Lou Sander (talk | contribs) |
Constructive, good-faith suggestion, topic ban overridden by WP:IAR |
||
Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
== Ann's controversy regarding religion. == |
== Ann's controversy regarding religion. == |
||
[Removed] Please see the Wikipedia policy regarding [[WP:BLP|biographies of living people]]. This extends to the talk page as well. Mahalo. --[[User:Ali'i|Ali'i]] 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
[Removed] Please see the Wikipedia policy regarding [[WP:BLP|biographies of living people]]. This extends to the talk page as well. Mahalo. --[[User:Ali'i|Ali'i]] 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Controversies== |
|||
I think the "controversies" should be on a different page, possibly as a "See Also" link. I don't believe that all of these criticisms should make up the bulk of her article. This article is about her, not her controversies. <font face="Old English Text MT" size="3px" bgcolor="black"><span style="background-color: black;">[[User:Axmann8|<font color="#66FFFF"><u>-Axmann8</u></font>]] [[User talk:Axmann8|<font color="#66FF00">(<u>Talk</u>)</font>]]</span></font> 06:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:15, 25 March 2009
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
I gotta admit, that's not a very flattering picture
Even though I hate Ann Coulter with a passion, I have to admit, the main picture is kind of odd and would probably be good fuel for people who want to claim that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias", so I would suggest changing it to a picture of her with a normal facial expression. :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippie Metalhead (talk • contribs) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't polish a turd. Besides which, I don't think it's a terrible photo of her.Ticklemygrits (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue of the photo seems to come up every other month. Basically, we would welcome a 'better' photo, but we can't magically make one appear. This is currently the best 'free' photo we have and until a better one is contributed then it is what we have to work with. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
What about a pic that highlights her adam's apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.189.28 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There are several pictures of her on the article and, let's face it, she's no honey in any of them. It's not so much a liberal bias as just the fact that the people who are normally polished and airbrushed in all the right places in the media are at the mercy of Wikipedia's editors, who I doubt are all hippies trying to defame Ann Coulter. I'm sure if she was a nice person no-one would mind an odd photo (look at Billy West's profile) but there it is.--Joncheetham88 (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment from the Anti-Defamation League - includes incorrect information
Editors, please review my comments below. I'm not too familiar yet with Wikipedia, despite having read the help pages. Thank you.
RE: In response to Coulter's comments on the show, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement saying it "strongly condemns Ann Coulter for her anti-Semitic comment", and that to "espouse the idea that Judaism needs to be replaced with Christianity and that each individual Jew is somehow deficient and needs to be 'perfected,' is rank Christian supersessionism and has been rejected by the Catholic Church and the vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations."[157]
Please remove the Anti-Defamation League quote--The ADL is not authorized to speak for the Catholic Church or for the vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations. To leave it as the last word in this section is deliberately misleading, as well as false information.
Classical Christianity, that understood for 2000 years, and not suddenly amended in this era, is based on the Bible itself, in which Jesus Christ teaches that the only way to salvation is through believing that he is the son of God. The Jew who then believes in Jesus Christ is "perfected", ie brought to salvation, by his faith in God, which makes the Jew just like everyone else, since, according to the Christian faith, only those are saved or "perfected" who believe in Jesus Christ. Judaism is not so much replaced with Christianity, but completed by it. That's the Christian view. The Catholic church has certainly not condemned this basic Christian teaching, nor have any churches of consequence. As to what is meant by: "The vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations", I have no idea, since the vast majority of American Christians are not in the mainstream Christian denominations.
(Vivianclare (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
- Coulter herself demonstrated the mainstream acceptance of her "perfect" terminology in an interview, so in appropriately presenting Ann's side of the story against the ADL's position, we don't even need to exert any labor comparing it to biblical doctrine ourselves:
- Right Wing News: Your comments about Jews being "perfected" -- wasn't that just standard Christian doctrine? That, yes, Christians do want to convert other people to Christianity and that, yes, we do think the whole world would be better off if everyone shared our faith?
- Coulter: Yes. As the Oxford University Guide to the New Testament describes Paul's argument in the Book of Hebrews, "Christianity represented the perfection of Judaism. Christianity was the religion foretold by the prophets."
