Open main menu

Wikiquote β

Talk:Ann Coulter

Source of other quotesEdit

The Associated Press just published some highlights. They're here: -- 03:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Ann is a Klan woman. She makes stupid statements based on her bias, rather than facts. People need to boycott her low-level books that only seek to divide America. She's a race baiter in the same way as the big, fat idiot radio jock who seems to run the Republican Party.

From WikipediaEdit

Here are a lot of quotes that were removed from the Wikipedia article on Ann Coulter. I'll dump them here because I don't want to sort them all out. JarlaxleArtemis 1 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

NOTE: The Wikipedia data has been transferred to Talk:Ann Coulter/transwiki-2005 in order to stop editors from erroneously treating it as active article data. Please do not modify that page. Editors are welcome to extract material from that page to add it to the article, but any editing should be done in the article, not the archived discussion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Considering the person who spouts these soundbites this maybe a pointless question, but, aren't there any quotes that don't make her sound like a fascist idiot? 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Elmo

of course, but they're not as fun to read. Honestly, I hate her, but I do think some of these quotes are taken out of context and she is being sarcastic sometimes.

She's a lunatic guys; go ahead and put a few quotes that are a tad less crazy. Funny thing is she will STILL look like the lunatic she is. 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

do we quote hatred here in wikiquote? Nielswik 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we quote people. If they espouse hatred or contempt (or love or compassion or greed or wisdom, etc., etc.), and it's verifiable with cited reliable sources, it's fair game. Of course, that doesn't mean we should quote every instance of any particular idea coming from someone. Article editors should try to work out a balance of quotes that most fully represents the person's ideas, experiences, and such. But one should expect weighting toward the ideas that make the subject famous. Ann Coulter's notability comes from her deliberately acerbic promotion of conservative and religious ideas, just as Al Franken's comes from blunt liberalism and Michael Moore's from vicious, camera-as-a-weapon anti-authoritarianism. (Wait a minute! Does that mean that Coulter follows antidisestablishmentarianism? Well, not in a literal sense. But I never expected to be able to use that word in a real-world sentence! ☺) The sad fact is that these people capitalize on the obvious delight that the listening and reading public have for passionate hatred of their ideological foes. None of these folks seem to be interested in calm, rational debate, or discussing all sides of important issues. And why should they? It doesn't sell books, films, or radio shows. [sigh] Sorry about the tangent. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt in my mind that she is the Anti-Christ. But these quotes are extremely out of context but then again whenever all you ever put is just quotes then they are something out of context because you don't know what was going on at the time. For example, Eminem, before he became famous, when he broke up with a black girlfriend wrote and sang a song about how he hated black people. Obviously this wasn't true since blacks were most of his audience its just that at the time he pissed at them. Same thing here. All these quotes come from periods of weakness in judgement for her. Not that I'm saying she doesn't hate muslims, liberals, abortionists, anyone including conservatives who disagrees with her, etc. But I just feel you can't judge her for these quotes. Many people have radical views, she just lets you know about them without masking it under nice words. For the record Jeff, Michael Moore loves america more than anyone else. He has no choice but to throw in a few white lies because he's been pushed to that level to save americans from their leaders. I fully support his being president one day. Maybe then every country, including Canada, will stop burning america flags —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 09:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a Wikiquote violate NPOV???Edit

If the quote consists of the person's own words, I completely fail to understand how it can be biased. I've been breezing through several of the Wikiquote articles for "controversial" public figures, and this topic of "bias" keeps coming up in the discussion pages. Someone please explain to me how a person's own words can be considered anything other than an accurate representation of that person's views.

