Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Pictures

File:Anncoulter04.jpg

Ann Coulter

She doesn't like that Time picture

Hi. Sorry if this has been hashed through already, but I read an interview ([1]) that she was pretty unhappy with that Time cover picture of her. So this article's use of it (as her one and only picture at least) seems kinda like a biased jab. Can't anyone come up with one that doesn't piss off the page's subject from the get go? I'm clueless about wikipedia and pictures. keith 00:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It'd be just as biased to use a photo that she especially endorsed. I think it'd be more interesting to describe her issues with the photo. She apparently dislikes it so much that she didn't read the issue. Most of an interview was devoted to that topic. Anyway, getting public-domain pictures of contemporary figures is hard. Magazine covers count, especially if we discuss them. -Willmcw 01:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

When you say, "that topic," do you mean the topic of her dislike of the cover? How can that be the topic of the interview if the giving of interview necessarily preceded the use of the photo? By the way, you're missing the point when you say it's just as biased to use an endorsed photo. Coulter's objection to the photo, in case it's any interest to you (and it is unclear whether that is the case), is that it is intentially distorted to the point of being cartoonish and, at least to her mind, demeaning -- and, more specifically, that Time would not have given that same treatment to a cove--patton1138 04:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)r featuring a person of a persuasion more friendly to that of allegedly elite, liberal publications as itself. Paul Klenk 01:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that new photo I used is p.d. enough, and its not one she endoresed but not one she'd dislike either.-Bedford 01:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Much better photo. A screen shot is much more difficult to distort. Paul Klenk 01:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a troubling rationale for altering an article. Whether the subject of an article likes or dislikes a picture should not be a factor is selecting a picture.

 Wikipedia frowns upon people editing their own Wikipedia articles.  We also frown on proxy editing.  Altering an article based on the likes or dislikes of the subject amounts to proxy editing by the subject.  Guettarda 01:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, go to the Al Franken site. They slap themselves on the back over there about how great the picture of Franken they got was.

Not that there's a double standard working here or anything...

Big Daddy (signing in from another ISP cause I can't get access to Wik from My computer. Strange, huh???)

68.42.141.76 14:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not her like or dislike that is an issue, regardless of how the heading of this section may read. The issue is the photo's obvious cartoonish, feature-distorting quality, whether that quality is intentional, and whether it therefore could be construed as biased, and therefore unobjective. Paul Klenk 02:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The new photo looks fine to me, though I disagree with the logic of changing it. BTW, a screen shot has nothing to do with distortion - the TIME photo was clearly shot with a wide-angle lens, a screen shot could do the same. It may still be interesting to note her passionate dislike of the TIME photo. The interivew I mentioned is this one [2]. -Willmcw 01:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda maybe those two frowns would cancel each other out and result in a smile. what about that? Back to the pic, its a simple issue of treating people with dignity. keith 01:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you believe that we should alter articles based on the opinions of the subjects? Should we remove material that the subjects of articles don't want out there? It isn't about any particular image, it's a matter of the rationale used to alter an article. I think this approach has the potential to hurt Wikipedia. Guettarda 04:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You'd have a point if we were talking about something substantial. But it's just a picture. Furthermore, it isn't a very representative picture to begin with. I vote that it be changed. --patton1138 04:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a notable part of Coulter's career that she was featured on the cover of Time, which is unusual for a commentator like her. It's not the best choice for the lead picture -- a boring old head-and-shoulders shot is our normal standard, so the Faux News shot is preferable -- but the reproduction of the Time cover should stay in the article, along with the mention of her having been featured. I think I read somewhere that she said of the photo, "It makes my feet look as big as the Atlantic Ocean." Whether the picture is flattering or unflattering is intrinsically unimportant, but if Coulter has expressed intense dislike for it, and has made a big enough deal about the subject, then we could quote or paraphrase her reaction to the photo. JamesMLane 04:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

well if you have a burning need to include the fact that she was on the Time cover, I suggest the following compromise: lose the picture but add a sentence stating she was on the Time cover. Both sides get what they want. As for the picture itself as a "historical fact", I could possibly see that. But it seems to me more of a story about Time, they do that fairly often to people. At the very least we would need to make it neutral by giving both "sides" (like on the OJ Simpson page section about his Time cover fiasco). Perhaps a flattering figure shot right next to it for comparison. But I still think it's disrespectful to show distorted pictures of someone if they object. It's a pictorial lie. keith 06:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you believe that we should alter articles based on the opinions of the subjects? Should we remove material that the subjects of articles don't want out there? It isn't about any particular image, it's a matter of the rationale used to alter an article. This is not what Wikipedia is about - NPOV is the point, not "sypathetic point of view" like some sites. Guettarda 15:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, you'd have a point if we were talking about something substantial instead of just a picture. The way I see the situation, there's no real positive case for keeping the picture up. That is, the case being made is that the reason given to take it down isn't good enough. That's not much of a case, if there's no good reason to keep it up in the first place. It's not like taking it down will deal a blow to the NPOV-ness of the article... --patton1138 18:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't "just a picture" when it's on the cover of a major national magazine. It becomes notable in itself, regardless of its accuracy. For the same reason, we've reported many distortions and outright lies that Coulter and her ilk have spread about their political opponents, because some meritless charges become notable. By contrast, taking a picture of Coulter from an angle that triggers some foreshortening effect isn't deceptive at all. AFAIK, that really is how she looks from that angle. JamesMLane 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I'm not talking about content - I don't care what pic the article uses. I'm talking about philosophy. The pic was changed "because Ann doesn't like it". That strikes me as one of the worst possible rationales. The POV is "passes the approval of the subject". How can that possibly be an acceptable reason for altering an article? Guettarda 18:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You can keep repeating and repeating "it was removed because Ann doesn't like it" as many times as you wish, but that doesn't make it true. Your intellectual dishonesty is interfering with your ability to participate in a NPOV project. The reasons for removing the picture have been thoroughly discussed. When you fixate on one aspect of this discussion and ignore the rest, you are displaying your bias and your refusal to step back to a NPOV attitude. I suggest you take a break from the Ann Coulter project. It is participation by individuals who behave such as you that create the controversey surrounding projects like this. Paul Klenk 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Intellectual dishonesty"?!!! Bedford said in his edit

(cur) (last)  20:10, 22 August 2005 Bedford (As Ann doesn't like that pic, I found a neutral pic of her.)

I raised the fact that this is a terrible reason for altering the article. Rather than addressing the issue, you said that it "wasn't the issue". Is that "thorough discussion"? Great "collegial" editor you are - indulge in personal attacks, call me a liar...Come on dude, grow up. Try convincing people through logic rather than name calling. Guettarda 19:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem solved folks. (Cathytreks 20:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

I should have said "controversial pic change; the "doesn't like" was a abd choice. In any even, if we keep both pics, we really need to shrink the Time pic; it's way too big right now. (Bedford 20:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Gee whiz guys! I did shrink it..alot...cant you tell?, p.s., how do you like my stick figure? hope it amuses everyone so that we can all be friends again! (Cathytreks 20:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

I don't care which photo we use, but please don't put a left-aligned picture as the lead photo. It messes up the TOC. Rhobite 20:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re: JamesMLane: For how many other persons on Wikipedia has it been deemed that their appearance on a national magazine cover is 'important' enough to warrant inclusion in the article? Furthermore the picture obviously is not representative of her appearance. But because it was on a magazine cover, it's inclusion-worthy? Come on! And who cares if that is how she does look from that angle? It's not 'deceptive', but it's certainly not a 'biographical/encyclopedic' angle, for lack of a better term. --patton1138 20:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It's common for entertainment and sports celebrities to be on magazine covers, so I wouldn't find it very notable for one of them to be on the cover. The point I made about Coulter is that it's unusual for a political commentator to be featured so prominently. Similarly, it's unusual for a scientist to be so prominent, and our article on Alfred Kinsey does indeed include a reproduction of the Time magazine cover that depicted him. (Heck, we even have a Time cover in the article on George W. Bush. That was more newsworthy, because he was twice selected as "Person of the Year", but obviously was less important in Bush's career than this cover story was in Coulter's.) JamesMLane 21:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Are we all as the children?... my god(s)!, If we cannot even agree on a simple picture or two, or the alignment thereof...what hope do we have to agree upon anything of true galactic import!? Shalom (Cathytreks 21:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

At the risk of going completely off-topic, I don't think your stick figure is appropriate for use on talk pages. Wikipedians have a strong aversion to animated gifs in signatures. It's distracting and a little obnoxious. Rhobite 22:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

My only regret is that juvenile person used it for malicious purposes on the Coulter page itself, that is so pathetic... I only put it up here on the talk page as a "in joke" between us all, for the purpose of bringing forth some mirth on an otherwise heated debate, Surely we can all agree to the placement of both pictures? I dont even mind which one is more prominant than the other, as long both are placed in the article itself and both sides can now be happy!(yeah...right! ha ha) Best regards to all Wikipedians! Cathy (Cathytreks 22:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

And I don't care which pic is used, as long as it doesn't mess up the TOC. Rhobite 22:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Both of the pictures appear fine to me. I see nothing wrong with including them both within the article, but can appreciate User:Rhobite's viewpoint. Hall Monitor 23:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I am disputing the neutrality of using that picture. I have attempted to compromise by making it smaller (similar to the size of the also controversial OJ Simpson Time pic) and was also reverted. No one seems willing to deal. And yes that was a cute stick figure. That is all. keith 00:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV restoration of Coulter Time magazine cover to the Wiki article, please discuss the issue here on the Coulter talk page before you remove it, as it will otherwise be reported as vandalism, I thank you, and the cute stick figure thanks you too. (Cathytreks 00:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

Keithd's edit was really vandalism, Cathytreks?!? I would agree with him on shrinking all the pictures a bit. Additionally, if one of the arguments for keeping the Time pic is its importance as a rare media appearance, shouldn't it be in the media section? I think you're being a bit domineering here... Disagreeing is one thing, but to label those recent edits as vandalism simply because you proclaimed it was beforehand does not a vandal make. A bit rude and non-team-player-ish, but no more than your self-proclamation as supreme editor on this issue that you just made above... --patton1138 18:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I like ot better w the images spread out, instead of all bunched up at the top. Does that make me a vandal? Also, we need loads more pics of her, she's hot, and photogenic. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please remove that fisheyed Time Magazine Cover (one of Time's favorite tricks is to distort the faces of people they perceive as villains - see Bush, Geo W and Simpson, OJ for details.)

The question is not whether or not Ann likes it.

The question is did Time deliberately use a distortion lens on her photo consistent with the way they've done with photographs of others they don't like and the answer is yes.

Therefore that photo has NO business in here. It's a slam shot and it's INEXPLICABLE that it has been kept.

In fact, the reason SO MUCH CRAP is discussed back and forth in this page is because sane people have to stop the FLOOD OF HATE spewed at Ann from liberal wik's who want to include their venom in this entry. It's almost like it's their religion to hate Ann Coulter and no one is gonna stop them!

Here's a better much more flattering photo. I have no idea of Ann likes it.

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2003/07-23-coulter-inside.jpg

That it's flattering, sized right and appropriate should be good enough. Unless you really don't have a nPOV...

PS It's LAUGHABLE that you guys posted two of the WORST photos ever taken of Ann in this entry. Musta been an accident, huh?

Big Daddy 04:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

fascinating

So... the article on Coulter has morphed from a collection of quotes into a collection of pictures. Maybe the article on Paris Hilton can become a collection of her quotes. Symmetry. Gzuckier 01:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

ha ha..very funny lol (Cathytreks 01:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

the gun pic

well, on to a new topic; that gun pic is unsourced (and up for deletion) plus it looks more like an outtake from the dukes of hazzard than anything you'd typically associate with Coulter, and the resolution isn't good enough that she's really absolutely identifiable, it could be any skinny chick with long blond hair. I'm just saying. Gzuckier 16:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point. Eh, I'm neutral on this one. It does characterize her right-winged-ness, I suppose, but you have a point with the low-res and lack of clarity. --patton1138 18:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the image is great, and paints her in a more human light. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was a nice pic also. Actually I think its from her web page. Still too small and grainy though probably. Check this one out I found randomly on the web somewhere http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/104031.jpg might be fake but... keith 21:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the leggy one best, but can't we have them all? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ann's Top Photo

As long as we're using one from Fox, here's one I propose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:003Coulter1.jpg

I understand people absolutely insisted on including the cover photo from Time which she detests. To be fair, let's use a photo that's truly flattering.

I tested it for a minute and it looks a million times better. See for yourself! (Why would anyone have an objection to this?)

Big Daddy 11:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought today would be a good day to launch the new and improved Ann Coulter photo. See what you think! Big Daddy 12:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The composition of this photo is much better. In the old photo, her head was sort of floating -- it looked a photo within a photo. In this one, her face fills the frame better. paul klenk ^talk

The old photo was brighter, and had neither the fox news logo floating around nor the large live banner. This is a bad change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Give us a break, Hip. paul klenk ^talk 13:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I believe the old photo was better. But I do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As you know, I'm not fan of AC, but I don't think this is a very flattering pic - it draws the eye to a rather gaunt-looking neck. But that's just my observation - it doesn't matter to me what pic is used in the article. Guettarda 14:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Perfect! This picture has something for everybody. For Ann-haters, she looks anorexic and it exposes her 'adams apple' (lol!) For people like me, she looks smokin' and for Paul it's better aesthetically. I'd call that a win:win:win. (I'll get to work on the licensing end relatively pronto.) Big Daddy 16:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't just pop this in and worry about licensing later. I don't give a hoot what picture use of skeletor Coulter, but you can't post a copyright violation. Fix the license first, then post it. The present tag on the image is not appropriate to the actual use in this article. At least that's how it seems to me. Derex 22:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

what a surprise, paul and "big daddy" agreeing on something yet again....

I think this new picture is awful. It is blurry and dark. The previous one was better. Keep this image, but just put it lower in the article. Put the old one back at the top. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone wrote - "what a surprise, paul and "big daddy" agreeing on something yet again...."

That's a personal attack. An implication. Please refrain from such slurs in the future. Thank you. Big Daddy 18:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

He didn't write that. [3]. I believe you owe him an apology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC). To be clear, after reading this comment, BD777 inserted his statement below, and replaced his erronious statement that "Lord Voldemort" wrote above with "someone" wrote. [4] Draw your own conclusions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have. Get some fresh air. Big Daddy 19:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the new picture. Is it really that hard to find a picture of Ann Coulter? Why don't we just show a book of hers as the first picture? Who cares? It's just a picture.Stanselmdoc 14:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! For people who keep saying 'who cares'... you seem to care a lot! Face it, this new photo is a lot hotter than the unflattering one that was replaced. And that's why the Ann-haters are against the change. I was warned the Ann-haters in here would make a big deal about something as simple as a photo and come up with ALL kinds of ostensibly legit sounding excuses (licensing, lighting etc.)But I have to say this is pretty sad. You know, you don't have to fight...every....little...thing that puts Ann Coulter in a more favorable light. You don't see me going into the Al Franken site and fighting over his photo, do you? Anyway, don't worry folks, the licensing issue is being taken care of and I have the same shot with much more backlighting I could use if I thought that was the real issue. But it's really not...isn't it?? Big Daddy 18:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, I actually kinda like Coulter. I think she is pretty funny. I might not agree with everything she says, but I don't think I deserve to be called an "Ann-hater". I just happen to think this new picture is not as good. <insert some comment here about everyone having opinions and assholes> And I must say, BigDaddy, you've come a long way on the WP:CIVIL policy, but you have a little more growth to accomplish. Keep uo the good work my friend. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please replace bad photos with better photos. Please replacce not-free or fairuse photos with GFDL photos. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You couldn't find a decent picture of Al Franken, as they all look like him. --Bedford 19:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you go to the Franken article, you'll see a nice, rather pleasant photo of him. And if you go to the talk section, you'll find someone rejoicing that he found an 'awesome' photo to use. And no one minded one whit, which I think is great. I hope we will extend that same goodwill to conservative commentators at Wikipedia and I'm happy to say it looks like we are. Big Daddy 04:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The statment that "I think the picture is too dark" is not a statment that "we need to find a really ugly picture." I think the picture is too dark. I would love to find an attractive, GFDL shot of her. Perhaps you can write to Ann and ask her to GFDL a photo to us? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. In the meantime, if it's merely lighting you're after, those prayers have been answered -http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/BigDaddy777/002Coulter1.jpg Big Daddy 08:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not have copyright info on that picture. If you have a clean or fair-use rationale for that photo, please upload it and replace the current version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

new photo of her

http://www.e-skojec.com/images/coulter.jpg

http://www.overspun.com/images/Coulter.Alien.jpg

Notfree images. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

can we post this image of her adams apple?

http://www.rawilson.com/images/coulter.jpg

Canada

canada/vietnam war

I edited this piece to make it more fair without substantively changing anything.

I know...I know... you guys CAN'T STAND the fact that the (liberal) Time Magazine vindicated Coulter in the 'Were troops sent to IndoChina/VNam?' debate and that McKeown was HUMILIATED on national TV by showing he knew less about HIS country's history than that 'she-villain' Ann Coulter. lol!

But, that's the facts, Jack.

