Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

For those interested, an RfC has been filed against User:BigDaddy777 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. Your comments would be appreciated. --kizzle 19:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Coulter and McVeigh

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

During an interview with the New York Observer Coulter said that she was ok with what McVeigh had done; "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building." She has explicitly stated that she supports McVeigh's brand of terrorism... and suggested another place to hit. She doesn't regret that McVeigh blew up a building. She doesn't regret that he killed alot of innocent people. She doesn't regret that there was a daycare center in that building. She just has a 'better target' in mind. --CBDunkerson 11:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If you are trying to prove she made that quote, mission accomplished. use the quote. get over taking it of context though, unless you can do it in a way that cites your paraphrase/summary as someone else's. 71.133.115.162 12:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Use the quote"? Uh huh... I take it you have missed your fellow conservatives screaming bloody heck about the use of quotations? Including that one? This is ridiculous... whether we describe her position without the proof that she holds it, paraphrase what she said, or quote her exact words someone insists on excluding it. My 'POV' is that Ann Coulter supports anti-american extremists, white-supremacists, and terrorists. There is quite alot of evidence backing up that view... and one way or another you ARE going to allow that evidence to be included in the article. --CBDunkerson 22:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

no one cares what your pov is except your thesis advisor. leave the wikipedia for encyclopedic facts which can be referenced. if statements get disputed, cite someone else saying them or don't expect them to stay. 71.133.115.162 02:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and don't tell us what we ARE going to allow. No one here is in any position to behave like that.Gator1 02:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's just ducky... except we have done that and it got yanked then too. Or are you saying that we are allowed to quote anyone EXCEPT Coulter (or ourselves) in explaining what Coulter's views are? Ridiculous, but whatever. As for behaviour... let's talk about incessant reverting of proven facts, shall we? --CBDunkerson 10:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What exactly was the problem with quotes other than the sheer number of them? As for trying to make a point by giving evidence, please abide by Wikipedia: No original research. 64.140.89.34 19:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the only problem with the quotes was the amount of them, not the content. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please READ the 'original research' guidelines. The idea that Ann Coulter is a right-wing extremist is HARDLY a 'novel interpretation'. I assure you that I am not the first person ever to come up with this 'radical' suggestion. The 'original research' guidelines do not prevent someone from adding 'the Earth orbits the Sun' without finding a quotation of someone else saying that. I CAN quote other people making the point which most recently got pulled out;

OK, then go on the Saddam Hussein page and try calling him a "dictator" or that he was even "dictatorial" and see what people say. It's POV. Just deal with it.Gator1 12:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"Although the article is sympathetic to Coulter, it doesn’t make Coulter look good—namely because it uses Coulter’s own words. First, it has the already notorious quote: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." This is a depraved, moronic statement. It’s one thing for a foo-foo babe from New Canaan to go native and develop militia chic, but when she expresses sympathy for the activities of racist criminals like Randy Weaver, the mass-murdering Branch Davidians, and McVeigh, it should raise serious questions to her advocates. As far as I know, it hasn’t." [1]

The point is... I shouldn't HAVE to. We don't NEED quotes to say that the Earth orbits the Sun... it has been pretty well established that this opinion exists... we can just throw it out there and let any Flat-earthers who are around put in their objections. Filling an article with quotations of other people expressing opinions doesn't make it "encyclopedic"... just messy. Number of quotations, type of quotations, describing views without quotations, quotations from the wrong people... this is all nonsense. Every which way someone tries to include what they see as wrong with Coulter it gets yanked. Enough already. The excuses are getting increasingly silly (e.g. saying, 'some people think Ann Coulter is a right-wing extremist', is now "original research"). --CBDunkerson 10:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not OR, it's weasely worded. Find the person and quote them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's vote on this --

a)those who think she's a right wing extremist and its fair to include in the article

b) those who think she isn't and don't want it in the article

c) those that think its POV to call her an extremist, whether or not it they believe it so. --69.110.10.133 03:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I vote B. She's obviously a right-winger and self ID's as that. But the first thing I think when I see Ann Coulter is - Damn, that's the hottest looking woman over 40 I've ever seen...including Demi Moore! My next thought is I know I'm gonna laugh my butt off at how she incites liberals. And she never fails to deliver:) So, while she would probably be delighted to be called a right-wing extremist, I think we should be smart enough not to fall into her little trap. Big Daddy 13:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Insults

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is the POV question whether Coulter uses insult at all or weather she uses insult heavily?

--71.112.11.220 04:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You will need to cite sources for anything that is so obviously going to get disputed as her use of insults. Find someone to quote and quote them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In other words, the POV question is whether she uses insult at all? [2] I was thinking more of her insults toward Canada, this was the first article to come back from google. --155.91.19.73 22:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no one to quote in that article RE her propensity to use insults. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Because she's SO important, right?

