Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:38, 2 December 2004

I'm not sure it's really proper to have a critisizm section that's longer than the original article. I may be wrong, but just wanted to say my thoughts.--ArcticFrog 13:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So the neutrality of this page is disputed, but there are no comments here. Anyone care to chime in? Fuzheado 02:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Article lists some of the extreme statementsof a woman who often makes them

Ann Coulter frequently makes extreme statements in her writings and talk-show appearances.

This article appropriately reflects that by quoting some of her extreme statements.

It's not like she rarely makes extreme statements, and this article is un-reflective. Someone could easily add ten more extreme statements she's made in the past few years.

If someone wishes to add sentences to the article about the good things Ann Coulter has said or done, that is fine. It is better than just posting that the neutrality is disputed.

I agree, so I've removed the neutrality disputed note at the beginning, not because this is the perfect article, but I don't think it goes too far in characterizing her for what she is. After all, she calls herself a polemicist. But I'm willing to hear/see other additions to make this more "neutral". Fuzheado 13:03, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not nessisarily a fan of Coulter's, but I have read a lot of her stuff. As mentioned, her whole "sthick" is being outlandish, controversial, and sensationalistic. She rarely discusses uncontroversial topics, and she's not exactly the type who has written lots of dry articles on why the free market system is superior to socialism or anything like that. Though a self-proclaimed conservative, her writings lack the didactic or historographical material that is often common with other conservative pundits and editorialists. In other words, I'm not sure what kinda stuff to add to make this more "neutral". user:J.J.

I put the NPOV disclaimer on... I'm definitely not a fan of Coulter, in fact, I think she's completely brain-dead, but the second half of this article, starting with Franken, is just attack after attack on her positions. Hardly serves to create a positive picture of the woman. Maybe nothing good can be said about her, but she -is- a best-selling author, and surely has some adulators? Graft 20:39, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wow, this is a pretty harsh bio of Coulter. Not suprised, as Misplaced Pages is generally liberal. I will probably edit it in the future. ~ Anon.

Liberal? Misplaced Pages is an establishment mouthpiece. Look how fast the "we need to execute people like lindh" quote got vanished, as a for instance. The Three Mile Island link to Secret Fallout lasted all of four days. For more, see its attempt to defend fluoridation. Lookit the knots it gets into trying to make something important of the patent boogeyman Osama bin Laden. Look at how every bit of George Soros' hypocrisy is (validly) on the George Soros page, whereas all uncomfortable facts about Jarge Shrubya and Poppy are relegated to Bush family conspiracy theory, lumped in with less reputable claims (old technique, that) and irrelevancies like Perle's nickname is "Prince of Darkness". =p -- Kwantus 02:22, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

Changing literate sentences into oversimplified bullet points is not an improvement. As a self-admitted polemicist, her claims are likely to have holes, and it's not POV to set the record straight - as long as that's what's being done, and not making counterclaims with unchallenged holes of their own. Stan 06:42, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Ehh.. sorry. I thought I integrated all of the content from the paragraphs. Evil saltine 08:33, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

C'mon, isn't there at least one Coulter admirer here? This has become so anti-Coulter that random conservatives visiting WP will probably dismiss the whole encyclopedia as a commie hippie liberal plot... :-) I daren't get a copy of the books myself, my wife might catch me... :-) Stan 02:18, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, I won't hold my breath. Her books are absolutely dreadful, shrill, overwrought rants against liberals. I can't imagine how one would defend her in a sane, rational way. In other words, I agree with user:J.J. above. Well, perhaps someone will materialize out of the woodwork some day... -- Viajero 04:47, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This woman is just an US Carl Schmitt

Rabauz 12:16, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ann Coulter may be a polemecist, but that doesn't mean the wikipedia page should be devoted to criticism of her. Al Franken is a polemecist too, but his page does not look like this. Someone did come out of the woodwork to fix the page (me) but my changes were reverted within by others within minutes.

Let's get rid of the silly "Criticism of Ann Coulter" stuff and have a plain old encyclopedia entry about her. Why is that so scary/difficult?

--141.156.238.162 14:47, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deleting valid material is not "fixing the page". The correct policy for a person like this is to add an additional section of "Support for Ann Coulter" or some such, just as we have for politicians and the like. If you're the person who knows about the supporting material for her arguments, then please add the section; I watch this page and will defend against anybody who tries to delete material that supports her claims (but see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view for how to write this). My assumption is that readers that come here to find out "who is this Ann Coulter person we keep hearing about", and it does them a disservice to say only "Ann Coulter is a controversial writer" - they want to know what the controversies are, what other have to say, and finally, we want them to link from here into the rest of the encyclopedia - we have huge amounts of uncontested background material explaining why there are controversies to begin with. So prove Viajero wrong and add material showing the support for Coulter's POV! Stan 16:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deleting some material can indeed be "fixing the page". There is no reason that a _majority_ of text on a page should be devoted to criticisms. Note that there are two entire sections devoted to criticism in the Ann Coulter page: "controversy", and "criticism". Readers who come here want plain facts, which in the case of the Ann Coulter article are drowning in a soup of agenda. I will certainly _not_ go make the matter worse by adding yet more agendizing from a different point of view.

To state it another way, the amount of criticism here might be proportionate to a 20-page document about Ann Coulter's life and career. The page is patently biased because it delves so deeply into arguable "criticism" and "controversies" while being light on facts.

The Neutral Point of View document says

  A lot of articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting
  both points of view; this is wrong. Even when a topic is presented in 
  terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an 
  implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or 
  more subtly their organization ...

This page is a great example of that.

I again commend the Al Franken article for comparison. Al Franken is a polemicist and provacateur on the left, exactly comparable to Ann Coulter on the right. His wikipedia page is good!

Maybe people should consider moving all such "criticism of x" to a separate wikipedia page.

Nice talking with you, friend. I appreciated your answer above.

--141.156.238.162 17:19, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You make a good point about redundancy. The Criticisms section does contain some balancing statements, but it's kind of a mixed bag. What I would do is to rearrange both Controversy and Criticism sections, move a bit into more of a career chronology (because some of the statements have a different import depending on when they were made), and have another section listing specific areas ("views on liberals", "views on religion", etc). She doesn't entirely fit the traditional conservative POV, so a per-topic section is a handy way to identify points of distinction. Stan 20:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is a flawed Conservative fanatic that deserves to have a criticism section that is longer than the other sections. She throws around charges without evidence, blames everyone by association, and slanders people. Perhaps she should think about her actions before commenting.

