This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Canada and Vietnam Discussion

Case Closed

Ms Coulter was clearly wrong on this one. Her exact words (CBC link) were: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam" The facts are these, as many others have pointed out already : (a) The Canadian government remained officially neutral during the war; (b) a significant number of Canadian citizens legally volunteered and served in Vietnam, under American command. Ms Coulter's statement clearly is not referring to support by Canadian citizens, but, rather, to the support (or lack thereof) of the Canadian government. And the Canadian government did not support the American effort in Vietnam as Ms Coulter thought. The Gnome 07:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Canada

I did a quick check - not thorough, mind you.

The estimate of Canadians who fought with American forces in the Vietnam War is 10,000. [1]

So there's a distinction between:

The Canadian Goverment sent combat troops in Canadian uniforms to Vietnam; and,
Ten thousand Canadian citizens fought with Americans in Vietnam

There's also the larger point she was making in the video clip: Coulter was arguing that Canada (in my words) ought to help the US fight tyranny Iraq as they did in Vietnam -- whether by sending actual combat troops or whatever. Clearly sending official combat troops shows the highest level of support. Lending a hand in other, less direct ways, is apparently also what Coulter had in mind.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying Coulter didn't slip. But let's clarify what the issue is here: are we saying that Coulter makes occasionally slips, blurring details in support of her points? Or that she makes things up entirely that have not even the slightest relation to reality?

Wikipedia should clarify the anti-Coulter arguments, perhaps like this:

Coulter opponents criticize her for her imprecise recall of details. For instance, on a TV show she said "Canada sent troops to Vietnam". While it is true that 10,000 Canadians served alongside US forces in Vietnam, they did could not do so as members of the Canadian Army as Canada remained officially neutral throughout that war. She helped the US and South Vietnam in non-beligerant ways, etc.

But we might also point out this:

Coulter critics say she's full of #@$%, giving the example of her faux pas over Canadian "troops" as proof that she simply makes things up out of broad cloth. They call her "bitch", etc., essentially slandering her (just like her book title says)

Hmm, on the other hand, I myself seem to have veered off here. I guess I need a break. Cheers! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:04, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Blame Canada

I snipped the following op-ed as it's conspicuously light on sources and heavy on original research:

On the other hand, the CBC broadcast just a few minutes of a 3 hour interview session in which the matter of Canada in Vietnam was a minor detail. Coulter's larger point was that Canadian foreign policy seems confused and contradictory.

During the Vietnam conflict, the Canadian Prime Minister quietly gave his thumbs up for the bombing of North Vietnam. His government supported and gave aid to South Vietnam only. Canadian officials worked with the US on intelligence and made other contributions to the war effort. Canadians did not take a pass on Vietnam, as the CBC interviewer claimed.

The Canadian government sent about 1,800 troops to Vietnam and medals were awarded for that service. They did not serve as fighting units as per the Australian troops, but they went under the Canadian flag with the sanction of their government.

Also, a replica of the Vietnam War Memorial Wall stands on Canadian soil to commemorate about 10,000 Canadians who served in the Vietnam war. About 40,000 Canadians joined the US Military during the conflict. The entirely voluntary Canadian military downsized during that same period from about 120,000 to 80,000. It was lawful to serve in the war and Canadians who had volunteered for service in the militaries of the US and Allies were later welcomed back to their country.

Coulter has since remarked tongue-in-cheek, "It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada."

Contary to the CBC interviewer's claim, Canadians served in Operation Iraqi Freedom; the second-ranking officer leading the US and Coaliton forces in Iraq is a general in the Canadian military. The Canadian Defence Department has acknowledged that it has personnel serving alongside Coaliton forces. The New Democratic Party of Canada has demanded that the Canadian government pull-out Canadian personnel. The Conservative Party of Canada has demanded that the government support those Canadians serving in Canadian uniform in the Iraq theater. The independant Polaris Institute in Ottawa said that because the facts on the ground contradict the Government's foreign policy - "Policy incoherence would be an understatement."

