argument that those who have taken part in this article should have their views respected over that of a one trick pony who runs about changing out images willy-nilly.) Kyaa the Catlord 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please reproduce the part of the argument that I "ignored" and I will gladly respond. However, you might want to read past the first two sentences if you want to read a respond to the image argument itself. And no, I would not be happy if you "prostated" yourself before me, as I am of the opinion that all our opinions here are of equal worth, regardless of seniority. You may prove me wrong, of course, by citing relevant Wikipedia policy where it says that new users with valid policy concerns, a.k.a. "one trick ponies who run about changing out images willy-nilly", seconded by other members in the discussion, should defer to senior editors. Have fun with that one. --kizzle 07:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is built by consensus. When a minority of editors make an unwanted change to an article, this breaks consensus and other editors are encouraged to rescind those changes. What Oden did broke the truce over the images on this article, and has become a disruptive edit, regardless of him being supported by policy or not, his change is disruptive and should be treated similarly to any other disruptive edit. To quote Oden himself, if you do not like the fact that wikipedia articles are based on the consensus of editors, you're welcome to leave. Kyaa the Catlord 07:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Concensus is not set in stone. I've been part of concensus's that have since been modified to the point of not being to recognize the original agreement anymore. If a new concensus emerges from sound logic (which Oden currently has a claim, as well as Caper13), then that is the new concensus reached. Also, characterizing his good faith attempt to apply policy as a "disruptive" edit is lacking WP:AGF. I'm done with you for now, have to study for GRE's, but don't worry I'll be back tommorow to respond :) --kizzle 07:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You honestly believe that Oden's edit has not been disruptive? Kyaa the Catlord 08:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
How can an edit which is mandated by policy ever be disruptive? Kasreyn 07:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've hidden the image until the dispute is resolved. An overzealous revert earlier readded it to the page. Kyaa the Catlord 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Could someone direct me to the archives of the discussions where the apparent consensus was reached on using the fair use image as opposed to Jimbo's one. While I don't believe this has any relevance, I would like to at least see what people said and get an idea of how many people were involved in this discussion where this apparent consensus was reached Nil Einne 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus changes, it now seems like more editors are interested in using a free image rather than invoking fair use. Vpoko 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, uh, guys? I know I'm late here, but some things actually can't be overridden by consensus. Even if every regular editor of this page agreed to throw out NPOV and turn this page into a fan site (or attack screed), it would be overturned. NPOV is a policy handed down by the Wikipedia Foundation, and you can't overrule it, no matter how many people you get to agree. It's their site, and they make the rules. Fair use policy is in the same category; it's a core Wikipedia policy that fair use images can not be used when free ones are available, and you can't just throw that out. —Chowbok ☠ 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To the above to comments, it appears to me that consensus is "we'd like a free image, just not this one." Kyaa the Catlord 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And it appears to me that the consensus is to use this free picture until we find a better one. If you really hate this picture, I suggest looking for a free replacement, because fair use is only a valid defense if there are no free alternatives. Vpoko 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, it looks like Oden's initial "disruptive edit" (according to Kyaa) was right. Fancy that, quoting policy turned about to be correct in this case?? Crazy. --kizzle 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The old image failed to meet criterion #1 of the fair use criteria, since it depicted a living person, so I tagged it for speedy deletion and found a replacement. Even if it hadn't been replaced, it would have been deleted per policy (seven days after Nov 28, 2006).
  • On a personal note: I've uploaded over 50 free images to the Commons on a variety of subjects. This is the first time that someone has accused me of disrupting Wikipedia by providing a free image. --Oden 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the last as well. --kizzle 08:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated material

Raphael1 added in more duplicate information, information already contained in the article. I'd remove it (again), but I'll let someone else have the fun this time. This is starting to become boring. Will someone please let him know that the material he readded is already contained in the article beside me, he does not seem to listen.... Kyaa the Catlord 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Example: "According to the Associated Press Coulter bashed widows of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack victims as pro-Democrat propagandists, and has repeatedly ridiculed Islam and Muslims. [102]" There is already a section on the 911 Jersey Girls, why am I being forced to fight to remove this line? Kyaa the Catlord 08:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image #3 - wales' phoshopped

All I did was color correction and crop, i'm not good enough to take the shadows out of her face. Consider if the free image route is taken. --kizzle 09:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The cropped image is better. You should replace the one at Image:Ann Coulter.jpg instead of uploading a new file. That way the page will update automatically. Your edited image is still under Wales's creative commons license.