I did include, as a postscript, the FAIR challenge, but sorry, as liberal as it may be, TIME Magazine trumps a fringe left group like FAIR every day of the week. That is...unless you want to include a POV...

Here's the edit:

In January 2005, Coulter gave an interview to CBC's The Fifth Estate (video clip of this part of the interview) in which she argued that Canada's non-participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated that Canada's "loyal friendship" with the United States was weaker than in the past. She attempted to contrast the situation with the Vietnam War, stating, "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

The interviewer Bob McKeown countered, "No, actually, Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam." Coulter insisted they did and suggested IndoChina as another station for Canadian troops. Although McKeown maintained she was wrong throughout the interview, Coulter was vindicated in this matter when a Time Magazine article dated April 25, 2005, stated "Canada did send noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972."

Left-leaning media watchdog FAIR disputes this assertion, however, saying that writer John Cloud was "making quite a stretch." Acording to FAIR, "Canada was officially neutral during the Vietnam War, so if any noncombat troops were sent [...] they would not have been sent to support U.S. forces there." FAIR also notes that the alleged troops were not mentioned "in a detailed 1975 U.S. Army history, Allied Participation in Vietnam." [5] Canada sent officials to Vietnam in 1954 and 1973 as observers with the International Commission for Control and Supervision.

tinydaddy ... please. canada did not send troops do the vietnam war. there are many immigrants in the us who join the forces, it doesn't mean their countries sent troops to iraq. coulter was shooting her mouth off and was wrong, this was not a 'clarification' --71.112.11.220 19:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy 14:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the far right TIME magazine (lol!) said they did. The interviewer was STONE COLD WRONG. Ann didn't specify whether they were combat or non combat troops. She said 'troops.' Period.

She was right and you are wrong.

And her larger point, which you would get if you weren't such nitpicking church ladies is that Canada used to be much more of an ally and indeed they were in VNam era sending non-combat troops which they did not do in Iraq.

So, she's right on the point and right on the facts.

Bummer, huh??

ps Don't mock my name. It's a personal attack, against Wik rules and will be reported.

Sheesh, whether it's Ann Coulter or Big Daddy, liberals just can't help from sliming people, huh?

Big Daddy 23:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

puh-leez, Coulter herself said she was wrong when she "clarified" her position. So either she was wrong in the first place or wrong in the second. It doesn't really matter to me, what's ridiculous is her justification of her initial statement. It's like saying China sent troops to Iraq if there happened to be a single Chinese-born American in the marines.

Oh, that's cute. Like you really care what she says. You guys spend your whole lives 'proving' that what she says are 'DAMN LIES!!!' lol

For the record, she was wrong in the second instance, if by saying she was 'wrong' she meant troops weren't sent. (In context, what she really said was 'I was wrong for UNDERESTIMATING the Canadian presence in VNam.' Not that she was wrong about Canada sending troops. Big Distinction.)

Anyway, Canada DID send (non-combat) troops.

That's what she said.

The interviewer disputed that.

The church-ladies who worship at the holy tabernacle of 'Ann is a liar' got all excited and slammed her over it.

But in the end...

She was right; he was wrong.

Bummer, huh?

Big Daddy 10:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

i think i get this now. first she got it right (by accident), then someone erroneously told her she was wrong, so she did some research and "clarified" her position by claiming she was wrong in the beginning, but really she was wrong in the second case and was right all along. this lady sounds like she's got her stuff together!

Wow! Even a liberal hater admits she got it first. Although he is somehow mysterously able to discern it was 'by accident.'

As for the rest of your drivel...well...You should have quit while you were BEHIND! lol!

Big Daddy 14:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

i notice you changed Coulter's quote from "I was wrong" to "[...]". In the interest of saving space, I'm sure! --71.112.11.220 16:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why the liberal editors in here can't realize that Ann PUNKED them out!

First of all, Ann said she was 'wrong' in the same sense that, if I say ' 55% of the editors in here are liberal' - someone challenges me - I do the research and find that 80% are liberals and then say 'I WAS WRONG...it's more like 80%!"

so, to use 'I was wrong' as some sort of concession, as the orginal bogus piece, did is a POV distortion.

But, back to REALITY.

Mckeown was proven DEAD wrong as even the video clip from those neutral observers at Media Matters shows.

He said 'AUSTRALIA WAS THERE (VNAM) NOT CANADA.

That's just false.

Here's the re-write. It's better written and more accurate in the way the information is ordered. (That's another trick I found the liberal editors in here try frequently. Mis-order things so that the challenge to the conservative comes first in order to immediately weaken their case, even if it makes no logical sense from an editing standpoint.

" '

However, a Time Magazine article dated April 25, 2005, confirmed that "Canada did send noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972." Left-leaning media watchdog FAIR disputes this assertion, however, saying that writer John Cloud was "making quite a stretch" to prove that Coulter wasn't inaccurate. They explain: "Canada was officially neutral during the Vietnam War, so if any noncombat troops were sent [...] they would not have been sent to support U.S. forces there." FAIR also alleges that Canadian troops were not mentioned "in a detailed 1975 U.S. Army history, Allied Participation in Vietnam." [6] Canada sent officials to Vietnam in 1954 and 1973 as observers with the International Commission for Control and Supervision.

In a subsequent interview on C-SPAN, Coulter also pointed out that, while Canada did not officially send combat troops to Viet Nam, thousands of Canadian-born Americans had gone to battle:

"Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. [...] The Canadian Government didn't send troops [ ... ] [ but ] they came and fought with the Americans.... It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada." [7]"

Your opinion is not encyclopedic. "confirmed" is POV, "alledged" is just plain not accurate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Alleged is COMPLETELY accurate. If confirmed is POV, then NOTHING can EVER be confirmed in your mind.

BTW, it occurred to me that, rather than go back and forth deciding if Ann or FAIR was right, that perhaps a link from a REAL expert in Canadian/V Nam relations might help.

Now Hip, I'm not sure of you're aware of this great new site, but it's called Google and you can type in any search entry you want and it comes back with all kind of useful information. You should try it. It's amazing!

So, and forgive me for actually wanting to get to the truth of the matter...I know that is so un-Wik when it comes to Ann Coulter, I went to google and type in ""

And lo and behold, look what I found!!!

"Gwynne Dyer, in his foreword to Victor Levant's excellent history of Canadian involvement in the Vietnam war, says:

"The fact is that Canada did have choices about its behaviour in the Vietnam in the 1950s...The same is true of the 1960s." "We cannot know how high the price would have been if we had… refused to serve US interests in Vietnam. Nobody in Ottawa even considered the question seriously until the very end…"[6]"

So again and again Coulter is vindicated both in her LARGER point, which was really the only point she was making, that Canada was in bed with the US during V.Nam and that Canda did send troops. To suggest, as FAIR did because Canada was 'official' neutral belies the REAL truth of the matter and the inclusion of such questionable material in order to denigrate Ann's point is the real POV that ought to be removed.

Big Daddy 17:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That Canada "had choices about its behavior," is not "sent troops to Vietnam." FAIR did not alledge a report said something, they noted a report said something - the report, in fact, said that thing. WP:NPA - stop violating it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Quit SLANDERING me. You will be reported. This is not a POV issue. These are simply historical facts.

As I've said, you APPARENTLY cannot see the forest nor the trees...and both are crushing you right now.

The trees: Did Canada send troops to Vnam? Mckeown says no. Coulter says yes.

Who's right? Coulter.

(All FAIR did in their OBVIOUSLY dishonest attempt to undermin Ann was say 'if they sent troops..' they did not refute the facts. 

Did you get that? Even FAIR did not DISPUTE that TROOPS WERE SENT. That should be the end of the debate.

But wait...there's more...

FAIR then went on to imply that the troops were not there to help Americans since Canada was 'neutral.' That's the forest.

THE FOREST aka Ann's Larger Point- Canada's "loyal friendship" with the United States is weaker than in the past. (Taken right from the Wik article on Ann.)

That IS the point and the rest of this church lady nitpicking is attempting to distract from that.

Yet, we have hipocrite over here straining at the tiniest of minutia and swallowing camels.

Let me be as plain as I can with you hipocrite:

In fact I'll let noted Canadain historian Levant do it for me:

What did Canada jump to do, in Vietnam? A number of things. In Levant's words:

"Canadian food and beverages fed US troops, Canadian war material was used on the battlefields of South Vietnam and flown in sorties over Hanoi and Haiphong, auto parts fabricated in Canada were installed in US army vehicles, and many Canadian raw resources stoked the fires of the US military-industrial complex." (Levant 53., with much documentation). Everything from napalm components to green berets, from gunsights to whiskey, from radio relays to rocket warheads, were provisioned. The Toronto Star's weekly magazine tracked TNT from a plant in Quebec to Crane Indiana where it was poured into bombs. The May 27, 1967 supplement commented that "With luck, the explosive that left (Quebec) could be hailing down on a Vietnamese village six weeks later." (Levant pg. 58) These were boom years for the whole Canadian economy, a boom the Vietnamese paid for with their lives, by the million.

The issue of the troops was already settled. They were there. Even Ann's sworn enemies didn't dispute that.

The account from Levant just goes to prove that Ann was right about everything else as well..

Love, Big Daddy 17:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to being reported. I don't care what's "right." If you'd like to work with me to overhaul that entire section, I'm happy to do so here, on the talk page. You continue to make ill-advised changes to the main page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The comment I have responded to has been edited numerous times. If my response makes less sence, this is a likley explanation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip, I have a proven track record of not jumping the gun and first attempting to hash things out on TALK (that is with the outstanding exception of my first day or two at Wik!:)

And, I'm equally as happpy to join you in working out an overhaul except I no longer consider you an honest broker.

A) You stalk me where ever I go in Wik and revert my edits.

B) By your non-action prior to my arrival, you implictly endorse the absolute hatchet jobs being done on the articles on Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter (for example)

C) You then have the temerity to slander ME as introducing a POV!

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

Perhaps, there is some other editor (liberal or not) that can work with me on this overhaul?

Your pal, Big Daddy 17:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry, but you have no such record. You say what you've done on talk pages, yes, but you don't engage in discussion or attempt to reach consensus with other editors. Prove me wrong.

2. You aren't going to try to reach a consensus with me because you think I'm acting in bad faith? WP:AGF.

A. Obviously, I'm following your contribution log because I thought you showed some promise as a new editor.

B. That's not a fair implication.

C. You are.

Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Altering her quote with numerous "..." is unfair to Ann. Coulter said "I was wrong", plain and simple and removing that is POV. She later "clarified" by saying that there were Canadian immigrants that served, but that's like saying China has sent troops to Iraq. --155.91.19.73 18:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I will defend any unabridgement of her quote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Canucks in Afghanistan

And making Ann even more off the mark, Canadian special forces were fighting in Afghanistan beside the US, and even won a US Presidential award in 2002. Maybe Ann confused Vietnam with Afghanistan. They almost rhyme. Gzuckier 09:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Most recent inclusion

The most recent inclusion of the forward from a book does nothing to advance or retreat the argument about Canadian troops. Because of the consistant bad changes being made to this page, I believe I may be on the brink of 3rr (but it's impossible to tell at this point, because of the chain additions of terrible POV, which appears to my eye to be 3rr bait). Someone please remove this paragraph. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What nonesense. To anyone who understands the larger argument, the debate was all about whether Canada was as supportive of US actions in Iraq as they were in VNam. Liberal nitpickers, thinking they had an angle, jumped all over the 'troops' issue only to be HUMILIATINGLY proven wrong by, of all sources, Time magazine!

Although I like the section as it currently stands, it is hysteria to suggest a POV for including VALID documented information from a respected Canadian historian about Canada's relationship with the US during the VNam era.

It is ESPECIALLY RELEVANT since, as is their manner, the liberal editors in here feel COMPELLED to challenge any of Ann's assertions with some of their own from discredited far left wing websites.

In this instance FAIR couldn't factually challeng Ann on the fact that troops were indeed sent so they just snidely implied Well, if they were there, it wasn't to help the US since Canada was neutral during VNam.

It turns out that charge from FAIR was bogus and that's where the value of Canadian historians comes into play.

Now, if you want to excise the now proven USELESS quote from FAIR from this piece, then perhaps the Canadian historian's contribution may be not as crucial.

But, I won't hold my breath waiting for THAT to happen :)

ps I liked the fact that someone included a much more expansive quote from Ann about the interview. Good work! (Where did you find it, I'd like a listen!)

18:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again, whoever is in charge of editing this article is found to be derelict. If you say 'we're all in charge' then why do I keep getting harassing emails accusing me of 'page vandalism' from anonymous sources who then turn and revert my edits ? (Those harassing emails HAVE BEEN REPORTED by the way.)

But, to the point, the following inclusion is such PURE BS, it's amazing to think it's been left in here -

"Moreover, another media critic, John Osborne, Sr. Political Editor - TMPress International Newswire has taken Coulter to task as Mark Green did in the Huffington Post over her comments about New York City and New York State lacking the ability to defend off invasions by so-called `terrorists' ... `That Coulter does not check her facts right, because if she is looking for a state that has a primary front of its citizenry involved in the defense of the country - she need look no further than casualty numbers from NYState on http://icasualties.org/oif/USMap.aspx and take a look at the whole of New York's National Guard on duty in Iraq or perhaps check out the existence of Fort Drum, NY ... the home of the Army's 10th Mountain Division, and other New York State Army and Marine Reservists who have served and some who have died in service in Afghanistan and Iraq alone."

Read that first statement. What the heck is this - the winner of the essay competition in the Special Olympics???

It is completely convuluted, horribly written and almost impossible to discern what the hell he's talking about.

Worse yet, it's baseless.

I'm only guessing, but I THINK this 'brain surgeon' is referring to Ann's recent comments about New York CITY that it's citizens would 'surrender' if attacked by terrorists.

So where does this writer get off saying she made that charge to all of New York state?

No where...that's where.

But, it serves his purpose of trying to guilt trip Ann by then reciting the litany of contributions made bmy New York Staters (which Coulter was NOT referring to) in the military.

So, a horribly written, factually inaccurate HIT JOB on Ann Coulter has been allowed to stay in here, while I'm being harassed???

Wow!...you liberals really do OVERPLAY your hand...dontcha?

Big Daddy

Ps Take this crap out.

Big Daddy 02:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA BigDaddy, I haven't laughed that hard on a wikipedia article in a long time. I agree with what you're saying, but let's judge the paragraph on a "good faith" argument. Let's assume, in good faith, that the editor that added this piece of information in really wanted to give more information of the controversy surrounding Coulter. Then let's assume he was trying to do it in an npov way. But the paragraph makes no sense as it is! So, let's give the editor or someone else a chance to re-write the paragraph to make a valid argument. Because right now...definitely no argument showing up. If I may reference you to the above argument under "Ann Coulter calls New Yorkers....", there's a great discussion going on about this whole issue. Thanks! Stanselmdoc 17:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not laughing. Big Daddy, try and make your point without personally attacking other editors. If you see a problem with the content, make changes rather than ad hominem attacks. And try to avoid generalisations such as "you liberals really do OVERPLAY your hand," its just an inflammatory statement that makes things worse between editors of different political backgrounds. --kizzle 19:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle,

Oh if you're sensitivites were as strong for the subjects of the articles in this encyclopedia as they are for your fellow liberal editors.

First of all, there are precious few conservative editors to begin with. I think I'm on a first name basis with ALL of them by now. lol!

Secondly, the liberals won't admit they're liberal for the most part.

Thirdly, I've been around here enough to know that the Wik milieu...that is... the prevailing sensibilities in here are on par with what you'd find in a far left group such as Metafilter.

So, to suggest that I'm walking into some mythical 'even playing field' where everyone just wants to get along is laughable.

I have PLENTY OF DOCUMENTED evidence (much of which I got thru Metafilter ironically) that establishes that, as one FORMER employee put it, Wik has a POISONOUS political atmophere.

So, I'm in constant touch with someone in a supervisory role, to make sure I'm following Wik protocal because I know the liberal editors in here have a practice of SELECTIVELY accusing conservatives of POV while leaving in vicious politically-motivated diatribes about conservatives permanently enshrined throughout their articles. (This NY HIT PIECE is a good example.)

Furthermore, I made NO SUCH PERSONAL ATTACK, although I've been subject to an endless stream of harassing anonymous messages threatening to ban me for things I do not do (all of these messages have been reported.)

I attacked the writing. Which was retarded. And I attacked the LIES in the paragraph that made it irrelevant.

Further, as a gesture of good will, good faith and good cheer, I offered to include the quote in question (which surely is offensive to many) in the quotes section.

Finally, there are TONS of people working in Wikipedia who HATE ANN COULTER WITH ALL THEIR GUTS.

Don't ask me why...my guess it's some kind of pyscho-sexual thing with them. It's usually men and it's probably because all their life they've been rejected by smart beautiful women like Ann Coulter and when one appears on the air and it turns out she's conservative, it makes their entire life seem meaningless as they've spent it all trying to be as liberal chic as possible to ATTRACT smart beautiful women like Ann Coulter.

But, like I said...that's just a guess! lol!

Anyway, dems the facts.

So, everything in this article has to be scrutinized for POV.

I don't want to include my pov. I just don't want you and the other liberal editors to include yours...

