| Revision as of 20:13, 30 July 2004 editRex071404 (talk | contribs)7,103 edits →I object to this snide comment about Ann's faith← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:11, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,311,052 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Journalists: General.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
I'm not sure it's really proper to have a critisizm section that's longer than the original article. I may be wrong, but just wanted to say my thoughts.--] 13:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{calm}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Coulter, Ann|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-priority=mid |politician-work-group=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Connecticut |importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Creationism|Intelligent design=yes|Intelligent design-importance=low|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers |importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{To do|2}} |
|
|
{{Article History |
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
|
|action1date=21:50:41 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Ann Coulter/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|
|action1oldid=942384819 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive index |mask=Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 23 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 4 2016 (3rd)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Comments on 2024 Presidential Campaign == |
|
So the neutrality of this page is disputed, but there are no comments here. Anyone care to chime in? ] 02:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ann Coulter flat-out told ] to "go back to her country", then brought up cow worship and ]s in a rant about India. I’m not sure if that’s worth mentioning in this article, although it’s unusual since Haley is a fellow Republican. She hasn’t endorsed Trump yet, as far as I know, and it’s not clear who she actually supports for president in 2024. She really needs to tone it down a bit, because she keeps making more enemies for herself as well. ] (]) 05:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Article lists some of the extreme statementsof a woman who often makes them == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She just told Vivek Ramaswamy that she agrees with a lot of what he says but she wouldn't vote for him because he's Indian: https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1788388787556389044 |
|
Ann Coulter frequently makes extreme statements in her writings and talk-show appearances. |
|
|
|
As for your last sentence, this page is not the place to express opinions about what subjects of articles (or anyone else) ought to do. -- ] (]) 09:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Jimmie (not Jimmy) Walker == |
|
This article appropriately reflects that by quoting some of her extreme statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Correction needed. ] (]) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
It's not like she rarely makes extreme statements, and this article is un-reflective. Someone could easily add ten more extreme statements she's made in the past few years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{already done}} by ]. <span class="nowrap">–]</span> (] • ]) 19:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
If someone wishes to add sentences to the article about the good things Ann Coulter has said or done, that is fine. It is better than just posting that the neutrality is disputed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Cyberbullying Edit == |
|
: I agree, so I've removed the ''neutrality disputed'' note at the beginning, not because this is the perfect article, but I don't think it goes too far in characterizing her for what she is. After all, she calls ''herself'' a polemicist. But I'm willing to hear/see other additions to make this more ''"neutral".'' ] 13:03, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change the reference of Gus Walz having ADHD to "As a teen, he was diagnosed with nonverbal learning disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and anxiety." Per The Washington Post, Gus Walz melted hearts at the DNC, putting neurodiversity in the spotlight - By Carolyn Y. Johnson, August 22, 2024 at 4:37 p.m. EDT ] (]) 21:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
I'm not nessisarily a fan of Coulter's, but I have read a lot of her stuff. As mentioned, her whole "sthick" is being outlandish, controversial, and sensationalistic. She rarely discusses uncontroversial topics, and she's not exactly the type who has written lots of dry articles on why the free market system is superior to socialism or anything like that. Though a self-proclaimed conservative, her writings lack the didactic or historographical material that is often common with other conservative pundits and editorialists. In other words, I'm not sure what kinda stuff to add to make this more "neutral". ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Non verbal learning disorder, not non verbal autism == |
|