On the other hand, it also shows that she is a person that lacks in substance, as empty vases makes the most noises.

This is my first article look up on Misplaced Pages. I think there is some useful information here. But, the tone is so opinion driven and there are strange lapses about what is valid information. This cuts against treating Misplaced Pages as a serious source of information.

Who in the world thinks it a valid to say that she is successful only because of her looks? Have you not read any of her books? Have you not watched her appearances on cable? She's extremely bright, witty, excellent at communication and argument. The "pretty face" argument is sexist and really unworthy of serious discussion.

Second, she does not seem to be a Pat Robertson fan. Read her book "Slander" where she takes him to the cleaners on a number of issues.

Third, why is her religious belief only treated in terms of whether she is or is not a "fundamentalist Christian"? Especially when the response given sheds so little light on the issue. If you want to bring up her religious position, at least do so with something that really sounds like information.

I like your ideas, sign up for a username and try making some changes. Welcome to wikipedia :) --kizzle 22:02, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I object to this snide comment about Ann's faith

There is no reason for this text, as phrased, to be included:

"Coulter has been identified as a fundamentalist Christian, but told interviewer David Bowman, "I don't think I've described myself that way, but only because I'm from Connecticut. We just won't call ourselves that." She does not usually argue from a religious point of view, but she says she admires Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson"...

"Identified....?" It sounds like a police line-up... Rex071404 15:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Coulter 'rape the earth' quote

'Rape' quote should stay out. The Internet sources which I found are all 2nd hand (hearsay) and do not cite a 1st hand source such as a bona-fide transcript which can be read on line.

Also, that particular quote is gratuitously inflammatory. There is no need to intentionally quote something that serves only to the fan flames of religious and sexual indentitiy politics the way including that quote does.

Additonally, the overall tone of the Ann_Coulter is already so harsh against her that including this is mere piling on and adds a stink of too much POV tone overall.

For example, there are some who suggest (and claim to be able to document) that Hitler was among other things, an astrological reading, vegetarian, self-loathing bi-sexual. And yet, regardless of those points, there is enoguh in the public record about him to paint an accurate and rightly adverse picture with out talking up those points.

The Colter 'rape' "quote" I want stricken is along those same lines, It's inclusion serves no purpose other than to stir up gratuitious acrimony.

Rex071404 20:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex, are you suggesting we censor Ms. Coulter? She has every right to her point of view that God wishes us to rape the earth. Just because you are uncomfortable with her views does not mean that the Wiki should suppress them. The Wiki's job is to report on what is, not what you would prefer to be. I also fail to see why you feel that her advocacy of earth-rape would provoke animosity anyway. 67.180.24.204 00:07, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Find a primary source to cite if you like the quote so much. Sam 00:11, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough Sam, here is a column by Ms Coulter with the quote: "God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping". Having properly sourced it, and thus satisfied Rex's objection I will put it back in the Wiki.67.180.24.204 01:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now that you have sourced the quote correctly and I was able to put the entire quote in, not just the excerpt you previously had, it's obvious that this quote is satire. Therefore, since several others on that page are also, I created (2) headings under "Quotes" of "Commentary" and Satire". Please help me bold face those headings. I don't know how to yet. Rex071404 08:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No editing the quotes. Let it stay. --Arbiteroftruth 07:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)Arbiteroftruth

I am trying to add some balance to Ann Coulter

Let's all make the effort to avoid being adversarial. And on the quotes which are obvious satire, please keep them in the satire section as I have put them. There are "Commentary" quotes and "Satire" quotes. Someone please help me bold type the headings, ok? Rex071404 08:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User Bearcat deleted some text which I added to balance an imbalanced statement. That paragraph does not consist of a quotation alone. It's is also commentary, and I added balancing, truthful text. Bearcat, why did you remove it?

Rex071404 09:28, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The quote I removed was not "balancing" -- it was a statement of opinion, unattributed and disguised as fact. If you want to find a quote from an attributable source making that assertion, fine. It is, however, very POV as an unattributed body text statement. Bearcat 09:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Per your comment on my talk page, I have removed this sentence: Coulter often attacks rich Democrats, such as John Kerry for being hypocrites who are totally out of touch with the working class they claim to represent. I have done this because you said about another opinion which you removed: "it was a statement of opinion, unattributed and disguised as fact". With the above text deleted, I feel that pargraph is acceptable now, as is. Rex071404 09:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that some context for selected quotes is desirable. However, it is not obvious to me that all of the quotes Rex has listed under satire are best described as "satirical" (not suggesting they are all meant literally either). Rather than articially categorizing quotes as "satire" and not, why not have sort of a "warning label" above the quotes section. This sentence or two warns that various quotes may be intended for rhetorical purposes such as satire, to rattle or bait debating opponents, shock-value etc. As such, they may be examples of her flamboyant rhetorical style (which is why she's famous) rather than her literal beliefs. I believe the quotes are all sourced now, so interested readers, thus warned, can judge the intent of any particular quote for themselves.67.180.24.204 14:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Made the edit suggested above to give general rhetorical context to the quotes. Any objections?

Franken's deleted criticism

Rex deleted the following paragraph (arguing this is not a Franken vs Coulter article):

"Al Franken also claims that while a newspaper's editorials are its official position, Ann Coulter takes sentences anywhere in the New York Times to represent its official opinion. If a New York Times book-review asks people on both sides of an issue to give their opinion, Ann Coulter will represent any quote she finds offensive as the official position of the newspaper."

If the point is simply that Franken personally is critical of Coulter, I agree with Rex that this should be deleted. However, the overall section title is "Criticism of Coulter". Certainly, if it is true that Coulter intentionally misrepresents the views of others, that is a fundamentally important and valid criticism. The point that Franken is the messenger is then secondary. I think the paragraph should be restored. Thoughts?67.180.24.204 15:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ok. done.Wolfman 08:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Liberal/Left-wing

These are not synonyms, and franken meets only one of the many definitions of "liberal", but meets all of the definitions of "left wing". Sam 21:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam: I fear your right wing politics are clouding your view on this one. You are implying that Franken is left wing internationally? That would put him in the same class as anyone from Social Democrats to Parliamentary Socialists to Direct Action Anarchists. Which isn't the case. Franken is actually a Democrat. Democrats are not "left-wing international" (regardless of what the Republicans call the Democrats). Here's an example. In his latest book never does Franken come out against the Iraq war. He just attacks what he thinks is the mismanagement of the war. This puts him closer to John Macain than say Noam Chomsky. I think that you are taking a very monlithic view of the left, and not only that but confusing the international left with just the American left. Democrats, the closest thing we have to a leftist group in power would be considered moderate or conservative in Europe. I personally find Franken to be a bit conservative on some issues. But then again most people don't have political sensibilities that are as finely tuned as mine. Peace out. StoptheBus18 21:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Meelar's change

I think that's appropriate. StoptheBus18 21:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS Just because Franken meets only one of the many definitions of "liberal", is irrelevant. One is enough. If I were calling Franken an Eggplant then the fact that he is not an eggplant would be relevant.