Big Daddy 21:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks: "...the winner of the essay competition in the Special Olympics"
• Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks: "I THINK this 'brain surgeon' is referring to..."
• Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith: "...it serves his purpose of trying to guilt trip Ann"
• Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks: "I attacked the writing. Which was retarded."

Conservative viewpoints, as is the case with all viewpoints, are highly welcome on Wikipedia. However, being conservative doesn't mean you have to attack those who disagree with you. It's really not that hard to stick to discussing proposed changes to passages in the article rather than childishly characterizing your fellow editors as 'brain surgeons' or claiming that all liberals are afraid of their secret innermost desires for Ann Coulter. In any case, try to learn to be civil. --kizzle 22:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle ... I have asked Stanselmdoc, as I am a new user, to help figure out what `Big Daddy' needs to have in NPOV format ... I am used to wrting editorial Op-Eds and I and took a factual statement she made about NYC and New York State from that Op-Ed as others did in her Canada and Vietnam section under controversy. Stanselmdoc says it needs to be clearer and has even helped to offer an example of an NPOV rewrite - it was inserted twice they have removed it ... Stanselmdoc says it needs to be rewritten ... here is the rewrite by me ...

Moreover, another media critic, John Osborne, Sr. Political Editor - TMPress International Newswire has taken Coulter to task as Mark Green did in the Huffington Post over her comments about New York City and New York State lacking the ability to defend off invasions by so-called `terrorists' ... `That Coulter does not check her facts right, because if she is looking for a state that has a primary front of its citizenry involved in the defense of the country - she need look no further than casualty numbers from NYState on http://icasualties.org/oif/USMap.aspx and take a look at the whole of New York's National Guard on duty in Iraq or perhaps check out the existence of Fort Drum, NY ... the home of the Army's 10th Mountain Division, and other New York State Army and Marine Reservists who have served and some who have died in service in Afghanistan and Iraq alone.'

Question how do you state fact with fact to make Big Daddy happy and Stanselmdoc arrive at an NPOV observation. And for the record I am indeed a left-leaning Independent and proud of it, just as Coulter is very very right-wing and it seems proud of it! I do not take kindly to his criticism and name-calling - since I am a syndicated writer with several newspapers - and I doubt Big Daddy can claim those credentials! In addition he made the very wrong move of searching down my e-mail, contacting me in a harassing way there and I am reporting him to my ISP and Wikipedia for it, as soon as I get the chance - unless he apologizes on this forum, very soon! I am glad he has viewpoints ... but they are not everyone's and his name calling is worse than a blog! --Jozzyoz 02:34, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't be ashamed of being a left-leaning independent just as BigDaddy shouldn't be ashamed of being a conservative. What's more important is one's ability to recognize that neutrality is never achieved but aspired towards, and to try and be self-critical about the neutrality of one's edits. However, lets focus less upon threatening emails and reporting users to ISPs (which will do nothing), but simply upon making concise, logical, and civil arguments. BigDaddy, while providing interesting insight into the material here, has unfortunately conducted himself with very little class in the arguments he presents. I have, for the time being, chalked it up to being new to Wikipedia and hope that he refrains from continuing such personal attacks in the future. A quick word of advice Jozzyoz: on Wikipedia, return someone's hostility with kindness, as it both helps you sleep at night and makes for lightning-fast arbitration decisions later on the road if it comes to it. --kizzle 02:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle,

I've noticed you've taken the time to read my comments. You flatter me. Funny how you 'garbage collect' only the comments you think are inappropriate.

I wonder where you were when Salty Pig told me to 'pull my head out of my ..."?

I guess that one must've slipped by, huh?

And don't forget, my first contact with you was at your instigation , when you fired an unsolicited shot across the bow at me, a newbie, in another talk page.

And since you are not new, you SHOULD know better.

Anyway...you don't like my sense of humor? Fine. Others do but that's not why I'm here. I'll cut to the chase:

The Ann Coulter article for too long has been not much more than a litany of democratic talking points about why Coulter is a she-devil from hell.

Now I understand that is the view of a number of liberal editors in here but it should not seep into her encyclopedia article.

When I first started working on the Coulter article I found one egregious example after another of left wing bias.

Thanks to the wonderful efforts of some of the editors, much of that trash has been removed.

But it does cause me to pause (as should it every reasonable person.) How did this junk get allowed to be up there in the first place?

Now Jozzyoz has stated for the record that he got Wikipedia's approval to publish this paragraph I've been wrangling with him about.

Really...I'd love to talk to the Wik supervisor who greenlighted that.

I'm not making a personal attack when I say it's written in a completely incomprehensible matter. I'll bet if you show that to the 50 most liberal editors in America, that 49 of them would agree.

I'm saying including it is flawed and the question of WHY someone INSISTS on including it is relevant.

I'm not going over to the Al Franken site and insisting that some over-the-top statement he made about President Bush be given it's own section. I think that's just, to use your word with which you unfairly tagged me, classless.

Now, I'm sorry if you didn't appreciate my lighthearted attempt at playing amateur psychiatrist, but it is a curious matter to me why Coulter engenders so much hate.

Anyway, the comments were made about New York City. So, nothing about New York State (0r Mississsippi or Ohio or any other state) is relevant.

She, as she made it clear in a subsequent interview, that was available on line at media matters, she was referring to a SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHIC within new york CITY.

Jozzyoz's insertion is just too wrong at too many levels.

But I do respect him for being one of the first I've seen in here to admit he's a liberal.

That rare candor is very much appreciated.

Ps You know this 'TMPress International Newswire' that Jozzyoz's using as a source for this ?

Well...it's HIM!!! He's the 'Sr. Political Editor '! LOL!!!

That's real nice Jozzyoz. Write a slander piece against Coulter in some podunk far left 'alternative news source' that no one's ever heard of and then expect Wik to include in their encyclopedia entry.

Real nice...

Big Daddy 04:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle ... I'll take your advice, this article can be rewritten and no one at Wikipedia has greenlighted anything - I'll see what Stanselmdoc comes up with - contrary to the conclusions of your friend. Also, I have already informed them of his conduct. He was the first to contact me by my personal e-mail ... and further more why can't a `professional editorial writer of some 15 plus years' add content to an editorial site - but here we go again with the names ... now it's `in some podunk' - whatever ... I'll work on a different profile entry that he cannot worry about so much! --Jozzyoz 05:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not that anyone cares about your petty tit-fot-tats against me, but I contacted you simply by clicking your user name on THIS page, then hitting 'email this user.' Several people have contacted me this exact same way in the ONE week that I've been here.

It was the Wik mail service that directed my gentle missive to that email addy. If it was so top secret, perhaps your anger would be better directed at Wik.

Your friend,

Big Daddy

Big Daddy 05:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy, first of all I implore you to just write in paragraph form rather than spacing out every sentence, as it clutters up the talk page. I didn't see a user named Salty Pig telling you to pull your head out of your ass, he/she shouldn't have said it, but you shouldn't use that as an excuse to return hostility in kind. As for "firing a shot across the bow" at you, I really really hate it when people complain that there is some secret organization of liberals that "control the content", and it did seem that you were soliciting a hostile response, as in the very definition of trolling. You certainly weren't trying to be civil. But I will withdraw my previous label of troll if you withdraw your personal attacks.

Like I said before, why do you place such significance on Jozzyoz admitting he's liberal? This is not something to be ashamed of or keep secret, just as much as you shouldn't be ashamed of being conservative... we all have different political backgrounds outside of Wikipedia. The mere fact that someone is liberal does not make them any more or less likely to avoid neutrality than those who are conservative.

I'd also like to clear up another misunderstanding that I think you have. There are no "supervisors" on Wikipedia who "greenlight" content, and Wikipedia does not "give approval" for certain passages. We are all editors and contributors here who try to make the pages the best they can be. Not everything is perfect on Wikipedia and surely there will be passages that are biased to the left or right. If you see one of these, the first step you shouldn't take is to either attack the passage as "retarded" or call the person who wrote it either a "brain surgeon" or "winner in the Special Olympics." Instead, merely bring it up here with a concise, logical argument as to why it should be changed and what it should be changed to. Look at Paul Klenk, Mongo, Noitall (most of the time), they are conservative editors who try to discuss changes with those they disagree with rather than attack them. Don't inflame the situation here by turning it into a left/right war or claiming that conservative viewpoints are suppressed. There are several conservative editors here who are successful at getting their content inserted into articles because they politely discuss their changes through logical arguments rather than ad hominem attacks. --kizzle 16:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, first of all I implore you to do the TINIEST bit of research before you go all off on me knee-jerk style. This apparent lack of attention to detail makes me wonder if you are qualified to be in the field of editing encyclopedias where one must be precise.

Case in point: I said above: "...I wonder where you were when Salty Pig told me to 'pull my head out of my ..."? My exact words. You responded: "I didn't see a user named Salty Pig telling you to pull your head out of your ass," but that isn't PRECISELY what I said. Nice try. That's the old liberal trick like they pulled on Bush when asking him if he'd promise to 'fire' anyone involved in the Plame matter when his ORIGINAL promise was to only fire people who were guilty of a crime. Then, when he reiterated that promise with clarity, the liberal media accused him of 'moving the goalposts.' lol!

But, unfortunately for you, the information that damns your cavalier comments comes RIGHT FROM THIS VERY TALK PAGE. Here's the verbatim quote, it's LITERALLY above on this page: " if there could be a more obtuse response to my latin comment, it would require relativistic equations to chart. you still haven't figured out that i'm more conservative than you (and freerepublic). can't help you then, BigD. sorry. i didn't leave freerepublic; it and most every other "conservative bastion", including coulter, left conservatism. some light reading for you, should you ever pull your head out. later much. SaltyPig 17:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC

Now he said EXACTLY what *I* said he said and everyone know he was implying without saying it. In addition, he threw in a couple of other silly insults, ALL OF WHICH GO UNNOTCIED by you while at the same time, you are able to document (probably backwards in your sleep) EVERY LITTLE comment I made to anyone else in here that you consider to be a personal attack.

Wow, huh? Of course, you're no stranger to personal attack, since your VERY FIRST comment to me, without even a proper introduction was to call me a TROLL. I guess that's your way of saying 'I assume good faith' huh? lol! BTW, no deals. (You'll take it back; If I take it back or whatever) You called me a troll for no good reason other than as a personal insult IN CLEAR VIOLATION of Wik rules. All I did was suggest this place was OVERRUN by liberals and that this generally creates a default result of the liberal point of view prevailing when there's conflict. (And to be fair, I said the EXACT same thing would happen if this place was peopled by 80% born again Christians. It's a TOTALLY reasonable assumption/conclusion.) Yet, you and others CONTINUAL to slander me by suggesting I said there was a 'cabal' (your term - I never used it) ujsing the same dishonest method of attack I articulated above. ...Accuse me of saying something I didn't say and then attacking me for it... Wow! I found two instances of this dishonest practice in your writing in the last 3 minutes. No wonder you guys are so good at it...you have lots of practice! lol!

Regarding Jozzyoz - Again, you keep getting...it wrong...

You wrote: "Why do you place such significance on Jozzyoz admitting he's liberal? This is not something to be ashamed of or keep secret, just as much as you shouldn't be ashamed of being conservative..." Which was MY point exactly. If you, again...look back ON THIS VERY PAGE...you'll find I APPLAUDED Jozzyoz for admitting he was a liberal. My point was that liberals generally won't admit it. My issues with Jozzyoz had NOTHING to do with his liberalism, which was obvious to anyone as far away as Pluto. My problem with his contribution, (again, it's written above, if you care to look )was over what I considered to be piss-poor writing, faulty logic and (ultimately upon discovery) the laughable fact that he WROTE HIS OWN PRESS RELEASE (not even close to the Wik standard of a notable source) and then used the PR to source his preposterous comments. Man, you really do need to re-think working here. You've been very, very sloppy. At this point, I think even you'd have to admit that.

Big Daddy Ps Your last paragraph is as EQUALLY confused, wrongheaded and misguided as the rest. No time to break it down, but I will point out that, if it's true as you say that " We are all editors and contributors here who try to make the pages the best they can be" then I wonder why some knucklehead (he's been reported) has sent me multiple HARASSING emails THREATENING ME with banishment under the guise of being some 'Wik authority?' According to this coward, on my my last chance before I'm PERMANENTLY banned. And my sin??? Editing a page without discussion which, even you, as incapable as you've shown yourself to be in researching my writings, would have to agree is laughable. You may not agree with HOW I hash things out in here...but I MOST DEFINITELY hash them out! lol! (BTW, I am in contact with a higher-up at Wik and he has confirmed that there indeed are supervisors, in case you didn't know...

Pss Sorry if this sounds harsh but, quite frankly you deserve it in my estimation. You started out by calling me a troll and then turned around and chided ME for making personal attacks. Not good form by any standard. Nonetheless, I have good news! I just looked at the Coulter article and, believe it or not...I hope you're sitting down...I don't think it's that bad. I actually think it's in the same continent as reasonable and less than a zipcode away from being fair. So, thanks to you and I hashing things out (along with many other helpful editors, some of which you mentioned) progress is being made...

Big Daddy 17:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

but that isn't PRECISELY what I said...

I was quoting you quoting Salty Pig (I wonder where you were when Salty Pig told me to 'pull my head out of my ..."?)... I didn't feel like scrolling up and reading arguments between you two. In addition, I also said: "I didn't see a user named Salty Pig telling you to pull your head out of your ass, he/she shouldn't have said it, but you shouldn't use that as an excuse to return hostility in kind" I stand by this, your point is simply that I didn't pay attention to Salty, you still aren't defending your own actions. Don't use someone else's hostility as an excuse to be hostile yourself. It's hard, I realize, and I have done it in the past too, but that's all I'm trying to point out.

ALL OF WHICH GO UNNOTCIED by you while at the same time

I am not the Wikipedia police who is responsible for responding to every single personal attack on this board, I didn't see his comment, I only saw yours, and thus I commented on it.

your VERY FIRST comment to me, without even a proper introduction was to call me a TROLL.

I repeat: I really really hate it when people complain that there is some secret organization of liberals that "control the content", and it did seem that you were soliciting a hostile response, as in the very definition of trolling. You certainly weren't trying to be civil. But I will withdraw my previous label of troll if you withdraw your personal attacks. - I realize you didn't literally say cabal, but that's just like Karl Rove saying "I didn't say Valerie Wilson, I said 'Wilson's Wife". You meant that content is controlled by a group of liberal supervisors.

I am in contact with a higher-up at Wik and he has confirmed that there indeed are supervisors, in case you didn't know...

Of course there are supervisors, such as administrators, arbitration committee, developers, and sysops. But these people rarely engage in discussion themselves, and the significant majority do not use their adminstrative advatantages in engaging in discussion.

Your last paragraph is as EQUALLY confused, wrongheaded and misguided as the rest. No time to break it down, but I will point out that, if it's true as you say that " We are all editors and contributors here who try to make the pages the best they can be" then I wonder why some knucklehead (he's been reported) has sent me multiple HARASSING emails THREATENING ME with banishment under the guise of being some 'Wik authority?'

My point is not debatable. You must conduct yourself according to Wikipedia policy (and it is a very reasonable policy) of discussing, avoiding personal attacks, and assuming good faith. Like I said before, not everything is perfect on Wikipedia and surely there will be passages that are biased to the left or right. If you see one of these, the first step you shouldn't take is to either attack the passage as "retarded" or call the person who wrote it either a "brain surgeon" or "winner in the Special Olympics." If someone is harassing you, take them to mediation, or another step in dispute resolution. Don't turn it into a justification to behave in an equal manner.

According to this coward, on my my last chance before I'm PERMANENTLY banned.

Don't worry about that, this is just a normal user. Banning takes a lengthy process through the dispute resolution chain and ultimately requiring an arbitration committee.--kizzle 18:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone mind??

Does there HAVE to be three block quotes in italics under the Canada and Vietnam War section? I don't think it's that aesthetically pleasing, nor do I think those kinds of quotes should be used as often as they are in such a small amount of space. Is it possible to remove two of them into non-italicized, non-block quotations? Because for one thing, block quotes aren't supposed to be used unless the quote is at least four lines long anyway. The first two quotes don't even qualify then. And why must we write exactly what they said when someone could just click the link and watch exactly what was said? Is there any way we can fix this part? I just don't think it looks good, or that it reads very easily.Stanselmdoc 14:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Just Edit the Frickin' Article. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I took care of two of the short block quotes, simply by using quotation marks. No content was changed. paul klenk ^talk 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of this again?