:I put the NPOV disclaimer on... I'm definitely not a fan of Coulter, in fact, I think she's completely brain-dead, but the second half of this article, starting with Franken, is just attack after attack on her positions. Hardly serves to create a positive picture of the woman. Maybe nothing good can be said about her, but she -is- a best-selling author, and surely has some adulators? ] 20:39, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In cyber bullying section it says Gus walz has nonverbal autism, which is a condition where an autistic person has not learned to speak (is non verbal). This is incorrect. What he has is a non verbal learning disability, which means a disability affecting learning non verbal skills. This is completely different. |
|
Wow, this is a pretty harsh bio of Coulter. Not suprised, as Misplaced Pages is generally liberal. I will probably edit it in the future. ~ Anon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna167804 ] (]) 19:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::''Liberal''? Misplaced Pages is an establishment mouthpiece. Look how fast the "we need to execute people like lindh" quote got vanished, as a for instance. The Three Mile Island link to <cite>Secret Fallout</cite> lasted all of four days. For more, see its attempt to defend fluoridation. Lookit the knots it gets into trying to make something important of the patent boogeyman Osama bin Laden. Look at how every bit of George Soros' hypocrisy is (validly) on the George Soros page, whereas all uncomfortable facts about Jarge Shrubya and Poppy are relegated to ], lumped in with less reputable claims (old technique, that) and irrelevancies like Perle's nickname is "Prince of Darkness". =p -- ] 02:22, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)~ |
|
|
---- |
|
|
Changing literate sentences into oversimplified bullet points is not an improvement. As a self-admitted polemicist, her claims are likely to have holes, and it's not POV to set the record straight - as long as that's what's being done, and not making counterclaims with unchallenged holes of their own. ] 06:42, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{fixed}}. <span class="nowrap">–]</span> (] • ]) 19:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
*Ehh.. sorry. I thought I integrated all of the content from the paragraphs. ] 08:33, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Cheating Accusations Made Without Evidence == |
|
---- |
|
|
|
In a recent CSpan interview, Ms. Coulter accuses Democrats of getting into office by cheating. The problem with her claims is she gives no evidence. If she has the evidence, she should prove it. She can do that with a new book perhaps. Otherwise, she can only be considered slandering the people she referenced. <ref>https://www.c-span.org/video/?537661-4/ann-coulter-campaign-2024</ref>] (]) 01:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
C'mon, isn't there at least one Coulter admirer here? This has become so anti-Coulter that random conservatives visiting WP will probably dismiss the whole encyclopedia as a commie hippie liberal plot... :-) I daren't get a copy of the books myself, my wife might catch me... :-) ] 02:18, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, I won't hold my breath. Her books are absolutely dreadful, shrill, overwrought rants against liberals. I can't imagine how one would defend her in a sane, rational way. In other words, I agree with ] above. Well, perhaps someone will materialize out of the woodwork some day... -- ] 04:47, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
This woman is just an US ] |
|
|
|
|
|
] 12:16, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Ann Coulter may be a polemecist, but that doesn't mean the wikipedia page should be devoted to criticism of her. Al Franken is a polemecist too, but his page does not look like this. Someone did come out of the woodwork to fix the page (me) but my changes were reverted within by others within minutes. |
|
|
|
|
|
Let's get rid of the silly "Criticism of Ann Coulter" stuff and have a plain old encyclopedia entry about her. Why is that so scary/difficult? |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 14:47, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Deleting valid material is not "fixing the page". The correct policy for a person like this is to add an additional section of "Support for Ann Coulter" or some such, just as we have for politicians and the like. If you're the person who knows about the supporting material for her arguments, then please add the section; I watch this page and will defend against anybody who tries to delete material that supports her claims (but see ] for how to write this). My assumption is that readers that come here to find out "who is this Ann Coulter person we keep hearing about", and it does them a disservice to say only "Ann Coulter is a controversial writer" - they want to know what the controversies are, what other have to say, and finally, we want them to link from here into the rest of the encyclopedia - we have huge amounts of uncontested background material explaining why there are controversies to begin with. So prove ] wrong and add material showing the support for Coulter's POV! ] 16:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Deleting some material can indeed be "fixing the page". There is no reason that a _majority_ of text on a page should be devoted to criticisms. Note that there are two entire sections devoted to criticism in the Ann Coulter page: |
|
|
"controversy", and "criticism". Readers who come here want plain facts, which |
|
|
in the case of the Ann Coulter article are drowning in a soup of agenda. I will |
|
|
certainly _not_ go make the matter worse by adding yet more agendizing from a |
|
|
different point of view. |
|
|
|
|
|