I mean, is it impossible to comprehend that perhaps some people are so inflammatory that they have nothing moderate or neutral to say? I think Ann Coulter definitely falls into this category (unless someone can find a quote by her about peace or love or kittens). KyuzoGator 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, some people, like Coulter, do indeed make their reputation by being deliberately inflammatory, making it hard to produce a set of notable quotes that doesn't skew to a particular POV. (It might be very hard indeed to find a proper secondary source that would find any calm utterance of convervatism's "bad girl" worth quoting.) But it is possible for editors to fill a Wikiquote article with accurate quotes that nevertheless fail to represent a person's or subject's breadth and depth. For example, it's a very popular pasttime these days to cite George W. Bush's self-evident misrepresentations ("We do not torture", despite well-documented evidence from Americans performing torture) and mock his poor command of his native tongue, but he has also made some stirring speeches about freedom, democracy, and fighting terrorism that are quite quoteworthy.
We should strive to find material that is representative of the entire notability of the subject in quotes, not just our preferred view of that person or subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely, but that is certainly not being done here. This is totally one sided against Ann. 18:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It's one thing to argue that she says a lot of inflammatory things. However, when you combine the quotes that are selected, along with putting up quotes of her's alongside pictures(of her and otherwise), you're painting a narrative that might not be accurate. A list of completely abhorrent quotes would make me uneasy but wouldn't push me to the talk page given Ann's public persona. The quote/picture combos did. I believe wikipedia is better than this, I'd expect it on Conservapedia frankly.
—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
First, the narrative you present is extremely flawed, as this is not WIkipedia, though that error can be forgiven, as NO narratives are ever completely thorough, and few without error — and the wise know that most can be extremely innaccurate and presumptive in many ways. With many the attempts at logical cohesion are plainly lacking, so that one encounters the extremely complex compound absurdities of people who insist there should be no point of views in presenting points of views, and that their points of views on such matters are not actually points of views — at least not any such as any "reasonable" person could possibly object to or ridicule or laugh at for any reason. Extremely reasonable people can actually tolerate far more points of view being presented than the most unreasonable can — especially those who begin with the stance that they are certainly among the most reasonable or "fair and balanced" of all — or that their points of view are the acme of properly neutral points of view. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC) + tweaks
I am not inclined to agree with Ann Coulter in too many of her public stances at all — but one thing I can agree with — some of the most ridiculous people of all are those who fail to appreciate the reality and importance of many forms of humor and satire. I do not particularly like her brand of it — but seeking to either dismiss it entirely or demonize all of it — the way she regularly hypocritcally demonizes liberals, is to fall into a very foul and profound trap that constrains one's own as well as other's freedoms. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly Kalki, I'm the unsigned earlier only because I'm ignorant. I said wikipedia when I meant wikiquote, my mistake. I do not like Coulter or her views but I also hate seeing misrepresentations of people. The picture/quote combos, along with the inability to read sarcasm and humor make the page out to be very biased against her. It isn't uncommon tho, there are many "quotes" of conservative talking heads saying "despicable things" on sites like, where its obvious to me that the comment is in jest. I don't care for Rush, or Beck or the like, or their humor, but I can recognize it. Even if jokes are detestable to me, they're still jokes to the person and I'm sure I make many jokes that offend. Again, my only goal is relative neutrality. Is that subjective? Shit...—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
ALL perceived and perceivable things involve subjectivity, as well as processes that can be perceived as "objective" in various limited senses — and only those most subject to the delusion that THEY are entirely "objective" in their particularly limited appraisals are most inclined to scorn and despise the subjectivity of others. So it goes... ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum to quotes/articleEdit

Public consensus: Does anyone have an objection to my adding rebuttals to some of Coulter's claims? Specifically her quote, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim." I would like to add cites and reference to the fact that the *VAST* majority of terrorist attacks performed on US soil were conducted by middle-aged white men. I realize this doesn't directly apply to an article regarding Ann, but it would serve to balance the information. What objections/comments do you have to this? Thanks,--Legomancer 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (wasn't signed in, corrected sig)