The whole part on Canada and the Vietnam War....what's the point of that again? I keep reading over and over the section on that...and I don't see any connection between what it says, and controversy. In fact, the only thing it seems to prove is that Coulter said something that was wishy-washy correct, and whoever wrote it is seeming to harp on the fact that she could be considered wrong. Where's the controversy here? I see no controversy. Did her comments raise controversy? Or was this just a "LOOK! LOOK! ANN COULTER MADE A MISTAKE!" section? If it's the latter, it should be removed. We can all agree that everyone makes mistakes, so why that particular mistake? If she DID raise controversy, we should put in a sentence about how it made people angry, or who specifically got mad at her, who demanded an apology, blah blah blah...that's controversy. Stanselmdoc 21:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

HERE HERE, this whole thing is so pointless. Take it out and move on!Gator1 21:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Is this section even notable? She said something that wasn't that controversial, and she turned out to be partly right. I agree. Why is this section in here? Give it a couple of days, and if there are no objections, take it out or trim it down and put it somewhere else. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

how can one get the point across that she plays fast and loose with facts without going into all the minutiae? this is clearly a case where she didn't know what she was talking about but insisted she did, and then came up with a ludicrous justification for her misstatements. can we agree to cut it down but keep the spirit of it? i think paul klenk was working on the same passage Archier 00:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This happens again and again. A while back, this article contained mention of her statement in her book that the NYTimes didn't even mention Dale Earnhardt's death until a snooty article on an inside page days later; when in fact it was first page headline news the next day. With references. This too was deleted because "it was so pointless" and "it wasn't 'that' controversial". The result after all such demonstrations of her talent for verifiable fantasy are removed is that the truth or falsity of her statements appears to be a matter of opinion, rather than something that can be factually quantified. Could you be any more POV? Gzuckier 01:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I can chime in here because, as in the case where I corrected the smear that she said she wanted ALL Muslims to be converted etc, I am in possession of the facts in this matter that have been obfuscated by Ann's enemies. Coulter received the NY Times on her front porch (or whatever) every morning. The early edition of the NY times (the PRINT edition) did NOT have anything on Earnhardt on the front page. Later editions apparently did. It is ABSOLUTELY the case that papers change their front pages from early to late editions. The NY Times is no exception. That is her claim and it seems legit. And keep in mind, this was merely one tiny 'for instance' in an overall picture she was trying to paint that the New York times holds rural Americans in little regard. There are DOZENS of instances like this. The paper has a long and sordid history of portraying rural Americans in a bad or 'country bumpkin' light. Coulter didn't need this Earnhardt story as some sort of 'crucial lynchpin' lest her entire theory fall apart. The only reason it BECAME a big story is that little nitpicking critics scoured EVERYTHING Ann writes for ANYTHING that might not check out. These critics are the real story. Why they are animated by this INCESSANT and OBSESSIVE desire to diminish Ann in any and every way possible is an important line of inquiry I think this article should address.Big Daddy 13:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

After 100 million liberals pointed the "innocent" mistake out to Ann and her proofreaders did she promptly issue a retraction and apology? --Archier 21:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The only place there are 100 million liberals is Ann Arbor population 100,000. I should know - I live there. But to your point, no she explained what I just told you. I'm sure you want your pound of flesh out of Ann (thought I'm equally as sure you don't think she can afford to lose much more) for every perceived 'horrible' mistake she may have made. But, like me, she sees the bigger picture. Bush ain't meeting with Sheehan and Ann ain't apologizing to the likes of Media Matters or counterpunch.com anytime soon. Big Daddy 07:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The only place there are 100 million liberals is Ann Arbor population 100,000. haha. Thanks for the levity. When you slander someone accidentally and then 100 million Ann Arbor residents point it out, a retraction is in order. Just more Coulter distortions/misrepresentations/innocent mistakes. --71.112.11.220 17:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem saying that sometimes when she is on talk shows, she says some things before checking her facts to make sure they are entirely correct, but really, name one commentator, conservative or liberal, that doesn't. During debate, many things are said that turn out to be not 100% accurate. I just think that this section is way too long to get the point across. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

trying to make a "point" in an article by providing examples is original research anyway. If you want the point in there find a decent source (please god no blogs) who makes it and cite them. 71.133.115.162 11:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Other: 8/24/05 to 9/8/05

Page Vandalism on Ann Coulter

In the latest bit of his page vandalism Keithd states, "...cathy quit trying to dominate the article. multiple people have stated preference for version, you have violated the 3RR.."

Well I am truly sorry Keith if you feel that way, but is it a matter of what "multiple people" want on the Wikipedia?, or is it a matter of policy...and what is right?!, ... there are rules that are being ignored and flaunted by you and others, and I can assure you I will at least continue to do everything in my admittedly limited power to overcome such prejudical and inflamatory POV's on the page(s) I may find and always support the NPOV. Shalom! (Cathytreks 19:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

Ahhhh, yes, how inflamatory it is to place the Time pic in the media section... I can see how it can also belong in the section that mentions she was on Time, but is it really a 'prejudical and inflamatory POV' to move it to the section on media? --patton1138 19:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Patton, please dont misunderstand my comments here, Indeed I was not referring whatsoever to the (of late!) great edit of having the Time picture in the media section, with the Fox news pic up top, I was only reffering to Keithd's and sam spades repeated vandalistic removal of same Time cover picture, in the worst POV unchallenged statements such as... "Ann Coulter doesnt like it"...its not flattering of her.." etc, so, are we here for the truth? or a lie..wrapped up in a pretty xmas present!? There should be no room for pandering to Ann Coulter or anyone on the Wikipedia Encyclopedia...are we are here for truth?...or spinzone propaganda? (Cathytreks 19:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

I may be missing something, but the last edit to be Time-less (har har), was the one at: 19:10, 23 August 2005 by Shem Daimwood. All of them since then have been people just moving the pic back and forth over and over. Perhaps unwittingly so, but that's what it's been. --patton1138 20:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

uh the last five versions you reverted all contained the Time pic genius, in the media section for the last four of them . keith 19:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please explain the point to this argument? There is nothing wrong with the inclusion of the Time Magazine image, nor is there anything wrong with the way it's being presented as the article stands. Are we in agreeance and can we move on? Hall Monitor 20:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm... I ummm..I did not...see..that before Keithd I..I'm VERY sorry ..(gulp) Cathytreks now dissapears into The Wikipedia Hall of Shame (chrikey me and my big mouth) :( Yes Hall Monitor, I am with you all on this...and am sorry to make fuss, everybody, I'll be more careful before I am quick to judge on anything and I'll be sure of the facts!..damn sure. (Cathytreks 20:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

I can't believe people are actually arguing about this. Rhobite 20:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, Rhobite. I was actually thinking that AS I was reading. But since I'm in a talking mood, I have a question:

Ann Coulter is an especially frequent guest on the Fox News Channel. Her appearances on the Bill O'Reilly program often make for interesting viewing, because she is one of the few regular guests (if not the only one) who seems to cow the notoriously aggressive O'Reilly.

This quote isn't exactly written in an NPOV way. Would anyone object to me shortening it to leave out the fact that her appearances make his show more (much more) interesting?Stanselmdoc 05:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Birthplace

According to the Time magazine story, she was born in NYC. Excerpt from Time magazine cover story: "Ann Hart Coulter was born in New York City on Dec. 8, 1961. That's according to her Connecticut voter registration." I've never seen any other source explicity say she was born in Connecticut, they likely assumed it since she grew up there. Just for simple factual accuracy I've changed her birthplace in the first paragraph to NYC. --Fallout boy 19:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ann coulter calls New Yorkers cowards and says they would surender to terrorists if NY was attacked

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hannity-Colmes-Coulter-bashes-NY.mov

have added to this and am the political editor challenging her observations - jozzyoz

The entire New York paragraph needs to be rewritten. As it stands right now, it doesn't even make any sense. Not to mention the fact that it's a paragraph with only one sentence. I don't even understand what it's trying to say. Can anyone rewrite it (in an NPOV way) to actually make sense? If not, I'm going to remove it from the article because it's too confusing. Stanselmdoc 16:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, this whole paragraph needs to be removed.

What the hell is this an encyclopedia or David Brock's blog???

Every time she says something you liberals don't like, you blow it out of proportion by a factor of 100 in an effort to hurt her career. And you do the same thing to Karl Rove and all your other 'bogeyman.'

And now you want to include it in a FREAKING encyclopedia entry?

If you want to spew your vicious hatred for Ann Coulter, just go to democraticunderground.com.

Leave the encyclopedia for the grown ups to work out.

Please get rid of this entire paragraph...and the cheap shot on Bush at the end is just precious, isn't it?. Pretty much says everything about the individual who included this...

Big Daddy 04:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for the particular liberal you were referring to, but personally, I might even feel sorry for a terrorist after the ass-whupping that several million angry New Yorkers would inflict upon him ;-) --Vladtheinhaler 06:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole 'New Yorkers Surrender' section needs to be eliminated.

It's something the far left radical sites like Huffington/Media Matters tried to fan the flames with to divert attention away from the fact that their poster girl Cindy Sheehan kept saying increasingly more bizarre things and their silly attacks on Karl Rove were going nowhere.

There was only one problem with the Huffington strategy.

It didn't work.

NOT ONE major New York official that I'm aware of took the bait and responded DESPITE the despicable goading of Giuliani by one of her bloggers.

It's a non-issue. Coulter's said far worse things. And she does it to get a rise from brain-dead knee-jerk liberals.

Is that who's in charge of Wikipedia?

BTW...can ANYONE...even the most rabid left wing editor (and I know there are plenty of you out there :) justify the inclusion of the following paragraph in an article about Ann Coulter???

"That county by county Kerry defeated the President in the 2004 election ... 2 to 1, with military dominant or veteran families' counties in most swing-states ... so Bush's credibility with the military family establishment is blury at best "

ps Even Huffington has moved on. Her latest blogger d'jour is now indirectly accusing President Bush of causing cannibalism in the United States!

Big Daddy 14:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Okie dokie, I'm removing the whole thing for lack of making sense. Let the record show this is NO POV of mine. I'd vote to keep it in if I could actually read it. However, as it is, I feel like my eyes are burning out of their sockets when I look at the paragraph. And studies show that eyes burning out of your sockets is bad for your health. AND the health of your eyes. Stanselmdoc 05:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

To those above ... Ann Coulter has publicly insinuated that NYC and New York would hand over New York to terrorists - I may be left of center politically, but as a New Yorker her comments deserve to be brought up ... the Kerry quote will be removed, but I intend to re-add the NY Military Comments again. I do not depend on the jargon of eggheads who can pick and choose ... until I get a direct order from Wikipedia that the informational addition is too slanted. I suspect you are a lot that either consume her politics or who have no political awareness beyond self-conceited opinions on what you think is legit - so sorry guys ... I guess you'll remove and I will continue to add! - jozzyoz

Jozzyoz

Hey Jozzyoz,

Your paragraph is a lie. I WANT YOU TO CITE ME ONE QUOTE WHERE ANN COULTER INSINUATED THAT 'NEW YORK' would have New York to the terrorist.

She said NYC and then went on to explain that she doesn't consider NYC firefighters and policeman to be 'real New Yorkers.'

So, you hit piece on Ann is bogus as it stands.

I'm taking it out.

Put it back in and I'll report you as DELIBERATELY slandering her.

Again, if you can find where she said New York STATE would surrender, it's a different issue.

As it stands now...this paragraph is pure bs. Take your Coulter hate to dailykos. This is a nPOV encyclopedia...

Ps I'd be happy to add the EXACT quotation to her quote page, but there's a request not to add any further right now. Perhaps an exception can be made. Here's the quote:

"The savages have declared war, and it's far preferable to fight them in the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York (where the residents would immediately surrender). That strategy appears to be working. Then again, maybe it's just that it's so damnably hard to find parking in New York ..." From "It's 'Let's roll,' not 'Let's roll over' " August 10, 2005

For the record, it's NOT hard to find parking in New York STATE. She's clearly referring to the streets of New York **CITY** and only someone who DOESN'T want to get it, won't.

But, include the quote. It is controversial and consistent with other declarations about 'New Yorkers' she's made.

Just trying to be fair as I ALWAYS am...

Big Daddy 18:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Jozzyoz, did you read my first sentence? I removed the statement because it makes no sense. I have no political motive. In fact, I even said that I would support it being put in the article if it was rewritten to make sense. As it stands, it's still only one sentence long, and it's 90% a quote. That's not good article writing. There needs to be some kind of commentary about the quote. More than just "so and so has taken Coulter to task..." It's not enough. It's one sentence. And it makes no sense. If you'd like to re-write it, and add more commentary to it, great! And then it will stay in. But as it stands right now, I can't even make sense of it. And.....I'm pretty good at making sense of things that don't seem to make sense. I'd offer to re-write it for you, but I have no idea what the point of the paragraph is. So I removed it on the basis of lack of comprehension. You're more than welcome to re-write it. But if you don't re-write it, I'm going to remove it again. Stanselmdoc 17:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Stanselmdoc ... I have already been contacted by whoever Big Daddy is by e-mail which is a no no with me, that is harassment and he wants to report me as SLANDERING Ann - if he contacts me again at my e-mail ... I will REPORT it to my ISP. I removed the Kerry section from the original Op-Ed and I can and will notify Wikipedia myself of my opinion on the matter and I write for no blogs as insinuated by that editor!! The section is under controversial statements and it was contoversial as was the Canada and Vietnam statements ... the direct quote on Hannity and Colmes and as asked by Mr. Colmes is way beyond what you describe and what the editor who contacted me at my personal e-mail has suggested ... Watch the video here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/25.html#a4633 ...

`She did in fact say that New Yorkers would immediately surrender to terrorists,' that is a fact ... you watch it. If you want to rewrite it ... feel free and reinsert - my point is her exact statement and the fact the New York has the third largest contingent of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan ... you can better understand why the facts of NYS and NYC's military contributions to counter factually the whatever the `War on Terror' is? NYC was the factually the target and NYS's first responders and military have all been involved on the `so-called frontline from beginning to end.' That is why it is in and should be included in the controversial area! - Check comment below this, `Hannity and Colmes' segment.

From "Hannity and Colmes," August 25, 2005:

COLMES:...And I want to ask you about something, Ann, that you wrote in your most recent column. You had a very funny line, actually, that it is hard to find a parking spot in New York City. There's no question about it. You've had a pretty good day if you can do that.

But then you said, "It's far preferable to fight them on the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York, where the residents would immediately surrender." Now, some New Yorkers... HENICAN: Ooh...

COLMES: ... felt that you were calling them cowards by making that statement.

COULTER: No, I think I was calling them supporters of Cindy Sheehan.

COLMES: Is that what that is? You certainly don't feel that New Yorkers are cowards?

COULTER: I think they would immediately surrender.

COLMES: So you do?

COULTER: I don't -- I don't think -- I think I'd rather have them trying to invade Mississippi or Georgia, Alabama, you know, the states where I want Cindy Sheehan's bus tour to go.

So, Stanselmdoc ... again if you prefer to rewrite or give me a demo at this forum of how it should be rewritten in a NPOV way, then please again feel free - I still think that it would not suffice the neo-con logic of the editor who contacted me!!! If Wikipedia gives me a greenlight when I contact them then I really think there should be nothing more to say on this matter! --Jozzyoz 02:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jozzyoz,

Labeling me a neo-con, especially when coming from someone as radical in their politics as you are, is both a violation of Wik's Good Faith policy as well as No personal Attack policy.

Besides I don't even know what a 'neo-con' is. I hear it used a lot against Jewish conservatives so I suppose it's liberaleeze for something very anti-semetic.

( BTW, This Jozzyoz dude has been harassing me via email and he has been warned to NEVER contact me that way again!)

His letter was rude, liberal and as completely incomprehensible as this silly insult-piece he wants to shoehorn in here.

The question though is why does this person INSIST that this be included other than to slime Ann and to follow the lead of Media Matters and the Huffington Post?

Coulter was NOT talking about anyone outside of New York city and, in a subsequent radio interview, she indicated she wasn't even talking about everybody IN New York City.

To suggest that she was and then dredge up all kinds of stats about the contributions New York Staters have made to the military is illogical silly and ridiculous.

Again, why does this harasser want this piece in here??

First of all, she's said much worse. One time in an interview she said she wishes Tim McVeigh would have blown up the NY Times building.

If you have some fetish for slandering Ann Coutler, I suggest you go to democratic underground.

I understand that Jozzyoz does not write a blog. He has made that clear. Well Jozzyoz, Wik is an encyclopedia, so don't try to re-invent it as your personal 'I hate Ann' blog.

Big Daddy

Ps Again, quit harassing me by email!

Big Daddy 03:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I am EXTREMELY familiar with this controversy, having read the column, seen the H & C interview and heard her comments ABOUT H & C the interview on an Al Rentel radio program.

Her statement without embellishment is quite bold and probably deserves a mention in Wikiquotes but that's it.

Sorry haters... It's pretty par for the course for Ann Coulter.

A possible explanation for why Jozzyoz wants to make a FREAKING FEDERAL CASE about it is because radical liberal groups like Huffington Post (who claimed black people in New Orleans were forced to eat corpses because of Geo Bush) and Media Matters have tried to fan the flames.

Huffington ran article after article calling for Giulianni or Bloomberg to condemn Ann's comments.

Not a peep.

They tried to get her column removed from newspapers by instigating a treacherous letter writing campaign where, posing as 'conservatives', they said she'd gone too far.

They tried to conflate this with the heroes of 911 (this had as much to do with 911 as libererals claim Iraq did! lol!) They even had some of our country's finest from upstate New York testify about their involvement in the Iraq war as a way to shame Ann.

IOW, this is a VERY ORCHESTRATED LEFT WING campaign to try to bring her down over these comments and Jozzyoz is trying to POISON Wik with this nonesense.

