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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Pardon me, I've been enjoying myself over at Protest Warrior lately so I apologize if this has been discussed. The following text has been inserted in the Plagiarism and Factual accuracy section.

“

On page 134 of Coulter's book, Slander, Coulter claims that during Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan's approval ratings fell five percent, from 80 to 75%. A Christian Science Monitor article is cited from January 7, 1987. In actuality, the article states, Reagan's approval ratings fell from 63 to 47%. Coulter relies heavily on the LexisNexis search, a program designed to search various newspapers with the use of keywords or phrases. Many of Coulter's claims are that various "left leaning" newspapers did not cover one event or story due to a hidden agenda. However, Coulter's use of keywords and phrases when searching, give her incomplete results. Many of her claims have come to light as false, having the newspapers she claims not covering a certain story, indeed covering it. In Slander, Coulter alleges The New York Times did not cover NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt's death until two days after he died: "The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation's fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took The New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt's death sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left's renowned populist touch, the article began, 'His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.' The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!" The The New York Times did cover Earnhart's death and covered it on the front page. Earnhardt died on February 18, 2001. Another article appeared in the Times on the front page, on February 19, 2001, one day later, after their intial front-page story, written by sportswriter Robert Lipsyte, making it two days in a row the The New York Times covered Earnhardt's death. Coulter cites an article indeed written two days later, by Rick Bragg, a Pulitzer Prize winner who grew up in the South, who wrote a personal piece on Earnhardt and his passing, bringing the total to three times in which the Times covered Earnhardt, three days in a row.

”

Several points seem to be specifically unsupported original research and the rest of it (which may be original research as well) is of questionable notability. It seems like an attempt to list occasions when Coulter was/appears to be inaccurate. This section, IMHO, should not be used to allow any editor to subjectively choose and list those instances. The examples chosen for inclusion, IMHO, should at least have been notable enough to have been written about in some reliable sources. Ohpeenyons? Lawyer2b 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Coulter relies heavily on the LexisNexis search, a program designed to search various newspapers with the use of keywords or phrases." -- Appears to be original research.
• "However, Coulter's use of keywords and phrases when searching, give her incomplete results." -- Appears to be original research. Lawyer2b 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good timing. I glanced at this section recently, and was about to comment once I looked more closely. I haven't researched your specific items, but the section seemed to me to be full of unreferenced and poorly referenced material, the likes of which can be deleted without comment. In addition to that, overall, this section is NOT very suitable for something in a biography of a living person. Editors should read the material on that subject, and try hard to comply. I believe that disinterested observers would see this section particularly, and several others as well, as attempts to defame the subject of the article. I avert my eyes from those who think that just because something can be referenced, it should be in this encyclopedia, and is not any sort of attempt to defame, etc. etc. etc. Lou Sander 18:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR states that original research, "includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. (emphasis mine) With no external sources saying, "Here Coulter said X. And here is Y, proving X is wrong," I don't see how the above material can possibly be anything other than original research. I'm taking it out. Lawyer2b 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Based upon the above, I believe that this inserted text (which is supported by Franken's attack piece "Slander") should be removed as well. Kyaa the Catlord 10:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the stuff about Reagan's popularity, since it was badly sourced ( WP:BLP). The reference about the Christian Science Monitor pointed not to the CSM, but to an unspecified section of another book. Lou Sander 13:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The material attempting to explain why Coulter is inaccurate appears to be original research. (Me, I think she's just making shit up instead of using L/N poorly.) But the material about her inaccuracies such as the NYT Earnhart article should remain. Gamaliel 14:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It really, really needs to be sourced. And from something more reliable and less biased than Franken's book. Kyaa the Catlord 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, editors who "think she's just making shit up" should consider recusing themselves from involvement in articles about "her" (unless, of course, their "thinking" is backed up by something very solid). The reason for my opinion on this is that it is EXTREMELY difficult to avoid expressing such a prejudiced point of view in one's edits.

The subject of this particular article is an accomplished attorney who provides hundreds of end notes (at Wikipedia we call them "references" or "cites") for her assertions. A very few of them are challenged by sometimes-qualified people, many of whom have a very anti-Coulter point of view. When the challenges are valid (which is infrequent), the errors are corrected in the next printing. Whatever one may think by reading this sometimes not-so-responsibly-written Wikipedia article, this is NOT an author who habitually "makes shit up." Lou Sander 14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And I suppose you are perfectly neutral and unbiased and everyone else is not? Please don't sidetrack the discussion with this old canard. Nobody's recusing themselves. People edit articles everyday on Wikipedia and manage to keep their opinions out of articles. If you find bias in one of my article edits, feel free to call me on it. Until then this is just a waste of time. Gamaliel 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement about "perfectly neutral and unbiased" is a straw man. I did not say that. I said that people who hold a (specifically quoted, extremely negative, strongly-worded) point of view about the basic integrity of a living person should consider recusing themselves from editing the biography of that living person.

Of course people edit articles and manage to keep their opinions out of them. But many people are not able to do that, in spite of their efforts at good faith. Others are skillful at putting their opinions into articles in such a way that they are not readily seen as opinions. (You can see a bit of both in the Ann Coulter article.)

I WOULD like to mention something related to one of your edits on this talk page. From your user page I (and anyone else) can see that you are an administrator of Wikipedia. IMHO, when an administrator, bureaucrat, or other special person uses a talk page to express a strongly worded point of view, that indicates to some readers and editors that Wikipedia itself shares that point of view.

I assume good faith in everything that every administrator does. I believe that your expressed opinion that "I think she's just making shit up instead of just using [Lexis/Nexis] poorly" encourages others to adopt that point of view, and to express similar negative opinions in Wikipedia's article on Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 16:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to butt into a conversation that has nothing to do with me. Your point is very valid, Mr. Sander, every editor here should fear administrators abusing Wiki to their own selfish ends. (Not saying that is happening here, just saying it is a valid concern to have). I think considering the sheer number of editor's here though, even if an administrator holds a bias, there will be enough people to counteract it especially if every one is acting in good faith. It just makes it more difficult. Even moreso when there are people here not in good faith. It is important to have people who have a passion, both pro and con on the subject, contribute. That is the best method to reach NPOV. However, on the flip side, it does lead to choppy articles, but I guess you can't have it all. Ramsquire 17:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason that an administrator should not be able to express his or her opinion on a subject provided it is within the normal limits of civility towards other editors and does not sidetrack the talk page into becoming a soapbox for his or her views. I doubt that people would be confused into thinking some random opinion of one of about a thousand administrators is the official opinion of Wikipedia, especially if that opinion is not in the article. Is someone really going to think that "Ann Coulter is making shit up" is the official position of the Wikimedia Foundation? This is all irrelevant; what's fundamentally important is the content of the article, and once again if you detect anything amiss in my article edits, feel free to call me on it, but until then let's try to use this space to discuss the article content. Gamaliel 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That was the point of my post, no one should have to recuse themselves from editing here unless they're shown to just be trolling the topic. Ramsquire 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as the person who originally pointed out what appeared to be original research, it now appears that the material is validly sourced. The only thing I think might improve it would be to write something more neutral introducing it like, "According to Al Franken's book Lying Liars, etc..." Lawyer2b 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I recognize most of that material from the Coulter chapters in Franken's book. I was away for a few days, just a few points. First, Lou, when someone advises someone else to "consider recusing themselves from involvement in articles" because of their expressed viewpoints on the matter, they are, in fact, accusing them of unsurmountable bias as to be fit to edit this page. This is what the end result of your language produced whether or not you meant it. On a related point, I don't seem to be able to locate any edits or talk page suggestions of yours to this page that are not beneficial to the subject (I could easily be mistaken, but I don't have time to go through the diffs, lets just say a casual glance yields no results), so I would refrain from advising dis-involvement from other editors because of their apparent views on the subject. Unfortunately, you seem to have taken a habit of refraining from answering any of my posts directed at you, so I hope you will listen but I will not take your silence as agreement on the matter. What is more germane IMHO about this discussion is whether such material belongs on her biography page or on the book article pages. Why are we even thinking of devoting 4 whole paragraphs on her bio page to (pretty solid) charges of mis-representing sources when we can put the material on her book articles? -- kizzle 00:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been on wikibreak for some weeks until recently, so I'm just noticing some of the changes that have been made. The lead image is the most eye-catching one. I'm curious as to the reasoning for its replacement of the previous lead image; it's fairly grainy and not particularly recent, unless I'm mistaken. Kasreyn 08:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, other one looked better. -- kizzle 00:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Another agreement. The only potential reservation comes from the Fair Use rationale of using the book cover in an article not specifically about the book. I am comfortable making such a fair use defense but I don't think that it's standard practice in Wikipedia to claim fair use outside of the article which is *specifically* about the object at hand (the book, in this case). But it was certainly a much "nicer" (higher quality & better aesthetics, IMHO) photo than the current one. -- ElKevbo 04:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree the other photo was better. And, FWIW, I think the Al Franken article displays covers of his books in his main article despite there being separate articles about them and I think that's fine. Lawyer2b 19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In defense of the image, this particular one was cropped for the thumbnail head shot on her site. It may not be the glam photo that Coulter fans want, but she seems to like it. This photo also resolves the debate about using the book cover, as that image has been moved to the discussion of Slander. If you don't like this image, take another promo image from the photo section of her web site. I like the one with her and Al Sharpton. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I add the following image into the article? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/26/politics/main631949.shtml -Rako

• Do you have permission from the AP to use one of their copyrighted images? eaolson 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that one or more administrators have expressed strong opinions that Ann Coulter lacks integrity (e.g. "makes shit up"). I respect that point of view, and I assume the good faith of all who hold it, and of all who work it into the Ann Coulter article. But do we really want this article to "speculate" that Ann has Marfan Syndrome? Is the cited reference, a blog that also says "She is, however, a pathetic excuse for a human being, and Adam Carolla of all people, bitch-slapped her," really the sort of "high quality reference" that WP:BLP refers to in saying "Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives?" And is it really a Minor edit to put this material into the Background, early life, and education section? I say NO to all three questions, but I don't want to step on any toes by reverting the edit. Lou Sander 04:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call Lou. I removed the information. The minor edit was a minor edit but it imediately followed the addition of the new material which may have caused the confusion. Go-- ElKevbo 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)o

Thanks for deleting the Marfan material. And there wasn't any confusion about the Minor edit. The edit was at 23:28, 26 Aug 2006 by Fluffbrain. She made a minor edit to the first few words of the section, then inserted the Marfan stuff much further down, where a casual reader wouldn't see it. It's pretty hard to assume good faith for stuff like that, but I keep trying. Lou Sander 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good removal. -- kizzle 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues about whether or not the disputed passage should be inserted for balance purposes is one thing, but how does Crooksandliars.com violate WP:RS? Regardless of the opinions stated on that site, they include videos of what they're talking about, which seems to me to be the very paradigm of WP:V. -- kizzle 17:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That site, ' http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/24/ann-coulter-gets-her-freak-on' is clearly an anti-Coulter site, which is inadmissible for lack or neutrality as BLP source. The actual evidence they present, the video recordings, are OK as primary sources, and may be included in principle as such, but for us to interpret them would be POV. For example, I actually looked at the video of the segment where Ann supposedly 'threatens to leave' and 'asks Sean for help' and to me it seemed like she was joking on both fronts. But this interpretation of the video would be my OR or POV, and as such it, and any other version by a WP editor, is inadmissible for BLP. Crum375 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How could any reasonable person interpret what she said as a joke? Nobody was laughing, including Ann herself. -- Asbl 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I consider myself 'reasonable' and I would consider her remark (while rolling her eyes) 'can I leave?' when she couldn't get her word in, as 'joking'. Crum375 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rolling the eyes is not a comedic technique -- it is a relaxation technique similar to a sigh. None of that matters though. What matters is that the event happened, it is well documented (you cant get better than a video documentation), but there appears to be a concerted effort by her fans to suppress it. -- Asbl 19:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rolling the eyes is one of the foundational techniques of comedy. Here's proof: just think of Al Franken and try not to laugh or roll your eyes. Stuart Smalley's eye-rolling antics were the engine of Franken's early success. (Full disclosure: I'm a big fan of Al Franken's comical impersonations of "serious" people.) And yes, Ann Coulter was joking. Lou Sander 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm quite clearly not a Coulter fan (look through the archive for one of my comments), I'd have to say I agree, it does look to me like she trying to be funny. Of course, she is probably be doing that because she has no idea what to say and/or knows she's losing the argument and/or how to respond seriously to the comments so instead chooses to try to make light of the situation (and given this is Fox News, they and most of their listeners would just let her get away with it rather then to wonder why she didn't respond) but I too am skeptical whether this merits inclusion. It does show IMHO how silly she is (both her actions and what she said) but unless it has merited great mention it probably isn't notable enough. Nil Einne 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Coulter fan, and please refrain from calling anyone that, as it is not civil nor assumes good faith. However, I see no reason why that video segment should not be included, with a properly neutral citation, letting the viewers/readers decide for themselves if she was joking or not. Crum375 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not clear to me why calling someone a "Coulter fan" is not "civil", but since you seem to get defensive about it, I'll refrain from using that term. If you are sincere that you "see no reason why that video segment should not be included" please restore it, and we can debate the words around it. -- Asbl 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I actually don't see that segment, given Ann's well known positions on the issues, as that remarkable that it would merit space in the article. I also don't think her joking remarks about 'can I leave?' or 'Sean, help me!' elevate it to a significantly notable event. But as I mentioned above, if someone were to present the video segment with a properly neutral citation, I would not object to it. The issue I see is trying to justify the notability of this segment vs. countless others, but I can possibly see it being used as 'typical'. Crum375 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I continue to object to the inclusion of this video as there is noting supporting its noteability. It's merely some Wikipedia editors who have asserted that this incident is noteable and that is the very definition of POV.

This is why we try not to use primary sources in Wikipedia and wait until there are secondary sources which establish the noteability of the event or item in question. -- ElKevbo 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The video is in no way notable. Lou Sander 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and see below the copyright issues raised by Dr. Cash. Crum375 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of secondary sources who refer to the video see [1]. Her appearance was certainly notable and is being discussed all over. -- Asbl 20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of it until somebody pointed it out on the crooksandliars trash site. Lou Sander 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then cite some of those reliable, noteable sources. That's all I'm asking. -- ElKevbo 20:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont feel it's necessary. If you feel it's necessary, you are more than welcome to add them. -- Asbl 20:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

" The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." -- ElKevbo 20:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing more reputable than the actual video of Coulter herself in the full context of what happened. If you feel more is needed, the burden is on you to add. Please do not delete well referenced information. -- Asbl 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see we disagree. I assert that you are ignoring WP:V and WP:RS just as you ignore WP:3RR. I hope we can resolve these differences but I believe the article is, as Lou believes, being led further and further away from the values we hold in Wikipedia (primarily WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V) and your edits are significantly contributing to this problem. -- ElKevbo 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are making baseless accusation, bordering on slander. Nowhere have I violated 3RR, and you refuse to address the issue that there is nothing more verifyable than the video of Coulter moving her lips, which means that it is completely consistent with WP:RS. It seems that the Coulterites and their sock puppets have taken over this article. -- Asbl 17:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo's assertion that Asbl ignores WP:V and WP:RS and WP:3RR. I also agree that Asbl's edits are redolent with WP:OR and her unwholesome points of view about Ann Coulter. Like ElKevbo, I observe that most of Asbl's edits, both to the article and to this page, significantly detract from the quality of the article and of Wikipedia. Her constructive edits, and there are a few, have mainly to do with grammer. Lou Sander 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have long wondered why editors so diligently seek and post negative material about Ann Coulter, but not about other controversial people, and why the negative material is so strongly enhanced and defended by those who post it. My eyes have recently been opened, however, and now I no longer wonder. Nevertheless, this IS a biography of a living person, and I believe we should refrain from posting such a huge amount of negative material, regardless of its being well- or poorly-sourced. Lou Sander 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction: per WP:BLP, we are allowed to (and should) include any relevant fact that is well sourced. We should be extra careful about negative material, but if it is relevant and well sourced (i.e. established reliable neutral source like one of the major news organizations or a big publisher), it does belong in the article. Another way of putting it is that we need to be absolutely sure about negative material, and only reasonably sure about positive. Crum375 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would add that we are not to add any "extra" information that is not in the source cited, nor draw any conclusions in the article about the source information. That would be original research. I am thinking here about the voter registration section, which was leaning into an area that the source did not even hint at. Also the part about her not so far clarifying her age is also OR, unless a reliable source has actually said that, and the source is cited in the statement. This is an encyclopedia, not a news reporting entity, nor a political club with which to beat people. Crockspot 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the other big problem I see with 'crooksandliars.com' is their copyright infringement. I highly doubt that they have permission from Fox News and other media sources to be redistributing video excerpts that were clearly lifted from broadcast or cable TV. Dr. Cash 19:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

They are using the clips under fair use. Believe me, if Fox News could, they would love nothing more than to shut them down. -- Asbl 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted, IANAL, but I doubt 'fair use' applies in their case. The reality is that Fox News probably sees it as a waste of time to chase them down and sue them because the site is not notable enough and/or doesn't have enough viewership to really make them worry about it. Dr. Cash 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As always, your doubt = your POV. -- Asbl 20:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's everybody's "point of view" until someone brings in the facts supported by evidence. What's not POV, however, is wikipedia policy and ElKevbo is correct when he points out it is the editor's burden to include whatever supporting references are necessary for the information in his edits. ASBL, please don't get into a pissing contest. If you've got reliable sources, just include them. Lawyer2b 21:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're tired of looking at loony advocacy for this never-more-notable-than-a-dead-bacterium, less-significant-with-every-passing-second sub-three minute interview, you might want to consult the widely-cited scholarly book Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War, by Victor Levant, Ph.D., partially abstracted HERE. The abstract says in part:

"During the years 1954 to 1975 Canada served on 2 international truce commissions and provided medical supplies and technical assistance. Canadian diplomats were involved in negotiations between Washington and Hanoi and successive Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, maintained that Ottawa was an impartial and objective peacekeeper, an innocent and helpful bystander negotiating for peace and administering aid to victims of the war. However, Cabinet papers, confidential stenographic minutes of the truce commissions as well as top-secret American government cables revealed Canada to be a willing ally of US counterinsurgency efforts. ... Canadian delegates engaged in espionage for the US Central Intelligence Agency and aided the covert introduction of American arms and personnel into South Vietnam while they spotted for US bombers over North Vietnam. ... Ten thousand young Canadian men fought in the US armed forces in the war."

You might then be better equipped to evaluate our article's unsourced claims that the no-name interviewer knows more Canadian history than Ann Coulter. You might also be better prepared for the coming assertions that bomb-spotters aren't "troops," and that 10,000 Canadian volunteers weren't "sent by Canada."

As for me, I think that all mention of this interview should be forever deleted from the article, on the grounds that it's laughable cruft not worthy of Wikipedia. Lou Sander 05:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

But wait, there's more! The International Control Commission, in Indochina / Vietnam from 1954 to 1973, included troops and officers from Canada, even if some of our less-astute editors might not "feel" that it did. Crooksandliars is (are?) silent on the subject, and some folks still believe that Coulter doesn't know what she's talking about, or habitually tells lies, or has Marfan Syndrome, or whatever else their voices tell them to believe. Lou Sander 06:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Did the Canadian government send troops (non-intel/non-support people) to Vietnam? -- kizzle 07:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See Canada and the Vietnam War for more info about this topic. Crum375 12:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"
2. Wikipedia: "These criteria effectively guaranteed Canada would not participate in Vietnam."

Saying that "Canadians who had long lived in the United States, Canadians with US citizenship who were drafted or had previously served in the U.S., and out-of-work soldiers who had been the victims of recent government cutbacks" joined the US military is the same thing as "Canada send[ing] troops to Vietnam" is ridiculous. Of course they helped out with the war effort in other ways, similar to the US helping out countries in WWII before we could enter. At worst, one can see why McKeown corrected her. At best, she's wrong. Long live retroactive justification, as the Canadian government most certainly did not send troops to Vietnam in an official policy as a normal interpretation of the words "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" would imply. -- kizzle 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding the youtube link as a 'reference' to this stuff! Youtube is a social networking site, pretty much anyone can post videos to the site. It is not a site containing reference material that has any type of editorial controls, and should not be used as a journalistic-quality reference to scholarly publications. Dr. Cash 17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to the direct reference via CBC for this exchange. This is a much better reference than some 16-year-old punk uploading a copyright violation to YouTube which will probably get deleted eventually,... Dr. Cash 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick question, does Wikipedia have an official policy on linking to YouTube, cause we should probably come up with one to sort out messes like this. -- kizzle 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the video and many sources, I've put several facts and links into this section of the main article, including specific details of Canadian troops' nineteen-year presence in Vietnam/Indochina. It is false to claim that Canada did not send troops there, particularly in light of Coulter's clarifying "Indochina?" (Please remember that during the time Canadian troops were there, French Indochina was in turmoil, borders were being established and moved, and so forth. The Canadian troops were there to deal with those things.) 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. Lou Sander 10:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do Ann COulter supporters get so defensive when the video is mentioned? It shows a side of her that they prefer to ignore. Warfwar3 19:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Book covers can be used under the "fair use" guidelines to illustrate the articles about the books themselves only. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but reading the template for book covers, I see the wording "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". It does not say that the article must be exclusively devoted to the book, only that the article 'discuss the book in question'. Well this Coulter article discusses her book(s), so I would think the reduced resolution cover image is, ahem, covered under fair use. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, Crum375 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I believe you're correct. I think what the fair use guidelines are trying to say is you can't use the cover to illustrate something on the cover. So e.g. you couldn't use the cover of a book featuring Ann Coulter to to show Ann Coulter. Provided the cover is there to in context about the book it's fine... Nil Einne 20:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, I either hate Ann Coulter with all my heart or I think she's the greatest living American author, depending on whether you disagree with my suggestion here or not. I just wanted to get that out of the way, as I'm sure my personal motivations will be brought up. Now, to my actual suggestion: the plagiarism section as it stands is way too much. Not too much as in the material shouldn't exist somewhere, but on a biography page we really really shouldn't be devoting so much space to these claims. It's not that these claims do not meet WP:V or are not sourced properly, but do we need to take 8 paragraphs on her bio page? For the whole passage about Slander, I'm going to move it off to the Slander website. Book-specific charges should be placed on each book's individual article. What should remain, ideally, is a 1-2 paragraph section (like it was before) that is equivalent of what's left when a daughter article is split off and a summary para remains. Blah blah iAuthenticate, blah blah Coulter's publisher's defended her, blah blah something else, and that's it. If we really want to keep all this here, I think a daughter article is quite necessary at this point, but I would much rather place the book-specific info on each book's page, as it makes much more organizational sense. What do other people think? -- kizzle 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody who knows how please do it? Lou Sander 10:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the article Ann claimed Canada send troups into the Vietnam war, but that it commonly claimed that they didn't. User Lou Sander claims that this is a fallacy. According to the articles on the subject although there was combat between member of the Canadian army, and members of various Vientamese groups, there does not appear to have been any sending of troups into Vietnam or into the war. Canada's involvment appears to be purely peripheral, so Ann's interviewer would appear to be correct at first glance. Jefffire 11:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The question seems to be: when (or if) Canadians were actually sent in Indochina (references please!), and whether the region of Indochina was at the time officially Vietnam. Coulter made the direct claim "Troops into Vientnam", so that what we should deal with. Jefffire 11:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lou Sander, this discussion involves the article and not myself, please discuss it on the arctile talk page. It seems to me that in a strictly technically sense, Canada did not "send troops to Vietnam". However, I find myself agreeing that this particular TV appearance is not particularily important. Coulter's more notable comments, not to mention her book, are more than enough to convey to any reader her delightful personality and intelligence. Jefffire 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just butting in for a second: when you say "Canada did not send" are you referring to (1) just Canada's government or (2) just its ordinary citizens? See my lengthy remarks below. -- Uncle Ed 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a few problems with this material.

1) I think it, at best, exceedingly poor placement to include any of this in the section of her article devoted to simply summarizing her television appearances. The section of the article devoted to "plagiarism and factual inaccuracy" seems "tailor-made" for this kind of thing, does it not?

2) Simply including a video of the interview (regardless of whether it was from "youtube" or the network that broadcast the interview itself) is not a source sufficient to make the allegation that Coulter said anything inaccurate anything but original research.

3) Lou's conclusion that the interviewer was wrong, while based on impressive research, is also original research.