Latest comment: 18 years ago42 comments12 people in discussion

She's just a shock journalist... like McDonalds or a sitcom, all she is is entertainment. We DO have freedom of speech (in this case, freedom of "screech") in the country, so let her say whatever she wants. What she says doesn't change anything. If you like her, good luck with that. If you don't... why don't we just ignores her? I mean, she's clearly an attention whore... so? -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 20:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? Think of the poor 6-year old that has just learned to read coming on wikipedia looking up Ann after seeing a lifteime worth of her on Fox (he's only 6). He reads this article and sees she is just a harmless jester who writes bestselling books, engages in hyperbole, constitutional attorney, who doesn't ever insult anyone and righteously supported trailer-park good Christian girl Paula Jones. Sure, she has a few critics but all they have are unfounded "allegations" about her. Oh and her legs are 10 feet long. The kid grows up accusing everyone of slander and treason and calling teachers to the mat with accusations of liberal bias and eventually blows up the N.Y. Times building, making sure the news staff are inside this time around, but not before having pretend sexual relations with Bill Maher. --155.91.19.73 23:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

lol -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You see! I told you that the whole 'Bill Maher sex thing' was just there to feed the fantasies of self-acknowledged Coulter-haters. It's coming out.Big Daddy 09:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Natsuki, I've been editing Coulter for a while; some of my work is still evident in the article. Haven't seen you here, because I've been on other articles, but I saw you're section heading:

Your comments betray not only an obvious negative bias, but hostility towards the subject. It is not a good foundation for serious discussion, nor is it a foundation to gain the trust of people striving to make this article NPOV. This page is for talking about how to improve the article. People put serious work into their discussions and arguments for improvements. This is not a message forum for slamming the subject of the article. That is what Yahoo! is for, not WP. Pease take such comments elsewhere; they don't belong here. Period.

The comment that follows yours is cute and marginally entertaining, but it too does nothing to move forward the discussion at hand, either.

I will work with any serious editor, of any persuasion, who comes here to work on this article. Please do not waste my time and others with Internet chat.

If she's not that important, why have you joined a room full of editors trying to write an article about her? We're trying to get something done.

I haven't read your history on this page, so maybe you're taking a little break from some hard editing work. Do it on your talk page. Visitors to Wikipedia who visit this article are directed to this page by the article's "neutrality" warning. It would be nice if our visitors didn't have to wade through your chat. paul klenk ^talk 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

too long, didn't read. Biut I will say this... for a FIVE PAGE discussion area my comment hardly makes anyone WADE... they already ARE WADING. My comment is a valid POV, it belongs here. I don't like ann coulter... but honestly, what's all the dispute about? She's a mere bug on the backdrop of more worthy issues. As for you. Oh... and if you're such a great wikipedian, why are you throwing passive agressive personal attacks around? If you don't like what I say....... yup, IGNORE IT! -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 00:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether I "like" what you say, or whether it is "valid POV," is not the point; if it relates to content, and I do not "like" it, I still have to address it. If it doesn't relate to content, it doesn't belong here.

If you didn't read what I said, why are you falsely accusing me of a personal attack?

Read what I said again, please. I'm asking you directly and politely: Please take slams to a forum appropriate for slamming. On this page, please stick to content. paul klenk ^talk 00:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

When someone says "too long, didn't read" it means they started to read, and skimmed a little, but didn't waste time on something long and worthless to read. I read enough to see that you told me there was some other important wikiwork I needed to be doing. THAT is a passive aggressively snide thing to say, and thus a personal attack. Are you done being hypocritical? -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 02:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Natsuku's right - you need some perspective on this stuff if you want to stay sane. Those of us with opinions about these people let it all get out of perspective - everyone knows Coulter is a shock-jock wannabe but is less restrained by good taste than Howard Stern - but big deal. Get some perspective, and find a stub to expand into a real article. Guettarda 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. At least someone caught the drift. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That's an ATTACK that is an ATTACK!!!! lol. If what paul said was a "personal attack" what isn't?!?!? Give me a break...please stop throwing that accusation around, it loses all meaning when so clearly used inappropriately.Gator1 01:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

and this, kids, is what is called a BAIT. Notice how he also employed the "twisting what was said" and "putting words in other's mouths." That concludes today's lesson. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah "personal attack" was never said...yeah I had to put that in someone's mouth...yup, you got me! Give me a break.Gator1 12:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This is called "purposefully misinterpreting the person's words." Any questions class? Moving on... -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

THAT is a passive aggressively snide thing to say, and thus a personal attack. You labeled what he said as a "personal attack." What's their to misinterpret? Hiding behind snotty responses instead of taking the opportunity to either confirm or deny your intent, is poor form. My point: Stop throwing that accusation around, they lose all meaning and is only meant to try to initimdate people. Nuf said. Moving on.Gator1 17:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

...and this is someone who doesn't know how to use wikipedia (he put everything in a long quote box). 69.231.245.82 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

YO, talk pages are free for all to betray their own POV. Natsuko can say what she will and Paul can tell her to shove it. Personally, I think she's right on. Does it really make anyone feel good to rip on Ann? Or bolster her? After thousands of edits, is this really a high quality piece of work?

