| Revision as of 18:18, 20 September 2021 editSpringee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,454 edits →a pseudoscientific antievolution ideology← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:11, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,311,583 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Journalists: General.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (38 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{calm}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Coulter, Ann|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-priority=mid |politician-work-group=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Connecticut |importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Creationism|Intelligent design=yes|Intelligent design-importance=low|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers |importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{To do|2}} |
|
{{Article History |
|
{{Article History |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1=PR |
| Line 6: |
Line 20: |
|
|action1oldid=942384819 |
|
|action1oldid=942384819 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{calm}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=B |politician-priority=mid |politician-work-group=yes |listas=Coulter, Ann}} |
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Michigan/Conservatives_and_Feminists_(Fall_2016) | assignments = ] }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Connecticut |importance=High |class=b}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Intelligent design |class=B |importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism |class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=B |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers |class=B |importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{To do|2}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive index |mask=Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive <#> |
|
|target=Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive index |mask=Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive <#> |
| Line 29: |
Line 27: |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 22 |
|
|counter = 23 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
| Line 35: |
Line 33: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 4 2016 (3rd)}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 4 2016 (3rd)}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Journalists|class=B}} |
|
|
{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months }} |
|
{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Comments on 2024 Presidential Campaign == |
|
== Anne Coulter states Kyle Rittenhouse for President of the United States. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Anne Coulter supports <blp violation> (Kyle Rittenhouse) and would like him to be president. ] (]) 14:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: ] (]) 14:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The edit was rightly removed as it had no citations and the claims being made were clear BLP violations against Coulter and Rittenhouse. As a minor point it failed to mention Coulter's comment was a tweet reply and more a comment of support vs clear statement of her intent. More importantly, {{u|Mmm123n}}'s edit stated Coulter supported a "white supremicist" and "serial killer" for president. That sort of implication needs clear RS which neither the WP nor this source support.] Second, it makes accusations against Rittenhouse, who is not a public figure, that are both serious and again unsubstantiated. That is why the post from a novice user was rightly removed. You restored it and clearly saw at least some of the issues as you removed some text here ]. I've removed additional BLP violations as part of this edit. ] (]) 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I've removed the Rittenhouse controversy material from the article. People like Coulter make many provocative comments. Their BLP should not turn into a laundry list of every thing they said that caused a stir among the various talking heads in the media. Additionally, this is an extremely RECENT event so we have no way of knowing if this how this will pan out in the end. Treating this with the same WEIGHT as other controversies is simply not DUE at this time and likely not due in the future. ] (]) 15:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I added this to controversies, but I do understand it being a very recent event. It will likely deserve at least a line at some point. I tried to add balance in my edit, at the very least, and did not reference Rittenhouse as a serial killer or white supremacist. One, Rittenhouse is a spree killer by definition; and two, although information proves that he was a strong police supporter and militia supporter, there has not been official information alleging white supremacy yet. Coulter's page overall needs some editing and rearranging though, so hopefully this will draw attention. ] (]) 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:To be clear, the BLP comments above relate only to what Mmm123n said. I didn't see anything in your edit that violated BLP rules for Coulter or Rittenhouse. My concern is only that the comment is RECENT. We run into this on a number of BLP pages. We have people who say things that get reactions from others. That Coulter says things that cause angry reactions in the media/talk shows etc is worthy of inclusion in her BLP. Each individual example/instance that supports the general idea that she says provocative things isn't DUE. A decent way to structure this sort of content in the article might be "Coutler's public comments have frequently received criticism by other commentators. Examples include X, Y, Z" We wouldn't do a subtopic on each X, Y and Z. ] (]) 15:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with {{u|Springee}} about the issue of ] weight, Seems a lot of pages with political figures have problems with ] , personally I find the way to deal with recentism is to give the criteria a ]. This is an encyclopedia after all, not a gossip blog. ] (]) 22:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Far-right claim == |
|
|