4) If there aren't many sources (qualifying under wikipedia policy) which actually accuse Coulter of making a mistake, I question the notability of the entire incident. Lawyer2b 12:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think the correct way to handle this and similar 'incidents' or video segments is establish their notability by looking for some acceptable third party review that would count as a secondary reliable source. Just including the video with a WP description is insufficient and would be a combination of original research and primary sourcing. For example, let's say that CNN reviews the segment on Fox and says that "last night Coulter appeared on Fox and said 'Canada sent troops to Vietnam' while we all know they did not" - that statement, attributed to CNN, can be used. We may also include in that case (without editorial comment) the reference to WP's own Canada and the Vietnam War. But we as WP cannot act as CNN - we are not a news network, we are an encyclopedia whose task is to summarize secondary sources, not to be a secondary source ourselves. Thanks, Crum375 13:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lou, if you can back up your research about the Canadian participation with appropriate sources, the place to include it IMO is Canada and the Vietnam War. Reading the current version, it seems to lack the info you dug up. Thanks, Crum375 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffire that this material is unimportant. Since nobody has demonstrated its clear relevance to Ann Coulter's notability, it is a possible case of malicious editing. I agree for the most part with Lawyer2b, but IMHO the "Plagiarism and factual inaccuracy" section has been a hotbed of malicious editing, so we should insist that anything posted there be clearly demonstrated to be relevant to Coulter's notability. I agree with Crum375 about sources, but I think malicious editing is a bigger problem in this article. Lou Sander 13:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Last time I looked, a sensible editor had deleted the interview from the article. I'll look again. Lou Sander

I left note of the interview, but deleted the "controversy". Jefffire 13:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the interview and commentary about it are relevent. Coulter's critics have sought to portray her as "uninformed" or "sloppy with facts", etc., in an attempt to silence her (or at least to get people to ignore her).

I studied the interview around a year ago. My impression is that Coulter and the interviewer were talking at cross purposes.

Coulter meant by "sent troops to Vietnam" either or both of:

1. Canada's government sent its own soldiers to the area, to intervene in the the regional conflict which included Vietnam; or,
2. Canada (the nation itself) sent around 10,000 men to fight in the Vietnam war (but not as soldiers of the Canadian Army).
   • Wikipedia says, "several thousand Canadians joined the U.S. military and fought with the Americans in Vietnam; estimates range from 3,500 to 10,000." [2]

The "interviewer" made no effort to clear up the conflict over terminology, but pounced on Coulter and used her remark against her. If he were a Wikipedian, his "edit" would have been reverted for "NPOV violations". It seemed like a partisan attack to me.

We could compare this to "America sent aid to tsunami victims". Some of that would be the U.S. government and some would be the American people.

We need to ask, in each case, did you mean the government or the people? Our readers will be interested to know which authors can or can't think fast on their feet, of course, but others will be interested to know (after the dust settles) what their written positions are.

It would be good to have a neutral description of this incident in Wikipedia, as there are thousands of references to it in the blogosphere. -- Uncle Ed 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis may well be true, or maybe not, but the point is that it is original research, and hence inadmissible. If you can find an appropriate secondary and reliable source discussing this issue, it would be admissable IMO. Otherwise, we as WP can't analyze primary video segments, nor rely on bloggers to do it for us, and certainly not in BLP cases. Crum375 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed: My fondest hope is that mention of this interview will never again return to the Ann Coulter article. It has been handled by some very bad editors in a way that has done a HUGE amount of harm to Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral source. I will do whatever it takes to keep it out, and I think I'll have a lot of help from other non-very-bad editors. But at the risk of waking sleeping rabid dogs, I gotta comment:

1) GMTA, but not exactly alike. I studied the film VERY carefully this morning. I definitely agree that the interviewer and Coulter were talking at cross purposes, but I've got a different idea about why. I think that when Coulter brought up "troops to Vietnam," she was talking about the peacekeeper-like Canadian troops who were there from 1954-1973. When the interviewer heard those words, he pounced, possibly/probably because the fighting in Vietnam is an extremely emotional and contentious subject to many Canadians. Coulter, with a puzzled look, reacted to the pounce by offering the more palatable " Indochina?" which is what the area was called when Canada sent its peacekeeper-like troops there in 1954. When Coulter later said "I'll get back to you," I think she was trying to exit gracefully from an unwinnable argument in which she was very sure of her facts, but maybe not consciously aware of the extreme Canadian sensitivity to "Vietnam" and "troops" and other warlike words.

2) I agree with your thinking that a widely-available neutral description of the incident would be a very good thing to have. I spent a lot of time this morning researching and marshalling facts about it, some of which are, IMHO, stunning. (Such as the number of troops that were there, their exact dates of arrival and departure, the number who died, the number who got a specific medal for their service, etc.) I wrote it all up, but before I could post it on the talk page, some kind soul put the non-notable, disgracefully negative POV, definitely-doesn't-belong-here reference to it out of its misery. (Please, God, or Fate, or random variation and natural selection, or whoever/whatever determines this stuff, keep that piece of cruft D-E-A-D.) The material for a neutral description exists, and is readily available to people of good intent who can make something great out of it. What should we do with it, and where should we put it? Lou Sander 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I encourage you again to include your research, assuming it is properly sourced, in Canada and the Vietnam War, where it is currently not mentioned. Then, if the issue comes up again here (e.g. someone finds a good secondary source discussing the specific Coulter interview) we would be able to properly refer to the facts you uncovered. And even if it never comes here to this article again, that info is useful as part of WP and belongs in its proper place. Thanks, Crum375 20:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this really has no place in the article. Coulter's own material certifies her as an ignorant and hateful nutter. Yet it seems fashionable lately to capture and deconstruct her every gaffe and stutter made on TV and make the judgement "OMG she totally got smacked down on TV." Most of this stuff is weak and non-notable; it reflects more on the obsession of her peanut-gallery critics than on her own lack of intelligence. If you want to look for legitimate negative material on her, just pick up one of her books and select a page at random. The Crow 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Crow is wise beyond his or her years. I strongly agree that the above paragraph is an accurate and articulate assessment of the nature of the current fashion, of the weakness and non-notability of the material it involves, and of the nature of the nut-gallery critics. And I so strongly endorse the idea of picking up Coulter's books and looking inside them that I offer to fax a page or two to the first ten people who ask. Lou Sander 20:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not arguing for a reinclusion, I have to say I would think the vast majority of people would assume that when you say Canada (or country X) sent troops to Vietnam, you meant the government. Indeed, I don't think it would occur to the vast majority of people you might mean citizens of that country joining other armies. It wouldn't occur to me that's for sure. There are severals regions for this. For starters, citizens joining other armies are there representing that armies country. A Canadian citizen in the US army in Vietnam is a (US) American soldier. Not a Canadian soldier. This is not at all the same as donations. While I think most people would similarly assume you were talking about the government, I think many people would at least appreciate and accept it if you refer to the citizens privately donating money. After all, these people are in a way representing their country. If someone wanted to refer to Canadian citizens joining the US Army to fight in Vietname, I would suggest they would have to make that clear (e.g. although the Canadian government didn't partake in the fight, their citizens did)... Nil Einne 20:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the following material from "Background, early life, etc." Should be moved to the new "Personal life" section at the end of the article:

She owns homes in New York and Florida.[9] She is also a fan of the Grateful Dead,[10] and some of her favorite books include The Bible, Wuthering Heights, Anna Karenina, most true crime stories about serial killers, or anything by Dave Barry.[11] Lou Sander 14:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we at one point have the Grateful Dead fan, and then it was determined to be non-encyclopedic? The part saying that she owns homes in New York and Florida belongs in the voting controversy section. -- Asbl 23:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the part about being a Grateful Dead fan is (a) well-referenced and (b) somewhat notable, as it points out a rather odd fact about her that is usually associated with liberals, which are coincidentally her biggest critics (and 'victims?' of her criticism). Personally, I'm not sure why 'Personal Life' was added to the end. I would think that it could all just go into the background and early life section, or maybe added as a single line to the opening paragraph. Dr. Cash 02:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where "Personal life" came from, either, though I tried a bit to track it down. I don't strongly object to it, particularly since it could serve a useful purpose as a repository for favorite bands, favorite books, favorite color, and similar fluff, provided people want that stuff in an encyclopedia. Lou Sander 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved this material back and forth a few times, to see where it looked best. It seemed fluffy and unencyclopedic in the serious biographical section, but it definitely fit in with Personal life. I moved it to Personal life. Lou Sander 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the April 25 2005 Time cover article on Coulter states she lives in New York City. On Hannity and Colmes 6/6/6 (release date of Godless) she emphatically stated that she lives in NYC, transcript is available on the FoxNews website. The site is apparently incorrect in placing her residence in Florida.

There are some interesting counterpoints to commonly presumed ideas about Ann Coulter, which could be used in the article. See http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1940 -Rako

Four items that have been discussed and deleted many times have just been restored to the article. They are the "troops in Canada" stuff, the "swimmingly" stuff, the "Adam Carolla non-interview" and a three-year-old book review. You can see the details HERE, though there may have been some changes since.

The ancient book review is, as Dominick said when he deleted it, a "pointless opinion that sits on its own." In addition, it applies to a book that has its own article, which is a better place for it.

The other items have been discussed to death, and I believe there is consensus, especially on "troops in Canada," that they do not belong in the article. There are many reasons to delete them, including that their relevance to Ann Coulter's notability has not been clearly demonstrated. That fact alone, plus their apparent agenda-pushing nature, possibly/probably puts them into the category of malicious edits to the biography of a living person.

The Criticisms of Ann Coulter article was set up to receive material like this, and it needs more well-sourced items. These would be valuable additions, and would not be seen as malicious.

None of these four items legitimately belong in the Ann Coulter article. I say they should be removed until someone shows reasons for including them, which reasons must be stronger than the pages and pages of discussion that have led to their multiple removals. Editors who care about them should consider moving them to the Criticisms article.

What say all of you? (Do like this, if you'd like...)

delete -- their relevance has not been clearly demonstrated Lou Sander 00:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this article, I only now read the 'Criticisms' article and I realize that much of it is redundant, if not a copy, of this article's content or vice-versa. I personally think all criticism should be folded back into this article (properly interweaved, vetted for proper sourcing, neutrally presented, balanced per BLP, etc), per WP policy of encouraging the interweaving of criticism. If not, then logically we would need to remove all criticism from this article and move it all (and point) to the other. I realize Islam and Zionism have separate Criticism pages, but I think to do it for a living person is a bad idea and contradicts WP's policy or spirit. BTW, if there is currently a clear wiki-link from this article to the Criticism one then I missed it. Anyway, I think the current situation is not acceptable. Comments? Crum375 01:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would support a merger. Having a separate Criticisms article with largely redundant information increases the chances of a content fork, which is strongly discouraged by wikipedia. Dr. Cash 02:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose a merger. A merger was heavily discussed a few weeks ago, but no consensus was reached. Then somebody just merged the two articles, which upset a lot of people who had worked hard at building consensus. Somebody else quickly un-merged the articles, and they've been that way ever since. One of the problems that led to the second article being set up is the great length of the main article. Somebody pointed out the criticism articles for Bill O'Reilly and maybe some others, and many saw that as a good thing to have here. But then instead of MOVING the criticisms, whoever did it just COPIED them. To really have a good setup, they should be deleted from the main article, which should then provide a link or links to the criticism. If somebody put some organization into the Criticism article, we'd have a well-organized place where criticisms could go without strife or constant deletion. The way the main article is right now, and with all the work going on in WT:BLP, I'd expect a LOT of deletions of stuff that might be merged. Best to let sleeping dogs lie. Lou Sander 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well excuse my ignorance, but I just can't see how an article about a living person can be written with all the criticism separated out to a different article. Firstly, it contradicts WP policy/guideline of interweaving criticisms, secondly it is flat out illogical. Does that mean the main article only has the positive stuff and anything negative must be pointed to elsewhere? Or do we also have a separate article for the positive stuff? How can a balanced neutral picture possibly be presented that way? Unless I am totally missing the picture here, this is simply irrational and non-encyclopedic. But I am certainly open to hear more opinions. Crum375 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I could not agree more. -- Asbl 03:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen, Crum. -- kizzle 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For starters, take a look at Bill O'Reilly controversies and Bill O'Reilly critics and rivals. Also, can you be more specific about "interweaving criticisms?" Lou Sander 10:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I read the Bill O'Reilly piece, I don't see it a necessary precedent. I did find this discussion from PETA, another POV and troll magnent:

"It 's always better to weave praise and criticism throughout the article, rather than creating separate sections that turn into POV magnets."

Jimbo Wales (quoted by SlimVirgin)

And this:

WHY is it better to have criticsm weaved into the article rather than as a section in its own right? Please explain.DocEss 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Because praise and criticism sections become magnets for trolls and POV pushers. With a criticism section, people will just keep turning up, slapping any old piece of negative stuff they find on Google, with no attempt to evaluate it or place it in context. Ensuring that both praise and criticism are woven into the text produces a more nuanced and three-dimensional piece of writing that's almost certainly closer to reality, because not black-and-white. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You will note that they are all discussing a section rather than an article, but to me taking out the criticism to an article is even worse and is even more contra-indicated by the same logic. Beyond the troll magnet issue which Jimbo and SlimVirgin refer to, in the case of a separated Criticism section the key question I see is how can the Criticism-less, presumably mostly positive main article be neutral?

BTW, I do recognize the issue of excessive length, and for that we can presumably extract controversial issues, like specific TV segments or books that got a lot of press, but the key there would have to be the amount of press coverage, i.e. notability. Crum375 11:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples, which make a lot of sense. (See below for criticism ARTICLES). Also I apologize if you think I offered the O'Reilly stuff as a "necessary precedent." It's just an example of how some of the better editors have handled the special case of articles about controversial people.

Those articles (and especially this one) are troll magnets in themselves, and there are always one or two resident editors who, in Jim Wales' words, "slap any old piece of negative stuff they find on Google, with no attempt to evaluate it or place it in context." It's not hard to spot those creatures here.

They specialize in malicious editing, and they won't follow basic rules, won't discuss their edits, claim everything they think is notable IS notable just because they say it is, restore cruft that is deleted after long discussion, like to follow a short factual sentence with five negative long ones, etc. Part of this is inferior editing skills, but a lot is just an anti-Coulter agenda. It isn't helpful when the latter is promoted on the talk page by senior people ("I think she just makes shit up", etc.).

It would be great if this article had an environment where we could interweave praise and criticism, but I don't think we're there yet. (If we are, I'd like to see some examples.)

In criticism ARTICLES, the idea is to have a balanced main article, plus a Criticism article for the overflow criticism that doesn't belong in the main article. Example: There are a jillion Coulter statements and interviews that citable anti-Coulter sources have reported on. Some folks want to put them all in the main article, but that would make it unbalanced. The criticism article gives them a place to indulge their desires. Nobody minds too much, or complains about balance, because balance isn't expected. Lou Sander 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should strive to incorporate both criticism and praise into the article. Crum makes a good point, if the criticism section gets overflow, why don't we offshoot specific topics or incidents? At least that wouldn't promote just a bash-Coulter daughter article where the fact that she got a D in an elementary school science project can be added... specific topics would help contain this type of creep. In addition, while you may not agree, I do think there does exist valid criticisms of Coulter (though not nearly as many as appear on this page), and if we adopt your proposal then this article will become whitewashed of any criticism and sucked out into the daughter article, which is definetely not NPOV. -- kizzle 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to develop my understanding of just what constitutes original research. Also, it's pretty obvious that one or two other editors are pretty shaky on their knowledge about it. Maybe somebody can help us all out. This appears in the Coulter article:

This is not the first incident of voting irregularity attributed to Coulter; she has consistently failed to explain the disparity in her stated age and the date of her first voter's registration. Her original driver's license, issued in Connecticut, lists her birth date in December, 1961. The driver's license issued to her years later in Washington, D.C., lists the year as 1963. Coulter's own statements regarding her age conform to the date on her D.C. license.

Coulter's first voter's registration was completed in 1980. If the date on the D.C. license is correct , she first registered to vote at the age of sixteen, also an incident of voter fraud. (Reference HERE) If, however, the date on the Connecticut license is correct, she may be guilty of having given false information on her D.C. driver's license application, which is also a felony.

Of all the material shown, only the stuff in red appears in the reference. Everything else seems to be original research, but I'm not sure of my analysis. Will somebody please help me out here? Lou Sander 12:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick google comes up with this. Doesn't it support the allegation? Crum375 13:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a good chortle over that link. You're being a sarcastic, right? Lawyer2b 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's original research because it leaps to a conclusion based on information provided by the source. Franken leaps to the conclusion too, but he's allowed to in his own book. There is no cited source stating that she's been charged with a felony in any state. The source just says that Coulter is consistently ambiguous about her age. The section needs a re-write. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the published source (Franken) says:

"She was born in 1961. Or 1963. Depending on whether you believe her old Connecticut driver's license (1961) or her newer D.C. driver's license. Ann claims the D.C. license is correct, which means that when she registered to vote she was 16. That, of course, would be voter fraud."

If voter fraud is a felony, then I am not sure if WP saying that, based on proper source, is OR, but we can always just use 'voter fraud' as in the source. Crum375 13:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that poorly sourced negative material should be removed without comment. An Amazon reader comment isn't a high-quality source, is it? (Emphasis WP:BLP.) And if you're going to cite a book (not done here) as a source for potentially libelous material, shouldn't you protect Wikipedia by at least specifying a page number? Lou Sander 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Al Franken writing that it's voter fraud doesn't make it so. Last I checked, he's not the Attorney General of Connecticut. It would be accurate to note that he said it in his book and cite the reference. So far, she hasn't been charged with the crime of voter fraud. If she ever is, then it would be suitable for inclusion because then there would be a verifiable citation available. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether Al is the Attorney General or not is irrelevant. We're not here to establish whether he is truthful, but rather whether he said it or not. An exact quote of what he said, with a page citation would be helpful here. If you're going to accuse someone of a felony then we should at least require that much effort. Wjhonson 15:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He's not in a legal position where he can legitimately declare her a felon. You can say that Al Franken alleged that she committed voter fraud, but you can't say she did just because he alleged that she did. That's original research. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the issue is in conflict, yes. Stating that Al Franken said she did, or might have, is acceptable. Saying she did, since this is a conflict between editors, should be rescinded in favor of saying "Al Franken said....". Wjhonson 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed Lou. I thought I was the only one who thought the blurb at the end about "If this, then that" was very close to the example cited of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Lawyer2b 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is original research, and I'm not sure Franken's book would be a reliable source for the issue either, as it is clearly partisan and written with an agenda. I guess we could use Franken's book, in the limited sense of saying this is an assertion that Franken has made. However, I think there should be a better source before this info is allowed to stay. My 2 cents. Ramsquire 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Franken's book is no more partisan or written with an agenda then Coulter's books. The passage as it stands is definetely OR as Lou points out, but as WJhonson states, if we attribute this passage to Franken's book then it ceases to become OR, as long as we quote it correctly and within context. -- kizzle 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but as this is a biography of Coulter, I do think that there is a legitimate debate about the use of Franken as a reliable source here. Granted the reverse is also true. However, I do say in my post that "I guess we could use Franken's book, in the limited sense of saying this is an assertion that Franken has made.". But if we could find a better source with the same information then we should probably use that instead. Ramsquire 19:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So then in the legitimate debate, you're saying that neither Coulter's books nor Franken's qualify under reliable sources? I would prefer to use both. I think we're on the same page though that attribution to Franken makes most of this problem go away. -- kizzle 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. What I'm saying is that Franken may not be a reliable source for facts about Coulter and Coulter may not be a reliable source for facts about Franken. After all they do sort of hate each other. Ramsquire 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But that would seem to set some sort of " Reliable Sources only on certain pages" precedent, which I don't think we want to strive for. Either the source satisfies WP:RS or not, no? -- kizzle 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want that kind of rule either but I think that may already be in force based on the factors we are supposed to use when deciding if a source is reliable. Check out point two here [3]. Now I'm not calling either an extremist or anything like that but that link does make it arguably seem that we are supposed to consider the agenda certain sources have in printing certain information when deciding reliability. If I'm misunderstanding the passage, please enlighten me. ;-). Ramsquire 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I definetely see your point :) If Franken had blanket accusations without specific citations, then I would agree with you, but the fact that Franken supplies enough info that one can go through and see what he's talking about (in other words, a high degree of satisfying WP:V), makes it ok IMHO to use it here. I hope we can at least agree that neither Franken nor Coulter are as extremist as Al-Qaeda ;) -- kizzle 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! We have full agreement on that one. Ramsquire 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP tells us to "Be very firm about high-quality references,..." IMHO, Al Franken is not a high-quality reference on Ann Coulter. Like her, he uses hyperbole in much of his work. While it's sometimes legitimate to quote Coulter's hyperbole in an article about her, it's not exactly high-quality to use that kind of stuff in criticizing her. OTOH, there's no such obligation in the Criticisms of Ann Coulter article, which is not a BLP. Lou Sander 23:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I think we're straying away from using a "Dump everything shitty about Ann Coulter" article, as the scope creep on that page would be awful. I think Franken's passage does constitue a high-quality reference, as his extensive citations do a good job of satisfying WP:V. -- kizzle 23:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the paragraph in question, removing the original research, and leaving the facts that are sourced by the Washington Post article. For a deceased person, Franken might be a reliable source, but the rules of WP:BLP are very strict regarding living persons, and he could be reasonably challenged as being a biased source, and not appropriate for verifying this particular claim. I did not see him cited for this paragraph anyway. Crockspot 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, WP:BLP's criteria for poorly sourced passages directly relies on WP:RS. How does Franken violate WP:RS? -- kizzle 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:V also strictly applies. Does Franken have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy"? On BLP articles, all the rules are required to be met in the strongest way. There is no wiggle room. Crockspot 22:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

True, except I believe Franken provides his sources in the back of the book. I don't personally own the book, maybe someone who does can just look this passage up and use his sources rather than quoting him as to remove any possibility of more people discounting the merit of the claim due to bias without even analyzing the validity of the claim itself. -- kizzle 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If Franken has cites in his book, those could put you in a better position for including some form of this information. But if he only cites the same source as already cited (good chance there), then Franken is drawing his own conclusion. At best, the information could be presented as his opinion, clearly identifying it as such. Crockspot 22:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. -- kizzle 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, maybe because he could be a biased source with respect to Ann Coulter? Lou Sander 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

He may not like the woman but you're just pulling a Fox News if you're blindly alleging bias without analyzing the merit of the claim nor the accuracy of his citations. -- kizzle 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not question good faith, or personally attack other editors. As WP:BLP clearly states, the responsibility of proper sourcing lies squarely on the shoulders of the person wanting to include the information. ALL editors are required to remove this type of information when they see it, from both the article and the talk page, with out any discussion. These rules come from the very top, in response to recent events.

How did I question Lou's good faith or personally attack him? I questioned the logic behind his dismissal of material due to an uncritical assessment of bias rather than analyzing the veracity of the claim or of the quality of the sources Franken cited. There was no ill intent or malice towards Lou, I actually have a lot of respect for Lou, I just disagree with removing material because Franken doesn't like Coulter rather than the veracity of his statements. Are we really going to perform a blanket removal of all info from sources that do not like the subject of the article? That would be ludicrous. Given a dispute, analyzing his sources against WP:RS and using those instead should be sufficient to settle this. We just need someone with the book to actually post these sources in question. -- kizzle 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While googling for Franken and Coulter I came across this. Comparing it to the current article and the Franken/Coulter endnotes discussion, it seems we are desperately lacking this type of neutral balance and cross-check. Comments? Crum375 18:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't qualify per WP:RS. Not a very notable website. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Malber on that particular site, but the article definitely lacks balance to the negative material. In my experience, almost every accusation of lying or other offenses ends up being wrong or weak. But editors here are intolerant of seeing that illustrated. A week or two ago there was quite a lot of very specific, NPOV detail about the plagiarism and factual accuracy accusations, but somebody took it out.