The facts about Canadian involvement in the Vietnam war, as in the Iraq War II, support Coulter's contention that the current government's policy was confused.

chocolateboy 04:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just wish I that could tell Ms. Coulter that not all Canadians are radical left-wingers.

--Mb1000 00:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just wish that I could tell Ms. Coulter that not all Canadians make blanket statements about the political status of Canadians, especially untrue statements. If we were radical leftists, the NDP would have more than 15 per cent support. Sorry to add a line like this.

On behalf of Ms. Coulter, I would like to ask you, if you were not a radical left-winger, why would you have been born in Canada? Eh? Gzuckier 02:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bad luck?

"...current government's policy was confused." Oh, like there's any government with logical policies... Peter Grey 17:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canada quotes

Most of these are from blogs, which I'm not sure rise to the level of "source" material. So I'm keeping them in talk, until I can dig a bit further. (-- Uncle Ed (talk))

"While Canada did not officially send troops to Vietnam, over 30,000 Canadian troops served under the US flag. What was the deal? Aparently Canada was in the process of downsizing its military and 30,000 of her former finest joined the US Army while maintaining Canadian citizenship. Most of the troops returned to Canada after their tours. There is even a Canadian Vietnam War Memorial." [2]

One blog makes a distinction between saying that Canada did not send Canadian Troops and saying that many Canadians did go to Vietnam (though not sent by the government). This distinction was never addressed in the CBC interchange.

For the anti-Coulter crowd, there is no gray area. She was simply, purely 100% wrong. She did not mis-speak, mis-remember, or blur a distinction. She is a "stupid blonde ignorant bitch", and the 30-second clip proves this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:10, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

From above:

... I don't believe you've described the dispute fairly, as you've presented the anti-Coulter case as merely a matter of ripping a few quotes out of context. Gamaliel 20:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean in the article, or here on the talk page? I don't recall using the phrase out of context, but maybe I wrote that and forget that I did.

What I meant to say was that the anti-Coulter case uses the CBC interview as an example of Coulter (a) being wrong on a significant point and, perhaps more importantly (b) refusing correction when her 'error' is pointed out. Please help me to describe the anti-Coulter case fairly. I want to present the anti-Coulter point of view in a way that both pro and con sides will agree, "Yessir, that's precisely the point her critics are making!"

Then I want to present the pro-Coulter case in a similar fashion. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, you didn't use the phrase "out of context", but I thought your edits strongly implied that. This paragraph presents the anti-Coulter case as resting on a shaky foundation of "sound bites" and implies that there's nothing substantial to the arguments, as they are merely based on a couple scare quotes. That may not have been the intent of this, but that's how it reads to me:

Critics of Coulter have assembled a panoply of sound bites and written quotations which are typical of her brash, combative communicative style. Some critics cite these excerpts as evidence for their claim that she is "hysterical" or "ill-informed" and use them in to argue that she and ought to be dismissed entirely as a writer or commentator on the grounds that she simply "makes everything up" (see damaging quotation).

Did "Canada send troops"?

Allison Delaney, wrote (on an official Canadian government website):

"Although estimates vary, at least 12 000 Canadians served with the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. Some crossed the border to join, others were living in the U.S. during the war." [3]

If Ann Coulter meant that the Canadian goverment sent members in good standing of the Canadian army to Vietnam, then I've been unable to confirm this.

If she meant "Canada, the country" (i.e., the Canadian people as a whole - not just the goverment) then there's ample evidence that she was right.

The question is whether the interviewer's "correction" was (a) correct in itself AND (b) wrongfully refused by Coulter. If he had said, "No Canadians fought in Vietnam" he'd be dead wrong, of course. If he had said, "The Canadian goverment sent no troops to Vietnam" then he just might be right.

Now what exactly did he say, and what does this have to do with Coulter's credibility and the blog campaign against Coulter?

