Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:32, 1 July 2005

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 1

The External Links

Could some liberal brace himself and find even one pro-Ann Coulter external link, just to preserve the neutrality and good name of Misplaced Pages?

There are "pro-Ann" links in the article: anncoulter.com, coulterwatch.com, jewishworldreview.com. Of course you're welcome to add any you know of. Christiaan 17:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Quotes - already in Wikiquote

The purpose of adding these quotes seesm to be to show how outrageous Coulter is. We only need a couple in order to do that. Adding more is just piling-on. All of the quotes that were here are already on Wikiquotes, so nothing is lost. I don't care which couple of quotes are used, but even four is more than are necessary. Cheers, - Willmcw 00:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing some quotes, but I do object to enforcing some arbitrary standard which isn't wikipedia policy. I've restored the quotes because some of them are among her most notable/famous/notorious statements. Gamaliel 16:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have to support Gamaliel on this; the quotes are perhaps the part of the page which most effectively and efficiently gives the reader the picture of what Coulter is all about (one quote is worth a thousand words?) and the reader shouldn't have to go looking on another page for them. Gzuckier 19:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Me too. --kizzle 19:57, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

If one quote is worth a thousand words then do you really need 24 of them? That'd make this article 24,000 words long! Anyway, I bow to the editorial consensus. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is really weird how there seems to be a need to repeat every single Ann Coulter quote in this article. After all, that is Wikiquote's job. Other articles about other quotables such as Dan Quayle and others do not seem to do that. While I agree that Ann Coulter is particularly defined by her quotes, it seems way more appropriate to just put say her four or five of her most famous quotes in a single paragraph rather than reinvent Wikiquote. --Bletch 22:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about you suggest which four or five we keep instead of deleting them all? Gamaliel 23:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its not a question of 'keeping quotes', its more a question of acknowledging the existence of existing Misplaced Pages policy and letting Wikiquote do its job while achieving the goals of including the quotes. I'd propose replacing the entire Quotations section with something along these lines:

Ann Coulter is noted for many memorable statements that some regard as outlandish, including a statement after 9-11 that (regarding Muslims) "We should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.", "Canada is lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent", that Liberals hate America and questioning the benefits of women voting. Many view her statements as examples of a tongue-in-cheek use of hyperbole or satire, while others take them more seriously. Coulter herself once stated, "Liberals love to pretend they don't understand hyperbole." However, she has also stated, "I believe everything I say."

And the first thing on the list you linked to is Wiki is not paper. The existence of Wikiquote does not require use to eliminate quotes from this article. We have plenty of room for them. If we are going to mention these statements, the existing list is more accurate than the paragraph you suggest, which truncates the quotes and removes the context. Gamaliel 00:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Noone said that it is wrong to have quotes in the article. The issue in question is the apparent belief that this article is somewhat unique in that it should also contain a full list of quotations. In case you were not aware, the existing quote section is comparable in size to that of the Wikiquote article. Please explain why this article warrants a full list of quotations fully cited and dated and say, the Gandhi article or the Dan Quayle article does not. Most biographical articles simply do not have a quotation list at all. --Bletch 02:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how comparing the number of quotes here versus Wikiquote is relevant. That's just an arbitrary and meaningless standard.

If the Dan Quayle and Gandhi articles don't have quotes sections, then I personally feel those articles are incomplete. I can think of two or three things that each man said that should be included in an encyclopedia article just off the top of my head. Coulter's section will be large by comparison, not because she is more important than Quayle or Gandhi, but while someone like Gandhi made himself notable by his actions, Coulter's profession is shooting her mouth off. Entire controversies have revolved around just one of these quotes, and to not include them is ommitting important information. Gamaliel 04:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your personal opinion may be that those articles are incomplete because they lack quotes sections, but the real reason is because Misplaced Pages is not a repository for quotations. We are in agreement about the nature Coulter's 'profession' raises the importance of her statements relative to her particular importance, which is why I proposed the wording above that mentions some of her quotes in passing. I attempted to summarize her most infamous and contraversial quotes, at least the ones that struck me as particularly infamous. If you feel that this incomplete and omits other critical 'goodies', please propose expansion and/or alternative wording. If a quote caused a particularly notable contraversy, then the contraversy should be described. --Bletch 14:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but a small list of quotes does not make this article a "repository". Controversies should be described, and the first step in that is providing the full quotation and source of the quote that caused the controversy in the first place. A paragraph that summarizes some of them in passing is not adequate, nor is such a summary necessary since we can simply list them since Misplaced Pages is not paper and we have plenty of room. Cut down the list? Fine. Eliminate it? That's an arbitrary, unnecessary removal of important information. Gamaliel 17:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Four or five quotations should be enough to give the flavor of Coulter. The information is not being removed, it is in another part of the project, a link away. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize, not to provide source material. These quotes are not lasting epigrams of wisdom and wit -they're glib, slightly outrageous, political barbs. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

The big problem with putting the quotes in the form of a quotations section is that it effectively invites would-be editors to treat it as a complete list. When I first saw the list, it was about as large -- if not larger -- than the corresponding article in Wikiquote. Secondly; placing the quotes directly in the article is simply redundant in quite a few cases. Pretty much the entire article other than quotations and her background is about the contraversies she's created and some also state the quotes right in the text. --Bletch 00:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not nearly everyone who comes to Misplaced Pages goes to Wikiquote as well, thus I think it would be relevant to include a quotes section here, the actual number of which can be debated. I personally was fascinated with most of them when I first saw this page, and would have hungered for more if I had seen only 4 quotes initially. --kizzle 02:57, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that not everybody visits other corresponding Wikimedia articles, for a full quotes section to be justified, there has to be a valid explaination as to why this article is somehow unique and not subject to normal standards. The same could be said for Dan Quayle, or could be used to justify inserting excerpts into the article on the US declaration of independence. --Bletch 14:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere on that page you keep linking to does it say to eliminate all quotes sections from articles. It simply is not normal Misplaced Pages standards. Gamaliel 15:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True, but it does indicate that an article should not function a repository of quotes. It is clear that the current section qualifies as such. I made a proposal that improves the article by eliminating that role. If you do not like it, it would be constructive if you could propose an alternative wording or subsitute. --Bletch 16:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the fullest picture of an author/pundit/commentator/TV personality given by his/her quotes? Isn't that the LEAST point of viewish depiction of their work? Gzuckier 19:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a repository for quotations. --Bletch 19:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that reducing the size of the section would be fine. Total elimination and cramming a few snippets into one paragraph I don't feel are adequate substitutes. Gamaliel 16:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then why did you revert my changes (as of today) without as much as the slightest explaination or justification? --Bletch 22:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree on five (or so) quotes that are Coulter's most important or characteristic comments? Gamaliel has agreed to that in principle. -Willmcw 22:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I really do not have strong opinions on the exact quotes, provided that they are not quotes that are already displayed inline elsewhere within the article. I've also attempted to provide a "broad sample." The quotes that I've identified are:

• "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." - in a New York Observer interview August 26, 2002.

• "I think should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." - Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001.

• "I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote." Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, August 17, 1997.

• "I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly." - MSNBC March 22, 1997.

If we need one or two more then thats fine by me. --Bletch 22:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I still think you need a lot of quotes to depict Coulter. Without the quotes, what is she? A skinny blond with a short skirt? Gzuckier 17:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that it is pretty obvious that removing the quotes section and placing 4-5 quotes under her rhetorical style does not reduce the article to "Ann Coulter is a skinny blonde with a short skirt." Keep in mind that many of her other quotes and their related contraversies are detailed elsewhere in the article, so it isn't like my changes eliminated all but four quotes. The real question is why does there need to be a complete list of quotes in this article. When I selected those four quotes, I've attempted to be representative and illustrate that the seems willing to make pretty outlandish statements on a wide variety of subjects. Can I ask a question: In your mind, how much is 'a lot of quotes', and why does that apply to Coulter and not to other notable quoteables? --Bletch 17:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is the onus to eliminate quotes as guilty unless proved innocent? What is the motivation to eliminate the quotes? That the article is too long? Not by Misplaced Pages standards. That there are too many quotes? Why? That they are redundant? They are organized into subject matter. I'll go the other way, look them over and see if some are redundant in each topic. Gzuckier 17:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I took out a few quotes and reorganized things a bit, so that the general communications style section encompasses these specific instances as subsections rather than main points, also tried to reword some of it to make it less POV. Gzuckier

Meanwhile, just to answer the random questions in the history of the edits to Ann Coulter, I deleted the quote in question because of the suggestion that we should delete some quotes and I thought it didn't add as much to the picture as most of the other quotes, I restored Ann's quote regarding promiscuity because I thought it shed light on her hypocrisy but since I can't in fact find the quote in context we might as well leave it out, and I deleted the paragraph mark because it shows up in Misplaced Pages as a paragraph mark in the middle of the line, which makes at least me if nobody else wonder "what the hell is that supposed to mean?"Gzuckier 22:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The 'onus' is that as presented in this article, the quotes section is redundant - it duplicates Wikiquote's function. Previously, pure raw quotes encompassed 50% of the article, though that share has gone down over the last week. In case that I wasn't already clear, I have zero problem with (in fact I favor) having large sections that analyze and dissect specific contraversies generated by her statements, like the section on Canada and the Vietnam war (though I personally am neutral on the current contraversy of the exact wording.) Of course, such sections are ripe for POV issues but they can be handled in the usual way. --Bletch 18:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hate to re-spark an old controversy, but I just stumbled across it and I must say I agree with Bletch - this quote section is very large and not really appropriate IMO considering the redundancy and project goals of Wikiquote. How about removing all the raw quotes (or moving them to Wikiquote where they aren't already duplicates), and then in the paragraph describing the quotes explicitly refer the reader to Wikiquote to go and read them? Bryan 07:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I stongly disagree. Ann Coulter is known for her strong opinions. Without them no one would knwo her from Adam. Therefore, understanding what she thinks and what she says is key to understanding, her, her fame, and her following. There's no clearer or more accurate way to do this than by quoting her. Otherwise, were left with other peoples opinions about what her views are. Why not just simply quote her. The counter to this seems to be that that can be accomplished with less quotes. I don't beleive that it can. Any politcal figure will make 5 or 6 controversial statement in his or her career. What's special about Coulter is that she will make 5 or 6 controversial statements in a month. The clearest and fairest way to demonstate this is to simple quote her. (unsigned statement)

This isn't the place for extended quotations that don't have considerable contextual information. People who want that sort of thing can go to Wikiquote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)

small incorrectness

From the paragraph: Coulter is quoted in an article in Newsday as saying that the media are biased to the left because Republicans don't have the wealth to start media outlets, while Democrats do. That Republicans are rich, she says, "is one of the stunning lies that Democrats have been able to palm off.... Liberals really are the idle rich." In Slander, she writes that "liberals have absolutely no contact with the society they decry from their Park Avenue redoubts." Critics such as Joe Conason, author of Big Lies, point out that Coulter herself is a rich woman from an affluent background, and that she does not similarly dismiss Republican politicians because of their wealth. Coulter's position is further undermined by the Gallup poll, which found that "regular voters in the two higher-income categories prefer Republicans by an average of about 15 percentage points, while the two lower-income groups support Democrats by an average of about 23 percentage points. The crossover point appears to be at an annual income of about $50,000 a year".

I dont think the Gallup poll is relevant. She is saying that democrats, because they are rich (richer than republicans), are not in a position to represent the lower or middle class, while the poll shows that they are statistically supported by that group. More relevant would be some stats showing that republicans are richer than democrats, and that they recieve a lot more funding. Mir 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Gallup Poll is not relevant, but not for the reasons given. The Gallup Poll is irrelevant because Coulter refers to the "idle rich". I doubt anyone can make a convincing case that "regular voters in the two higher-income categories" are all "idle rich". I believe Coulter is referring to people somewhat north of the .01 percentile in income.

Ann Coulter is racist and sexist

Just to experiment with the wikipedia policy, I want to know what people think of stating in the article (along with "republican") that Coulter is:

Racist:

• "When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages." -- she is implying that white men (sexist and racist), are more sane then non-white men.
  • Logical fallacy. All she is saying is the known fact that at the time she said it, in countries where there is a majority of white people, the countries are ruled by laws. The fallacy is confusing: "nearly all white men live in a nation of laws and are therefore sane", with "nearly all white men live in a nation of laws because they are sane". Rather, it's the law that enforces the sanity. 216.119.143.114
    • You mean the rule of law existed in "communist" countries and the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Cubans...etc were white? Come on, why would you even try to defend people like her? She is obviously trying to get attention by saying outrageous things.
      • She was refering to communism in USSR 209.148.140.195 01:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • How can you tell? She doesn't explicitly state so. And I suppose then that Korean war wasn't about fighting "communists"?
    • I am not making a fallicious statement. If it is her belief that race has nothing to do with rule of law, why does she bring it up. Clearly she thinks race is important in this issue, which makes her racist. Mir 04:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • As a class the white race is nearly universally an educated one. That's simply a fact, not racism. 216.119.143.114
        • Next! Gzuckier 19:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't understand what that means. 216.119.143.114 23:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • It means that he's dismissing your statement that all other races are not as "nearly universally educated" as the white "class" as Nazi-esque rhetoric. Just because more people who are white in the world are educated, statistically, doesn't mean that you can hold that against the people who aren't white. There are plenty of uneducated white people you can run into on the street.
              • She's not holding it against anyone, she's holding up the white race as a model for this specific attribute: controlling itself by offering everyone a place in society that is worth living to keep. This fact doesn't exclude other means by which other races may be held up as models of controlling themselves: for example, by having a great heart or by experience with nature and other social bonds of their culture.
              • And when I said "as a class" I meant "as a class". A class by definition contains individual differences.
              • And thirdly you're making it sound like I said all other races aren't nearly as educated as whites when what I really said was that whites were nearly all educated. 216.119.136.173 07:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • She realized her audience would recognize this and form in their minds a vivid contrast to those zealots, like those who crashed airplanes into the U.S. landmarks, who seem to not even possess reason.

Of course! That's the point; her audience is as racist as she is. And, apparently, just as capable of denying it.Gzuckier 19:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean, her audience is just as racist as she is? That's what this discussion was intended to prove, that she is racist. You are begging the question and saying it doesn't even need to be established in the first place. If it were so obvious we wouldn't be having the discussion at all. And a fortiori you can't be adjudged "capable of denying" something that hasn't been proven you've done to begin with. 216.119.143.114 23:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are missing the point people! In response to the anon (white race is nearly universally an educated one. That's simply a fact, not racism.): They (we;), are more educated than "the savages", because white people are generally richer and have better access to education. Again, not because of the skin color. while its a fact, its a circumstantial fact with no meaning, so its racist to bring it up. So Coulter is racist, so can we please start arguing about it and agree with what i say?? heh -Mir

Again, Coulter is commending the white race for its dedication to the use of inducing its members to live by offering them something worth living to keep, to be able to control itself. Period. She does not agonize over the reason why this might be so. Other races excel whites in dedication to beauty or dedication to family life. These are also important things to consider in trying to live well and even to just survive. There are some people who believe the life presented by communities without this rule of property combined with insanity, like in al Qaida camps, and the life presented with civilization have equal merit. Coulter is apparently not one of those people. 216.119.136.173 07:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sexist:

• "I think should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." -- From wikipedias definition, sexism is discrimination (double standard) between people based on their gender.
  • Possible use of humor. We don't know if Ann is being facetious or not. It's likely that she is--would she take away her own right to vote? Doesn't her opinion against a fundamental right seem ridiculously contrary to her own political activism, and her extreme conclusion appear in the disguise of having been reached as a result of a free flight of a femininely light imagination that accidently carried the argument too far? So that if someone objects that the conclusion doesn't follow from the argument, or that she's oversimplifying, she can say, "Well we know that's exactly how women argue, so you're proving my point that they DO have trouble understanding any number of things"? And having "proved" her argument, she at the same time disproves it by the fact that she has just outsmarted you. When you realize all those things nearly all at the same moment, (as long as you don't hold a grudge) it makes you laugh.
    • No, she is being serious and refering to women in general, herself being the exception. If you disagree, please state what possible non-sexist point could she be making here. Mir 15:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • As I just got through explaining, to parade her own cleverness, mainly. I might add the point that it's a comic cliché that women as class like to go shopping. Comedy depends on these kinds of generalizations, and no one calls it sexist. Coulter seems to be merely extending the comic image of women not being able to control their enthusiasm for spending into the realm of whom they choose in government to spend money for them.
        • Ever hear of Chewbacca Defense?
          • Let me explain it to you another way if you didn't understand. Coulter likes to imitate New York and Hollywood narcissists you see on movies and TV who use their personal dynamism to charm you and then use that charm as a cover to persuade you to let them rewrite the legitimate rules of society so that they can indulge their own private shortcomings that are contrary to those rules. So when she uses a dynamically dramatic argument to demand to turn the whole world upside-down by not allowing women to vote just so she can get her way, she is lampooning this type of egotism.