The problem is that its misleading to non-americans, but whatever, I'm not going to fuss about it, some progress is better than no progress. p.s. what makes you say I'm right-wing? Sam 22:00, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3,000 killed

StoptheBus18, on an edit summary, seems to think we should presume that everyone knows how many died on 9/11. I disagree. The Barbara Olsen quote should have the context of "3,000 killed" included. Most High Scool Sophomores today, were only 11 years old back on 9/11. Most of them certainly don't know the #'s. Time passes quickly and context is important. Also, withholding the truth from people is a form of intolerance. "No tolerance for intolerance" Rex071404 23:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with truth. It has to do with relevance. To quote the numbers killed on 9/11 is irrelevant. This is about what Ann Coulter said not 9/11. This site isn't for high school sophmores. Learning is pro-active, we are not here to baby people if someone doesn't know how many people we're killed on 9/11 they should read the 9/11 article. How poignant that a right winger should talk about witholding the truth while we have still not found one fucking WMD. StoptheBus18 01:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article should be reasonably self-contained. While 9/11 is well-known, providing context for Coulter's reaction is important, obviously relevant. If just Olsen were killed, it wouldn't have the same impact on anyone. VV 03:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes but people know that more than Olson was killed. You say 9/11 everyone knows what your talking about. It crosses into justification by adding the thousands. StoptheBus18 03:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not our place to justify, nor to slam, but to provide an account of cause and effect. It is clear her hyper-reaction was a result of the hyper-event, so we should say so. VV 03:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Er, but Barbara Olsen was alredy mentioned above in the article as a friend who was killed in 9/11. Putting it here again would constitute an undue emphasis of that fact. Fuzheado | Talk 04:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Too many quotes

There are too many quotes on this page. Wikiquote was especially designed for the purpose of collecting a person's quotes and should be used instead of people larding up the article with excessive quotes. The greatest number of quotes on this page should be enough to rehearse quotes that have been especially controversial and to give the readers a flavor for the kinds of things that Coulter says.

Many people seem to think of this article as an opportunity to try to embarrass Coulter by being careless about providing the context in which the quotes were written. Or they are so biased by their antipathy towards Coulter that they are unable to provide a fair context. I think we should watch to see if this is another faulty rationale for adding a quote, as opposed to writing a well-planned article.

The point of the quotes should not be too embarrass Coulter. Lord knows, she would have keeled over dead long ago if she were capable of that emotion. The point should be to illustrate her rhetorical style. After all, basically she's famous for being outrageous. For example, the quote about the NY Times editor just pulled was an example of ad hominem. That's why it should be included, not because it's about the NY Times. Maybe there are too many quotes. But they should be evaluated by how they contribute to the understanding of her fame, rather than by the subject matter alone. Maybe it would be productive to itemize each quote by propaganda technique. But for now, I'm going to put back in the 'editor' quote, on the grounds it illustrates a rhetorical technique.Wolfman 03:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV notice

I have added an "NPOV" notice as this article is simply too harsh and biased against Ann. More specifically, for example, the "quotes" section is too large and gives the impression that virtually everything Ann says is controversial. Obviously, by this article creating such an inferencem, it is simply too POV. Rex071404 04:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. Let me get this straight: It is Point of View to quote the woman who also said "I believe everything I say"?
2. Her controversial style is precisely the reason she is famous.
3. Balance is not supplied by omission of (what you view as) negative material. Why not add something how about how much she loves puppies and all other living things? Has she won some awards maybe, I don't know? Surely you can find something positive to say about the woman to provide some balance instead of slapping a POV label on the article. Wolfman 06:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Primarily, it is the sheer volume of selected qoutes, all of which tend to reflect poorly on her, which makes this article POV. Rex071404 06:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Got any quotes that reflect well on her? Add those. However, I think the purpose of the quotes is not to reflect well or poorly but to illustrate the flamboyant rhetorical style for which she is known. A discussion of which ones contribute to that might be useful.Wolfman 06:38, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please be reminded of her quote in the article - "I am a polemicist. I am perfectly frank about that. I like to stir up the pot. I don't pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do."

That said, the quotes section is a bit long and could stand to be edit somewhat. But being NPOV does not mean 50% praise, 50% criticism. If she is what she is, and if she is what she says she is, then the article should reflect that. Fuzheado | Talk 09:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Again, I will repeat: The number of included quotes is excessive. It gives a tone to the article which in inherently anti-Coulter in it's POV. Rex071404 01:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is POV to include quotes, and I for one am in favor of quotes in articles. That said, some feel that wikiquotes is a better place for quotes. Sam 01:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, what happens? Does Rex get to keep the NPOV tag on this article till he dies? Does it go to a vote? Can it be appealed? Or, can he simply force removal of factual information in this way? Note, he has not consented to add balancing material, he demands removal of factual material. What's policy?

And, to be clear, I wouldn't mind reducing the quotes a bit in the interest of a sharper article. But, I do strongly disagree that their mere presence for an avowed polemicist is POV. These aren't peripheral to her importance, these are examples of her craft -- of why she is known.Wolfman 01:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but there is already a Wikiquote page for that and a link to it. I think 3-6 quotes max is enough. Reduce to that many on this page and I will agree that NPOV can come down. Rex071404 03:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I strongly oppose reducing the number of quotes just so that she doesn't "look as bad". That's just CRAP. Look, we need to portray her as accurately as possible and her quotes are providing this function. She makes outrageous and outlandish comments, many of which are not even correct, ALL THE TIME, so it is accurate to show this by having many direct quotes from her to demonstrate this. Otherwise, it will seem that she only makes the "occasional" outlandish remark which would be totally inaccurate. It is not necessary that a NPOV means a positive portrayal if the facts don't support that.