- And the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the New Testament says, "between the New and Old Testaments there is a direct but not revolutionary succession as a superficial observer might be inclined to believe; just as in living beings, the imperfect state of yesterday must give way before the perfection of today."
- I guess the public schools are doing their job if half the country is unfamiliar with the most basic, bare bones description of Christianity.
- 99.165.237.233 (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think it'd be better for the article if we just remove that entire subsection. It's a very long subsection over a controversy about nothing. --Ubiq (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wait, how is the position of the Catholic Church relevant here? Isn't it up to Jewish people to judge about this? The ADL can't be "wrong" because what these other sources say are not facts, but just their teachings. It should be clear that while her arguments may not be new and may even be Paul's, that doesn't make them not anti-Semitic in Jewish eyes. Removing this section is just one thing: right-wing Catholic POV. --84.153.106.83 (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary section and 'perceived' bias
First the "2008 presidential campaign" is completely irrelevant. It has no encyclopedic value. This is not a news website. Coulter's various 2008 election endorsements simply are not relevant to her biography.
-I completely disagree, her views are the reason she is noteworthy enough to be considered in the wiki. It is her stock and trade and also this is not "her Biography" this is an encyclopedia entry. The "2008 presidential campaign" is a historic event worthy of notice and note. I am not sure why there is a sudden effort to white wash conservative political speakers, but it is getting out of hand. --wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Second this whole article is biased. For example the said "2008 presidential campaign" quotes sarcasm in an attempt to make Coulter appear racist. To clarify, Coulter writing a racist column about a black candidate (if she had) should be included in her article, whereas a quote of a single sarcastic phrase does not contribute to her biography and only serves to mislead unassuming readers.
- There are her words, perhaps you should provide descriptions of her satirical works to valence out the possible perception but the elimination of information because you personally feel there is a bias is unacceptable and counter to the collection and distribution of knowledge. If you think the picture of the nature of her works and actions are incomplete then by all means add to it, but do not subtract. - --wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The entire article is biased by the "controversy and criticism" sections.
- Her career is controversial, this is the nature of her trade and relevant factual information about the subject. as said if you feel that there is more information to be given to balance out the information you see here then contribute. --wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Instead of presenting Coulter's supposedly controversial ideas/actions/quotes and then explaining the reaction, these sections fully and firstly explain the criticisms and then grudgingly introduce Coulter's ideas or intentions. An example of this is the 'Jersey Girls' section: "These statements received national attention after an interview on The Today Show, and were widely criticized. Coulter refused to apologize, and responded, "I feel sorry for all the widows of 9/11...[but] I do not believe that sanctifies their political message....They have attacked Bush, they have attacked Condoleezza Rice, they're cutting campaign commercials for Kerry. But we can't respond because their husbands died . . . I think it's one of the ugliest things 'the left' has done...this idea that you need some sort of personal authenticity in order to make a political point..."" What the article claims to be controversial, Coulter's ideas about personal authenticity in order to make a political point, is presented only in the last sentence, whereas the quote was followed immediately by "... was widely criticized. Coulter refused to apologize."
Every section under "Controversies and criticism" is unnecessary and they are included either because they garnered limited media attention for a short time or because liberal contributors try to use them to negatively characterize her ideology. I suggest that the Criticism section be completely reworked so that is serves the purpose of summarizing and characterizing criticism of Coulter (for and against), instead of using criticism to negatively extend her portrait. For example, a sentence should have a tone more like,
- I disagree this is an attempt to remove relevant factual information about the subject. --wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"-So and so with a notable reputation- criticizes Coulter accusing her of being -something- because of -these statements- she made in -this book- while describing -this subject-."
(INSTEAD OF: "CONTROVERSY OVER -THIS SUBJECT-: -quote comments-[-cite-] -very little or misleading context to cover bias or appease discussion page arguments-)
It just can be done better. An honest article would strive to fully present Coulter's biography and the ideas and themes from Coulter's career and then describe the criticism to detail the impact or polemic effect.
