Talk:Ann Coulter

Archives
Before 2005 Criticism, Quotes, Racism/Sexism, Idle rich Vietnam comments on the Fifth Estate Ext links, Transsexual, Birthdate, Plagiarism More racism, Quotations, Length, Photos Pictures, Canada/Vietnam, 8/24/05 to 9/8/05 09/08/2005 to 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 to 10/10/2005 10/10/2005 to 06/08/2006 June-ish 2006 06/28/2006 to 07/08/2006 07/08/2006 to 29/08/2006 September 1, 2006 to October 31, 2006

---

Public Intellectual

She is far from self-described as a public intellectual. She was heavily covered in a book about public intellectuals a few years back. she was definitely in the top 100. I think the author was Posner or Poser or something like that. Good Cop 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember that too. By the way El Kevbo, I think you are the one who asked for a citation? The "public intellectual" comment comes from the Time magazine cover story piece by Cloud. Except it's not a direct quotation. Cloud says something like "Coulter sees herself as a public intellectual". 216.165.199.50 05:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I was the one who requested a citation. I cleaned up the intro and noticed that phrase was not cited. Thanks! --ElKevbo 19:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the statement from the same Cloud article already cited in the article or a different piece? I'm just trying to track down the necessary bibliographical information to cite the assertion and double-check it. --ElKevbo 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same one 64.154.26.251 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The article should mention Ann Coulter made an anti-Semitic comment in writing so she cant deny it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:42, November 6, 2006 (talk • contribs) 65.35.27.83

Registration and Voting / Innuendo and Libel

Somebody needs to rewrite the "Registration and Voting" stuff, since it's outdated and based on innuendo. Somebody could/should get in big trouble over it. Wikipedia says Coulter "is under investigation." The source of this is a gossip column (see its URL) that says officials are "reportedly investigating." I wouldn't want to explain the difference to a judge in a libel case. The next part says the officials gave her 30 days to explain. That was seven months ago (>210 days). Yet this "encyclopedia" still says "is". The judge would have a fit. Not to mention that the cited source is no longer available unless you pay for it. I'm not paying, and I don't trust that it says what Wikipedia says it does (see above for the reason). Also, what does the minor age dispute in the third paragraph have to do with alleged improper conduct in registration and voting? Good Cop 01:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What did you think of my fix, Good Cop? Any suggestions would be welcome. Let me say this, though, the articles (the free ones) form a coherent story. I also read somewhere that Coulter got legal assistance from somewhere. But there was no "allegation" in this episode yet, just an investigation, and I changed the article to reflect that. 216.165.199.50 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference to the political party of the election official who is investigating Coulter, it's not relevant to the article.

Canada and Vietnam/Indochina (again)

Once again people want to include this in the article. As usual, they are newbies, semi-anons, and other types who aren't very familiar with the article. The Canada matter has been discussed at great length, and consensus reached to eliminate it. Look HERE to see a lot of the most recent discussion. At one time, all the links and explanations of these matters were in the article, but then the whole silly business was removed, the links and explanations along with it.

If you doubt that Canada sent troops to Vietnam/Indochina during a time when the borders in that area were in a state of flux, please read the article on International Control Commission (it will help if you follow the links). If you still doubt that Canada sent troops, it may help you to look HERE to see the medal that Canada awarded to them for their service.