Perhaps the proper distinction is:

Canadian troops: soldiers who fight in a war as members of the Canadian Army
Canadian soldiers: soldiers of Canadian citizenship who fight in a war

If the interview was playing the gotcha game, then I'd have to say he "won" if catching your opponent in a misstatement (however small) is how you rack up points against them.

But it's a fine distinction (to me) and not proof of a "pattern of deception" or any reason for Wikipedia to side with him against her.

A real "correction" would have been for the interviewer to say:

Thousands of Canadian men fought in Vietnam, but not as members of the Canadian military.

If Coulter had then said, "No, they were on active duty with the Canadian Army at the time" then clearly she'd have been wrong: first, for making a clear, unambiguous assertion which is false; second, for refusing correction when the interviewer clarified things.

However, the transcript does not show any clarification. It was just a "Canada did send, Canada did send" tussle with no attempt on either side to say what they meant by "troops". As such, I don't think it really reflects badly on either of them.

But if the point of the show was to give examples of Americans who distort the truth, or if the anti-Coulter crowd is using it that way, then Wikipedia needs to step back and describe BOTH the anti and pro sides and not endorse either.

Last time I checked the article it either implied or said outright that Coulter was WRONG. It should not say this, but rather that the CBC, or the interviewer, or the Michael Moore website, or dozens of bloggers ASSERT that she was wrong. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think if you look at the context, it should be clear that they were talking about the canadian government. Coulter said, "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" When she refers to Canada, as a nation, as a friend, one assumes she is saying they are an ally. If that is the case, then clearly when she says "Canada sent troops to Vietnam," she means the Canadian government. Also, "Canada sent troops to Vietnam," sends more rather active. If she had said "troops from canada fought in Vietnam," that would be another story, but when she says that Canada sent the troops, it must have been a government that sent them. Who else could activly send troops? While I suppose it is possible that they were both very confused, I find it highly unlikely. --Benna 01:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I edited the "Canada remarks" section of the article to emphasize that Coulter acknoledged she was wrong about this. However, I put it in the form of a "clarification" rather than a "confession".

She meant that Canadians served (and re-asserted this part) but conceded that her exact words amounted to an error. (Rather decent of her to own up to that.)

Well, that's enough for one evening. I really must return to "meat life". Thanks ever so much for helping sift through this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Coulter said Canadian policy had changed, McKeown pointed out that it hadn't. That's not playing gotcha, it's a legitimate response to a claim which was central to her thesis. It's a real correction. Coulter was talking about the policy of the Canadian government when she didn't know what the policy was. John FitzGerald 15:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct -- Coulter asserted that Canada, as an ally, sent troops to Vietnam. If we're to limber up our imaginations, then the foreign policy has not changed since we sent troops to Vietnam, since a sizable minority of Canadians support the Invasion of Iraq, much like the sizable minority of Canadians who fought in Vietnam, and thereby, we both support the invasion of Iraq and Vietnam. Quite a stretch, no? The assertion was clear despite apologist revision or rhetorical backpeddling on her part; she meant that Canada, the nation, the government, the typical neighbourly ally, sent troops on an official and military basis by government decree to intervene in the Vietnamese conflict as active belligerents.Professor Ninja 19:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the word sent imply remote control from another entity (ex: a goverment). You don't send your self to war. I think it's clear that Coulter was talking about Canada as "the canadian government".

CBC Report is misleading

The interview highlighted a moment in which Coulter apparently confused (1) the 12,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam as members of the US Army with (2) "Canadian troops". In a voice-over, the interviewer twitted Coulter: "She never got back to me, and for the recond, Canada sent no troops.

(However, the documentary omitted any mention of the 12,000 Canadians who did fight in Vietnam, making it look as if Coulter made the whole thing up. All she did was make an honest mistake. And if the interviewer KNEW that Canadians Coulter was thinking of (a) really were there but (b) simply were not there as Canadians troops but as US troops, he might have pointed this out. Especially when broadcasted the edited excerpt. That bit about "for the record" is misleading.)