- As stated before, this is not "Coulter's biography" this is a encyclopedia entry on a subject. - --wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The article currently has the philosophy that it should include a lengthy criticism section to 'balance out' the rest of the article.
--Techn0scho0lbus (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Interview on McCarthy
In an interview with Süddeutsche Zeitung on Nov. 14, 2008, Coulter told i.a.
- Joe McCarthy was "sent by god".
- "the american elite [...] spent 50 years to build up a negative legend about McCarthy."
- "But McCarthy saved America, 20 years before Ronald Reagan came to free the world from communism".
- "Basically, the liberals hate Palin for the same reasons as they hated Joe McCarthy. The instances of Palin and McCarthy are very similar, on the level of classes."
- "a long time bevore it became cool, he (McCarthy) hired gays, jews, catholics, evangelicals and women". (*)
- "(the difference between) liberalism and communism? I think, liberals have better teeth and prettier clothes."
- that democrats are no-goods, "that just want to hush up their treason".
(*) By the way, do people hire minorities because it is "cool"?
The german text can be found at http://www.sueddeutsche.de/451385/472/2632337/Von-Gott-gesandt.html
--Derbeobachter (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Ann Coulter's Jaw Wired Shut
http://www.oregonlive.com/idahosportugal/index.ssf/2008/11/ann_coulters_jaw_broken_and_wi.html Пипумбрик (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- No reliable source yet. Seems to be sourced from a gossip column in the New York Post, which was picked up by Huffington Post and Women on the Web.
- The reason I suggest handling this with extreme care is that there doesn't seem to have been any attempt by any reporting party to contact Coulter or her spokespersons for comment. --TS 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.207 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments about Jews (again)
The "Comments about Jews" thing is obviously a little controversial. However I note that this led to a condemnation by the ADL. That isn't the kind of thing we would normally want to brush under the carpet. What's up? I notice that whoever is trying to insert a piece about this incident keeps getting reverted, which is fine if the description is distorted. But just because somebody may be trying to insert distortions (if that's what's happening) doesn't mean we shouldn't have something on this subject. --TS 21:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was unaware that there was a dispute over inclusion of this. I removed it somewhat recently (along with some other parts) because I felt it was a relatively minor controversy that was discussed too extensively in the article, and per the arguments of a few wiki users in the Comment from the Anti-Defamation League - includes incorrect information section on this discussion page a few sections up; given the scriptural context, it seems the comment was blown out of proportion. However, this is not to say any discussion within the article about the controversy should necessarily be brushed under the carpet. At the time I was removing multiple things that I felt were just unimportant in respect to her BLP and gave unnecessary length to the article. This particular section has been reinserted but I really think it should removed for the reasons that it's too long, her comment seems to be consistent with Christian doctrine (it's just that her wording seemed to be what made this sound offensive), and the basic idea that she was putting forth is consistent with what she believes (which is that white Christians are essentially better than everyone else), so there's very little to distinguish this comment from her other comments about Arabs, gays and lesbians, or black people. That's basically why I refer to it as unnecessary length. Anyway, it's up to the editors here to decide on inclusion/exclusion; I'll yield to consensus, but I would encourage anyone who has the energy to do so to consider rewriting it so it's not so lengthy but still includes the relevant context. --Ubiq (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Removed "Victor over Kwanzaa" section
As this topic has garnered no significant independent coverage, I removed this as simple WP:RECENTISM. Nandesuka (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI: editors coming; Drudge claiming she was "banned" from NBC
It appears (according to Drudge Report, in huge blazing text) that Ann Coulter has been "banned" from NBC. Expect a lot of edits imminently. rootology (C)(T) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- She was on the Today show, well, today. --64.9.97.44 (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Canadian Troops in Vietnam
I reverted an edit that deleted some well-sourced material and, through apparent carelessness in editing, left some unsuitable material about FAIR and also an extra double quotation mark. This section has been pretty stable for a long time, after extensive arguments about the nature of Canada's involvement in Vietnam. There is a well-researched description of that involvement, the fifth estate interview, and related topics HERE. I sure hope we aren't going to re-open this painful discussion. Lou Sander (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
books.section needs fix.
Someone needs to edit the books section here.