The only problem with the campaign (and this all happened way before Katrina) was that NOBODY was outraged except the people who already hate Ann.

For Wikipedia to give this any more than a passing notice is to play into the broader campaign of those with a very specific partisan political agenda.

Again, she was talking about new york CITY. That's what 'New Yorker's' refers to if you're a resident of Manhattan as Ann is. Ask Alan Colmes if you don't believe me.

No one...no one but far left liberals... are saying she meant New York STATE. The liberals know better as well, it was just thrown so they could use the military stats...

Ps I don't know how to put this to you Jozzyoz, but neither that fraudulent section you tried to insert in the Wik Coulter article, nor your harassing email to me or EVEN YOUR LATEST RESPONSE above is comprehensible.

I mean look at what he JUST wrote:

"you can better understand why the facts of NYS and NYC's military contributions to counter factually the whatever the `War on Terror' is? NYC was the factually the target and NYS's first responders and military have all been involved on the `so-called frontline from beginning to end.'"

Say what???? It's completely unintelligible. What makes you think you ought to be EDITING an encyclopedia?

Big Daddy 03:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

(BTW, to all Jozzyoz was contacted first by personal e-mail and then in a second e-mail again ... amazingly accused of harassing - this after I replied to the above editor and told him to use the Talk Forum and NEVER to contact me directly me by e-mail! I am new at the forum and I do not have the actual earned rep he has - so make your own conclusions!!!) Jozzyoz 05:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say....WTF ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT? I urge BOTH of you to stop fighting over the DUMBEST thing and try to actually come to a compromise. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for either of you to defend or rail against any political or other ideological perspective. Jozzyoz, I don't even know what you're asking me to do in your above response to me. I made ONE (YES, JUST ONE) comment about how I don't understand what the paragraph is saying. That doesn't mean I disagree with what it says or that I'm some "evil conservative" trying to make sure Ann Coulter's page leans to the right. To be frank, pull the stick from where the sun doesn't shine, and comprehend (it's not that hard) what I am asking. I'm not refuting that Ann ever said something like that, NOR am I defending her in any way. I'm an editor, and IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! It's not that hard a concept. Rewrite it. Rewrite it TO MAKE SENSE. And if, after you've re-written it, a consensus is made about whether it's POV or not, it will be edited. But YOU'RE the one who put the paragraph in the article, so YOU should be the one re-writing it. I would volunteer to re-write myself, but since I HAVE NO CLUE what it's saying, I can't do that. I understand that you are just quoting her or something, but a good paragraph can't consist of just a quote! What does the quote have to do with controversy? Why is it controversial? Who did it anger? Has she apologized or clarified what she meant? These are some questions you might want to consider while re-writing a paragraph THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

BigDaddy, I have beef with you as well. Yes, many people believe that a left-wing bias exists on wikipedia. BUT, that doesn't mean that you can go around accusing everyone who edits in a way that you don't like of being part of that "vast left-wing conspiracy". The VAAAAAST majority of editors don't even realize they're putting their bias into the article. It just happens. And if it does, then we all decide what to do about it. But we don't go around accusing everyone and losing our tempers. If Jozzyoz wants to write a paragraph about a controversy that Ann spurned, LET HIM. And then, after he's written it, all the editors (not just you, sorry) can analyze it and decide whether or not it should stay in, or be re-written, or if it warrants a mention, etc. But that's not your decision. That's the decision of all the editors who care to vote.

Honestly, are you guys 6 years old? Quit playing the stupidest (and oldest) game in the book (That would be the Politics game) and actually try to get something changed. Neither of you are right here. And neither of you are wrong. Neither of you are adhering to the main goal of wikipedia, but you are both being dumb. Stanselmdoc 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

(stands up and claps) Amen to that!

1. Take this conflict to your respective talk pages.
2. BigDaddy, there is no left-wing conspiracy on Wikipedia, though there might be a possible leftist bias which you can help to fix if you stop personally attacking people.
3. Everyone, just try and trim your comments on this page to only refer to arguments about changes to specific passages.

--kizzle 21:39, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

why the arizona daily star is no longer carying her collum

"Many readers find her shrill, bombastic, and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives," Stoeffler

Oh, where to begin...WHERE to begin???

First of all, let me remind everyone that this is an encyclopedia, NOT The Huffington Post.

Now most people think of Coulter as the right wing counterpart to Michael Moore or better Al Franken.

(Only subjective liberals dispute this with any fire.)

So, we should use the Al Franken entry as a model for creating this entry, right?

And there are NO cheap shots taken at Al in his entry.

Why so many on this entry? Hmmm...

I recomend we start what appears to a massive clean up effort by eliminating this paragraph:

"On the other hand, columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan has created a parody Michelle Malkin Award for writing which he considers to be cliché-ridden, insulting, and in concordance with the reader's beliefs. Sullivan has declared that "Ann Coulter cannot be considered" for the award on the grounds that "No one else would stand a chance." [2] [3]

This is A PURE CHEAP SHOT. It adds NOTHING to her biography and only serves as a gratiutious slam.

Big Daddy 04:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I removed the paragraph. It was clearly a cheap insult and did nothing to support the point of the section; it was a third-hand reference. This article needs real work by real editors and writers, not people who hate Ann and try to drag every negative thing they can find about her into the article.

Some responsible people with actual writing ability -- not just the ability to copy and paste negative quotes -- should work on this piece. People who can keep their POV in check and approach this subject without hostility to it, and without trying to prove a point about Ann. klenk 05:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Klenk,

Thanks for your support and great points! I especially agree with this characterization of much of the writing in this entry.

"People who hate Ann and try to drag every negative thing they can find about her into the article" Sadly, this is not only true of Ann's entry but that of Bill O'Reilly and undoubtedly countless other 'enemies of the left.' I can't wait to see Mel Gibson's page. lol!

On the contrary, I did not find ANY of this sort of venom on the Al Franken etc page. Hmmmm....What does this say about Wikipedia?

I'm brand new here, but my gut tells me this POV neutral slogan they bandy about is real suspect. The articles seem largely to be written by liberals. And you know what happens when you get articles written by a group comprised of about 80% Liberals proclaiming a neutral point of view???

Anything but...

Take care,

Big Daddy

Big Daddy 05:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

BD, one quick point: try to keep your thoughts in paragraphs; they're easier to read. Just a friendly suggestion (I cleaned yours up as an illustration.

Second, see the latest rewrites I have provided. They are more balanced they don't hide the qualities that outrage people or cause them to love her.

Finally, don't worry about what you perceive as liberal bias here. There is no cabal. Just make the articles better -- more insightful, more accurate, more meaningful. Don't try to protect your subject or make it look bad -- just write about it accurately and clearly.

klenk 05:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Two more thoughts to Daddy other others:

1] Please work hard to be as thoughtful in your edits as you can be. It is easy to paste negative quotes. It is not easy to write with clarity, accuracy and precision. It takes work. And it takes serious thinking. The more difficult and more controversial a subject is, the harder it is to write about it well. If you are not prepared for that work, find a topic that is easy, like reality television.

2] If you are not ready to respect people who are on a different side, you will find it hard to defend your work with them. Write in such a way that neither side can criticise you. klenk 06:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A Message To Liberals

I respect your right and desire to write about Ann Coulter. She is a hot topic. But if you want to write about your topic well, you need to understand that topic. Some of you do not understand her, or care to.

Some of you are completely missing the point about her style. (This is what she is counting on, by the way, and she'd probably call you "stupid liberals" for it. She knows by saying this she will get you mad. That is what she sets out to do -- get you angry.) She makes heavy use of hyperpole, sarcasm, and satire. I know you think you know what those words mean, but you do not seem to understand why Ann, as a writer and speaker, uses them, or what effect she intends these qualities to have, or how she uses them to illustrate her points.

The secret to understanding Coulter is: What point is she actually making with this style, not Why is she saying such "hateful" things.

Stop blathering on and on about how hateful she is. How racist. How mean-spirited. You are falling into her trap. You are looking only at the surface, and no further. Try a little harder and try not to take this her so seriously. When you do, you fail as a writer. klenk 06:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Klenk,

VERY well put. You nailed it exactly. We either should accord ALL the subjects of Wik articles this evenhandedness...or none of them.

As it stands now, the liberal pundits get treated pretty well. I hope I can soon say the same for the conservatives.

Big Daddy 14:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A Message To Conservatives

Many of you are very threatened by anything negative that is said about Coulter. Stop worrying about it. It is what she intends. She is a good writer, a self-described polemicist, and knows exactly what she is doing. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with her views -- only that she is a good writer. Many liberals don't even read her pieces, or if they do, they don't work hard to understand them. They just react to them. That's not the fault of the writer, but the reader. Be better than that, and be ready to write thoughtfully about what she says.

Treat her as a worthy subject, warts and all, and don't worry whether what you write makes her look good or bad. Just make sure it's accurate, balanced, fair, insightful, and artfully written. Yes, an encyclopedia can be artfully written. It doesn't need to have a plonking style. When you read the article and see a plonking style, just fix it.

There is no liberal cabal at WP. There are people on both sides. Some are better writers than others, some are better at hiding their bias than others. Stop complaining and just dig and and do the work. Make the article better. klenk 06:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Klenk,

You are one of the real good ones here, but Wikipedia, at least as of Sept 4 2005, is tilted VERY LEFT. (At least when it comes to articles about non-liberal commentators.)

The whole 'there's no liberal cabal here' claim is besides the point. I'm not alleging that. There doesn't need to be a cabal for there to be bias.

What I am alleging (and will be ecstatic if proven wrong but so far no one has even offered ONE factual argument against my thesis, only lecturing me to ignore or not worry about it) is that the editors here are OVERWHLEMINGLY liberal and that they hide behind a thin veil of 'objectivity' to allow BLATANT smears and attacks on non-liberals.

And what's hysterical is, when confronted, they not only don't acknowledge it's a smear, they claim there's no POV issue.

All this says to me that those folks are completely UNqualified to be editors.

I defy anyone to find one instance where I was OK with a smear of someone I don't agree with. Or of an effusing cheerleader section on someone with whom I do agree.

But so many of the liberal editors (not all but many and it's easy to ID them, just read their TALK memos) engage in standard boilerplate liberal procedures which is to defend blatant POV stuff by hiding behind the guise of 'just wanting to get the facts.'

The fact is that any reasonable person just taking a cursory peek at the articles on Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter etc, will conclude that Wik is SEVERELY biased to the left.

And if Wik wants to change that, and I know they SAY they do, they're gonna have to do a lot more than invoking magic incantations against any 'left wing cabals' that pop up.

Thanks again for all YOU do... Big Daddy 10:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"...deliberately distorting facts..."

One thing that is missing in our discussion about Coulter is squarely facing this so-called idea about her "deliberately distorting facts," AND how significant this accusation is among the wider community of critics, not just a new like Al Franken.

We need to therefore argue a bit together on two topics:

1] THE SUBSTANCE of the alleged distortions, rather than that she is being accused. In other words what is important, that she is accused of distortions, or that she actually distorts? I would say that if the substance is not proven to broad consensus, then the fact that she is being accused is much less important, and should not lead the article. And do not make the elementary error of confusing hyperbole with distortions of fact.

Your assignment: Prove that this allegation merits mention in the first paragraph about an article about her. I would say it is highly subjective, and I am going to challenge anyone you makes this assertion and does not back it up. Prove it, just don't say it.

Further to point 1: Quote an example of a distortion, and prove it is not a fact. Then prove it is deliberate.

2] THE CONSENSUS, or lack thereof, among critics across a wide spectrum about this allegation. Are there a few people like Franken, who is on the fringe of the fringe, who say this or do critics broadly agree that she distorts facts? If you assert it, prove it.

---

I actually have little interest in this article, but if it will help people who actually do have some, go have a look at http://www.spinsanity.org (who did a good and fairly balanced anaysis of spin on both liberal and conservative sides when they were active) and do a search on Ann Coulter. The very first link on the results page, about halfway down, documents several uses of out-of-context quotations in Treason. While "deliberate" is of course impossible to prove conclusively without a telepath, one should consider the context and the way it is being presented to and taken by her readers as well as the general principle that a person intends the natural consequence of their actions.

People might want also to search the archives at http://www.salon.org for articles on Coulter. Although some might probably accuse that of being a biased source. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

i agree with much of the original point, but the harping on "prove" (with repeated bold) is just setting up the floor for a broken-record response of "you didn't prove it — nyah nyah nyah", especially regarding "deliberate" (as noted above), a word with definitions ranging from tight to loose. i believe that most of what she says in print (especially in a book) could fall under, excuse the term, res ipsa loquitur with respect to deliberateness — no further proof necessary. those itching to get this phrase into the article might do better to drop the "deliberate" part though. the rest should be easy enough to prove, assuming one doesn't invoke the metaphysical. coulter's a loose cannon, and misfires go with the territory, especially when your primary mission requires pretending that democrats and "republicans" aren't all raving socialists in real (non-rhetorical) life. SaltyPig 09:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry SaltyPig...

But going to Spinsanity and Salon to 'learn' about Ann Coulter is like going to Christopher Hitchens to 'learn' about Mother Theresa.

Ps Sheesh, this place is so far left, they don't even realize how left they are.

And for those who say 'there's no liberal cabal' I say -nice dodge.

I never insinuated a 'cabal.' I simply said just about every editor I've encountered since I've been here, albeit a VERY short time, IS A LIBERAL. Yet NOT ONE will admit it. They just dodge the issue. That's a sure sign. And the conservative pundits are SAVAGED while the Al Franken and Bill Maher are treated with kit gloves, respecting how 'they feel' about things.

So it's been quite disillusioning to discover what I USED to think was one of the BEST things on the net...is in fact teetering on the brink of being 'the world according to leftists.'

I know it's Wik's STATED INTENTION to not become that, but what I've discovered here so far certainly is disturbing.

Ps And as far as ticking people off with my comments, that's the least of my concerns right now. I'm SO TICKED OFF MYSELF at how long this bias has been allowed to stay in Wik, it's hard for me to imagine how it got this bad.

as a former major contributor to freerepublic.com (as in $1,000 a fundraiser), and blog operator who regularly freaked out these so-called liberals you see hiding in the woodwork, i find your assumptions... plain idiotic and stupid, to be frank -- just like the "race card" most stereotypical "conservatives" rant about. look at my edits at Che Guevara for one. then maybe you can check my voluminous work at United States Constitution. the examples go far beyond that. some leftist you stumbled into. liberal? you bet. from the original latin. stop being paranoid and assuming that anybody who disagrees with you isn't as conservative as thou; quite possible it's the other way around, whoever you are. SaltyPig 14:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC) (that's called a sig, BTW.)

SPig writes: "As a former major contributor to freerepublic.com as in $1,000 a fundraiser..."

But that was before you got SAVED, right salty? lol!

Look dude or dudette, I have no intention of getting into a pissing war with you. I called you out as a liberal and you copped to it. That puts you WAY ahead of most of the other liberals in here. But please don't run that game on me that I'm seeing 'devils behind doorknobs.' I'm two jumps ahead of you there, buddy. Unless you wish to deny the editors in here are mostly liberals. Do you??? (Watch him try to re-define liberal ala John Kerry.)

Anyway, I'm not here to debate politics. I respect your right to be a liberal.

I'm simply trying to make Wik the best *fair* encyclopedia it can be.

The facts are obvious. The editors here are OVERWHELMINGLY liberal. That's a problem that needs to be addressed by the powers that be at Wik.

There's ABSOLUTELY no way I'd feel comfortable claiming ANY publication I was involved in was nPOV if 80% of the editors were conservative. Give me a break!

Having just peeked under the hood at Wik, I am really disappointed at what I have found here so far. It's a shame that the Ann Coulter entry as well as Bill O'Reilly's and I'm sure many others I've yet to discover, are almost held HOSTAGE to hateful liberal ideology. In an encyclopedia no less!

Having said that, I can assure you there are plenty of liberals and conservatives who can work TOGETHER to make Wik a fair and honest resource.

So far, it doesn't appear you are one of them...

Ps Am I right about this or did I underrate you? Big Daddy 15:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You need to stop focusing on editors and start focusing on edits. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you want me to love the sinner but hate the sin, huh? Sorry, if this place were edited by 80%+ Born Again Christians, it'd be laughed off the internet as any kind of repository for nPOV info. The same holds true if it's the other way around. I haven't made any final judgements yet, but it sure seems that way.

The editors politics, as should be OBVIOUS to everyone by now, do affect their perception which in turns affects their editing.

Big Daddy 18:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy777... wow, but i don't know how to respond to you without kicking your ass all over this page! wow. i'll try though.

if there could be a more obtuse response to my latin comment, it would require relativistic equations to chart. you still haven't figured out that i'm more conservative than you (and freerepublic). can't help you then, BigD. sorry. i didn't leave freerepublic; it and most every other "conservative bastion", including coulter, left conservatism. some light reading for you, should you ever pull your head out. later much. SaltyPig 17:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This is rich. He's TOO conservative for Free Republic. That's like being too east of Kamchatka...all of a sudden your west again!