He should have said,

"For the record, over ten thousand Canadians fought for South Vietnam; it's just that the Canadian government didn't send them."

And if he had a shred of decency or honesty he would have contacted Coulter, assured her that she was partly right, and offered her a chance to amend her remarks. But he just wanted to play gotcha. Hardly cricket for a report on how the US right wing is supposedly dishonest.

As one anti-Coulter blogger wrote,

Canadians did fight in Vietnam. That's true, but they did so AS MEMBERS OF THE US ARMED FORCES, NOT AS MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES. [4]

Another blogger was more mild:

And since I was curious about the actual truth of the matter in the video ... Although Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam, over 10,000 Canadian citizens voluntarily joined the U.S. military and fought in Vietnam. There is a monument to the ones who died in Windsor. [ibid]

The left is unanimous in insisting that Coulter was wrong and McKeown was right. But they all give him a pass for concealing the fact that Canadians went to Vietnam. They're so intent on nailing Coulter for her mis-statement as an example of a "lie" for which she must be "exposed". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

If Coulter had a shred of decency she'd have got back to McKeown as she promised instead of claiming on C-Span that he was an ignoramus (unlikely, given the publicity Canadian Vietnam vets have received). McKeown concealed nothing. The issue of Canadian volunteers is irrelevant – American volunteers started joining the Canadian forces in 1939 to fight the Germans, but that doesn't mean that the US got into the war in 1939. THe long and the short of it is that Coulter is pronouncing on Canadian history without knowing basic facts about it. John FitzGerald 14:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article is quoting Coulter as admitting/correcting herself that the Canadian govt didn't send troops and you feel the need to add at the bottom that this explanation doesn't alter the fact that Canada didn't send troops. No kidding, she just admitted they didn't! I don't even see where anyone implied that Canada's position on Vietnam is different. There is no assertion that McKeown didn't know about Canadians in Vietnam. It's not even Coulter who says "I didn't think he knew", she's repeating what people were telling her. It's pretty silly to state your opinion on what you think McKeown may or may not know in order to address an assertion that was never made. --jag123 15:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added that bit because of the implied claim in the article that the mistake was only apparent. And if you think Coulter was just disinterestedly passing on others' opinion that McKeown was full of it then you have to be too naive for words. She could have checked with McKeown, eh? She could have checked with other Canadians. I saw the interview – she was just spluttering after being corrected. She didn't have a clue, and the story about having read about Canadian volunteers is most likely an exercise in saving face after the fact. John FitzGerald 22:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I hope my newest attempt at clarification makes my points more clearly. Coulter's self-serving comments should not be allowed to stand without comment. I should point out that I'm not all that upset by Coulter – there are only about four Americans who know anything about Canada, anyway, so it's not surprising she doesn't. Most prominent American commentators couldn't tell you two facts about Canada. The need some people feel to defend her infallibility is interesting, though. John FitzGerald 22:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I see my second addition was removed as well. It's amazing how deeply people feel the need to protect St. Ann's honour. Well, I'm not going to get into a reversion war. By insisting on removing thoroughly unobjectionable and accurate observations about St. Ann, though, her acolytes have demonstrated that they don't think the mistake is as trivial as they claim it is. The simple facts are that the CBC report was not misleading, her mistake was central to the point she was making about the topic of discussion, her "explanation" is unattested and probably entirely self-serving, and her gratuitous insult of Bob McKeown shows what kind of commentator and what kind of person dear Ann is. John FitzGerald 13:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I rather enjoyed a segment of the O'Reilly Factor I saw where O'Reilly's response was basically dismissing the article as a product of state-sponsored socialist Canadian media, the likes of which was apparently responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the Holocaust. The Fifth Estate DOES seem to have gotten its share of crap from the right regarding the validity of its arguments. On another note, were the 50,000-100,000 draft dodgers simply Canadians born in America?