Will somebody PLEASE put this topic out of its misery and totally and forever delete this item from the article (yet again)? Lou Sander 21:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What I see there is you attempting to whitewash her comment. She clearly did not know what she was talking about, and no one has yet provided a cintilla of evidence that Canada sent one fighting soldier to vietnam. Raul654 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Coulter's statement (that Canada sent troops to Vietnam) might be true in its most literal, least meaningful sense (in that more than one - and not very many more - troops in the Canadian army were physically present in Vietnam during the time period); however, her comment was clearly intended to convey that she believes they sent sizeable numbers of troops to fight there. Claiming that she meant otherwise is (at best) intellectually dishonest. Raul654 21:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It would really be helpful if someone could show the rest of us how "fighting soldier" applies to this incident, and if someone could point out specifically what would make anyone think that she "clearly intended to convey that she believes they sent sizeable numbers of troops to fight there." The facts of Canada's troops in Vietnam/Indochina stand on their own. Confident assertions about Ann Coulter's thought processes do not. And I do not appreciate assertions about "whitewashing;" please try hard to assume the good faith that underlies bringing out the facts about Canada's troops in Vietnam. Lou Sander 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is NOT whether Canada sent troops to Vietnam. The issue IS whether the facts of the paragraph are accurate, which they are. If Coulter was shown to be correct, then by all means add sourced information to the paragraph to that effect. But don't effectively deny that the exchange between Coulter and McKeown occurred by deleting the paragraph, which contains accurate quotes. I wrote the paragraph, not to prove Coulter right or wrong. I wrote it because the events occurred, and the section title is "Allegations of plagiarism and factual inaccuracy." Ward3001 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But why the hell does any of this matter? Why should this particular incident be included in a biographical encyclopedia article? What evidence is there that this event was noteable? --ElKevbo 22:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly this is simply not notable per WP:NOTE. The point it not whether it is true or not... most of that discussion is WP:OR and irrelevant. The point is the entire section is utterly non-notable. Wikipedia biographies should not be lists of factual errors. Especially in biographies of living persons. Even if you look at a highly odious person like Saddam Hussein you don't see his article detailing every factual error he has ever said or written. That seems solely resident in articles about controversial political pundits. Litanies of errors are simply not what encyclopedic articles are for. I am going to go ahead and remove that comment unless someone can come up with a seriously compelling argument for its notability. --Rtrev 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this incident has nothing to do with Ann Coulter's notability. I would, of course, be open to a clear demonstration of its relevance to it, as is insisted on by WP:BLP. Lou Sander 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is a memorial in southwest Quebec honoring the approximately 5,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam, it's on Hwy 132 between Beauharnois and Valleyfield, north side of the road. If it would be helpful, I can snap a photo the next time I am by it, and upload it. There is also mention in Wilbur Morrison's book The Elephant and the Tiger, of about fifty Mohawks from the Khanawake reservation (just across the Mercier bridge from Montreal) who served in Vietnam. I am acquainted with one of them who lost most of a hand in combat. I also know a retired Kirkland (Montreal) policeman who served in Vietnam during the early advisory period. I don't think that any of them were there technically under the Canadian flag though, but were volunteers who served with American forces. www.thevirtualwall.org allows searches of The Wall database by different parameters, such as home town, etc., and quite a few Canadians can be found listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. - Crockspot 15:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a minor incident from almost two years ago, about which a consensus was once reached to eliminate it from the article. If you would like to put it back in, please provide a clear demonstration of its relevance to Ann Coulter's notability, in accordance with WP:BLP. Lou Sander 16:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that it is a fact that Canadians fought and died alongside of Americans in Vietnam, which I can verify with some effort. They were not sent by the Canadian government, but were volunteers who I believe were fighting under the American flag. I'll let you all hash out whether or not it is notable enough for inclusion, I just wanted to make sure that the Canadians who sacrificed on the behalf of the US for the freedom of the Vietnamese people were not dismissed or swept under the rug in this discussion. - Crockspot 17:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot - Oops! I seem to have misdirected my above comment. Sorry. It was meant for Ward and whoever else keeps reinserting the Canadian TV interview. There is no doubt that many Canadians served in the U.S. armed forces during the Vietnam War, and no intention by me to diminish their role there. (Neither is there any doubt that the government of Canada had troops in Vietnam/Indochina from August 1954 through January 1973.) Lou Sander 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ward, you keep reverting (three times now), and you haven't responded to the charges of non-notability established a long time ago, and rehearsed again here. As for Coulter's response, Here is the interview. And is it really fair to make us presume your non-reasoned claim to notability is correct, and insist that we do the leg-work of making a capsule summary of the reasoning about notability and Coulter's point of view from the arguments, when the arguments have been archived exactly for the purpose of educating new-comers about the work of their predecessors? I think it would be more fair if you would read the archives, make an argument and then revert. 64.154.26.251 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Although I think it would be better if someone with a different perspective add Coulter's response. Ward3001 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. This event is not notable for a biography.
2. Canadians participated in the Vietnam War.
3. The Canadian government did not send troops to Vietnam, as the phrase "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" uttered by Coulter means.
4. Raul is spot-on: simply stating that Coulter was right because technically speaking, there were Canadian citizens who were participating in the war is intellectually dishonest at best. I agree with you Lou, assertations about Coulter's thought processes are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Consequently, she might have meant to say "Canadians participated in Vietnam" rather than "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" (which is clearly a different meaning), but it is inappropriate for us to defend Coulter as what she "really meant to say". --kizzle 09:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted this incident, since there has not been a clear demonstration of its relevance to Ann Coulter's notability, as is insisted on by WP:BLP.