BTW, I was the original uploader of the "Grey dress" photo taken from Coulter's site. I led the original argument that it should be used because it is a promotional image that Coulter herself has selected as a thumbnail on her site. I support the replacement of this FU image with the free image taken by Wales. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Its better, but still not acceptable. The black eyes make her look like she's been strung out on heroin for days. I'm not opposed to a free image, just not this one. Kyaa the Catlord 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually rather surprised there is so much opposition to this image. Yes it isn't the best but it isn't terrible. And IMHO, it's far better then the image we had previously that made her look anorexic (yes I'm aware that she has it on her site, it doesn't change the fact it was a particularly bad image). The simple fact is, we only really have 2 options here. Either we use this image or we leave the page blank until we find a suitable free replacement. IMHO, it's better to have this even if it isn't the best. If she personally requests it's removal, then sure we probably should remove it and leave the page blank (unless she provides a suitable free alternative). But given the image she has on her site, I don't think she'll care. Nil Einne 17:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, IMHO it's best to keep the origina image, especially when it's been cropped and had extensive changes and both source and output is JPG. There might be a reason for an uncropped image and another use may be able to do a better job. Also, too much recompressing is bad. Of course, it could be reobtained from Flicker but it's easier to just keep the thing. In this case, given Jimbo's image is currently unused, there's no reason IMHO to replace. Nil Einne
I don't mind the cropped photo. It's obviously an amateur photo but that in and of itself doesn't really bother me. Its copyright status is unquestionable so that is a marked improvement from the previous photo. I say we use it. --ElKevbo 18:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't care much what photo is used, but this is an important public figure, and it seems to me that an amateur photo isn't appropriate. IMHO, it ought to be some sort of photo from an "official" source. Lou Sander 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Lou: the only way the image would be inappropriate is if it violated the policy of WP:BLP in that it is derogatory or inflamatory. An example I could think of would be a covertly taken nude photo of the subject. But Coulter clearly consented to have her photo taken here. And even if she didn't stop and smile, a photo of her walking by would be equally appropriate and not violate the BLP policy. Could a better photo be taken? Surely, and once a free one is found it would be suitable for inclusion. As any featured article about a public feature should have an image of the subject included, and a free one of this subject is available. We should use what we have. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Malber: Hey, if Wikipedia wants to ignore the vast trove of fair use images in favor of some sort of Linux-geek "licensing," they're surely free to do so. It diminishes the encyclopedia, though. Lou Sander 22:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what leeway we even have here, as its pretty explicitly set in policy. In all seriousness, you might want to try to visit the talk page for Fair use criteria to voice your concern. --kizzle 22:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering it's the Wikimedia Foundation that will likely be named in lawsuits regarding copyright infringement I think it's perfectly acceptable for them to define the level of legal risk they're willing to take. I also trust that those who developed the policy are more informed about the intricacies of the law and the huge grey area that is "fair use." --ElKevbo 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Technically, all user contributed photos on Wikipedia are amateur. The question here of the legality of a free image over a fair use of a copyrighted image clearly trumps any argument of quality. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not necessarily true. Depending on the license it photos can be both professional and free/open. There are MANY photos of professional quality that are free. In this case the free photo is not really an alternative it is not quality enough for an encyclopedia. --Rtrev 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. A free photo that is not adaquate in terms of quality is not a valid alternative. If the only free photo was a poor quality blurry shot of Coulter running away from the camera one one could make the case that it must be used. Clearly the free trumps fair use arguement is not valid in every case. Quality and appropriateness for use MUST enter the equation. Caper13 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well said, we should follow another wiki policy and IAR in this case. This picture is not suitable and replaced one which was accepted by a consensus of editors of this page. Replacing it with this one may be justified using FUC, but let's just say "fuc that" and roll back to status quo. We have better things to discuss than this ill advised change. Kyaa the Catlord 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
In all seriousness, you guys might want to try to voice your concerns over at Wikipedia_talk:Fair use criteria. There's not a lot of wiggle room, especially with the "Always" clause. --kizzle 22:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Let the lawyers set the legal policies and let the Foundation determine the amount of legal risk they want to take with Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, photos contributed by professionals could be considered professional quality, but they would be contributing them for free and hence as an amateur. This is however a semantic argument and not relevant to the issue.
You're making a distinction between six and a half-dozen. I think you're wrong on the semantics; a photo created by a professional photographer is a professional image. A "professional" is one who takes a majority of his/her income from photography - this doesn't mean that every image they create must be sold. Many professionals do pro bono work. Others donate images here ( and elsewhere ) for publicity, especially when using the attribution license. Yours is simply too rigid a definition.
The fair use policy is very clear on this issue: when a free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information, it should be used over the non-free version. Wales's picture does this. The policy does not take "quality" of the image into account. So far there is no criteria for deletion of images based on quality (there really isn't one for articles either). Face it: Coulter doesn't always take a good picture. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not the best photo but it's free and that takes precedence. Legal and ethical concerns must (and do) take precedence over aesthetic concerns. --ElKevbo 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh come on now