As for your other childish insults, about kicking my ass, (yeah, like you'd stand a chance) I will report them as they seem to be in violation of some TOS around here (or should be.) Big Daddy 18:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

:::::no research necessary right now. you edit-war types are going to do what you're going to do, and i'll counter when the time is right. you lost me when you started sneaking around like a first-year AOL chat roomer. you know what i'm talking about too. SaltyPig 14:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Pig, whatever your bend, you have betrayed a decidedly anti-Coulter bias, and since she's the subject of this page, I do think it's fair to say it's getting in your way. paul klenk 14:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

perhaps some bible is in order, since we're all so "conservative" here (um, something about planks and motes?). objectivity meets a wormhole on this page, apparently. i've registered mild support of coulter in this discussion today (as i have elsewhere before, despite my serious problems with her style and substance). guess that's still blowing by you, since you pegged me as a kerry fanatic from the outset (absolutely ludicrous), based on nothing except my lack of appropriate worshipfulness. SaltyPig 14:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I only suggested you add a similar sexual remark on his page, too, to make the point tha it would not have been tolerated there (even if you had, it would surely be deleted). I never hinted that you were a liberal or a kerry supporter. You read that into my comment. By the way, how is your research coming? Tick tock, tick tock. paul klenk 14:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

no research necessary right now. you edit-war types are going to do what you're going to do, and i'll counter when the time is right. you lost me when you started sneaking around like a first-year AOL chat roomer. you know what i'm talking about too. SaltyPig 14:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Your comments about first-year AOL-types and edit-war types can very easily be construed as personal attacks. Attack the argument, not the person making it. The only reason I openly encouraged someone to revert edits (which I would do again), is because some anonymous IP-er with no prior history at WP thrice added comments about her sexual history that were neither germaine to the article, nor even to the paragraph in which they appeared, and I reverted them myself. I also reported this to an admin to ask for advice and I worked very closely with him to make sure I was doing things properly. Let's keep civil here. I am willingly laying out my arguments and thinking, listening to your responses, and then return with my answer. Do the same, please. paul klenk 15:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

that is a typical misunderstanding of logical argument. the subject at hand now, unfortunately, is your behavior, which i characterize (civilly) as AOL chat room material and sneaky edit-warring. if you wanted to be open about edit-warring, you would've discussed it here. you didn't. that is quite relevant to wikipedia guidelines, not illogical, and not a personal attack. you are the person who kept trying to rush the discussion here (ludicrous, considering i was arguing with about 4 opponents below, edit conflicting almost every time i tried to save), after i told you that i would respond to you by this evening (because your many questions required far more time than the pace allowed then). i told you below that because of your actions (not your arguments), i am done discussing it with you now. i also state that you exhibited bad faith. again, that is relevant to wikipedia editor interaction, factual, and not a personal attack. i'm sorry that things got to this point. wish you hadn't done what you did. could have been a good argument, with some valuable research on this admittedly minor, though contentious, subject. if you think i'm afraid to deal with this subject point by point, without ignoring anything you wish addressed, you haven't been paying much attention. it all comes down to accepting that when a man says he'll address it by tonight, he might be telling the truth. cheap tactics, paul. very cheap. even if you weren't 3RRd out, you shouldn't have even thought of reverting in the middle of a discussion that hadn't gone 12 hours. SaltyPig 15:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

bill maher sexual relations jokes

I edited this whole section It was HORRIBLY written (no suprise - hateful rage does tend to impinge upon people's intellectual capacities) called Jonah Goldberg a 'she' (liberals have always had a hard time with that gender identity stuff) and basically just didn't make any sense.

Also, and I'm sure much to the chagrin of the liberal editors here, I took out most of those nasty vicious ad hominem attacks that you guys just love to smear Coulter with (even in her encyclopedia entry.)

Here's the re-write.

"When the editors of the National Review Online, the website of a well-known conservative magazine that carried Coulter's syndicated column and to which she was a contributing editor, wanted to discuss making changes to a piece written in 2001 directly after the September 11 attacks in which her friend Barbara Olsen had been killed, Coulter went on the national television show Politically Incorrect and accused NRO of censorship, claiming her pay was only five dollars per article. National Review Online then dropped her column and terminated her editorship. Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor, explained that, despite widely circulated media reports to the contrary, "We did not 'fire' Ann for what she wrote.... We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty." [8].

Ann Coulter was contracted by USA Today to cover the 2004 Democratic National Convention, but was ironically replaced by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review Online'after a "disagreement over editing" (Memmot, 2004). Her one and only article from the convention began "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston", and referred to some female attendees as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons". The newspaper did not print the article, but Coulter published it on her website. (Coulter, July 2004)

Coulter has appeared several times on Bill Maher's former ABC debate show "Politically Incorrect". Maher has referred to her as "a friend" although she typically is used as the 'token' conservative and forced to fend off political attacks from Maher and three other more liberal guests.

Coulter has been the subjects of frequent protests, especially when speaking on college campuses where she commands speakers fees in excss of $25,000. On one occasion, she was physically assaulted with a pie. [9].

On 8/28/05, Coulter's syndicated column was dropped by the conservative newspaper "Arizona Daily Star" because, in the words of David Stoeffler, the publisher and editor of the Star, "We've decided that syndicated columnist Ann Coulter has worn out her welcome. Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives." [10]"

...Real Time with Bill Maher (who has joked about their sexual relations)...

even though it's just an aside, i think this adds useful, valid information to the article, and also says a lot about coulter's tolerance if she puts up with it. if it's rewritten to convey that he's speaking wishfully or something like that (and that she's in on the joke), i think it should be in the article. their on-camera chemistry is pretty good, and (IMO) noteworthy. SaltyPig 09:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonesense. What's she supposed to do when he fantasized aloud like that? Get up and walk off the set?

Maher has a reputation for physically assaulting women. He verbally assaults Ann with his comments about sex...like he had a chance.

But the main point is that THIS HAS NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in an encyclopedia entry and the SICK liberals who keep inserting it after I take it out will NOT win this debate.

Trust me, someone with some authority AND judgement will excise this.

I've long been satisfied that frustrated sexuality is the underlying current that fuels at least 80% of all the hatred and rage spewed at Ann. I guess this just helps confirm it, huh?

Big Daddy 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Salty, I remember during the 2004 Pres. campaign, a lady who dated Kerry blogged about their sexual history. It was never refuted by him. Should we go add it to the article? I did a search on Kerry's page. The only mention of sex was Middlesex County. What do you say? klenk 09:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

as i suspected, you apparently think that anybody criticizing coulter is a "democrat" — like i give two shakes what anybody says about john kerry the walking turd/idiot/tyrant. "oooh, don't put something bad about kerry in his wikipedia article!" but to answer you anyway, if john kerry meets with the woman repeatedly on TV, she jokes about it regularly, and he laughs back regularly... yeah, i'd say that's noteworthy. from what i recall, coulter was cool with it. have you seen their interaction on the show? they get along well. my reason for suggesting its inclusion is that i think it's a positive comment on coulter amid the usual polemical angle people usually assume she grinds all day. but whatever. really don't care that much about it, though i do think you're too sensitive about it being a smear of her. it's not. BTW, your apparent analogy between what i wrote and the kerry example... wow — not so rigorous. SaltyPig 10:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Late comment. None of this would be encyclopedic. Here or Kerry's article. Something can be notable, but not encyclopedic. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

here it could be made encyclopedic (not as it was tried), and same at kerry's. completely different situations, but can be added properly both places. in kerry's case, it should be mentioned as a major aspect of the campaign PR equation, assuming they get that detailed. SaltyPig 16:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

alright, i moved it out of the top section and included it in the media relations section.--71.112.11.220 18:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, what's important, IF ANYTHING about Bill Maher is that his show gave her a forum to show how effective she could be even when arguing against a stacked deck.

The 'sexual jokes' by Maher adds NOTHING to the discourse. It does NOT "adds useful, valid information to the article" nor does it tell us ANYTHIGN WORTHWHILE about coulter's supposed "tolerance"

It is only included for salacious effect. It's a subtle jab.

I'm gonna take it out and replace it with my earlier paragrah.

If anybody has a problem with it, let me know. (And QUIT sending ANONYMOUS emails to me threatening me with being banned. It's really bad form!)

the new paragraph will talk about how Ann was able to fend for herself despite routinely being 'ganged up' upon by 4 liberals (Maher and ALL 3 guests.) She was one of Maher's most popular and frequent invitees...

Big Daddy 12:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Ann Coulter, Constitutional Attorney -- POV?

SaltyPig has removed mention that Coulter is a constitutional attorney, with this remark: (remove "constitutional" from before "attorney" -- POV, roundly disputed, and pretty much meaningless except for the hype factor)

Perhaps he believes by piling on three reasons, it will add up to something. 0 + 0 + 0 still equals 0.

Let's discuss his three assertions:
1] POV: She is either this type of attorney or she is not. There are patent att'ys, corporate atty's, landlord/tenant atty's, civil rights atty's. There are also constitutional atty's. They exist. Coulter either is one, or she is not. Not a matter of POV. Sorry. Strike one.
2] roundly disputed. Outside WP, where is this roundly disputed? Please cite your sources.
3] "pretty much meaningles except for the hype factor" This, Salty, smacks of POV. One person's credentials is one person's hype. This is one of your credentials. I'm sorry that it upsets you that she has credentials, but mentioning them does not constitute hype. This betrays your bias against Ms. Coulter.

I did a Google search on "Ann Coulter" and "constitutional attorney" and below are the first hits I got, both good, bad, and stupid. I did not include mention of her title at a blogforbush site, but I didn't delete any others. I cannot find anyone using Google who refutes that she is constitutional attorney. If you can, please let us know here at the talk page.

• Media Matters, one of her left-wing detractors, pooh-poohs this but doesn't refute it with any facts.
  
• City Beat puts scare quotes around this title, but also puts scare quotes around "best-selling author." They do not refute the claim.
  
• Satireonline makes reference to it. Does not refute it. Great, I'm impressed.
  
• Perspectives chat forum user makes a mention only.
  
• Worldnetdaily, a right-wing site, mentions she is a C.A. No "proof," no "refutation."
  
• Findlaw's review of books sez: "A former federal judicial law clerk, congressional staffer for Senator Spencer Abraham and constitutional attorney, Coulter was even named in a controversial article as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in 2001, by respected federal jurist Richard Posner."
  
• Newshound chat user "newswatcher" twice asserts she is a C.A.
  
• World-O-Crap News Report gets a Google hit, the term is not used with her name.
  
• Storymania.com poet Bransom Storm calls her a C.A.
  
• Orthodoxytoday.org user make mention that she is a C.A.
  

Salty, your bias is showing. 'Fess up.

I would appreciate criticisms of my thinking above. klenk 09:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that FindLaw, the most credible source, designates her as a former constitutional attorney. I don't believe she's still in practice, is she? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the sentence as constructed is grammatically ambiguoous. It would help, though, to know if she is still practising and, if so, what the nature of her practice is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict here, before you published the above. I'm going to post what I intended to anyway:

Seems to me you've mischaracterized what they said, and read into it. Read it again: "A former federal judicial law clerk," not "a former constitutional attorney." The sentence is not clear. Please play again and pick up a can of Turtle Wax.

Is she still an attorney? Yes. She is still an attorney. She is not a former attorney, even though she evidently does not argue in court. She is an attorney, undisputed. What kind of attorney? A constitutional attorney.

Are you going to argue that she is a attorney, but a former constitutional attorney? That is worse than stretching it, it is absurd. Please, Khaos, do some research and refute that she is a constitutional attorney.

It's okay to admit you're wrong, people. klenk 09:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

first, thanks for bringing up here instead of reverting. let's start with the term which you paint as being an on/off switch (i.e., one is either one or isn't). precisely what is a "constitutional attorney"? it's a "credential"? c'mon! further, given that the constitution is supposedly the supreme law of the land, what attorneys are not "constitutional attorneys"? please don't get hung up on my edit summary like it's a doctoral thesis or something (though i'll defend it if you insist); i looked through all the discussion archives to see if this had been disputed before, and didn't really expect any opposition. would've brought up here first otherwise.

yeah, i googled well enough before making the change. what i found was that most of the instances of "constitutional attorney" re coulter emanated from her marketing. let's at least agree that it's a very impressive sounding term, and that she uses it to describe herself. from that drones again the question of what is and what is not a "constitutional attorney" (this apparently bright line you see). for starters, i'd say that anybody accurately quoted as stating that NRO's censoring of her column had anything to do with "repealing the First Amendment" shouldn't have the word "constitutional" within 50' of her bio.

but perhaps we can go from your direction instead. what is a "constitutional attorney"? what has she done to distinguish herself as such? your apparent setting up of this subject with a requirement that sources be found to refute her claim (and that is primarily whence many appearances of the term came originally) is fallacious. please don't continue in that direction. what evidence do you have, aside from POV from others, that she's performed the duties of a "constitutional attorney" (whatever those may be -- you tell me), and how is a lawyer not one? how does a lawyer become one? relevant, i'd say, if this is not POV but a statement of fact. last, don't overestimate my bias against coulter, though it's perhaps irrelevant whatever its intensity/existence. my background and preferences may not be what you might assume. SaltyPig 10:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is based on a somewhat veiled claim that there is no such thing as a constitutional attorney, or at least "I've never heard of such a thing." I think I am being fair in that respect. So, first, we have to determine whether there is such a thing, and then, if proven, determine whether she is one.

Also, it is not just "her" claim that she is one. She is referred to as one all the time, not just in press releases.

Also, you did not delete the reference the word attorney. What does her being an attorney have to do with anything? Evidently it is relevant. I would say so, you haven't denied this. If she is, in fact, and attorney, and it is okay to mention it, then why not mention what kind she is? If you were to find out that she is a patent attorney, would you not think that is relevant vis a vis the focus of her commentary?

I'll tell you why: Because in her role as a writer and commentator, she focuses on constitutional issues time and time again. Read her columns. It is a recurring theme. It is a theme because she knows her subject. What is her subject? Constitutional law. You have taken an interest in this article. Now take an interest in its subject and familiarize yourself with her enough so that you know her area of specialty.

They exist, Salty. Constitutional lawyers exist, she is widely referred to as one across all spectrums in the media, no one disputes it, and it relates to the subjects she talks about every day.

I am not done addressing your last post. I will do some research and return. Many thanks, klenk 10:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

-----------

Well, FindLaw, which khaos was happy enough to cite as a credible source, makes the distinction of a constitutional lawyer. They list "Constitutional Law" as a sub-group fo Civil and Human Rights, and provide many referral links to what they describe as "Constitutional Lawyers". I think we can let this rather elementary point rest, and move on: Is Coulter one? klenk 10:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

for argument, yes: let's assume that constitutional lawyers exist. it's a starting point. since i guess you're coming back later with more stuff on the "is coulter one" question, i'll keep this short(er). to answer your previous question about lawyers in general, though i don't agree with the standard, it's commonly understood that if somebody in the U.S. passes a state bar and isn't disbarred, he's a lawyer. i don't agree with it, but the term has a standard meaning. given the jobs she's said to have had (not disputed), i think it's likely coulter's a lawyer, and i agree with you that it's relevant to this argument. however, if she worked for a corporation, representing it, it would be fair to say she's a corporate lawyer. fine. does clerking for a federal judge make one a "constitutional lawyer"? well, i don't think so — at least not to the extent that one should be distinguished as such where other lawyers are not. i'll hope you come back with some reasonably strict criteria on what makes a constitutional attorney (beyond being called one by somebody), and we can discuss it with respect to coulter and her accomplishments (beyond generic clerking for a federal judge, and beyond mere writing about the constitution while also being a lawyer [which would make me a constitutional cyclist, for example]). SaltyPig 11:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What is common usage of the term "constitutional attorney"? I suppose the most important issue is the circumstances under which lawyers and professional bodies use the term. Maybe an RFC request for a lawyer to answer that question might be appropriate. I don't think it's a question that can be answered simply by logical deducation or by google. Guettarda 11:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify. There are such things as constitutional attorneys. They handle cases involving issues of constitutional law and/or interpretation of the constitution. In the same way that there are criminal attorneys, corporate attorneys, tax attorneys and so on. It doesn't mean that a criminal attorney doesn't do anything else, or that he never does cases that touch on constitutional issues, but that's not his specialization - he may, for example, argue fifth amendment and sixth amendment issues, which are constitutional, but only where directly related to the criminal process. If someone wanted to argue about the conflict between federal authority and state's rights, however, they would go to a constitutional lawyer, not a criminal one. All of us get a general practitioner's training in law school, but where we go from after we graduate is our business. I became a prosecutor, for example, and while I know a bit about tax law and company law, again for example, and could talk a bit on it, I wouldn't feel confident enough, not having practiced it for any appreciable length of time, to act for someone in a case based on it. Now, clerking for a federal judge doesn't make Coulter a constitutional lawyer, but that's not the connection being made here. Her status as a constitutional lawyer is separate from that. Writing academic articles about constitutional interpretation and making it a specific field of study and practice would, however, allow her to legitimately call herself a constitutional lawyer. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

1] Not for argument's sake. For real. They exist. Admit it. 2] Whether you agree with "what is a lawyer" is not germaine to this discussion. 3] "I think it's likely Coulter's a lawyer"? 4] You are the one who deleted the term "constitutional"; I should point out that there have been discussions about this in the past. The term was alternately deleted and added. 5] You are framing this argument in terms of her "accomplishments." Passing the bar makes you an attorney. Disagreeable to you, admittedly, but nothing else matters on that point. 6] If passing the bar makes you a lawyer, I am prepared to argue that your specialty of study (that is, law school) By the way, I hope we don't have to have an argument over whether you consider getting a law degree an accomplishment. You seem to be framing this in a very arbitrary way. "If you can't prove this to me based on MY criteria, then you haven't proved it." I am not going to fall for that; neither am I going to let you frame the issue. I am going where the facts lead me. If I am wrong, and she is not a C.A., then I will admit it. I hope you are prepared to admit you are wrong and not play word games.