Was she on a humor program? did she laugh? Did anyone else laugh? Anyway, all Ann's humor in the past has involved death and injury to people she didn't agree with (I didn't mean they should blow up the new york times building, only kidding!) so this doesn't fit the pattern. Gzuckier 17:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You mean like when Saturday Night Live, on which Al Franken (mentioned in the article as a critic of Coulter) was a writer, had Dan Ackroyd dress up like Nixon and say to a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, "You're lucky, Abe...All they did was shoot you!" Are we to assume that Franken's comedy writing team didn't really want us to believe that Nixon wanted to have himself assassinated? Or should we instead harbor suspicions about them that they really wished "death and injury to people didn't agree with"? What I see conspicuous in the so-called examples that are put forward under this header is not racism or sexism, but rather prejudice against conservatives.

Yes, exactly like that; Franken and Ackroyd were on a comedy program, they were obviously grinning, and the audience at home and in the studio did laugh; these are generally good indicators that they were not being serious. So, like I said, Was she on a humor program? did she laugh? Did anyone else laugh? Gzuckier 19:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought your point was that Coulter hides hostility under the guise of humor. Now that you discover that it's actually her critics who do it in a more obvious fashion, you seem to want to change the subject. I'll bite. Let me ask you, Gzukier, do you have the kind of memory where everyone else remembers a pleasant dinner party, but you "remember" there being Sigmund Freud, a bathtub and a walrus there? Because that is depths to which your memory has failed you in this case. Franken was a writer not an actor at that point and not even in the sketch. Nobody was grinning, that's what made it funny: "Nixon" didn't know how ridiculous he was being. I think it would be spoonfeeding to tell you the simple facts that Coulter was a regular on a comedy program where the studio audience laughs Politically Incorrect and that news entertainment programs frequently book guests that use humor in their political commentary (Art Buchwald comes to mind), yet they aren't spoken-word comedians--but they have unusual opinions or an unusual perspective that is sometimes expressed in an off-beat manner. It's obvious to me that you don't read or don't understand Coulter's columns. There she is more broadly comic. I think you may not be the best editor for this article since you don't seem to know even the rudimentary facts that someone interested in this woman would have. 216.119.143.114 23:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will ever know whether or not Ann believes anything that comes out of her mouth or if she, like Howard Stern, realizes that the only reason why people know her name is because she'll say what other people won't say. So I don't think we'll know if she really is sexist or racist, she promotes obviously conservative traditional values and yet she sleeps around all the time, clearly there is a divide between what she says and who she is. Personally, I don't care whether or not she is. Anyways, see below. --kizzle 21:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, what is the source of your claim that Ann Coulter "sleeps around all the time"? It's contrary to her depreciation of women who are licentious and the media that promotes that lifestyle. Furthermore, she has stated that she keeps her private life private, and it stands to reason that the campaign to discredit her would latch onto reports of such behavior as a weapon in their arsenal. Please do tell us, so we can discount that source as a source for the Ann Coulter article. It must have been the source that made the error, because I'm sure someone like you, Kizzle, wouldn't slander someone either deliberately or carelessly. 216.119.143.114 23:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to talk poorly about your crush. --kizzle 22:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of gossip is appropriate towards anyone. You've learned a lesson, I hope, that Washington journalists as a class can be catty towards whistleblowers like Coulter. 216.119.136.173 07:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Coulter, a "whistleblower"? Yeah effin right, unless you're using whistle as slang for something, than I agree. --kizzle 00:31, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of my personal beliefs, any such attempt to include such an analysis of Coulter would be a clear-cut case of spoon feeding. --kizzle 21:00, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

So you mean that saying racist/sexist comments doesn't make her sexist/racist. Thats bs.

Anyways, is there still any disagreement that the above quotes are racist/sexist? 66.185.85.74 03:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. See above. 64.154.26.251 05:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course, one could always put 'Critics believe Coulter is racist and exist because of her statements that ......' and leave it to the Coulterites to follow upo with 'But of course, what she really meant was.....' This is not 'spoonfeeding', is it? Gzuckier 19:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for simply stating the quotes, providing a bit of context, and letting the reader decide what is sexist or not rather than us not trusting them to come to their own conclusions. --kizzle 22:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the pattern on wikipedia. This makes it biased because there have to be critics in the first place (Coulter says something discriminatory, nobody publishes criticism of it, and so it cant go on wikipedia). -mir

Maybe Coulter isn't as discriminitory as she seems. She said once said she thought an all black Supreme Court would be cool. Lots of people resent strenuous political correctness, so maybe her lack of critics in this department is proof of her innocuousness. 216.119.136.173 07:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Mass delete of criticism section

(Text temp-moved to Ann Coulter/criticism)

The criticism section consisted of several passages of text of the form:

• Coulter says this, but the reality is this.

This essentially makes Misplaced Pages endorse the POV that Coulter is wrong. Which obviously violates our policy.

It would be fine if any number of named critics each were quoted as saying they disagreed with Coulter. Or if we merely summarized the views of these critics.

For example:

• Al Franken says Coulter misinterprets stuff, takes quotes out of context, etc. (Here are a few examples he gives from Lies and Liars.)

• Somebody (but say who, please) gave a rejoinder to her "liberal idle rich" remark, asserting that Republicans are just as rich (richer?).

• Rush Limbaugh says she goes too far (need source for this)

I'm not sure what to do with Franken's crack, "...hysterical right". Is this a criticism? Or just name-calling? Should it go first, as a kind of intro to his arguments? If Franken is asserting that the right is "hysterical", what does he mean by this? Is he dismissing ALL right-wing criticism of liberals? (Right wingers are crazy, they just can't see the truth.)

Where to go from here:

Any part that can be salvaged can go back in, properly sourced and cast in neutral language. Nothing of the form Coulter claims this but is clearly wrong can go back, unless attributed to a source: e.g., Some people contest Coulter's claim that liberals constitute an "idle rich". These people argue that.... 19:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hard to argue that Canada's not participating in the vietnam war, or the voting habits versus income structure of the us are merely matters of point of view. Therefore I returned ann's disagreement with the common reality on these topics to the article. Gzuckier 04:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point. Nobody here is disputing whether Canada participated in the Vietnam War. The point is whether Misplaced Pages may support the POV of the anti-Coulter crowed that Coulter distorts facts and refuses to concede error. It's better to couch it in terms like the following, which I propose to add to the article:

• On several occasions, other commentators and writers have taken issue with Coulter's handling of historical facts. For example, on a talk show she made reference to "Canada not sending troops to Vietnam" and refused to agree with the interviewer's rejoinder that "Canada had indeed sent troops to Vietnam" (see Canada and the Vietnam War).

If we put it like this, the Ann Coulter article neither supports nor condemns the view that Coulter made a mistake and refused to accept correction. But it also supplies an easily-checked reference so that the reader can make up their own mind.

The important issue is that Misplaced Pages articles should remain neutral and avoid taking sides in disputes. There is, as I believe you will agree, a dispute between Coulter herself and the "anti-Coulter" crowd about how accurate her remarks are. It is this point on which I urge you to help me make the article neutral.

I have no objection to making it easy for readers to check the facts about any specific example of Coulter's alleged sloppiness with facts. Add dozens of these, if you like. I'll even help you! But please just avoid having the article say outright (or even imply) that Coulter makes many mistakes and refuses correction. That conclusion should only come from the mouth of a critic. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Gzuckier 18:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This text has been "temporarily" moved to Ann Coulter/criticism for a month now, are there any further plans to work on it? If not, I'm going to merge it back into the main article. Articles shouldn't be split along lines of POV like this. Bryan 07:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another month passed without comment. It's now been merged back into the main article. Bryan 08:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Canada

I did a quick check - not thorough, mind you.

The estimate of Canadians who fought with American forces in the Vietnam War is 10,000.

So there's a distinction between:

1. The Canadian Goverment sent combat troops in Canadian uniforms to Vietnam; and,
2. Ten thousand Canadian citizens fought with Americans in Vietnam

There's also the larger point she was making in the video clip: Coulter was arguing that Canada (in my words) ought to help the US fight tyranny Iraq as they did in Vietnam -- whether by sending actual combat troops or whatever. Clearly sending official combat troops shows the highest level of support. Lending a hand in other, less direct ways, is apparently also what Coulter had in mind.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying Coulter didn't slip. But let's clarify what the issue is here: are we saying that Coulter makes occasionally slips, blurring details in support of her points? Or that she makes things up entirely that have not even the slightest relation to reality?

Misplaced Pages should clarify the anti-Coulter arguments, perhaps like this:

• Coulter opponents criticize her for her imprecise recall of details. For instance, on a TV show she said "Canada sent troops to Vietnam". While it is true that 10,000 Canadians served alongside US forces in Vietnam, they did could not do so as members of the Canadian Army as Canada remained officially neutral throughout that war. She helped the US and South Vietnam in non-beligerant ways, etc.

But we might also point out this:

• Coulter critics say she's full of #@$%, giving the example of her faux pas over Canadian "troops" as proof that she simply makes things up out of broad cloth. They call her "bitch", etc., essentially slandering her (just like her book title says)

Hmm, on the other hand, I myself seem to have veered off here. I guess I need a break. Cheers! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:04, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Main point that her critics make

We should try to figure out the main point (or points) that Coulter's critics make. Near as I can tell from superficial link-following, is that they make the following case:

1. Coulter plays fast and loose with the facts.
2. Coulter's sloppiness with the facts is egregious.
3. Coulter makes up stuff which is clearly, obviously false.
4. Her claim about Canada having "sent troops" to Vietnam is a typical example of her pattern of distorting history.
5. Therefore, she should be dismissed as a shrill, nonesense spouting mean-spirited bitch.

(This is only a first draft, maybe I could leave out the b-word, eh? But I think I've captured the gist of the argument.)

Now how shall we characterize this?

• Coulter's critics rightly charge her with being sloppy with details or outright lies; the Canada thing proves that these critics are right
• Coulter's critics claim that she is sloppy with details and even indulges in outright lies. They cite the Canada thing in support of their claim.
• Coulter's critics are trying to discredit her with claims that she falsifies history and refuses to accept correction; she'll lie right to your face. The Canada thing shows that these critics are wrong, and are engaging in exactly the sort of tactics she rightly accuses them of.

I'd call the first, siding with Coulter's critics; the second, taking a NPOV; the third, siding with Coulter. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:38, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hooray for Uncle Ed! You surely put it right there, din't you? She's a mean-spirited bitch allright, KEEP THE CURSE WORD'S FOR FUCK'S SAKE, they spice up the argument! Screw that driveling wench Ann Coulter! Oh, and please LET ME ADD: Don't you fuckin' think of wanting to add more "unbiased" gleeness about her, being positive is impossible! There's like, TOTALLY nothing good about her. Being utterly negative is the only option, permanently, for a neutral stancepoint is out of the question! Perhaps she should not be WRITTEN to as this and that, but trying to dig up positive facts is second to zero. THERE IS NOTHING BUT ILL THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THIS CUNT. And I will -NOT- pardon my language!--OleMurder 10:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Blame Canada

I snipped the following op-ed as it's conspicuously light on sources and heavy on original research:

On the other hand, the CBC broadcast just a few minutes of a 3 hour interview session in which the matter of Canada in Vietnam was a minor detail. Coulter's larger point was that Canadian foreign policy seems confused and contradictory.

During the Vietnam conflict, the Canadian Prime Minister quietly gave his thumbs up for the bombing of North Vietnam. His government supported and gave aid to South Vietnam only. Canadian officials worked with the US on intelligence and made other contributions to the war effort. Canadians did not take a pass on Vietnam, as the CBC interviewer claimed.

The Canadian government sent about 1,800 troops to Vietnam and medals were awarded for that service. They did not serve as fighting units as per the Australian troops, but they went under the Canadian flag with the sanction of their government.

Also, a replica of the Vietnam War Memorial Wall stands on Canadian soil to commemorate about 10,000 Canadians who served in the Vietnam war. About 40,000 Canadians joined the US Military during the conflict. The entirely voluntary Canadian military downsized during that same period from about 120,000 to 80,000. It was lawful to serve in the war and Canadians who had volunteered for service in the militaries of the US and Allies were later welcomed back to their country.

Coulter has since remarked tongue-in-cheek, "It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada."

Contary to the CBC interviewer's claim, Canadians served in Operation Iraqi Freedom; the second-ranking officer leading the US and Coaliton forces in Iraq is a general in the Canadian military. The Canadian Defence Department has acknowledged that it has personnel serving alongside Coaliton forces. The New Democratic Party of Canada has demanded that the Canadian government pull-out Canadian personnel. The Conservative Party of Canada has demanded that the government support those Canadians serving in Canadian uniform in the Iraq theater. The independant Polaris Institute in Ottawa said that because the facts on the ground contradict the Government's foreign policy - "Policy incoherence would be an understatement."

The facts about Canadian involvement in the Vietnam war, as in the Iraq War II, support Coulter's contention that the current government's policy was confused.

chocolateboy 04:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just wish I that could tell Ms. Coulter that not all Canadians are radical left-wingers.

--Mb1000 00:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On behalf of Ms. Coulter, I would like to ask you, if you were not a radical left-winger, why would you have been born in Canada? Eh? Gzuckier 02:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bad luck?

"...current government's policy was confused." Oh, like there's any government with logical policies... Peter Grey 17:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Points of view

Coulter's critics have one point of view, and her defenders have another. Misplaced Pages should not censor these points of view (POV). If you disagree, please say why; don't just censor. Thank you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:39, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Victor Levant, author of Quiet Complicity, wrote: "Ten thousand young Canadian men fought in the US armed forces in the war."

Coulter complains that the CBC took 30 seconds out of a lengthy interview and magnified a small quibble to discredit her. Did "Canada" meaning the Canadian Government officially send troops in Canadian uniform under command of Canadian active-duty officers? I'm not sure; maybe not. But did "Canada" (the nation, the land, the body of people) send anyone to fight? Certainly.

Was Coulter 100% wrong? That's for each reader to decide for themselves. Misplaced Pages should not say the interviewer "corrected" her because that endorses the view that she was wrong. Moreover, nearly all the quotes in the Quotations section are being used by Coulter opponents (some of them Wikipedians) to imply that Coulter blatantly makes up falsehoods and therefore can be utterly disregarded.

We should not cooperate with or endorse this anti-Coulter campaign but describe it fairly. THere is a dispute between anti-Coulter forces and her defenders over what her "wild" remarks mean. Anti-Coulter says it proves she's mostly wrong. Pro-Coulter says her phrasing might not be spot on, but she was close enough.

Coulter was arguing that (a) Canada helped a lot during Vietnam but (b) is not helping as much now. The interviewer pounced on her "sent troops" remark. Bloggers all over are publicizing that did not, did too exchange as proof that Coulter makes mistakes and refuses correction. Misplaced Pages should not endorse or oppose this campaign, but merely report on it.

There *is* a campaign to discredit Coulter. Misplaced Pages should report on this campaign. It should not say her critics are wrong for trying to discredit her (and that she is right). Nor should it say that they are right (and that she is wrong). It should just do what Larry Sanger, Misplaced Pages co-founder said: describe the dispute fairly. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

And I don't believe you've described the dispute fairly, as you've presented the anti-Coulter case as merely a matter of ripping a few quotes out of context. Gamaliel 20:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Answer below. -- Uncle Ed (talk)

Who are all these un-named "critics" and "defenders"? Can we have some links given for the arguments presented? Otherwise it too looks like original research. Jayjg 22:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Canada quotes

Most of these are from blogs, which I'm not sure rise to the level of "source" material. So I'm keeping them in talk, until I can dig a bit further. (-- Uncle Ed (talk))

• "While Canada did not officially send troops to Vietnam, over 30,000 Canadian troops served under the US flag. What was the deal? Aparently Canada was in the process of downsizing its military and 30,000 of her former finest joined the US Army while maintaining Canadian citizenship. Most of the troops returned to Canada after their tours. There is even a Canadian Vietnam War Memorial."

