Talk:Ann Coulter
I reverted those changes because they amounted to susbtantial deletions without explanation -- --Bob Burton 23:06, 29 Jul 2004 (EDT)
I was contacted by Daniel Borchers who runs http://www.coulterwatch.com who pointed out that the reference that the Coulter plagiarism debate emerged was in July this year was inaccurate. He's right - yesterday I pulled together a list of Coulter articles and it seems that the debate first emerged several years ago so this section needs a rewrite based on the original sources. --Bob Burton 16:21, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Accused of Plagiarism
First so-named by The Rude Pundit -- [Caution: Language may be offensive to some] -- on July 1, 2005:
- "Ann Coulter appears to have plagiarized a section of her column by not citing the December 1993 edition of The Flummery Digest. In this edition, the digest is devoted to calling out what it says is 'offensive' art that receives public funding. One of its sections in December 1993 lists a bunch of NEA grant recipients, which, on first glance and, hell, even on second, look like Coulter lifted without attribution from this site or from what is apparently Alice Goldfarb Marquis' Heritage Foundation work Art Lessons (perhaps the work became her book of the same title in 1995), which Flummery actually cites as its source (click on the cross in the lower left hand corner of the NEA entry to see the citation)."
On July 20, 2005, John Byrne and researcher Ron Brynaert stated in their "Coulter caught cribbing from conservative magazines" on The Raw Story website that:
- "Much of Coulter's Jun. 29, 2005 column, Thou Shall Not Commit Religion, bears a striking resemblance to pieces in magazines dating as far back as 1985—and a column written for the Boston Globe in 1995."
Building on The Rude Pundit July 1st item, The Raw Story conducted its own examination and "found Coulter's work to be at worst plagiarism and at best a cut-and-paste repetition of points authored by conservative religious groups in the early 1990s. These groups sought to de-fund the National Endowment for the Arts, detailing projects paid for by the NEA they dubbed 'obscene'." [1]
______________________________________________
I agree with the reviewer in this week's New York Times Book Review that Ms. Coulter is taken way too seriously by certain of her critics. Having watched her on TV and observed her content and style I question to what extent she even takes herself seriously. Surely her recent professions of fundamentalist Christian belief are incredulous and I think will be viewed as insincere even by the target audience she appears to pander to: rural folk and blue collar workers. Moreover, it seems that Ms. Coulter is a somewhat tangential topic for Congresspedia. Tom Cod 12:45, 29 November 2006 (EST)
- Hi Tom, fair point though just to clarify, the AC article is in SourceWatch and is not a Congresspedia page. Bob Burton