Alas, the efforts of Paul and Natusko are in vain, neither approaches the legendary antics of the too-soon forgotten BigDaddy777. Big Daddy, we hardly knew ye...--69.110.55.229 00:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Interest piqued... please expound of yon BigDaddy777... lol -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 01:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Search for Daddy on this page -- and go to the Rfc at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

He's a big contributor to some other arts too, like Pat Robertson

--69.110.10.133 03:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! That post referencing me pretty much violates every wik principle there is, huh? Big Daddy 09:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

== Support foFile:R Tim McVeigh??? ==

Can someone provide a source that says she SUPPORTED McVeigh's actions? Otherwise this is coming out. (And, no a snarky comment that she wished he would have blown up the NY Times bldg does NOT count.) Thanks! Big Daddy 16:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, yes, saying that McVeigh did the right thing, but in the wrong place - how is that anything but support for McVeigh? How can that not be interpreted as "supporting a terrorist"? Guettarda 14:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You have taken sarcasm literally. It is an elementary mistake. Don't worry, a lot of Ann's detractors fall into that trap; it's why she uses such language -- so she can claim "how stupid liberals are" -- she loves to think that (even though it is not true). She uses hyperbole, she's a polemic. It's what she does. The fact that you are here discussing it, saying, "how is that anything but support?" is making her point.

She is exploiting the extremist, irrational hatred of conservatism to get people to say what you just said. She is very good at it. She makes her argument, states it in an outrageous and offensive (to some) way, and waits for a reaction. You just gave it to her. You missed the point that she doesn't like the NYTimes. You mistook it for support for McVeigh -- an outrageous idea driven by irrational hatred. Irrational hatred prevents us from thinking clearly.

I will now explain her remark to you: Ann hates the New York Times. She would be very happy to see it fail as an institution. McVeigh blows up a building. Coulter says, "Gee, why couldn't he have blown up the NYTimes instead." Get it? paul klenk ^talk 14:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you and many others DO actually "get it", but don't let it get in your way. Now there's a thought.Gator1 14:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with gator and paul klenk. If that's the only basis for a claim of timothy mcveigh support, it's a travesty this even made it into the article. I'm taking it out. If you can find her specifically praising McVeigh that's another story. What she said was similar to what Howard Stern said the other day on his often hilarious program "I wish (hurricane) Katrina would have swept away Jennifer Anistion and Oprah Winfrey." This was not an homage to life-destroying hurricanes. It was a sarcastic shot across the bow at Oprah and her 'pal' Jennifer.Big Daddy 15:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, McVeigh's a huge joke here in OKC. Everyone think's he's so funny. Ha ha. Guettarda 15:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, it was unfortunate you had to smear BD by saying the motive of his edit was to "whitewash" something in your edit summary. Is it possible you failed to read his reasons on the talk page? You need to do that, and make an honest effort to understand it. He made a good point. Is it possible that your living in OKC is making it harder for you to suppress your own POV? If so, just say so. paul klenk ^talk 23:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Smear? I think not. I read the discussion, it sounds like an attempt to whitewash support for a terrorist. And to answer your other question, no again. If I had lived here ten years ago, if I considered Oklahoma home, I would have to take a very careful look at my own POV. But I was in Michigan at the time. My comment was meant as an observer, not as a participant. I'm by no means convinced by the whole joke angle - commentators reverse themselves all the time...some, like Pat Robertson are shameless enough to claim that they didn't use a word that's on tape, but most of them claim that they were either taken out of context, or joking. We cannot speculate about what people meant, only report what they said. Coulter has expressed her support for McVeigh. It's a verifiable fact. So she supports at least on terrorist. Maybe she supports others, maybe she doesn't. But it isn't the place of a Wikipedia article to speculate about this. You can report serious, verifiable information that "explains what she meant". But removing it because "we all know it's a joke"...that isn't really in keeping with the standards of a Wikipedia article. Guettarda 01:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I guess she doesn't really support Tim, its hyperbole. Maybe we can at least agree it is tasteless hyperbole. --69.110.45.28 16:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Good afternoon, I took out that prepsosterous suggestion that she supports Tim McVeigh. The only thing more prepsosterous is the absolute tortured logic that supports it in this talk section.

But, if someone wants to carry on in that vein, be my guest. The logic supporting it is a textbook case of the 'selective' outrage that occurs when someone simply wants to slime Ann Coulter. If Ann's joke means she supports Tim McVeigh than Bill Maher's joke means he supports murdering Katherine Harris (see below) Howard Stern supports people being drowned by Hurricane Katrina and countless comedians support Dick Cheney dying of a heart attack! IOW, this is a dead end ridiculous and pathetic attempt to smear her for absolutely no reason. It may not be funny to you but neither is Hurricane Katrina to others. When someone tells that crude joke in the movie 'The Aristocats' does that mean beastiality, incest and necrophilia are a huge joke here in OKC or anywhere else? BOTTOM LINE: If you want to make a statement of fact that Ann Coulter supports Timothy McVeigh, you're gonna have to have more than a wisecrack.