Additionally, for some reason, a few editors insist on believing that Canada "did not send troops to Vietnam" (perhaps they believe the erroneous assertion of the broadcaster, instead of the well-documented historical facts). Canadian troops were sent to Vietnam in August 1954 as peacekeepers during the partition of Vietnam. They stayed through January 1973. They were Canadian troops, sent by the Canadian government. They incurred casualties and at least one death. For further information, please read the articles on International Control Commission and International Commission of Control and Supervision (it will help if you follow the links). If you still doubt that the government of Canada sent troops (= military personnel), it may help you to look HERE to see the medal that Canada awarded to 1,550 of these troops for their service. Lou Sander 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, 1,550 people got medals for "90 days consecutive or non-consecutive service as a member of the commission"? That's almost as hard to get as a purple heart (translation: these medals have nothing to do with combat). The part where you equate non-combat "peacekeepers" with combat troops is what Raul and I are talking about when we say intellectually dishonest (and trying to pass off non-combat participatory medals as more than they are). Canadians were there to "supervise the cease-fire, the withdrawal of troops, the dismantlement of military bases, the activity at ports of entry and the return of captured military personnel and foreign civilian", not engage in combat. Like I said, she might have made a verbal gaffe and meant to say "Canadian peacekeepers were technically present during the Vietnam War, albeit in a non-combat manner" (which is a far cry from "Canada sent troops to Vietnam"), but, as you say, "confident assertions about Ann Coulter's thought processes do not" belong here. And thanks for the condescending "it will help if you follow the links" comment, I never knew how to click on a hyperlink before today. You have shown me the light. --kizzle 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to revise your comment that they stayed through 1973, at least for the ICSC specifically... source taken from your own link that you provided: "Much of the work was done from 1954 to 1955 and Canada had only token representation after 1958. The commission withdrew completely in 1969." - [1]... it will help if you follow your own links. --kizzle 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - -

Coulter is notable for, inter alia, having "[a]llegations of ... factual inaccuracy" made against her -- thus the existence of this section of her article. The CBC bit is an instance of this -- and rather a better example of it than some of the others. Beyond that, it is given from a neutral point of view; it is not "biased or malicious content" at all. Therefore, there is no excuse for deleting it from the article. Please do not do so again.

Your comments regarding Canadian participation in the ICC and ICCS, while interesting in themselves, do not bear on the issue of whether the CBC bit should be included.

(Neither do said comments bear on the separate issue of whether Coulter was actually correct, whereas the Canadians in question were a small number of peacekeepers (133 at a given time) supervising cease-fire terms, troop withdrawals, refugee movements and the like, while Coulter's claim was that Canada sent troops to fight in support of the United States. Even Coulter herself does not, that I have seen, attempt to claim she was right on such a basis.) -- Lonewolf BC 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle: It seems to be original research (or at least fractured thinking) to say that "troops" have to be "combat troops." Ask your teachers about it.

Lonewolf BC: IMHO you have not provided clear evidence that this incident is relevant to Coulter's notability. Many besides me have studied the incident at length and in depth, and have concluded that it not notable. I hope you don't think that Wikipedia should include every instance of someone alleging factual inaccuracy. This incident was a short interview on an obscure program; the disagreement about troops was a minor one, and subject to many interpretations that have been discussed at length on this page. The incident did not receive any sort of important media coverage. Past consensus was that the incident is not notable. It hasn't gotten any more notable in recent months. If you have something to say to counter these points, you will get a fair hearing here.

Also, (though it has nothing to do with the notability of this minor, long-ago incident), where do you get the idea that Coulter's claim was "that Canada sent troops to fight in support of the United States?" Lou Sander 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In the context of discussion, especially with Coulter's followup before she was corrected by McKeown: "Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat...", troops meant "a group of soldiers" or "military units" as the definition of "troop" means. If she meant to say "non-combat peacekeepers", she sure messed up the phrase. I don't need to ask my teachers about it, I'm a big grown boy now and out of school! For Lonewolf's assertion perception of Coulter's view that "Canada sent troops to fight in support of the United States," I'm surprised you're not grasping onto that justification with both hands gripped tightly, as that's the best though (highly) charitable interpretation where Coulter is not wrong, as there technically were Canadians (that were not sent by the Canadian government) who signed up in the United States Army to fight in Vietnam. Finally, your silence on your error in ICSC's "token" (according to their own website) participation (and no participation after 1969) is noted. My teacher didn't even need to show me that one. --kizzle 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have rightly understood me, Kizzle. I have not asserted that "Canada sent troops to fight in support of the United States". I've said that "...Coulter's claim was that Canada sent... [etc.]"(italics added). -- Lonewolf BC 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant, edited to make clearer :) --kizzle 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Before I make additional changes to the article, I propose that we try to come to a consensus about selecting one of these two possibilities:

1. Include information about the Canada-Vietnam issue as it was most recently presented, with the understanding that information about Coulter's response might need to be edited. OR,

2. Delete ALL information about "factual inaccuracies" (no changes to information about plagiarism) and re-title the section "Allegations of plagiarism."

My rationale is that, if the Canada-Vietnam issue does not rise to the level of notability, then none of the "factual inaccuracy" issues rise to that level. Note, however, (and this is not a veiled threat, just an observation; I have no intention of making other deletions), deletion of non-notable material opens up the possibility that other sections of the Coulter article might be challenged on the basis of non-notability. Ward3001 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your line of reasoning. Reading this article it is pretty clear there are some striking POV and notability issues. I have never seen a bio of a writer with a list of "factual inaccuracies." I realize she is a total lightning rod for controversy but its a bit much the way it is now. I would say that no factual inaccuracies should be included unless they somehow caused a situation more notable than being a mistake or play into some larger event. The WP is not a clearinghouse for pointing out inaccuracies in writing no matter how disliked the author may be. I just don't see "Misspelling the name 'Feldt" as "Febit'" as a notable item.