The trouble is that the nut gallery puts the negative stuff in without researching it. When the rest of us find the weaknesses and point them out or delete the offending material, the nut gallery either deletes the pointing out, or reinserts their cruft. Lou Sander 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This section remains a stub. It only includes mention of one book review. I think it would be better if this were in the individual book article if it isn't already there. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed mention of the review. A link to the review WAS in the individual book article, and still is. What was here was a misleading snippet from a long and thoughtful review. (Um, if he couldn't stand to read the book, how could he write a long review of it?) Lou Sander 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Asbl: Lou, Crum, and I are all opposed to including this passage, as the review is available from the individual book article. Please refrain from reverting or re-inserting further. -- kizzle 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Book reviews belong with the books to which they apply, and should appear there as links to the full text. Misleading negative material should be removed per WP:BLP and many others. Lou Sander 22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following paragraph:

In her book, Godless, Coulter claims that "there’s no physical evidence for evolution", and goes on to state there's "no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record." Critics claim Coulter's arguments against evolution do not appear to have any scientific basis [4] [5].

Firstly, the inline citations are from a pro-evolution blog, and are questionable per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Secondly, someone else's opinions on her opinion of evolution is irrelevant. All that's important in a bio article is to state her opinions on relgion. Criticism of her writing belongs in the criticism section/article. IMO, this isn't notable criticism. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If we just wiki-link her advocacy of intelligent design, readers can click on the link if they want to know what the status of intelligent design is in the scientific community rather than rebutting it on a per-proponent basis. -- kizzle 04:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is relevant to this article that a single reporter states she atttends a certain church and brings guests (and why is that importantor even relevant?) then it is certainly relevant that the officials of that church state they do not know her and and she is not a member. This looks like an obvious attempt by Coulter fans to rehabilitate her, since she frequently claims her Christiainity is the reason she makes her living attacking liberals. I found no Discusion refuting the citings of church officials. I added the balancing statement, assuming that someone has prevented the irrelevant citation from being removed. - getterstraight

This should be put under personal life:

Borcehr's "presentation points out the recent TIME Magazine profile of Coulter which implies that she is a member of Redeemer Presbyterian, an evangelical Christian church in New York, and yet the ministry at the church never seems to have heard of her!

The Redeemer church, "whose non-political stance is well-known, disavows all hateful and hostile speech," according to Borchers' presentation, had to "Google" her name to figure out who she was! Apparently Coulter is not a member of that church at all!" http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1940 - Rako

The reliable Time magazine reported some facts about her church attendance. Those facts are notable in a section about her religious beliefs. Her religious beliefs are part of her notability, since she proclaims them and since her book Godless is essentially about religion. It is NOT notable that a muckraking web site can't verify what Time reported, or that an opinion columnist has something to say about Coulter's religious beliefs, church membership or church attendance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. The Time stuff belongs here. The other stuff does not. Lou Sander 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who put those bullet points up citing examples of errors that Media Matters found with Coulter's works, but I haven't seen a straw man argument like that in a while. Someone went through and chose the least egregious examples along with characterizing them to the point as if they were just stupid. Where is this one?:

On Page 158, Coulter cited a study from the education journal Education Next in claiming that private-school teachers earn 60 percent less than public school teachers. Coulter wrote:

In 2002, Bob Chase, the president of the National Education Association (NEA), complained that teachers don't make as much as engineers ($74,920) or lawyers ($82,712). But I'm thinking, Why stop at engineers and lawyers? Why shouldn't kindergarten teachers earn as much as Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts? A better benchmark comparison for public school teachers might be private school teachers. Teachers in the private sector earn about 60 percent less than public school teachers.7 And their students actually learn to read.

The study Coulter cited -- "Fringe Benefits" -- actually found that, "Starting pay in private schools begins at 78 percent that of public schools, rises to 92 percent of public school pay by a teacher's 12th year, and declines thereafter." It is unclear where Coulter arrived at her "60 percent less" figure, but it certainly did not come from the source she cited.

Or this one:

On Pages 199-200, Coulter attacked "atheists" who "need evolution to be true." Citing what she presented as two Washington Post articles from May 15, 2005, Coulter wrote:

Although God believers don't need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true. William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."1 This is why there is a mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution.

The Washington Post articles Coulter cited are actually one article by Michael Powell, with the headline, "Doubting Rationalist," accompanied by the subhead, " 'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be." But nowhere in the article will one find the Dawkins quote Coulter cited.

Textbook straw man, which I'll be changing hopefully sometime today. -- kizzle 20:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I added your first example. Lawyer2b 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I added some pertinent facts. Lou Sander 15:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (It's always wise to research the claims of MediaMatters and other similarly-reliable sources.)

Lou, you should know by now I have a low-opinion of MediaMatters. I also think Coulter's errors it cites are very minor and simply attest to how partisan the organization is. That said, unfortunately, I think your last edit might be original research. Also, I think my edit might have contained an error. Apparently Media Matters says Coulter said private school teachers' salaries are not 60 percent of but 60 percent less than government school teachers. If that's an error I will fix that. Lawyer2b 16:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that mentioning the typo is pointing out the obvious, rather than doing original research. The word "apparent" lets people judge for themselves. Maybe "possible" would be better. WP:OR says in part that "...the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." There's no doubt that I cited a reliable source providing directly related info. In fact, it's the same source quoted by MediaMatters. To me, the important thing here is that Media Matters says "she lies," and the other reference says "she doesn't."

You've got the 60% business right. A LOT of people don't know the difference between "60% of" and "60% less than." Someone could point it out in the article, but the risk of doing original research, not to mention confusing people who don't have a firm grasp of arithmetic. Lou Sander 16:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll have to read WP:OR again. Your edit definitely contains information that is "directly related to the topic of the article" and adheres to what the sources say. I know the difference between "less than" and "of"; and I think Coulter probably does as well. At worst she probably just did what I did, misread it. Lawyer2b 17:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's a girl, but that couldn't possibly have anything to do with her math skills. Or her tendency to be absolutely truthful in all that she says, providing impeccable citations where possible, unintended errers excepted. Lou Sander 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, what? -- kizzle 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly true that the 344 endnotes are "rife with falsehoods and distortions," is it? I'm wondering if including this material isn't in violation of WP:BLP, specifically the parts about

• In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ...
• If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The overblown cruft from Media Matters seems awfully tabloid-like, and I think somebody should insist on a clear demonstration of its relevance to Ann Coulter's notability. I'll certainly do that myself if there are similar violations in the future. Lou Sander 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In the "Columns" section, I deleted "Generally, her columns are highly critical of the liberal point-of-view. She has argued, for instance, that liberals' insistence on sexual freedoms belies their calls for restrictions in other areas of life, particularly on the issue of health. For example, she asserted that although liberals often lobby for public bans on smoking, they take far less precaution in their sexual health, citing the acts of anal sex and fisting as examples." (Cited reference HERE.)

The citation, falsely claimed to be from a column, is actually from a Media Matters report on a radio show. IMHO, inserting it (or re-inserting it), is defamatory malicious editing, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I replaced the falsely-sourced material with an actual "critical of liberals and Democrats" quote from last week's column, complete with a truthful citation. Lou Sander 23:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying, the quotation falsely said it was attributed to a column when in fact it was a Media Matters article? We can fix that, but does that necessarily mean the Media Matters article didn't satisfy WP:RS as well? -- kizzle 03:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How can it be any clearer? The material was in the section on Columns. It was salacious material, offered as an example of typical material from her columns. But it wasn't typical at all, and it wasn't in any way from her columns. It was from a radio show, by way of a site with a strong agenda. To say it was from a column was a lie, and a particularly malicious one, due to the subject matter of the material, and due to the demeaning way it was presented as an example of her "criticism of the liberal point-of-view." The specific details are presented on this page for all editors to see, in case they have trouble understanding what was going on. Even with all the details in front of their eyes, some editors maybe just can't figure things out. It boggles the mind, and it compels one to avert one's eyes. Lou Sander 03:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, take it easy. I thought "Columns" was referring to her columns, not other people's columns about her. Like I said though, how does the Media Matters article violate WP:RS? -- kizzle 19:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

One more time. It will help us all if you read this over a few times until you understand every word (then you can agree or not). The removed material was at the end of the Wikipedia section about Ann Coulter's Columns. It began by saying, truthfully, that Coulter's columns are generally critical of liberals. Then it became something other than totally truthful. It illustrated Coulter's criticisms, but not in an encyclopedic way. The illustration, though it was carefully sourced, was not at all typical of the criticism of liberals expressed in Coulter's columns, or by her in any venue whatsoever. The illustration had to do with the catchy topics of sexual health, anal sex, and fisting. (Though Coulter did, undisputedly, say these things one time in public, they are bizarrely atypical of her thousands of comments on liberals. Read a few columns, and you'll see this.)

And if a reader followed the link so kindly provided by Wikipedia, and if he or she read the material very closely, he or she would see that the material was NOT AT ALL from one of Ann Coulter's columns, as the skilled but malicious editor had malignantly led us to believe. So much for the credibility of the "free encyclopedia." And so much for the sensitivity and neutral point of view required by the official policy on Biographies of Living Persons.

As Abraham Lincoln so famously and typically said in his Gettysburg Address, "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." [6] Lou Sander 22:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"It will help us all if you read this over a few times until you understand every word"... Nice. I realize the citation is from Media Matters, but the MM article is quoting her column, so while it's not directly from her column, it still quotes her actual words, thus I don't see the problem. Maybe I am retarded. -- kizzle 23:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am retarded. I didn't read it was from a radio show. My bad. -- kizzle 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're NOT retarded if you can understand the improper nature of selecting anal intercourse quotations to put into encyclopedia articles as examples of a person's thoughts, when a jillion other quotations show her thoughts to be based on vastly different things. (HINT: It requires you to think beyond the fact that the quotation is cited from a verifiable source.) And you're DEFINITELY not retarded if you see what is going on in the Abraham Lincoln quote. (HINT: What's wrong with this picture -- "I always KNEW Lincoln was a racist, and now it's proven by his well-sourced words from the Gettysburg Address. Thanks, Wikipedia, for showing that he also hated foreigners and Catholics.") Lou Sander 03:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; you've ably illustrated the folly of selective quotation. Kasreyn 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement about your illustration of selective quotation, I just wish this particular justification was in your original post or edit summary as the reason for deletion, as I would have been a lot less confused. -- kizzle 09:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP is an official policy. It's kind of long, making it hard to understand unless you read it carefully and repeatedly.

Here is the policy in its official nutshell:

This page in a nutshell: Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

Here are some key points taken verbatim from the body of the policy:

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
• Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.
• (For non-public figures such as family members): Editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. ...Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source.
• In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ...
• If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
• 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.

If we all follow the policy, we shouldn't have much trouble. Lou Sander 05:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just ripped your above edit and placed it into another article's talk page with similar issues. I couldn't have said it any better than you did it. Ramsquire 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ram, but I didn't do any more than any other editor should do: Find worthwhile material from elsewhere, and repeat it with minimal, neutral editing in Wikipedia. Lou Sander 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This should be a template. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- kizzle 23:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While the page is still protected I'd like to ask someone to help me improve this section.

I have a better source for this October 1997 incident mentioned in the "Television" section:

Coulter's first national media appearance came after she was hired in 1996 by MSNBC as a legal correspondent. She was fired the next year after an exchange with Bobby Muller, president of the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation who had been paralyzed due to combat wounds. In response to Muller's claim that during the Vietnam War American soldiers had stepped mainly on their own landmines, she reportedly said "No wonder you guys lost." ^[1] Coulter claimed that she did not know Muller was disabled.

It's from the Time magazine cover story about her, by John Cloud, that right now is footnote number 5, and is the secondary source quoted by tertiary Washington Post source used in the paragraph about the incident.

Eight months later, Coulter’s relationship with msnbc ended permanently after she tangled with a disabled Vietnam veteran on the air. Robert Muller, co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, asserted that “in 90% of the cases that U.S. soldiers got blown up [in Vietnam]—Ann, are you listening?—they were our own mines.” (Muller was misquoting a 1969 Pentagon report that found that 90% of the components used in enemy mines came from U.S. duds and refuse.) Coulter, who found Muller’s statement laughable, averted her eyes and responded sarcastically: “No wonder you guys lost.”

I would like to rewrite the paragraph in a more precise and accurate way:

Coulter's first national media appearance came after she was hired in 1996 by MSNBC as a legal correspondent. She was fired the next year after an exchange with Bobby Muller, president of the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation who had been paralyzed due to combat wounds. In response to Muller's mistaken claim that 90% of American soldiers in the Vietnam War who "got blown up" by landmines had stepped on their own American landmines, disbelieving, Coulter averted her eyes said sarcastically, "No wonder you guys lost." ^[2] Coulter later said of the incident that Muller was appearing by satellite, and she did not know he was disabled. ^[3]

I would appreciate it if some registered user would make the replacement in the aforementioned section. Thank you, 216.119.139.84 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You certainly DO have a better source. The original source in Time gives a different picture than does Howard Kurtz second-hand comments on it in his opinion column.

I propose to replace all after "hired in 1996 by MSNBC as a legal correspondent" with this verbatim from the Time article:

The network dismissed her at least twice: first in February 1997, after she insulted the late Pamela Harriman, the U.S. Ambassador to France, even as the network was covering her somber memorial service. Coulter said Harriman was one of those women who "used men to work their way up" and suggested "Sharon Stone or Madonna" as her replacement. Even so, the network missed Coulter's jousting and quickly rehired her. Eight months later, Coulter's relationship with MSNBC ended permanently after she tangled with a disabled Vietnam veteran on the air. Robert Muller, co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, asserted that "in 90% of the cases that U.S. soldiers got blown up [in Vietnam]--Ann, are you listening?--they were our own mines." (Muller was misquoting a 1969 Pentagon report that found that 90% of the components used in enemy mines came from U.S. duds and refuse.) Coulter, who found Muller's statement laughable, averted her eyes and responded sarcastically: "No wonder you guys lost." It became an infamous--and oft-misreported--Coulter moment. The Washington Post and others turned the line into a more personal attack: "People like you caused us to lose that war."

The current editorialized version doesn't cover both her firings, and omits the important fact of Muller's misquoting his facts. The Harriman stuff and the business about the exact wording of the "lose the war" comment are pretty trivial, so needn't be included. Lou Sander 04:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance in my request, Lou. Your proposal is fine with me.

I see you looked up the whole context for the quote. I didn't know it was still on the internet. I found the whole article reprinted at an AOL news website just now. At Time.com it's only available to premium subscribers, it would be helpful if we add a link to this reprint in the footnote reference to this part of the article. Thanks again. 216.119.139.84 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has moved to Time's subscription-only section, but the full text is still available in libraries, etc., in case anyone doubts good faith (I got it from my public library's online magazine service). That's one of the reasons for posting the appropriate section verbatim. It avoids the editorializing of the current version. Lou Sander 12:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff, both Lou and Mr./Ms. 216.119.139.84. :-) Lawyer2b 00:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment period has exceeded 48 hours. I made the change. Lou Sander 12:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I redid the Time quote to make it clearer that it's verbatim from the source. Somebody didn't realize that and had edited it. Lou Sander 21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Coulter only discusses evolution in her book Godless. Her ideas about evolution are discussed at length in the article on the book. I don't think it belongs in the main article on Ann Coulter -- to keep it here opens the door for many other fairly minor topics from her books. Lou Sander 13:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, would have no problem to move it there - but wherever it is, it needs to be NPOV-balanced. Crum375 13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been extreme fighting about that in the article on the book. We really don't need that here. Lou Sander 13:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm for keeping it in it's own article. Mentioning it and mentioning that it is disuted is enough. Exanding it when it has it's own article does not seem a good idea to me. Jefffire 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This section is misnamed and isn't properly focused. Read the citations. Her comments are mostly about airport security, not about "Arabs and Muslims." She prominently mentions Arabs and Muslims as potential security risks, and discusses the whys and wherefores of her opinions on that subject. She doesn't really get involved in other aspects of Arab ethnicity or Muslim religious beliefs. I don't know exactly what title would be best for this section, but somebody should definitely rename it. Maybe "Coulter on Arabs and Muslims as security risks." Lou Sander 13:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is part of her quote:

We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity

I think here she is not referring to airport security but Arabs in general. Crum375 15:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see why you might think that. I think she was referring to supporters of the 9/11 bombers, many of whom are Arabs and Muslims (but many of whom are not, and in any event the A&M among them are only a tiny fraction of the whole number of A&M). Those are our points of view. The point is that her remarks about Arabs and Muslims are all, or nearly all, made in a security context. Isn't it a misrepresentation to leave that context out of this section of the article? Lou Sander 16:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the overall context leading to her above comments was airport security related. But her statements, as quoted, are rather far sweeping ("invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them") and go well beyond airport security. As such, I would think that the current title is reasonable, whereas limiting it to "Arabs and Muslims as security risks" would be too narrow given these broad statements. I think your point is that the title is not reflective of the fact that the context was security, which of course I agree with, but I also think that her views and the context are fairly self explanatory to the reader. Crum375 17:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What is fairly self-explanatory to THIS reader is that Wikipedia is wrongly and irresponsibly attributing Salman Rushdie-like and Danish cartoons-like aspects to Ann Coulter. (See WP:BLP for a long list of reasons not to do that.) Lou Sander 17:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, the quote stands on its own. If you feel that it should be introduced in a different way, feel free to suggest the wording. BTW, having read the 'Satanic Verses' I don't recall Rushdie saying anything negative about Arabs or Islam, though I am aware that some perceived it that way. Crum375 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some comments I made before an edit conflict. I think they may still be helpful.

The statements are sweeping, but only towards individuals who support terrorism against the United States and those who lead them into that political stance. What, worldwide, 90-95% of terrorist killings were sponsored by Muslims? And in their region by Arabs? If so, it's appropriate to point out that within the race and/or religion there are internal problems that affect others that demands greater scrutiny in a security context. I think regarding Coulter's sweeping statements it would be well to remember Winston Churchill's remark, "I do not resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it parts for the time with reality".

Coulter responds to attempts to shade or compromise what she feels are valid principles with vivid pictures of her opponents entangled in the consequences of denying those principles. For example some argue profiling will wound Arab pride. So she writes an airline slogan, "You are now free to move about the cabin--not so fast, Mohammed!" creating a memorable presentation of the plain argument "It's silly to be afraid of offending them, how bad could it get, they're big enough to take it". But out of context, this could be misinterpreted as simply scorning all Arabs and Muslims.

Here's another example of this in section (which ought to be corrected or removed):

"I think airlines ought to start advertising: 'We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.'" When asked what Muslims should do for travel, she responded that they, "could use flying carpets."

The actual source says in the context of egging her on, "How would Arabs travel" [to avoid civil rights abuses]. The implication being that the abuses complained about in such nuisance lawsuits would be so traumatic that they must be avoided at all costs. The flying carpets comment being shorthand for "You're entangled in denying realities as bad as the denial I just brought up; it's silly to worry about Muslims being turned into victims. Even to those who know Muslims only in the broadest possible stereotypes, Middle-easterners have never had a reputation for not being resourceful." As it stands now, you might conclude she was bringing up the exaggerated stereotype for its own sake, rather than to help emphasize her argument. It is thus not part of a larger "controversial trend"--which is alone what this section should be about. 64.154.26.251 19:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose to replace this:

Particularly in response to the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Coulter has been notably critical of Arabs and Muslims. For example,...

With this:

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, Coulter has argued that Arabs and Muslims should receive special scrutiny by security personnel. For example,...

It's more accurate, less inflammatory, and avoids the opinion "notably critical." Lou Sander 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My problem with it is that her quote then goes on to say how the US should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them". This is way beyond airport security, although that was the context or trigger, so it would not be correct to introduce this quote with a pure airport security context. However, I am open for any other ideas for the intro that you think will be 'more accurate' but will cover her quote. Crum375 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at the rest of the section. It's about security, not about "being critical of Arabs and Muslims." And the "invade their countries" business has to do with all-out war and what you do in it. Would an encyclopedia say she's "being critical of Germans" here? Lou Sander 03:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the original much better, "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them" along with the "being nice is one of the tenets of christianity, as opposed to kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and isn't named mohammed" (paraphrasing there) ...passage should stay. -- kizzle 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I think the first criterion of this section being in the article is that it originated an actual controversy. Not just controversy among the politically correct asking "what's to be done with this Ann Coulter person?" I believe this subject meets this criterion, because of the "invade their countries" comment. It was brought up twice in her interview with Katie Couric about Slander, and it wasn't even in the book. Coulter later said it was a comment that followed her around. Although it was apparently her opponents that stirred up the controversy, it was ground Coulter chose to defend.

This controversy highlighted follow-up comments along the same lines both before and after Coulter's defense on the Today Show. And they didn't all have to do with airline security, they also had to do with national security and the need for heightened scrutiny of the source culture and religion of at least 9 out of ten of the terrorist actions around the world. This column spells out her airline and national security proposals, nine days after the attacks. Coulter claims it was the bone of contention that caused National Review Online to drop her column and terminate her editorship.

Coulter also might be considered a notably early proponent, as a columnist and TV pundit, of assaulting the host countries of terrorists with retaliatory force.

So I would add the ideas of national security, heightened scrutiny and early proponent of retaliatory force to the intro (if it can be fit into an intro sentence or two). Then add back in her responses to the "invade their countries" comment from the Today show and add her response to the phrase in How to Talk to a Liberal (Now more than ever) as new material. (I can get citations and text for these), and drop the airline stuff unless it's presented as instances of Coulter incorporating the subject into her humorous remarks.

The "rag-head" stuff was picked up by blogs (not college student bloggers as the section says now), Cybercast News Service, and a few columnists. Tony Snow on his show called it "exhibitionism" and that it was like "she pulled her dress over head to get attention". I'm inclined to agree that it wasn't a real controversy.

I have a little more to add, but I want to wait to see what everyone else has to say. 64.154.26.251 04:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their thoughtful comments. I've read and re-read the section in the article, slept on the matter, then read the section again (plus this section and all or most of the citations). I want to modify my original premise and propose a better solution. Here it is:

The section "Coulter on Arabs and Muslims" is misnamed and isn't properly focused. Read the cited sources. Her comments are mostly about responding to 9/11, not about Arabs and Muslims. She prominently mentions Arabs (mostly) and Muslims (almost not at all) as potential security risks, and discusses the whys and wherefores of her opinions. She doesn't really get involved in other aspects of Arab ethnicity or Muslim religious beliefs.

I propose to replace this:

COULTER ON ARABS AND MUSLIMS

Particularly in response to the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Coulter has been notably critical of Arabs and Muslims. For example, in a column...

With this:

COULTER ON RESPONDING TO 9/11

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, Coulter has advocated a more warlike response to terror and fanatic terrorists. She has called for much stronger national security measures, including closer scrutiny of Arabs and Muslims at airports. Soon after the attack, she called for assaulting terrorist host countries with all-out retaliatory force. In a column...

The stuff in the rest of the section could use some work, but that's minor compared to the problems with the title and the lead. Lou Sander 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

After 72 hours without further comment, I made the change. Lou Sander 18:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, Lou. Keep up the good, NPOV work.  :) Kasreyn 04:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am honored by your comment. Thank you. Lou Sander 12:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

(I took it upon myself to separate the following general material from the above stuff on A&M. I hope nobody minds. Lou Sander 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

The entire controversy section needs to be redone. Upon my review, the only sub-section that should remain is the 'Jersey Girls' section. It cites the incident on the Today Show, and reactions from Hillary Clinton, and Rahm Emanuel who urged a boycott of her book. This is the only one that cites significant controversy that arose due to her comments. The 'NY Times bombing' section points to a short comment on Hannity & Colmes and a negative comment from Colmes cited by E&P, the 'Coulter on Arabs and Muslims' section cites a negative reaction from bloggers, and the 'Coulter on Evolution' cites negative reaction from evolutionists as might be expected. If there isn't significant reaction from the mainstream press, it is not notable controversy. If a quotation is listed without also citing a reliable source that describes the controversy, then the inclusion is because the editor feels that the comments are controversial. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with what Malber says, but there was a LOT of talk about Controversies several weeks ago, and I want to try to find it before saying much more. Lou Sander 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell, WP:BLP requires that a 'Controversy' section talk about the controversy, not how outrageous an editor thinks a subject's comments are. That's not to say that negative controversy doesn't belong, but if there is no citable controversy it doesn't belong. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lou, this is about the Television section again. I wasn't really concerned about how the section was going to be fixed as long as it was corrected by the better source. But the Washington Post article includes the report that Coulter didn't know the representative was disabled. Seeing the exerpt from Time down in black and white, I think it looks kind of harsh on Coulter's end without that disclaimer. The source is The Conservative Pin-Up Girl. The excerpt by Kurtz is "I did note that, according to Coulter, the vet was appearing by satellite and she didn't know he was disabled." Let me know what you think. Here is the full citation if you decide you want to use it: "Kurtz, Howard. " The Conservative Pin-Up Girl." Washington Post. April 19, 2005. Retrieved on July 10, 2006. (Just add "ref" and "/ref" within "<" and ">" symbols before and after it.) 64.154.26.251 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

When I cleaned up the section, I almost kept the "she didn't know he was disabled" part, but I decided to keep things simple. Looking again at WP:BLP, especially

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
• In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ...