Here's the Maher joke: "Now earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris." Big Daddy 21:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That entire first section of criticism sucks. Is that obsidian thing supposed to an especially respected blog or something? Nobody cares its still just some blog. And then we have "the daily howler". Yay another blog. And the crj reference looks like its either the wrong link or else it's badly misrepresented. All this fighting over McVeigh when the whole thing needs to go. 69.227.95.108 10:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous dude: You've got a point, but you have no idea what it's really like editing in Wikipedia. Not only do the Ann-haters fail to see the forest for the trees (whole sections are created merely to damage her reputation) they will fight you on every...little...detail if they think it is a positive for Ann. The McVeigh fight is a classic example but hardly unique. And, you know what, people have a right to express their opinion. That's how Wik works. It doesn't mean they'll prevail if their opinion is based on faultly logic, or as in this case, an obvious attempt to smear someone. But sometimes you just have to edit articles one line at a time. Maybe someday it'll be better. Just not yet...Big Daddy 18:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, your insistence on adding the misleading McVeigh wording in light of the discussion on this page is beyond the pale. You are going being factual editing to making subjective and inaccurate characterizations about what she says. It is clear you don't want a good article about Ann, you want an article that smears her. Read my comment above about irrational hatred. Please remove the McVeigh text and suggest a wording that makes reference to her comment without characterizing it. paul klenk ^talk 11:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, it looks like your POV is blinding you. I think you need to follow the advice you keep giving to people and quit editing articles that you cannot approach in an NPOV manner. A "good article" cannot be based on speculation, interpretation, or personal research. Removing factual, cited information does not improve an article. Guettarda 11:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to Ann's quote being in the article. I object to its inaccurate mischaracterization. Please give me a citation that says she "supports" McVeigh. One good citation, please. Also, for someone with a screed against Bush like the one on your user page, you really have some gall preaching to me about POV. You're not as clever as you think you're being. I actually have criticisms about Ann. But you don't know what they are, because I haven't made them known. paul klenk ^talk 12:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, you're hilarious. I comment on heartless bureaucracy, and you characterise it as a "screed against Bush". Which illustrates my point exactly - you need to look beyond your POV. Having an opinion does not mean you cannot edit neutrally. I despise Eric Williams more than I despise Bush, but I have written most of that article very neutrally. Lots of people here have written neutrally despite strong POVs. You should try it. It doesn't matter what criticisms you have of AC - if they are documentable, put them in the article, if they are your personal opinion, keep them out of the article. That's simple enough. There's a quote of her supporting McVeigh. It's verifiable, so it's legit. Calling it a "joke" is not verifiable, so it's personal research (or mind-reading). Simple enough. Guettarda 12:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Further, I see you marked as "minor" your reversion to the mischaracterization re: McVeigh. Please do not mark edits that you know are disputed as "minor." paul klenk ^talk 12:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

If you use the rollback button it's marked as minor. The anon changed without discussing, it's reasonable to revert people who remove verifiable information without participating in the discussion. Guettarda 12:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the cite you are looking for is not her supporting McVeigh, but rather allegations of such. Please re-read the statement again. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have read it. I would like someone to prove that "many critics deplore" with a citation, especially citations that mention how critics specifically feel about her "alleged support for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (disputed — see talk page), President Richard Nixon, and Senator Joseph McCarthy." Just make the sentence better. It is an unproven claim that "many" critics "deplore" her for her mischaracterized and "alleged" support. It is just plain poorly written. paul klenk ^talk 12:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Please go find the critics who have said each of these things and attribute the criticisms to the critics. Paul, why don't you start by finding one about Nixon. Deplore is a recent addition that should be reverted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Good. I think we have it about right. Support for McVeigh? Nonesense. Support for Joseph McCarthy? Absolutely. In fact, I propose we eliminate the word 'allege' to "unwavering" support for McCarthy. Ann Coulter is an admitted (and apparently quite proud) Joseph McCarthy apologist. Much of her book Treason is an attempt at resurrecting his image. I don't know if she actually supports Nixon. My guess is not but the claim is not nearly as ridiculous as to suggest she supports McVeigh. What I think we'll probably find out is that she thinks Clinton makes Nixon looks pretty good by the standards of relative comparison. Anyone even remotely familiar with Coulter's work is aware of how much she utterly loathes Bill Clinton. So, it's probably not true that she supports Nixon. I think the following line probably sums it up "Not all Republicans are good, but all democrats are bad." I actually heard her get booed on Jon Stewart when she made that declaration. :) Big Daddy 04:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Bill Maher

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Here's how I re-worded the Bill Maher piece:

Coulter has appeared several times on Bill Maher's cancelled program "Politically Incorrect". Maher has referred to her as "a friend of mine" yet often ganged up on her with other liberals when the conversation turned serious. While on the show she has been deliberately provocative, comparing, for example, actor Richard Belzer to Osama Bin Laden and saying the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed.