I have gone ahead and added a POV tag to the article. From reading through the talk page it is pretty clear I am not the only editor that thinks this is warranted. --Rtrev 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Canada interview is not notable. Coulter is a writer, and if some of her writing is legitimately challenged for accuracy, it might possibly be notable. A factual challenge of what a writer said during a television interview is very, very, very far from being notable in itself. Good Cop 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the other "factual inaccuracy" stuff, the Franken challenge and the Dale Earnhardt matter seem to be notable, since they were widely discussed over time. The Reagan percentage business doesn't seem to be notable -- it is a mildly disputed minor fact. The iThenticate stuff isn't notable at all (some nobody alleged plagiarism, the allegations were investigated and dismissed by a responsible non-nobody publisher, and the story ended there). The Media Matters stuff was about same -- a minor muckraker made allegations and nothing came of it anywhere else. Good Cop 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed things from the factual accuracy section as non-notable especially the iThenticate stuff. That is clearly a non-issue. The Media Matters stuff I also took out because of discussion here. Also there are not citations for all of the arguments. The ones that have citations are also open to discussion and the links are being used as WP:OR because they claim Coulter is wrong based on the citation not how it should be done which is a tertiary source comparing two citations per WP:OR. --Rtrev 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For this specific issue, I don't see it as that notable, but I see nothing wrong with a one sentence blurb about it, but I'm not really partial either way. As for Media Matters, it may be partisan but it's a legitimate source, especially considering the ease of meeting the verification criteria; most articles are based upon transcripts or video clippings from actual news sources, thus any reader can go lookup the transcript themselves to see whether or not the claim is true. If it were up to me, I'd much rather see a paragraph or so saying something that "occasionally," Coulter has been accused of factual inaccuracy, go briefly through iThenticate, Coulter and CBC, the other examples, but making sure to consolidate and keep to one paragraph or so with nice prose while making sure to represent that in most cases, nothing came from it. I'd rather have a limit otherwise we get into discussions like the title of this section with people bending over backwards to justify or discredit Coulter's claims. --kizzle 08:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems we now have several choices regarding "factual inaccuracies":

1. Select which items are notable enough to be included.

2. Revert the section back to its status on Nov. 3 WITHOUT the paragraph about the Canada-Vietnam issue.

3. Revert the section back to its status on Nov. 3 WITH the addition of the paragraph about the Canada-Vietnam issue as it was last written.

4. Eliminate all items related to factual inaccuracies and retitle the section "Allegations of plagiarism."

5. Write a briefer summary of the factual inaccuracy issues.

I think option 1 is difficult because there are many different opinions about notability. I think option 5 will likely appear biased because of space limitations and, consequently, omission of important information regarding either the allegations, or Coulter's responses, or both. But if someone wants to try writing a briefer version of the section I certainly would consider its merits. I continue to believe, however, that we should select either option 3 or option 4 because I don't consider any of the alleged inaccuracies to be any more notable than the others.

Regarding plagiarism, I consider the plagiarsm issue important enough that it should be restored to the article. If the factual inaccuracy issues are retained, I think plagiarism should be placed in a separate section because the two issues are quite different. Think back to your undergrad days in English classes. If you put a few factual inaccuracies in your paper, you could be graded down. Plagiarize and you could be kicked out of school. Ward3001 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the cleaned-up article is fine the way it is. Thanks to whatever hero did it. The remaining factual inaccuracy stuff is sufficient, IMHO, to illustrate that she has been accused of inaccuracies and that she has answered the accusations. In the case of Franken, she defended her facts. In the case of Earnhardt, she admitted her error and her publisher corrected it. Both instances were notable, in that they received widespread coverage in a variety of media.

The other "inaccuracy" stuff that was cleaned out was non-notable finger-pointing, not at all suitable to a biographical article in an encyclopedia. The plagiarism assertions were investigated by her large and reputable publisher and found to be groundless (and therefore not notable, IMHO).

For examples of assertions of plagiarism and factual inaccuracy that had notable results, see Rigoberta Menchu, Michael Bellesiles, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Ward Churchill. Also note the evenhanded way in which the encyclopedia discusses them. Lou Sander 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a very useful lists to compare to. Thanks. --Rtrev 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Though I differ strongly with Lou's personal assessment on the veracity of Coulter's statements about Vietnam, I agree with him that much of it is non-notable finger-pointing, I think there should be a section but very brief, concise, and making sure to point out the instances in which nothing came out of it, and those where she changed the facts. --kizzle 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol

It turns out that if this DemocraticUnderground.com quote is correct, The dialogue between Allan Colmes and Ann Coulter reported by Editor & Publisher about wishing Timothy McVeigh to go to the New York Times building, namely:

[Colmes] asked her if she wanted to take back the earlier statement that Timothy McVeigh should have bombed The New York Times office, especially if reporters were inside. She responded, "No"...

was made up out of whole cloth!