Wikiquote's purpose is to collect quotes, not argue their accuracy. It should be understood that all quotations are merely the statements of the people cited. Attempting to "refute" quotes tends to turn Wikiquote articles into an ideological war zone (see Abortion), which detracts from the neutral collection of quotes. Two factors might reduce the compulsion to refute people's statements:
  • The lead section and Wikipedia articles provide easy access to information that might suggestion the points of view and beliefs of the subject, which provide a perspective on their quotes. Coulter's fame, as I've said above, comes from her extreme, conservative pronouncements, just as many others across the political spectrum are known for their own extreme positions.
  • Some quotes are manifestly false (e.g., there were no Muslims involved in the Oklahoma City bombing). I tend to think that rising to the bait of extremist opinion (whether conservative, liberal, libertarian, or any other ideological bent) merely helps advertise the quotee.
In any case, we should let a person's words speak for themselves, for good and ill (which different folks will see differently). Let's trust our readers to do their own reading and make up their own minds about issues, and let Wikipedians work on the factual matter behind the issues in their project's articles. We should stick to sourcing and verifying just the quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What a clear, cogent, and persuasive argument. --Legomancer 15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are the new quotes about Obama, Hillary, John EdwardsEdit

Why sin't anyone updating this page anymore. Just recently she said while Obama is half white, half black Bill Clinton is half white half trash. she's made new comments on Hillary's lesbianism, her weight and her getting bottox. when asked what are hillary's chances in 2008 Coulter said chances for what coming out of the closet. Even on her website there's a bad picture of Hillary. Not to mention the new fight she recently had with John Edwards wife

Quote ordering and sourcingEdit

Organizing quotes by topic frequently leads to ideological conflicts, as I think we're now seeing here. Because of this, sometime during the next week, unless someone beats me to it, I plan to reorganize all the quotes in this article by our standard, NPOV, chronological order, with appropriate context lines that permit terse, neutral explanations, based on the cited sources, under quotes that may need them. I also plan to remove any unsourced quotes that are either unoriginal or inane, or have no readily discovered reliable source. This rigor in sourcing and neutral presentation is important in any article, officially required by Wikimedia for articles about living persons, and absolutely essential for controversial subjects like Coulter. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily given up on this work, since I'm not even keeping up with larger problems at the moment. I hope to return to it somewhere down the road (again, assuming no else else does it first). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I intend to do organizational cleanup here within a few days, and attempt to better source at least some material — any that remains unsourced after the reorganization I will move to this page. I currently must be leaving, and might not begin on it until sometime tomorrow. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
After many sessions, and having spent most of my computer time in recent days working on further sourcing quotes on this page, properly placing them in chronological order, and extending or adding a few, I am doing final tweaks on this page, and should be finished within an hour or so. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


Published sources should be provided before moving these back into the article
  • In a war on terrorism, I could care less about regulating who sleeps with who.
    • On homosexuality

Radiation is good for you?Edit

With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer.

Amazingly, even the Soviet-engineered disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 can be directly blamed for the deaths of no more than the 31 people inside the plant who died in the explosion. Although news reports generally claimed a few thousand people died as a result of Chernobyl -- far fewer than the tens of thousands initially predicted -- that hasn't been confirmed by studies.

Although reporters love to issue sensationalized reports about the danger from Japan's nuclear reactors, remember that, so far, thousands have died only because of Mother Nature. And the survivors may outlive all of us over here in hermetically sealed, radiation-free America.

SOURCE: Mdupont 13:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Spam/unobjective contentEdit

This wikiquote pages seems to me to have been the victim of a spam attack. Notes beneath the pictures are unobjective, out of context. Somebody needs to check this whole thing. -- 00:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

To call the selections of images of Coulter, or of such things as relate to the subject of the quotes which caption them as "Spam", seems to be merely a very poorly informed attempt at trolling. The images that were added during a massive cleanup of an improperly organized page that had been tagged for cleanup since March 2007 have been here since January 2011. I was in no hurry to work on this page, in any way, and nearly four years of patient neglect of the issue had elapsed, while I worked on many other pages, before I got around to cleaning up the mess the page had been in and adding the selected images to go with the quotes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Return to "Ann Coulter" page.