It's better because it eliminated the cheezy 'pretend sex' line that's useless and only feeds the ann-haters already frenzied antipathy (see above for a user comment that illustrates this perfectly.) Plus it ADDS useful, and relevant info regarding one of the reasons why Ann became such a darling of the right - Her ability to withstand withering attacks from Maher and 3 other liberal guests (Ann being the token conservative) on a regular basis before a national audience.Big Daddy 09:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

yet often ganged up on her with other liberals when the conversation turned serious - that's neutral language? I think not. Guettarda 14:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I hear you. I changed it again. Perhaps you can make it even better. What I was attempting to describe was what frequently happened on PI. Maher would invite just ONE SINGLE conservative guest along with 3 others who were either far left or left-leaning and then joined them in their attack on the conservative. Now, to be fair to Maher, he has improved as reflected in his HBO show, but it was truly despicable the way conseravtives were treated on the old ABC program. One was even spit on by Sandra Bernhardt. Anyway, Coulter would often be that token conservative 'punching bag'. But she'd acquit herself quite well. True, she definitely played the "I'm hot" card, wearing the tightest of tops and shortest of skirts (for which I was eternally grateful) but she also did held her ground and it was duly noted by Maher. Big Daddy 14:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Good edit. If someone wants it back, they can quote her, and provide an intelligent, well-written context for her remark. In its current state, it was a thoughtless, stupid blunder. paul klenk ^talk 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul writes - ":Good edit." Why, thank you. Very much.Big Daddy 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It was only "cheezy" because someone put "pretend" in front of "sexual relations". I fixed it up. And...not to accuse yall of anything...but its a little suspicious when you never disagree on anything.... --69.110.37.143 21:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If you only knew, which you clearly don't. Not to accuse y'all of anything, but coming from an anonymous person with no edit history whatsoever, your statement is more than a little suspicious. Why don't you go edit the Al Qaeda page? paul klenk ^talk 22:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Last time I checked, removing "pretend" is not a terrorist act. Don't forget the wiki policies, Paul --69.110.51.207 03:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What an Improvement!

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

This article is TREMENDOUSLY more balanced than it was just 3 short weeks ago. Applause to everyone. Most of what pops out to me now are just little tidbits that can be tweaked without a full scale war breaking out.

I haven't done anything to the passage below, but to help everyone see why it's laughably ironic as it's currently written, I highlighted a couple snippets...

"...that Coulter is only joking, or that she is engaging in hyperbole. However, Coulter herself has never stated that she doesn't hold these views when responding to the controversies about them. Indeed, when asked about a comment she made suggesting the New York Times building should be blown up, Coulter took the opportunity to clarify that she meant this should be done only with the newspaper staff inside. Big Daddy 15:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I do love that quote. paul klenk ^talk

I wrote it, and it's deliberately ironic. Yes, it looks like hyperbole... yet the point stands. All of this, 'she does not really mean it' is an INVENTION of her fans. Coulter herself makes no such claim. All the, 'you liberals just do not GET it' stuff is painfully obtuse in it's own right. We DO get it... what YOU are failing to see is that by playing this 'does she mean it, does she not mean it' game Coulter presents horrifically unAmerican, pro-terrorist, fascist, et cetera beliefs and then turns it into 'hide and go seek' on whether she is really a nazi or not. We don't CARE if she is as evil as she lets on or just 'funning'... either way her actions support sickos who hate this country and crazy 'liberal' ideas like freedom, justice, and equality. Maybe Coulter ISN'T really in favor of blowing up day care centers... it does seem rather unlikely. But the fact is... she said she was. When Ann Coulter went on about the evil government "murdering" those "harmless American citizens" down in Waco who just wanted to enjoy their god given right to buy illegal weapons and rape little girls... it had consequences. That kind of ridiculous slant helped to create people like McVeigh - who actually believed the nonsense (hell, he was practically quoting her). So again, I don't CARE if she doesn't really mean it. There are people out there who DO... and she is helping them. --CBDunkerson 12:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As of today, this article is as good as I've ever seen it. Quite frankly, I'm almost proud. But in the Wik-spirit of CANI, (Constant And Never-ending Improvement)I propose a couple additions -

1)I want to add something about Ann and Max Clelend. She caught a tremendous amount of flack for pointing out that Max Cleland wasn't actually injured in combat in Vietnam (as the democratic myth machine had intimated). However, it turns out that she was right and her critics wrong. That's noteworthy and relevant. Especially since, as is the case for Wik articles on any conservatives, there's usually a litany of allegations where the conservative was said to be proven wrong.

2) We have a lot in the Ann Coulter article about what Al Franken thinks about Ann Coulter. Yet I don't think we've returned the favor to Al! But, in lieu of that, I think we owe it to fairness, to share a little bit of Ann's take on Al. After all, it is her article, no? Big Daddy 08:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of Franken, I corrected what I considered a poorly written charge that he considers Coulter a hypocrite. Here's how it looks now:

"Franken claims that Coulter treats any comments found in The New York Times as reflecting the official opinion of the newspaper. He says that Coulter's statement (in Slander, chapter 'The Joy of Arguing with Liberals: You're stupid ) "If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments" can be viewed as hypocritical, because in the same book she uses similar characterizations to critique others."