To state it another way, the amount of criticism here might be proportionate to a 20-page document about Ann Coulter's life and career. The page is patently biased because it delves so deeply into arguable "criticism" and "controversies" |
|
|
while being light on facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Neutral Point of View document says |
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting |
|
|
both points of view; this is wrong. Even when a topic is presented in |
|
|
terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an |
|
|
implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or |
|
|
more subtly their organization ... |
|
|
|
|
|
This page is a great example of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
I again commend the Al Franken article for comparison. Al Franken is a |
|
|
polemicist and provacateur on the left, exactly comparable to Ann Coulter |
|
|
on the right. His wikipedia page is good! |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe people should consider moving all such "criticism of x" to a separate wikipedia page. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nice talking with you, friend. I appreciated your answer above. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 17:19, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You make a good point about redundancy. The Criticisms section does contain some balancing statements, but it's kind of a mixed bag. What I would do is to rearrange both Controversy and Criticism sections, move a bit into more of a career chronology (because some of the statements have a different import depending on when they were made), and have another section listing specific areas ("views on liberals", "views on religion", etc). She doesn't entirely fit the traditional conservative POV, so a per-topic section is a handy way to identify points of distinction. ] 20:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ann Coulter is a flawed Conservative fanatic that deserves to have a criticism section that is longer than the other sections. She throws around charges without evidence, blames everyone by association, and slanders people. Perhaps she should think about her actions before commenting. |
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, it also shows that she is a person that lacks in substance, as empty vases makes the most noises. |
|
|
|
|
|
== I object to this snide comment about Ann's faith == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is no reason for this text, as phrased, to be included: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Coulter has been identified as a fundamentalist Christian, but told interviewer David Bowman, "I don't think I've described myself that way, but only because I'm from Connecticut. We just won't call ourselves that." She does not usually argue from a religious point of view, but she says she admires Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson"... |
|
|
|
|
|
"Identified....?" It sounds like a police line-up... |
|
|
] 15:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Coulter 'rape the earth' quote == |
|
|
|
|
|
That quote should stay out. The Internet sources which I found are all 2nd hand (hearsay) and do not cite a 1st hand source such as a bona-fide transcript which can be read on line. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, that particular quote is gratuitously inflammatory. There is no need to intentionally quote something that serves only to the fan flames of relgious and sexual indentitiy politics the way including that quote does. |
|
|
|
|
|
Additonally, the overall tone of the ] is already so harsh against her that including this is mere piling on and adds a stink of too much NPOV tone overall. |
|
|
|
|
|
For example, there are some who suggest (and claim to be able to document) that Hitler was among other things, an astrological reading, vegitarian, self-loathing bi-sexual. And yet, regardless of those points, there is enoguh in the public record about him to paint an accurate and rightly adverse picture with out talking up those points. |
|
|
|
|
|
The particular Colter "quote" I want stricken is along those same lines, It's inclusion serves no purpose other than to stir up gratuitious acrimony. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 20:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
Change the reference of Gus Walz having ADHD to "As a teen, he was diagnosed with nonverbal learning disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and anxiety." Per The Washington Post, Gus Walz melted hearts at the DNC, putting neurodiversity in the spotlight - By Carolyn Y. Johnson, August 22, 2024 at 4:37 p.m. EDT Stephenwmoss (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
In cyber bullying section it says Gus walz has nonverbal autism, which is a condition where an autistic person has not learned to speak (is non verbal). This is incorrect. What he has is a non verbal learning disability, which means a disability affecting learning non verbal skills. This is completely different.
In a recent CSpan interview, Ms. Coulter accuses Democrats of getting into office by cheating. The problem with her claims is she gives no evidence. If she has the evidence, she should prove it. She can do that with a new book perhaps. Otherwise, she can only be considered slandering the people she referenced. 2405:9800:BC30:3719:E980:90D4:D6E3:949E (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Already done by Blainster. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