Controvery over the Canada quote

I'm adding what I already said on the mailing list here, as I think the discussion belongs here. On the list, Uncle Ed said that:

Whether or not _government_ of Canada sent "troops in Canadian uniform" to Vietnam is a another thing. There are three points of view on this sub-point:

No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian government" to Vietnam (in any capacity).
Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and "served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops).
The Canadian sent substantial number of active duty soldiers (with weapons) to Vietnam, but they never (or hardly ever) shot at North Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong fighters.
Canada's *government* sent large numbers of combat troops to Vietnam (at least one battalion, i.e., 500 men), and they engaged the enemy.

My response was as follows:

I agree with your breakdown of the various interpretations on this matter. I also agree that 1) and 4) appear to be false.

I don't think 3) is true either, since the only deployment I know of, from web searches anyway, is this ICCS thing (Operation Gallant), which Tony Sidaway has also commented on. But these were non-aligned peacekeepers, which I presume is exclusive from active duty soldiers.

To me, Coulter's context unambiguously suggests that the troops provided were provided to fight alongside the Americans.

So, as far as I can tell, there seem to have been no troops sent by the Canadian government to Vietnam to assist the American side. To me, this makes Coulter's claim unambiguously wrong.

The article should note this. However, it should also mention the possible charitable explanations for her false claim, by mentioning Canadians who enlisted in the U.S. army and the peacekeeping Operation Gallant, or possibly just providing a link to the relevant section of Canada and the Vietnam War, since much of the content would be the same. We should of course also mention how this claim is interpreted by her critics.

[some intermediate comments deleted]

I do not think this incident or any of the facts about Vietnam and Canada suffice to prove that Coulter is or is not a deliberate liar. (My personal conclusion is that, like many claims she has made before, she was simply pulling facts from memory and hoping they were right, or at least not challenged.)

Feel free to comment on any of the above. --Saforrest 01:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it all hinges on this:

"Coulter's context unambiguously suggests that the troops provided were provided to fight alongside the Americans. "

Let me break this into two parts:

the troops [were] provided by the government of Canada
they went to Vietnam to fight alongside the Americans

It's been made pretty clear to me that Canada's government did not send the 10,000 to 12,000 "troops" that Coulter had in mind. So AFAIC she's wrong about that. (She has apparently admitted this much.)

What the CBC did not make clear in Sticks and Stones is that thousands of Canadians did fight in Vietnam on the South Vietnamese side. The segnment featuring McKeown and Coulter ends with a voiceover by McKeown which (a) merely repeats what he said in the interview, while (b) omitting any mention of Canadians going to Vietnam as soldiers.

The question anyone is free to ask is whether Coulter conceded enough of her error, quickly enough. Another question is whether the McKeown was playing gotcha, or whether it's ethical to say "For the record" and then omit relevant information for the purpose of discrediting a guest on your show. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

This hairsplitting in trying to save Coulter from the charge of inaccuracy is getting silly. In the context of her statement, it's obvious that she meant to make an implication about actions of the Canadian government. Did the U.S. send troops to fight alongside the Taliban? No, even though John Walker Lindh was there, and even if there was another such case (to justify the plural) the presence of U.S. citizens doesn't mean that the U.S. sent troops. Note also that Coulter was contrasting the war in Vietnam with the invasion of Iraq. If you try to defend her on the basis that there were some Canadian citizens serving as members of the U.S. military in Vietnam, you'd have to maintain as well that Vietnam and Iraq were different in that respect. That's probably not a defensible position. Without doing any research on the point, I'll hazard a guess that there are at least some Canadian citizens serving in Iraq, just as others did in Vietnam. As for the challenge to McKeown's ethics, that might be brought up in an article about him but I don't see it as something that merits exploration in the article about Coulter. JamesMLane 21:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Canadian servicemen/women serving in American units as part of an exchange program are expected by both governments to go to Iraq and perform the duties of Americans. John FitzGerald 14:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put the information back in. It is NPOV, and it is relevant insight into Coulter's character. If you think it is a POV representation of the events and the facts, change it to make it more NPOV or discuss your concerns here. No one here has demonstrated in any way that the current statement is POV.