Watch this Youtube video if your ISP can carry videos. Allan Colmes asked her nothing of the sort; instead he attacked her, accusing her of making the statements on the basis of being a closet liberal!

If you can't watch it, here is my summary of the exchange:

Alan Colmes mentioned Salem's claim, and said to her that remarks like saying "Timothy McVeigh should have bombed The New York Times building" were "laughable happy satires, right?" then said he now realized that Coulter was "actually a liberal who is doing this to mock and parody the way conservatives think." She responded, "Well, it's not working very well if that were my goal. I think the Timothy McVeigh line was merely prescient after The New York Times has leapt beyond -- beyond nonsense straight into treason, last week," Coulter replied (referring to a Times report that revealed classified information about an anti-terrorism program of the U.S. Government involving surveillance of international financial transactions of persons suspected of having Al-qaida links). Alan Colmes continued in this sarcastic vein when he responded, calling her remarks "great humor", and that it "belongs on Saturday Night Live. It belongs on The Daily Show."

The "account", if you can call it that, even contains the made-up detail that Colmes said "especially if reporters were inside."

And whoever included the "account" apparently plagiarized large sections of the E&P article, then went on to make "improvements" like having Salem "saying" Coulter was a brilliant satirist, rather than "suggested". [This may have been the work of a later editor, 64.154.26.251 09:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)]

Here is another source for the article.

I don't have time, right now, but does Coulter actually "periodically wish death and violence on liberals and other traitors", as the plagiarized version now reads? I don't recall Coulter calling all liberals traitors in the first place, and she said she refused to name any traitors, except one, Pinch Sulzberg. If anyone would like to help, jump right in. It should be easy if we can dismiss Editor & Publisher as an unreliable source as the two internet copies of the article would suggest that we can. 64.154.26.251 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the version where it was introduced by user:wv235. To correct myself as soon as possible, I'm not sure whether it was NewsMax or Editor&Publisher that did the hatchet job. 64.154.26.251 08:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

It definitely wasn't Newsmax. Editor&Publisher said a conversation with a "New York weekly, Coulter refuted the notion she is only joking [about "wish[ing] death or violence on liberals and other 'traitors' {a turn of phrase I find dubious to begin with}]". Yeah, refuted it in E&P's "opinion", I bet, just like the misleading account about the Hannity & Colmes conversation that E&P [surprisingly, even though I have two sources with similar material, I can't confirm that E&P presented the erroneous Hannity and Colmes material] WV235's source presented would tend to refute it in the opinion of anyone who didn't actually witness it. I wonder what weekly they are washing their hands off on? 64.154.26.251 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC). Lou, did you see the E&P story? You complimented WV235 on his user page about him being fair with his sources back in July. 64.154.26.251 09:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Information about Coulter's family

How much of this is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article? Most of it, I think.

Ann Coulter was born to John Vincent Coulter (born 1926) and Nell Husbands Martin Coulter, (born February 28, 1928, Paducah, Kentucky). Her maternal grandfather Hunter Hart Martin (1897-1954) was originally named Hunter Hart Weissinger, but changed his name.

After her birth in New York City, the family moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, where Coulter and her two older brothers (James M. [born 1957] and John) were was raised.

The struck words are not notable and not sourced. They should be struck from the article. Good Cop 00:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Better it were sourced, but such material is common in biographies. Perhaps you should look for who introduced it, and ask them to give references. Lonewolf BC 00:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the struck words above are not at all notable. I also don't believe such material is at all common in Wikipedia biographies of living persons. It would be helpful if somebody could provide a few examples of such material from contemporary people whose positions in life are similar to Coulter's. Lou Sander 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to get a source, I think basic biographical info includes father, mother and siblings. This may very well be the only biographical material in the entire article. Needs a source though. --Dual Freq 02:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Her siblings should only be included if for some reason it is notable. Parents follow the same metric. If their is some reason to name them specifically then include otherwise not. For example: Barack Obama includes parents only because it is notable because of his racial background, Rush Limbaugh includes neitherm, Keith Olbermann mentions neither, Adlai Stevenson's page mentions the politically important family members, Bill Clinton's article mentions the family extensively but because it is important to his background.