Only two of the four sources provided actually label her far-right. The other two use the words alt-right, but do not label her as such. The two misused sources should be removed. Whoever entered them is probably an idiot. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I found a reference to Coulter as 'far right' in all of the articles that I checked. Looking more closely at her views in the article, it's very clear that she's a far right personality. Far-right and alt-right aren't mutually exclusive. -- ] (]) 13:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:I believe that the first insertion was by ], . Looking at earlier threads about this on this talk page, I see that there have been objections by ] and ] and ]. The first cite is to Washington Post's "The Fix" which is a blog according to and . The second cite is to "Paste" (whatever that is), which doesn't say she is far right, but says "far-right politics is the only arena where Coulter really does know what she’s talking about". The third cite is to "Times of Israel" which indeed says she is a "far-right pundit". The fourth cite is to a headline in "The Guardian". I'd call "far-right" poorly sourced, but won't remove. ] (]) 14:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I'm assuming that's ], which is a reliable source for pop culture, but the last RfC on ] was closed as no consensus as to how reliable it is for politics. Better sources exist. Also, Chris Cillizza is a reputable reporter (he's also employed by CNN)... Likewise with Amber Phillips. She's an analyst. You'll notice that those aren't blogs: they're labeled as "Analysis", which actually means it's in the news stable, and not considered opinion. ] (]) 09:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I would agree we don't have sufficient sourcing to use "far-right" as that can be seen as a controversial label. Are editors OK with changing it to "right-wing" or "conservative" and dropping the associated citations out of the lead? ] (]) 15:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::: No. If these sources are insufficient, then more sources can obviously be found. By that, I mean that it's obvious that she's regularly characterized this way in media, unless you actually think she's not a figure regularly associated with the far-right? These sources obviously exist; a good-faith effort should be made to see ascertain whether this is a label applied with any regularity, rather than simply throwing in the towel because it's "controversial". In just a cursory search, I found over two dozen such sources. Not counting at least half a dozen more examples from the Guardian alone. And about two dozen which associate her with the far-right, but don't label her as such exclusively (usually opting for "contoversial"; most of these are related to the Berkeley event of alt-right speakers). A few of them: Forbes<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/07/10/ann-coulter-endorsed-a-democrat/</ref>, Associated Press (News)<ref>https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-rush-limbaugh-ann-coulter-immigration-eugene-robinson-35a0c976eacb4100a3bb2539d3247b38</ref>, another Guardian one (there are several, as I said)<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/21/ann-coulter-berkeley-protesters-arrests</ref>, The Jerusalem Post <ref>https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/ann-coulter-slams-asians-jews-who-think-theyre-black-re-immigration-580104</ref>, LA Times<ref>https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-berkeley-free-speech-week-20170914-story.html</ref>, Business Insider<ref>https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-katie-hopkins-donald-trump-retweets-migrants-cockroaches-2019-7</ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I think that's sufficient (ten total?), especially with the existing Guardian and Times of Israel. There's more too, if that's necessary. Also, as I said in my response to Peter Gulutzman, both of those writers he named for "The Fix" actually write news analysis; they're not opinion columnists. ] (]) 09:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Far-right is a controversial label and shouldn't be applied in the opening sentence or in wiki voice. Please see this current VP discussion ]. We can't show this is a universal description nor is it a objective description. Thanks to key word searches we can find examples of sources that use the term but consider how many articles mention Coulter vs how many justify the term. It's better to describe her positions and actions vs force the description into the lead. This is especially true since the body doesn't say why this label is used in the lead. ] (]) 12:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: It's nearly impossible to ask that all our sources be in agreement at all times in their characterization of a subject. Asking that any descriptors be "universal" and "objective" is far too high of a bar that's rarely achievable. It's always contentious. And arguments of special pleading are always used to try to remove generally-held descriptions of the ideology professed by BLP subjects. I also disagree that "far right" is overly controversial; if we were claiming she were alt-right, that would be a different matter. But "far right" is not some bogeyman or insult, but something with a generally understood meaning that's used not only in commentary and journalism, but in academia as well. |
|
|
::::: I reiterate that I find it hard to believe someone doesn't think Ann Coulter is far-right and/or regularly says things that would be classed as talking points of the far right. Assuming you read her work and see her on television, which I assume most of us have, a great deal of what she says is little different from the sorts of things that ] is famous for saying. It's what she's primarily known for, and arguably a large part of what makes her notable. She doesn't typically comment on issues of traditional conservatism or classical liberalism, but is known for saying provocative things about culture, religion, race, and ethnicity that fall outside the expectations of typical conservative commentary. As a few of the sources I linked essentially state (though I'm paraphrasing), she's seen as one of the "faces regularly associated with the far right". It would be contrary to NPOV actually omit that characterization. ] (]) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::We know this is your view -- and we also know that others take a different view. With sufficient sources ("sufficient" as judged via the discussion/consensus here) it can/will happen. ] (]) 12:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::IMPARTIAL and BLP are both policy and apply to this article. ] (]) 12:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Come to think of it, reading this over, I'm a little concerned that there is a bit of a case of moving goalposts here. Your initial argument in the proposal to change the label to "conservative" or "right-wing" is that the sourcing was inadequate/too weak to support the prior label. Now that the sourcing is adequate, you're opposed