I'm thinking that I should have left it in. We say the guy she argued with is disabled. If we are to be responsible, neutral, and factual, we also need to say that she didn't know it. At worst, this is a borderline case, and we do harm by leaving out the other pertinent facts.

What do other people think? Lou Sander 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be in as pertinent. I suspect she would have shown more sensitivity had she known he was disabled. Crum375 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week, and since the restriction against anons has been lifted, I added Coulter's description of the incident that Kurtz reported. 216.165.199.50 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In 2002, an opinion column in the Washington Post stated that in 1980, Ann Coulter registered to vote in New Canaan, CT. A Connecticut driver's license lists her birth date in December, 1961. But a driver's license issued to her years later in Washington, D.C., says she was born in December, 1963.

What the issue is here isn't particularly clear. I would guess the voting age in Connecticut is 18 so if she were born in 1963, she wouldn't yet be illegible to vote but this is not clear from the paragraph... Nil Einne 19:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, added legal age requirement mentioned in source. Crum375 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Its terribly impolite to ask a lady her age. :P Kyaa the Catlord 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kyaa. The age business is in here only because of a previous malicious attempt to impute a felony to the lady. "Her driver's license says she's 40. Her old driver's license says she's only 38. If she's only 38, it follows that she wasn't 18 when she registered to vote in CT. That's a felony in FL (and by implication it's a very bad thing in CT)." The mind boggles.

The age question is a legitimate aspect of Ann Coulter, but definitely not connected with voting. It should be removed from this section. IMHO, it isn't relative to her notability, so it should be removed totally from the article. Lou Sander 15:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed recently (visible in archive 6) but I think it needs to be brought up again. The current lead photo IMHO needs to be replaced. While it's a photo released on her website, to me anyway it's highly unflattering and makes her look like she's anorexic and is much worse IMHO then the Time photo (which despite her objections, is decent enough, it's quite clear that it's distorted so it doesn't give her an unflaterring look). Her site has several others to choose from [7]. We could take one of the ones with her and someone else and get wikipedia to only show her as the thumbnail... The photo is one of the best in actually showing her and at a decent size (perhaps that's why she looks so unflattering? who knows...) however I personally believe it would still be better to use another photo for the lead. Perhaps this one? [8]. What do you all think? Nil Einne 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the current picture from her Web site. I am not sure why we would want to change it. Crum375 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The current one was chosen because it's the one she uses for her headshot thumbnail on her site. It's obviously one she prefers. Of all the pictures from her gallery, it is the one IMO that looks the most professional. Feel free to choose another one if you like, but it has to be justified as FU. I particularly like the one with Al Sharpton ;-) -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead says her DOB is December 8, 1961, but later in the article it discusses her D.C. license with a DOB of 1963. How do we address this discrepancy in the lead? -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is weird source for this but... imdb says 1961. [9] Kyaa the Catlord 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IMDB, like this website, is not vetted. It's not the best source. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think: 1) Earlier birthdate is compatible with Connecticut voting at 18, so it's the one to go with. 2) Later birthdate might be a lady trying to seem younger, or a celebrity trying to avoid unwanted attention to personal matters, etc. 3) The matter of differing birthdates isn't important and isn't related to her notability. I'd remove all reference to it. Or if somebody just HAS to get it in, mention the discrepancy in the Personal section at the end. Lou Sander 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Birtdates are important for biographical articles of public persons. It's a critera for feature article status, and in theory all articles should be working toward featured status. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be in slight contradiction to WP:BLP. Specifically, the "Privacy of birthdays" subsection says "Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution." The problem here is that although WP:BLP says that in some cases we should "err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date" we have contradictory information about the specific year.

This is certainly not the first time that different Wikipedia policies or conventions have been found to be in disharmony or even complete contradiction or opposition to one another... -- ElKevbo 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It becomes more clear when you look at the rest of the paragraph. WP:BLP makes a distinction between public, marginally notable, and non-public people. Coulter definitely falls into the first category. Her DOB is fair game. Even if she requested it be removed we would still have to at least confirm the year which is the particular piece of information that is in dispute. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, please don't put the reference to her birthdate in the first sentence where it mentions 'born: ...'. This just looks bad. You don't see references in that spot for other biographical articles. If you're going to address this age discrepancy thing, then address it elsewhere in the article and reference it there. But the opening sentence mention of her birthdate should only be for her most commonly accepted birthdate with no reference. Dr. Cash 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Most commonly accepted birthdate"...sheesh, I never thought I'd ever hear that about someone born after Shakespeare. -- kizzle 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the former stuff in the lead, about "stronger national security measures" and "closer scrutiny of Arabs and Muslims" really should be restored. They are the major ideas in her 9/11 writings, and quite a few of her post-9/11 columns covered those exact themes. Thirty of those columns were reprinted, mostly under the heading "This is War" in How to Talk to a Liberal. We don't have to cite all of them to state the points she was unambiguously making. In addition to the illustrative "invade their countries" quote, the other sources cited in the article back up the deleted material. Though as the article stands now, they are said to illustrate some sort of anti-A&M sentiment, they are primarily about national/airport security. I'm reluctant to restore the security/Arabs stuff myself, but I think it should go back in. Lou Sander 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This sentence in the 9/11 section is false and misleading, and not supported by the sources it cites:

Later, she advocated the use of racial profiling by airlines as a means to further target Arabs and Muslims in particular. [10], [11]

The first citation is about, and is heavily critical of, the U.S. DOT, especially of then-secretary Norman Mineta. A small but notable part of it is an advocacy of, very specifically, ethnic, not racial, profiling. The second citation is not from Coulter at all, or about "racial profiling." It's a gripe from Islamonline.net about Coulter's joke about Helen Thomas getting close to the president. (If you doubt me, read the cited sources.)

Instead of just deleting it without comment, I propose to replace the misleading sentence with:

Coulter has been highly critical of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and especially its then-secretary Norman Mineta. Her many criticisms include their refusal to use ethnic profiling as a component of airport screening. [12]

IMHO this will be quite a bit more truthful and less misleading, and will not violate the WP:BLP policy. Lou Sander 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

After 72 hours with no objections, I made the change. Lou Sander 20:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as every lead/intro is followed by a quote (or otherwises linked to a reliable source) that essentially says the same thing, possibly in greater detail, I would have no problem. The only issue I have is with the intro trying to put a spin (e.g. PC-fication) on a quote. Crum375 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but we aren't just presenting Coulter's words and prefacing them with brief explanations. We're presenting Ann Coulter's views on certain important matters. Every word and thought of hers doesn't need a supporting reference, as long as her opinions are fairly and accurately presented, and can be verified. The business about national security and stronger scrutiny of A&M is notable and is supported by many verifiable citations in the section. There are dozens more, if needed.

Here is another example of the principle: "Coulter frequently speaks against liberals and Democrats" is absolutely accurate, truthful, and not very controversial. To speak out against L&D doesn't connote anything negative about the speaker. Not much verification is required, and it's not quite "original research" to say "frequently" about something so obvious and uncontroversial.

On the other hand "Coulter frequently lies" (for example) is something different, because of the negative connotations of lying. Such a negative and potentially libelous statement, due to the principles of WP:BLP needs to be carefully supported by strong, accurate, and specific citations. The word "frequently," in this context, needs to be clearly shown NOT to be "original research," because it is negative and controversial.

I still think the deleted material about about "stronger national security measures" and "closer scrutiny of Arabs and Muslims" should be restored, because it is the essence of what she says about U.S. response to 9/11. It would probably be better to preface the quotation (which is just a more explicit citation) with "For example,...", and maybe to include more citations if somebody feels they are needed. Lou Sander 17:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

She does talk about closer scrutiny of A&M but also specifically talks about needing to "invade, kill and convert", which is a somewhat harsh and non-PC way to address the problem. Hence any intro would either need to cover those suggestions also, or none at all, as it is now. Just leaving a watered-down PC suggestion of 'closer scrutiny' in the lead is not NPOV, IMO. Crum375 22:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Amen, "raghead", "anyone who isn't named mohammed and doesn't smell bad" and telling muslims to use "flying carpets" should not be characterized as "closer scrutiny". That's like us saying Strom Thurmond advocated "racial independence," of which both would be textbook examples of whitewashing. -- kizzle 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you folks are seeing the difference between literal and figurative language here. Also, it leads one astray when one focuses on words chosen for their shock value, at the expense of understanding what is really being said, literally and figuratively, about the subjects at hand. For example, many have been led astray by "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." If one were to change "Christianity" to "Islam," one would have a summary of the specific, historical methods of Muslims when conquering non-Muslim countries. Could it be that she was saying "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?" (Not only could it be, it was.) Lou Sander 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

She could have said it that way, but she didn't; your version ignores the form of her argument and focuses solely on content, when both are equally important. It will help us all if you read my example of Strom Thurmond over a few times until you understand every word in my argument. -- kizzle 03:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I read it and understood every word. It didn't make any sense. I read it again. It still didn't. I gave up. Lou Sander 14:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(Thurmond using racist terms for Blacks : "racial independence") = (Coulter using racist terms for Arabs : "closer scrutiny") , which is to say that both are ridiculous. Hope that helps, I couldn't think of a simpler way to say it. -- kizzle 17:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) To start 'reading into' what someone says requires original thought, which is a no-no. If you can find a reliable source that says it, then it can be cited here. But just analyzing her words, e.g. to decide what her implied meanings are, or what she meant to say, in your view, is not acceptable, even if you feel it's crystal-clear. Crum375 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But when an editor takes literally what a writer says figuratively, he/she isn't doing readers a favor. Nor is one doing any favors by giving heavy weight to jokes or hyperbolic comments made for emphasis. Seventy pages of reasoned discourse, presented over many months in syndicated columns, about stronger national security measures, including closer scrutiny of Arabs, are not rendered meaningless, or unimportant, or "not what she's really talking about" when she utters the words "magic carpet" or "raghead" at a speech or on TV. Lou Sander 01:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but editors subjectively interpreting her words as non-literal or "what she really meant" are outside the bounds of appropriate behavior for Wikipedia editors. Quote, attribute opinion, but let's not act as interpreter for Coulter. -- kizzle 03:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'ts not like she's been presenting calm, rational arguments for weeks, with the occasional extreme outburst like this one. Her columns are always over-the-top, and often feature eliminationist rhetoric. You say comments like this should be interpreted figuratively. On the contrary, since she's been quite consistent in what she says, it should be interpreted that she means what she says. eaolson 02:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? She DID present rational arguments for weeks, clothed in her customary style, which is often, but not always, calm. (Calmness would add nothing to the rationality of her arguments.) What she consistently said and says is that there should be stronger national security measures with closer scrutiny of Arabs. Many are misled by the fact that she sometimes illustrates her points hyperbolically. If you doubt me, read the cited source for the quote we have been discussing. Read, especially, the six (6) paragraphs leading up to the two (2) paragraphs quoted. IMHO, she means what she says in them. Literally. A lot MORE literally, IMHO, than everything including and after "Suzy Chapstick." Lou Sander 03:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The citation is HERE. Lou Sander 15:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, the meat of her argument is advocating those things.
2. She is using racist, derogatory terms to do so, of which "hyperbolic" and your white-washed description fails to accurately portray.

-- kizzle 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This recent edit would seem to be major vandalism, described as a minor edit to "link Mel Gibson." What's going on here? Lou Sander 14:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• There was a link to Mel Gibson and The Passion added. There were a lot of other changes made, too, and the edit was marked as minor, which is odd. Glancing over it, there do not appear to be any bad-faith edits, however, so the edit is not vandalism. eaolson 14:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody fixed it. Thanks. Lou Sander 19:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've requested that the semi-protection be lifted. It's been in place for at least six weeks now. eaolson 14:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose to remove the words "Willful submission of any false voter registration information is a third degree felony in the state of Florida" from the Registration and voting section, per WP:BLP. There's no indication that Coulter has been accused of a felony, and to imply such is to risk being sued for libel, especially since the Wikimedia Foundation is based in Florida, the offending words also involve Florida, the offended party is an attorney from Florida, etc. Lou Sander 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Good choice. She hasn't been accused of a felony in a court of law; rather, she's only been "accused" of such a crime by the "court of public opinion," which, IMHO, doesn't really count,... Dr. Cash 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, in principle. But we don't need a court of law. If there is a verifiable reliable source, that meets WP:BLP's 'excellent' sourcing criteria, claiming that she violated FL law and supporting it by citing the relevant statute(s), then that (i.e. the claim by source X) would be admissible here, IMO. Short of that, it should stay out as WP:OR 'synthesis' work by WP. Crum375 19:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Does WP:BLP forbid using hypotheticals such as "Coulter has been accused of false voter registration, which is a third degree felony in the state of Florida"? It would seem that prohibiting mentioning what law is being broken according to a substantiated allegation would be excessive censorship. In other words, if including an allegation of breaking a law meets WP:BLP, can we honestly then not say what law they are breaking or the penalties for such an act? (Honest question, not trying to advocate) -- kizzle 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is my take, FWIW. WP considers synthesis as original research. In the case of WP:BLP every rule is scrutinized more, and in the case of negative information, even more so. Hence we must only cite complete statements; any logical combination of facts would become synthesis, i.e. OR, i.e. verboten.

In our own case here, if someone (reliable) said "Coulter filed a false voter registration" and someone else (reliable) said "filing false voter registration in FL is a felony" then we can reproduce the individual duly-sourced statements separately, but we cannot, as WP, create a single connecting statement that concludes that Coulter is liable for a felony offense. Of course, if an acceptable reliable source made the connection, we can cite whatever that source said. Crum375 17:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just figured that the fact that filing a false voter registration was a felony was one of those factoids that could classify under common public knowledge, the same way that we don't write "Martin Luther King Jr. gave a famous speech called 'I have a Dream' ^{citation needed}"... ah well. -- kizzle 20:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

She likes the Grateful Dead?? That is like the biggest hippie band ever! To put things in perspective, I just went into my local headshop the other day and every tshirt either featured Bob Marley, Grateful Dead or Alice In Wonderland. Wtf this is like when I found out Bush listened to the Beatles -- insertwackynamehere 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic slur?

"Her maternal grandfather Hunter Hart Martin (1897-1954) was originally named Hunter Hart Weissinger, but changed his name." What do you want to imply, that he was Jewish? -- Vladko 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Due to it being irrelevant, I think this line can be cut. Kyaa the Catlord 06:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is much that is irrelevant in this section:

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 raised. She has described her family as " upper middle class" and has termed her attorney father a "union buster".

Though it's not yet part of the official WP:BLP policy, there is a lot of informed discussion that we should leave family members out of these articles unless they are notable themselves, or contribute to the notability of the subject. IMHO, the above should read as follows:

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. She has described her family as " upper middle class." and has termed her attorney father a "union buster".

None of the proposed deletions are connected to Coulter's notability, nor are any of them notable themselves. It is hard to imagine why they are in the article. Lou Sander 12:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, I've been enjoying myself over at Protest Warrior lately so I apologize if this has been discussed. The following text has been inserted in the Plagiarism and Factual accuracy section.

“

On page 134 of Coulter's book, Slander, Coulter claims that during Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan's approval ratings fell five percent, from 80 to 75%. A Christian Science Monitor article is cited from January 7, 1987. In actuality, the article states, Reagan's approval ratings fell from 63 to 47%. Coulter relies heavily on the LexisNexis search, a program designed to search various newspapers with the use of keywords or phrases. Many of Coulter's claims are that various "left leaning" newspapers did not cover one event or story due to a hidden agenda. However, Coulter's use of keywords and phrases when searching, give her incomplete results. Many of her claims have come to light as false, having the newspapers she claims not covering a certain story, indeed covering it. In Slander, Coulter alleges The New York Times did not cover NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt's death until two days after he died: "The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation's fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took The New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt's death sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left's renowned populist touch, the article began, 'His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.' The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!" The The New York Times did cover Earnhart's death and covered it on the front page. Earnhardt died on February 18, 2001. Another article appeared in the Times on the front page, on February 19, 2001, one day later, after their intial front-page story, written by sportswriter Robert Lipsyte, making it two days in a row the The New York Times covered Earnhardt's death. Coulter cites an article indeed written two days later, by Rick Bragg, a Pulitzer Prize winner who grew up in the South, who wrote a personal piece on Earnhardt and his passing, bringing the total to three times in which the Times covered Earnhardt, three days in a row.

”

Several points seem to be specifically unsupported original research and the rest of it (which may be original research as well) is of questionable notability. It seems like an attempt to list occasions when Coulter was/appears to be inaccurate. This section, IMHO, should not be used to allow any editor to subjectively choose and list those instances. The examples chosen for inclusion, IMHO, should at least have been notable enough to have been written about in some reliable sources. Ohpeenyons? Lawyer2b 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Coulter relies heavily on the LexisNexis search, a program designed to search various newspapers with the use of keywords or phrases." -- Appears to be original research.
• "However, Coulter's use of keywords and phrases when searching, give her incomplete results." -- Appears to be original research. Lawyer2b 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good timing. I glanced at this section recently, and was about to comment once I looked more closely. I haven't researched your specific items, but the section seemed to me to be full of unreferenced and poorly referenced material, the likes of which can be deleted without comment. In addition to that, overall, this section is NOT very suitable for something in a biography of a living person. Editors should read the material on that subject, and try hard to comply. I believe that disinterested observers would see this section particularly, and several others as well, as attempts to defame the subject of the article. I avert my eyes from those who think that just because something can be referenced, it should be in this encyclopedia, and is not any sort of attempt to defame, etc. etc. etc. Lou Sander 18:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR states that original research, "includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. (emphasis mine) With no external sources saying, "Here Coulter said X. And here is Y, proving X is wrong," I don't see how the above material can possibly be anything other than original research. I'm taking it out. Lawyer2b 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Based upon the above, I believe that this inserted text (which is supported by Franken's attack piece "Slander") should be removed as well. Kyaa the Catlord 10:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the stuff about Reagan's popularity, since it was badly sourced ( WP:BLP). The reference about the Christian Science Monitor pointed not to the CSM, but to an unspecified section of another book. Lou Sander 13:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The material attempting to explain why Coulter is inaccurate appears to be original research. (Me, I think she's just making shit up instead of using L/N poorly.) But the material about her inaccuracies such as the NYT Earnhart article should remain. Gamaliel 14:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It really, really needs to be sourced. And from something more reliable and less biased than Franken's book. Kyaa the Catlord 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, editors who "think she's just making shit up" should consider recusing themselves from involvement in articles about "her" (unless, of course, their "thinking" is backed up by something very solid). The reason for my opinion on this is that it is EXTREMELY difficult to avoid expressing such a prejudiced point of view in one's edits.

The subject of this particular article is an accomplished attorney who provides hundreds of end notes (at Wikipedia we call them "references" or "cites") for her assertions. A very few of them are challenged by sometimes-qualified people, many of whom have a very anti-Coulter point of view. When the challenges are valid (which is infrequent), the errors are corrected in the next printing. Whatever one may think by reading this sometimes not-so-responsibly-written Wikipedia article, this is NOT an author who habitually "makes shit up." Lou Sander 14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And I suppose you are perfectly neutral and unbiased and everyone else is not? Please don't sidetrack the discussion with this old canard. Nobody's recusing themselves. People edit articles everyday on Wikipedia and manage to keep their opinions out of articles. If you find bias in one of my article edits, feel free to call me on it. Until then this is just a waste of time. Gamaliel 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement about "perfectly neutral and unbiased" is a straw man. I did not say that. I said that people who hold a (specifically quoted, extremely negative, strongly-worded) point of view about the basic integrity of a living person should consider recusing themselves from editing the biography of that living person.

Of course people edit articles and manage to keep their opinions out of them. But many people are not able to do that, in spite of their efforts at good faith. Others are skillful at putting their opinions into articles in such a way that they are not readily seen as opinions. (You can see a bit of both in the Ann Coulter article.)

I WOULD like to mention something related to one of your edits on this talk page. From your user page I (and anyone else) can see that you are an administrator of Wikipedia. IMHO, when an administrator, bureaucrat, or other special person uses a talk page to express a strongly worded point of view, that indicates to some readers and editors that Wikipedia itself shares that point of view.

I assume good faith in everything that every administrator does. I believe that your expressed opinion that "I think she's just making shit up instead of just using [Lexis/Nexis] poorly" encourages others to adopt that point of view, and to express similar negative opinions in Wikipedia's article on Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 16:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to butt into a conversation that has nothing to do with me. Your point is very valid, Mr. Sander, every editor here should fear administrators abusing Wiki to their own selfish ends. (Not saying that is happening here, just saying it is a valid concern to have). I think considering the sheer number of editor's here though, even if an administrator holds a bias, there will be enough people to counteract it especially if every one is acting in good faith. It just makes it more difficult. Even moreso when there are people here not in good faith. It is important to have people who have a passion, both pro and con on the subject, contribute. That is the best method to reach NPOV. However, on the flip side, it does lead to choppy articles, but I guess you can't have it all. Ramsquire 17:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason that an administrator should not be able to express his or her opinion on a subject provided it is within the normal limits of civility towards other editors and does not sidetrack the talk page into becoming a soapbox for his or her views. I doubt that people would be confused into thinking some random opinion of one of about a thousand administrators is the official opinion of Wikipedia, especially if that opinion is not in the article. Is someone really going to think that "Ann Coulter is making shit up" is the official position of the Wikimedia Foundation? This is all irrelevant; what's fundamentally important is the content of the article, and once again if you detect anything amiss in my article edits, feel free to call me on it, but until then let's try to use this space to discuss the article content. Gamaliel 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That was the point of my post, no one should have to recuse themselves from editing here unless they're shown to just be trolling the topic. Ramsquire 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as the person who originally pointed out what appeared to be original research, it now appears that the material is validly sourced. The only thing I think might improve it would be to write something more neutral introducing it like, "According to Al Franken's book Lying Liars, etc..." Lawyer2b 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I recognize most of that material from the Coulter chapters in Franken's book. I was away for a few days, just a few points. First, Lou, when someone advises someone else to "consider recusing themselves from involvement in articles" because of their expressed viewpoints on the matter, they are, in fact, accusing them of unsurmountable bias as to be fit to edit this page. This is what the end result of your language produced whether or not you meant it. On a related point, I don't seem to be able to locate any edits or talk page suggestions of yours to this page that are not beneficial to the subject (I could easily be mistaken, but I don't have time to go through the diffs, lets just say a casual glance yields no results), so I would refrain from advising dis-involvement from other editors because of their apparent views on the subject. Unfortunately, you seem to have taken a habit of refraining from answering any of my posts directed at you, so I hope you will listen but I will not take your silence as agreement on the matter. What is more germane IMHO about this discussion is whether such material belongs on her biography page or on the book article pages. Why are we even thinking of devoting 4 whole paragraphs on her bio page to (pretty solid) charges of mis-representing sources when we can put the material on her book articles? -- kizzle 00:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been on wikibreak for some weeks until recently, so I'm just noticing some of the changes that have been made. The lead image is the most eye-catching one. I'm curious as to the reasoning for its replacement of the previous lead image; it's fairly grainy and not particularly recent, unless I'm mistaken. Kasreyn 08:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, other one looked better. -- kizzle 00:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Another agreement. The only potential reservation comes from the Fair Use rationale of using the book cover in an article not specifically about the book. I am comfortable making such a fair use defense but I don't think that it's standard practice in Wikipedia to claim fair use outside of the article which is *specifically* about the object at hand (the book, in this case). But it was certainly a much "nicer" (higher quality & better aesthetics, IMHO) photo than the current one. -- ElKevbo 04:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree the other photo was better. And, FWIW, I think the Al Franken article displays covers of his books in his main article despite there being separate articles about them and I think that's fine. Lawyer2b 19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In defense of the image, this particular one was cropped for the thumbnail head shot on her site. It may not be the glam photo that Coulter fans want, but she seems to like it. This photo also resolves the debate about using the book cover, as that image has been moved to the discussion of Slander. If you don't like this image, take another promo image from the photo section of her web site. I like the one with her and Al Sharpton. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I add the following image into the article? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/26/politics/main631949.shtml -Rako