That's all well and good Mr/Ms "unsigned" comment. However, I am firm - I will not yield on the NPOV notice unless and until we make this article more encyclopedic and less like a scandal sheet. As currently comprised, it smells of anti-Coulter POV. Reduce the total nuber of quotes in the quote section to about 3-6 and then I will agree to drop my NPOV assertion. Until then, I am perfectly correct to insist it stay there. My basis for this is: a) My edtis and comments here have been in good faith and b) I have raised a reasonable objection. Now it is incumbent upon the other editors to agree that the total number of quotes needs to be reduced. ] 03:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You may be perfectly content to let it stay there, but other editors are not. Other editors have answered you complaint regarding it with reasons they feel the quotes should stay. Your edits/comments may be in good faith... what does that have to do with leaving the NPOV on there? Secondly, just because you have raised an objection, does not mean the rest of the editors need to AGREE with you. How does that make sense. Since you object, everyone must agree? No. Since you object, you must present a case that convinces the rest of the editors that the NPOV is valid, and a list of changes to the article. I don't see that as being done... ignoring the fact that other editors have already commmented and dissagreed with you. We don't ALL need to agree with you, Rex. Lyellin 04:58, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Rex's comment "Now it is incumbent upon the other editors to agree that the total number of quotes needs to be reduced." It is not incumbent, it is contingent on the normal system of consensus. When I ask myself, "Would Ann Coulter find this list of quotations unbalanced and unfair to her position?" Curiously, I don't think she would. Fuzheado | Talk 05:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have given my explaination several times: I want the total number of quoutes reduced. The article smells the way it is now. If you prefer, I can make the reductions myself. ] 09:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, why don't you start a discussion about which particular quotes are not useful to the article. The number of quotes seems to me irrelevant, so long as each quote can be justified as adding value to the article in some way. Wolfman 15:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is my first edit but a long-time reader of wikipedia, so please forgive me if i do something improper, but I have read far too many of Rex's posts for me to just sit back and shut up. Rex, you are obviously a smart person, I think you have your opinions very well thought out, but you simply have no room for compromise. This section has people pleading with you to come to some agreement yet you remain stalwart against labeling this page anything but POV simply because they do not want to censor Coulter's polemical invective (and both of those words are from her mouth describing herself, not mine). If we had an article about a serial killer with multiple victims, would it be ok to just put 3-6 victims if they went on a 20-person killing spree? Look at the Jack the Ripper page. According to you, we should shorten the list of his victims to 3-6... as it stands now i can't see how you could be furiously working to remove the POV "taint" from the page.

Instead, if you are honestly trying to add balance to this article, then find quotes of her that are perfectly normal conservative viewpoints. I'm sure there are a lot out there, god knows there thousands and thousands of quotables from her website, I'm sure you can find 6 sentences somewhere in those that make her look good.

Instead of censoring an alternative viewpoint because you do not have a defending argument, try offering your own. and as per your last quote, are we really concerned with someone's username rather than their point of view? i can't think of anything more trivial to worry about. --kizzle 21:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

She's not Jack the Ripper

kizzle, are you kidding or serious? If you are serious, you make my argument for me in that Ann Coulter is no Jack the Ripper and the fact that you cite him as an exemplar to measure Ann against betrays what you think of Ann.

Even so, since some here don't seem to understand why I am being so firm on this, let me explain. 1st, please understand that the objective here is to make a better encyclopedia. That said, here again is my thinking:

• I find the tone too anti-Coulter-ish and generally snotty. I have a large circle of acquaintences and they all view politics, etc the same way I do. This means that people such as myself, would not and do not like the tone of this article.

• This Wiki is not a "radical" agenda driven information store. Rather, it is on the cuting edge of a new type of knowledge - egalitarian, equal access, joint venture. If this article so offends my perspective that I resent it, how is this Wiki going to attract and retain readers and editors who think like I do?

• And don't be so quick to brush that aside - any society-wide idea (as the concept of Wiki is) will nessecarily need to draw from all aspects of society - and make room for them.

• I have no interest in sexuality or biology, so you don't see me camped out at say the "clitoris" page, jumping in with both feet to the fight over photo/graphic, do you?

• It's axiomatic that conservative thinking persons who follow politics are going to take an interest in Ann Coulter's page. But if you insist on a page that offends my sensibilites and succeeds in driving me away, how then does this Wiki benefit from my "cross-polination"?

• Don't be so quick to compare conservatives to Jack the Ripper. Neither in jest nor for real. It's offensive and it sets a premise which precludes real dialog.

That said, here is why the quotes must be reduced and why those who say no, are wrong:

The stated reason the pro-quotes crew wants all those quotes is to clearly, forcefully and on a dose-of-her-own-medicine basis, hang those harsh words on Ann's neck like an Albatross.

Well guess what? That's exactly what makes Ann obnoxious - she rubs peoples faces in things in a harsh manner.

So now, the anti-Ann editors think that the just consequence of that is to rub my face (the reader) in endless streams of harsh commentary? How does that make sense?

Sounds to me like that is a defacto concession of POV. And if it's not, why stop with what we have now? Let's put in 500 nasty Ann quotes - after all, since we have cast aside the goal of making the article open and accesable to all, who cares how many people our article offends...

] 00:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, somehow "I have a large circle of acquaintences and they all view politics, etc the same way I do," isn't a very convincing argument here. Also, you have not answered the question, "Would Ann Coulter find this list of quotations unbalanced and unfair to her position?" I'd be interested in your answer. Fuzheado | Talk 00:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Also do you mind losing the signature-spam you keep using?)

Rex, perhaps your reaction to kizzle's flamboyant rhetorical style will help you understand how others feel about Coulters similar style. That's why the quotes are important; they are illustrative of her quite intentional polemical style, which is why she is famous. Wolfman

Wolfman: You have conceded to my point - that the "many quotes" editors here are in fact intending to cause a sense of "upset" to the readers, along the lines of how they feel Coulter "upsets" people. If you don't see how wrong and how POV that is, I can do nothing to persuade you. I will only say that so long as we have so many quotes here, I will monitor this paage and be certain that the NPOV notice stays on it. Also, I may ask for an RfC. Would you support asking for one? ] 06:01, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I have not. It's not wikipedia's job to avoid offending your tender sensibilities. The job is to report on why this woman is important. She's darn sure not noted for her intellectual conributions to conservative thought. She's noted & rich & famous for being obnoxious & outrageous & unapologetic. Anyway, why do her comments upset you of all people; she intended them to upset me. I'll bet she'd be lobbying for more quotes if she were on here; that's the whole purpose of them, to attract attention. As to an RFC, that would be fine with me (that's nothing formal like mediation is it?) Wolfman 06:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The bottom-line is this. Does the article presently written with all these quotes portray Coulter accurately or not? It does NOT MATTTER if it portray her too negatively if that is what the facts demonstrate. Is she someone who uses harsh, oftentimes untruthful, polemics in her work on a regular basis? Is that central to her identity and fame? If the answer is YES (and it clearly is YES), then all these quotes are trying to establish that. No we don't need 100 quotes to do this but I feel that the current number is a good/reasonable one to ESTABLISH the FACT that she is someone who uses harsh, controversial, sometimes untruthful polemics on a regular basis. Of course no one is saying that Coulter's behavior is anywhere close to murder or rape but the point about "Jack the Ripper" is a good one. If someone came and said, listing all his victims is bad we should limit it so he doesn't look as bad, then clearly people would say that this CRAP and would be inaccurately mitigating his crime. Same-same with Coulter (not that her polemics are "crimes" in any way) but the point is analogous. Stop this Coulter sanitizing, white-washing business! (unsigned comment by "144.189.40.223")