I made a number of, what I consider, compromise edits and LonewolfBC has repeatedly reverted them away. I've made requests to him on his talk page to be careful when reverting and to discuss major changes on this discussion page before making them. He has blatantly refused to discuss anything (see his talk). Honestly, if LonewolfBC has a personal problem with me, fine, but bullying my edits away is dirty pool. Kyaa the Catlord 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's helpful when you avoid antagonising editors. For example, calling LonewolfBC's edits vandalism when they clearly weren't was not likely to be helpful. Also, as far as I can tell, you're the one who made the major changes which LonewolfBC felt were illadvised and therefore reverted. Generally speaking, when you make major changes to an article, which are disputed, it is up to you to explain why you made the changes and why you felt they were necessary rather then the person disputing them to explain. I'm not saying LonewolfBC has handled this well, simply pointing out the best way to handle tricky situations Nil Einne 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you read this talk page? I've been discussing changes for days. Kyaa the Catlord 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's discuss those changes:

1 In the section about Coulter's religious beliefs, I added an OR tag to the unsourced statement that a particular writing stirred controversy. 2 In that same section, I increased the size of the quote to give context. 3 I moved the section about CAIR throwing a hissy fit over her columns from the "terrorism" section to the columns section. 4 I removed the duplicate material related to the 911 Jersey Girls, which has its own section and was terribly out of place. 5 I hid the image since there is a content dispute regarding it and it had been totally removed previously.

Why Lonewolf's reverts are bad form:

   
Talk:Ann Coulter
 Dont's
  • Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
  • Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
  • Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
   
Talk:Ann Coulter

The above quote is from help: revert. Is there a dispute? Yes. Were my edits in good faith? Yes. Was there valid information? Yes. Should he have "improved the edit rather than reverting it?" Oh hell yes. Kyaa the Catlord 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also going to provide a diff for Lonewolf's talk page before he deleted my good faith effort to ask him to come here and discuss this: [13] As you can see from that, he did not have any intention to discuss his revert.... Kyaa the Catlord 18:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the edits. I decided that they were bad. Yes, you've been talking about making assorted edits, but I don't see that you had consensus for the ones you made. Indeed, you had every reason to believe that they would be contentious. One factor that figured in my decision to revert was that your behavior has become indistinguishable from that of a troll, both in editing the article and in talking about edits, here. The big hullaballoo you are now making, with its emphasis on trying to cast Lonewolf as the villain of the piece, rather than calmly discuss the edits, is typical of this troll-like behavior. If you are sincere, you need to take a good long wikipedia-break, to try to regain some perspective. If you are a troll, you need a permanent one. Anyhow, my interest is in useful editing of articles, not in wrestling with trolls or folk who act like trolls, so I'll not step into the ring with you, though I am ever ready to sit across the table. -- Lonewolf BC 19:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Lonewolf's reversion. I don't personally see any reason to move the the CAIR thing. And the stuff that was added, well was unnecessary. In terms of your dispute with Lonewolf, I won't go any further except to repeat what I said before. Try to avoid antagonising other edits. Perhaps lonewolf has not handled this well, I won't comment on that. But Lonewolf's edits were obviously not vandalism. BTW, I'd in fact visited Lonewolf's page and viewed your attempt to sort this out beforehand. I note in your oldid you failed to include the edit you made where you gave Lonewolf a vandalism warning here. I'm going to assume good faith here, and guess that you did this by accident but in the future, try to make sure you include the entire exchange, not just part of it. Nil Einne 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You may agree with Lonewolf's reversion, but per the help file for reversion, his choice to revert was a bad choice. His choice to revert again after being asked politely to discuss his proposed changes on the talk page was starting a classic revert war which is seriously frowned upon by wikipedia and most neutral wikipedians. Kyaa the Catlord 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Passion thing