• Do you have permission from the AP to use one of their copyrighted images? eaolson 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that one or more administrators have expressed strong opinions that Ann Coulter lacks integrity (e.g. "makes shit up"). I respect that point of view, and I assume the good faith of all who hold it, and of all who work it into the Ann Coulter article. But do we really want this article to "speculate" that Ann has Marfan Syndrome? Is the cited reference, a blog that also says "She is, however, a pathetic excuse for a human being, and Adam Carolla of all people, bitch-slapped her," really the sort of "high quality reference" that WP:BLP refers to in saying "Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives?" And is it really a Minor edit to put this material into the Background, early life, and education section? I say NO to all three questions, but I don't want to step on any toes by reverting the edit. Lou Sander 04:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call Lou. I removed the information. The minor edit was a minor edit but it imediately followed the addition of the new material which may have caused the confusion. Go-- ElKevbo 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)o

Thanks for deleting the Marfan material. And there wasn't any confusion about the Minor edit. The edit was at 23:28, 26 Aug 2006 by Fluffbrain. She made a minor edit to the first few words of the section, then inserted the Marfan stuff much further down, where a casual reader wouldn't see it. It's pretty hard to assume good faith for stuff like that, but I keep trying. Lou Sander 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good removal. -- kizzle 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, good removal. It occasionally makes it onto the Marfan syndrome page. I've removed it, but it would be nice if some others would keep an eye on that page as well. -- Geneb1955 ^Talk/ _CVU 11:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues about whether or not the disputed passage should be inserted for balance purposes is one thing, but how does Crooksandliars.com violate WP:RS? Regardless of the opinions stated on that site, they include videos of what they're talking about, which seems to me to be the very paradigm of WP:V. -- kizzle 17:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That site, ' http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/24/ann-coulter-gets-her-freak-on' is clearly an anti-Coulter site, which is inadmissible for lack or neutrality as BLP source. The actual evidence they present, the video recordings, are OK as primary sources, and may be included in principle as such, but for us to interpret them would be POV. For example, I actually looked at the video of the segment where Ann supposedly 'threatens to leave' and 'asks Sean for help' and to me it seemed like she was joking on both fronts. But this interpretation of the video would be my OR or POV, and as such it, and any other version by a WP editor, is inadmissible for BLP. Crum375 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How could any reasonable person interpret what she said as a joke? Nobody was laughing, including Ann herself. -- Asbl 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I consider myself 'reasonable' and I would consider her remark (while rolling her eyes) 'can I leave?' when she couldn't get her word in, as 'joking'. Crum375 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rolling the eyes is not a comedic technique -- it is a relaxation technique similar to a sigh. None of that matters though. What matters is that the event happened, it is well documented (you cant get better than a video documentation), but there appears to be a concerted effort by her fans to suppress it. -- Asbl 19:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rolling the eyes is one of the foundational techniques of comedy. Here's proof: just think of Al Franken and try not to laugh or roll your eyes. Stuart Smalley's eye-rolling antics were the engine of Franken's early success. (Full disclosure: I'm a big fan of Al Franken's comical impersonations of "serious" people.) And yes, Ann Coulter was joking. Lou Sander 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm quite clearly not a Coulter fan (look through the archive for one of my comments), I'd have to say I agree, it does look to me like she trying to be funny. Of course, she is probably be doing that because she has no idea what to say and/or knows she's losing the argument and/or how to respond seriously to the comments so instead chooses to try to make light of the situation (and given this is Fox News, they and most of their listeners would just let her get away with it rather then to wonder why she didn't respond) but I too am skeptical whether this merits inclusion. It does show IMHO how silly she is (both her actions and what she said) but unless it has merited great mention it probably isn't notable enough. Nil Einne 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Coulter fan, and please refrain from calling anyone that, as it is not civil nor assumes good faith. However, I see no reason why that video segment should not be included, with a properly neutral citation, letting the viewers/readers decide for themselves if she was joking or not. Crum375 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not clear to me why calling someone a "Coulter fan" is not "civil", but since you seem to get defensive about it, I'll refrain from using that term. If you are sincere that you "see no reason why that video segment should not be included" please restore it, and we can debate the words around it. -- Asbl 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I actually don't see that segment, given Ann's well known positions on the issues, as that remarkable that it would merit space in the article. I also don't think her joking remarks about 'can I leave?' or 'Sean, help me!' elevate it to a significantly notable event. But as I mentioned above, if someone were to present the video segment with a properly neutral citation, I would not object to it. The issue I see is trying to justify the notability of this segment vs. countless others, but I can possibly see it being used as 'typical'. Crum375 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I continue to object to the inclusion of this video as there is noting supporting its noteability. It's merely some Wikipedia editors who have asserted that this incident is noteable and that is the very definition of POV.

This is why we try not to use primary sources in Wikipedia and wait until there are secondary sources which establish the noteability of the event or item in question. -- ElKevbo 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The video is in no way notable. Lou Sander 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and see below the copyright issues raised by Dr. Cash. Crum375 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of secondary sources who refer to the video see [13]. Her appearance was certainly notable and is being discussed all over. -- Asbl 20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of it until somebody pointed it out on the crooksandliars trash site. Lou Sander 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then cite some of those reliable, noteable sources. That's all I'm asking. -- ElKevbo 20:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont feel it's necessary. If you feel it's necessary, you are more than welcome to add them. -- Asbl 20:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

" The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." -- ElKevbo 20:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing more reputable than the actual video of Coulter herself in the full context of what happened. If you feel more is needed, the burden is on you to add. Please do not delete well referenced information. -- Asbl 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see we disagree. I assert that you are ignoring WP:V and WP:RS just as you ignore WP:3RR. I hope we can resolve these differences but I believe the article is, as Lou believes, being led further and further away from the values we hold in Wikipedia (primarily WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V) and your edits are significantly contributing to this problem. -- ElKevbo 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are making baseless accusation, bordering on slander. Nowhere have I violated 3RR, and you refuse to address the issue that there is nothing more verifyable than the video of Coulter moving her lips, which means that it is completely consistent with WP:RS. It seems that the Coulterites and their sock puppets have taken over this article. -- Asbl 17:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo's assertion that Asbl ignores WP:V and WP:RS and WP:3RR. I also agree that Asbl's edits are redolent with WP:OR and her unwholesome points of view about Ann Coulter. Like ElKevbo, I observe that most of Asbl's edits, both to the article and to this page, significantly detract from the quality of the article and of Wikipedia. Her constructive edits, and there are a few, have mainly to do with grammer. Lou Sander 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have long wondered why editors so diligently seek and post negative material about Ann Coulter, but not about other controversial people, and why the negative material is so strongly enhanced and defended by those who post it. My eyes have recently been opened, however, and now I no longer wonder. Nevertheless, this IS a biography of a living person, and I believe we should refrain from posting such a huge amount of negative material, regardless of its being well- or poorly-sourced. Lou Sander 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction: per WP:BLP, we are allowed to (and should) include any relevant fact that is well sourced. We should be extra careful about negative material, but if it is relevant and well sourced (i.e. established reliable neutral source like one of the major news organizations or a big publisher), it does belong in the article. Another way of putting it is that we need to be absolutely sure about negative material, and only reasonably sure about positive. Crum375 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would add that we are not to add any "extra" information that is not in the source cited, nor draw any conclusions in the article about the source information. That would be original research. I am thinking here about the voter registration section, which was leaning into an area that the source did not even hint at. Also the part about her not so far clarifying her age is also OR, unless a reliable source has actually said that, and the source is cited in the statement. This is an encyclopedia, not a news reporting entity, nor a political club with which to beat people. Crockspot 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the other big problem I see with 'crooksandliars.com' is their copyright infringement. I highly doubt that they have permission from Fox News and other media sources to be redistributing video excerpts that were clearly lifted from broadcast or cable TV. Dr. Cash 19:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

They are using the clips under fair use. Believe me, if Fox News could, they would love nothing more than to shut them down. -- Asbl 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted, IANAL, but I doubt 'fair use' applies in their case. The reality is that Fox News probably sees it as a waste of time to chase them down and sue them because the site is not notable enough and/or doesn't have enough viewership to really make them worry about it. Dr. Cash 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As always, your doubt = your POV. -- Asbl 20:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's everybody's "point of view" until someone brings in the facts supported by evidence. What's not POV, however, is wikipedia policy and ElKevbo is correct when he points out it is the editor's burden to include whatever supporting references are necessary for the information in his edits. ASBL, please don't get into a pissing contest. If you've got reliable sources, just include them. Lawyer2b 21:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're tired of looking at loony advocacy for this never-more-notable-than-a-dead-bacterium, less-significant-with-every-passing-second sub-three minute interview, you might want to consult the widely-cited scholarly book Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War, by Victor Levant, Ph.D., partially abstracted HERE. The abstract says in part:

"During the years 1954 to 1975 Canada served on 2 international truce commissions and provided medical supplies and technical assistance. Canadian diplomats were involved in negotiations between Washington and Hanoi and successive Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, maintained that Ottawa was an impartial and objective peacekeeper, an innocent and helpful bystander negotiating for peace and administering aid to victims of the war. However, Cabinet papers, confidential stenographic minutes of the truce commissions as well as top-secret American government cables revealed Canada to be a willing ally of US counterinsurgency efforts. ... Canadian delegates engaged in espionage for the US Central Intelligence Agency and aided the covert introduction of American arms and personnel into South Vietnam while they spotted for US bombers over North Vietnam. ... Ten thousand young Canadian men fought in the US armed forces in the war."

You might then be better equipped to evaluate our article's unsourced claims that the no-name interviewer knows more Canadian history than Ann Coulter. You might also be better prepared for the coming assertions that bomb-spotters aren't "troops," and that 10,000 Canadian volunteers weren't "sent by Canada."

As for me, I think that all mention of this interview should be forever deleted from the article, on the grounds that it's laughable cruft not worthy of Wikipedia. Lou Sander 05:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

But wait, there's more! The International Control Commission, in Indochina / Vietnam from 1954 to 1973, included troops and officers from Canada, even if some of our less-astute editors might not "feel" that it did. Crooksandliars is (are?) silent on the subject, and some folks still believe that Coulter doesn't know what she's talking about, or habitually tells lies, or has Marfan Syndrome, or whatever else their voices tell them to believe. Lou Sander 06:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Did the Canadian government send troops (non-intel/non-support people) to Vietnam? -- kizzle 07:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See Canada and the Vietnam War for more info about this topic. Crum375 12:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"
2. Wikipedia: "These criteria effectively guaranteed Canada would not participate in Vietnam."

Saying that "Canadians who had long lived in the United States, Canadians with US citizenship who were drafted or had previously served in the U.S., and out-of-work soldiers who had been the victims of recent government cutbacks" joined the US military is the same thing as "Canada send[ing] troops to Vietnam" is ridiculous. Of course they helped out with the war effort in other ways, similar to the US helping out countries in WWII before we could enter. At worst, one can see why McKeown corrected her. At best, she's wrong. Long live retroactive justification, as the Canadian government most certainly did not send troops to Vietnam in an official policy as a normal interpretation of the words "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" would imply. -- kizzle 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding the youtube link as a 'reference' to this stuff! Youtube is a social networking site, pretty much anyone can post videos to the site. It is not a site containing reference material that has any type of editorial controls, and should not be used as a journalistic-quality reference to scholarly publications. Dr. Cash 17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to the direct reference via CBC for this exchange. This is a much better reference than some 16-year-old punk uploading a copyright violation to YouTube which will probably get deleted eventually,... Dr. Cash 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick question, does Wikipedia have an official policy on linking to YouTube, cause we should probably come up with one to sort out messes like this. -- kizzle 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the video and many sources, I've put several facts and links into this section of the main article, including specific details of Canadian troops' nineteen-year presence in Vietnam/Indochina. It is false to claim that Canada did not send troops there, particularly in light of Coulter's clarifying "Indochina?" (Please remember that during the time Canadian troops were there, French Indochina was in turmoil, borders were being established and moved, and so forth. The Canadian troops were there to deal with those things.) 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. Lou Sander 10:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do Ann COulter supporters get so defensive when the video is mentioned? It shows a side of her that they prefer to ignore. Warfwar3 19:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Book covers can be used under the "fair use" guidelines to illustrate the articles about the books themselves only. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but reading the template for book covers, I see the wording "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". It does not say that the article must be exclusively devoted to the book, only that the article 'discuss the book in question'. Well this Coulter article discusses her book(s), so I would think the reduced resolution cover image is, ahem, covered under fair use. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, Crum375 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I believe you're correct. I think what the fair use guidelines are trying to say is you can't use the cover to illustrate something on the cover. So e.g. you couldn't use the cover of a book featuring Ann Coulter to to show Ann Coulter. Provided the cover is there to in context about the book it's fine... Nil Einne 20:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, I either hate Ann Coulter with all my heart or I think she's the greatest living American author, depending on whether you disagree with my suggestion here or not. I just wanted to get that out of the way, as I'm sure my personal motivations will be brought up. Now, to my actual suggestion: the plagiarism section as it stands is way too much. Not too much as in the material shouldn't exist somewhere, but on a biography page we really really shouldn't be devoting so much space to these claims. It's not that these claims do not meet WP:V or are not sourced properly, but do we need to take 8 paragraphs on her bio page? For the whole passage about Slander, I'm going to move it off to the Slander website. Book-specific charges should be placed on each book's individual article. What should remain, ideally, is a 1-2 paragraph section (like it was before) that is equivalent of what's left when a daughter article is split off and a summary para remains. Blah blah iAuthenticate, blah blah Coulter's publisher's defended her, blah blah something else, and that's it. If we really want to keep all this here, I think a daughter article is quite necessary at this point, but I would much rather place the book-specific info on each book's page, as it makes much more organizational sense. What do other people think? -- kizzle 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody who knows how please do it? Lou Sander 10:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the article Ann claimed Canada send troups into the Vietnam war, but that it commonly claimed that they didn't. User Lou Sander claims that this is a fallacy. According to the articles on the subject although there was combat between member of the Canadian army, and members of various Vientamese groups, there does not appear to have been any sending of troups into Vietnam or into the war. Canada's involvment appears to be purely peripheral, so Ann's interviewer would appear to be correct at first glance. Jefffire 11:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The question seems to be: when (or if) Canadians were actually sent in Indochina (references please!), and whether the region of Indochina was at the time officially Vietnam. Coulter made the direct claim "Troops into Vientnam", so that what we should deal with. Jefffire 11:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lou Sander, this discussion involves the article and not myself, please discuss it on the arctile talk page. It seems to me that in a strictly technically sense, Canada did not "send troops to Vietnam". However, I find myself agreeing that this particular TV appearance is not particularily important. Coulter's more notable comments, not to mention her book, are more than enough to convey to any reader her delightful personality and intelligence. Jefffire 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just butting in for a second: when you say "Canada did not send" are you referring to (1) just Canada's government or (2) just its ordinary citizens? See my lengthy remarks below. -- Uncle Ed 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a few problems with this material.

1) I think it, at best, exceedingly poor placement to include any of this in the section of her article devoted to simply summarizing her television appearances. The section of the article devoted to "plagiarism and factual inaccuracy" seems "tailor-made" for this kind of thing, does it not?

2) Simply including a video of the interview (regardless of whether it was from "youtube" or the network that broadcast the interview itself) is not a source sufficient to make the allegation that Coulter said anything inaccurate anything but original research.

3) Lou's conclusion that the interviewer was wrong, while based on impressive research, is also original research.

4) If there aren't many sources (qualifying under wikipedia policy) which actually accuse Coulter of making a mistake, I question the notability of the entire incident. Lawyer2b 12:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think the correct way to handle this and similar 'incidents' or video segments is establish their notability by looking for some acceptable third party review that would count as a secondary reliable source. Just including the video with a WP description is insufficient and would be a combination of original research and primary sourcing. For example, let's say that CNN reviews the segment on Fox and says that "last night Coulter appeared on Fox and said 'Canada sent troops to Vietnam' while we all know they did not" - that statement, attributed to CNN, can be used. We may also include in that case (without editorial comment) the reference to WP's own Canada and the Vietnam War. But we as WP cannot act as CNN - we are not a news network, we are an encyclopedia whose task is to summarize secondary sources, not to be a secondary source ourselves. Thanks, Crum375 13:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lou, if you can back up your research about the Canadian participation with appropriate sources, the place to include it IMO is Canada and the Vietnam War. Reading the current version, it seems to lack the info you dug up. Thanks, Crum375 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffire that this material is unimportant. Since nobody has demonstrated its clear relevance to Ann Coulter's notability, it is a possible case of malicious editing. I agree for the most part with Lawyer2b, but IMHO the "Plagiarism and factual inaccuracy" section has been a hotbed of malicious editing, so we should insist that anything posted there be clearly demonstrated to be relevant to Coulter's notability. I agree with Crum375 about sources, but I think malicious editing is a bigger problem in this article. Lou Sander 13:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Last time I looked, a sensible editor had deleted the interview from the article. I'll look again. Lou Sander

I left note of the interview, but deleted the "controversy". Jefffire 13:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the interview and commentary about it are relevent. Coulter's critics have sought to portray her as "uninformed" or "sloppy with facts", etc., in an attempt to silence her (or at least to get people to ignore her).

I studied the interview around a year ago. My impression is that Coulter and the interviewer were talking at cross purposes.

Coulter meant by "sent troops to Vietnam" either or both of:

1. Canada's government sent its own soldiers to the area, to intervene in the the regional conflict which included Vietnam; or,
2. Canada (the nation itself) sent around 10,000 men to fight in the Vietnam war (but not as soldiers of the Canadian Army).
   • Wikipedia says, "several thousand Canadians joined the U.S. military and fought with the Americans in Vietnam; estimates range from 3,500 to 10,000." [14]

The "interviewer" made no effort to clear up the conflict over terminology, but pounced on Coulter and used her remark against her. If he were a Wikipedian, his "edit" would have been reverted for "NPOV violations". It seemed like a partisan attack to me.

We could compare this to "America sent aid to tsunami victims". Some of that would be the U.S. government and some would be the American people.

We need to ask, in each case, did you mean the government or the people? Our readers will be interested to know which authors can or can't think fast on their feet, of course, but others will be interested to know (after the dust settles) what their written positions are.

It would be good to have a neutral description of this incident in Wikipedia, as there are thousands of references to it in the blogosphere. -- Uncle Ed 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis may well be true, or maybe not, but the point is that it is original research, and hence inadmissible. If you can find an appropriate secondary and reliable source discussing this issue, it would be admissable IMO. Otherwise, we as WP can't analyze primary video segments, nor rely on bloggers to do it for us, and certainly not in BLP cases. Crum375 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed: My fondest hope is that mention of this interview will never again return to the Ann Coulter article. It has been handled by some very bad editors in a way that has done a HUGE amount of harm to Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral source. I will do whatever it takes to keep it out, and I think I'll have a lot of help from other non-very-bad editors. But at the risk of waking sleeping rabid dogs, I gotta comment:

1) GMTA, but not exactly alike. I studied the film VERY carefully this morning. I definitely agree that the interviewer and Coulter were talking at cross purposes, but I've got a different idea about why. I think that when Coulter brought up "troops to Vietnam," she was talking about the peacekeeper-like Canadian troops who were there from 1954-1973. When the interviewer heard those words, he pounced, possibly/probably because the fighting in Vietnam is an extremely emotional and contentious subject to many Canadians. Coulter, with a puzzled look, reacted to the pounce by offering the more palatable " Indochina?" which is what the area was called when Canada sent its peacekeeper-like troops there in 1954. When Coulter later said "I'll get back to you," I think she was trying to exit gracefully from an unwinnable argument in which she was very sure of her facts, but maybe not consciously aware of the extreme Canadian sensitivity to "Vietnam" and "troops" and other warlike words.

2) I agree with your thinking that a widely-available neutral description of the incident would be a very good thing to have. I spent a lot of time this morning researching and marshalling facts about it, some of which are, IMHO, stunning. (Such as the number of troops that were there, their exact dates of arrival and departure, the number who died, the number who got a specific medal for their service, etc.) I wrote it all up, but before I could post it on the talk page, some kind soul put the non-notable, disgracefully negative POV, definitely-doesn't-belong-here reference to it out of its misery. (Please, God, or Fate, or random variation and natural selection, or whoever/whatever determines this stuff, keep that piece of cruft D-E-A-D.) The material for a neutral description exists, and is readily available to people of good intent who can make something great out of it. What should we do with it, and where should we put it? Lou Sander 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I encourage you again to include your research, assuming it is properly sourced, in Canada and the Vietnam War, where it is currently not mentioned. Then, if the issue comes up again here (e.g. someone finds a good secondary source discussing the specific Coulter interview) we would be able to properly refer to the facts you uncovered. And even if it never comes here to this article again, that info is useful as part of WP and belongs in its proper place. Thanks, Crum375 20:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this really has no place in the article. Coulter's own material certifies her as an ignorant and hateful nutter. Yet it seems fashionable lately to capture and deconstruct her every gaffe and stutter made on TV and make the judgement "OMG she totally got smacked down on TV." Most of this stuff is weak and non-notable; it reflects more on the obsession of her peanut-gallery critics than on her own lack of intelligence. If you want to look for legitimate negative material on her, just pick up one of her books and select a page at random. The Crow 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Crow is wise beyond his or her years. I strongly agree that the above paragraph is an accurate and articulate assessment of the nature of the current fashion, of the weakness and non-notability of the material it involves, and of the nature of the nut-gallery critics. And I so strongly endorse the idea of picking up Coulter's books and looking inside them that I offer to fax a page or two to the first ten people who ask. Lou Sander 20:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not arguing for a reinclusion, I have to say I would think the vast majority of people would assume that when you say Canada (or country X) sent troops to Vietnam, you meant the government. Indeed, I don't think it would occur to the vast majority of people you might mean citizens of that country joining other armies. It wouldn't occur to me that's for sure. There are severals regions for this. For starters, citizens joining other armies are there representing that armies country. A Canadian citizen in the US army in Vietnam is a (US) American soldier. Not a Canadian soldier. This is not at all the same as donations. While I think most people would similarly assume you were talking about the government, I think many people would at least appreciate and accept it if you refer to the citizens privately donating money. After all, these people are in a way representing their country. If someone wanted to refer to Canadian citizens joining the US Army to fight in Vietname, I would suggest they would have to make that clear (e.g. although the Canadian government didn't partake in the fight, their citizens did)... Nil Einne 20:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the following material from "Background, early life, etc." Should be moved to the new "Personal life" section at the end of the article:

She owns homes in New York and Florida.[9] She is also a fan of the Grateful Dead,[10] and some of her favorite books include The Bible, Wuthering Heights, Anna Karenina, most true crime stories about serial killers, or anything by Dave Barry.[11] Lou Sander 14:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we at one point have the Grateful Dead fan, and then it was determined to be non-encyclopedic? The part saying that she owns homes in New York and Florida belongs in the voting controversy section. -- Asbl 23:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the part about being a Grateful Dead fan is (a) well-referenced and (b) somewhat notable, as it points out a rather odd fact about her that is usually associated with liberals, which are coincidentally her biggest critics (and 'victims?' of her criticism). Personally, I'm not sure why 'Personal Life' was added to the end. I would think that it could all just go into the background and early life section, or maybe added as a single line to the opening paragraph. Dr. Cash 02:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where "Personal life" came from, either, though I tried a bit to track it down. I don't strongly object to it, particularly since it could serve a useful purpose as a repository for favorite bands, favorite books, favorite color, and similar fluff, provided people want that stuff in an encyclopedia. Lou Sander 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved this material back and forth a few times, to see where it looked best. It seemed fluffy and unencyclopedic in the serious biographical section, but it definitely fit in with Personal life. I moved it to Personal life. Lou Sander 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the April 25 2005 Time cover article on Coulter states she lives in New York City. On Hannity and Colmes 6/6/6 (release date of Godless) she emphatically stated that she lives in NYC, transcript is available on the FoxNews website. The site is apparently incorrect in placing her residence in Florida.

There are some interesting counterpoints to commonly presumed ideas about Ann Coulter, which could be used in the article. See http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1940 -Rako

Four items that have been discussed and deleted many times have just been restored to the article. They are the "troops in Canada" stuff, the "swimmingly" stuff, the "Adam Carolla non-interview" and a three-year-old book review. You can see the details HERE, though there may have been some changes since.

The ancient book review is, as Dominick said when he deleted it, a "pointless opinion that sits on its own." In addition, it applies to a book that has its own article, which is a better place for it.

