Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

External Links Discussion

The External Links

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

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

External links

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MySpace link is still bad. I hate to delete it without talking to somebody, but the last two edits have been pointers to invalid groups. I did a search on MySpace and found the group, but it says it's an invalid group ID when you try to go there. I'm inclined to just delete this until somebody verifies it's resolved. Syberghost 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Supposed evidence Ann may have been born intersexual

She definately has a very prominent Adam's Apple. It is the way that you can tell that the pretty woman who is trying to pick you up is a Dude. Ann Coulter, who was she in high school? Anybody have a picture of her younger (more manly) years?

Grove, Lloyd (2002-09-06). "Mystery of the Ages". Washington Post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • I was wondering why there is not anything on the page discussing that she is a m2f transexual. That discussion has been going on for helluva longer than last years election. SchmuckyTheCat 17:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • See my comment just above about the Strap-On Vets site. There's been "discussion" of this thesis in a satirical context, but that's not worth referring to. Can you cite any serious evidence or analysis that she might be a transsexual? JamesMLane 17:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute...so is Ann Coulter a dude? CoolGuy 03:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, if only this were true. Dr. Laura would start calling her a biological mistake, she'd counterattack, and they'd neutralize each other for a while. What a pleasant thought :) Tualha (Talk) 01:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

does she have an adams apple? I don't think she is male but found this image on the internet and yess she has an adams apple.71.28.250.92 00:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC) http://www.rawilson.com/images/coulter.jpg

I am female and have seen her in person and think possibly she might be an ais person. You just do not get the impression of a total female from her. This I do not think is a thing to concentrate on about her. She is more noteworthy as a controversial commentator whom some like and some do not. It matters not to me.210.0.216.227 19:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

commentator

The very suggestion of Ann being a transexual is just preposterous and has nothing to do with her point of view about things or with her stands. Moreover it has the hidden implication that a cute blonde woman can hot have brains. Only a man could have done what he has? Very macho. Is that the point my friends? That says a lot about the way you think.User:Agcala

That's simply untrue. If she is a transexual, a lot of her political views are conflicted- conservatives are often highly critical of alternative sexualities. The implication is not that a woman cannot have brains and be attractive, the implication is that she is absurdly hypocritical, and holds other people to a much higher moral standard than she does herself. Nonuser:Unnatural20--198.138.132.75 18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mary Cheny proves that her political views are completley irrelevant in this debate.

"demonstrates" vs "claims"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is she deformed?

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

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

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

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

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

Birthdate

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

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

Ann Coulter a neo-conservative?! No! Absolutely not! Her pal Sean Hannity is a raving liberal compared to Ann. She can make the occasional lucid point, but then make some way "out there" statement that destroys her credibility. The Timothy McVeigh/New York Times comment, for instance. GeorgeC 06:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Insult humor vs. insulting humor

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

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

I think she is just a nasty person in the mold of matt drudge, she gives the consertive movement a very bad name, with her nasty self.

Plagiarism Allegations

I would like to discuss the following recent addition:

Plagiarism allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found two sources: one liberal [1], one conservative [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/551968/posts] that said that this magazine article was a group project by members of the Human Events writing staff, including Coulter herself, and that it would be wrong to attribute the article solely to Chapman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A mere accusation against the subject of a Wikipedia article does not rise to the threshhold of notability. This is especially the case when no responsible individual is willing to present evidence of the accusation. I found a reproduction of 80% of the Boston Globe article at this liberal website [2]. Nowhere does it accuse Coulter of plagiarism. And the Coulterwatch article contains the bald accusation of theft, but as I detailed above, its description of events doesn't suggest plagiarism any more than other more innocent explanations, especially if we can trust the report that the editors compiled shared articles by many writers on the staff, including Coulter and Chapman together at one point. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/551968/posts]

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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