I commented out the Passion thing for now here. Reason is quite simple. Although Ann's comments are likely to be offensive to many, it's important we establish they were controversial or at least noteable which we haven't. As another editor remarked (somewhere in the archives now I guess), Ann has said a lot of stupid things. You only have to read a bit of what she says to know this. However it's not up to ask to compile all the stupid things she's said. When a specific thing she said has attracted controversy, then we can mention this. The fact that you and I find this comment offensive is irrelevant (this will probably apply to most of her comments) in the absense of evidence it was controversial or noteable. Nil Einne 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone who's been fighting to get this removed since its original inclusion, I simply wish you good luck. (You're going to need it.) Kyaa the Catlord 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Coulter says many things that tend to be inflammatory to some readers. There is no room to repeat them all. IMHO, we should specifically mention only those that have caused fairly notable and widespread controversy. When we mention them, fairness requires us to do a lot more than just repeat what she said; for example, we need to provide a fair description of the context in which she said them. Some editors are not able to do that, others are. Lately the former seem to be pretty active in this article. Lou Sander 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I love you Lou. Marry me. What I meant to say was that I grow weary of your anonymous sniping of editors on this page. If you were complaining about an editor currently active on the talk page, I'd hope you'd come out and leave constructive criticisms rather than whining intimations. --kizzle 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please observe WP:CIV, Kizzle. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 08:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm asking from Lou, though I did withdraw my previous unproductive comment. --kizzle 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Kyaa, thanks for your continuing efforts at pest control. It helps us all in our continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Lou Sander 13:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Great example of constructive criticism. --kizzle 00:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this snarkiness necessary? Your continued feud with Lou is becoming dull and is innappropriate for a talk page. Kyaa the Catlord 07:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Whereas "pest control" is entirely appropriate. Good point. --kizzle 07:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It takes two to tango, but since you went out hunting for more partners, I imagine this is more of a line dance now. Kyaa the Catlord 08:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Islamofascism"