• One blog makes a distinction between saying that Canada did not send Canadian Troops and saying that many Canadians did go to Vietnam (though not sent by the government). This distinction was never addressed in the CBC interchange.

For the anti-Coulter crowd, there is no gray area. She was simply, purely 100% wrong. She did not mis-speak, mis-remember, or blur a distinction. She is a "stupid blonde ignorant bitch", and the 30-second clip proves this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:10, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

From above:

... I don't believe you've described the dispute fairly, as you've presented the anti-Coulter case as merely a matter of ripping a few quotes out of context. Gamaliel 20:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean in the article, or here on the talk page? I don't recall using the phrase out of context, but maybe I wrote that and forget that I did.

What I meant to say was that the anti-Coulter case uses the CBC interview as an example of Coulter (a) being wrong on a significant point and, perhaps more importantly (b) refusing correction when her 'error' is pointed out. Please help me to describe the anti-Coulter case fairly. I want to present the anti-Coulter point of view in a way that both pro and con sides will agree, "Yessir, that's precisely the point her critics are making!"

Then I want to present the pro-Coulter case in a similar fashion. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, you didn't use the phrase "out of context", but I thought your edits strongly implied that. This paragraph presents the anti-Coulter case as resting on a shaky foundation of "sound bites" and implies that there's nothing substantial to the arguments, as they are merely based on a couple scare quotes. That may not have been the intent of this, but that's how it reads to me:

Critics of Coulter have assembled a panoply of sound bites and written quotations which are typical of her brash, combative communicative style. Some critics cite these excerpts as evidence for their claim that she is "hysterical" or "ill-informed" and use them in to argue that she and ought to be dismissed entirely as a writer or commentator on the grounds that she simply "makes everything up" (see damaging quotation).

Did "Canada send troops"?

Allison Delaney, wrote (on an official Canadian government website):

"Although estimates vary, at least 12 000 Canadians served with the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. Some crossed the border to join, others were living in the U.S. during the war."

If Ann Coulter meant that the Canadian goverment sent members in good standing of the Canadian army to Vietnam, then I've been unable to confirm this.

If she meant "Canada, the country" (i.e., the Canadian people as a whole - not just the goverment) then there's ample evidence that she was right.

The question is whether the interviewer's "correction" was (a) correct in itself AND (b) wrongfully refused by Coulter. If he had said, "No Canadians fought in Vietnam" he'd be dead wrong, of course. If he had said, "The Canadian goverment sent no troops to Vietnam" then he just might be right.

Now what exactly did he say, and what does this have to do with Coulter's credibility and the blog campaign against Coulter?

Perhaps the proper distinction is:

• Canadian troops: soldiers who fight in a war as members of the Canadian Army
• Canadian soldiers: soldiers of Canadian citizenship who fight in a war

If the interview was playing the gotcha game, then I'd have to say he "won" if catching your opponent in a misstatement (however small) is how you rack up points against them.

But it's a fine distinction (to me) and not proof of a "pattern of deception" or any reason for Misplaced Pages to side with him against her.

A real "correction" would have been for the interviewer to say:

• Thousands of Canadian men fought in Vietnam, but not as members of the Canadian military.

If Coulter had then said, "No, they were on active duty with the Canadian Army at the time" then clearly she'd have been wrong: first, for making a clear, unambiguous assertion which is false; second, for refusing correction when the interviewer clarified things.

However, the transcript does not show any clarification. It was just a "Canada did send, Canada did send" tussle with no attempt on either side to say what they meant by "troops". As such, I don't think it really reflects badly on either of them.

But if the point of the show was to give examples of Americans who distort the truth, or if the anti-Coulter crowd is using it that way, then Misplaced Pages needs to step back and describe BOTH the anti and pro sides and not endorse either.

Last time I checked the article it either implied or said outright that Coulter was WRONG. It should not say this, but rather that the CBC, or the interviewer, or the Michael Moore website, or dozens of bloggers ASSERT that she was wrong. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think if you look at the context, it should be clear that they were talking about the canadian government. Coulter said, "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?" When she refers to Canada, as a nation, as a friend, one assumes she is saying they are an ally. If that is the case, then clearly when she says "Canada sent troops to Vietnam," she means the Canadian government. Also, "Canada sent troops to Vietnam," sends more rather active. If she had said "troops from canada fought in Vietnam," that would be another story, but when she says that Canada sent the troops, it must have been a government that sent them. Who else could activly send troops? While I suppose it is possible that they were both very confused, I find it highly unlikely. --Benna 01:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I edited the "Canada remarks" section of the article to emphasize that Coulter acknoledged she was wrong about this. However, I put it in the form of a "clarification" rather than a "confession".

She meant that Canadians served (and re-asserted this part) but conceded that her exact words amounted to an error. (Rather decent of her to own up to that.)

Well, that's enough for one evening. I really must return to "meat life". Thanks ever so much for helping sift through this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Coulter said Canadian policy had changed, McKeown pointed out that it hadn't. That's not playing gotcha, it's a legitimate response to a claim which was central to her thesis. It's a real correction. Coulter was talking about the policy of the Canadian government when she didn't know what the policy was. John FitzGerald 15:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct -- Coulter asserted that Canada, as an ally, sent troops to Vietnam. If we're to limber up our imaginations, then the foreign policy has not changed since we sent troops to Vietnam, since a sizable minority of Canadians support the Invasion of Iraq, much like the sizable minority of Canadians who fought in Vietnam, and thereby, we both support the invasion of Iraq and Vietnam. Quite a stretch, no? The assertion was clear despite apologist revision or rhetorical backpeddling on her part; she meant that Canada, the nation, the government, the typical neighbourly ally, sent troops on an official and military basis by government decree to intervene in the Vietnamese conflict as active belligerents.Professor Ninja 19:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the word sent imply remote control from another entity (ex: a goverment). You don't send your self to war. I think it's clear that Coulter was talking about Canada as "the canadian government".

Ed's Recent Edits

Uncle Ed, I'm trying to see both sides of this. But this your recent addition just strikes me as "apologist" (emphasis mine below):

The following quotes are mostly in a style apparently calculated to irritate opponents deliberately, and nearly all of them have given offense to one opponent or another.

* Some of these quotes are flamboyant or tongue-in-cheek, others are in a polemical style. Many appear to be meant as satire or hyperbole (Coulter has stated, "Liberals love to pretend they don't understand hyperbole.")

* Some commentators make no distinction between her tongue-in-cheek remarks and her straightforward ones. They take them all equally seriously, citing Coulter's remark, "I believe everything I say."

Lots of ascribing motive with no evidence, and lots of hedges with "some" and "mostly." It just doesn't strike me as something that meets the standards. Fuzheado | Talk 01:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I second that. --Benna 06:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like I'm doing "original research". Feel free to correct or revert.

On the other hand, the Quotations section appears (a) to dominate the article and (b) intended to present some Wikipedian's idea of the "real" picture of Ann Coulter.

I doubt very much that ANYONE's selection of their political opponent's quotes could EVER provide an accurate picture (see damaging quotation).

My personal opinion is that the intent of the Misplaced Pages article section of Quotations is to induce the reader to dismiss Coulter as shrill and clueless. As such, it fails the neutrality test of our NPOV policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:31, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Then find some quotes which represent a side of Coulter that you feel the section does not portray. Gamaliel 15:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking forward to addition of another section of quotes showing Coulter's warm, thoughtful side. (^_^) Gzuckier 16:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You said (further above) that my text:

• presents the anti-Coulter case as resting on a shaky foundation of "sound bites" and implies that there's nothing substantial to the arguments, as they are merely based on a couple scare quotes.

I can't argue with how it looks to you. I assume good faith on your part, so if the way I wrote it amounts to a condemnation of the anti-Coulter case, then I've written it badly! Please help me to re-write that text:

• I want to avoid making Misplaced Pages endorse the view that the anti-Coulter case "rests on a shaky foundation", because that's just as bad (in the opposite direction) as saying that the anti-Coulter case is well founded.
• Likewise, I want to avoid implying that there's "nothing substantial" to the anti-Coulter argument.

At the risk of going on a tangent, though, may I say that I had no intention of arguing that the anti-Coulter case was based on a small number of scare quotes. The article has dozens of them. It's not the number to which I object. It's the insinuation that these quotes are representative of Coulter. It seems plain to me that NONE of these quotes were selected to portray her in a good light. Rather, the quotations section violates the Misplaced Pages:original research policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

CBC Report is misleading

The interview highlighted a moment in which Coulter apparently confused (1) the 12,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam as members of the US Army with (2) "Canadian troops". In a voice-over, the interviewer twitted Coulter: "She never got back to me, and for the recond, Canada sent no troops.

(However, the documentary omitted any mention of the 12,000 Canadians who did fight in Vietnam, making it look as if Coulter made the whole thing up. All she did was make an honest mistake. And if the interviewer KNEW that Canadians Coulter was thinking of (a) really were there but (b) simply were not there as Canadians troops but as US troops, he might have pointed this out. Especially when broadcasted the edited excerpt. That bit about "for the record" is misleading.)

He should have said,

"For the record, over ten thousand Canadians fought for South Vietnam; it's just that the Canadian government didn't send them."

And if he had a shred of decency or honesty he would have contacted Coulter, assured her that she was partly right, and offered her a chance to amend her remarks. But he just wanted to play gotcha. Hardly cricket for a report on how the US right wing is supposedly dishonest.

As one anti-Coulter blogger wrote,

Canadians did fight in Vietnam. That's true, but they did so AS MEMBERS OF THE US ARMED FORCES, NOT AS MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES.

Another blogger was more mild:

And since I was curious about the actual truth of the matter in the video ... Although Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam, over 10,000 Canadian citizens voluntarily joined the U.S. military and fought in Vietnam. There is a monument to the ones who died in Windsor.

The left is unanimous in insisting that Coulter was wrong and McKeown was right. But they all give him a pass for concealing the fact that Canadians went to Vietnam. They're so intent on nailing Coulter for her mis-statement as an example of a "lie" for which she must be "exposed". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

If Coulter had a shred of decency she'd have got back to McKeown as she promised instead of claiming on C-Span that he was an ignoramus (unlikely, given the publicity Canadian Vietnam vets have received). McKeown concealed nothing. The issue of Canadian volunteers is irrelevant – American volunteers started joining the Canadian forces in 1939 to fight the Germans, but that doesn't mean that the US got into the war in 1939. THe long and the short of it is that Coulter is pronouncing on Canadian history without knowing basic facts about it. John FitzGerald 14:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article is quoting Coulter as admitting/correcting herself that the Canadian govt didn't send troops and you feel the need to add at the bottom that this explanation doesn't alter the fact that Canada didn't send troops. No kidding, she just admitted they didn't! I don't even see where anyone implied that Canada's position on Vietnam is different. There is no assertion that McKeown didn't know about Canadians in Vietnam. It's not even Coulter who says "I didn't think he knew", she's repeating what people were telling her. It's pretty silly to state your opinion on what you think McKeown may or may not know in order to address an assertion that was never made. --jag123 15:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added that bit because of the implied claim in the article that the mistake was only apparent. And if you think Coulter was just disinterestedly passing on others' opinion that McKeown was full of it then you have to be too naive for words. She could have checked with McKeown, eh? She could have checked with other Canadians. I saw the interview – she was just spluttering after being corrected. She didn't have a clue, and the story about having read about Canadian volunteers is most likely an exercise in saving face after the fact. John FitzGerald 22:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I hope my newest attempt at clarification makes my points more clearly. Coulter's self-serving comments should not be allowed to stand without comment. I should point out that I'm not all that upset by Coulter – there are only about four Americans who know anything about Canada, anyway, so it's not surprising she doesn't. Most prominent American commentators couldn't tell you two facts about Canada. The need some people feel to defend her infallibility is interesting, though. John FitzGerald 22:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I see my second addition was removed as well. It's amazing how deeply people feel the need to protect St. Ann's honour. Well, I'm not going to get into a reversion war. By insisting on removing thoroughly unobjectionable and accurate observations about St. Ann, though, her acolytes have demonstrated that they don't think the mistake is as trivial as they claim it is. The simple facts are that the CBC report was not misleading, her mistake was central to the point she was making about the topic of discussion, her "explanation" is unattested and probably entirely self-serving, and her gratuitous insult of Bob McKeown shows what kind of commentator and what kind of person dear Ann is. John FitzGerald 13:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Controvery over the Canada quote

I'm adding what I already said on the mailing list here, as I think the discussion belongs here. On the list, Uncle Ed said that:

Whether or not _government_ of Canada sent "troops in Canadian uniform" to Vietnam is a another thing. There are three points of view on this sub-point:

1. No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian government" to Vietnam (in any capacity).
2. Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and "served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops).
3. The Canadian sent substantial number of active duty soldiers (with weapons) to Vietnam, but they never (or hardly ever) shot at North Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong fighters.
4. Canada's *government* sent large numbers of combat troops to Vietnam (at least one battalion, i.e., 500 men), and they engaged the enemy.

My response was as follows:

I agree with your breakdown of the various interpretations on this matter. I also agree that 1) and 4) appear to be false.

I don't think 3) is true either, since the only deployment I know of, from web searches anyway, is this ICCS thing (Operation Gallant), which Tony Sidaway has also commented on. But these were non-aligned peacekeepers, which I presume is exclusive from active duty soldiers.

To me, Coulter's context unambiguously suggests that the troops provided were provided to fight alongside the Americans.

So, as far as I can tell, there seem to have been no troops sent by the Canadian government to Vietnam to assist the American side. To me, this makes Coulter's claim unambiguously wrong.

The article should note this. However, it should also mention the possible charitable explanations for her false claim, by mentioning Canadians who enlisted in the U.S. army and the peacekeeping Operation Gallant, or possibly just providing a link to the relevant section of Canada and the Vietnam War, since much of the content would be the same. We should of course also mention how this claim is interpreted by her critics.

I do not think this incident or any of the facts about Vietnam and Canada suffice to prove that Coulter is or is not a deliberate liar. (My personal conclusion is that, like many claims she has made before, she was simply pulling facts from memory and hoping they were right, or at least not challenged.)

Feel free to comment on any of the above. --Saforrest 01:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it all hinges on this:

"Coulter's context unambiguously suggests that the troops provided were provided to fight alongside the Americans. "

Let me break this into two parts:

1. the troops provided by the government of Canada
2. they went to Vietnam to fight alongside the Americans

It's been made pretty clear to me that Canada's government did not send the 10,000 to 12,000 "troops" that Coulter had in mind. So AFAIC she's wrong about that. (She has apparently admitted this much.)

What the CBC did not make clear in Sticks and Stones is that thousands of Canadians did fight in Vietnam on the South Vietnamese side. The segnment featuring McKeown and Coulter ends with a voiceover by McKeown which (a) merely repeats what he said in the interview, while (b) omitting any mention of Canadians going to Vietnam as soldiers.

The question anyone is free to ask is whether Coulter conceded enough of her error, quickly enough. Another question is whether the McKeown was playing gotcha, or whether it's ethical to say "For the record" and then omit relevant information for the purpose of discrediting a guest on your show. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

This hairsplitting in trying to save Coulter from the charge of inaccuracy is getting silly. In the context of her statement, it's obvious that she meant to make an implication about actions of the Canadian government. Did the U.S. send troops to fight alongside the Taliban? No, even though John Walker Lindh was there, and even if there was another such case (to justify the plural) the presence of U.S. citizens doesn't mean that the U.S. sent troops. Note also that Coulter was contrasting the war in Vietnam with the invasion of Iraq. If you try to defend her on the basis that there were some Canadian citizens serving as members of the U.S. military in Vietnam, you'd have to maintain as well that Vietnam and Iraq were different in that respect. That's probably not a defensible position. Without doing any research on the point, I'll hazard a guess that there are at least some Canadian citizens serving in Iraq, just as others did in Vietnam. As for the challenge to McKeown's ethics, that might be brought up in an article about him but I don't see it as something that merits exploration in the article about Coulter. JamesMLane 21:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Canadian servicemen/women serving in American units as part of an exchange program are expected by both governments to go to Iraq and perform the duties of Americans. John FitzGerald 14:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put the information back in. It is NPOV, and it is relevant insight into Coulter's character. If you think it is a POV representation of the events and the facts, change it to make it more NPOV or discuss your concerns here. No one here has demonstrated in any way that the current statement is POV.