Hehe, i agree... i did not mean to compare the conservative to jack the ripper... bad example, still getting used to this. all i meant by that is very similar to what the unsigned person said above, that they are who they are, and I think that the collection of quotes presented is highly accurate of Coulter's style... i meant to draw the comparison in that we should not take off supporting evidence simply because it is unflattering if it is indeed accurately reflecting its subject. not to say that coulter is a murderer, and i know i did something wrong when i got compared to coulter by wolfman :) ... I still hold what I said before, in that in the thousands of quotables, there should be some sentences which can accurately and respectively represent her conservative views, and we should incorporate these rather than taking down what is up if you what balance. But from what I see, the collection of quotes presented is completely accurate and consistent with the general tone of her columns, and I don't think Coulter herself would want any of these quotes taken down. --kizzle 06:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

pity, i thought your comment was sheer literary genius. and now you tell us you didn't even craft that ironic chestnut purposefully. Wolfman 14:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Editorial POV tone is the problem

Regardless of the pro-lots-of-quotes arguements, the simple fact remains that this article does not read like an encyclopedia, it reads like a scandal sheet. Surely this crew must be able to describe Ann Coulter as the shrill, biting columnist that she is, without resorting to her style of cheap tricks, eh?

] 19:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's a wonderful description of her. Can we quote you in the article? :) Wolfman 21:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you have specific instances where that tone is objectionable, Rex? Lyellin 21:42, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Implying POV seems to me injecting opinion or slant into the article. I don't think that the collection of quotes is either unreflective of the subject or that the pro-Coulter camp would think that these quotes are unfairly portraying her. Thus, I do not see how the quantity or quality of the collection of quotes if accurate constitutes POV. Also, I appreciate that Rex has continued the dialogue rather than reverting to abandoning discussion and simply monitoring that the NPOV notice stays. --kizzle 01:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reason for my patience is that a fight over this esoteric point would be futile. Either you are going to accept that I am telling you honestly in good faith, how I see it, or you won't. Also, either you are willing to accept that my view is worthy of being respected enough to help shape the article, or you aren't. Either way, I can't force you on either point. Rather, I can only remind you from time to time, how foolish the article looks and reads as currently comprised. Oh well. ] 02:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look at it this way, in an article about George Bush, if we put in a few quotes where he mangles his words and ends up sounding dumb or tongue-tied, that's one thing. But if we tried to fill fully 40% of the article with such things, there would be inter-editor warfare like you can't believe. Surely the others here see that, yes? ] 02:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's because Bush is famous for something other than what he says. What is Coulter famous for? Wolfman 02:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, point taken, but the Bush example isn't quite analagous - Bush is a world leader, a decision maker, a Commander in Chief. Ann Coulter is a commentator and columnist - her words are her currency and the only thing she's known for. Fuzheado | Talk 03:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Or, what about having 40% of Gerald Ford's page be nothing but close examination of the "Swine Flue" and prat-fall hilarity which actually is historically true, but was made famous by Chevy Chase on SNL's early episodes? Truth is guys, I'm right on this point - you are guilty of piling on, also known as Running up the score ] 04:10, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, back to asking the question about the rest of the article. What specific instances do you have where you have a problem with the tone, Rex? Lyellin 19:21, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I have answered this again and again: Too many quotes. Even so, Gamaliel has today insisted that I personally edit, so I have. Now we will wait and see if others keep trying to make trouble over an NPOV tag by removing it and re-inserting too many quotes in tandem. ] 19:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Regardless of the pro-lots-of-quotes arguements, the simple fact remains that this article does not read like an encyclopedia, it reads like a scandal sheet" That's what I referring to Rex. Since the quotes will be contentious, and you already admit to something ELSE being a problem, would you explain what that problem is? Lyellin 01:02, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Uh, it reads like a scandal sheet primarily because of the excess number of quotes. ] 01:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

well, since the quotes have been removed, I'm glad there are no other objections and the tag has been removed (although I'm still of the belief that the quotes were not bad). Hopefully we can stop the bickering on this page then. Lyellin 02:36, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

There are still too many quotes, but if the total does not exceed what we have now, I am content to drop it. But I will be watching...] 05:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removing NPOV tag

The NPOV tag has been on this article for a week. In those seven days, only Rex has objected to this article, and he has not specified any problems with it beyond "it smells" and "too many quotes". While he has found plenty of time to argue here, he has not made a single edit to the article to correct this supposed POV tone, or any edit to the article at all. He has not identified a single quote for deletion from the list of quotes he claims is far too long. He has simply demanded others make corrections for him without specifiying what corrections need to be made. This seems to be bad faith, and unless Rex is willing to be a collaborative editor and work with others to eliminate any supposed problems he sees, I don't see any reason to keep the tag beyond the stubborness of a single, non-participating editor. ] 17:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, please keep your argumentative innuendo to yourself. That said, I am going to follow your suggestion and make edits beginning now. But remember - you insisted that I edit. ] 19:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whatever, Rex. You've never needed my prompting to troll before. ] 20:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the tag again, as well as the "protected" tag, as Rex is not an admin. ] 20:10, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please, no harsh words - I don't call you a "troll", please reciprocate. Also, I see you have adopted my lead by going with a smily variant too. Thanks for the compiment. Also, see note your talk page, re: "protect" error. My oversight - I apologize. ] 20:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine, you're not a troll, you're a friend to all children, whatever. Just don't expect sunshine when you act snide ("Oh, you forced me to edit Gamaliel, so whatever crap I put in this article is all your fault..."). Golden rule, buddy. ] 20:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correction: I was removing crap, not putting it in. ] 20:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Satire