The previous version seemed meandering, rambling and disjointed. I think the same point that a liberal is calling a conservative a hypocrite ( I know, newsflash!:) is made much more succinctly with this edit. Any comments? Big Daddy 04:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes! The previous version was not meandering, rambling, nor disjointed. I'll be reverting it for just that reason. Also, you've been Referred for Arbitration, based on a month of vandalism. Here's your Arbitration page: [3]. Also, I'm glad to see you've finally logged on, instead of making edits behind your anonymous sockpuppet, as you've been doing all day. Cheers! Eleemosynary 04:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops... Kizzle beat me to the revert! Eleemosynary 05:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

who exactly is supposed to be a sockpuppet and what evidence do you base this charge on? 67.124.200.240 06:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

He thinks you are me. Hate can do this to a person's cognitive faculties! Ps Since I provided a reasoned legit explanation and context for my re-write, and no such counterclaim were provided other than childish mocking which are duly noted, the edit will go back in again. Any attempts to be revert t will be considered a second step towards a RRR violation.Big Daddy 07:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached by several editors on the version ending with Kizzle's last edit. Thus, I've reverted it. Threats are non-Wiki, and will be ignored. Eleemosynary 09:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

there is no consensus here. 67.124.200.240 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann is shrill?

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

She can be but I'm gonna take out the quote from the very first paragraph because it's misleading. First of all, the Ann-haters apparently can't get enough of this quote. It's used TWICE in this article. That's wrong to begin with. Secondly the only readers who are alleged to find her 'shrill etc' are those from that Arizona paper and we have only the words of it's editor to back this charge up. (Not that we couldn't find others who agree! :) In conclusion, if you want to include it, use it only once and in relation to her being unfairly censored by that Arizona paper. Big Daddy 19:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The editor said "many readers", not "many readers from Arizona". Changing this is a misquote. As he is not making an accusation against Ann, this is no allegation -- its a cited fact. --155.91.19.73 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources make the intro look bad and this problem is why. He can add context without misquoting (quite the opposite!), and what you suggest he would do is not what he proposed. Plus if we keep it then we now need two pro-Ann references in the intro to make it neutral. 64.140.89.34 02:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record I had an email conversation with this editor right after it happened. I was curious how he knew the letter writing complainers were republicans. He said he didn't know but only that they said they were. It stands to reason we don't know for sure where the letters emanated from either. So to infer that this Arizona editor was claiming they came from all over because he didn't specifically say they were from Arizona is faulty logic. It's a moot point anyway. The context was a local Arizona paper. It's not just a stretch to START her article with the implication that readers around the world wrote the Arizona Republic. It's flat out dishonest. NOTE: To those reasonable people who are wondering why I even have to make these obvious points in here...don't ask. lol! Big Daddy

hah. no one alleged readers around the world wrote the arizona republic, but it's a misquote to say the readers were *only* in arizona. i'd bet good frozen chicken that readers around the world DO think she is shrill (peeps in olympia, washintgon, ann arbor, and the greater eastern and southern hemispheres, in any case) but that would require some original research to prove and would be deleted immediately. so i guess all that makes sense is stickin with the quote --71.112.11.220 06:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A bunch of numbers wrote -"I'd bet good frozen chicken that readers around the world DO think she is shrill." Well, you'd probably be knee deep in frozen chickens then as that bet is a sure winner. Of course, I'd bet a year's full of weekend dinners at The Tribute that I could find readers saying all that and a lot worse about Al Franken etc. The question is, can you back it up? And a quote from the editor of the Arizona Daily Star, one of FORTY newspapers in Arizona and two in Tuscon, doesn't qualify as a back up. So my guess is that, in the absence of supporting evidence, the quote gets cut out. And even with back up evidence, it's appropriateness at the beginning of the article is suspect. Big Daddy 06:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The quote is intact and cited, doesn't need any more support than that, does it? Did anyone do a nationwide study to determine she's sarcastic? --155.91.19.73 21:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

blogs

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

If this were a real encyclopedia--and I say this with the straightest possible face--the majority of sources used on politically contentious pages are unacceptable. But it seems editors lately are stooping even below current standards with blogs as references for anything. Do people actually think they are valid as sources here? 71.128.137.211 07:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Try this one - http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020923/alterman

If that's an opinion column by an actual journalist in a real-live published journal then it is worlds better. Why don't you Ann-haters use stuff from that and lose the blogs. 71.128.137.211 19:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

more McVeigh fun and excitement

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

since my dynamic IP address confuses Guertedda so much I will repeat what is needed to reach a concensus here (plus engage in some nauseating legalese): either someone provides a source that proves a critic said Coulter supported McVeigh or the claim must remain removed.

I really assume one can find a source saying just about anything these days, but must insist it is provided for this case. In fact I will move the disputed text here as encouraged by the official policy on Verifiability. Since you disagree with my neutral rewording of some of it, I will instead ask you to adhere to the requirements of verifiability for your preferred wording.