Additionally, please do not add your own analysis to the situation, your analysis is POV. If you need to, add "fans defending Coulter's statement point out..." or "critics of Coulter say this shows..."

If you do not want to include the statement at all, please state your reasons for excluding it here. If you have any other concerns, please write them here.

I would ask that those who continue to remove this section cease and desist until this matter is resolved.--Ben 20:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Canada and Vietnam - NPOV - Factually inaccurate

I continue to change these, and someone continues to change them back.

1. McKeown did not just "contradict" her. He corrected her. If he had said "You are wrong." this would be a contradiction. He did not say that. He said "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam." That contradicts and corrects her statement. Please explain why you keep removing "corrected." Is it POV? --Ben 20:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2. "10,000 Canadian troops" did not fight in the Vietnam War. A Canadian troop is someone in the Canadian army. Were these 10,000 in the Canadian army? No. They were in the United States army. Leave off the word troops.--Ben 20:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3. It must be made clear to the reader that the Canadian government, and the Generals in charge of the Canadian military, ordered no Canadian soldier to fight alongside the United States in Vietnam. This also keeps getting removed.--Ben 20:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, your arguments are your arguments, not the barbs and brickbats of a notable Coulter antagonist. If you can cite someone who's made these points, then of course they merit inclusion, just as Andrew Sullivan's sentiments do. We don't take sides. We don't say that Conan Doyle was "wrong" to believe in fairies or that Rupert Sheldrake's belief in morphogenetic fields is "mistaken". We just report what other (notable) people have said on both sides.

Fine. I don't care enough to argue this. The sky is orange, feel free to contradict me.--Ben 03:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that "troops" means state-sponsored soldiers , and "Canadian citizens" sounds vague and misleading (to me) in this context.

I appreciate your point, though, so maybe you or someone else can come up with a wording that is non-odd to both of us.

chocolateboy 23:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I've changed it to "10,000 former Canadian troops and Canadian citizens who crossed the border and joined the United States army to fight in Vietnam"--Ben 03:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, paraphrasing that gives her too much credit. I'll just leave everything as it is. Maybe someone who has the patience to deal with her fans (who border on showing symptoms of belonging to a cult) can do it. Trying to apply post hoc analysis to her statements and arguing with invincible ignorance, claiming they believe she meant "10,000 former Canadian troops and Canadian citizens who crossed the border and joined the United States army to fight in Vietnam" rather than "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" when it makes absolutely no sense to do so, further evidenced by the fact that, as it stands, while incorrect it makes perfect sense with the point she was trying to make while interpretating it the way her fans do does not make sense at all. Plus she said she was wrong--of course in a complete flip-flop of idiocy says she was right two sentences later. It's absolutely utterly ridiculous. I don't want to spend my energy defining the word is to people. Someone else can. You guys are so purposefully dense or I don't know what the heck the problem is here, but it makes me puke.

And that's about as much "due respect" as I can muster. --Ben 05:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In regards to point 3, you raised no objections, so I added it in.--Ben 03:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The whole accuracy section is flawed. Canadian troops (or lack thereof) in Vietnam is used to impugne Coulter's accuracy but she admits - in the cited text - that she was wrong.

Her inaccuracy and her stubborness attests to her character. That is completely appropriate for this article. Post hoc correction of her statements, either by herself, or by her fans editing the article is not. --Ben 00:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What, exactly, is at issue here? Coulter claimed that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Later she admits she was wrong. Both the mistake and the correction are in the body of the article. What part is inaccurate or non-NPOV? If the purpose of the accuracy section is to demonstrate that sometimes Coulter is wrong, then shouldn't there be a similar section for every other article about a person on Misplaced Pages? Or are you saying that most people never make mistakes and that Coulter is somehow unique in this regard? What would make the article more accurate and NPOV? Removing Coulter's correction? How would removing Coulter's statement "I was wrong" improve this section? --Bziobnic 15:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to take out the "I was wrong" or "I was right" statements she made. Those are her words. However, I interpret the word "troops" to be active military. I always have, I always will. Apparently Coulter just calls any person in the military, active, inactive, or discharged "troops." Fine, she can say it that way if she wants. But paraphrasing her is not going to work in this situation because of the way she interprets the word: Substituting "10,000 troops" for "they" (what used to be in place of what is now "10,000 Canadians") is ambiguous and can easily be rightfully or wrongfully interpreted as meaning active-duty Canadian soldiers. Now, in the context of her quote, this doesn't make much sense, but considering she then says she was both wrong and later says she was right, this must be made clearer and without giving her the benefit of the doubt. She could be reasonably talking about an exchange program as well, where active Canadian soldiers fight in the US army, much like the few Canadian troops in Iraq. I've changed it and hopefully it's acceptable to everyone now. My problem is that she seems to be continuously implying that active-duty Canadian soldiers fought alongside the US in Vietnam, which is in untrue, and which I personally find offensive to me as a Canadian in its blatant arrogance and disrespect for our military who did not "run across to sign up with the Americans." Those who did were not members of our military, yet the word "troops" suggests they were.

In regards to the NPOV, it has been changed a bit since I last looked at it, but the last line which says "the interviewer contradicted her numerous times." I beg to differ, she contradicted him, but how about we neutrally say they contradicted each other? Plus the arbitrary (and incorrect) selection of the point of the end of the conversation which certainly did not end at the point suggested. I will change that as well.--Ben 06:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile

What has happened is that the focus has been shifted from the original, which was 'Ann Coulter just makes crap up' as universally viewed by folks on the leftish side, 'And here are some examples' to instead make it appear that there were precisely two occasions on which she is suspected of this and one of them is still being debated. This is not an accurate depiction of the Ann Coulter Controversy. Gzuckier 18:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If there are more than 2 examples leftists give, to bolster their accusation that 'Ann Coulter just makes crap up', then by all means let's include more than 2 examples. (Is the Quotations section meant to constitute these examples? If so, each one needs some explanation. Many of them just sound flippant or hostile.)

If there indeed is an campaign (i.e., organized) or movement (i.e., grassroots) to discreted Coulter, then we should have a large section about their tactics and arguments. (And possibly also report on any efforts made by others to counter that campaign).

If there's any shift in the article, it should be from Misplaced Pages says Coulter is wrong to here is a fair description of the dispute over Coulter. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

(comment Ben 20:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) moved) --Ben 01:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Liberals as the "idle rich"

This entire section should be removed. The proposition that the "idle rich" are predominately liberal is not arguable without defining what "idle rich" means. The current section citing the Gallup survey is irrelevant. Pointing out that the top two tax brackets vote Republican could only be relevant if the top two brackets are all considered to be "idle rich". If no one objects I will delete the section.

Yeah, I'll object. It is after all, Coulter's proposition that the idle reich are liberal. If you feel the proposition is not arguable because it's vague and undefined, then it is a good illustration of Coulter's rhetoric being vague and undefined and somewhat shotgun-like. Gzuckier 17:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then the most the article can say is that this position is vague and undefined, rather than demonstrably false. If you care to edit it to reflect that then I have no objection.

How's this, made it 'her opponents' point of view? Gzuckier 18:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are two problems. First, 'her opponents' aren't being cited as making that point. Rather, her point is challenged by original research in the article. Second, evidence cannot be presented to counter the claim that the "idle rich" are liberal without defining the term "idle rich". Since Coulter has not done this, no counterargument to the proposition is possible. It is a vague rather than false proposition.

OK, how about now? Gzuckier 21:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, somebody just edited my idle rich edits so maybe you guys can work it out. Gzuckier 21:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "idle rich" section is still a mess. The Gallup data does not belong at all primarily because it is nonresponsive. Information about the voting patterns of the top two tax brackets is completely irrelevant to the discussion unless the author is claiming that everyone in the top two brackets is independently wealthy and chooses not to work. The only meaningful response to this proposition would be data showing the voting habits of the idle rich along with a clear definition of who falls into that category. I am deleting the section.

OK, now you are just being wilfully doofusistic. The income distribution of the two parties has no relevance to a quote regarding which party is 'the idle rich'? So you delete the quote? Particularly when the idle rich reference is the minor part of the quote, the point of which is, explicitly, that democrats control the media because republicans can't afford media outlets? I don't think so. Gzuckier 05:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be relevant if she said "Democrats are richer than Republicans". She said the "idle rich" are Democrats. People in the top two income brackets cannot necessarily afford to buy media outlets. Or are you suggesting that income in excess of $50,000 per year is all it takes to start a cable channel?

Please try to stay on-topic with this section. The alleged innacuracy of Ann Coulter is the issue and the proposition that the idle rich are predominantly politically liberal is the specific proposition being questioned. Comments regarding progressive taxation and Republican fundraising are utterly irrelevant unless they can be meaningfully tied to the idle rich. I think the whole accuracy section should be deleted and perhaps replaced with a list of links to sites that question Coulter's accuracy. The whole thing seems irreparably POV.

Bias in the quotes

Meanwhile, just to answer the random questions in the history of the edits to Ann Coulter, I deleted the quote in question because of the suggestion that we should delete some quotes and I thought it didn't add as much to the picture as most of the other quotes, I restored Ann's quote regarding promiscuity because I thought it shed light on her hypocrisy but since I can't in fact find the quote in context we might as well leave it out, and I deleted the paragraph mark because it shows up in Misplaced Pages as a paragraph mark in the middle of the line, which makes at least me if nobody else wonder "what the hell is that supposed to mean?"Gzuckier 22:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gzukier, if the quote you deleted that she made about the left-wing media bias "didn't add as much to the picture as much as the other quotes", then the only "picture" YOU are trying to present is that of her expressions of hostility towards the media without allowing Coulter to give any kind of reason--from which the material she draws is ample--behind it whatsoever! There were three quotes expressing disdain of the media, all expressing the identical sentiment, and you delete the one quote that begins to explain why she feels that way. 216.119.136.151

That's actually a relevant point (the one you just made). Didn't think of it when deleting the quote.Gzuckier 05:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its an especially damning indication of bias since you are the one who set up the topic outline for the quotes in the first place to include a section on journalism. And the icing on the cake is that this isn't the first time--you had previously said that all she makes jokes about is the injury to her enemies Talk:Ann Coulter#Ann Coulter is racist and sexist, when its actually the case that it's just all you find important about her opinion on journalism when she's a #1 best-selling author of a book on media bias! 216.119.136.151

Gzukier, you can't shed light on something you haven't established to begin with. And the quote wouldn't show hypocrisy about promiscuity unless you jumped to conclusions about the meaning of the quote which is what the source of the out-of-context quote was hoping he would dupe you into doing. What is the source for that quote? Is it the same source that User:Kizzle used to conclude that Coulter "sleeps around"? (See Talk:Ann Coulter#Ann Coulter is racist and sexist) And if we discover what that source is, wouldn't you agree that we should remove ALL the quotes that that unreliable source has provided to the article, since it has already misled two editors and who knows how many readers about an important aspect of Coulter's character and reputation? 216.119.136.151

I don't think quotes in general should be taken out of context. Thus the removal of this one. Is that the case for other quotes? Or is it one of those 'oh she was clearly just joking when she said would that the military were targeting journalists' things?Gzuckier 05:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point, Gzukier, is that Misplaced Pages shouldn't use unreliable sources including, I might add, editors that jump to conclusions because of that source and won't check the facts. Whether or not you were duped by her inflammatory humor (see Talk:Ann Coulter#Ann Coulter is racist and sexist) has nothing to do with it. 216.119.136.151 20:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph mark (¶) indicates the beginning of a new paragraph in a format that does not allow for the presenting of information in blocks, such as the bulleted format.

Is that standard wikipedia usage? Becuase it doesn't work. Gzuckier 05:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gzukier, are you projecting your own failures to comprehend on to everyone else, to make yourself feel better? That kind of capacity for spite would be a good explanation of why someone who doesn't understand Coulter's humor would take steps to make sure that no one else would feel comfortable understanding it either--by means of trying to tarnish her good name 216.119.136.151 20:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By deleting a printers' mark that 90% of the population wouldn't recognize? So that's what's giving Coulter so much bad press. Maybe you'd better take it up with the guy who replaced it thinking it was 'line noise'. (I thought it was just sloppy fingers, myself). Or you could just leave the line break that I put in in, instead. Meanwhile, tell us a little about yourself. Why are you so angry?Gzuckier 20:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Assumes facts not in evidence. I was referring to your tactics in introducing bias as outlined in the rebalanced section below as well as the mismanagement of the facts of the article as outlined above not the paragraph mark. I just wanted to ask whether you hold in contempt what you don't understand, as it seems such an obvious motive for mismanagement of facts and introduction of bias. Your response only seems to confirm what I guessed, 216.119.136.151 21:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even better, remove all of the quotes that are not directly referenced in the article. -Willmcw 01:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Coulter isn't a public official, who has a history of good or bad decisions that need to be reported. She's prominent solely as a commentator. It's therefore appropriate to give more coverage to quotations from her writing than would be the case in an article about a President or a Senator. We should include quotations, fairly selected to convey her views, her reasoning, and her style. JamesMLane 04:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, it's impossible for Coulter fans to find any set of quotes from her which would not portray her negatively. Yet, she is a 'bestselling author'. Go figure. Maybe we should just remove everything down to her birthdate. Of course, she has given two different birthdates publicly, so I suppose that's got to go too. Gzuckier 05:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gzukier, what do you mean "It's impossible for Coulter fans to find any set of quotes which would not portray her negatively"? We are supposed to be editors of what is factual, not public relations agents manipulating an image of Coulter for the purpose of making people like or dislike her. This mandate is what the NPOV policy is all about. Are you calling the editors here who haven't revealed a preference for Coulter one way or another fans in order make your own obvious biases less conspicuous? You've even admitted it; you called your first major edit here a "rant" leaving it to others to do the work to clean up the mess you made of that section of the article. 64.154.26.251

I don't see a direct policy on quotations, however I do see a strong precedent against their inclusion in articles. Here are a the most relevant sections from the policy document: "Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not".

• Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
• 3. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Misplaced Pages:Don't include copies of primary sources.
• Misplaced Pages is not a general knowledge base
• 2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Misplaced Pages also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

None of which offers us a conclusive guideline. However precedents can be found in articles on three British writers known for their epigrams: William Shakespeare, Alexander Pope, and Oscar Wilde. None of them have quotation sections at all. Walter Winchell gets three quotes, worked into the text. Dorothy Parker's article doesn't have a single quote. All of these articles rely on links to Wikiquote. How is Coulter different from Parker, Pope, and Winchell? -Cheers, Willmcw 05:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

When that page says "take out all the quotes", then I'll agree with you, but until then repeatingly quoting it or linking to it will sway no one. Mentioning other articles which don't have quotes again and again won't do it either. The lack of something in another article does not necessarily mean it should be exculded from all articles. Gamaliel 05:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I'm just trotting out the tired old arguments for some exercise. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 08:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rebalance

Looking at the article freshly, what jumps out at me is not an overemphasis on quotes, but that the Paula Jones section is overweight and might do with being moved to Paula's own page.

LOL. You suddenly losing the ability to see the value of a section to the article as a whole that "happened" to be recently changed from presenting Coulter in a negative light to portraying her in a positive light has become a known tactic of your bias. Present some goofy charge about Coulter, then when someone checks the facts and presents the surrounding context that proves she's innocent of wrongdoing, erase the section it applies to. You did it with the Quotes section , you did it with a part of the Paula Jones section before Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 1#Paula Jones and you did it with the "Liberals as the 'idle rich'" that you renamed "Democrats richer than Republicans" section. (between lines 29 and 72 with the old version and lines 39 and 82 in the new version) 216.119.136.151

It's not as major a hunk of Coulter's life as it used to be.