based on the fact that you don't like the label "far-right" being applied, at all, on principle? ] (]) 14:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::There is a difference between "conservative" or "right-wing" and "far-right". How do we define where the line is between right and far-right? It's a subjective determination and one that is often controversial. I suspect Coulter would self identify as conservative/right but would she agree with far-right? Again, consider the current VP discussion regarding the use of labels in lead sentences (or the lead in general). ] (]) 17:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::When I wrote that The Fix "is a blog according to and ", the references that I supplied were merely to show that The Fix is a blog. Google "The Washington Post's political analysis blog" and you'll find plenty more saying that is what The Fix is. The reply from Symmachus Auxiliarus is not relevant. ] (]) 13:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I did indeed misspeak there. You're correct, it is a political blog, giving analysis and commentary on news from other sources. It also seems to predate Cillizza's work as a correspondent, or as an analyst at CNN. I agree that it should classed be a second-tier source, as its primary purpose is obviously commentary (and thus, entertainment). I wouldn't use it for this purpose any more than I would the Paste reference. Regardless, the rest of the sourcing that I provided is more than adequate. ] (]) 14:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== BLP CAT concerns == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ann Coulter flat-out told ] to "go back to her country", then brought up cow worship and ]s in a rant about India. I’m not sure if that’s worth mentioning in this article, although it’s unusual since Haley is a fellow Republican. She hasn’t endorsed Trump yet, as far as I know, and it’s not clear who she actually supports for president in 2024. She really needs to tone it down a bit, because she keeps making more enemies for herself as well. ] (]) 05:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
The following CATs are a concern per ], "Category:Opposition to Islam in the United States", "Category:American conspiracy theorists". To use a category on a BLP it needs to be something we could say in wiki voice. The second one is easy as we are dealing with a single conspiracy theory. That is not sufficient to call Coulter a conspiracy theorist in wiki voice and thus is not enough to include the category. The same is true of the Islam tag. It seems her comments, per this article, are primarily related to Islamic terrorism and again, per CATDEF, this must be a central aspect not just one of many. That she is a conservative commentator is a central aspect. Her views on Islam are not. {{ping|Grayfell|EricSDA}} as recently involved. ] (]) 22:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She just told Vivek Ramaswamy that she agrees with a lot of what he says but she wouldn't vote for him because he's Indian: https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1788388787556389044 |
|
:These categories are supported by content in the article. So, if this about BLP, the burden would be on you would first have to explain why this reliably-sourced content, which is already in the article, is either not in fact reliably-sourced or doesn't belong for some other reason. If you want to discuss whether or not these categories are proportionate, do so on their own merits. Source pretty clearly and consistently support this, to to invoke BLP preemptively is either ignoring sources or is using ] to escalate a relatively minor content issue. Since that would be be tendentious, I will assume you have some specific, good faith reason to challenge this content. If this is indeed strictly about categories, please explain this in a less inflammatory manner. ] (]) 23:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
As for your last sentence, this page is not the place to express opinions about what subjects of articles (or anyone else) ought to do. -- ] (]) 09:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: I'm not sure why this is inflammatory. To be clear, this is specifically about the inclusion of the categories, not the article content. Do any of the sources actually say she ''is'' a conspiracy theorist? Same with the other cat (does that cat even have a clear definition?). If no sources say she is, then we certainly cannot in wiki voice. Remember, the standard for a category is at minimum we have to be able to say it in wiki voice (even if we don't specifically say it). Additionally, since this is a BLP contentious claims need consensus to include. This is currently a local, no consensus. Consensus aside these are simply aspects of the person, not a defining characteristic hence why the cats violate BLP. ] (]) 23:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Absent follow up I've removed the conspiracy theorist CAT as violating CATDEF and NOCON to keep (contentious claim about a BLP subject). I think the same applies to the Islam CAT but most of this discussion was related to the conspiracy CAT. ] (]) 19:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The article already states this, per multiple reliable sources: {{tq|Coulter is an advocate of the white genocide conspiracy theory.<ref>{{cite news |title=Trump Wants Pompeo to Study 'Killing of Farmers' in South Africa |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/world/africa/trump-south-africa-white-farmers.html |newspaper=] |date=August 23, 2018 |access-date=2019-01-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180827021629/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/world/africa/trump-south-africa-white-farmers.html |archive-date=2018-08-27 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=The creeping spectre of "white genocide" |url=https://theoutline.com/post/4486/the-creeping-spectre-of-white-genocide |publisher=] |date=May 9, 2017 |access-date=2019-01-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181011125109/https://theoutline.com/post/4486/the-creeping-spectre-of-white-genocide |archive-date=2018-10-11 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Why Ann Coulter is dead wrong about immigration in America |url=https://www.dailydot.com/via/ann-coulter-immigration/ |work=] |date=May 28, 2015 |access-date=2019-01-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190115030115/https://www.dailydot.com/via/ann-coulter-immigration/ |archive-date=2019-01-15 |url-status=live }}</ref>}} Your stated inability to understand why this is inflammatory is also irrelevant. BLP is not served by being over-cautious, and neutrality is harmed when we preemptively exclude content because it ''might'' be unflattering. Other than this, I still have not seen anything close to a compelling argument for why this is a BLP issues. ] (]) 19:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::For what it's worth, it is trivially easy to find reliable sources which describe Coulter as a conspiracy theorist (which should be obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with her work) |