Critics have taken issue with comments by Coulter which they perceive as indicating support for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, President Richard Nixon, and Senator Joseph McCarthy. They also accuse Coulter of stating the following views: women should not be allowed to vote; women should not be allowed in the military; women understand how to spend money but not how to earn it; Muslims smell bad and should be killed or forcibly converted to Christianity [12]; juvenile delinquents should be publicly flogged; liberals should be threatened with death; terrorism is acceptable as long as it is directed against liberals; the way to prevent school shootings is to allow students to carry guns; environmentalism is against God's wish that we "rape" the Earth; fascism can be a good thing when properly applied; and many other similarly contentious views.

Demanding that those who disagree with an assertion prove the negative is not a reasonable approach (hipocrite). The policy on verifiability states it is to be moved here until made verifiable so that is what we will do. It can remain here and only here until someone provides sources worthy of an encyclopedia which state that:

1. critics claim Coulter supports McVeigh (I doubt anyone cares about Nixon and McCarthy is covered later in the article).

2. critics accuse Coulter of stating each of the listed views.

Or, a reference to an actual noteworthy critic making these accusations work as well, though then the statement must be properly attributed to the critic in the article.

Unfortunately, blogs are not acceptable as Reliable sources. Also, Wikiquote references to Coulter's words do not prove a critic said anything.

Please restrict any replacement of the disputed content until there is a form which all can agree, even if grudgingly, that accurately represents the content of sources provided. Please stop reverting anons who remove that statement just because they are anon. Many of them are me going back to the 22nd, where I might add, I made this same point in the discussion repeatedly asking for a source which remains unprovided. You aren't running some anon vandal away with such behavior, you are failing to assume good faith. I'm also eager to hear other suggested Neutral ways to reword these unsourced statements. 71.128.137.211 06:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) p.s. Guettarda: none of those anons in the frozen chicken and AZ discussion are me.

Either you are being dishonest in youe edit summaries or you don't understand what "neutral" means. Please read WP:NPOV carefully. You take the conetent out of the statement and leave something that is meaningless and almost nonsensical. "Critics have taken issue with statements by Coulter regarding: Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh..." says nothing about what statements. People are upset because she had expressed support for a terrorist (seriously or jokingly, we have no way of determining; see CBDunkerson's comments above). Similarly, removing the fact that people have shown that a lot of her footnoting is spurious. To what end? You cite the fact that bogs are not reliable sources. That's utterly irrelevent in this case - the article says what bloggers have found, it doesn't say "X is the case" (and Y's blog is my source).

I am not reverting anons, I am reverting the removal of sources information from the article. You have not made your case in the least as to why referenced information should be removed. Please address the issue at hand - why should we remove mention of the fact that AC has expressed support the Tim McVeigh? Start there. Guettarda 12:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

We continue to descend further into the absurd. It isn't possible to include 'critics object to Ann Coulter saying women should not be allowed to vote' without a quotation to that effect from the mainstream media? Conservatives really can't wrap their minds around the possibility that someone might object to Coulter's view that just over 50% of the population should be denied voting rights? It's just too radical a concept for you to accept? You need proof? And the THOUSANDS of examples of this from regular people don't count... it HAS to be a member of the supposedly 'liberal' media?

PLEASE! Throwing up ludicrous impediment after inane restriction is not going to keep the obvious out of this article. The core of your objection seems to be over her support for McVeigh... but a qualifying example of that was posted BEFORE the latest 'censor-a-fest';

"But fortunately, John Judis and Nick Confessore have taken responsibility for that, leaving me to the less ominous but more baffling phenomenon of the bestselling Barbie-doll terrorist-apologist [Coulter], who continues to be celebrated by the very media she terms "retarded" and guilty of "mass murder" while calling for their mass extinction by the likes of her ideological comrade Timothy McVeigh." http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020923/alterman

Mainstream journalist. Calling Coulter and McVeigh comrades. Saying she is an apologist for him. Like the thousands of other people you are pretending don't exist. Because see, you don't need a 'reliable source' to prove that an OPINION exists. If I am just saying 'critics accuse Coulter of supporting Tim McVeigh' then the fact that I can point to lots and lots of people doing exactly that makes it an established fact - that opinion DOES exist. It doesn't require that someone employed by a massive right-wing news corporation actually share the same opinion... it can exist even without that. Reliable sources are required for 'facts' which cannot otherwise be confirmed. I don't need a 'reliable source' to confirm that the Sun is a yellowish color... I can direct anyone who doubts my claim to look out a window during the daytime. Ditto the 'unsourced' claim that some people object to Coulter's view that women should not be allowed to vote. Anyone with a functioning brain is going to take that as OBVIOUS. If they don't... a Google search will turn up thousands of examples proving it. This, 'I am taking it out and you are not allowed to put it back in until you quote Bob Novak saying it is so' game is just pathetic. --12.42.50.51 12:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue of the quote did not begin here on Wikipedia.... But alrighty. Gzuckier 13:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all please do not revert my changes en masse over a few weasel words and phrases; I did a great deal of other work trying to improve the article's flow and accuracy (for example the removal of "falsehoods"). Secondly, indeed I took the content out Guettarda becuase that content is not verifiable by a reliable source. Blogs are not reliable sources. Sorry about the confusion, this is a new issue I am introducing with the recent discussion to include with the previous issues on the Criticism section. I am quoting official wikipedia policies and style guides here. To be specific:

From Wikipedia:Reliable source, a style-guide:

If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor.