The other items have been discussed to death, and I believe there is consensus, especially on "troops in Canada," that they do not belong in the article. There are many reasons to delete them, including that their relevance to Ann Coulter's notability has not been clearly demonstrated. That fact alone, plus their apparent agenda-pushing nature, possibly/probably puts them into the category of malicious edits to the biography of a living person.

The Criticisms of Ann Coulter article was set up to receive material like this, and it needs more well-sourced items. These would be valuable additions, and would not be seen as malicious.

None of these four items legitimately belong in the Ann Coulter article. I say they should be removed until someone shows reasons for including them, which reasons must be stronger than the pages and pages of discussion that have led to their multiple removals. Editors who care about them should consider moving them to the Criticisms article.

What say all of you? (Do like this, if you'd like...)

delete -- their relevance has not been clearly demonstrated Lou Sander 00:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this article, I only now read the 'Criticisms' article and I realize that much of it is redundant, if not a copy, of this article's content or vice-versa. I personally think all criticism should be folded back into this article (properly interweaved, vetted for proper sourcing, neutrally presented, balanced per BLP, etc), per WP policy of encouraging the interweaving of criticism. If not, then logically we would need to remove all criticism from this article and move it all (and point) to the other. I realize Islam and Zionism have separate Criticism pages, but I think to do it for a living person is a bad idea and contradicts WP's policy or spirit. BTW, if there is currently a clear wiki-link from this article to the Criticism one then I missed it. Anyway, I think the current situation is not acceptable. Comments? Crum375 01:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would support a merger. Having a separate Criticisms article with largely redundant information increases the chances of a content fork, which is strongly discouraged by wikipedia. Dr. Cash 02:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose a merger. A merger was heavily discussed a few weeks ago, but no consensus was reached. Then somebody just merged the two articles, which upset a lot of people who had worked hard at building consensus. Somebody else quickly un-merged the articles, and they've been that way ever since. One of the problems that led to the second article being set up is the great length of the main article. Somebody pointed out the criticism articles for Bill O'Reilly and maybe some others, and many saw that as a good thing to have here. But then instead of MOVING the criticisms, whoever did it just COPIED them. To really have a good setup, they should be deleted from the main article, which should then provide a link or links to the criticism. If somebody put some organization into the Criticism article, we'd have a well-organized place where criticisms could go without strife or constant deletion. The way the main article is right now, and with all the work going on in WT:BLP, I'd expect a LOT of deletions of stuff that might be merged. Best to let sleeping dogs lie. Lou Sander 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well excuse my ignorance, but I just can't see how an article about a living person can be written with all the criticism separated out to a different article. Firstly, it contradicts WP policy/guideline of interweaving criticisms, secondly it is flat out illogical. Does that mean the main article only has the positive stuff and anything negative must be pointed to elsewhere? Or do we also have a separate article for the positive stuff? How can a balanced neutral picture possibly be presented that way? Unless I am totally missing the picture here, this is simply irrational and non-encyclopedic. But I am certainly open to hear more opinions. Crum375 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I could not agree more. -- Asbl 03:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen, Crum. -- kizzle 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely spot on Crum375 Buyo 13:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For starters, take a look at Bill O'Reilly controversies and Bill O'Reilly critics and rivals. Also, can you be more specific about "interweaving criticisms?" Lou Sander 10:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I read the Bill O'Reilly piece, I don't see it a necessary precedent. I did find this discussion from PETA, another POV and troll magnent:

"It 's always better to weave praise and criticism throughout the article, rather than creating separate sections that turn into POV magnets."

Jimbo Wales (quoted by SlimVirgin)

And this:

WHY is it better to have criticsm weaved into the article rather than as a section in its own right? Please explain.DocEss 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Because praise and criticism sections become magnets for trolls and POV pushers. With a criticism section, people will just keep turning up, slapping any old piece of negative stuff they find on Google, with no attempt to evaluate it or place it in context. Ensuring that both praise and criticism are woven into the text produces a more nuanced and three-dimensional piece of writing that's almost certainly closer to reality, because not black-and-white. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You will note that they are all discussing a section rather than an article, but to me taking out the criticism to an article is even worse and is even more contra-indicated by the same logic. Beyond the troll magnet issue which Jimbo and SlimVirgin refer to, in the case of a separated Criticism section the key question I see is how can the Criticism-less, presumably mostly positive main article be neutral?

BTW, I do recognize the issue of excessive length, and for that we can presumably extract controversial issues, like specific TV segments or books that got a lot of press, but the key there would have to be the amount of press coverage, i.e. notability. Crum375 11:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples, which make a lot of sense. (See below for criticism ARTICLES). Also I apologize if you think I offered the O'Reilly stuff as a "necessary precedent." It's just an example of how some of the better editors have handled the special case of articles about controversial people.

Those articles (and especially this one) are troll magnets in themselves, and there are always one or two resident editors who, in Jim Wales' words, "slap any old piece of negative stuff they find on Google, with no attempt to evaluate it or place it in context." It's not hard to spot those creatures here.

They specialize in malicious editing, and they won't follow basic rules, won't discuss their edits, claim everything they think is notable IS notable just because they say it is, restore cruft that is deleted after long discussion, like to follow a short factual sentence with five negative long ones, etc. Part of this is inferior editing skills, but a lot is just an anti-Coulter agenda. It isn't helpful when the latter is promoted on the talk page by senior people ("I think she just makes shit up", etc.).

It would be great if this article had an environment where we could interweave praise and criticism, but I don't think we're there yet. (If we are, I'd like to see some examples.)

In criticism ARTICLES, the idea is to have a balanced main article, plus a Criticism article for the overflow criticism that doesn't belong in the main article. Example: There are a jillion Coulter statements and interviews that citable anti-Coulter sources have reported on. Some folks want to put them all in the main article, but that would make it unbalanced. The criticism article gives them a place to indulge their desires. Nobody minds too much, or complains about balance, because balance isn't expected. Lou Sander 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should strive to incorporate both criticism and praise into the article. Crum makes a good point, if the criticism section gets overflow, why don't we offshoot specific topics or incidents? At least that wouldn't promote just a bash-Coulter daughter article where the fact that she got a D in an elementary school science project can be added... specific topics would help contain this type of creep. In addition, while you may not agree, I do think there does exist valid criticisms of Coulter (though not nearly as many as appear on this page), and if we adopt your proposal then this article will become whitewashed of any criticism and sucked out into the daughter article, which is definetely not NPOV. -- kizzle 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to develop my understanding of just what constitutes original research. Also, it's pretty obvious that one or two other editors are pretty shaky on their knowledge about it. Maybe somebody can help us all out. This appears in the Coulter article:

This is not the first incident of voting irregularity attributed to Coulter; she has consistently failed to explain the disparity in her stated age and the date of her first voter's registration. Her original driver's license, issued in Connecticut, lists her birth date in December, 1961. The driver's license issued to her years later in Washington, D.C., lists the year as 1963. Coulter's own statements regarding her age conform to the date on her D.C. license.

Coulter's first voter's registration was completed in 1980. If the date on the D.C. license is correct , she first registered to vote at the age of sixteen, also an incident of voter fraud. (Reference HERE) If, however, the date on the Connecticut license is correct, she may be guilty of having given false information on her D.C. driver's license application, which is also a felony.

Of all the material shown, only the stuff in red appears in the reference. Everything else seems to be original research, but I'm not sure of my analysis. Will somebody please help me out here? Lou Sander 12:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick google comes up with this. Doesn't it support the allegation? Crum375 13:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a good chortle over that link. You're being a sarcastic, right? Lawyer2b 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's original research because it leaps to a conclusion based on information provided by the source. Franken leaps to the conclusion too, but he's allowed to in his own book. There is no cited source stating that she's been charged with a felony in any state. The source just says that Coulter is consistently ambiguous about her age. The section needs a re-write. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the published source (Franken) says:

"She was born in 1961. Or 1963. Depending on whether you believe her old Connecticut driver's license (1961) or her newer D.C. driver's license. Ann claims the D.C. license is correct, which means that when she registered to vote she was 16. That, of course, would be voter fraud."

If voter fraud is a felony, then I am not sure if WP saying that, based on proper source, is OR, but we can always just use 'voter fraud' as in the source. Crum375 13:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that poorly sourced negative material should be removed without comment. An Amazon reader comment isn't a high-quality source, is it? (Emphasis WP:BLP.) And if you're going to cite a book (not done here) as a source for potentially libelous material, shouldn't you protect Wikipedia by at least specifying a page number? Lou Sander 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Al Franken writing that it's voter fraud doesn't make it so. Last I checked, he's not the Attorney General of Connecticut. It would be accurate to note that he said it in his book and cite the reference. So far, she hasn't been charged with the crime of voter fraud. If she ever is, then it would be suitable for inclusion because then there would be a verifiable citation available. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether Al is the Attorney General or not is irrelevant. We're not here to establish whether he is truthful, but rather whether he said it or not. An exact quote of what he said, with a page citation would be helpful here. If you're going to accuse someone of a felony then we should at least require that much effort. Wjhonson 15:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He's not in a legal position where he can legitimately declare her a felon. You can say that Al Franken alleged that she committed voter fraud, but you can't say she did just because he alleged that she did. That's original research. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the issue is in conflict, yes. Stating that Al Franken said she did, or might have, is acceptable. Saying she did, since this is a conflict between editors, should be rescinded in favor of saying "Al Franken said....". Wjhonson 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed Lou. I thought I was the only one who thought the blurb at the end about "If this, then that" was very close to the example cited of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Lawyer2b 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is original research, and I'm not sure Franken's book would be a reliable source for the issue either, as it is clearly partisan and written with an agenda. I guess we could use Franken's book, in the limited sense of saying this is an assertion that Franken has made. However, I think there should be a better source before this info is allowed to stay. My 2 cents. Ramsquire 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Franken's book is no more partisan or written with an agenda then Coulter's books. The passage as it stands is definetely OR as Lou points out, but as WJhonson states, if we attribute this passage to Franken's book then it ceases to become OR, as long as we quote it correctly and within context. -- kizzle 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but as this is a biography of Coulter, I do think that there is a legitimate debate about the use of Franken as a reliable source here. Granted the reverse is also true. However, I do say in my post that "I guess we could use Franken's book, in the limited sense of saying this is an assertion that Franken has made.". But if we could find a better source with the same information then we should probably use that instead. Ramsquire 19:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So then in the legitimate debate, you're saying that neither Coulter's books nor Franken's qualify under reliable sources? I would prefer to use both. I think we're on the same page though that attribution to Franken makes most of this problem go away. -- kizzle 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. What I'm saying is that Franken may not be a reliable source for facts about Coulter and Coulter may not be a reliable source for facts about Franken. After all they do sort of hate each other. Ramsquire 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But that would seem to set some sort of " Reliable Sources only on certain pages" precedent, which I don't think we want to strive for. Either the source satisfies WP:RS or not, no? -- kizzle 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want that kind of rule either but I think that may already be in force based on the factors we are supposed to use when deciding if a source is reliable. Check out point two here [15]. Now I'm not calling either an extremist or anything like that but that link does make it arguably seem that we are supposed to consider the agenda certain sources have in printing certain information when deciding reliability. If I'm misunderstanding the passage, please enlighten me. ;-). Ramsquire 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I definetely see your point :) If Franken had blanket accusations without specific citations, then I would agree with you, but the fact that Franken supplies enough info that one can go through and see what he's talking about (in other words, a high degree of satisfying WP:V), makes it ok IMHO to use it here. I hope we can at least agree that neither Franken nor Coulter are as extremist as Al-Qaeda ;) -- kizzle 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! We have full agreement on that one. Ramsquire 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP tells us to "Be very firm about high-quality references,..." IMHO, Al Franken is not a high-quality reference on Ann Coulter. Like her, he uses hyperbole in much of his work. While it's sometimes legitimate to quote Coulter's hyperbole in an article about her, it's not exactly high-quality to use that kind of stuff in criticizing her. OTOH, there's no such obligation in the Criticisms of Ann Coulter article, which is not a BLP. Lou Sander 23:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I think we're straying away from using a "Dump everything shitty about Ann Coulter" article, as the scope creep on that page would be awful. I think Franken's passage does constitue a high-quality reference, as his extensive citations do a good job of satisfying WP:V. -- kizzle 23:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the paragraph in question, removing the original research, and leaving the facts that are sourced by the Washington Post article. For a deceased person, Franken might be a reliable source, but the rules of WP:BLP are very strict regarding living persons, and he could be reasonably challenged as being a biased source, and not appropriate for verifying this particular claim. I did not see him cited for this paragraph anyway. Crockspot 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, WP:BLP's criteria for poorly sourced passages directly relies on WP:RS. How does Franken violate WP:RS? -- kizzle 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:V also strictly applies. Does Franken have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy"? On BLP articles, all the rules are required to be met in the strongest way. There is no wiggle room. Crockspot 22:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

True, except I believe Franken provides his sources in the back of the book. I don't personally own the book, maybe someone who does can just look this passage up and use his sources rather than quoting him as to remove any possibility of more people discounting the merit of the claim due to bias without even analyzing the validity of the claim itself. -- kizzle 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If Franken has cites in his book, those could put you in a better position for including some form of this information. But if he only cites the same source as already cited (good chance there), then Franken is drawing his own conclusion. At best, the information could be presented as his opinion, clearly identifying it as such. Crockspot 22:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. -- kizzle 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, maybe because he could be a biased source with respect to Ann Coulter? Lou Sander 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

He may not like the woman but you're just pulling a Fox News if you're blindly alleging bias without analyzing the merit of the claim nor the accuracy of his citations. -- kizzle 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not question good faith, or personally attack other editors. As WP:BLP clearly states, the responsibility of proper sourcing lies squarely on the shoulders of the person wanting to include the information. ALL editors are required to remove this type of information when they see it, from both the article and the talk page, with out any discussion. These rules come from the very top, in response to recent events.

How did I question Lou's good faith or personally attack him? I questioned the logic behind his dismissal of material due to an uncritical assessment of bias rather than analyzing the veracity of the claim or of the quality of the sources Franken cited. There was no ill intent or malice towards Lou, I actually have a lot of respect for Lou, I just disagree with removing material because Franken doesn't like Coulter rather than the veracity of his statements. Are we really going to perform a blanket removal of all info from sources that do not like the subject of the article? That would be ludicrous. Given a dispute, analyzing his sources against WP:RS and using those instead should be sufficient to settle this. We just need someone with the book to actually post these sources in question. -- kizzle 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While googling for Franken and Coulter I came across this. Comparing it to the current article and the Franken/Coulter endnotes discussion, it seems we are desperately lacking this type of neutral balance and cross-check. Comments? Crum375 18:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't qualify per WP:RS. Not a very notable website. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Malber on that particular site, but the article definitely lacks balance to the negative material. In my experience, almost every accusation of lying or other offenses ends up being wrong or weak. But editors here are intolerant of seeing that illustrated. A week or two ago there was quite a lot of very specific, NPOV detail about the plagiarism and factual accuracy accusations, but somebody took it out.

The trouble is that the nut gallery puts the negative stuff in without researching it. When the rest of us find the weaknesses and point them out or delete the offending material, the nut gallery either deletes the pointing out, or reinserts their cruft. Lou Sander 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This section remains a stub. It only includes mention of one book review. I think it would be better if this were in the individual book article if it isn't already there. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed mention of the review. A link to the review WAS in the individual book article, and still is. What was here was a misleading snippet from a long and thoughtful review. (Um, if he couldn't stand to read the book, how could he write a long review of it?) Lou Sander 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Asbl: Lou, Crum, and I are all opposed to including this passage, as the review is available from the individual book article. Please refrain from reverting or re-inserting further. -- kizzle 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Book reviews belong with the books to which they apply, and should appear there as links to the full text. Misleading negative material should be removed per WP:BLP and many others. Lou Sander 22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following paragraph:

In her book, Godless, Coulter claims that "there’s no physical evidence for evolution", and goes on to state there's "no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record." Critics claim Coulter's arguments against evolution do not appear to have any scientific basis [16] [17].

Firstly, the inline citations are from a pro-evolution blog, and are questionable per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Secondly, someone else's opinions on her opinion of evolution is irrelevant. All that's important in a bio article is to state her opinions on relgion. Criticism of her writing belongs in the criticism section/article. IMO, this isn't notable criticism. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If we just wiki-link her advocacy of intelligent design, readers can click on the link if they want to know what the status of intelligent design is in the scientific community rather than rebutting it on a per-proponent basis. -- kizzle 04:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is relevant to this article that a single reporter states she atttends a certain church and brings guests (and why is that importantor even relevant?) then it is certainly relevant that the officials of that church state they do not know her and and she is not a member. This looks like an obvious attempt by Coulter fans to rehabilitate her, since she frequently claims her Christiainity is the reason she makes her living attacking liberals. I found no Discusion refuting the citings of church officials. I added the balancing statement, assuming that someone has prevented the irrelevant citation from being removed. - getterstraight

This should be put under personal life:

Borcehr's "presentation points out the recent TIME Magazine profile of Coulter which implies that she is a member of Redeemer Presbyterian, an evangelical Christian church in New York, and yet the ministry at the church never seems to have heard of her!

The Redeemer church, "whose non-political stance is well-known, disavows all hateful and hostile speech," according to Borchers' presentation, had to "Google" her name to figure out who she was! Apparently Coulter is not a member of that church at all!" http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1940 - Rako

The reliable Time magazine reported some facts about her church attendance. Those facts are notable in a section about her religious beliefs. Her religious beliefs are part of her notability, since she proclaims them and since her book Godless is essentially about religion. It is NOT notable that a muckraking web site can't verify what Time reported, or that an opinion columnist has something to say about Coulter's religious beliefs, church membership or church attendance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. The Time stuff belongs here. The other stuff does not. Lou Sander 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who put those bullet points up citing examples of errors that Media Matters found with Coulter's works, but I haven't seen a straw man argument like that in a while. Someone went through and chose the least egregious examples along with characterizing them to the point as if they were just stupid. Where is this one?:

On Page 158, Coulter cited a study from the education journal Education Next in claiming that private-school teachers earn 60 percent less than public school teachers. Coulter wrote:

In 2002, Bob Chase, the president of the National Education Association (NEA), complained that teachers don't make as much as engineers ($74,920) or lawyers ($82,712). But I'm thinking, Why stop at engineers and lawyers? Why shouldn't kindergarten teachers earn as much as Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts? A better benchmark comparison for public school teachers might be private school teachers. Teachers in the private sector earn about 60 percent less than public school teachers.7 And their students actually learn to read.

The study Coulter cited -- "Fringe Benefits" -- actually found that, "Starting pay in private schools begins at 78 percent that of public schools, rises to 92 percent of public school pay by a teacher's 12th year, and declines thereafter." It is unclear where Coulter arrived at her "60 percent less" figure, but it certainly did not come from the source she cited.

Or this one:

On Pages 199-200, Coulter attacked "atheists" who "need evolution to be true." Citing what she presented as two Washington Post articles from May 15, 2005, Coulter wrote:

Although God believers don't need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true. William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."1 This is why there is a mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution.

The Washington Post articles Coulter cited are actually one article by Michael Powell, with the headline, "Doubting Rationalist," accompanied by the subhead, " 'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be." But nowhere in the article will one find the Dawkins quote Coulter cited.

Textbook straw man, which I'll be changing hopefully sometime today. -- kizzle 20:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I added your first example. Lawyer2b 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I added some pertinent facts. Lou Sander 15:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (It's always wise to research the claims of MediaMatters and other similarly-reliable sources.)

Lou, you should know by now I have a low-opinion of MediaMatters. I also think Coulter's errors it cites are very minor and simply attest to how partisan the organization is. That said, unfortunately, I think your last edit might be original research. Also, I think my edit might have contained an error. Apparently Media Matters says Coulter said private school teachers' salaries are not 60 percent of but 60 percent less than government school teachers. If that's an error I will fix that. Lawyer2b 16:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that mentioning the typo is pointing out the obvious, rather than doing original research. The word "apparent" lets people judge for themselves. Maybe "possible" would be better. WP:OR says in part that "...the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." There's no doubt that I cited a reliable source providing directly related info. In fact, it's the same source quoted by MediaMatters. To me, the important thing here is that Media Matters says "she lies," and the other reference says "she doesn't."

You've got the 60% business right. A LOT of people don't know the difference between "60% of" and "60% less than." Someone could point it out in the article, but the risk of doing original research, not to mention confusing people who don't have a firm grasp of arithmetic. Lou Sander 16:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll have to read WP:OR again. Your edit definitely contains information that is "directly related to the topic of the article" and adheres to what the sources say. I know the difference between "less than" and "of"; and I think Coulter probably does as well. At worst she probably just did what I did, misread it. Lawyer2b 17:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's a girl, but that couldn't possibly have anything to do with her math skills. Or her tendency to be absolutely truthful in all that she says, providing impeccable citations where possible, unintended errers excepted. Lou Sander 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, what? -- kizzle 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly true that the 344 endnotes are "rife with falsehoods and distortions," is it? I'm wondering if including this material isn't in violation of WP:BLP, specifically the parts about

• In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ...
• If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The overblown cruft from Media Matters seems awfully tabloid-like, and I think somebody should insist on a clear demonstration of its relevance to Ann Coulter's notability. I'll certainly do that myself if there are similar violations in the future. Lou Sander 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In the "Columns" section, I deleted "Generally, her columns are highly critical of the liberal point-of-view. She has argued, for instance, that liberals' insistence on sexual freedoms belies their calls for restrictions in other areas of life, particularly on the issue of health. For example, she asserted that although liberals often lobby for public bans on smoking, they take far less precaution in their sexual health, citing the acts of anal sex and fisting as examples." (Cited reference HERE.)

The citation, falsely claimed to be from a column, is actually from a Media Matters report on a radio show. IMHO, inserting it (or re-inserting it), is defamatory malicious editing, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I replaced the falsely-sourced material with an actual "critical of liberals and Democrats" quote from last week's column, complete with a truthful citation. Lou Sander 23:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying, the quotation falsely said it was attributed to a column when in fact it was a Media Matters article? We can fix that, but does that necessarily mean the Media Matters article didn't satisfy WP:RS as well? -- kizzle 03:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How can it be any clearer? The material was in the section on Columns. It was salacious material, offered as an example of typical material from her columns. But it wasn't typical at all, and it wasn't in any way from her columns. It was from a radio show, by way of a site with a strong agenda. To say it was from a column was a lie, and a particularly malicious one, due to the subject matter of the material, and due to the demeaning way it was presented as an example of her "criticism of the liberal point-of-view." The specific details are presented on this page for all editors to see, in case they have trouble understanding what was going on. Even with all the details in front of their eyes, some editors maybe just can't figure things out. It boggles the mind, and it compels one to avert one's eyes. Lou Sander 03:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, take it easy. I thought "Columns" was referring to her columns, not other people's columns about her. Like I said though, how does the Media Matters article violate WP:RS? -- kizzle 19:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

One more time. It will help us all if you read this over a few times until you understand every word (then you can agree or not). The removed material was at the end of the Wikipedia section about Ann Coulter's Columns. It began by saying, truthfully, that Coulter's columns are generally critical of liberals. Then it became something other than totally truthful. It illustrated Coulter's criticisms, but not in an encyclopedic way. The illustration, though it was carefully sourced, was not at all typical of the criticism of liberals expressed in Coulter's columns, or by her in any venue whatsoever. The illustration had to do with the catchy topics of sexual health, anal sex, and fisting. (Though Coulter did, undisputedly, say these things one time in public, they are bizarrely atypical of her thousands of comments on liberals. Read a few columns, and you'll see this.)

And if a reader followed the link so kindly provided by Wikipedia, and if he or she read the material very closely, he or she would see that the material was NOT AT ALL from one of Ann Coulter's columns, as the skilled but malicious editor had malignantly led us to believe. So much for the credibility of the "free encyclopedia." And so much for the sensitivity and neutral point of view required by the official policy on Biographies of Living Persons.