Unless Coulter's siblings/parents are important and notable there is no reason to include them. --Rtrev 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can not imagine an obituary or biography not including reference to parents and siblings. If the subject of this article is notable, then certainly the names and certain details of key relatives are notable. Lack of inclusion in other articles indicates an oversight in those articles. Albert Einstein is a featured article listed at wikiproject biography and it includes references to relatives especially parents. These people are not notable on their own, but they are notable for inclusion as it relates to the subject of this article. --Dual Freq 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For obituaries, you're right. But for biographical articles in encyclopedias, try imagining Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, or Tom Clancy. IMHO for the most part, parents are included when they are important in their own right, as in George W. Bush, or when the article's subject has reached a place of unusual eminence, as in Einstein, Laura Bush, etc. But Ann Coulter's maternal grandfather, or her parents' dates of birth, or her brothers names and ages? Don't waste the bandwidth. Lou Sander 04:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are some strong objections, I propose to make the following changes to the article:

Ann Coulter was born to John Vincent Coulter (born 1926) and Nell Husbands Martin Coulter, (born February 28, 1928, Paducah, Kentucky).

After her birth in New York City, the family moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, where Coulter and her two older brothers (James M. [born 1957] and John) were was raised.

The purpose of the change is to bring it in line with other biographies by removing non-notable material. I looked at a bunch of biographies of people with notability similar to or greater than Coulter's, and didn't find any that went beyond parents' names and occasionally their place of residence. Given the vandalism-proneness of this article, IMHO her parents' names probably ought to be sourced, too. Lou Sander 14:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that statement is fine. More than that is just too much info. I say put it up as is and then maybe source the end of the paragraph with a link to a bio or some other source talking about her history. Go for the edit. --Rtrev 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree. Leave "...and her two older brothers...", though, as it says something about the family circle in which she was raised. We don't need to know their names or anything else about them unless one of them is of some interest in his own right. (Keep in mind, though, that this does not need to be much interest. Some professional standing or merely local prominence would suffice.) -- Lonewolf BC 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

'61 or '63? Only her hairdresser knows. NOT!

Use the article talk page if you truly believe there is anything left to say about this. Repeatedly putting known falsehoods into an article is vandalism. Lonewolf BC 00:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So why did she have a licence that says otherwise?

132.241.246.111 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Use the article talk-page. I will move this to there momentarily.

Lonewolf BC 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The foregoing portion of this section has been transferred to here from the talk page of 132.241.246.111. That IP address is registered to California State University, Chico and may be shared by multiple users. It is suspected that 132.241.246.111 might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Grazon, of Devilmaycares, of 63.198.18.163, or some combination thereof. See the user and talk pages of the 132.241.246.111 for further information. Lonewolf BC 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that her age discrepancy might merit brief mention in the article, but I'm not sure where it should be or how it should be stated. The facts are that there is some question whether she was born in 1961 or 1963, with 1961 being probable due to an early driver's license and voter registration. The discrepancy has had minor media coverage, so is therefore minorly notable, IMHO. On the other hand, it isn't uncommon for entertainers, sports figures, women, etc. to tell their publics that they are younger than they really are (e.g. Zsa Zsa Gabor). Maybe something like "born in 1961 (some sources say 1963)" would do it, if it even needs to be mentioned. Lou Sander 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not put about proven falsehoods as if they ought be taken seriously any longer. Her year of birth is a matter of fact, and it was 1961. There was some question about it. Now there is not. I suspect that not everyone is abreast of this, though. The discrepancy between what really is and what she has claimed is already mentioned, further down in the article. -- Lonewolf BC 04:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it—Thanks! For some reason I thought the stuff further down had been removed. It DOES seem pretty verbose for such a small matter, though. Maybe cut it back some? Lou Sander 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal life

Why was my edit not approved? She's dating some country singer. Why delete that ?

Ann dates singing democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 02:23, November 9, 2006 (talk • contribs) Ericg1

We'd need a much better source than a blog to add information to this article. It's also a blog entry that is over a year and a half old. --ElKevbo 13:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lou Sander got rid of all one of the reports of Ann's dating partners. He says they're not sourced well (which I disagree with) and says the article is not a gossip tabloid. Ann's dating doesn't interest me personally, but I'm sure it interests some people. In general, I'm reluctant to remove what I see to be good faith contributions to the article, but I agree with Lou somewhat about limiting the scope of the article to significant information. Coulter herself doesn't seem to mind people discussing it (in the "Coultergeist" article she says "I've dated [Dinesh D'Souza], I've dated every right-winger").

I'd like to know what Lou and the rest of the editors think about this. 216.165.199.50 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lou, I assumed you removed both persons from the article because of your edit description. The "Coultergeist" article that I referenced that you were dubious about is a pay-to-see article, but the page with the quote about Dinesh D'Souza is available here. 216.165.199.50 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I followed the references and didn't see D'Souza or even a mention of pay-to-see. For Guccione, I didn't think an "arm candy" discussion in a gossipy place was suitable backup for the claim that she "dated" somebody.