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website.

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

From Verifiability, a non-negotiable official policy:

The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.

For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform original research. Therefore, anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.

Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information.

As I read it, the blogs, at best, were being used as sole primary sources to include the opinions of the authors, named as "critics". At worst, they are secondary sources which is even less acceptable.

Yes we do require reliable sources anon. This is an encyclopedia not a summary of internet gossip. Please refer to the policy and style pages if you think I am in error in my interpretation of them, again Wikipedia:Reliable source, and Verifiability.

As to "the issue at hand" Guettarda, I will repeat: no reliable source (blogs are out now) provided in the article states that critics accuse Coulter of #1 supporting Timothy McVeigh, or #2 holding the listed beliefs. There's probably a lot of room to agree in #2 of course, please let's discuss it here. Or we can agree to strengthen some or all members of #2 as just paraphrasing of Coulter's quotes, so please deal with those individually here in discussion or of course in the article if you must, but not by massive reverts. Thanks. 67.124.200.240 17:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The nation is not a blog
Media matters is not a blog
Quoting bloggers to support the assertion that said blogger said what they said does not fall foul of the isssue of verifiability.

These actions border on vandalism. Please desist. Guettarda 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

excellent points except you should have waited until I was done editing before starting the insults. Your mass-revert caused this difficulty. 67.124.200.240 17:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

btw the opinion of bloggers is only acceptable if it is a "well-known person". 67.124.200.240 17:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC) p.s. please assume good faith and remain civil.

Ok, I'll AGF...I assume you are going to replace the content that you keep replacing with weasel words, and restore coherence to paragraphs that you have chopped up? Guettarda 17:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact they were also weasel words before I touched them. "critics accuse Ann Coulter of ____" is weasel-worded sir. However I'll be glad to address that style problem in time, I can't get to it right this second. where is there a coherence problem? I'd be glad to fix that also. 67.124.200.240 18:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who's responsible for this (I have some good guesses) but every time I pop in here, I discover this article gets better and better. More fair, less tawdry and more civil to Ann which, contrary to some people's sensibilities, is a good thing. A very good thing. Nice Job! Big Daddy 20:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I just had a brilliant idea. Don't bother trying to claim critics or Coulter think or believe one thing or another and just paraphrase the controversial quotes. That really is the source of all this isn't it? Then just add context, with sources where disputed. How about the following for paragraph 2 in Criticism:

---

Ann Coulter has made a career of controversial arguments, many of which infuriate those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Coulter's supporters often suggest that many of her comments are taken out of context, that Coulter is only joking, or that she is engaging in hyperbole, though Coulter herself has never stated that she doesn't hold these views when responding to the controversies about them, apparently enjoying the consternation they cause to her opponents. Supporters also argue that she uses satire to illustrate her points and for intentional, if controversial, comic effect. Some examples include Coulter's statements to the effect that: it would be a better country if women didn't vote (because Republicans would almost always win); Muslim countries should be invaded, their leaders killed, and their citizens converted to Christianity (referring to the countries with crowds cheering after 9/11); conservation is against God's wish that we "rape" the Earth; the solution to school shootings is for the other kids to have guns also; and Libertarians don't appreciate the benefits of local Fascism (whats the point?? someone help here). However, the editor of the Arizona Daily Star, in dropping her column from the publication, said that many readers from both political parties "find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited."^[4]

---

I removed those issues that are repeated elsewhere in the article or in the quote list at the end (McVeigh is covered in detail in the next para). I dropped Nixon because I don't see where that came from. Granted it is turning back into something of a quote list, but I'm trying to be neutral and non-weasely, and at least it's much shorter. In fact it serves to illustrate the back-and-forth regarding her style. I welcome suggestions. 67.124.200.240 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just an FYI, if you find Ann repugnant, feel free to be bold and say so! Its well within wiki policies [5]

Morally offensive views

...

We can certainly include long discussions that present our moral repugnance to such things; in doing so, we can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing the view to prominent representatives or to some group of people. Others will be able to make up their own minds and, being reasonable, surely come around to our view. Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views.

...

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

--71.112.11.220 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Since we are quoting Wikipedia policies;

"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group of people holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified."

Many people who criticize Ann Coulter hold the opinion that she has voiced support for Tim McVeigh. It can be, and has been, verified that this opinion exists and is so held. So STOP BLOODY DELETING IT ALREADY! --CBDunkerson 11:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Big Daddy 23:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)