|
|
::::https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/26/pipe-bombs-false-flag-claims-ann-coulter-rush-limbaugh-conspiracy-theories |
|
|
::::https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/06/18/migrant-kids-are-child-actors-ann-coulter-says-on-fox-news-telling-trump-not-to-be-fooled/ |
|
|
::::etc. |
|
|
::::Further, many, many sources will describe something as a conspiracy theory and then mention Coulter as a proponent of it. Any ambiguity here is only superficial. These sources are saying that she is known as a conspiracy theorists as the term is commonly understand. Expecting a juicy pull-quote for every statement is unrealistic, among other problems. ] (]) 19:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Much of what your claim supports the tag isn't in the article and the limited information in the article doesn't satisfy DEFCAT. Per NOCON the tag needs to be removed until there is consensus to include. That some key word searched sources say she promotes a conspiracy theory is not sufficient to call her a conspiracy theorist in wiki voice. Per BLP standards that must be a high bar. ] (]) 19:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{u|Grayfell}} I looked over your sources. Neither are sufficient to describe Coulter as a conspiracy theorist in wiki-voice. That is the standard needed to apply a contentious tag to a BLP article. None of your sources say she ''is a conspiracy theorist''. Per CATDEF, "''A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people)''" Sources consistently define Coulter as a pundant/commentator and as a conservative. They do not ''consistently'' define her as a conspiracy theorist. In fact I don't think we have a single source that says she is a conspiracy theorist. As such the tag violates CATDEF as well as BLP. ] (]) 22:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Repeating the claim that this violates BLP does not make it persuasive nor does it make it accurate. As I specifically explained, source do define her as a conspiracy theorist. This includes both existing, already cited sources, and additional sources that can be added with relative ease. |
|
|
::::::For example: '{{tq|Conspiracy theorizing: “From the Haymarket riot to the Unibomber, bombs are a liberal tactic,” she tweeted on Wednesday after CNN offices in Manhattan were evacuated when one of the bombs was found there.}}' from This source says she is a conspiracy theorist in direct terms. |
|
|
::::::Your implication seems to be that we must include a simplistic pull-quote. This is both unrealistic, and frankly, seems legalistic. Sources must define her as a conspiracy theorist, and they absolutely do. They ''do not'' have to explicitly say "Coulter is a conspiracy theorist" in exactly those words. This is an encyclopedia, and our job is to summarize sources. |
|
|
::::::Further, your contention this is a BLP issue is, as I already tried to explain, contradicted by your admission that the sources do support this information. If you want to make the case that this is accurate but fails to raise to the level of CATDEF than it is not NOCON, it is merely a content dispute. Per NOCON, this content was already in the article and therefor you lack consensus for a change to the status quo. |
|
|
::::::As I said earlier, I am assuming good faith that you have some actual reason to oppose this beyond CRYBLP. So far, your reasoning seems to be that you personally don't agree with the existing summary of sources. This is insufficient. Perhaps a noticeboard would be a better place. Before that, please consider whether or not it is a productive use of your time to remove information which is supported by sources merely on technical grounds. Nothing about this category is an extraordinary claim based on existing sources. I would also advise you to take a look yourself for additional sources if that's your concern. ] (]) 01:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Your claim that it doesn't violate BLP is wrong. To put a tag on the article the information the tag implies ''must'' be something we can say in wiki-voice. This hasn't risen to that level. That sources you link do not call her a conspiracy theorist even if they say she is promoting a specific conspiracy. Even if ''some'' sources call her a conspiracy theorist, to put such a contentious label on a person it has to be widely used, else it must be attributed which means it isn't sufficient for a tag. Additionally, CATDEF says this ''must'' be commonly and consistently. You haven't shown that. I think this needs to go to BLPN. ] (]) 02:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"Your claim is wrong" is not a compelling argument. It is something we can say in Wikivoice, because per reliable sources she is a conspiracy theorist. Your (apparent) definition of "conspiracy theorist" is too vague to be workable, and also incompatible with both sources and Misplaced Pages's own article on conspiracy theories. As countless reliable sources explain, any conspiracy theory that can be proven is not a "conspiracy theory" it's just a conspiracy. Therefore, all conspiracy theories, including the ones promoted/created/spread by Coulter, by definition include plausible deniability. This doesn't mean they are not conspiracy theories, nor does it mean that people who spread them are not conspiracy theorists just because they don't call themselves that particular term. A person who is notable in part for spreading conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist. The disputed category is not a subcat of "category:people who promote conspiracy theories" because that would be both unworkably euphemistic, and also condescending to readers. ] (]) 03:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Which sources say ''she is a conspiracy theorist''? Not which sources imply it or which sources are compatible with such a view. We don't say it in wiki voice in the article. I don't have a definition here and you seem to be engaged in your own research to say what you think the standard should be. I'm saying the article doesn't say she is so we can't use a tag that says she is. If you have sources that say she is, not just she has promoted a, but that she is, then quote them and then show they are sufficient to say she is in wiki voice. Regardless, I've posted at BLPN and we can get some additional views there. ] (]) 04:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::To say that Coulter is a conspiracy theorist, we'd need it to be the case that reliable sources say that Coulter is a conspiracy theorist – that is, ''apply the label to her''. ] like these, applied to BLP subjects, are the ''last'' place to be inserting your own original research. ] is firm on this matter too, as we'd need it to be the case that reliable sources {{tq|regularly and consistently}} apply the label to her, which hasn't been demonstrated here. ‑‑] (]) 21:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Jimmie (not Jimmy) Walker == |