The term "Islamofascism" is (in my opinion, intentionally) inflammatory, in addition to being generally inaccurate (as fundamentalist Islam shares very few traits with World-War-II-era fascism). While to some it may be a "legitimate term to describe a subset", as User:Caper13 claims, it's too emotionally loaded to ensure rational discourse. It is not used at all within the section, and including it in the header implies that Ms. Coulter limited her statements to the jihadists, undercutting the controversy surrounding the statements within the section; the controversy is precisely because her statements do not differentiate between violent, fundamentalist Islamic groups such as al Qaeda and peaceful Muslims. --Benjamin Geiger 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the article might be improved by addition of an encyclopedic, neutral point of view section on Coulter and Arabs/Muslims. This should NOT just be a childish recitation of things she has said that some A/M's might take issue with. It might include the points that 1) she writes a lot of stuff; 2) none of it mainly deals with A/M (or if you think some of it does, point it out in a neutral way; her airport security stuff is about airport security, not about A&M); 3) she has said some minor things that some find disagreeable ("raghead," "smell bad," etc.) Personally, I don't think her A/M stuff is notable enough to write up. Those who DO might want to try to write it up in an encyclopedic NPOV way. Lou Sander 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems like at least some of her "A&M" comments have been heavily reported in the mainstream press. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. She's a writer and public speaker, so what she writes and says seems relevant. Vpoko 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Vpoko is probably right about some of her A&M comments being notable, if indeed they were heavily reported in the mainstream press. They're just not notable enough for ME to spend time on. If an A&M comment goes in, it should go in in an encyclopedic and neutral way (which takes skill, time and effort to do, of course). If somebody who cares about the A&M material could discuss it in an encyclopedic and neutral way, it probably would stay in. "COULTER HATES MUSLIMS!" won't make it. Neither will "WALID FOO SAYS COULTER HATES MUSLIMS!" Maybe something like "While A&M have not figured prominently in Coulter's work, some of her comments about them have raised eyebrows" -- then provide some citations. Above all, avoid inflammatory words that make it look like Wikipedia has an opinion. Lou Sander 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Her comments would have to have been highly reported though. Not just some critic commenting "Eeek, look at what she's said now". Otherwise, when it comes to articles about professional commentators, their article will become a collection of quotes surrounded by complaints about how so and so was pissed off by them. Coulter's style is to cut through the noise and to make comments which shock certain readers. I think rather than entering a collection of quotes that are intended to have shock value, it is enough to just note this propensity and style of hers. As for whether she doesnt like Muslims, that is laughable. I would imagine she would answer that she has no problem with Muslims as long as they arent trying to kill people, destroy our buildings, impose islamic law, destroy western civilization, hijack planes, or forcibly convert others. <--the preceeding was an example of the type of comment that is phrased to have shock value, and yet carry what some would consider a normal message at its core. (She is opposed to the fanatics who are waging war). If it is part of her style to do this, it can be noted that those who like her enjoy the over the top comments, and those who dislike her are outraged by them, without creating a laundry list. Particular subjects are then easier to deal with in an NPOV manner. Eg. that because we are at war with an enemy that is predominantly muslim, she favors a wider program of profiling those groups and is less concerned that nonmilitant muslims may be inconvenienced by it, given the potential dangers involved (even though she may have phrased it in a more inflammatory way). Our job is to be NPOV even if the subject isnt. Caper13 23:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One might note that Ann uses the word "islamofascists" in her writings. I'd source it, but I feel that having citations in headers is dumb and makes things look godawful. So I'm being bold and not sourcing it. Neener neener neener. Kyaa the Catlord 06:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Benjamin. If the term "Islamofascism" is to be included, it needs to have quotation marks around it. WP is not here to lob verbal grenades like that. If it absolutely has to be in the header for some strange reason (rather than, say, a header like "Coulter's writings on Muslims"), then it still must be directly attributed to Coulter to make it clear that it is not WP using this loaded and inaccurate terminology. Kasreyn 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back to what it was a couple weeks ago. The extraneous additions have been purged since then and its returned to its original subject. Kyaa the Catlord 06:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(The above two posts mysteriously disappeared, causing the posts just below -- Lonewolf BC 09:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Preemptive: "I didn't do it" [[14]] before you suggest it. Kyaa the Catlord 08:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I was researching it myself as you posted this, and came to the same conclusion. Kasreyn 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My bad Kasreyn :) Although for some reason it's showing up as Lonewolf on my computer, though it's still my comment. Weird. --kizzle 09:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As best as I can make out, it was Lonewolf restoring your comment. But I don't understand how that nuked the other two (see above). Anyhow, all back now. -- Lonewolf BC 09:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for reverting the vandalism :) --kizzle 09:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo or No Photo (for the time being)