"Her most recent book" is outdated since the release of her new book on Jan 6.
CofCC controversy
Could someone please add a reference to this [1] to the "Controvery and Criticism" section of this article? In her most recent book ("Guilty") she defended the Council of Conservative Citizens and denied that it was racist, but the Southern Poverty Law Center has taken her to task and provided plenty of evidence that it is, indeed, a white nationalist group. The SPLC has long been one of the strongest opponents of racism in the US, so I think any criticism coming from their direction is automatically as notable as any criticism could possibly be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I added it. Thanks for pointing it out. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Controversies
This article is getting very long. I'm wondering if we could spin the "controversies and criticism" section off into a separate article, possibly calling it "Ann Coulter Controversies", "Criticism of Ann Coulter", or something like that, which mirrors existing articles such as Criticism of Noam Chomsky. The main article will then be a more manageable length. What do you think? I'm not going to do it unilaterally, but I'd like some feedback. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would be in favor of it. And BTW, the article is about Ann Coulter, not about the people who criticize her. The recent stuff about her book starts off with something the Southern Poverty Law Center said about something she said in her book. The right way is to cover what she said in her book, then (if appropriate) mention those who criticized it. The material in the book is what is important. Criticisms of it are a footnote. Lou Sander (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I recognize there is a precedent with Chomsky, but is there a less pov fork suggesting title? Viewpoints? Discussion of Ayn Rand? Any ideas? Ayn Rand dissected? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- How about "Public Perception and Assessments of Ann Coulter"? That would mimic the existing article on George W. Bush, and would have a far more NPOV-sounding title. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The name would be an attempt to conceal the information. While in the Case of the existing article it is relevant because the criticism and public perception of him is also linked with George W. Bush's administration and not necessarily those of his direct actions or words. However In the case of Mrs. Coulter this is not the case, the criticism is not of the perception of her status or the actions of her company, but a direct response to her actions and words(or should be). Like it or not the criticisms are relevant to the information on the subject of Mrs. Ann Coulter. I would say that it would be better to separate the critique f her written works from those of her public statements. These are separate subjects, book and author. wageit (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.142.63 (talk)
- How about "Public Perception and Assessments of Ann Coulter"? That would mimic the existing article on George W. Bush, and would have a far more NPOV-sounding title. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I restored the deleted information and made the new article (which had a very poor title that did not describe its contents) into a redirect back here. In theory, a spinoff article might not be a bad idea, as long as the main article contains some mention of the controversial things she has said and then the spinoff article goes into the details of the controversies over them. However, as it was, this article on Ann Coulter omitted any mention of the most controversial things she has said. The article on Ann Coulter must at least mention her statements about the "Jersey girls", invading and converting the Muslims, bombing the New York Times, and the other things in that section, otherwise it is not really an article about Ann Coulter. By the same token, the attempted spinoff title, Public perceptions of Ann Coulter, was misleading at best. In fact, the article was not really about public perceptions, it was about the most controversial things she has said, which had been removed from the main article. A better title would have been "The Other Half of the Ann Coulter Article." In any event, that article is now a redirect. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why is it necessary to give so much attention to all these controversies? Ann Coulter says a lot of controversial things, and we repeat them in detail, including everything that anybody says about them. Jay Leno tells a lot of jokes, but we don't recount them here. Louis Farrakhan says a lot of controversial things, but they don't get more than passing mention. Why is Coulter different? 173.75.41.215 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can call the entire section Louis Farrakhan#Controversy, which discusses about a dozen of Farrakhan's controversial quotes and the reaction to them, not "more than a passing mention." It looks like a pretty extensive mention to me, and it is consistent with the Coulter article. Admittedly there is more attention paid to Coulter than Farrakhan but that is typical of the "recentism" that pervades Wikipedia; Farrakhan was big news 20 years ago, in the pre-Wikipedia era, while Coulter is big news right now. That is a problem for Wikipedia, but it is hardly unique to this article, so this isn't the place to start fixing it. And anyway, the fix would be more material about Farrakhan and his controversies, not less about Coulter and hers. And the fix certainly is not shunting off the most controversial stuff to a separate article called "Public perceptions of Ann Coulter." 