Why? Because she's four months older now than since you wrote it (or should I say, plagiarized it? ) Speaking of four months, even if we do find it to be irrelevent at some point, I think we should keep this section at least four and a half months in the interests of fairness and accuracy to correct the erroneous record that has been maintained on this Wiki for that amount of time as well as the Misplaced Pages clones. 216.119.136.151

Anyway, if anyone can give the particular flavor of Coulter and the controversy re and the emotions pro and con she engenders without quotes, that would be great but otherwise... At least we're at a point where the pro and con forces are each adding and subtracting quotes, so maybe we're nearing balance. Actually, this might do with a bit more regarding her books (response to the comment regarding the earnhardt section being bigger than the writeup for slander. That might be a good place to get some NPOVness? Gzuckier 06:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're begging the question regarding the Earnhardt section, that being another one of your avoidance tactics that I'm beginning to recognize. It hasn't been established that the Earnhardt piece ought to be in an article of this size in the first place, much less that we ought to apply NPOV to "rebalance" it. It seems to me you have some issues with Coulter. According to Jimmy Wales, the Misplaced Pages now has 500,000 articles. Don't you think that perhaps your editing skills might best be applied elsewhere? 216.119.136.151 20:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

????????????? That's an odd thing to say from an anonymous source who has never edited anything other than one article. Sudden suspicion: you aren't Ann Coulter herself, are you? That would explain your style of cooperative editing. It's entrapment if you don't admit it. Gzuckier 21:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem argument. Let's stick to your introduction of bias and mismanagement of facts, shall we? 216.119.136.151 21:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it me, or are you starting to get a bit uncooperative? Gzuckier 20:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is that sheer recrimination or do you have evidence to support that? I remove a piece of the article I removed for a good reason , and your response is to revert and say what can we do to get some balance here--without citing any reason for keeping it. 216.119.136.151 21:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I failed to mention you are also equivocating again between yourself and other users. There is no evidence of there being "pro and con" forces. There is just one acknowledged con force-Gzukier himself. You seem to picture writing Misplaced Pages articles as some kind of tug-of-war with equal parties on both side trying to manipulate the image of the subject of the article into being liked or disliked, and the sides can be chosen just as wisely based solely on the feelings she engenders (either for the right reasons or through a complete misunderstanding of her motives). The sides aren't equal and it's not even a tug-of-war. Instead it's just people trying to maintain an informative and accurate article through cleaning up certain other people's messes. 216.119.136.151 21:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gzuckier continues to engage in POV and weasel word writing. Someone needs to explain to me how the Gallup poll citation in the "Democrats richer than Republicans" section is NPOV. --Bziobnic 22:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV notice on rich democrats section

Bziobnic is reverting my edits, so lets discuss it here. I added the following (what parts do you have a problem with):

• It should be noted that, at least in theory, left-wing policies which are generally associated with Democrats, benefit the lower income class economically more than right-wing and Republican policies. Some examples of this are progressive taxation laws, public institutions and safety net programs.

• The Republican party on average recieves more funding and has a bigger budget than the Democratican party.

Here's the problem: The impact of policies traditionally associated with Democrats is not relevant to a section which is addressing Coulter's alleged inaccuracy in asserting that the "idle rich" are predominantly liberal. The impact of progressive taxation has nothing whatsoever to do with, for example, Ted Turner's political biases. Also, Republican financing is irrelevant unless it can be clearly established that the majority of the "idle rich" are Republican Party contributors.

Coulter does not assert that liberal policies benefit the rich nor does she assert that the Democratic party raises more money than the Republican party. These additions are completely irrelevant.

Something can be totally factual and yet irrelevant. Coulter's accuracy is the issue here. The only relevant content for this section is material that directly addresses Coulter's statement. I still believe that this whole section should be deleted. It is not Misplaced Pages's role to directly challenge anyone. Links to sites that challenge Coulter's accuracy are the only appropriate method for a Misplaced Pages article. --Bziobnic 04:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sez who? There is a proscription on 'easter egg' links where the content is not apparent until the link is opened. This is for the benefit of those who are reading a printed copy of the page, rather than viewing it online. A summary of what can be found at the end of the link, with the link being just for reference, is very much in tune with the Misplaced Pages way. Gzuckier 20:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Misplaced Pages is also not a place for original research, which is what we have in the rich Democrats section. I believe that this topic is too complicated to be dealt with in the body of the article and therefore external links are appropriate.--Bziobnic 04:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the paragraph. Seems the quote has changed, used to say something like "Democrats out of touch with the working class they claim to represent"? (in which case she is refering to the Democratic Party). Does anyone have a source for the quote (its not on wikiquote).

Factual notice on Canada & Vietnam

What is not factual in the section. Coulter did make the statement, and the interviewer did contradict her. Coulter then said the following quote. What is not factual? --jag123 16:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Americans born in Canada

Sorry, I forgot to post my reasons this morning when I removed it. That sentence is inflammatory, and insulting, to put it mildly. A cousin of mine was KIA in Vietnam, so maybe this is hitting closer to home than it would otherwise. She's saying that any Canadian who participated in the Vietnam war isn't really a Canadian, but an American, as if it's embarassing or inferior to be Canadian. When Americans were heading up here to dodge the draft, Canadians were heading down there to go fight for another country. Despite this, Coulter has the nerve to use the pine box of Canadians who died for her country as a grandstand for jingoism. I don't think so. That part of her quote doesn't add anything to the article, nor is it crucial to her apology and a bunch of stuff is excluded from the quote anyway, so I don't see a reason to keep it. --jag123 20:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It IS inflammatory. If her "joke" needs further explanation feel free to add it after or before the quote, but I think it should stay in because it demonstrates her audacity and extreme arrogance. By taking it out I think you've actually made her look less arrogant. I don't even think she succeeded in defending herself, she just made herself look even more stupid because her "defence" is barely comprehensible in the first place. I've added more of her quote and maybe this will make it flow better. Here's the full quote: --Ben 02:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a soapbox. If you want to make Ann Coulter look arrogant or stupid, start your own website. --jag123 11:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about if, instead, we accurately report what Coulter actually said, and let the reader decide if Coulter is arrogant or stupid? JamesMLane 22:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accurately report her quotes in Wikiquote, and include the relevant parts in the article. Not everyone cares to form an opinion on Coulter. If someone wants to learn about Coulter for a school project or something, they shouldn't be insulted by a part of her quote that is not related to the point discussed in the article just because you want to make her look stupid. --jag123 00:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or alternatively, if we actually put in a correct balance of Coulter quotes, readers my decide that she's witty, well informed and speaks the truth. That said, JML's comments again reveal his bias. 216.153.214.94 23:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's just say that not making Ann look stupid requires removal of all quotes. Gzuckier 21:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supposed evidence Ann may have been born intersexual

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43120-2002Sep5?language=

This article addresses the controversy over Ann's birth year, and does not contain the slightest suggestion that she was born an intersexual. It was also very rash to change the article to say that she was when no evidence has been presented to substantiate that claim.

I agree - there's nothing about gender in the article - it is all about a minor disagreement regarding Coulter's age. I suspect that the anon who posted this comment has some game in mind. -Willmcw 05:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think its better to err on the side of not slandering celebrities, especially in a case as thin as this. A related (and even more disturbing, so be warned) discussion of how to handle a much more widely circulated rumor is @ Talk:Anti-gay_slogan#Richards_Gere.27s_painful_pastime.3F. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 06:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This idea about Coulter's sex has been around a while and popped up here in talk that's now archived. I think it originates from this site, which "outs" Coulter as a male-to-female transsexual. When it was mentioned here several months ago, no one thought that the site ("Strap-On Veterans for Truth") was serious. No one saw any reason to include anything from this humor site in the article. It's pretty funny, though, to those who'd be amused by a depiction of Coulter as "a former drag queen from Key West named Pudenda Shenanigans". JamesMLane 08:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sorry I was a little drunk when I posted that ann was an intersexual

Yow! I never paid much credence to the story, but those new pics today, she really does have an adam's apple!Gzuckier 20:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Canadian troops and Coulter Quote

"Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. There is a War Memorial to them -- at least for most of . The Canadian Government didn't send troops at the beginning, didn't send troops at the end, but most of that was not under the Canadian flag, they came and fought with the Americans. So I was wrong. It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada."

"I talked to him Bob McKeown for three hours and the topic was not Canada's war history. It was an incidental point that he challenged me on and I didn't believe him because I had read about Canadian troops in Vietnam. I was right. People keep saying "well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans" because I don't think he knew."

Note that, here, Coulter is presumably referring to members of the U.S. military with Canadian citizenship and/or those formally in the Canadian military as "Canadian troops."

What is the matter with including this sentence? Coulter's statement has multiple interpretations and is ambiguous. This helps clarify what she was saying. It is perfectly reasonabe to interpret "Canadian troops" as "active members of the Canadian armed forces". This, presumably, is not what Coulter meant. I think Coulter is using "troops" in an Americocentric way, and thus, her quote does not make sense to people who are not American.--Ben 01:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coulter's statement has multiple interpretations and is ambiguous.

vs

This helps clarify what she was saying.

We don't put words in people's mouths. We don't "presume", speculate or spin.

The section already includes Coulter's explanation of her explanation as a pacifying concession to your unilateral accusation of inaccuracy and POV. What next? An explanation of your explanation of her explanation of her explanation?

I think Coulter is using "troops" in an Americocentric way, and thus, her quote does not make sense to people who are not American.

The article is about Ann Coulter, not about you.

chocolateboy 02:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"demonstrates" vs "claims"

The use of the word "demonstrates" in reference to Coulter's arguments indicates that she has successfully proven her points. The use of the word "claims" indicates that she has made the arguments, but does not imply that they have been proven (or disproven). Therefore, "demonstrates" is POV, while "claims" is more NPOV. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

"The book claims that many American journalists have ties to the Democratic Party, which influences their reporting."

So, you are stating that the book's claims about American journalists are unsupported? Which of these claims in the book were not sufficiently supported in your opinion? Please include a page number so that I can follow along with you in the referenced book.

Finding lack of or misuse of sources in Ann Coulter's books? That's like finding a needle in a stack of hay, if by hay you mean needles. --kizzle 22:24, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yet you have failed to do so Kizzle. I would say that mocking generalities were unexpected, but I would be lying.plain_regular_ham 22:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If only I had spent money on her book. Shame. --kizzle 22:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

The point is that we are not here to determine the truth. All we are doing is summarizing the verifiable information about the article's subject in an NPOV manner. We can report what she says, but we can't say whether it is true or not, or whether she has succeeded in proving her assertion. -Willmcw 03:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Very well then. I will be sure to apply your standard in other articles. plain_regular_ham 12:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

is she deformed?

off topic, i know, but what is the deal with that photo on the time cover? looks like she has pointy tentacles instead of legs. Is this some sort of subversive poke at her by the 'liberals' at Time (haha)? Yike! Gzuckier 17:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be the perspective of the camera that gives the appearance you mention. Not sure where you have seen tentacles that resemble pointy shoes, but I'll leave that to you. I figured that this was fairly obvious, but since it bears mentioning in your opinion, I'm happy to explain it to you. plain_regular_ham 18:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recommend a new image for the front page, maybe a simple headshot or something. You can move the TIME cover somewhere else on the page. --Blue387 09:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She looks kind of nice in this one Gzuckier 14:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No wonder why people think she's hot. Man that picture makes me horny. --kizzle 23:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Time magazine re: Vietnam

The addition proposed by user:Plain regular ham has no place in the Vietnam section. What a Time magazine writer has to say on the issue is irrelevant, unless what he is saying is being backed up by historical evidence/documentation, which he isn't in this case. The Vietnam section is fair as it exists right now -- both McKeown and Coulter have had a chance to explain their position, Coulter has admitted she was wrong and offered another view as well. Leave it as is unless you can source primary sources about Canada sending or not sending troops. 66.36.155.157 20:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quoting a Time article is enough for Misplaced Pages, I don't see why the quote should leave this page altogether, I just didn't like the spoon feeding earlier. What a Time magazine writer has to say is relevant, as Time articles are not exactly the national inquirer... let us leave it in for now until someone can come up with a primary source saying whether or not they did. If his argument is not backed up by historical evidence, then please present the contrary evidence for those wishing to come to their own conclusions on the matter. --kizzle 00:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the reasoning, but I'll give in. I've added a rebuttal. 66.36.145.221 02:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External links

The "External links" section could use improvement, but the NPOV policy doesn't call for the wholesale deletion of links to sites that some editor disagrees with. The guideline found in Misplaced Pages:External links#What should be linked to is:

On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.

The external links in this article would benefit from better descriptions. Also, the list of links is long, and some pruning might be in order. "Some pruning" does not mean leaving in all the pro-Coulter links and deleting all the others. In addition, one technique that's often used is to have subsections within "External links", such as "Pro-Coulter", "Anti-Coulter", and perhaps "Other" (if any of these links aren't readily characterized as Pro or Anti). Does anyone see a problem with subdividing the links list in that fashion? JamesMLane 14:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above, some of the sorting decisions by Equinox137 seem wrong. I've moved http://www.stopanncoulter.com/ from the "Pro" to the "Anti", and improved one description, but there's still a lot to be done on this section. Right now, though, I have to knock off. JamesMLane 14:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't deliberately sort it that way - I goofed. Equinox137 13:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't like this idea of sorting links. It passes judgement on links - including news articles - and sorts them into two camps when there really are a multitude of views on an issue, reinforces the absurd 'us vs. them' paradigm, and tells the reader what to think about a link before they even read it. Gamaliel 16:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate

Is it really necessary to post both the birthdates on her voter registration form and her driver's license? Doing so makes her look dishonest about something as simple as her birthday (making that section lose NPOV, IMHO) when it could have been something as simple as a clerical error on either document. Equinox137 14:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a problem which seems to affect women more than men. There was also a dispute about how to treat the disparity in Nancy Reagan's official ages. It should be mentioned, but it would be wrong to imply a sinister, or even vain, motive unless there is some evidence. And even so, women lying about their age is considered to be among the whitest of lies. -Willmcw 20:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Neoconservative?

I don't think the term "neoconservative" appropriately describes Coulter. From Misplaced Pages's definition: "neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state." I can see the the first as being true, but not the rest. --Toscaesque 14:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Quotations, Again

The long list of quotes, almost an entire reproduction from Wikiquote is unprecedented in any other article found in Misplaced Pages. Clearly the only reason for this list is to present a biased view of coulter in the eyes of a potential reader of the article. TDC 18:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The only reason Coulter is notable at all is her writing style. Quotations play a much greater role in conveying important information about her than about other article subjects. How is it biased to quote her own words? If the quotation is inaccurate, fix it. If it's unfairly taken out of context, expand it or include additional material to present it properly. If there are other quotations that round out the picture of her commentary, add them. JamesMLane 19:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Geezus. What could you possibly say about Coulter other than quote from her? "Skinny chick; hard to hit with a pie when she turns sideways"?Gzuckier 19:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you all serious? The "precedents" cited were George Castanza and Allanis Morriset. The Castanza article listed situations he was in and Morriset's article had lyrics sprinkled into, not quotes. No other article on a pundit includes this much direct quotation, either in absolute terms, or by a % of the total volume of the article.

The sheer amount of material listing her more controversial and offensive statements designed, by your own admissions, to pigeon hole her. I doubt this tactic would get the same reception in the Marion Barry article.

I should also mention that if these quotes are being placed here, as you all have alluded to, then unless some Coulter critic (or supporter) has specifically cited these quotes of hers as notable of her feelings about the relevant section they fall under, On law and order, On the 9/11 attacks etc, then this whole debate violates the no original research rule of Misplaced Pages. TDC 21:45, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I see. And similarly, unless some Coulter critic or supporter has specifically cited her birthdate, then our putting it down as her birthdate violates the no original research rule as well. Gzuckier 05:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have never seen another example where defenders of someone want to remove as much information about them as possible. Are you saying that the quotes are taken out of context, or are POV in themselves? So what if other articles do different things, this is wikipedia not the justice system. Each article requires its own intracies, for Ann Coulter, it is helpful for the reader to see her polemic style. I seriously don't get why this amount of quotes is bad. So what, go get other quotes that you feel would balance her out, like take some from the time article or something, but why remove information that directly came out of her mouth? Sheesh! And I don't follow your accusation of original research in the slightest. --kizzle 21:57, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have never seen another example where defenders of someone want to remove as much information about them as possible.