Rex, do you have some reason to believe that the quote is actually satire, and not what she believes herself? Lyellin 20:47, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, she is reportd to be a Christian (see article). The vast majority of Christians would only say this "Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view." as satire (if they said it at all). Also, there is no information in the Bible which is anti-sweater. ] 21:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*rolls eyes* I do believe rex, that she's a rather radical person in her comments. But, both reasons you supplied are not proof, just speculation. (well, alright... I don't think I can go find a anti-sweater quote in the bible, but that does not mean she nessecarily follows ONLY what is written in the bible, as the bible is written. Perhaps she interprets the bible to be anti-sweater. Do YOU talk to her?) Lyellin 21:26, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but your logic is based on a surmise, whereas mine is based on an actual fact: "there is no information in the Bible which is anti-sweater". Naturallly it follows, that Ann is either very poorly versed what the Bible actually says or she is being satirical. And, in conjunction with the fact that her reputation is for harshness not stupidity, we must intepret this particular quote as being satirical. On the other hand, some who don't like her do call her "stupid" and in the interpersonal sense she may be - but in the sense of actually having considerable book-smarts, she is not stupid. ] 21:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you are making several logical fallacies here, and still basing stuff on your beliefs. Just because the bible does not have an anti-sweater quote, does not mean that either a, she's poorly versed, or b, being satirical. Nor is it our job, or ability to decide. Perhaps she has found a quote in Genesis that she interprets that way, or perhaps she believes the gospel of mary magdalene has a quote like that. Maybe she IS very stupid, (not my belief), and doesn't understand the bible. Irregardless of whatever option is the case, it's not JUST those two you present that could be options, and you, nor I, cannot make a judgement of what she meant. As such, it is entirely inappropiate to put a judgement in there. Let the reader decide. You seem to chirp that line enough, let's use it. Lyellin 01:01, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well other than being misinformed or satirical, she could actually be intentionally lying about what the Bible teaches (or not) in regards to "sweaters". Is that what you are saying she is doing? As I see it, there are only three possible logical premises for the origin of that statement:

1. She's lying - she knows the Bible doesn't teach that, but she is trying to intenionally mislead.
2. She's misinformed herself - she's just blabbing and doesn't really know the Bible's view on enriroment/sweaters, etc.
3. She's taking a stab at humor - as in "satire".

Lyellin; Other than these possible logical premises, what others can you think of? ] 02:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Technical Point. While I can see that it might be hyperbole, I don't see it as satire. I mean satire ridicules the other guy's point of view. I don't see any ridicule of the conservationist perspective here. Only breaking in here, because if the article calls is satire, it's important to be using the term correctly. Wolfman 01:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*doh* didn't even think of that. I assume the normal policy in wiki is to let the reader decide what is hyperbole, normal exaggeration, etc, correct? Lyellin 01:35, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

yes, spoonfeeding is generally frowned upon. and, i think the present disclaimer at the top of the section is quite sufficient warning to the reader. Wolfman 01:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

whoops, someone removed the disclaimer. there used to be a phrase at the top saying something like: "these are examples of C's flamboyant & polemic style, for which she is well-known. supporters argue these quotes illustrate her use of hyperbole, satire, and other non-literal rhetorical devices. critics point to her saying 'i believe everything i write'." i don't recall the exact wording, but this sort of general introductory paragraph seems appropriate to me. however, labeling specific quotes as satire, hyberbole, etc is just spoonfeeding & should be avoided.Wolfman 01:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uh, it is satire, because it ridicules the "evironmentalists" point of view in mocking manner. You know that it's mocking by the silly "sweater" quote. Frankly, I remain convinced that the only reason certain editors can't see that here, is because they are personally convinced that Christians do indeed think the way Ann Coulter's clearly satirical take on the enviromental dispute suggests that they do. And that's the reason those editors want this particular quote in the article - they want to make both And Coulter and Christians in gernal, look dumb. It;s the same tact that was taken by the same group on an "Axis of Medieval" issue elsewhere.

That said, I see tremendous opportinity for confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the readers with this "sweaters" issue, given that this particular quote is very nuanced.

By the way, isn't that John Kerry's strength - nuance? If I recall, this same group of editors has gone out of their way to carefully details much information on Kerry's behalf so as not to leave the readers with a pejorative misunderstanding. Oh, but when it comes to a concervative saying something that can easily be highlighted to as to look problematic - that's ok? Suffice it to say, I remain unpersuaded. This group has (3) choices so far as I am concerned: 1) Add "satire" word, 2) NPOV tag on article, 3) or bring it to Arbcom, etc. I am not backing off on this one. ] 01:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I personally don't think she meant it literally; I just don't think "satire" is right word. But's thats really a side-issue. Why do you think editors want to mae Christians look dumb? At the least you are assuming the editors are not Christian. You have twice made that mistake before with self-described Christians. Though I don't think you were referring to me, you shouldn't assume anything about my religious beliefs either.

I just suggested putting back "satire" in an introductory paragraph. Is that satisfactory, or do you insist that the quote be labeled as satire or (better) hyperbole. Wolfman 02:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My inter-editor comments have not raised the issue of the other editors faith, do please don't start that. I have talked about biases, etc,. but not their fairh. I see no reason why we can't either strike the "sweater" quote or list is this way: On the environment: (satire). Either would satisfy me and I would cease to consider this article to be in NPOV violation. ] 02:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So you are insinuating bias still. Well, I'm a christian also, but a bit different sect. Regardless, I see no reason why we can't have the satire paragraph that Wolfman suggusted. and it will actually help you, as it basically provides a blanket caveat to every quote on the list.

I really have problems with the "Do this, or it'llbe NPOV and I won't change till arbcom" attitude rex. It's like highway robbery. How is your view the only possible view, and only by editing by/for you, we win? I don't consider that good faith, or consensus building. Lyellin 02:19, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

they want to make both And Coulter and Christians in gernal, look dumb. You may not have meant it, but I hope you can understand why that might be viewed as questioning an editor's faith. But, let's just put that aside as a misunderstanding. Now, I added this as a new introductory paragraph to Quotes:

The following quotes are examples of Coulter's flamboyant and polemical style, for which she is well-known. Supporters argue that these quotes illustrate a tongue-in-cheek use of hyperbole, satire, and other non-literal rhetorical devices. Coulter herself once stated "Liberals love to pretend they don't understand hyperbole". However, critics also point to her statement, "I believe everything I say."