6SJ7 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- First you're "not sure" about something that is there in black and white. Then you say "certainly" about something that's a matter of subjective opinion. Do you maybe have it backwards? Sorry I didn't check the Farra article before I commented -- my recollection was faulty. Now that I've looked at it, IMHO the section about Farrakhan treats his controversies pretty evenhandedly, and the one about Coulter does not. Also, he is the leader of an important group of people. Coulter is a lone voice. Maybe this IS the place to start toning down the recentism. Somebody might have been trying to do that when they moved the controversy cruft to its own article (though they didn't do it very well, I agree). Lou Sander (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- The controversy is not "cruft" -- it is the essence of the article, because it is what Ann Coulter is all about. She lives to create controversy. She freely admits it. She revels in it. Taking this stuff out of the article would be like having an article entitled "Muhammad Ali" that said nothing about Ali being a boxer. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your non-neutral point of view is showing. Unfortunately, your article is awash in it. Lou Sander (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Objecting to an article being gutted is not "non-neutral." And it's not "my" article, I made one edit to it (I may have edited it sometime in the past, but I don't recall doing so.) Anyway, the article seems fairly well balanced to me. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not the objecting that's so non-neutral. It's the bold resurrecting of page after page of detailed one-sided discussion of objections to what the subject of the article said. Cruft. Lou Sander (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Objecting to an article being gutted is not "non-neutral." And it's not "my" article, I made one edit to it (I may have edited it sometime in the past, but I don't recall doing so.) Anyway, the article seems fairly well balanced to me. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your non-neutral point of view is showing. Unfortunately, your article is awash in it. Lou Sander (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- The controversy is not "cruft" -- it is the essence of the article, because it is what Ann Coulter is all about. She lives to create controversy. She freely admits it. She revels in it. Taking this stuff out of the article would be like having an article entitled "Muhammad Ali" that said nothing about Ali being a boxer. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- First you're "not sure" about something that is there in black and white. Then you say "certainly" about something that's a matter of subjective opinion. Do you maybe have it backwards? Sorry I didn't check the Farra article before I commented -- my recollection was faulty. Now that I've looked at it, IMHO the section about Farrakhan treats his controversies pretty evenhandedly, and the one about Coulter does not. Also, he is the leader of an important group of people. Coulter is a lone voice. Maybe this IS the place to start toning down the recentism. Somebody might have been trying to do that when they moved the controversy cruft to its own article (though they didn't do it very well, I agree). Lou Sander (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can call the entire section Louis Farrakhan#Controversy, which discusses about a dozen of Farrakhan's controversial quotes and the reaction to them, not "more than a passing mention." It looks like a pretty extensive mention to me, and it is consistent with the Coulter article. Admittedly there is more attention paid to Coulter than Farrakhan but that is typical of the "recentism" that pervades Wikipedia; Farrakhan was big news 20 years ago, in the pre-Wikipedia era, while Coulter is big news right now. That is a problem for Wikipedia, but it is hardly unique to this article, so this isn't the place to start fixing it. And anyway, the fix would be more material about Farrakhan and his controversies, not less about Coulter and hers. And the fix certainly is not shunting off the most controversial stuff to a separate article called "Public perceptions of Ann Coulter." 6SJ7 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why is it necessary to give so much attention to all these controversies? Ann Coulter says a lot of controversial things, and we repeat them in detail, including everything that anybody says about them. Jay Leno tells a lot of jokes, but we don't recount them here. Louis Farrakhan says a lot of controversial things, but they don't get more than passing mention. Why is Coulter different? 173.75.41.215 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Rage against the machine incident
I think the RATM incident with Zack and Ann should be mentioned. You know, where Ann very maturely said: "They are losers and their fans are losers." Check it out here: Rage against the machine.
On a side note, reading this article it seems like she's totally nuts o.O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.41.77 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ann's controversy regarding religion.
[Removed] Please see the Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living people. This extends to the talk page as well. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Controversies
I think the "controversies" should be on a different page, possibly as a "See Also" link. I don't believe that all of these criticisms should make up the bulk of her article. This article is about her, not her controversies. -Axmann8 (Talk) 06:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)