Apparently, you don’t seem to look very hard. The quotes, as presented, present a NPOV portrait of Coulter. And, yes, there are generally agreed upon formats to articles. What goes in the lead paragraph, how to structure an article, where to place references and so on.

The original research is also clear. If these quotes are being presented to provide readers with a glimpse of her style of commentary, then who is choosing these quotes, and on what grounds are these quotes being chosen? It appears that these quotes are not being chosen based on any notable critic's allegations that these specific quotes present a view on her style of commentary, but it, in fact, appears to be the effort of a few Wikipedians to hand pick quotes to provide the readers of what they feel is a glimpse of her style of commentary.

If you are trying to say that these quotes are specifically notable, so notable that they do not belong in Wikiquote, but in the actual article, then you need an outside source of some credibility or notability to make this case.

And yet, not that long ago the quotes were being criticized by a Coulterist as being sourced from a site critical of Coulter. Gzuckier 05:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Good luck trying to find that. TDC 22:08, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

What guidelines do you suggest in choosing quotes? Who, if not Wikipedians, are to choose these quotes? Why do we need notable critics to simply quote her? Are you suggesting we can only quote her by proxy of other people quoting her? Why do you suggest content between Wikiquote and Misplaced Pages cannot be duplicated in some respects? And also, what is notable in Misplaced Pages is not any single one of these quotes, but the collection as a whole which educates the reader on her polemic style. I think Misplaced Pages editors should stay away from analysis of the subjects they write about, but i believe selection of what factually-correct NPOV material goes in that article is something which we are allowed to do. --kizzle 04:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with kizzle, with one difference. Selecting which factually correct NPOV statements will go in an article isn't something we're allowed to do; it's something we're required to do. Otherwise we couldn't write articles. JamesMLane 10:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no guideline for selcting quotes, but those selected quotes do not belong here, they belong in Wikiquote. No other article in Misplaced Pages is so full of quotes drom a particular individual who also has an enty in Wikiquote, and no one has shown me otherwise. Unless someone can provide me with a reason that all these quotes belong in the article and not in Wikiquote, and no one has yet to provide me with a sufficiently good reason based on precident in an other article, I really am at a loss to see how the ammount of quotes here does not bias the article in a certain negative POV. What is notable in Misplaced Pages has to be based on an outside reference, notability is not solely up to the determination of editors. Any particular quote from Coulter which has drawn fire from her critics may be fair game, but the assertion that this particular collection of quotes educates the reader on her polemic style is subjective and not supported by any outside reference. So either provide some indication from an outside source that this particular collection educates the reader on her polemic style or this will fall under the category of original research. TDC 04:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm seeing more and more of this resort to the "no original research" policy in wholly inappropriate ways. Thousands of Misplaced Pages articles involve the selection of facts on the basis of notability. In every case I know of, notability is indeed "solely up to the determination of editors". We require outside sources for the facts. We don't require citation of some outside source saying, "This statement is not only true but it's particularly important as well." Instead, we discuss the different factors that affect notability. That a fact has been highlighted by critics would be one such but not the only one.

• On notability:

Notability is most certainly not up to the sole discretion of the user, Misplaced Pages:Importance. That is one reason why articles get VFD's every day, because there is some basic relatively agreed upon standard of notability.

Who is judging the notability of a particular quote? Is it you? Is it another user? Is it many users? Or is it an outside source commenting on the notability of the disputed quotes, because if it it any other that the outside source, that

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data,

Out of the millions of words Coulter has written, who exactly is deciding and on what grounds are they determining the notability of the selected quotes.

You are claiming that "this is providing a good cross section of Coulter's writings". Are you a critic with the New York Times, Washington Post, or Newsweek? If not, then the claim that these are "a good cross section of Coulter's writings", is your opinion and not supported by any outside source of notability.

That a fact has been highlighted by critics would be one such but not the only one.

What other objective factors for notability are there?

You seem unwilling or unable to accept the repeated invitations to you to supplement these quotations with others that will balance out the POV. Is your objection that the quotations have been unfairly selected and don't represent a cross-section of Coulter's thinking? Or is your objection that they do fairly represent her, and you're concerned that presenting the facts about her irresponsible style will leave some readers with a negative opinion about her? JamesMLane 05:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV is not going to come to this article simply by other users tit for tatting.

There in no good reason, or precedent to jam an article full of this many inciting quotes other than to bias the article.

I will ask you again, please provide me with another similar article (pundit of some sort) that has this many quotes in it and where the subject in question does not have a page on Wikiquote?

Once you are unable to find this, ask yourself, why should this article be the lone exception? TDC 05:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Coulter is unlike 99.99% of our article subjects in that her notability derives almost entirely from her propensity to toss off quotations like these. If articles about other similarly situated people have had all the quotes excised, I'd favor including a few there, too, even if there's a full set in Wikiquote. (I just took a quick look at Dorothy Parker. I think that article should quote a few of her aphorisms, to give the reader an idea of her style, though the analogy isn't exact because the specific quotations are less important to a biography of Parker.)

Now, since you're so keen on challenging other editors to find similar examples, I'll give you a challenge. Find some other fairly detailed Misplaced Pages biographical articles where the selection of facts to be mentioned -- not just the confirmation of the information, but the determination that those facts are notable and merit inclusion -- is based solely on objective criteria; where a critic for the New York Times or some similar outside source has pronounced each specific fact to be an important one. (By the way, what are the objective criterion for deciding which critics or experts are sage enough to give opinions that constitute objective criteria?) Of course it's not a matter of "the sole discretion of the user", but it's also not a straightforward process like determining whether she spells her name "Ann" or "Anne", which is what you seem to be implying. JamesMLane 06:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Things like her age where she grew up where she went to school (unless they are in dispute) are objective facts and require no specific source unless asked for.

These quotes are being presented as defining Coulters work and that is a subjective opinion. I could argue that these quotes are not defining of Coulters work or beliefs or whatever, and that too would be a subjective opinion.

Wiki Users are not allowed to interject ours or anyones subjective opinion into articles unless we cover it with a citation.

Asked and answered. Coulter is unlike 99.99% of our article subjects in that her notability derives almost entirely from her propensity to toss off quotations like these.

I could find many other figures like Coulter who have said as many inflammatory things as she has, so she is not unique. And thank you for admitting that the usage of quotes in this article is unique to this article. TDC 17:40, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I will ask you again, please provide me with another similar article (pundit of some sort) that has this many quotes in it and where the subject in question does not have a page on Wikiquote?

Can you cite Misplaced Pages policy that prohibits or discourages duplicate content between Wikiquote and Misplaced Pages? What if the Wikimedia foundation discontinued Wikiquote? --kizzle 16:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

There is none, in fact a certain level of overlapping is encouraged. But why is this article different from every other article from every other pundit/political writer? TDC 17:40, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Using that reasoning one could justify copying quotes from Wikiquote into Misplaced Pages in any article, which I think would be quite excessive. If the Wikiumedia foundation discontinued Wikiquote then those who are interested in the quotes should download the database dump and find someone else who's willing to mirror it. This is the beauty of free content. Bryan 17:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

If we did it on every article, yes that would be excessive. But there is demand here to keep them in, why do we need to remove simply due to the mere existence of WikiQuote? --kizzle 17:37, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the basic assumption that quotes from Coulter are biased against her and the more quotes the more bias strike anyone as a bit bizarre? Would anyone use the same argument if the Shakespeare article seemed to have too many quotes? If the Abraham Lincoln article did? Are the 'quotes equal bias' folks willing to settle for just stipulating that 'the things that Coulter says or writes make her out to be quite an asshole, here are a few examples:'? Gzuckier 17:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for illustrating my point that the only reason that this many quotes have been included in the article as a not so subtle way of POV pushing. TDC 17:40, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

So you are equating selection of quotes with subjective opinion. In addition, your solution to this proposed subjectiveness is to only quote by proxy through other people who discuss Coulter. Does this mean, as Gzuckier said, that we apply this standard to all other articles? Or is this article special? --kizzle 17:43, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Once again: These quotes are being presented as defining Coulters work, If that is indeed what they are bieng used for, and thats pretty clear, then who is doing the defining? TDC 20:40, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

If not us, then who? --kizzle 22:22, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Her critics. Wiki editors defining Coulter is POV Original Research. It is not up to us to define the work, just give the views of those who do. TDC 03:09, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

So we are only allowed to quote Ann Coulter by proxy of her critics. Does this mean, as Gzuckier said, that we apply this standard to all other articles? Or is this article special?--kizzle 19:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, quotation by proxy is what is done on many other articles as well. We cannot simply pull a quote from Noam Chomsky (an article I have had quite a bit of experience with), and say that we believe it is indicative of his political beliefs on X, Y, or Z. That would be original research. But fortunately someone else has done this for the editor. TDC 20:44, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

TDC, thanks for your input. I should tell you up front that I provided four of the quotes used in the article. As the article says, Coulter relishes the role of a controversialist. Some controversial quotes are definitely relevant as indicative of the controversies she involves herself in. In fact two of the quotes I provided were from a promotional advertisement for her book, and one was from a talking Ann Coulter doll she promoted on her website.

Coulter is also known to respond in interviews with buffoonish satire of those who use verbal attacks to engage, stun or misdirect their audience by conjuring up a dramatic departure from the ordinary. Unfortunately a certain individual has compiled a list of these satirical remarks and presented them, along with others, stripped of their original context, having the effect of misleading those who read them, and delighting those who oppose Coulter. From this collection of 31 mainly out-of-context quotes, editors have attempted to introduce 20 of them, and 13 (one half of the total quotes in the article) that remain in the article are found in this unreliable source, and 11 of these are unconfirmed by any other source. I have been meaning to remove them, but have not had the time.

Of these 11 quotes, two of them are particularly misleading and I have provided the context that helps the reader to evaluate them more appropriately and would like them to remain for the length of time they have mislead readers (approx. 5 months).

I propose removing the remaining 9 quotes as a start. If there gets to be too few, we can always add more from the legitimate source listed under the quotes section. The problem with Coulter quotes isn't that there's not enough quotes that could be used to define her work, it's that there's so many! 64.154.26.251 03:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I want to be perfectly clear in saying that I am for including needed context, or removing quotes which have no citations. It sounds like 64 knows quite a bit about these quotes, I would personally love to have context or other missing info added to these quotes if they are misleading. This is a much better start towards editing this page than simply arbitrarily disliking the number of quotes. --kizzle 03:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Kizzle 64.154.26.251 04:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

TDC, I'm sorry I didn't read your argument carefully enough. As for your argument that we shouldn't define Coulter's work, I think what we are really doing is defining her style. The section divisions (On Safety Nets, On Women, etc.) may be misleading in that they seem to imply a definitive opinion is to follow. I have always regarded them in a semi-humorous light. It reads as if someone were choosing various general topics and then letting Coulter expound improvisationally on them. The problem comes when an unreliable source is used to produce content that's all the same (for example, by only selecting her "slash-and-burn" humor out of context) in one of the topics.

I think a good criterion for selecting quotes as defining Coulter's style is if they are carefully crafted and encapsulize in an original and clever way something that you thought had been discussed to death. 64.154.26.251 04:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Other valid criteria would include: quotations that exemplify aspects of her style; quotations that have attracted a lot of media attention; and, based on your comment above, quotations that are verbatim accurate but that have been taken out of context by Coulter critics and used to paint a misleading picture. In that last category, we should of course, as kizzle says, provide the context. We would be doing a service to the reader by explaining a quotation that the reader might encounter, without the explanation, on some other site. JamesMLane 07:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, James. I should warn everyone however, that all 11 of the unconfirmed quotes are from television shows and are thus very difficult to provide context for. What I did was research the story behind one of the quotations mentioned, that someone by sheer coincidence had provided on Wikiquote. For other quotes it's easy to build a circumstantial case that they are out of context and even what the context was from the facts known about Coulter's opinions and her known style of argument. For others it's more difficult.

By the way if anyone wants to still dispute this source puts quotes out of context, give it a rest: the cat's out of the bag. Hundreds of thousands of Time readers learned of it in the April 24, 2005 Ann Coulter issue. It talks about an out-of-context quote from this very source that appeared for 5½ months in this very Misplaced Pages article:

People say that Jon Stewart has blurred the line between news and humor, but his Daily Show airs on a comedy channel. Coulter goes on actual news programs and deploys so much sarcasm and hyperbole that she sounds more like comedian Dennis Miller on one of his rants than Limbaugh. Consider an exchange on Fox News in June 2001 with Peter Fenn, a Democratic strategist. At the time, Barbra Streisand had suggested that Californians practice more conservation, to which Coulter responded:

COULTER: God gave us the earth.

FENN: Oh, O.K.

COULTER: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the seas.

FENN: Oh, this is a great idea.

COULTER: God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’

FENN: Oh, terrific. We’re Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth’s resources—

COULTER: Yes. Yes!

FENN: —as fast as we possibly can.

COULTER: As opposed to living like the Indians.

Coulter and Fenn were both laughing. But her rape-the-planet bit would later be wrenched from context and repeatedly quoted as Coulter nuttiness. “What p_____ me off,” Coulter says, “is when they don’t get the punch line.”

Hey 64, if you're going to start making edits to this page, you might want to sign up for a username so people are less likely to see vandalism rather than contributions, as this page is highly contested. --kizzle 00:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, stepping outside partisanship for the nonce, Circularity has now raised its ugly head. We are informed that NPOV only permits use of quotes to illustrate examples of how her critics quote her; we are also informed that

"Unfortunately a certain individual has compiled a list of these satirical remarks and presented them, along with others, stripped of their original context, having the effect of misleading those who read them, and delighting those who oppose Coulter. From this collection of 31 mainly out-of-context quotes, editors have attempted to introduce 20 of them, and 13 (one half of the total quotes in the article) that remain in the article are found in this unreliable source, and 11 of these are unconfirmed by any other source. I have been meaning to remove them, but have not had the time."

So. NPOV prevents us from using quotes that are not used by her critics, and also requires us to remove those quotes which we deem incorrectly used by her critics.

That's not "and"; it's "or". I (a.k.a. "64") disagree with TDC's claim that we can't select quotes to render a fair representation of Coulter's style.

Original research by quoting Coulter directly is not permitted, but original research in the sense of researching the use of quotes by critics in order to debunk them is a good thing. All in the name of NPOV.

How else do we discern between those who quote Coulter fairly and those who quote her out of context simply because they want us to dislike her? Coulter likes to do a parody of the style of a strident Hollywood liberal insulated from reality and given to flights of drama. She also realized that that aspect of her persona was ironically being used against her by liberals who didn't get the parody or by liberals who did who were resentful of it and/or wanted to curb her influence.

At least once Coulter even baited people to quote her out of context by making a remark in a hostile, strident, recklessly self-dramatizing style with no context whatsoever so that her more careful readers could laugh at the picture of the reactionary gloating by liberals who felt lucky to have "discovered" the quote that was sure to follow. Don't Misplaced Pages editors likewise have an obligation to use their intelligence to generally avoid either being played for dupes and/or to allow their article to have its truth subverted in order to retaliate against its subject through personal or political vendettas?