I opened this discussion by laying out your three points about why you deleted the entry. You have lost the argument on POV -- it is not a POV issue, it is an issue of fact. Therefore, you have lost the argument over whether it is hype. If she is one, then it is no different than saying she is a "patent attorney". A C.A. is the kind of attorney she is. You still have not addressed it is "roundly disputed" that she is a C.A. Please do so with evidence -- beyond some arguments in Wikiland.

To Guettarda -- that would be a good area for you to research. I'll bet a lot of universities out there have info about specialties of law. Glad to see you back. Hope you find the answer to your question. klenk 11:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Writing academic articles about constitutional interpretation and making it a specific field of study and practice would, however, allow her to legitimately call herself a constitutional lawyer.

couldn't disagree more. under that description, she might have no more credentials as a columnist writing about the constitution than a non-lawyer columnist writing about the constitution. i think what she did is join the federalist society, clerk for a fed judge, and go on to bigger, more exciting things while dragging her lawyer title with her to engage in the same thing many non-laywers do — constitutional analysis — from what i've seen no better than many hacks who claim to know about the constitution. surely a "constitutional attorney" must do more than this. she wears the same title as a career supreme court litigant? nah, that doesn't wash. where are the objective criteria for this title other than POV. it's all been POV so far.

when does one become a "constitutional attorney" (this supposed switch flip written about here)? what are the parameters? where's the line? most of the hype on this term's association with coulter came directly from her and her marketing reps. there must be more than that and some claims from prominent lawyers. writing about the constitution is something many people do — some non-lawyers better than the lawyers.

(after another edit conflict!) klenk, if you think this "you've lost the argument on POV" approach is working, open your eyes. i'm waiting for you to clarify what is and what is not a CA, and all you've offered is POV! please. (the editing rate on this page is faster than any other i've seen). i'll respond to your other stuff later. we're talking past each other out of sheer posting frequency. gonna slow it down. SaltyPig 12:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether she is one or not, even though it's clear that FindLaw considers her one. I'm telling you what the definition of a constitutional lawyer is, and I'm sorry if your own definitions don't fit. And I'm talking more than just a few op-ed columns. I'm talking law review articles, I'm talking about actual legal analysis instead of polemics. I'm talking about practicing in the field of constitutional law. If you can find her resume, perhaps that would help. You've already admitted that you don't really know what a constitutional lawyer is. As a legal practitioner, I'm telling you what it is - whether you accept that fact doesn't change what it is. What you think she did is, unfortunately, not relevant. What she actually did is, and that has yet to be determined either way. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it amusing that we can find tons of references to her as a constitutional lawyer, but no referenes (outside WP) this is in dispute. What you are doing is asking me to prove, to your satisfation and your own standards, something that 1] is broadly referenced outside WP but 2] not disputed outside WP. (If it is, prove it.)

Why are you applying a standard of "prove it to ME" that is not used in WP on other issues. All you have done is picked a fight over it, over your own standards of proof.

This is not so complicated. klenk 12:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

to khaosworks: argument by authority alert — hello! i like this: you get to tell me what the definition of a constitutional lawyer is (still haven't seen that, but apparently you claim to have decreed it), whereas i may only offer what i think the definition is! what a snotty approach. i'm almost laughing out loud reading it. it's likely, from what you've said here, that i know more about the constitution than you do, but that's not relevant, is it? -- no more than you claiming authority because you're a "legal practitioner" (which i am as well). BTW, where have i "admitted that [i] don't really know what a constitutional lawyer is"? please show me. i'm asking for the supporters of the term's application to coulter to stand up and give me criteria. nowhere have i said i don't know what a constitutional lawyer is. i know as well as anybody else, considering that it's all arbitrary opinion (i.e., POV) — something nobody here but me will admit, it looks like. (klenk, i'll have a pile of rebuttal for you by tonight. excited?) SaltyPig 12:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

this is getting very long. should we take it to a temp page or something, assuming you guys want to hash it out completely? shame to clutter the main talk page for this one point. SaltyPig 12:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep it here so others can weigh in on this point. It is no shame to talk -- that's what talk pages are for. It would be a shame to hide from other users that this subject has come up again. Remember, there were past attempts to delete the term, and it made it back in. paul klenk 13:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not say what you thought the definition was. I said that what you thought she did ("i think what she did is join the federalist society, clerk for a fed judge, and go on to bigger, more exciting things while dragging her lawyer title with her to engage in the same thing many non-laywers do" - that's what you said) was not relevant. What she actually did is.

Please tell me your definition of what a constitutional attorney is. I don't believe it's arbitrary, any more than calling a person a corporate attorney or a criminal lawyer is arbitrary. I know constitutional lawyers and I know what they do, so I think I have a pretty good idea what a constitutional lawyer is. Now, whether Coulter has actually done those things is something else entirely, but that doesn't take away from the fact that an attorney who actually practices or writes in the field of constitutional law can legitimately be called a constitutional attorney. I've shown you my definition. You show me yours. I've tried to be civil. Do the courtesy to be the same. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this maters but for purposes of seeing if there is a consensus, I vote for keeping the constitutional attorney reference in. As an attorney, I can emphatically state that she would be considered by most attorneys to be a constitutional attorney. If it were not the fact that she is so conroversial, this point would not even be raised in my opinion. Those are my two cents. Argue on.Gator1 13:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

(never seen so many edit conflicts. is it always like this here?) to paul klenk: okay, though i figured we could end the section with a link to another page. either way. have to go for a while, but re your claim that there were past attempts on this, before editing i did look through all the talk archives (the 4 i saw) for any word starting with "const". not a peep. i'd be interested in reading any prior discussion, if you can point me to it without too much trouble. thanks, and talk to you later. BTW, i just saw a "tried to be civil" comment. no idea what that's about. FWIW, i'm not pissed at anybody here (yet -- heh heh). SaltyPig 13:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I seriously cannot believe we're arguing this... Constitutional attorneys exist, whether you think so or not, SaltyPig. Coulter is one, whether you think so or not, SaltyPig. She is consistently referred to as one. Keep the phrasing in there as it was. Sheesh --patton1138 13:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

patton1138, you and others have completely mistated the point here. whether i think CAs exist isn't relevant (one reason i conceded it for argument, despite the complexity of the subject), but it keeps being brought up as a smoke screen and straw man. i notice it's been added back (and then some -- as a "minor" edit, no less). fine. i will cease discussion, assume bad faith, dubious tag, RfC, etc. nice work. this is disputed across the internet, as anybody who googles can easily see, despite much pretense above by paul klenk. SaltyPig 13:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sez you: this is disputed across the internet, as anybody who googles can easily see, despite much pretense above by paul klenk.

Then prove it. I have asked you this time and time again and you have cited nothing. Where is it being disputed? I am beginning to be a bit insulted by your statement. I have gone to great lengths to outline my arguments and explain them, and have worked hard doing so. "Pretense"? You dare to discount my efforts to lay out a well-established argument as pretense and bad faith? Watch yourself, sir. paul klenk 13:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

watch myself? where is the good faith in sneaking around on user talk pages and encouraging the edit warring of something that's in active dispute — a dispute in which i told you i would respond fully (specifically to you) by this evening? watch myself. right. don't even start to think that you're intimidating, intellectually or otherwise. you've missed more subtle points in this thread than is even worth going into. however, i had planned to answer every question you raised, including the ridiculous 3-point hammering of what was a casual edit summary (which i asked you not to continue, but said i would defend if you wanted). good faith? out the door. you've been exposed as an edit-warring sneak. save your "dare" talk; it's on the record. SaltyPig 13:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, watch yourself. Your comment about bad faith was out of line. If I wanted to sneak, I would have e-mailed him. Do you think I'm so stupid I don't know people review everyone's talk pages? And if I have missed some subtle points, please point them out. That is why we are on this page. I think I'm smart enough to understand your arguments, even if I don't accept them -- please don't insult me by suggesting otherwise. By the way, the only way an edit war can take place is if two sides get involved. I dare you, too. paul klenk 14:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight but I have to say it's hysterical and so typical of liberals. They will fight to the death on every...single...point...if they feel it can diminish one of their adversaries. In this case SP just can't STOMACH the possibility of Ann being elevated to a 'consitutional' attorney. It's like the Bill O'Reilly page where they spend COUNTLESS words debating whether or not he ACTUALLY came from Levittown.

These arguments are instigated and fueled by liberals. Church lady liberals as I call them. They just nit pick the tinies little things in order to 1) prove someone a 'liar' or 2) diminish their standing.

If you think I'm off on this, I make this challenge: Go th the Al Franken entry or the Bill Maher entry or any other leftist pundit and see if any conservative is on the talk page 'straining at a gnat' to prove that Bill Maher's GPA was actually 3.3 not 3.4 or that Al Franken really is 5'6" not 5'8".

What a crock. Your petty arguments speak FAR MORE LOUDLY than the points you're ultimately trying to make.

Big Daddy 14:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Daddy-O, Salty has been at this page for FIVE hours and has had plenty of time to cite research to prove, or even marginally indicate, that her designation as constitutional attorney is in dispute. What has he done with those five hours? paul klenk 14:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Starting this from scratch

To be a constitutional attourney, one must be in private practice centered around constitutional issues, yes? To be a former constitutional attourney, one must have been in private practice centered around constitutional issues, yes? According to this page, Ms. Coulter Esq., "pract[ed] corporate law for four years." This would make her a former corporate attourney, correct? If she did, in fact, practice constitutional law for four years, I'd have to ask for a cite. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to argue about Coulter's label, but you can definitely be a Constitutional Attorney and not have a private practice. You don't even have to practice at all. If that was your area of study, you still qualify as a C.A. even without the practice. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, so I defer. My understanding of Law School, however, is that because of the wide and deep requirements for the Bar Exam, the course of study has very little chance for "focus," and any such focus needs to be done after graduation. Is this not correct? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are general courses that everyone takes to fulfil the bar requirements, but there's also more focused courses you can take which go into deeper detail. For example, everyone took criminal law, which covered some bits of evidence law and procedure (enough for you to deal with the bar exam), but I also took a more detailed evidence course. Also, you can be a constitutional attorney even though you practice corporate law if you do research and publish in the field.

Of course, it would bolster the case for applying the constitutional lawyer label if Coulter had actually argued cases based on constitutional issues or had written academic articles based on analysis of constitutional issues. I'm not saying she's done this, merely that this kind of background - or lack thereof - is what is needed to establish the legitimacy of the claim. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't make me hire you! Ok. I'll settle for any of the evidence above - course work on conlaw above and beyond, any published article, or arguing a case that was based on constitutional issues, or clarifying "constitutional" with a cite of someone who called her that.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, from her website:

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.

So I think this shows she definitely is an attorney. The bolded makes it seem like she very well could be involved in constitutional law. Just my thoughts though. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That seems definitive to me. Reinserting constitutional shortly.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah, from her website. definitive. great work, everybody! proud day for wikipedia. SaltyPig 15:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh man, let this one go. She's a constitutional lawyer and that's that. Even if we're wrong, there's a clear consensus here. Live to fight another day.Gator1 16:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I accept that on disputed matters, her website can't be taken as fact. However, you don't deny she worked for the Center For Individual Rights, do you? The Center For Individual Rights [11]? That's constiutional law. Look at what they've done, case wise. We don't have to agree with them, or think they are right about the consitution to realize they are such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you beat me to the punch. She may be a little off, but she did work there. That's what they do. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume she is a CA. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

calling what happened here "consensus" is too silly for words. still, i always enjoy the construction "we're right, but even if we aren't right..." issue's not closed. if i'd known this was the coulter temple, i would've compiled a full case before. didn't think it was necessary. notice that paul hasn't bothered to find the supposed multiple attempts to change this before. notice that nobody ever specified any objective criteria for this opinionated claim. it was all POV. what makes a constitutional lawyer? "whatever makes coulter one!" who is not a constitutional lawyer? "patent attorneys!" (wrong) google CA for coulter. you'll see readily that it's disputed often -- one reason i didn't bother responding immediately to that, since i wanted to compile many links rather than just say "google it". but apparently things operate on a tight schedule here when the swarms are swarming. all you fighters on this, at least recognize that you can't criticize me for fighting the point when you're doing the same thing -- over "such a small nitpick". of course, this is all because i'm a leftist. right. all hail AC. the perfect correlation to the leftist rant about "greedy capitalists"; the producer is greedy for wanting to gain wealth, but the consumer who wants to gain wealth is... "thrifty". every one of you was nitpicking this right along with me (many against one), so stop with the pretense. the POV tag will be here forever probably, if this is par. SaltyPig 16:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What the heck was that all about? We were trying to be civil, but apparently we hit a nerve. Please, let us finish this discussion. Don't be scared away by a few editors. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Totally. Continue the discussion. No offense intended, Salty. Have fun.Gator1 17:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

No idea what he is on a tear about here. His statement that "nobody ever specified any objective criteria for this opinionated claim," is quite bizarre as right above there are several back and forth postings discussing how to establish if a person is a constitutional lawyer or not, and equally establishing that a person can be both a constitutional attorney and another kind of attorney. Perhaps he should simply have answered the question put to him and specified what his own, presumably NPOV, criteria were rather than insinuating that anyone who disagrees with him must have a conservative POV or is a Coulter worshipper. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue is never closed. I'll revert war with myself if you come up with objective criteria for CL that coulter dosen't fit. I was operating on my initial criteria, "To be a constitutional attourney, one must be in private practice centered around constitutional issues," supplimented with Volde's addditional "if you do research and publish in the field" and "more focused courses you can take which go into deeper detail." Coulter passed my most stringent criteria, but if you'd like to convince me to be MORE stringent, I'm able to be convinced. I don't think you can glean my political affiliation, aside from anti-censorship and pro-science from my contribution history.Hipocrite - «Talk»

Um, that was me, not Volde. Just sayin'. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I can.

Hip's a liberal straight up.

A FAIR liberal to be sure, but a lefty. The proof: Easy.

He won't say what he is.

That's a dead giveaway 80% of the time. Conservatives (or right of center folk, etc) don't mind the transparency. For liberals, they somehow think if they play fair (at least from their perspective) it doesn't matter. They actually think they're fooling people but I can sniff them out a mile away. That's why Hip is always trying to steer me away from the editor. He's got a point, but at some juncture you have to ask yourself, if SO MANY of the editors are liberal, then why does Wik even posit itself as nPOV? Big Daddy 18:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What? I know plenty of conservatives that hide their views, and I know liberals who are proud to be. Maybe you should start a subpage, like User:Big Daddy777/Editor's POVs listing everyone that come across and their POV. It would be an immense help from an editor who can see so clearly. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record, is there anyone else here who agrees with Salty? Or is this truly a Salty vs. The World venture? --patton1138 17:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA.... Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Didn't mean for that to be a personal attack at all. I was just trying to get a grasp on what the current tally/consensus - if any - is. Wanted to make sure there wasn't a silent majority siding with Salty with a vocal minority making all the objections. --patton1138 19:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

OK....OK!!!

For the THIRD FREAKING TIME, I corrected the cite about Ann and racism (which is a crock and shouldn't even be in there at all except Wik is CONTROLLED by liberals. )

The first two times some liberal REMOVED it for no good reason.

This is the correction:

For instance, in an article published one day after the 9/11 attacks, she wrote "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2001/091301.htm

It adds a link and factual context to the INFAMOUS quote. (That is was written in the heat of battle less than a day after our country was attacked and the sentence prior to the infamous comment which LIBERALS WANT TO CENSOR, that speaks of who she specifically is referring to -he ones cheering and dancing right now."

There is no reason, except Wikipedia is just another domain name for Democratic Underground, to remove this correct, thorough and much more FAIR entry. 23:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Daddy, I support this change. It places the quote squarely in context. However, please, please calm down. Everything's going to be okay. paul klenk 23:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul Klenk: "Everything's going to be okay." LOL! Well, I appreciate that Paul. But I am VERY passionate about this. If Wik is going to fulfill it's mission it just CAN'T be another left wing screed site. And everytime I tried to correct this cite, it got erased ALMOST immediately.

No wonder I was upset.

Ps I'm also glad they changed the name of the sub-head from racism to 'anti-islamic.' I think it's fair to critique her on being anti-Islam.