As Abraham Lincoln so famously and typically said in his Gettysburg Address, "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." [18] Lou Sander 22:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"It will help us all if you read this over a few times until you understand every word"... Nice. I realize the citation is from Media Matters, but the MM article is quoting her column, so while it's not directly from her column, it still quotes her actual words, thus I don't see the problem. Maybe I am retarded. -- kizzle 23:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am retarded. I didn't read it was from a radio show. My bad. -- kizzle 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're NOT retarded if you can understand the improper nature of selecting anal intercourse quotations to put into encyclopedia articles as examples of a person's thoughts, when a jillion other quotations show her thoughts to be based on vastly different things. (HINT: It requires you to think beyond the fact that the quotation is cited from a verifiable source.) And you're DEFINITELY not retarded if you see what is going on in the Abraham Lincoln quote. (HINT: What's wrong with this picture -- "I always KNEW Lincoln was a racist, and now it's proven by his well-sourced words from the Gettysburg Address. Thanks, Wikipedia, for showing that he also hated foreigners and Catholics.") Lou Sander 03:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; you've ably illustrated the folly of selective quotation. Kasreyn 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement about your illustration of selective quotation, I just wish this particular justification was in your original post or edit summary as the reason for deletion, as I would have been a lot less confused. -- kizzle 09:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP is an official policy. It's kind of long, making it hard to understand unless you read it carefully and repeatedly.

Here is the policy in its official nutshell:

This page in a nutshell: Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

Here are some key points taken verbatim from the body of the policy:

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
• Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.
• (For non-public figures such as family members): Editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. ...Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source.
• In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ...
• If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
• 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.

If we all follow the policy, we shouldn't have much trouble. Lou Sander 05:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just ripped your above edit and placed it into another article's talk page with similar issues. I couldn't have said it any better than you did it. Ramsquire 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ram, but I didn't do any more than any other editor should do: Find worthwhile material from elsewhere, and repeat it with minimal, neutral editing in Wikipedia. Lou Sander 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This should be a template. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- kizzle 23:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While the page is still protected I'd like to ask someone to help me improve this section.

I have a better source for this October 1997 incident mentioned in the "Television" section:

Coulter's first national media appearance came after she was hired in 1996 by MSNBC as a legal correspondent. She was fired the next year after an exchange with Bobby Muller, president of the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation who had been paralyzed due to combat wounds. In response to Muller's claim that during the Vietnam War American soldiers had stepped mainly on their own landmines, she reportedly said "No wonder you guys lost." ^[4] Coulter claimed that she did not know Muller was disabled.

It's from the Time magazine cover story about her, by John Cloud, that right now is footnote number 5, and is the secondary source quoted by tertiary Washington Post source used in the paragraph about the incident.

Eight months later, Coulter’s relationship with msnbc ended permanently after she tangled with a disabled Vietnam veteran on the air. Robert Muller, co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, asserted that “in 90% of the cases that U.S. soldiers got blown up [in Vietnam]—Ann, are you listening?—they were our own mines.” (Muller was misquoting a 1969 Pentagon report that found that 90% of the components used in enemy mines came from U.S. duds and refuse.) Coulter, who found Muller’s statement laughable, averted her eyes and responded sarcastically: “No wonder you guys lost.”

I would like to rewrite the paragraph in a more precise and accurate way:

Coulter's first national media appearance came after she was hired in 1996 by MSNBC as a legal correspondent. She was fired the next year after an exchange with Bobby Muller, president of the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation who had been paralyzed due to combat wounds. In response to Muller's mistaken claim that 90% of American soldiers in the Vietnam War who "got blown up" by landmines had stepped on their own American landmines, disbelieving, Coulter averted her eyes said sarcastically, "No wonder you guys lost." ^[2] Coulter later said of the incident that Muller was appearing by satellite, and she did not know he was disabled. ^[5]

I would appreciate it if some registered user would make the replacement in the aforementioned section. Thank you, 216.119.139.84 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You certainly DO have a better source. The original source in Time gives a different picture than does Howard Kurtz second-hand comments on it in his opinion column.

I propose to replace all after "hired in 1996 by MSNBC as a legal correspondent" with this verbatim from the Time article:

The network dismissed her at least twice: first in February 1997, after she insulted the late Pamela Harriman, the U.S. Ambassador to France, even as the network was covering her somber memorial service. Coulter said Harriman was one of those women who "used men to work their way up" and suggested "Sharon Stone or Madonna" as her replacement. Even so, the network missed Coulter's jousting and quickly rehired her. Eight months later, Coulter's relationship with MSNBC ended permanently after she tangled with a disabled Vietnam veteran on the air. Robert Muller, co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, asserted that "in 90% of the cases that U.S. soldiers got blown up [in Vietnam]--Ann, are you listening?--they were our own mines." (Muller was misquoting a 1969 Pentagon report that found that 90% of the components used in enemy mines came from U.S. duds and refuse.) Coulter, who found Muller's statement laughable, averted her eyes and responded sarcastically: "No wonder you guys lost." It became an infamous--and oft-misreported--Coulter moment. The Washington Post and others turned the line into a more personal attack: "People like you caused us to lose that war."

The current editorialized version doesn't cover both her firings, and omits the important fact of Muller's misquoting his facts. The Harriman stuff and the business about the exact wording of the "lose the war" comment are pretty trivial, so needn't be included. Lou Sander 04:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance in my request, Lou. Your proposal is fine with me.

I see you looked up the whole context for the quote. I didn't know it was still on the internet. I found the whole article reprinted at an AOL news website just now. At Time.com it's only available to premium subscribers, it would be helpful if we add a link to this reprint in the footnote reference to this part of the article. Thanks again. 216.119.139.84 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has moved to Time's subscription-only section, but the full text is still available in libraries, etc., in case anyone doubts good faith (I got it from my public library's online magazine service). That's one of the reasons for posting the appropriate section verbatim. It avoids the editorializing of the current version. Lou Sander 12:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff, both Lou and Mr./Ms. 216.119.139.84. :-) Lawyer2b 00:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment period has exceeded 48 hours. I made the change. Lou Sander 12:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I redid the Time quote to make it clearer that it's verbatim from the source. Somebody didn't realize that and had edited it. Lou Sander 21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Coulter only discusses evolution in her book Godless. Her ideas about evolution are discussed at length in the article on the book. I don't think it belongs in the main article on Ann Coulter -- to keep it here opens the door for many other fairly minor topics from her books. Lou Sander 13:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, would have no problem to move it there - but wherever it is, it needs to be NPOV-balanced. Crum375 13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been extreme fighting about that in the article on the book. We really don't need that here. Lou Sander 13:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm for keeping it in it's own article. Mentioning it and mentioning that it is disuted is enough. Exanding it when it has it's own article does not seem a good idea to me. Jefffire 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose to delete this entire section. Per the discussion above, the topic is, and should be, discussed in the article on Godless. The particular incident discussed here is NOT covered in that article, but the whole evolution dispute IS covered at great length. Not only that, but I tried to find a good place to insert it, and I didn't find one. I'm going to leave this here for a few days (to give others a chance to move it), then delete the section. Lou Sander 12:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the intelligent design advocate category remain. It would seem a bit out of place to have the category here without at least noting in brief that Coulter has chosen to voice an opinion on the subject. Perhaps, for sections removed to the articles on her books, we could create a small section (perhaps entitled "Other Views"), which would quickly and simply note such things as, "In Godless, Coulter advocates the concept of Intelligent Design", or some such simple sentence. Otherwise, the category would appear at first glance to be unfounded, and then we'd have editors removing the category. Kasreyn 00:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

All this stuff is amply covered in the article on the book, and the book is the only place where Coulter mentions it with any emphasis. (Therefore that's where coverage of it belongs.) Even in the book, evolution/intelligent design only comes up by way of one point in its numerous arguments: 1) MAIN POINT OF THE BOOK: Liberals besmirch religion, but their core beliefs amount to a religion themselves. 2) SEVEN MAJOR ILLUSTRATIVE POINTS: Here are their sacraments, holy writ, martyrs, clergy, churches, doctrine of infallibility, and cosmology. All are amply illustrated and expanded on. 3) ADDITIONAL ILLUSTRATIVE POINT: There's also their creation myth: Darwin's theory. The mythical nature of the liberal creation belief is illustrated by casting doubt on its authenticity, much support for the doubt being shown by the work of intelligent design advocates. A subordinate point is that if anyone doubts the liberals' creation myth, they brand him/her as a crazy religious kook. As she predicts, many have pounced on the creation myth stuff, usually implying that he/she's a crazy religious kook or intelligent design freak. She isn't really even advocating intelligent design -- just detailing it as an opposing view to the liberal creation myth. Lou Sander 02:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

With Kasreyn's concurrence, I've removed the "Coulter on Evolution" section, mentioned evolution vs. creation in this article's material on Godless, and referred readers to the Godless article for details, of which there are many in that article. (It took me two edits to do it. Sorry if confusion ensues.) Lou Sander 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is misnamed and isn't properly focused. Read the citations. Her comments are mostly about airport security, not about "Arabs and Muslims." She prominently mentions Arabs and Muslims as potential security risks, and discusses the whys and wherefores of her opinions on that subject. She doesn't really get involved in other aspects of Arab ethnicity or Muslim religious beliefs. I don't know exactly what title would be best for this section, but somebody should definitely rename it. Maybe "Coulter on Arabs and Muslims as security risks." Lou Sander 13:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is part of her quote:

We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity

I think here she is not referring to airport security but Arabs in general. Crum375 15:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see why you might think that. I think she was referring to supporters of the 9/11 bombers, many of whom are Arabs and Muslims (but many of whom are not, and in any event the A&M among them are only a tiny fraction of the whole number of A&M). Those are our points of view. The point is that her remarks about Arabs and Muslims are all, or nearly all, made in a security context. Isn't it a misrepresentation to leave that context out of this section of the article? Lou Sander 16:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the overall context leading to her above comments was airport security related. But her statements, as quoted, are rather far sweeping ("invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them") and go well beyond airport security. As such, I would think that the current title is reasonable, whereas limiting it to "Arabs and Muslims as security risks" would be too narrow given these broad statements. I think your point is that the title is not reflective of the fact that the context was security, which of course I agree with, but I also think that her views and the context are fairly self explanatory to the reader. Crum375 17:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What is fairly self-explanatory to THIS reader is that Wikipedia is wrongly and irresponsibly attributing Salman Rushdie-like and Danish cartoons-like aspects to Ann Coulter. (See WP:BLP for a long list of reasons not to do that.) Lou Sander 17:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, the quote stands on its own. If you feel that it should be introduced in a different way, feel free to suggest the wording. BTW, having read the 'Satanic Verses' I don't recall Rushdie saying anything negative about Arabs or Islam, though I am aware that some perceived it that way. Crum375 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some comments I made before an edit conflict. I think they may still be helpful.

The statements are sweeping, but only towards individuals who support terrorism against the United States and those who lead them into that political stance. What, worldwide, 90-95% of terrorist killings were sponsored by Muslims? And in their region by Arabs? If so, it's appropriate to point out that within the race and/or religion there are internal problems that affect others that demands greater scrutiny in a security context. I think regarding Coulter's sweeping statements it would be well to remember Winston Churchill's remark, "I do not resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it parts for the time with reality".

Coulter responds to attempts to shade or compromise what she feels are valid principles with vivid pictures of her opponents entangled in the consequences of denying those principles. For example some argue profiling will wound Arab pride. So she writes an airline slogan, "You are now free to move about the cabin--not so fast, Mohammed!" creating a memorable presentation of the plain argument "It's silly to be afraid of offending them, how bad could it get, they're big enough to take it". But out of context, this could be misinterpreted as simply scorning all Arabs and Muslims.

Here's another example of this in section (which ought to be corrected or removed):

"I think airlines ought to start advertising: 'We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.'" When asked what Muslims should do for travel, she responded that they, "could use flying carpets."

The actual source says in the context of egging her on, "How would Arabs travel" [to avoid civil rights abuses]. The implication being that the abuses complained about in such nuisance lawsuits would be so traumatic that they must be avoided at all costs. The flying carpets comment being shorthand for "You're entangled in denying realities as bad as the denial I just brought up; it's silly to worry about Muslims being turned into victims. Even to those who know Muslims only in the broadest possible stereotypes, Middle-easterners have never had a reputation for not being resourceful." As it stands now, you might conclude she was bringing up the exaggerated stereotype for its own sake, rather than to help emphasize her argument. It is thus not part of a larger "controversial trend"--which is alone what this section should be about. 64.154.26.251 19:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose to replace this:

Particularly in response to the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Coulter has been notably critical of Arabs and Muslims. For example,...

With this:

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, Coulter has argued that Arabs and Muslims should receive special scrutiny by security personnel. For example,...

It's more accurate, less inflammatory, and avoids the opinion "notably critical." Lou Sander 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My problem with it is that her quote then goes on to say how the US should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them". This is way beyond airport security, although that was the context or trigger, so it would not be correct to introduce this quote with a pure airport security context. However, I am open for any other ideas for the intro that you think will be 'more accurate' but will cover her quote. Crum375 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at the rest of the section. It's about security, not about "being critical of Arabs and Muslims." And the "invade their countries" business has to do with all-out war and what you do in it. Would an encyclopedia say she's "being critical of Germans" here? Lou Sander 03:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the original much better, "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them" along with the "being nice is one of the tenets of christianity, as opposed to kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and isn't named mohammed" (paraphrasing there) ...passage should stay. -- kizzle 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I think the first criterion of this section being in the article is that it originated an actual controversy. Not just controversy among the politically correct asking "what's to be done with this Ann Coulter person?" I believe this subject meets this criterion, because of the "invade their countries" comment. It was brought up twice in her interview with Katie Couric about Slander, and it wasn't even in the book. Coulter later said it was a comment that followed her around. Although it was apparently her opponents that stirred up the controversy, it was ground Coulter chose to defend.

This controversy highlighted follow-up comments along the same lines both before and after Coulter's defense on the Today Show. And they didn't all have to do with airline security, they also had to do with national security and the need for heightened scrutiny of the source culture and religion of at least 9 out of ten of the terrorist actions around the world. This column spells out her airline and national security proposals, nine days after the attacks. Coulter claims it was the bone of contention that caused National Review Online to drop her column and terminate her editorship.

Coulter also might be considered a notably early proponent, as a columnist and TV pundit, of assaulting the host countries of terrorists with retaliatory force.

So I would add the ideas of national security, heightened scrutiny and early proponent of retaliatory force to the intro (if it can be fit into an intro sentence or two). Then add back in her responses to the "invade their countries" comment from the Today show and add her response to the phrase in How to Talk to a Liberal (Now more than ever) as new material. (I can get citations and text for these), and drop the airline stuff unless it's presented as instances of Coulter incorporating the subject into her humorous remarks.

The "rag-head" stuff was picked up by blogs (not college student bloggers as the section says now), Cybercast News Service, and a few columnists. Tony Snow on his show called it "exhibitionism" and that it was like "she pulled her dress over head to get attention". I'm inclined to agree that it wasn't a real controversy.

I have a little more to add, but I want to wait to see what everyone else has to say. 64.154.26.251 04:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their thoughtful comments. I've read and re-read the section in the article, slept on the matter, then read the section again (plus this section and all or most of the citations). I want to modify my original premise and propose a better solution. Here it is:

The section "Coulter on Arabs and Muslims" is misnamed and isn't properly focused. Read the cited sources. Her comments are mostly about responding to 9/11, not about Arabs and Muslims. She prominently mentions Arabs (mostly) and Muslims (almost not at all) as potential security risks, and discusses the whys and wherefores of her opinions. She doesn't really get involved in other aspects of Arab ethnicity or Muslim religious beliefs.

I propose to replace this:

COULTER ON ARABS AND MUSLIMS

Particularly in response to the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Coulter has been notably critical of Arabs and Muslims. For example, in a column...

With this:

COULTER ON RESPONDING TO 9/11

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, Coulter has advocated a more warlike response to terror and fanatic terrorists. She has called for much stronger national security measures, including closer scrutiny of Arabs and Muslims at airports. Soon after the attack, she called for assaulting terrorist host countries with all-out retaliatory force. In a column...

The stuff in the rest of the section could use some work, but that's minor compared to the problems with the title and the lead. Lou Sander 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

After 72 hours without further comment, I made the change. Lou Sander 18:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, Lou. Keep up the good, NPOV work.  :) Kasreyn 04:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am honored by your comment. Thank you. Lou Sander 12:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

(I took it upon myself to separate the following general material from the above stuff on A&M. I hope nobody minds. Lou Sander 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

The entire controversy section needs to be redone. Upon my review, the only sub-section that should remain is the 'Jersey Girls' section. It cites the incident on the Today Show, and reactions from Hillary Clinton, and Rahm Emanuel who urged a boycott of her book. This is the only one that cites significant controversy that arose due to her comments. The 'NY Times bombing' section points to a short comment on Hannity & Colmes and a negative comment from Colmes cited by E&P, the 'Coulter on Arabs and Muslims' section cites a negative reaction from bloggers, and the 'Coulter on Evolution' cites negative reaction from evolutionists as might be expected. If there isn't significant reaction from the mainstream press, it is not notable controversy. If a quotation is listed without also citing a reliable source that describes the controversy, then the inclusion is because the editor feels that the comments are controversial. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with what Malber says, but there was a LOT of talk about Controversies several weeks ago, and I want to try to find it before saying much more. Lou Sander 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell, WP:BLP requires that a 'Controversy' section talk about the controversy, not how outrageous an editor thinks a subject's comments are. That's not to say that negative controversy doesn't belong, but if there is no citable controversy it doesn't belong. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lou, this is about the Television section again. I wasn't really concerned about how the section was going to be fixed as long as it was corrected by the better source. But the Washington Post article includes the report that Coulter didn't know the representative was disabled. Seeing the exerpt from Time down in black and white, I think it looks kind of harsh on Coulter's end without that disclaimer. The source is The Conservative Pin-Up Girl. The excerpt by Kurtz is "I did note that, according to Coulter, the vet was appearing by satellite and she didn't know he was disabled." Let me know what you think. Here is the full citation if you decide you want to use it: "Kurtz, Howard. " The Conservative Pin-Up Girl." Washington Post. April 19, 2005. Retrieved on July 10, 2006. (Just add "ref" and "/ref" within "<" and ">" symbols before and after it.) 64.154.26.251 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

When I cleaned up the section, I almost kept the "she didn't know he was disabled" part, but I decided to keep things simple. Looking again at WP:BLP, especially

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
• In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ...

I'm thinking that I should have left it in. We say the guy she argued with is disabled. If we are to be responsible, neutral, and factual, we also need to say that she didn't know it. At worst, this is a borderline case, and we do harm by leaving out the other pertinent facts.

What do other people think? Lou Sander 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be in as pertinent. I suspect she would have shown more sensitivity had she known he was disabled. Crum375 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week, and since the restriction against anons has been lifted, I added Coulter's description of the incident that Kurtz reported. 216.165.199.50 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In 2002, an opinion column in the Washington Post stated that in 1980, Ann Coulter registered to vote in New Canaan, CT. A Connecticut driver's license lists her birth date in December, 1961. But a driver's license issued to her years later in Washington, D.C., says she was born in December, 1963.

What the issue is here isn't particularly clear. I would guess the voting age in Connecticut is 18 so if she were born in 1963, she wouldn't yet be illegible to vote but this is not clear from the paragraph... Nil Einne 19:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, added legal age requirement mentioned in source. Crum375 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Its terribly impolite to ask a lady her age. :P Kyaa the Catlord 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kyaa. The age business is in here only because of a previous malicious attempt to impute a felony to the lady. "Her driver's license says she's 40. Her old driver's license says she's only 38. If she's only 38, it follows that she wasn't 18 when she registered to vote in CT. That's a felony in FL (and by implication it's a very bad thing in CT)." The mind boggles.

The age question is a legitimate aspect of Ann Coulter, but definitely not connected with voting. It should be removed from this section. IMHO, it isn't relative to her notability, so it should be removed totally from the article. Lou Sander 15:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed recently (visible in archive 6) but I think it needs to be brought up again. The current lead photo IMHO needs to be replaced. While it's a photo released on her website, to me anyway it's highly unflattering and makes her look like she's anorexic and is much worse IMHO then the Time photo (which despite her objections, is decent enough, it's quite clear that it's distorted so it doesn't give her an unflaterring look). Her site has several others to choose from [19]. We could take one of the ones with her and someone else and get wikipedia to only show her as the thumbnail... The photo is one of the best in actually showing her and at a decent size (perhaps that's why she looks so unflattering? who knows...) however I personally believe it would still be better to use another photo for the lead. Perhaps this one? [20]. What do you all think? Nil Einne 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the current picture from her Web site. I am not sure why we would want to change it. Crum375 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The current one was chosen because it's the one she uses for her headshot thumbnail on her site. It's obviously one she prefers. Of all the pictures from her gallery, it is the one IMO that looks the most professional. Feel free to choose another one if you like, but it has to be justified as FU. I particularly like the one with Al Sharpton ;-) -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead says her DOB is December 8, 1961, but later in the article it discusses her D.C. license with a DOB of 1963. How do we address this discrepancy in the lead? -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is weird source for this but... imdb says 1961. [21] Kyaa the Catlord 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IMDB, like this website, is not vetted. It's not the best source. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think: 1) Earlier birthdate is compatible with Connecticut voting at 18, so it's the one to go with. 2) Later birthdate might be a lady trying to seem younger, or a celebrity trying to avoid unwanted attention to personal matters, etc. 3) The matter of differing birthdates isn't important and isn't related to her notability. I'd remove all reference to it. Or if somebody just HAS to get it in, mention the discrepancy in the Personal section at the end. Lou Sander 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Birtdates are important for biographical articles of public persons. It's a critera for feature article status, and in theory all articles should be working toward featured status. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be in slight contradiction to WP:BLP. Specifically, the "Privacy of birthdays" subsection says "Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution." The problem here is that although WP:BLP says that in some cases we should "err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date" we have contradictory information about the specific year.

This is certainly not the first time that different Wikipedia policies or conventions have been found to be in disharmony or even complete contradiction or opposition to one another... -- ElKevbo 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It becomes more clear when you look at the rest of the paragraph. WP:BLP makes a distinction between public, marginally notable, and non-public people. Coulter definitely falls into the first category. Her DOB is fair game. Even if she requested it be removed we would still have to at least confirm the year which is the particular piece of information that is in dispute. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, please don't put the reference to her birthdate in the first sentence where it mentions 'born: ...'. This just looks bad. You don't see references in that spot for other biographical articles. If you're going to address this age discrepancy thing, then address it elsewhere in the article and reference it there. But the opening sentence mention of her birthdate should only be for her most commonly accepted birthdate with no reference. Dr. Cash 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Most commonly accepted birthdate"...sheesh, I never thought I'd ever hear that about someone born after Shakespeare. -- kizzle 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the former stuff in the lead, about "stronger national security measures" and "closer scrutiny of Arabs and Muslims" really should be restored. They are the major ideas in her 9/11 writings, and quite a few of her post-9/11 columns covered those exact themes. Thirty of those columns were reprinted, mostly under the heading "This is War" in How to Talk to a Liberal. We don't have to cite all of them to state the points she was unambiguously making. In addition to the illustrative "invade their countries" quote, the other sources cited in the article back up the deleted material. Though as the article stands now, they are said to illustrate some sort of anti-A&M sentiment, they are primarily about national/airport security. I'm reluctant to restore the security/Arabs stuff myself, but I think it should go back in. Lou Sander 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This sentence in the 9/11 section is false and misleading, and not supported by the sources it cites:

Later, she advocated the use of racial profiling by airlines as a means to further target Arabs and Muslims in particular. [22], [23]

The first citation is about, and is heavily critical of, the U.S. DOT, especially of then-secretary Norman Mineta. A small but notable part of it is an advocacy of, very specifically, ethnic, not racial, profiling. The second citation is not from Coulter at all, or about "racial profiling." It's a gripe from Islamonline.net about Coulter's joke about Helen Thomas getting close to the president. (If you doubt me, read the cited sources.)

Instead of just deleting it without comment, I propose to replace the misleading sentence with:

Coulter has been highly critical of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and especially its then-secretary Norman Mineta. Her many criticisms include their refusal to use ethnic profiling as a component of airport screening. [24]

IMHO this will be quite a bit more truthful and less misleading, and will not violate the WP:BLP policy. Lou Sander 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

After 72 hours with no objections, I made the change. Lou Sander 20:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as every lead/intro is followed by a quote (or otherwises linked to a reliable source) that essentially says the same thing, possibly in greater detail, I would have no problem. The only issue I have is with the intro trying to put a spin (e.g. PC-fication) on a quote. Crum375 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but we aren't just presenting Coulter's words and prefacing them with brief explanations. We're presenting Ann Coulter's views on certain important matters. Every word and thought of hers doesn't need a supporting reference, as long as her opinions are fairly and accurately presented, and can be verified. The business about national security and stronger scrutiny of A&M is notable and is supported by many verifiable citations in the section. There are dozens more, if needed.