As a basic proposition, I'm not very much in favor of "personal" sections in encyclopedias. There was some discussion of it a few months ago, and the personal section was deleted (as I remember it, anyway). It came back, and wasn't worth going through a lot of stuff to get rid of, at least for me. IMHO it just isn't real encyclopedic to list the people that somebody dated, their favorite books and music groups, etc., at least for a serious writer. Lou Sander 21:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix this section. Listing Guccione only would be inaccurate.

I will restore for now in deference to the person who thought it notable enough to add. It's gossipy, but Coulter herself wrote in to respond to the gossip according to the source. What do others think about keeping it? I have a pretty strong opinion that misinformation or out of context information doesn't belong in the article, but for other things, like what people think is significant or interesting information about Coulter, I tend to defer to others. 216.165.199.50 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please explain how Coulter's "dating" these people, or ANY people, is notable? While you are at it, you might want also to explain the notability of the other material in the "Personal" section. IMHO, none of it is notable at all, and none of it belongs in an encyclopedia. (It would be enlightening to be referred to some other biographies of living people that include information on dating, favorite books, etc.) Lou Sander 02:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Creationists, intelligent design supporters categories

It's been a month, so I'm removing the Creationists, Intelligent Design Supporters categories as per the reasons in the October 2006 archive. 216.165.199.50 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No such decision was made. Concern was expressed that if all mention of Coulter's support for ID and Creationism was removed from this article, then some editor would be tempted to remove the categories, also. She does belong to those categories, which therefore must remain. Lonewolf BC 22:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I'd like to keep them in. They're accurate descriptors, and it's not like it's a negative thing. --kizzle 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the quote in that section, she is anti-evolution, but she is not a supporter of either Creationism or Intelligent Design. She is agnostic on the issues, calling the questioned raised "unanswerable". Doesn't Coulter have a right not to have an opinion on the matter of the origin of life on earth? 216.165.199.50 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Her right to her opinion is not in question. Neither ought be the nature of that opinion. -- Lonewolf BC 22:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I didn't say that, I said she had a right to not have an opinion. Also known as suspending judgment. 216.165.199.50 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, she doesn't belong in either category. She's not any sort of main supporter or promoter of either belief. Like hundreds of other authors, she has written on the topics, but in her case they were only used to illustrate a not-very-closely-related point: that liberal beliefs are religious in nature. Look at the other articles in those categories. With a few mostly hard-to-justify exceptions, they are about people who had major writings or major interests in the field.

It would be interesting to see some reasoned justification for her inclusion in the categories. ("Because I think so" doesn't count, and neither does "because she believes in creationism and intelligent design," or "because she wrote about it once." If those were valid justifications, the categories would be orders of magnitude larger than they are. Where are all the Popes, by the way?) Lou Sander 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Ann Coulter defends Irreducible Complexity, a cornerstone of Intelligent Design: At least we finally had a clear admission that the irreducible complexity argument had not been answered before this. But look at the allegedly "complex" mechanism that scientists asserted -- not proved, asserted -- might have arisen by natural selection: a two-part molecular mechanism, the hormone and its receptor. Two parts! Even a mousetrap -- Behe's simplest example of a complex mechanism -- has three parts. And, of course, they still hadn't shown that the hormone-receptor pair could be produced by natural selection, only that this simple two-part mechanism might be produced by natural selection. That's front page news for the state religion. Pgs 209-210.
2. Coulter cites Intelligent Design Advocates: I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski, all of whom are fabulous at translating complex ideas, unlike liberal arts types, who constantly force me to the dictionary to relearn the meaning of quotidian.
3. Coulter also endorses Behe's viewpoint: "[l]ife at the molecular level, he [Behe] concluded, is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design."

Does anyone still doubt that Coulter advocates Intelligent Design? Now whether Wikipedia protocol requires her to be notable for advocating intelligent design to be included as a member of the category I'm not sure, I'm just refuting earlier comments such as "She's not any sort of main supporter or promoter of either belief" and "she is not a supporter of either Creationism or Intelligent Design. She is agnostic on the issues, calling the questioned raised 'unanswerable'." Of course no one claims to know the answer to life, but given the evolution/creationism(intelligent design) dicothomy, it is crystal clear on what side she places her faith in. --kizzle 04:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, she wrote about it once. So have hundreds of others. Not a justification for putting any of them in a highly specialized category, IMHO. Lou Sander 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, in other words she has written a book in which her support for ID -- which is nought but a guise of Creationism -- features prominently. Not only that, but this fact has attracted much public notice. She did not merely "once write about it", which could mean that she mentioned it in a private letter. -- Lonewolf BC 06:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is really, really, really difficult to see how writing a single book that prominently features Creationism/ID, but is not ABOUT Creationism/ID, puts one in the same category as those whose work is all, or mainly, about that subject. She wrote about it once in a book. The entire discussion took four chapters. The book was about liberal "religious" beliefs. The four chapters were about liberal "religious" beliefs in Darwinism, and used Creationism/ID for purposes of comparison and contrast. They did not involve new theories about Creationism/ID, but only described the work and theories of others.