|
== Source for publication date of post-Sept 11 column == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Correction needed. ] (]) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
The article quotes Coulter from an article "one day" after the Sept 11 attacks saying that 7000 had died. This is cited to an article that appeared in Jewish World Review on Sept 28, 17 days after the attacks. Is there a source to her regular column confirming a date of Sept 12, or very close to the 11th? It looks like JWR may have published her syndicated column with the date of their then-current issue rather than the original syndication date. ] (]) 19:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{already done}} by ]. <span class="nowrap">–]</span> (] • ]) 19:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== a pseudoscientific antievolution ideology == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Cyberbullying Edit == |
|
Coulter advocates ], as stated in the article. Article then says ID is "a pseudoscientific antievolution ideology". Which is true, but nonetheless UNDUE in an article not on intelligent design, evolution, or anti-evolution ideologies. The more specific problem with "pseudoscientific" is that it is in effect being applied to Coulter rather than ID per se, and doing that in a BLP would seem to require some parsing (or rather, a source that does that parsing for us) of the arguments made e.g. in her book chapter on this subject. I ''think'' from having looked at that chapter recently that she essentially repeats the ID arguments of ] against "macro" evolution while treating "micro" evolution as obviously correct. It's not entirely clear how much is merely criticism of some (possibly reasonable) interpretation of Darwinism versus actual advocacy of nonsense (e.g., deferring to Behe as a supposed expert, which she does do at some point, is not the same as stating he is correct), and Misplaced Pages should not SYNTH this into the latter without a source assessing Coulter's writing on ID in its own right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change the reference of Gus Walz having ADHD to "As a teen, he was diagnosed with nonverbal learning disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and anxiety." Per The Washington Post, Gus Walz melted hearts at the DNC, putting neurodiversity in the spotlight - By Carolyn Y. Johnson, August 22, 2024 at 4:37 p.m. EDT ] (]) 21:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Also, the general tone of sticking labels like "pseudoscientific" and "conspiracy theory" (which was only recently removed from the article) anywhere they could possibly apply is gratuitous, politicized (in the case of Coulter) and patronizing to the reader. This is an encyclopedia, not a name-and-shame database for everyone who holds nonstandard beliefs of some sort. My understanding is that WP:FRINGE does not require this kind of hyper-labeling occur every single time a fringe topic arises within some other article. ] (]) 00:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:The word "pseudoscientific" was added and "antievolution ideology" was added by ]. The cite is to which calls itself "a radical publishing space untainted by big corporate profitmaking and neoliberal elitism". I'd agree with removing the words after "intelligent design", but would also agree with removing the whole sentence (poorly sourced). But I acknowledge that Hob Gadling had an edit summary saying "see talk", so perhaps something has been discussed somewhere before. ] (]) 16:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::At the top of this Talk page is a field where you can enter a word such as "evolution" or "design". If you do that and then click on the "Search" button, the Wiki software will list those archive pages which contain the word. Then you will find this: . You will also find other prior discussions about this subject. |
|
|
::I don't care whether Borderlands is used as a source, or whether the article does not mention Coulter's propagation of stupid ideas pretending to be science, such as evolution denial or climate change denial because of a lack of good sources. But if it does, it should not call those stupid ideas "theories". "Pseudoscience" is good, and "ideology" is good. We do not need both. --] (]) 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'll guess that you were trying to link to which doesn't show there was any consensus for your editing. I'll hope that your doesn't give people a wrong impression about why you don't appear to be getting consensus for your editing here either. ] (]) 18:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, that is the correct link. My 2018 edit was an obvious correction of a piece of misinformation, since no one has ever been able to give a "theory of intelligent design", and nobody opposed it for three years. That is not a situation anyone who is ] would characterize as "no consensus". You should stop trying to suggest that my edit was a mistake, it won't work. |
|
|