That seems pretty fair warning to me. Particularly given that the first quote is the one you object to. What do you think?Wolfman 02:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd be ok with this:

The following quotes are examples of Coulter's flamboyant and polemical style, for which she is well-known. Readers may wish to see some of these quotes as examples of her tongue-in-cheek use of hyperbole, satire, and other non-literal rhetorical devices. In fact, Coulter herself once stated "Liberals love to pretend they don't understand hyperbole". However, some critics think these should be read literally, pointing another Colter quote of, "I believe everything I say" to support that view.

Great, I imagine that would be acceptable to everyone. Please make the edit. I, at least, am satified with that compromise and am now leaving the discussion. (The last phrase "to support that view" is superfluous style, but I don't much care since it's not a content issue). Wolfman 02:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd add in "to" between pointing and another. I also think that besides "to support that view", the added "In fact" is not really nessecary, but I won't object either. Lyellin 02:34, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

I've made a small edit to that paragraph, as it appears to be a recent and developing addition and it struck me as a little shaded to present the first quote as Coulter's statement and the second quote, also Coulter's statement, as something "critics" point to. -- Gregg 05:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent edit Gregg! ] 05:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Rex's latest revert edit summary. For god's sake man. Don't accuse me of going back on my word. What of substance or even tone did I change? You left a couple obvious typos; I fixed them. While I was at it, I tightened up your prose ever so slightly. And this without changing your tone or substance whatsoever. If you have a fetish for poor writing, that's no concern of mine. I'll leave it be, but don't go hyperventilating about me going back on my word. No need to look for malign intent in every little piddling thing. Wolfman 07:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I was only asking you if you had changed your mind about this: "(The last phrase "to support that view" is superfluous style, but I don't much care since it's not a content issue)". I aksed, because your edit did delete the "to support that view." and I was concerned about that. Nothing to be alarmed about. ] 07:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New Rather Quote

I actually think Rex found a pretty good quote, but I agree that we spent so much time removing quotes that I don't think it should be added. Take a quote down before you put that one up, if at all.

It's just another flippant remark and is completely of the moment. In a couple of months nobody is going to know what it means, and Coulter is wrong because Rather (like the rest of the media) did broadcast plenty of stuff that the SBVT made up without a second thought. And it's on the Wikiquote pages for both Coulter and Rather. It does not need to be in the Misplaced Pages article.

I told this group some time ago, that if they did not pare the list down enough, other quotes would follow. [[User

Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In other words, you made a threat that you will enact unless you get your way? Lyellin 00:01, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Lyellin, your snide comment does not deserve an answer and frankly, I am tired of your over-the-top antagonism. Until you desist, I am ignoring you indefinately. . ] 00:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

172.190.78.239 is obviously a sock-puppet with admin powers

The page is now protected. It appears to be the work of a brand new sock-puppet. I am pretty sure who that is. ] 01:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's your work, Rex. You started the edit war, and you wouldn't let it drop. I didn't protect it, I'm not an admin, and I've never edited this page before. But I know the sort of vendettas your type pursue, so I'm not going to edit under my user name.

It doesn't matter Mr. Sockpuppet - I know who you are. ] 01:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And?

Both users please list your objection to the other users edits. What is the essential disagreement? Arminius 01:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There was a previous debate on the quotes. This was resolved with a good-faith compromise in which the quotes Rex objected to were removed from this page. Those quotes are on Wikiquote and this article links there. Rex added a quote today that is just a flippant remark. Unlike the other quotes that were left on the page after the compromise, it does not add anything to our picture of Coulter. In addition, it's about current events and will mean nothing to anyone in a few month's time. The quote was added to Ann Coulter's entry on Wikiquote and removed from this page, in line with the previous instance. Rex reverted. I therefore restored the quotes deleted as a result of his objections in the past. Rex then declared a revert war. 172.190.78.239 01:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even though the premise of 172.190.78.239 (the anonymous sockpuppet) is faulty, nonetheless, 172.190.78.239 retaliated by escalating the problem from one quote to many, many quotes. I say we should conclude that 172.190.78.239 is operating in defacto bad faith by staying anonymous. Obviously, this is a user who's been editing here before. Could it be who I think it is? ] 02:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

• 03:41 - Rex adds new quote
• 06:33 - quote transferred to Wikiquote
• 12:45 - Rex's first revert
• 17:42 - my first revert
• 18:46 - Rex's second revert
• 19:13 - I restore quotes deleted twelve days ago as compromise after debate between Rex and other users
• 19:25 - Rex's third revert
• 19:27 - my second revert
• 19:30 - Rex declares a revert war

172.190.78.239 02:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Both points have been stated. As far as anonymity goes, to some degree everyone on wikipedia has it so disqualifying someone based on it seems frivilous (though getting a user page is not a bad idea). Despite previous agreements entering new information (quotes) should not be taken as a sign of aggression. Also I am noting that the three revert rule is in effect now. If either of you violate it you will be banned. Ok what is a compromise that you could both live with so we can get the page unprotected? Arminius 02:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The original discussion between myself and known (not anonymous) editors a few weeks ago, was that there was too many Coulter quotes in the article, all of which tended to illustrate the "negative" aspect of Ann's invective - ie; they all made her look like a bigot. Back then, I NPOV tagged the article and would not agree to un-NPOV unless the number of quotes in the article was reduced (see dialog). At that time, the subject of putting "positive" quotes in for Ann was raised. This battle started today after I had added (1) quote and (2) different anon IP editors insisted that it come out or all the previously removed quotes would be re-inserted. This of course, is extortion and I was not going to stand for it. My goal was to insert (1) quote today. ] 03:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would returning the article to the state before either of you began editing today with an inclusion of an NPOV tag suffice? Arminius 03:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I want the Rather quote in. And the fact that (2) "anon ip" editors, one of which is intimately familiar with this page are dead set against that, makes clear what the agenda has been here all the time: Smear Ann Coulter and use only quotes that make her look bad. ] 04:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What does the Rather quote tell us about Coulter? The quotes that were there add to our knowledge about Coulter and therefore belong in an encyclopedia article. Some of the ones that were removed the first time round did this too but they were removed to placate your hissy fit, and in the interests of harmony everyone settled for that. Now you add a quote that tells us nothing about Coulter, is wrong and will be completely meaningless within a very short space of time. Maybe the article could use some "positive" quotes. Why don't you try to find some? There's no agenda here. It's nobody else's fault but Coulter's if the things she says make her look bad. 172.190.17.15 23:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am unprotecting the page, the three revert rule stands. Arminius 05:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag reinserted