For the record, I agree with the statement posted further up that 'no original research' is being badly abused here and elsewhere; I would be in favor of both the editor who tracks down the context of quotes (although probably it would be more productive to provide the context as a rebuttal rather than to delete the second hand quote)

But if the quote needs a context, it's generally not a self-contained quote, or it's a quote in which Coulter is parodying a certain style for a particular comedic opportunity presented in the discussion that is usually tiresome to explain.

and the editor who inserts illustrative quotes. They should be edited for redundancy and for significance (i.e. Coulter's opinions on lip gloss, just as a hypothetical example, wouldn't seem to be something worthy of inclusion) but using quotes to display that Coulter has a pronounced bias is hardly something worthy of labeling POV. Gzuckier 15:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Bear in mind, Coulter is both advocate and reporter. An advocate supports one point of view over another. The most likely notable of her style of quotes would be when she is advocating something. So I don't see that bias, which has to do with reporting, not advocating, would come into play very often. 216.119.136.104 05:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

And again

"Coulter making fun of Helen Thomas's eyebrows isn't particularly noteworthy" Well, yes it is; the self-styled puncturer of the hateful Democrats publicly ridiculing a noted journalist's eyebrows is indeed noteworthy. I repeat, we're going to remove every embarassing quote of Coulter's until this articles as thin as she is, because we're sure as hell never going to find a quote which makes anybody think of her in a positive light. Gzuckier 21:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think people need to stop complaining about the quotes that are there, and either provide missing context or balance out with quotes that make her look good. --kizzle 22:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much a matter of balance - at least it isn't to me. I just find the vast number of quotes superfluous, to say the least. I haven't seen any other Wiki article so filled with quotes (not to mention any article in any 'real' encyclopedia). Really, all it takes is a link to the Wikiquote page, and this article would then be trimmed by quite a bit. --patton1138 22:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Redundancy is something which can be argued for, but personally, I didn't find the amount of quotes to be redundant, or at least I definetely wasn't bored while reading through them. Coulter's statements, while inflammatory, provides an entertaining read at the very least. --kizzle 23:53, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Insult humor vs. insulting humor

One editor wanted to replace "often including the use of insult humor" with "often including the usage of insulting humor", in the lead sentence. There is a subtle difference, which explains why I think the first is better. "Insult humor" implies a particular and categorizable style of humor. Which is what Coulter uses: it's a highly stylized and deliberately designed humor. "Insulting humor" can refer to humor that insults even though it's not intended to or planned to. It also implies by the non-familiar phraseology there is a lack of style or method involved to the humor, which is not the quality that makes it particularly characteristic of Coulter's.

Another editor wanted to add "vitriolic" to "commentator with a reputation for criticism of liberal politics through provocative polemics". "Vitriolic" is redundant in supplying meaning to the sense of the phrase "provocative polemics". Besides, whenever she applies any "vitriol" broadly, it's done for a cheap laugh. 64.154.26.251 21:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism Allegations

I would like to discuss the following recent addition:

Plagiarism allegations

Michael Chapman, a colleague of Coulter’s at Human Events, complained to the magazine's editors in late 1998 that much of her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors had really been written by him and another writer for an abandoned book project, later partially published as an article in the magazine in May 1997, which concluded that Clinton's behavior didn't meet the eponymous standards for impeachment, contrary to what Coulter's book says. He claimed all she did before submitting it to publisher Regnery Gateway was make some cosmetic changes of phrasing.

Chapman sent a letter of complaint to the board of the Phillips Foundation, which publishes HE. The matter was not discussed outside the conservative movement until a 2001 article in The Boston Globe whose publication Coulter had threatened to sue to stop. The paper's media critic, Alex Beam, reviewed both Coulter's book and the unpublished Chapman manuscript and found many similar passages.

Coulter has denied ever knowing Chapman, despite the two having written for the magazine at the same time and frequently attending the same editorial meetings.

(Michael Chapman, a colleague of Coulter’s at Human Events, complained to the magazine's editors in late 1998 that much of her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors had really been written by him and another writer for an abandoned book project,)

According to the source you cite, much amounts to about 7 pages.

(later partially published as an article in the magazine in May 1997, which concluded that Clinton's behavior didn't meet the eponymous standards for impeachment, contrary to what Coulter's book says.)

I found two sources: one liberal , one conservative that said that this magazine article was a group project by members of the Human Events writing staff, including Coulter herself, and that it would be wrong to attribute the article solely to Chapman.

(He claimed all she did before submitting it to publisher Regnery Gateway was make some cosmetic changes of phrasing.)

Actually he said his work was "rewritten" and "paraphrased", and scattered throughout the book, except for a cluster in one chapter. But from the way you phrase it, you'd think that Coulter had been such a crude plagiarizer that the whole book or at least "much" of it consisted of the whole article en bloc submitted to the publisher with a little beautification.

And according to the source you cite, it's not even known for certain that Coulter actually reworked the phrases. It may have been written by David Wagner, Coulter's second try at using a ghost-writer. And if she did, she easily could have done it unknowingly by receiving Chapman's material from Wagner and thinking it was Wagner's work, or by receiving it from editor-in-chief Thomas Winter (who was known to have received it from Chapman), thinking it was part of a Human Events group project that Winter had gotten an okay for Coulter to use.

(Chapman sent a letter of complaint to the board of the Phillips Foundation, which publishes HE. The matter was not discussed outside the conservative movement until a 2001 article in The Boston Globe whose publication Coulter had threatened to sue to stop. The paper's media critic, Alex Beam, reviewed both Coulter's book and the unpublished Chapman manuscript and found many similar passages.)

Which has the much more likely non-plagiaristic explanation stated above. Which party in this affair actually accused Coulter of plagiarism? A letter of complaint would not necessarily target Coulter herself. And the only person in the CoulterWatch article cited as accusing Coulter of plagiarism is the author of the article himself.

(Coulter has denied ever knowing Chapman, despite the two having written for the magazine at the same time and frequently attending the same editorial meetings)

I don't know the names of many people in my department at work, and have never spoken to some, despite the fact that we all attend safety meetings every month. Coulter may simply have been uninterested in the literary efforts of many of her co-workers.

This addition seems like it's by someone who wants to paint a false picture of Coulter by linking together a selective (and selectively distorted) series of facts about the circumstances of this affair after intoning that some unknown responsible party has already concluded the worst about them. Thereby giving grounds for its removal. 64.154.26.251 21:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Please fix the material rather than deleting it wholesale. It is undoubtedly true that the accusation has been made and it is apparently true that it has been taken seriously by some parties. There should be an NPOV way of covering this. -Willmcw 22:09, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

(Please fix the material rather than deleting it wholesale).

First of all, it has not been deleted. It has been reproduced in its entirety here in the discussion section.

(It is undoubtedly true that the accusation has been made)

A mere accusation against the subject of a Misplaced Pages article does not rise to the threshhold of notability. This is especially the case when no responsible individual is willing to present evidence of the accusation. I found a reproduction of 80% of the Boston Globe article at this liberal website . Nowhere does it accuse Coulter of plagiarism. And the Coulterwatch article contains the bald accusation of theft, but as I detailed above, its description of events doesn't suggest plagiarism any more than other more innocent explanations, especially if we can trust the report that the editors compiled shared articles by many writers on the staff, including Coulter and Chapman together at one point.

(and it is apparently true that it has been taken seriously by some parties.)

Oh really? I did a Yahoo search for the title of the Boston Globe article, and came up with a commentary on the Democratic Underground containing no carriage returns, The Practical Radical, which literally contains a smeared picture of Coulter, and three reproductions or links to the article, with no commentary, on some blogs. The Globe article itself calls her a "Clinton-basher", "basher" being a word that comes from the phrase "queer basher" indicating the crudeness and irrationality of attack in contradiction to her known skilled analytical abilities, then continues in that vein by sexistly calling her a "poster-girl".

(There should be an NPOV way of covering this. -Willmcw 22:09, May 15, 2005 )

The subject might be deserving of a footnote in a section about her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors. If the addition were to be rewritten to remove bias and added now, it would be a clear case of Wikisquatting For those of you unfamiliar with the term, in this case I'd define my usage as writing an article or part of an article about a detail of a subject before that subject itself has been written.

And even if we did have a section about the book, I would recommend against "fixing" the addition. It would set a bad precedent. It would encourage people to simply go to watch sites or fan sites and dump unedited, uncited, unresearched material onto the wiki article, depending on whether they wanted people to like Coulter or dislike her, and know that those who cared more about a NPOV article than they did would be their servants in editing, citing and researching the material so they could spend more of their time on what they wish to do, which is to go around attempting to add bias to other articles, the subjects of which they want people to like or dislike. No, the individual who wrote it should come back and fix it himself or herself. As I said, in this particular case I reproduced the entire section here in the discussion section. 216.119.143.32 06:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Critisism

This section is way too heavily weighted with Franken critisims. One or two of them need to be removed, and maybe some different ones added. --The_stuart 18:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No no, keep them! The more, the merrier!--OleMurder 22:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• • No, this is flawed logic. There is no need for numerous critisims from the same person. The guy has written dozens of books just critisizing conservatives, and dedicated whole chapters to her. If we are truly intrested in displaying relevant critisims of her, they should be from more than one person. Anyone who knows nothing about her would look at this and think that only one person critisizes her.--The_stuart 18:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What about Bryan Zepp Jamieson or Jeff Koopersmith ? Shoaler 18:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• These should be added in place of the Franken stuff.--The_stuart 20:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• At least two of these Franken quotes need to go, as I said before this section is too heavily weighted with Franken quotes. So let's vote (1,2,3, or 4).

1.Al Franken in his Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them argues that Coulter misrepresents the articles she cites, and devotes two chapters to what he believes are false and misleading statements in her Slander.

2.Franken also asserts that, although a newspaper's editorials represent its chosen position, Coulter treats any sentence found anywhere in The New York Times as reflecting the newspaper's official opinion. He claims that if a New York Times book review asks people on both sides of an issue to give their opinions, Coulter will represent any quotation she finds offensive as the official position of the newspaper.

Ann Coulter counters by arguing that Franken's chapters contain false accusations, and suggesting that liberal newspapers are prone to make errors of omission that can be much more serious. (Coulter, 2003)

3.As an example of Franken's criticism, he mentions a comment in Slander which states "Bush had won any count" of the 2000 Florida recount, and cites a Washington Post article with the contrary headline, "Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of All Uncounted Ballots". It could be argued that this is a misrepresentation, but it could also be argued that by "any count", Coulter meant any count that had been actually legally pursued by the Democrats rather than hypothetical cases (See U.S. Presidential Election, 2000: The Florida Ballot Project recounts).

4.Franken also asserts, based on a September 6, 2002, Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43120-2002Sep5?language=printer), that there is a discrepency between the birthdate on Coulter's Connecticut driver's license and her District of Columbia driver's license. According to the Post article and Franken, the Connecticut license states that Coulter was born in 1961 whereas the District of Columbia license states she was born in 1963. Furthermore, Franken and the Post article claim that Coulter's voter registration in Connecticut states she was born in 1961. Franken claims this is evidence that Coulter deliberately provided an incorrect birth year on at least one government form and thus committed perjury.

I'm voting 4 should stay since it is actually cited.

--The_stuart 19:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Canada and the Vietnam War

I would like to discuss this subsection:

More recently, however, a Time Magazine article on Coulter dated April 25, 2005, stated "Canada did send noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972." Media watchdog FAIR disputes this assertion, however, saying that writer John Cloud was "making quite a stretch" to prove that Coulter wasn't inaccurate. They explain: "Canada was officially neutral during the Vietnam War, so if any noncombat troops were sent they would not have been sent to support U.S. forces there." FAIR also notes that the alleged troops sent are not mentioned "in a detailed 1975 U.S. Army history, Allied Participation in Vietnam." Canada sent officials to Vietnam in 1954 and 1973 as observers with the International Commission for Control and Supervision.

This subsection contains an interesting discussion about Canada's involvement or lack of involvement in the Vietnam War. It claims that John Cloud wanted to "prove that Coulter wasn't inaccurate". If that were true, we might have grounds for including the quote. But actually, Cloud only mentioned the non-combat troops to basically say, paraphrasing Cloud's words, "Bob McKeown was wrong too" when he made a blanket statement about Canada sending no troops to Vietnam. But this article isn't about Bob McKeown, or about John Cloud and whether he was wrong to call the Canadian monitors that were sent to Vietnam "troops". Such speculation is not necessary to show Coulter was indeed mistaken about Canada sending troops as allies of the United States, nor does it help excuse Coulter of her mistake, since she already admitted the mistake and offered a different reason for making it. These are the grounds I am employing for removing this subsection. 216.119.143.4 19:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Racism

I don't mean to be confrontational, but I object to the attempt to change "Coulter has also drawn criticism for frequently making racist remarks, particularly against people of Middle Eastern descent" to "Coulter has also drawn criticism for frequently making what some perceive to be racist remarks...". When something is this clear I don't think it's right to blur things like that. If someone said "Black people are stupid" would it be wrong to state clearly that this person made a racist remark? How could these comments be perceived as non-racist? Anyone who does not object to her racist remarks doesn't do so because they're somehow not racist on another level, but simply because they agree with her racist conclusions. I realize that the strength of my argument is weakened by my dislike of Coulter, but for the sake of analogy using individuals whose work I value, I would not oppose a statement that Bakunin made several anti-Semitic remarks or that Nietzsche made sexist remarks. Certainly true, and flaws on their characters; the same holds for Coulter. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Because making a judgment upon such text, however obvious it may be to some, abandons a neutral voice when we come to conclusions for the reader. If it is as obvious as you say (which I agree, in this case), then the readers should have no problem coming to the same conclusion as you did. Lets just not spoon-feed them. --kizzle 19:47, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I'll change "some" to "many" though to avoid the appearance that the opinions of her detractors are minority views. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

If you agree with Kizzle's argument about POV and spoon-feeding, then you shouldn't claim that her arguments are racist - instead, let people decide. I'm trying to imagine any other encyclopedia describing a contemporary writer as racist (short of someone who advocates lynchings). A charge of racism is an inflammatory remark (to an admittedly inflammatory wirter). However, what it fails to do is illuminate, in any way, the character of the subject. Ann Coulter's public pronouncements may well be racist (I see little inherently racist with most of what is listed in the article), but labelling her a racist seems to be more an attempt to degrade her character than anything else. Finally, why "avoid the appearance that the opinions of her detractors are minority views"? You haven't demonstrated that there is any sort of agreement by even some that she is a racist. I made the initial edit to change from your originial, and clearly POV formulation, to some perceive. I tried to find a compromise. After reading what has thus far been provided, I no longer believe that a compromise is in order.Rkevins82 21:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to discuss this new addition as well:

Coulter has also drawn criticism for frequently making what many perceive to be racist remarks, particularly against people of Middle Eastern descent. For instance, following the 9/11 attacks she argued that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." A minor controversy ensued after Coulter denounced Helen Thomas, calling her an "old Arab." In other instances she has referred to the Middle East as a "swamp" and advocated racial profiling.

This section was written by someone who not only isn't aware of the discussion dealing with allegations of Coulter being racist, but he doesn't seem to have even finished reading the article. Later in the article is a quote that places the quotation he cites in context, a pretty important context too, since it defines the meaning of the word "them", the direct object of who she's referring to. Coulter is a supporter of racial equality, and that support extends to her personal life. She once dated a Muslim and an Indian as well (Dinesh D'Souza. Politically incorrect statements are not the same as racist ones, sometimes they are meant humorously as the television show Politically Incorrect demonstrates, on which Coulter frequently appeared.

Perhaps this person can also tell us why he thinks every comparison of someone to an arab is denunciation and meant to indicate an arab is something that no one would want to be compared to. Isn't this really a case of someone interjecting his own POV expectations about Coulter into what may be a neutral statement? And isn't the generalizing phrase "advocating racial profiling" remarkable in sweeping her concern that 3,000 more Americans not be slaughtered through hijacking the nation's aircraft into the irrelevant (and racially charged) area of municipal police harassment of minorities?

These are the grounds I am employing for removing it. 64.154.26.251 22:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

She has been called a racist in response to all examples I put in that paragraph and thus it stays, because it is part of a summary of criticism she has received. It doesn't really matter if you disagree with said criticism so I'm not going to debate your points. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

We can't quote any criticism whatsoever, it has to be fair criticism; i.e. defensible in discussion. You don't seem to be able to even to present the criticism in a fair (non-biased) manner. Or is that because the criticism isn't fair in the first place? 64.154.26.251 01:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that Tothebarricades.tk seems to have accepted the "what some perceive to be" part as a compromise between removing the racism paragraph and saying directly that she is a racist. I support this NPOV compromise, and will revert any future removal of the paragraph. I also suggest we quote notable sources that say she is racist, to avoid the vague "some". — Chameleon 00:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC).

Racist is here being employed here as a blanket term for anything remotely politically incorrect. The author is not willing to defend his case as a fair presentation of any facts that we are supposed to believe would indicate Coulter makes racist remarks, a case which I have so far refuted. He has also not responded to observations about his paragraph that indicate he had neither read the article, nor the pertinent discussions about the kind of disputed facts he is introducing. These are necessary and appropriate measures any editor should take before contributing to a Misplaced Pages article, especially one who is trying to add such explosive allegations. The first measure is also a prior requirement for any "notable source" whose judgment is introduced in order to evaluate the evidence he or she used to make that judgment. This is not to suggest that I believe that any such source exists in this case.