It is NOT fair to accuse her of being a racist for comments such as these which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with racism. That is the OLDEST trick in the liberal smear book. Big Daddy 23:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Gator, your allegation that this is "spin" is absurd. It is the quote itself, it isn't a "spin" comment about it. Context sheds light. Context is not spin. Spin would be what Coulter or someone else says about it later. paul klenk 23:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)\

Whoa just relax, it ain't worth it. It wasn't absurd, and you know that. I find your definition of spin to be interesting if not narrow, but it's not worth it to me so go ahead and revert I don't care. The truth: I though it was POV against Coulter and I hate that :) ( i.e. "How dare she say such awful things so close to 9/11!") But truth is in the eye of the beholder...sometimes. If you really feel strongly about this small point, I'll defer. Good day.Gator1 23:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gator, thanks for giving a reply. I am quite relaxed, by the way. And I do believe, truly, that to characterize a quote as "spinning" itelf is absurd. Also, the point may seem small, but this quote is paraded around again and again. Before today, I myself did not know the full extent of that quote, and I read Coulter's column. It was an excellent contribution, and I support Daddy-O for making it. Kind regards, paul klenk 00:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"Before today, I myself did not know the full extent of that quote" -Paul Klenk

Wow! This is a bittersweet moment. I'm ecstatic that Paul and now others saw the quote in it's context. Yet, I'm exasperated that, despite the undoubtedly countless times he's heard the quote used against her before, he never understood exactly WHO she was referring to. (Her enemies made it seem like she was speaking of ALL muslims.)

And it shows how DEEP and PERVASIVE the liberal SLIME MACHINE really is.

And sn't it funny that those master nitpickers at Media Matters (a constant source of attribution in Wikipedia) never pointed out this distinction in the countless times they've used it against her?

Hmmmm...

But I don't even want to pick on Media Matters because almost all of the mainstream media is guilty in smearing Ann Coulter. For that reason, if not for a myriad of others, this article should bend over backwards to be fair to Ann to the point, that if there's any perceived bias, it would come from the right.

It's the least we can do to counter the distortions her words are subjected to everywhere else.

Ps Of course, for Ann's enemies, what she said is still completely unacceptable irrespective of who she was referring to.

Why?

She suggested they be 'converted to Christianity."

And that, in the eyes of a liberal...

...is an unforgivable sin! lol!

Big Daddy 02:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

GATOR: "I thought it was POV against Coulter and I hate that."

SURE...

Big Daddy 23:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You know what, you don't know me and you ARE worked up about this, it's obvious. I used to get worked about this kind of stuff on Wikipedia too and learned that it's almost never worth the stress. And you know what else? I don't appreciate the implication that I'm lying! You know what the truth is? I like Coulter alot and am usually trying to figh my own personal POV on this one (with varied success). I see a lot of anti-Coulter edits here and I sometimes get hypersensitive about it. So I don't appreciate the implication OK? So when I said it was spin (and I stand by it) I really felt that your version made her look worse than the previous version. Maybe I'm wrong, I can admit it and there is support for your version and that's fine, I really didn't see a big enough difference to fight over it (just a quick revert and see how people reacted). That was just my take on it. If I knoew that I would be accused of being a secret lying liberal I wouldn't have bothered. This really is a small point, it really is. I've learned that there biggger fish to fry on Wikipedia and not everyone is opposed to you. We agree more than you realize (you can't tell me that picture with her and the gun isn't super hot! Whoever put it up probably thought it made her look bad and thought they were making fun of her, but what do they know!). Now you can either move on or write some mena remark again. Your choice. No hard feelings though and keep up the good work on the article.Gator1 02:14, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

"Controversy" Jones section

This section on Paula Jones needs a rewrite and a major trimming. I will start working on it when I have some time (besides, in the interest of full disclosure, I have a 3RR on this article anyway, until tomorrow morning).

Problems with this section:

• It is mostly about Jones, not about Coulter, and belongs on Paula Jones' page.
• It seems artificially bloated to shed negative light on Coulter by association
• It seems written, more than any thing, to discredit Jones -- again, what is the point in a Coulter article? Go discredit Jones on her page.
• The detail is excessive, again, not about Coulter.
• Who sez this is "controversial"? Seems like a very POV headline. I would like some suggestions on alternatives. Looks like a big red flag -- "Look here -- read about Coulter and Paula Jones.
• It relies heavily on one article, "Oh, Paula," quoting it in detail. Let's read the original article and make sure this isn't basically a rewrite of that. This should be attributed up front in the article, and the "facts" it asserts should be checked against other sources.
• Statements like "Jones (who had divorced her husband during the case, purchased a house after the settlement, and incurred a large tax bill) then posed nude" are very loaded
• Paula Jones' remarks about her own book deals are irrelevant, even if she tangentially invokes Coulters name to do so.
• It seems more like something you'd read in Salon, not an encyclopedia.
• In short, it could easily summarized. After that, we can take a good look and see what value there is.

I would appreciate direct criticism of the above.

Meanwhile, let's get working on this. Before I get into it in detail, I will listen to comments, and encourge others to start without me. paul klenk 22:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul,

If it wasn't for you, and maybe someday me, Wikipedia IS Salon. Ps I think they draft their editors from metafilter. Big Daddy 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul

Given your previous edits of this article I'm wary of your neutrality here, but here's what I think about this

The 'controversy' section actually has several subsections. Only the Jones section isn't broken into its own subsection -- I guess you don't want to modify those for now. I looked into the history and at one point it was called "a controversial person" and was much different than its current incarnation.

The Jones subsection is overly long, but I would imagine this particular paragraph has gone through so many iterations that we can't deduce the original intention without looking at older editions. For instance, the part about Paula buying a house and accruing a tax bill could have evolved beginning with a quote from Coulter calling Jones (her supposed ally) trailer trash. From there someone may have objected to the quote, so someone else explained its context by saying Jones posed nude. Then someone didn't want to look POV with regard to Jones so explained her behavior because of a huge tax bill, then someone explained that as a result of buying a house, etc etc. Most actions in a persons life can be explained, partially, by circumstances out of their control, so explanations like this can go on for eternity.

The references to "Oh Paula" probably developed similarly, with someone demanding citations. If an evolutionary chipping away of coherency this did occur, it isn't reasonable to wipe the section altogether. I saw another reference on the talk page to the Vietnam section being originally quite short but gaining a life of its own as its context was wiped and arguments about it transformed it into something which probably has more weight than it deserves.

I'm sure LimpDaddy would object to this being objective, but the way I see it, the important parts of the Paula Jones section are - Coulter wanting to "bring down the president", no matter the best interests of her client/advisee - Coulter, a supposedly great lawyer, advising Jones to go forward on a case that was ultimately dismissed - Coulter using Paula Jones then washing her hands of her once the dust settled (calling her "trailer trash")

Additionally, the motives of the various authors are at odds, but reading it, the picture that emerges is of a very two-faced individual. I'm sure some would say Coulter just learned the truth about Jones upon which she changed her tune, but that doesn't give Coulter nearly enough credit.

Though it doesn't matter for this section, you might see that the "trailer-park trash" comment. It is not satire or sarcasm to achieve comic effect, it is an honest to goodness insult.

Thanks for your comments -- I read them and will reread them carefully. Thanks for pointing out the subsections; I missed that and it is important. Also, please register, sign in, and identify yourself, if you please.

Because of this subsection's many flaws, I'm not particularly interested in its history (but I may go back a bit and read to see if it informs me). This is my perogative as an editor, and, as many past "points" of the subsect. have already disappeared, I hardly feel obligated to reinclude them. If all the revisions had been integrated more coherently, it might not be as much of a problem. But even had they been, I would still have many problems with it. It is non-encyclopedic, marginal to the subject, narrowly sourced and agenda driven.

I will now look at it again as part of the whole "controvery" Section and make sure that as I try to reach my goals above, I also keep make sure it inegrates thoughtfully into Section as a whole, and, of course, the whole article.

As for my neutrality, I believe none of us are neutral on the subject, but that we all have the ability to write while setting our views aside. As soon as someone tries the claim they are neutral, then I begin to worry; it is these people that are hiding their bias from others or simply unable to recognize it. Having said that, I you can show me examples of actual Edits that are not neutral, by all means identify them and explain why they are not neutral. Regards, paul klenk 14:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Lucky, please start reading here:

hi paul

i am registered but typically don't log in. pseudoanonymity is one of the pillars of wikipedia.

You are decidedly mistaken about the five pillars. Read it, and read it carefully, and if you disagree with me, provide a quote. It mentions nothing about anonymity, registering, or user names. Anonymity is most definitely not a "pillar." The closest statement that addresses "who" can edit reads, "articles can be changed by anyone." Anonymity is allowed -- with conditions -- and it may be very popular, but this doesn't support your claim.

Please do not misrepresent the "the five pillars." Others will take you seriously (I encourage them to read it). Although it is true that registering is not required, even that issue itself is not addressed in the statement. But what the five pillars does address are sock puppets. I mention this for two reason: You have already mentioned that you are registered but typically don't log in.

The second reason is this: I only took on the Coulter article in the first place because an anonymous IP was spamming it with unencyclopedic remarks about her sexual history. I had to revert him three times, which invoked the 3RR. He was gaming the system, and has since been banned blocked (corrected by paul klenk; see note below). The five pillars can not be used as an excuse to do this. paul klenk 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

anyway, names like bigdaddy777 don't really helps us much.

For the purposes stated above, it most certainly helps a lot. All of one's history can be checked by username. You have made reference to my past edits. But you yourself have not provided anyone a way to check your own (as I have), even though you could very easily, as you admit you are registered. On a disputed article, this becomes an issue. There are specific policies about editing under more than one identity -- whether they are anonymous or not. Read te polices. paul klenk 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

i also don't know how to indent responses on these talk pages.

Use a colon ( : ) before each paragraph. Add more colons for a wider indent. Easy, see? paul klenk 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

there are *many* non neutral edits. look at almost any revert and you'll see a case where one person thinks another is not behaving neutrally. paul klenk 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting is not itself a non neutral edit, but I take your point. However, I stand behind my edits as NPOV, so if you feel any of mine are POV, please cite examples. paul klenk 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

i don't really know if this section should be called controversy, but her involvement with Paula Jones seems worthwhile. If its too long how about a couple sentences and a link to a separate article about it?

You have a great idea; I'll take your advice. paul klenk 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

you've commented on this already, but again, its not reasonable to remove things that have become crufty with two years of debate, especially if they're things that you might imagine yourself opposed to do to political sensibilities (for instance attacks on conservatives). if you're really concerned about quality of content, the full archives of this article are available to peruse and sort out the most neutral truth, though it would take hours.

My political sensibilities have nothing to do with my edits. If you can prove otherwise, please cite examples. I repeat: please cite examples. Further, I do not need to be concerned with the quality of the entire revision history; that would be unthinkable and an unreasonable burden for anyone. My only concern is its present state. My sources of documentation do not include material that has been edited away over two years. paul klenk 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

off to have fun!

Well, I just now realized it was "someone" from your anonymous IP address that was spamming the page with her sex history, the same one that was blocked. It certainly sheds some light on your outrageous pseudo-claim that "anonymity is a pseudoanonymity is one of the pillars of wikipedia. Poppy cock. Read them, and while you're doing it, read about good faith. paul klenk 05:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

--71.112.11.220 04:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

ha I thought you knew it was me! i guess logging in would make it more clear, though its not tantamount to brave public speech if i use a name like limpdaddy. anyway, i was not gaming you into 3R block and got one myself after reverting bigdaddys "clarification". thanks for the colon advice, I thought there would be someway to do it once per edit.

about reverts, not every revert is POV, but for nearly every post/revert pair there will be one party that sees the action as POV. if you're looking for them they are easy to find.

re: your editing history, if i'm not mistaken, you continued to remove references to bill maher making jokes about their sexual relations, but leave those about their being "friends".

Big Daddy eliminated the COMPLETELY USELESS comments about sex, Maher and Coulter. Maher (and his legion of fellow liberal wanker/haters) WISHES he could get next to someone as hot as Coulter.

But the point that Coulter was 'set up ' on PI as most conservatives were, is very important. It goes to how tough-minded she was, taking on FOUR liberals...Maher and the 3 guests. And acquitting herself quite well, thank you.

Here's the re-write: "Coulter appeared several times on Bill Maher's long-time cancelled ABC talk show "Politically Incorrect". Maher has referred to her as "a friend" although she was typically used on the show as a "conservative punching bag" whereby Maher and three other liberal guests would all gang up on her. But Ann's ability to hold her own under such duress helped bolster her reputation as a fearless advocate of conservativism."

NOTE to liberal haters: I know you missed those days on PI when a republican was made to look like a fool by trying to simultaneously debate 4 dailykos-type lefties. But that shows been off the air for years. You need to let it go...lol!

Big Daddy 14:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The claim that she was "typically used on the show as a conservative punching bag" needs to be sourced, and the subsequent label of "fearless advocate of conservativism" is a bit POV to say the least. And for the love of pete, PLEASE stop turning this into a left/right war with such comments as "liberal haters", "you need to let it go", etc, you are inflaming the debate around here unnecessarily. Take a look at paul's method of dialog, he can be considered a conservative yet he simply states what he disagrees on, is polite, and invites comments on the matter. You might learn something from this. Mainly, be civil. --kizzle 01:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with those edits. You removed the part about their sexual relations and the "long-time cancelled" is POV to get across the point that you don't like Maher. Do we call Dukes of Hazzard a "long-time cancelled" show? --71.112.11.220 05:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Substance behind criticsm is being ignored

Let me lay out another problem:

• 1] This article repeatedly states Coulter is criticised for her remarks. I don't dispute the factual basis for this, or its relevance to her as a subject.
• 2] The article then gorges itself on quotes. Are they are exessive compared to quotes on other people's pages, like Franken's? We should check. Perhaps Coulter merits this; it is a valid possibility, I am willing to admit.
• 3] However, none of her remarks are placed in context, to understand them or explain them, or to review them as criticsm of actual policy. They are simpy pulled out, paraded around, and labeled "controversial". Analysis and context is non-existent.

Since she is so criticised for her statements, their substance -- not just the criticsm of them -- must accompany discussion about her, including her self-admitted view as a polemicist, and meaningful analysis from all sides.

Coulter is all about substance -- whether she is right or wrong. She hasn't been called one of the top 100 legal minds for no reason. She is extremely sharp and has a quick mouth. That is a fact, whether you like her or what she says. Perhaps she is a great big liar, too. Doesn't mean she isn't brilliant at what she does.

Some of you may wonder why I am going to such lengths to discuss this article. The reason -- there are a lot of problems with it. It is going to take a lot of work and discussion to fix it. I don't pretend to have all the answers to this. But I have found that when I tackle such problems head on, I can find them. paul klenk 23:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your changes, I have always stated that if there is any context missing from the quotes that enables the reader to better understand them, than by all means please add it. --kizzle 16:04, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Quotation Section

Honest to goodness, this article will never get over the quotes section (which shouldn't even be in there to begin with). I thought we were doing amazingly well when it was down to six quotes. SIX! That's a huuuge amount for an author to have (frankly, it's too much), and PLENTY of information to educate the reader as to how Coulter writes. Now, there are ten quotes.

The following quotes are examples of Ann Coulter's flamboyant and often inflammatory polemical style, for which she is well-known. They cover a wide variety of topics and are often meant to be ironic, they each demonstrate Coulter's style of stating her views strongly. Wikiquote has a collection of quotations by or about: Ann Coulter

   * "The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view."[16]
   * "I am not anti-gay rights, I am pro-not-hallucinating when I look at the Constitution."[17]
   * "Consider the intriguing diary entries of British jihadist Zeeshan Siddique, . . . captured last April in Pakistan . . . . His diary is a sort of Plan-a-Jihad journal, (There's also talk of publishing his diary under the title "Hello, Allah? It's Me, Siddique.") If you made a movie of this bumbling nincompoop's misadventures, you'd have to call it "Dude, Where's My Car Bomb?"[18]
   * "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." - on the 9/11/01 attacks, From her syndicated column We should invade their countries September 13, 2001

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

   * "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." - [19] May 17, 2003.

   * "Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children." - How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), 2004

   * "Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." - (from Slander, pp. 5-6; published June 2002).

   * "The Times was rushing to assure its readers that 'prominent Islamic scholars and theologians in the West say unequivocally that nothing in Islam countenances the Sept. 11 actions.' (That's if you set aside Muhammad's many specific instructions to kill nonbelievers whenever possible)" - How to Talk to a Liberal, 2004.

   * "Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster." [20]

Okay, cool kids, here's the call to arms. If no one else votes on what quotes should be removed, I'm going to remove what I think should be. Can we at least get it back down to six quotes? I vote removing: * "Consider the intriguing diary entries of British jihadist Zeeshan Siddique, . . . captured last April in Pakistan . . . . His diary is a sort of Plan-a-Jihad journal, (There's also talk of publishing his diary under the title "Hello, Allah? It's Me, Siddique.") If you made a movie of this bumbling nincompoop's misadventures, you'd have to call it "Dude, Where's My Car Bomb?"[18]; * "Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster." [20]; * "Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children." - How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), 2004; * "I am not anti-gay rights, I am pro-not-hallucinating when I look at the Constitution."[17].

Please, everyone, can we stop the quotes madness before it gets too large again? Stanselmdoc 05:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I support the reduction of the quotes section, as well as your choices of quotes. Thanks for seeing that this article does not get out of control. paul klenk 05:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes that's fine. Be bold! Also a hidden note about inserting more quotes. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)