I've re-addded the photo. It doesn't matter if some people feel the free image is esthetically inferior. When a policy says "always use a free copy over a non-free copy" it trumps any esthetic concerns. If you have a free image of better quality, please feel free to contribute it. Besides, the orphaned FU grey dress photo is slated for deletion. As the objective of any article is to reach FA status, and one of the criteria is to have an image in a biographical article of the subject, and a free image is available, I have returned the free image to the article. Please don't let this turn into a lame edit war. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber, I believe that your position is a good faith one, however I disagree with your rationale that the goal of FA Status requires the immediate insertion of ANY image into the article. Essentially extending the position that says ANY free image automatically prohibits the use of all fair use images, to any image is always preferable to no image. User Rtrev made a reasonable compromise suggestion when the free image first came along that we go blank for a while rather than revert back and forth between the free image and the fair use image. It seems a large number of editors dislike this image and want time to find another. Extending the inital truce (no image) for a week or two to allow people time to find an alternate free image that people can all agree on, would seem to make sense. It avoids potential edit wars, calms tempers, and allows time for a solution everyone might find acceptable. Unless you are expecting this article to be a FA in the next week or two, I dont see what the downside is. Perhaps if people have a reasonable amount of time, and are unable to locate an alternate image, they might warm up to the free image currently available and we can achieve consensus that way as well. I really don't see what the time pressure is, and a pause might allow everything to work out naturally. Caper13 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of moving your comment from the previous section to this new section for clarity's sake. I hope that is ok. Caper13 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind the new section. This is the story to date regarding inclusion of an image from my perspective. When I first encountered this article, a scan of the cover of Coulter's book Slander was used for an image of the subject. When objections were raised about the appropriateness per policy of using a fair use book cover image for the image of the subject, I found the grey dress image on her site and used it as a replacement. At that time, there were objections to that image for esthetic reasons. But those arguing against inclusion of the book cover image on the basis of policy won out and the fair use promo image from her site was used. Now we have a free copy that meets all of the criteria for inclusion of an image depicting the subject of a biographical article: it acurately depicts the subject, it is not derogatory or inflamatory. It even has the added bonus of appearing that the subject consented to have her picture taken. If those objecting to this image can provide a valid reason for exclusion of this image that has its basis in policy, please present it. As it stands, the grey dress image will be deleted as it is an orphaned fair use image. So when that happens, we won't have an alternative other than the free image (unless someone uploads a better quality free image). This is why I believe the image should stay. There is no policy based reason why a good faith edit to include this image should be reverted. —Malber (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we should use the Silver Dress image. I'm just saying that an easy way to avoid an edit war would be to go without an image for a short time and allow those who say they don't like the free image to find an alternative image that is also free use. I'm not suggesting that we go without an image forever. If in the end, no other free image is discovered, I'd probably vote to go with the currently disputed free image. Staying blank (image wise) for a couple of weeks is a small price to pay if it helps build consensus, and I really don't see the downside. Caper13 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a rational objection to the inclusion of the image and any reason why the article should go imageless for any period of time. Is the image not sexy enough for everyone? Do we have to wait for a free image that would be considered for inclusion in an issue of Playboy? That's not how an open source encyclopedia is supposed to work. —Malber (talk • contribs) 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The desire for consensus isn't rational?? What is your rush? Caper13 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, the article has had an image since its earliest days. There has never been any non-trivial objection to any of the images that were there, either the professional images supplied by those who supply such things for widespread use, or the low-quality amateur ones supplied by those who don't understand the accepted methods of handling photos of public figures. There isn't any non-trivial reason not to have a photo. Lou Sander 01:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the insistence that the article should go image-less until a "suitable" image is found ("suitable" here defined as suitable to a vocal contingent of Coulterites) is not rational. No consensus is required to determine whether the article should have an image: it is encyclopedic best practise for each of our bio pages to have a photo, preferably free, of the subject. We have such a free image. Unless a better free one can be found, it is obviously best practise to include it. We can "work our way up" to "better" pictures later. In fact, if this one bothers you so much, go out and find a better free one yourself or quit complaining. It's not our damn job to worry about whether a photo of Coulter might be unflattering. The photo in question was taken by the creator of this website, who is apparently a friend of Coulter. Somehow, I doubt she's going to complain.
Cripes, I can't believe I have to explain this stuff! Kasreyn 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I must be crazy in thinking that Jimbo's image isn't bad enough to warrant complete exclusion from the page. I'm not sure we should just go without an image "for a while" as just finding a free non-fair-use image of a celebrity is pretty difficult. It would be one thing if policy were ambiguous about the matter, but it says "Always use a free image in place of a fair-use", even with "Always" bolded to emphasize the point. Malber makes a great point: this is an open source encyclopedia and subject to slightly different standards than print encyclopedias. Britannica can probably get permission to use a slightly better image (assuming Britannica would even make a page on Coulter or Al Franken or any other of the like), but Wikipedia is governed by rules to ensure that it stays or aims to be free. I'd prefer to act according to policy rather than the threat of an edit war, so let's keep the free image until another more suitable replacement can be found. That's my two cents. --kizzle 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I also encourage the editors here who have a problem with the image to spend a few minutes google searching to see if they can come up with results, as I'm definetely not married to the current one. --kizzle 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I did Google but didn't find anything. Didn't look that hard tho. I personally don't object to not having any image. I do hope however that who oppose the free image need to realise we are unlikely to change our policy and no matter how many pleas so it will always be free image or no image. Of course, a better free image could come along. Alternatively, since some editors seem to find her agreeable, they could try contacting her for a free photo. I couldn't since I don't think I ever want to speak to her Nil Einne 11:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

Why is there no mention of Coulter's Plagiarism?