::::The FTN guys will see who is here and what they are trying to pull, and they will see why I called them. I am trying to prevent a local consensus based almost exclusively on users who have no experience with, or interest in, handling fringe subjects correctly. --] (]) 20:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:It seems like calling it ''a pseudoscientific antievolution ideology'' is contradictory. It would seem to either be a pseudoscientific theory or an ideology, not both. A quick key word search for Coulter and ID turned up this article . I'm not sure if Live Science is a reputable source or not (too many familiar sounding but not good sites out there). <u>Reading through it the author argues that Coulter is actually shooting down ID arguments, not supporting them. Searching more sources from around the release of the book in question it seems that some sources assume she is making a case for ID while others argue she is trying to show the issues with their arguments.</u> As is so often the case with claims like this, it would be better to say what they actually believe (right or wrong) vs trying to dumb down their actual views and then apply the warning labels. That's just poor editorial practice. It's not clear how much of Coulter's work has related to ID/evolution content. If we have to dig for sources that discuss the two then perhaps it's not DUE. If it is included then perhaps we should have more than one source (is the one I liked sufficient to be #2) and just say she supports ID, an ideology that says evolution is guided by . We don't need to include all the labels. ] (]) 16:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've added an update above. Having read through the article a bit more it's simply not clear what Coulter believes and we have conflicting views. RSN discussions of LiveScience are thin but support it as a RS. Unless there is something newer than 15 years old that shows she is pushing ID, I would get rid of the whole sentence. ] (]) 18:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: The ultimate source is her book ''Godless'' where she goes into this for the length of a chapter. I looked at it a while ago in connection with this article. She definitely attacks "Darwinism", repeating some ID-type arguments and at a minimum promotes the legitimacy of some of its proponents (Behe and/or Dembski). Whether she was making the stronger assertion, that these are winning arguments against evolution or a proof that an intelligent creator must exist --- or something weaker like "evolution is far from proven scientifically but is nonetheless used as a religious dogma by the Left" --- isn't clear without looking at the book again more closely. Any other sources are derivative of the book or loose paraphrases (even by herself) of what is there. ] (]) 19:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I would agree. The problem we have here is two contradictory sources telling us how to interpret what she has said. The source I found is 15 years old. The book is even older. Has this been discussed more recently? If not, should we remove it on the grounds that the limited sources conflict on what "she believes" so it's probably best just to remove it as not significant. ] (]) 20:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::People who believe in pseudosciences rarely change their minds because they have immunized themselves against any counterarguments. That's why they believe in that crap in the first place. |
|
|
:::::Also, we cannot know what someone believes, only what they say. So, replace the word "believe" by another, more testable one, such as "propagate", "defend" or something, in the past tense, and your give-the-conservative-person-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-maybe-she-stopped-believing-that-one stance does not apply anymore. After all, Misplaced Pages biographies are supposed to reflect what the person did in her whole life, not just what she does now. --] (]) 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::What you say is generally true but ignores the issue here. What we have is two reliable sources which attempt to summarize her views and reach opposing conclusions. The other issue is if this is something that needs to be in the article at all. Let's take for granted that she 100% believes in DI. Does that mean it needs to be in the article at all? If it's something that comes up again and again, absolutely. However, we are dealing with someone who gets a lot of media coverage. If these few articles from a decade and a half back are the only sources we have then why would we put this in the article? I admit, it's a single sentence so not much weight there but now we have two sources tell us differing things. One says she advocates DI, the other says that she argues against it. This would mean we either expand the material to describe the opposing views (giving the whole topic more weight) or just drop it as not a topic not covered significantly by RSs. ] (]) 13:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If she had "winning arguments against evolution", she would be the first one who had. ] tells you that we should not assume that. ID is a fundamentalist PR action full of hot air, and always has been. We will not quote her anti-science propaganda, unless we afterwards quote someone who refutes it. So, if all we have for that subject is a primary source, out it goes. --] (]) 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: This is partly my fault for recently adding the word "advocates" to the sentence about Coulter and ID, which is stronger than the previous language. But SYNTH and OR from primary sources is a necessary staple on talk pages to determine how much weight to give to different secondary sources. Nobody is saying to quote the arguments from her book within the article. ] (]) 13:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::Of course it's not contradictory. Several pseudosciences, especially ] ones, are rooted in ideology. Show me an evolution denier, and I'll show you a religious fundamentalist. Show me a climate change denier, and I'll show you a market fundamentalist. Show me a Holocaust denier, and I'll show you a Nazi. --] (]) 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Neither of your examples are sound as in both cases you, illogically, assume the venn diagram of group A is entirely made of B vs having overlap. If you were correct then you would have to conclude that ] is a Nazi. I will amend my earlier claim to say that Pseudoscience can be born from a need to support an ideology but they aren't inherently the same thing and you certainly can have one without the other. None of that addressed the concerns with the need to place scarlet letters in articles just incase a reader didn't realize that <s>DI</s><u>ID</u>(<small> per comment below corrected obvious typo </small>) wasn't considered a legitimate scientific theory. ] (]) 13:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This is getting off-topic, but replace "Nazi" by "someone who wants as many Jews dead as possible" and you got Ahmadinejad. |
|
|