See above dialog and my edit summary for reason. ] 06:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

proposed compromise

How about this for a compromise? The quote section returns to its original state before this edit war and the NPOV notice comes down. After all, that was the version all parties had previously agreed to. The Rather quote is subject to a poll about whether or not it should be included and we agree to abide by its outcome as well as agreeing not to add or subtract further quotes as a result of the poll’s outcome. ] 00:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree to that only if we have an honest discussion of moving closer to the maximum total of only (6) quotes which I proposed before and which was ignored by others. By the way Gamaliel, are you willing to affirmatively assert that you are not one of the anon-ip editors here and do not know who they are? I'd be curious to see if what you say to that. ] 00:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have never made any anonymous edits to Misplaced Pages. If I have anything to say anyone, I will say it to their face and not anonymously. I don't particularly care for your insinuation, frankly. I think it is insulting and tactless, and unfortunately par for the course. ] 00:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, stop getting hysterical. Now that you've eliminated yourself as a suspect, perhaps you can join in the question: Precisely who is it that is acting as the anonymous sockpuppet on this page? I'd like to know that. Wouldn't you? Also, you did not acknowledge that I responded to your compromise offer. What say ye to my response? ] 05:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest interest in who the anonymous contributor is. An IP address or a user name is all the same to me. The only one who is getting hysterical about 172.190.78.239's identity is you, and apparently you'll keep insulting people until you find out who he or she is. If you are interested in compromise instead of complaining about sockpuppetry, then I am glad. If you want to start an "honest discussion" on a particular topic, go ahead and start it. If 172.190.78.239 also accepts this compromise, then we can go ahead and get started on ending this edit war and move on to the next one. ] 07:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please re-read the above (this section). I have already responded to your compromise offer and am waiting for your reply about my response. ] 08:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you have responded to this call for compromise. Is that what you wanted me to say? ] 08:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I don't think the Rather comment adds a lot of value; it's fairly typical of standard comments by conservatives. But, it doesn't hurt much either, and can be justified as illustrative of her (incredibly ironic) charges of liberal media bias. So, I would say leave it -- but let's be restrained in adding more quotes of any variety; the quote section is already a bit long.

• It's irrelevant who 172.* is. What matters is the message, not the messenger. I suppose in a vote, it might be relevant but otherwise it's not. Wolfman 15:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman's most recent edit

Even though I still don't like the total number of quotes whick make Ann look bad (as I have always stated - I wanted six, maximum), I am ok with the paring down which Wolfman just did. ] 03:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel's edit

I think that change to someone else's comment was made due to filtering software... seems to me like a justified edit if the page won't show up on filtering software, should be changed to f*cking or something like that though. What do you think? --kizzle 21:25, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think anyone should change user comments except the user who made those comments, and if that user wishes to change it to bleeping or whatever, fine by me, but we shouldn't do it for them. If someone is using filtering software, then (also IMO) that's their problem and I don't think wikipedia should cater to them. Should we change articles too? ] 21:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I agree. It should be the responsibility of the person whose message it is, but whoever changed it in the first place, can they say what actually happened and if the page got blocked by "web-sitter" software?--kizzle 21:34, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

The Daily Show?

Is it really encyclopedic to state that Coulter hasn't appeared on The Daily Show? She hasn't appeared on the Muppet Show either, or on MST3K, or the Simpsons, or... --Neschek 23:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uhm, yeah. Especially when she did appear on the Daily Show on July 17, 2002. http://aaronn.monoperative.net/ann.html AlistairMcMillan 23:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

O'Melveny & Myers

Just thought this was funny. Why is someone from O'Melveny & Myers LLP editing a page about Ann Coulter? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ann_Coulter&diff=0&oldid=6886089 AlistairMcMillan 03:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

kizzle edit

If Coulter was called a "barbie doll" or whatever, attribute the source or whatever, don't say "some people think" or "some people call her" ... as for the sexist remark, it is inappropriate in this article as it is spoon feeding the reader and drawing analytical conclusions rather than merely stating descriptive sentences, see "Spoon Feeding" --kizzle 04:21, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Quotes should be moved to WikiQuote

I haven't seen an article with quotes embedded as well as with a link to WikiQuote. Can't they be merged into WikiQuote? They're overwhelming the article.

What is Anne Coulter's Religion?

Would someone please disclose what religion Ann Coulter was born into and what is her present religion? Is she a Roman Catholic or is she a Protestant ? If she is a Protestant then what denomination does she follow?

I don't happen to know her religion; however, I have removed your mention of Roman Catholocism and Protestantism from the article. Please do not add information unless you know it is true. ] 23:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe you removed someone else's edit mentioning that she was raised in a Roman Catholic family. Will someone be kind enough to include what religion Ms. Coulter belongs to?

You, or someone with the same IP address as you, are the only one who has added information regarding her religion. I took the information off when I saw that you weren't sure what religion she was. See the page history. ] 00:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is actually a man?

According to Ann Coulter is actually a man, born as Jeremy Levinsohn. Does anyone know if this site is a joke?

Given the site's reference to "his" former roommate Ima Gaiboyye and former co-worker Licky Dickenstein, I'll go out on a limb and say it's a joke. For anyone who doesn't get the context, "Strap-On Veterans For Truth" is a takeoff on the group formerly known as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". JamesMLane 22:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also check out the homesite of the site: . It's a fairly popular humour site.

I think it's pretty clear that Coulter is actually an Afghan Hound. I mean, come on, just look at her. Gzuckier 19:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reference style

Except for scientific articles, we don't usually use the citation form "(Memmot, 2004)". I think the previous form, with a hyperlinked citation at the appropriate point in the text, is better. An interested reader can go directly to the source. JamesMLane 22:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually James, we don't usually cite references at all. That doesn't mean we shouldn't follow policy. I think numerical hyperlinks clutter up the readability of the text. It's also more difficult to follow on a printed version. This seems like a policy that the change of which deserves a discussion by a lot of people. In fact, if you still feel the same way, I'd be interested in discussing it with you in that context. 64.154.26.251 03:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've done a lot of editing of articles related to politics. There's perhaps more of a tendency to cite sources in such articles. In this article, for example, if someone inserts something favorable to Coulter, those hostile to her will want to be sure that it's true before they (oh, all right, we) grudgingly allow it to stay. The same goes for her supporters when something unfavorable is added. As to the style, I think that a hyperlinked number is much less distracting than a parenthetical phrase containing a name that hasn't appeared until now -- wait a minute, who's this guy Memmot and why is his name suddenly being mentioned? Most people aren't used to reading scientific journal articles that use this citation style. JamesMLane 06:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)