[edit] Photo Count (update as needed)

In Favor: 12

(Oden, Jean-Phillipe, Kizzle, JzG [15], Mindspillage [16], Malber, Nil Einne, ElKevbo, Vpoko (I think), Chowbok, VxP, and Kasreyn.)

Opposed: 3

(Kyaa, Rtrev (apparently), Caper13.)

Indifferent: 1

(Lou.)

My apologies to anyone I've misinterpreted. It would appear the free image has not only policy, but consensus as well. Kasreyn 01:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems about right. --kizzle 01:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm weakly opposed to WHAT? (I know it's about a picture, but that's about it.) When you start a new topic, it would be helpful to recap what's going on. Lou Sander 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The fair-use/free image debate. Look up about a quarter of a screen. --kizzle 21:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"I don't care much what photo is used, but this is an important public figure, and it seems to me that an amateur photo isn't appropriate. IMHO, it ought to be some sort of photo from an "official" source."
Seems like opposition to the photo to me. If I was wrong, I apologize, Lou. Do you want me to remove you from the "oppose" side? Kasreyn 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm really on the "I don't care" side. The free photo is fine. Lou Sander 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So noted. Kasreyn 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
To avoid any confusion I confirm that I support the free photo over the fair use photo. Nil Einne 11:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say consensus has been established for the free image, and in the meantime we should continue to look for a better free image. Anyone wanna make the edit? VxP 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Polls are evil. In favor of what? Opposed to what? The majority of us don't mind a free image as long as it is usable, which this one is not. Kyaa the Catlord 14:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make up new definitions for old words like "unusable", it's not going to help the discussion. The picture's not optimal, but it's very "useable". If I was shown that picture and nothing else, I would know who the subject is. VxP 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
How about this then "something that doesn't look like she paparazzi on a bad hair day?" or "something that doesn't make her look like a heroin addict that's been strung out for a week"? Seriously, this picture is awful and no picture would be preferable. Kyaa the Catlord 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any valid fair use claims based on the alternative looking like it "was caught by a paparazzi on a bad hair day". And I'd much prefer a bad picture to no picture, at least now someone reading the article will know what she looks like, even if it's not at her best. VxP 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
How refreshing to see people who want to remove pictures because they don't show her good side, rather than removing her quotes because they don't show her good side. Gzuckier 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Good point.  ;) Kasreyn 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have it backwards. Those quotes are inserted because they don't show her good side. Think about it. Lou Sander 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Gzukier's correctly summarizing a debate before you were here where Coulterites wanted to excise every quote (even ones that satisfy notability) from the page because they made her look bad. Despite your repeated insistence, not every edit that puts Coulter in a bad light is "because" of some need to make her look bad. --kizzle 04:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: a better image has been uploaded, so this section would appear to now be moot. Kasreyn 06:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ibrahim Hooper

Somebody added "Responding to this comment, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations remarked in the Chicago Sun Times that before Sept. 11, Coulter "would have faced swift repudiation from her colleagues," but "now it's accepted as legitimate commentary."[92]"