::::I did not say that pseudoscience and ideology are the same thing, I said they are {{tq|not contradictory}}. BTW, "DI" is the Discovery Institute. It propagates "ID", Intelligent Design, which this is about. --] (]) 15:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm sorry DI vs ID appears to have caused confusion. I have corrected the typo. The problem with your reply now is you are back pedaling based on your prior examples where you say group A ''must'' be part of group B. If that wasn't your intent then perhaps you shouldn't have used that as an example. If it was off topic, again, perhaps it shouldn't have been used as an example. ] (]) 16:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I was not "back pedaling", I was correcting a minor detail because someone picked a nit. Calling people Nazis is usually not appropriate, but someone who wants all Jews dead is pretty close. My point was that there is no contradiction between the two words "ideology" and "pseudoscience". So, please ]. --] (]) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: So you are admitting you are back pedaling a bad example. ] (]) 11:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::So, you refuse to ] and instead try to get a win, no matter how tangential. My example was merely badly worded. If you insist on calling that "backpedaling", I cannot prevent that. Are we finished here? --] (]) 14:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Isn't that exactly what you are trying to do here? Else, why did you return to this 2 days after the discussion had moved on? ] (]) 15:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::] will tell you that I did not edit Misplaced Pages for two days, so there you have the answer to that question. For the third time: Get off my back and ]. |
|
|
:::::::::::Your claim that {{tq|pseudoscientific antievolution ideology is contradictory}} stays false, no matter how much you try to distract from that by chatting about other stuff like Ahmadinejad or backpedaling, or by misrepresenting what I said ("{{tq|they aren't inherently the same thing}}"). --] (]) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::It looks like the only reason you are replying to my comments is to "win" an argument. Does it really matter at this point? Perhaps you should FOCUS on the bigger issue and not an argument with me? You made a claim that A must be part of B. I don't agree. We can try to civilly disagree. ] (]) 15:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Non verbal learning disorder, not non verbal autism == |
|
::: We don't, and should not, attach a patronizing warning label like "], a dangerous racist mid-20th century ideology" to each and every reference to someone being a Nazi party member, collaborator, foreign supporter, etc. Or "conspiracy theory" to every mention of the ] which unquestionably promoted a Literal Conspiracy theory, probably using the actual word "conspiracy". Misplaced Pages has full-length articles on these topics, and policies and quasi-policies like FRINGE and DUE and FALSEBALANCE merely say that ''when presenting those ideas'' certain things should and should not be said. It is always possible to just say "person X advocates ]" without additional verbiage. ] (]) 13:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"Intelligent design" is an seemingly innocuous term not familiar to most people. Nazism is not. So, bad example. --] (]) 15:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I don't know if ID is any more obscure to people today, especially outside the United States, than the John Birch Society. A closer example is ], which like ID is a Christian movement clothed as something else. We do not make a point of revealing the ruse every time the group is mentioned, with a warning label like "Christian missionary front". Not unrelated is that the lede of almost every page for one of Coulter's books calls her a "conservative" or "far-right" author, while no political label is applied to Noam Chomsky, Bill Ayers or any other far-left author for which I checked this, on any page about a book they wrote. The politicized overlabeling is a misuse of Misplaced Pages to fight the perpetual revolution, not part of its mission as an encyclopedia. The Birchers seem to have mostly escaped it because they are antiquated and outside the frame of recent politics --- the exception that proves the rule. ] (]) 16:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::We have guidelines saying we should handle fringe ideas differently from scientific ones. We do not have any guidelines saying we should handle certain political ideas differently from other political ideas. So, all your examples are whataboutism, red herrings, ]. If you do not like the way political groups are handled, this is not the place for that. --] (]) 20:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In cyber bullying section it says Gus walz has nonverbal autism, which is a condition where an autistic person has not learned to speak (is non verbal). This is incorrect. What he has is a non verbal learning disability, which means a disability affecting learning non verbal skills. This is completely different. |
|
:If it claims to be scientifically based and it's not, its pseudoscience. However we also only need to say it once.] (]) 16:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sure sounds ] to me. "Intelligent Design" was a deliberately deceptive label chosen to make a non-scientific ideology sound scientific; it's our responsibility to clarify such things, and a few extra words is an easy way to do that. Regarding the Live Science source mentioned above, it reads rather tongue-in-cheek, calling Coulter's writing a clever satire because it is too absurd to be taken seriously. ({{tq|There are also some things I don’t fully understand, for example several references to bestiality and some seemingly nonsequitur remarks about Cher and Elton John. Considering how wonderfully multilayered Coulter’s writing is, I am sure there is a perfectly logical explanation.}} I mean, come on.) So, even apart from any reliability concerns over Live Science, I'd put very little weight on that. Coulter herself is unambiguous: {{tq|Roughly one-third of my 2007 No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," is an attack on liberals' creation myth, Darwinian evolution. I presented the arguments of all the luminaries in the field, from the retarded Richard Dawkins to the brilliant Francis Crick, and disputed them.