Here is another example of the principle: "Coulter frequently speaks against liberals and Democrats" is absolutely accurate, truthful, and not very controversial. To speak out against L&D doesn't connote anything negative about the speaker. Not much verification is required, and it's not quite "original research" to say "frequently" about something so obvious and uncontroversial.

On the other hand "Coulter frequently lies" (for example) is something different, because of the negative connotations of lying. Such a negative and potentially libelous statement, due to the principles of WP:BLP needs to be carefully supported by strong, accurate, and specific citations. The word "frequently," in this context, needs to be clearly shown NOT to be "original research," because it is negative and controversial.

I still think the deleted material about about "stronger national security measures" and "closer scrutiny of Arabs and Muslims" should be restored, because it is the essence of what she says about U.S. response to 9/11. It would probably be better to preface the quotation (which is just a more explicit citation) with "For example,...", and maybe to include more citations if somebody feels they are needed. Lou Sander 17:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

She does talk about closer scrutiny of A&M but also specifically talks about needing to "invade, kill and convert", which is a somewhat harsh and non-PC way to address the problem. Hence any intro would either need to cover those suggestions also, or none at all, as it is now. Just leaving a watered-down PC suggestion of 'closer scrutiny' in the lead is not NPOV, IMO. Crum375 22:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Amen, "raghead", "anyone who isn't named mohammed and doesn't smell bad" and telling muslims to use "flying carpets" should not be characterized as "closer scrutiny". That's like us saying Strom Thurmond advocated "racial independence," of which both would be textbook examples of whitewashing. -- kizzle 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you folks are seeing the difference between literal and figurative language here. Also, it leads one astray when one focuses on words chosen for their shock value, at the expense of understanding what is really being said, literally and figuratively, about the subjects at hand. For example, many have been led astray by "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." If one were to change "Christianity" to "Islam," one would have a summary of the specific, historical methods of Muslims when conquering non-Muslim countries. Could it be that she was saying "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?" (Not only could it be, it was.) Lou Sander 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

She could have said it that way, but she didn't; your version ignores the form of her argument and focuses solely on content, when both are equally important. It will help us all if you read my example of Strom Thurmond over a few times until you understand every word in my argument. -- kizzle 03:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I read it and understood every word. It didn't make any sense. I read it again. It still didn't. I gave up. Lou Sander 14:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(Thurmond using racist terms for Blacks : "racial independence") = (Coulter using racist terms for Arabs : "closer scrutiny") , which is to say that both are ridiculous. Hope that helps, I couldn't think of a simpler way to say it. -- kizzle 17:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) To start 'reading into' what someone says requires original thought, which is a no-no. If you can find a reliable source that says it, then it can be cited here. But just analyzing her words, e.g. to decide what her implied meanings are, or what she meant to say, in your view, is not acceptable, even if you feel it's crystal-clear. Crum375 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But when an editor takes literally what a writer says figuratively, he/she isn't doing readers a favor. Nor is one doing any favors by giving heavy weight to jokes or hyperbolic comments made for emphasis. Seventy pages of reasoned discourse, presented over many months in syndicated columns, about stronger national security measures, including closer scrutiny of Arabs, are not rendered meaningless, or unimportant, or "not what she's really talking about" when she utters the words "magic carpet" or "raghead" at a speech or on TV. Lou Sander 01:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but editors subjectively interpreting her words as non-literal or "what she really meant" are outside the bounds of appropriate behavior for Wikipedia editors. Quote, attribute opinion, but let's not act as interpreter for Coulter. -- kizzle 03:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'ts not like she's been presenting calm, rational arguments for weeks, with the occasional extreme outburst like this one. Her columns are always over-the-top, and often feature eliminationist rhetoric. You say comments like this should be interpreted figuratively. On the contrary, since she's been quite consistent in what she says, it should be interpreted that she means what she says. eaolson 02:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? She DID present rational arguments for weeks, clothed in her customary style, which is often, but not always, calm. (Calmness would add nothing to the rationality of her arguments.) What she consistently said and says is that there should be stronger national security measures with closer scrutiny of Arabs. Many are misled by the fact that she sometimes illustrates her points hyperbolically. If you doubt me, read the cited source for the quote we have been discussing. Read, especially, the six (6) paragraphs leading up to the two (2) paragraphs quoted. IMHO, she means what she says in them. Literally. A lot MORE literally, IMHO, than everything including and after "Suzy Chapstick." Lou Sander 03:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The citation is HERE. Lou Sander 15:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, the meat of her argument is advocating those things.
2. She is using racist, derogatory terms to do so, of which "hyperbolic" and your white-washed description fails to accurately portray.

-- kizzle 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This recent edit would seem to be major vandalism, described as a minor edit to "link Mel Gibson." What's going on here? Lou Sander 14:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• There was a link to Mel Gibson and The Passion added. There were a lot of other changes made, too, and the edit was marked as minor, which is odd. Glancing over it, there do not appear to be any bad-faith edits, however, so the edit is not vandalism. eaolson 14:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody fixed it. Thanks. Lou Sander 19:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've requested that the semi-protection be lifted. It's been in place for at least six weeks now. eaolson 14:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose to remove the words "Willful submission of any false voter registration information is a third degree felony in the state of Florida" from the Registration and voting section, per WP:BLP. There's no indication that Coulter has been accused of a felony, and to imply such is to risk being sued for libel, especially since the Wikimedia Foundation is based in Florida, the offending words also involve Florida, the offended party is an attorney from Florida, etc. Lou Sander 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Good choice. She hasn't been accused of a felony in a court of law; rather, she's only been "accused" of such a crime by the "court of public opinion," which, IMHO, doesn't really count,... Dr. Cash 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, in principle. But we don't need a court of law. If there is a verifiable reliable source, that meets WP:BLP's 'excellent' sourcing criteria, claiming that she violated FL law and supporting it by citing the relevant statute(s), then that (i.e. the claim by source X) would be admissible here, IMO. Short of that, it should stay out as WP:OR 'synthesis' work by WP. Crum375 19:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Does WP:BLP forbid using hypotheticals such as "Coulter has been accused of false voter registration, which is a third degree felony in the state of Florida"? It would seem that prohibiting mentioning what law is being broken according to a substantiated allegation would be excessive censorship. In other words, if including an allegation of breaking a law meets WP:BLP, can we honestly then not say what law they are breaking or the penalties for such an act? (Honest question, not trying to advocate) -- kizzle 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is my take, FWIW. WP considers synthesis as original research. In the case of WP:BLP every rule is scrutinized more, and in the case of negative information, even more so. Hence we must only cite complete statements; any logical combination of facts would become synthesis, i.e. OR, i.e. verboten.

In our own case here, if someone (reliable) said "Coulter filed a false voter registration" and someone else (reliable) said "filing false voter registration in FL is a felony" then we can reproduce the individual duly-sourced statements separately, but we cannot, as WP, create a single connecting statement that concludes that Coulter is liable for a felony offense. Of course, if an acceptable reliable source made the connection, we can cite whatever that source said. Crum375 17:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just figured that the fact that filing a false voter registration was a felony was one of those factoids that could classify under common public knowledge, the same way that we don't write "Martin Luther King Jr. gave a famous speech called 'I have a Dream' ^{citation needed}"... ah well. -- kizzle 20:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

104.011 False swearing; submission of false voter registration information - A person who willfully swears or affirms falsely to any oath or affirmation, or willfully procures another person to swear or affirm falsely to an oath or affirmation, in connection with or arising out of voting or elections commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. [25] Raul654 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that the cited statutes have nothing to do with Ann Coulter. Except, of course, if Wikipedia's intention is to defame her by implying a connection between her behavior and a crime of which she has not been accused. I wonder what Jimbo Wales would think of making such an implication? Or are all those good words in WP:BLP just so much hogwash? Lou Sander 13:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In March, 2006, elections officials had given Coulter 30 days to explain the inaccuracy. - I think those elections officials would beg to differ. Raul654 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not for elections officials or encyclopedia editors to determine when a person commits a felony. IMHO, it is defamatory for an encyclopedia to imply that a person has done so, in spite of an editor's original research. What end, other than backhandedly defaming Ann Coulter, is served by quoting statutes that some editor thinks/hopes she may have violated, but that she has not been accused of? Lou Sander 19:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason they do it on the nightly news - because by giving two different birthdays on two different official documents (lying on either of which would be a felony), it is difficult to convience of circumstances where she didn't violate the law. Raul654 19:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about that? The nightly news, at least where I live, is extremely circumspect about accusing people of crimes, about mentioning the possible penalties for crimes that have not even come to the indictment phase, etc. What the encyclopedia is doing here is reporting a minor controversy at a polling place, then quoting a felony statute that applies to willful provision of false information, all in the absence of any mention of felony accusations, hearings, indictments, etc. I just don't see what purpose it serves, other than to defame Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) I must agree with Lou here. I the case of the address debacle, I can see many potentially innocent explanations for the mistake. People do change addresses a lot, and mistakes can happen. By adding the ominous statement about a felony, WP appears to be implying that she is a potential felon, which is not WP's job. If some reputable source said it, that would be fine to report. Crum375 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to make things interesting, I happen to agree with Raul. If the allegations of falsified voter registration are prominent enough to be mentioned, then we should say what kind of law they are breaking. Contrary to Lou's opinion, we, as Wikipedia editors, are not determining whether or not she committed a felony, we are instead informing the reader that the allegations being made would constitute a felony if proven. We shouldn't simply act on a knee-jerk "Oh this sentence is negative" as a reason to refrain from putting allegations of wrongdoing in context.-- kizzle 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems that adding that 'felony' statement after the wrong address bit appears like WP itself is being judgmental and malicious. If someone else (reputable etc) said it, fine, but for us to chime in like that has a nasty tone, while our tone should be neutral. Crum375 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Malicious" hits the nail right on the head. "Say what kind of law they are breaking" misses by a mile. That MIGHT be OK if they were breaking a law, but no responsible official has said that they ARE breaking a law. To say they are, or to hint that they are, or to slightly raise the possibility that they are, is, IMHO, malicious and defamatory original research.

And by the way, it's been over 180 days since the election officials gave Coulter 30 days to respond. Nothing notable seems to have happened, except that the formerly-accessible citation has been moved to the newspaper's paid archives. Looks like there wasn't anything to the "allegation of improper activity." Maybe the whole non-notable incident deserves to be deleted. Or at least the part about "is under investigation" should be canned. By this time, such a statement is nothing but libel bait. Lou Sander 00:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I disagree with you in many ways but I withdraw, as I'm exhausted from your consistently pro-Coulter whitewashing campaign on this article. I'll defer to Raul to discuss the issue further. -- kizzle 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this all comes down to the information in the reliable sources cited and, pardon the pun, Lou "hit the nail on the head" with the first paragraph of his above edit. I was unable to check the the Palm Beach Post archive becuse it requires you to pay but The New York Post is free, and while it states, "Knowingly voting in the wrong precinct is a felony in Florida," it doesn't say any officials have charged her with doing so (or even think she did). The article simply says the officials want to know why she voted in the wrong precinct. If it was reported that a person profiled in wikipedia was under investigation for being in a car accident while having alcohol in their car, we should report the accident and the investigation but not blithely, "DUI is a Felony in such-in-such a state." To do so, I think would be incredibly prejudicial and POV. Lawyer2b 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So if the New York Post article describing Coulter's voting mentions that it (Knowingly voting in the wrong precinct) is a felony, why shouldn't we? That shreds Lou's anecdote right there. Raul654 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what anecdote you're referring to, but I disagree if you're saying just because something is mentioned in a reliable source it is inherently suitable for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Including something speculative and/or not neutral is always a consideration. Lawyer2b 01:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't mention it because we are an encyclopedia, not a sensationalist tabloid. We shouldn't mention it because the incident has gone nowhere in six months and the one-month deadline has expired. We shouldn't mention it because Ann Coulter is a living person. We shouldn't mention it because it seems malicious to do so. We shouldn't mention it because it serves no purpose to mention it, other than to defame Ann Coulter. We shouldn't mention it because it puts almost unbearable strain on the assumption of good faith. We shouldn't mention it because, by juxtaposing a report of a minor polling place incident with the citation of a felony statute that nobody but a few editors thinks is relevant, Wikipedia and those editors are, by innuendo and false association, painting Ann Coulter with a felony brush. Lou Sander 01:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to pile on what Lou has already said: even stating what she allegedly has done and to state the statute and then draw a conclusion from the two is still original research. To say she's committed a felony is drawing a conclusion from the legal statute. She's not an indicted felon until she's actually, you know, indicted. Raul: being FA director you should know that this kind of stuff is what would prevent an article from being featured. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

She likes the Grateful Dead?? That is like the biggest hippie band ever! To put things in perspective, I just went into my local headshop the other day and every tshirt either featured Bob Marley, Grateful Dead or Alice In Wonderland. Wtf this is like when I found out Bush listened to the Beatles -- insertwackynamehere 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem weird. dposse 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interview of Ann where she talks about her deadhead experiences. 64.154.26.251 03:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit odd; that's why, IMHO, it's notable for the article. Plus, the article itself cites a much more reliable source for her being a fan of the Grateful Dead. So it's not like we're pulling this out of our butts or anything,... Dr. Cash 00:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This person is no better than a right-wing Michael Moore (if politically, she is even on par with him). I've read her hateful, slanderous, completely 1-sided remarks in some of her books, and I'm frankly disgusted.

Zorkael 01:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Whether she is or is not distasteful is not really relevant to her article. eaolson 17:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To support, "In 2006, Coulter refused permission to include a scene featuring herself and Al Franken in a debate in Connecticut in Franken's film, Al Franken: God Spoke," someone felt the need to include the following quote and set it apart thusly:

“

In the scene they briefly argue about the late Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone, then they’re asked a question about which historical figure they would like to be. Coulter says FDR, so she could never introduce the New Deal. Al Franken quickly and easily decimates her with his answer – he’d be Hitler, so he could stop the Holocaust. But then on Monday directors Nick Doob and Chris Hegedus were informed that Coulter wouldn’t give them permission to use the footage, even though the film has already screened at the Tribeca Film Festival with the scene intact. [6]

”

Not only is this quote highly POV and negative towards Coulter, I question why anything more than the cited reference (let alone a quote, set apart for emphasis) needs to be included. I am removing the quote but leaving the cited reference. Lawyer2b 04:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

GMTA. A lot of citations are pretty interesting to read, but not worthy of quoting in the article. I thought this one was in that category, but I'm always reluctant to delete stuff, even if it's cruft. Thank you for your boldness. Lou Sander 04:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What does GMTA mean? :-) Lawyer2b 04:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In her latest book "Godless," Coulter writes "I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell." How very 'Christian' of her, wishing amusing horrific pain for the rest of eternity on another of God's children simply because he thinks differently from her. Hateful woman. Let's have some more of these extremist quotes for the article. 86.7.208.240 22:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to add material if if you can also support the noteability of the new material. And "I think it's noteable" isn't a good reason. :) -- ElKevbo 23:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a 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.

Coulter clearly dismisses biological evolution as a complete explanation of life being on earth, but she doesn't embrace specific creation or intelligent design either. She claims agnosticism on the subject, but is familiar enough with the issues to write that non-biological evolution (that is, intelligent life arriving from other planets) is a possible agent to explain the history of life on earth (see next question in the interview).

Does anyone else have an opinion on whether these two categories ought to include Coulter? 216.165.199.50 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me she isn't a mainstream person in the development or advocacy of either of these fields. She's a believer, and there are billions of them. She quoted intelligent design only as something in opposition to what she calls the liberals' "religious" belief in evolution. On the other hand, she's a prominent thinker and writer, so whatever she writes has a certain notability just because she writes it. I don't know who else is listed in those categories, what they did to get there, etc. Unless she's got a lot in common with the rest of 'em, I'd leave her out. Lou Sander 18:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Lou. It's not a focus of her writing. It wouldn't help the category by including her. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to make a suggestion to add to this huge pile of stuff but here is something the principal editor may decide to include - I'm not putting it in, that's for sure. BUT Miss Coulter is quoted in a Sept 6th review and on a web page regarding her appearance in a film/video production under the auspices of the Coral Ridge Ministries along with the notorious Behe of creationist fame. Their complete misunderstanding of Natural Selection is intriguing. Miss Coulter is quoted below as an expert AND at the same time admitting ignorance. Evidently she slept through biology. story here [26] Show website here [27]

Ann Coulter is stunned. How is it, she asks, that she could go through 12 years of public school, then college and law school, and still not know that it was Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that fueled Hitler’s ovens. “I never knew about the link between Darwin and Hitler until after reading Richard Weikart’s book,” said Coulter, a popular conservative columnist and a featured expert on the new Coral Ridge Hour documentary, Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, which airs August 26 and 27. Hitler, she said, “was applying Darwinism. He thought the Aryans were the fittest and he was just hurrying natural selection along.”

-- b_calder 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Coral Ridge Ministries is practically around the corner from where I live and while I don't see any incompatibility between creationism and evolution I probably disagree with some of their positions. They do have a lovely church though! Lawyer2b 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a potential problem emerging on the French Wikipedia. For over a year there have been a number of false, contextless, unverifiable and trivial (not to mention non-representative) quotes being employed in the article. I have tried to fix them, but they become quickly reverted. The two reverters are Georgio and Sakharov. Sakharov hasn't bothered to discuss the problem and now he wants to call in "wikipompiers", some kind of mediator. Georgio says he has an "advanced" level of English on his user page, so assuming good faith, its hard to understand how he could contribute such gross mistranslations to the article. I wrote this on the discussion page:

---

Here is an example of one of his improper quotations:

Concerning the Middle-East, after the outrages of 11 September 2001:

We must/should invade the Muslim countries, kill their chiefs and convert them to Christianity. - We ought to ask to see the passports, including the domestic flights, and search any suspect male individual with swarthy skin - The Congress must/should pass a law ordering all Arabs to leave the country."

1. Coulter doesn't mention "The Muslim countries". She mentions the countries where the people rejoice and dance.
2. The second sentence is not verifiable.
3. The third sentence is false also, she had written, « Congress could pass a law ordering all Arab aliens to leave the country.

This kind of false quotation tests the assumption of good faith rather arduously.

---

Does anyone know whether the Biography of Living Persons policy extends to all the Wikipedias? If it did it would certainly help matters in case their stubbornness becomes more intractable. 216.165.199.50 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is Sakharov's request for mediation:

An IP tries to translate maladroitly certain quotations of the article, and to remove others of them. She is aggressive ("You are confused") and masters French badly. The necessary references are on the page of the English-speaking wiki.

Fabwash answered the call, and has corrected some of the solecisms (I think all non-quotation related) in the article. Then he says he wants a list of the original sources for the quotations, so he can check the translations. I oblige him this evening and describe how Georgio left parts out and/or included extraneous material in nine of about 17 cases-all tending to cause one to dislike Coulter more than the original would have. Stay tuned. Maybe mediation is more common on the French wiki than the English. 216.165.199.50 04:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

71.112.48.244 00:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC) I think, perhaps, some of the wording in this entry is a bit too soft on Coulter. It says that Coulter "responded to these and similar claims" in a column. Not really. She ignored a few major claims, such as that she registered to vote at age 16, or the claim that she overloaded a LN search to make the NYT look bad. Also, she claimed in her column that Franken intentionally made it look as though Evan & Norman Thomas weren't related. False. Franken used an endnote, just like Ann.

But she implied that the volume of space dedicated to the Evan & Norman Thomas mistake was calculated to overshadow its partial truthfulness. In the Time Cloud piece she says she didn't want to reveal her birthdate for security purposes. Also in the column piece she said had disputed enough claims, establishing the source of the claims as too unreliable to acknowledge. 216.165.199.50 07:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, I removed unsourced negative material about an appearance at the University of South Florida. Not only is it unsourced, but neither is it clearly demonstrated to be relevant to Coulter's notability, again per WP:BLP. Lou Sander 12:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was necessarily negative but it was unsourced. -- ElKevbo 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Among other things, the picture of Coulter's first book has been replaced by mein kampf. How distasteful. I propose that this page, having already been a target of vandalizing, should be locked from anonymous contributions.

Another is "Often compared to Eva Braun, because she's, y'know, the bride of Satan."

That's common knowledge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.193.113 ( talk • contribs).

A comment like that, "common knowledge" or not, must be reliably sourced. But I hope you already knew that. - Crockspot 18:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Se made a speech to this school, please don't remove that text.

If you want to include that incident, you need to clearly demonstrate that it pertains to her notability. One speech out of dozens or hundreds is usually not a notable event. Lou Sander 17:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I thought you were referring to the pie incident. As for this incident, my guess is that the passage was written by someone who attended the protest, maybe we'll see an article surface somewhere else as it's relatively recent. -- kizzle 18:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I'll go back and delete. Sorry for adding it again, I was about to ask the same question. 131.247.220.160 05:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We now have five (5) college campus incidents listed under "Notable controversies." None of them seem to have been notable beyond the campuses on which they took place. (Most of the citations are from student newspapers; the others are from wire services, and are over a year old.)

Really, folks, it is not notable when some students walk out on a speaker and the college paper reports it. Why are we cluttering our encyclopedia with this cruft?

I propose that we limit the number of incidents in this section to three (3). When a new one comes up, we drop an older one, possibly keeping one or two of the old ones if they are more notable than the typical college student protest. Other than that, we could just permanently get rid of the latest, very insignificant, incident at USF. Lou Sander 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your general analysis of several of these college student walkouts; most are not noteable. I completely disagree with an arbitrary limitation of "incidents" in this or any other section or article. The only criteria for inclusion should be the ones on which Wikipedia is based: NPOV, verifiability, and not original research. If size in an article becomes an issue then we create more articles. -- ElKevbo 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose we get rid of Philander Smith and leave the others at this time. USF is only notable because it's recent. The Philander phlap is in the past, and wasn't very big at its biggest. It's not so much the size of the article that's the problem, but that some people see fit to include every little protest as a "Notable controversy." It seems to me notable that she inspires opposition on campuses, but that a few examples should serve to illustrate it. Arizona and Connecticut are notable because of the coverage they got. Indiana wasn't ever very notable, and sure isn't notable right now, but maybe it can stay for a while. Lou Sander 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. -- ElKevbo 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"The humor of such comments might be tempered by the context that on 1 October, 1910 the Los Angeles Times' offices literally had been bombed; however, although there had been guilty pleas, the actual guilt has been disputed."

< http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ann_Coulter&diff=82273129&oldid=82156225 >.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 00:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't removed that from the article but I can suggest several possible reasons. Most important is that I have difficulty seeing where it even fits in with the article as the events are nearly 100 years apart, on opposite sides of the country, and are focused on entirely different newspapers. Further, the assertion is completely unsourced as its asserted link with Coulter's comments. I think those are sufficient reasons to remove the statement from this already-long article. -- ElKevbo 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Without a source linking it to Coulter's comments, it is pure editorializing point of view. Lawyer2b 00:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like good thinking to me, too. It's original-research-like for us to link the events. If somebody else makes the connection, it's fine for us to repeat it. Lou Sander 01:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking " lemmingtatorship", although the linked article does demonstrate that the metaphor is not literally accurate.

You admit that they're newspapers; yet, you see no further connection[s]. Similar names, similar influence,...

I was going to list various other paterns & theories; but, decided not to.

Dear Ms. Coulter, & friends,

Before you bomb people, at least consider what happens when your friends are bombed.

Your standard bearer, Judith Miller (journalist), used to work there. Maybe some of your friends are still there. Although they are not my friends, I do think it best to resist these temptations.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 03:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- ElKevbo 03:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I referenced a collection of Ann Coulter's controversial statements and saw that they were deleted. This was my first edit ever, so I was careful to check that they complied with Wiki requirement (in that each article is well referenced, often have video).

It seems weird to link to her columns and yet not be balanced by pointing to another well-cited reference that provides commentary on those columns and a number of her television appearances (86 at least).

The link is here: http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=Ann+coulter

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious...

--- Greenness

• Other editors removed it twice, thinking it was spam. I edited the description to make it less biased. It's still there. eaolson 03:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's mostly a list of headlines that would qualify as hate speech. "False this", "false that." What purpose does that sort of thing serve in an encyclopaedia, I wonder? Good Cop 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a summary of articles published on that site about her. Of the 15 displayed on the first page, only two contain some form of the word "false." If you consider that " hate speech," your standards are rather low. eaolson 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)