Until the editor addresses the concerns I raised about the insubstantiality of his charges, I am removing the paragraph. If either Chameleon or the editor chooses to revert before discussion takes place, I will take the matter to Misplaced Pages:Requests for Comment 64.154.26.251 01:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue is presented in a neutral manner: many perceive the following comments to be racist, here they are, which include advocacy of mass conversions. If you don't think that's racist, whatever. But most people would. A google search for "'Ann Coulter' AND 'racism'" produces a good 73,900 results: take a look for yourself if you want sources (here's something from Kos, here's one from CounterPunch, here's another). As for your other allegations, I have indeed read the article and was considering just saying something to the effect of, to see more proof that Coulter is a racist, look at the quotes section for a feast of bigotry. How about the literacy test/poll tax comment? That one's rich. That beats out Trent Lott.

Your entire argument depends on some imagined tolerant, liberal Ann Coulter that lies behind her vitriolic hate speech and a very narrow defintion of racism, one which is not shared by her critics: mind you, the opinion of her critics is the subject of the section in question. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Somehow, Kos, CounterPunch, and a software company (which I've never heard of) say that Ann Coulter is racist, I am to believe it is so! This is indulgence of the highest order. You said that her critics have described her as racist, falling back to Google page counts. Let's take a look at who is calling her a racist on Google: Move Left Media, Media Transparency (a liberal group that seeks to debunk conservatives in the media), Counter Punch (not exactly the Grey Lady), crooksandliars.com, a Mac homepage, Democratic Underground, Change for America, and Reclaim the Media make up the first two pages. The rest are articles defending her or her charging racism (however improvidently). I'm not sure this is the kind of support I would rest on to show even a sembleance of most people thinking someone was racist. Looking at this more - and the arguments being made - I am further resolved that we shouldn't be calling a commentator racist for advocating positions that are disagreeable but not definitely racist.Rkevins82 05:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you believe. This is not an essay. It is an encyclopedia. The purpose of the section is to show the opinions of her critics, not to silence them in order to propagate the consensus reality of the right wing. We are not calling her racist, we are saying that some have argued that she is, which you have frankly admitted by listing about a dozen sources which include high-traffic websites. --Tothebarricades.tk 05:44, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I believe? Has this degraded to the level of elementary school recess? I'm not trying to silence anything - though you just did. I'm also not admitting she's racist, only that a handful of liberal groups say she is. Would you make it Misplaced Pages policy to label anyone racist (or at least say that many label her so) who is called racist by opponents, no matter how ideologically driven? That is beyond the pale. I would like to note here that I am not reverting the article, to any who may be passing through; just trying to work through the reasoning here.Rkevins82 06:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding juvenile, what I meant was - our beliefs don't matter because we're just trying to preserve NPOV.The article does not say: "Ann Coulter is racist." If it did I could understand your point. If a handful of liberal groups say she is racist then it's worth noting that a handful of liberal groups say she's racist - since "liberal groups" make up virtually 100% of her critics, and the section is "Criticism." We note the comments of conservative groups on the Noam Chomsky page, as small and unknown to those of opposing views they might be. I'm not flooding the article with criticism (like the Chomsky page is), I'm just trying to show some key points brought up by coulter's detractors. I think I'm being fairly reasonable. I don't want to argue with you guys, I just want to present a fair picture of the criticism she has receieved. Henceforth, let us edit this page as if we have no opinion! :) --Tothebarricades.tk 06:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

You are proceeding as if you know the opinion of those you are arguing. I don't take Ann Coulter seriously and she would not make my list of the 10 best conservative writers (if I were to have one). I am no fan of hers. I, just like you, am trying to improve the article. This just strikes me as a strange inclusion. Should we note all of the accusations against all controversial figures, no matter the source or reasoning? I will offer a fig leaf since you have been concilliatory. Replace the whole bit about "many" with the name of one or two of her vociferous critics with a citation. Rkevins82 06:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well that's the thing, very few people take her seriously. So the best places to find criticism of off-the-wall rightwingers like Coulter are places like Kos, Atrios, and to a lesser extent lefty periodicals like Counterpunch. And the best place to find praise of her are similarly fringe sites and publications from the right. --Tothebarricades.tk 08:01, May 29, 2005 (UTC)--Tothebarricades.tk 08:01, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to find compromise. I support the change.Rkevins82 18:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Structure of Writing / Removal of POV

It seems that the only people editing this article have a POV. The entire article after the first paragraph is POV. If the whole article is not to be removed, then some way must be found to provide balance to the paragraphs. Normally, news articles handle this by placing a quote or portion of evidence supporting one POV followed by a critique. I think this would be most effective. For example, on a particular book, it is appopriate to include a review summarizing the impact from one POV and followed by a critique from another POV. Finding obscure facts to support some position may be the risk, but it is a lot better than blatant POV.

--Noitall 22:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Less drama about removing the article, more editing what you think a balance is. --kizzle 00:54, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. I dislike the woman, but it seems to me every one of the quotes listed exists for the sole reason of making her look foul. Which she is. But that's not what the article is supposed to show- there's got to be SOME quote out there that doesn't make her look like a raving psychopath.--Deridolus 08:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You said it yourself: She is foul. The reason the quotes are unflattering is because she can't make an appearance on television or write a column without saying something offensive. This comes across in the article not because of any POV commentary in the article but it comes from the quotes themselves. The most frequently objected to section of the article is the quotes section. And it's just a list of things Coulter has said.--198.93.113.49 14:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deridolus you are exactly right. The quotes are mostly plucked out of her many articles or appearances without any context and solely from one POV. This is not what Wiki is about regardless of a person's opinion regarding Coulter or any other person. --Noitall 11:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geez. For the nth time, if anybody, anybody, feels the choice of quotes is slanted, all that's necessary is to add a quote or two which show her thoughtful, wise, compassionate, etc. side. Period. It's like complaining that the Hitler page is POV because all the quotes make him out to be antisemitic. Gzuckier 15:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The quotes are mostly plucked out of her many articles or appearances without any context and solely from one POV.

Noitall, its really quite simple. Why don't you add the missing context? --kizzle 16:58, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If any quote is missing context then please add whatever context is needed to understand what she is saying. Or at least point out specific quotes and problems so someone else can correct it.--198.93.113.49 13:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can't someone find some decent criticisms?

From the article:

As an example of Franken's criticism, he mentions a comment in Slander which states "Bush had won any count" of the 2000 Florida recount, and cites a Washington Post article with the contrary headline, "Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of All Uncounted Ballots".

So a Washington Post headline says there's a study that states that Coulter might have been wrong. This criticism is too nitpicky to include in my opinion. I suggest that it be taken out. Surely someone will come up with some real critcism at some point.--198.93.113.49 15:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the content of the article itself is contrary to Coulter's view that "Bush had won any count"... given a full recount of the state of Florida, Gore would have won, only under the partial recounts (suggested by Gore) did Gore lose. So maybe we can rephrase and quote directly from the article itself, I'll do this when I have time. --kizzle 17:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

If there is documentation that shows that what you say is true it should be in the article. If there is not the criticism should be taken out. Either way the article should not remain as it is.--198.93.113.49 13:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the Franken stuff is rather nitpicky. I took out a paragraph about her allegedly lying about her age which seemed the least important to me. There are some more general criticisms of her that aren't included here, but I'm hesitant to include them considering the reaction to the racism paragraph. One I'd like to add is criticism by feminists/pro-feminists of her attitudes toward women. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think criticisms of her attitude toward women would be very appropriate. My problem with the article is that sometimes it includes nitpicks against her, but ignores more serious and relevant criticisms.--198.93.113.49 13:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"EDITING ANN COULTER: FAQ

1. If you think the quotes only show her "bad side" please add some quotes that you feel show her good side, rather than just deleting the quotes.
2. If you think the quotes show her "bad side" because they are out of context, please add the context to clarify, rather than just deleting the quotes.

Thank you. Gzuckier 14:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Gzuckier and kizzle direction to editors is that they want to keep in their POV. Their solution is that the other side add its POV to provide balance. Perhaps that is the only solution. But it is a little like the MAD principle, Mutually Assured Destruction where the solution is to throw more nukes to solve a problem. In any event, quotations will have to have sources to provide the context that is demanded here.

--Noitall 00:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like how you say Gzuckier and I are trying to inject our POV and then come up with the same exact solution. --kizzle 01:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I may agree with the solution you stated because I generally prefer not to delete, even if it is blatant POV. I suppose I assumed that you had a POV because you demanded that I solve the problem instead of assisting with it yourself. I could be wrong on my assumption. --Noitall 02:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is including Coulters own words, verbatim, POV? The only way this could be POV is if the quote was out of context. Or if the quotes only demonstated one side of her position. The proposed solution in these instances is to add the context thereby removing the POV and adding more quotes thereby giving a fuller picture of what she actually says thereby removing the POV. How is that a POV solution?--198.93.113.49 13:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canada and Vietnam

In the article, it quotes someone as saying that Canada's official position on the Vietnam war was neutral - this isn't entirely accurate. Canada was officialy a "non-particapant", but it was certainly not neutral. The Canadian government at the time vocally supported the american effort in Vietnam. The same was true of the recent war against Iraq - the Canadian government didn't send troops, but at the same time it admitted during question period that it morally suppoerted the Americans and wanted them to win. Anon

• In point of fact, Canada's official government position was neutral- comments made in question period do not form official government policy. Having seen the original interview, it seems clear that Coulter was incorrect. As I wasn't alive during the Vietnam war, perhaps you could provide sources for the assertions you made about the Canadian govt.s involvement in it. --Scimitar 19:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As I recall, Canada was, as usual before the present era, in vocal support of the US, but by the time Trudeau got elected, was in a position to be not so supportive. Just my memories. Gzuckier 19:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New version

I don't see how my version is POV or biased. chocolateboy you keep reverting. Please let me know what is wrong with it.--Ben 20:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canada and the Vietnam War

In January 2005, Coulter gave an interview to CBC's The Fifth Estate (video clip of this part of the interview). At one point, she argued that Canada's uninvolvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated that Canada's "loyal friendship" with the United States had weakened. She contrasted the Canadian government's decision to not participate in the Iraq War with Canada's role in the Vietnam War.

"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?"

However, the comparison breaks down as, contrary to Coulter's statement, Canadian troops were not involved in the American campaign. Though the Canadian government had expressed support for the United States, and sent peacekeeping forces and noncombat assisstance later in the war, Canada was officially a non-participant (See Canada and the Vietnam War). Interviewer Bob McKeown corrected Coulter, noting that "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam," but Coulter insisted Canada had. After a short "he said, she said" dispute, She finally concluded "Well, I'll get back to you on that." Coulter did not get back in touch with the show.

In a subsequent interview on C-SPAN, Coulter was asked about her statement: "...you said the Canadians had troops in Vietnam and he said no they didn't, what is, did you find out of the real answer?"

"Yes. 10,000 Canadian troops--at least. There is a war memorial to them--at least for most..." this time referring to Canadian citizens who joined the American army. "The Canadian Government didn't send troops at the beginning, didn't send troops at the end--but most of that was not under the Canadian flag. They came and fought with the Americans. So I was wrong." In jest, she added "It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada."

Later in the interview, when asked about the taping of the CBC show, she added:

"I talked to him for three hours and the topic was not Canada's war history. It was an incidental point that he challenged me on and I didn't believe him because I had read about Canadian troops in Vietnam. I was right. People keep saying 'well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans' because I don't think he knew." ibid

Further detail about Canada's involvement in the Vietnam war can be found in the CBC's "Canada's Secret War: Vietnam".

----

• the comparison breaks down
• contrary to Coulter's statement
• Coulter insisted
• "Coulter did not get back in touch with the show. " vs "Later in the show, McKeown stated that Coulter never did get back in touch with The Fifth Estate, and reiterated the filmmakers' position that Canada had not sent troops to Vietnam. " (cf. "Ben's version is POV" and "... according to chocolateboy, Ben's version is POV". Note that both statements are "true" :-)
• "... this time referring to Canadian citizens who joined the American army" vs "In jest, she added... ". She's more than capable of speaking for herself, and her critics and supporters are more than capable of criticizing and defending her.

Ben/Wikipedia aren't primary sources.

You also censored the FAIR response which is both apropos (it's about Coulter on Canada and the Vietnam War rather than Canada and the Vietnam War) and verifiable.

chocolateboy 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

• The comparison does break down. This is readily apparent. Coulter admitted it breaks down because she admitted that the fact she was attempting to use as contrast was wrong. This is needed for flow and clarity.
• The facts are contrary to Coulter's statement. This is also needed for flow and clarity.
• Coulter did insist she was right. It only ends up being perjorative because she was wrong. McKeown insisted too. This is an accurate description of her actions.
• Coulter did not get back in touch with the show. The article does not need to beat around the bush with superfluous statements. The article needs to take ownership of the facts instead of offloading them onto McKeown and treating them as hearsay.
• It is important to note that Coulter meant it in jest. If interpreted that she meant it seriously, which, considering her manner of speech, is possible, it is a misrepresention of what she meant, similar to taking a quote out of context.
• I did not "censor" the last paragraph, I removed it because it is irrelevant. If anything it needs more context, however space is prohibitive and it does not contribute much of anything to the article.
• You didn't notice, but I also changed the punctuation in the quotes. This is needed because the original transcription was poorly written and confusing. Considering the difficulty in transcribing informal speech to text, I believe my version better represents her meaning.

Next time I'm going to tell it like I am a lawyer. If you still refuse to see my point the time after that will involve an RFC. --Ben 30 June 2005 20:49 (UTC)

(And just too add to the nice wikilinks you've provided: Equivocation, Amphiboly) --Ben 30 June 2005 22:02 (UTC)

---

If the following statements are truths universally acknowledged, they should be easy to support with citations from notable sources:

The comparison does break down. According to... ?

The facts are contrary to Coulter's statement. According to who?

Coulter did insist she was right. According to whom?

"Coulter admitted it breaks down" vs "It is important to note that Coulter meant it in jest." Which part of your own spin ("in jest") don't you understand?

"I removed it because it is irrelevant." cf. "You also censored the FAIR response which is both apropos (it's about Coulter on Canada and the Vietnam War rather than Canada and the Vietnam War) and verifiable."

"... the original transcription was poorly written and confusing." Yeah, the original was confusing ("The Canadian Government didn't send troops at the beginning, didn't send troops at the end, but most of that was not under the Canadian flag... "), but the current version is pretty far removed from the original transcript.

The article needs to take ownership of the facts

We don't own facts; we borrow them from notable sources. Misplaced Pages is not a primary source.

As I mentioned the last time this section turned into a soapbox, we don't say: "Contrary to Conan Doyle's belief, fairies don't exist"; nor do we say: "L. Ron Hubbard's claim that we are all descended from aliens breaks down because...". We avoid the landmines of controversy by speaking softly and carrying a big citation.

As for the RfC: bring it on.

chocolateboy 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Redirect

How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) is a book by bestselling right-wing author Ann Coulter.

The book is a collection of columns written by Ms. Coulter on varied topics, such as liberalism, war on terror and the media.

In the book Ann Coulter sums up liberals in one sentence:"Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States. "

Has the above info all been merged? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• collection of columns - significant because it's not the same as a "real book" (like Bishop Fulton Sheen's "book" which is just edited transcripts of his talks)
• the sum-up sentence - who found that? That sure seems to sum up her position! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. It doesn't sum up liberals, but it may sum up her opinion of liberals. I think the quote is useless. Rhobite 17:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion is not at issue here, it is her quote from the book. The page has been reinstated.And next time you do this try not to leave the templates in the talk page--CltFn 28 June 2005 12:25 (UTC)

It is your opinion that she "sums up liberals in one sentence". Rhobite June 28, 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Unless she says in the book that this quote, in her opinion, "sums up liberals in one sentence" then it is your opinion. "Sums up liberals" needs to be attributed to her too. Otherwise, it sounds as if you are asserting that it is truth rather than opinion. --Ben 30 June 2005 20:52 (UTC)