Though they are well-sourced, I really don't see how Hooper's speculations on American journalism, even in the context of Coulter's remarks, are very notable in an article on Ann Coulter. Hooper responds to ALL comments that he deems to be anti-Islam. That is what his organization does. This one is nothing special, and we can't just fill the article with everything one of our favorite advocates says about something that Coulter says or writes. If somebody thinks differently, it would be good if they could explain why. Lou Sander 16:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we cannot remove all content from an article, because it happens to originate from an advocate you don't like. See WP:OWN. Raphael1 17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not advocating "removing all content," and I don't care one way or another about Ibrahim Hooper. I'm saying that his comment isn't sufficiently relevant to Coulter's notability to appear in her article. The reasons I don't see it as relevant to her notablity are 1) that it is but one of hundreds of comments from people who don't like something that Coulter says, and 2) though it was made in reaction to Coulter's words, it seems to be mostly about the decline of American journalistic standards, according to Hooper's point of view, and 3) it comes from an advocacy organization, and not from the mainstream. I have a very open mind about reasons to the contrary. Lou Sander 21:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hooper's status as the spokesman of a major Islamic lobbying organization renders a one-sentence passage appropriate according to WP:BLP
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.
The spokesman for a major ($50 million on a media blitz effort alone) Islamic lobbying firm responding to a comment that earned Coulter a lot of notoriety from the Islamic world and is highly relevant to Coulter's notability (which according to the April 18, 2005 edition of Time Magazine helped get her column dropped from National Review) and is "well-sourced" (according to you) belongs in the page according to WP:BLP. --kizzle 21:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
When I first read Lou's comments I agreed. But on further consideration I think Ibrahim's comments definitely merit inclusion. You need to consider the comments carefully. Although on first consideration, it may sound like it's just a comment on what America is like, it's actually quite a strong comment on Ann Coulter as well. Basically it's saying Ann Coulter's comments are so disgusting that they would be completely unacceptable in any resonable society and would have been unacceptable in the US before September 11th. So yes, it's commenting on America but it's also commenting, very strongly, on Ann Coulter's comments so it merits inclusion in the article Nil Einne 11:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking, Nil. Even before your comment, I did some further consideration and started thinking that maybe his comments ARE notable enough to be kept. I disagree with your "so disgusting" and "reasonable society" stuff, though. Look at his words: "... now it's accepted as legitimate commentary." Maybe he doesn't like what Coulter said, and he's definitely advancing his lobbyist POV by objecting to it, but even HE acknowledges that words like Coulter's are legitimate commentary. It's important for us to let our readers know that, and for us as editors to realize it. Lou Sander 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
No, what the quote says is that her comment that was highly offensive to Muslims was perceived as legitimate commentary by other American journalists, thus criticizing both Coulter's comment as well as the post-9/11 sycophantic state of American journalism. --kizzle 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
He appears to be a paid spokesman for a lobbying group from what I can tell. Put his comments in how own (very limited) article. This article is about Ann Coulter, not Ibrahim Hooper. Caper13 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he is being paid, as he is the spokesman. So what? You're seriously arguing we can never quote spokesmen of any organizations or government agencies because they are on the payroll? --kizzle 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You cant compare a paid spokesman for a pressure group, with an employee of a government agency. Caper13 03:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Your point was that since he was a "paid spokesman" of his employer, that his words shouldn't be taken seriously. This would apply to any spokesman representing any organizations, be it governmental or non, as they are all paid. You think Tony Snow is any less biased than Hooper? Even all this is forgetting paid corporate spokesman, which we still quote pretty frequently. I guess it doesn't matter, as I think we've come to a concensus to include the passage as it satisfies WP:BLP. --kizzle 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
My point was that a paid spokesman, is not the same as an independant reviewer. What one says could very well be true, but one is hardly impartial. Tony Snow is not an impartial observer of the Bush Adm just as this guy is not an impartial observer of the subjects he is paid to comment on. Caper13 06:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Clear, accurate thinking, Caper. Everyone is paid for something. Some are paid to promote a point of view. Quoting them is sometimes just a way to advance the point of view that they are paid to promote. Not everybody "gets" either point. Lou Sander 12:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree completely. Of course, because that view is advanced does not invalidate the justification for its inclusion. --kizzle 15:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new photo...

What do people think of Caper's upped photo? --kizzle 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of being too predictable, I like it better Caper13 08:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, the Jimbo pic sucked. This one is ok. Kyaa the Catlord 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's just say now that we've satisfied policy I'm staying the f away from this debate :) --kizzle 08:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's cropped too tight on the left side. One of the rules from basic photography is that you're not supposed to cut someone's arms off. ;-p But policy-wise, it's fine of course. If consensus is to use this photo I don't mind. The lighting is definately better in this one. —Malber (talk • contribs) 09:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as it's not fair use (CC license means essentially free, right?) I can't see any reason to object. Looks good. Kasreyn 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/n/Talk%7EAnn_Coulter_1918.html"