}} ] (]) 22:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::Here she is in 2011 calling evolutionary biology {{tq|the primitive religion of Darwinism}} . And here she is in 2019 promoting some evolution-denial by ] . Creationism is not just a habit she dropped 15 years ago. ] (]) 23:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::While looking for a copy of that 2011 column from her own website , I found another from the same time period too . And more promotion of Gelernter on her Twitter feed . No jokes, no satire, just creationism of a very tedious variety. ] (]) 00:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: has several links to, um, unorthodox views she has uttered, but it is as unusable as her Twitter feed. I would not go into too much detail. The usual way to handle ID proponents is to say they defended "the pseudoscientific Intelligent design idea" or something like that. Coulter quotes on that are not needed. The ones that originate with her, such as the raccoon thing the Encyclopedia of American Loons mentions, are just absurd, childish attempts at insulting science. Refuting them in accordance with ], using only sources which mention her because of ], would be silly. Those that do not originate with her are standard off-the-shelf ID produce and not worth mentioning either. --] (]) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna167804 ] (]) 19:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Do sources actually agree that Coulter supports/promotes/advocates/etc ID? I think {{u|Sesquivalent}}'s review of the primary source, described here, is significant . Regardless of how ID should be described, if RSs disagree on Coulter's support of ID, and Live Science looks like a RS , then we can't claim she supports it in Wiki voice. Given the very limited material regarding Coulter and ID ("Ann Coulter" returns 1.6m Google hits, almost 95,000 in a Google news search) I would suggest the material should be removed as disputed by RS and UNDUE. That would certainly sidestep the question raised here. ] (]) 15:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Recycling other people's pseudoscientific arguments is still advocating pseudoscience, even if one does not present oneself as a scientist. The LiveScience.com item is a joke, taking at face value the premise that Coulter is a serious thinker and arguing that her book is so absurd it must be satire. Nothing stops us from describing her as an ID supporter in wiki-voice; with her columns and social media, she's kept on being one for years after that book. Nor does including a sentence or two in an article as long as this strike me as giving the topic particularly ] weight. ] (]) 23:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: As posted in the FTN discussion, she is not directly an IDer and even "promoting ID" would be a stretch, contrary to my article edit and my formulation of this question on the talk page that use "advocates". (I realized this only after reading her evolution chapters in the book). She is an anti-evolutionist without any doubt, it is notable and should be said. But her recycled-from-ID arguments are contra evolution only. Her positive comments on ID are generally about ID people and their work, not the content of the theory, which she does not undertake to advocate. I don't care if ID is mentioned in the article or not (as an addition to anything said about anti-evolution) but if it is then the accurate phrasing would be something like "promotes the legitimacy of ID proponents". ] (]) 02:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: She endorses the specific arguments of ID "theory" like ]'s "irreducible complexity", for example . Saying that the "theory" of the ID advocates is correct as part of her anti-evolution diatribes makes her a promoter of ID. ] (]) 15:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's not logically sound. First, acknowledging that you think something is correct doesn't mean you are promoting that thing. I might acknowledge that research saying chocolate has harmful, addictive properties is true. That doesn't mean I'm giving up chocolate or even suggesting as much to others. Second, even promoting some aspect of A doesn't mean I support all of A. I might think some Mormon practices based on their religious teaching are a really good idea. That doesn't mean I'm promoting Mormonism. This is certainly a case where we need to be accurate to avoid reporting something that is false. ] (]) 15:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There's nothing ''to'' ID other than its spurious arguments against evolution. Promoting those is promoting ID. ] (]) 15:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So if I argued that evolution didn't make sense and that the whole of the universe was created by a giant sneeze I'm promoting ID? Proof that I'm right, don't panic, the guide tells me I'm right. I don't think such claims would put me in the ID camp. Saying I support aspects of communism doesn't mean I support communism. ] (]) 18:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{fixed}}. <span class="nowrap">–]</span> (] • ]) 19:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Citing a Carl Zimmer blog post== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Cheating Accusations Made Without Evidence == |
|
]: I think the cite to a 2011-08-25 blog post that you linked to National Geographic is actually of a blog post . Carl Zimmer's blog on 2012-12-11. I don't believe you should have added this cite. ] (]) 14:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
In a recent CSpan interview, Ms. Coulter accuses Democrats of getting into office by cheating. The problem with her claims is she gives no evidence. If she has the evidence, she should prove it. She can do that with a new book perhaps. Otherwise, she can only be considered slandering the people she referenced. <ref>https://www.c-span.org/video/?537661-4/ann-coulter-campaign-2024</ref>] (]) 01:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:It seems within the letter and the spirit of ], wherever it was originally hosted. ] (]) 16:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
Change the reference of Gus Walz having ADHD to "As a teen, he was diagnosed with nonverbal learning disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and anxiety." Per The Washington Post, Gus Walz melted hearts at the DNC, putting neurodiversity in the spotlight - By Carolyn Y. Johnson, August 22, 2024 at 4:37 p.m. EDT Stephenwmoss (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
In cyber bullying section it says Gus walz has nonverbal autism, which is a condition where an autistic person has not learned to speak (is non verbal). This is incorrect. What he has is a non verbal learning disability, which means a disability affecting learning non verbal skills. This is completely different.
In a recent CSpan interview, Ms. Coulter accuses Democrats of getting into office by cheating. The problem with her claims is she gives no evidence. If she has the evidence, she should prove it. She can do that with a new book perhaps. Otherwise, she can only be considered slandering the people she referenced. 2405:9800:BC30:3719:E980:90D4:D6E3:949E (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Already done by Blainster. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