Compare that to the other 66 people in the Creationists category. Please try hard to show us how, other than by writing those three chapters, she belongs in that company.

(So far, all I've seen is "she wrote about it once, but she wrote a LOT about it, and, hey, "writing about it once" could mean "wrote a sentence about it," and four chapters is WAY more than a sentence, therefore she belongs in the same league as Barry Setterfield and Duane Gish, especially since she seems to BELIEVE in Creationism/ID rather than in Evolutionism, which is believed in by her adversaries the liberals.) It doesn't seem to be much of an argument, but of course I may be missing something.

If I wrote a popular book about great pole vaulters, and if I really, really, really liked the pole vaulters I wrote about, but scorned other pole vaulters I didn't think were very good, would you put me in the category of great pole vaulters? Based on what you've said so far, I have to believe you would. Lou Sander 10:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing being a creationist with being "as big a creationist as Gish". What she has done suffices; no further argument is needed. -- Lonewolf BC 19:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be confusing your own unsupported opinion with something that might be convincing to others. As far as I can see, you don't seem to understand that there's a difference. If somebody rejects "wrote a few chapters" as sufficient reason to include her in the category, what else is there? Lou Sander 20:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in half agreement with Lou, I'm not sure what kind of protocol is involved with attaching category headings to people, as Coulter is also a woman, are we going to add an "American woman" category or "Alleged to have slept with Bill Maher" to her as well? She has expressly supported ID positions in her books, but whether or not she is a notable ID advocate, I'd lean towards no and thus should not be included in the category heading. --kizzle 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Coulter doesn't defend Irreducible Complexity in the paragraph you have just cited, she attacks certain scientists who are defenders of a natural selection theory simply for not answering the arguments contained in Irreducible Complexity, and then again for only offering only a weak reproof. Her observations in your example have much more to with the manner in which certain scientists engage the issues, rather than the issues themselves. If that accidentally causes someone to lean towards the theory of advocates who are less discredited, that doesn't make Coulter herself an advocate of a particular explanation.
2. Coulter "cites Intelligent Design advocates". I never said Coulter didn't consider the merits of opposing arguments in the question of how life began. In the first paragraph you list, she also "cites" advocates of evolution.
3. Coulter doesn't endorse Behe in the paragraph you have cited, she merely quotes him.

You seem to missing the point. Coulter is taking the role of an intelligent juror on the issue of how life came to be on Earth, not an advocate. She shares with her audience the arguments she has diminished in her own esteem as a result of her own reasoning as contradictory, weak or unproven. And she is like an alternate juror rather than one called on to judge, because she has declined to render a final decision. Just like "agnostic" in its more common sense is understood as undecided between various forms of theism as well as atheism, Coulter regards herself as agnostic, being undecided among the various explanations for life on earth, all the while not regarding them all equally persuasive. 64.154.26.251 20:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

1. By including the passage in her book, she's expressly supporting the viewpoint; you really can't tell me that she's just regurgitating two viewpoints without prejudice for either side. If you actually disagree with that, then we'll just be talking past each other.
2. Right, but there is clearly a sympathetic tone to the ID people she "cites" whereas the evolutionists she "cites" is met with a critical to the point of dismissive line of querying.
3. Umm, that's what supporting means. She's citing an expert to support her own argument. You don't think she's just writing a historical narrative on the evolution/creationism debate, she's advancing her own argument and using what she considers "expert" advice to bolster her case. Once again, if you really think she's not taking sides, then we're just going to be talking past each other.

"Taking the role of an intelligent juror on the issue of how life came to be on Earth," I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, as well as "she has diminished in her own esteem", or what exactly an "alternate juror" does in your legal analogy. I don't know what to say except we're reading the same passages, but somehow where I see an apple, you see an orange. My personal belief is that it is absolutely incontravertible that she is advocating an anti-evolution pro-ID argument (especially considering she thanks all ID "scientists" and no evolution scientists in her book), but while you're not entitled to your own facts, you're entitled to your own opinion. --kizzle 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the question Coulter answered in an interview she gave to belief.net:

So what do you think really happened? Did God create the world in six days? Did he create each species separately? Did he set a chain of causation in motion? Did he "cause" evolution in the sense that all the species are related to each other but God guided their descent?

"These are unanswerable questions--except the latter. God did not "cause" evolution because evolution doesn't exist. Thus, for example, He also didn't "cause" unicorns. My faith and reason tell me that God created the world and I'm not particularly interested in the details. I'll find out when I meet my Maker."

64.154.26.251 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"evolution doesn't exist." I rest my case. --kizzle 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)