Additionally, please do not add your own analysis to the situation, your analysis is POV. If you need to, add "fans defending Coulter's statement point out..." or "critics of Coulter say this shows..."

If you do not want to include the statement at all, please state your reasons for excluding it here. If you have any other concerns, please write them here.

I would ask that those who continue to remove this section cease and desist until this matter is resolved.--Ben 20:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Canada and Vietnam - NPOV - Factually inaccurate

I continue to change these, and someone continues to change them back.

1. McKeown did not just "contradict" her. He corrected her. If he had said "You are wrong." this would be a contradiction. He did not say that. He said "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam." That contradicts and corrects her statement. Please explain why you keep removing "corrected." Is it POV? --Ben 20:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2. "10,000 Canadian troops" did not fight in the Vietnam War. A Canadian troop is someone in the Canadian army. Were these 10,000 in the Canadian army? No. They were in the United States army. Leave off the word troops.--Ben 20:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3. It must be made clear to the reader that the Canadian government, and the Generals in charge of the Canadian military, ordered no Canadian soldier to fight alongside the United States in Vietnam. This also keeps getting removed.--Ben 20:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, your arguments are your arguments, not the barbs and brickbats of a notable Coulter antagonist. If you can cite someone who's made these points, then of course they merit inclusion, just as Andrew Sullivan's sentiments do. We don't take sides. We don't say that Conan Doyle was "wrong" to believe in fairies or that Rupert Sheldrake's belief in morphogenetic fields is "mistaken". We just report what other (notable) people have said on both sides.

Fine. I don't care enough to argue this. The sky is orange, feel free to contradict me.--Ben 03:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that "troops" means state-sponsored soldiers [5], and "Canadian citizens" sounds vague and misleading (to me) in this context.

I appreciate your point, though, so maybe you or someone else can come up with a wording that is non-odd to both of us.

chocolateboy 23:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I've changed it to "10,000 former Canadian troops and Canadian citizens who crossed the border and joined the United States army to fight in Vietnam"--Ben 03:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, paraphrasing that gives her too much credit. I'll just leave everything as it is. Maybe someone who has the patience to deal with her fans (who border on showing symptoms of belonging to a cult) can do it. Trying to apply post hoc analysis to her statements and arguing with invincible ignorance, claiming they believe she meant "10,000 former Canadian troops and Canadian citizens who crossed the border and joined the United States army to fight in Vietnam" rather than "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" when it makes absolutely no sense to do so, further evidenced by the fact that, as it stands, while incorrect it makes perfect sense with the point she was trying to make while interpretating it the way her fans do does not make sense at all. Plus she said she was wrong--of course in a complete flip-flop of idiocy says she was right two sentences later. It's absolutely utterly ridiculous. I don't want to spend my energy defining the word is to people. Someone else can. You guys are so purposefully dense or I don't know what the heck the problem is here, but it makes me puke.

And that's about as much "due respect" as I can muster. --Ben 05:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In regards to point 3, you raised no objections, so I added it in.--Ben 03:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The whole accuracy section is flawed. Canadian troops (or lack thereof) in Vietnam is used to impugne Coulter's accuracy but she admits - in the cited text - that she was wrong.

Her inaccuracy and her stubborness attests to her character. That is completely appropriate for this article. Post hoc correction of her statements, either by herself, or by her fans editing the article is not. --Ben 00:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What, exactly, is at issue here? Coulter claimed that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Later she admits she was wrong. Both the mistake and the correction are in the body of the article. What part is inaccurate or non-NPOV? If the purpose of the accuracy section is to demonstrate that sometimes Coulter is wrong, then shouldn't there be a similar section for every other article about a person on Wikipedia? Or are you saying that most people never make mistakes and that Coulter is somehow unique in this regard? What would make the article more accurate and NPOV? Removing Coulter's correction? How would removing Coulter's statement "I was wrong" improve this section? --Bziobnic 15:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to take out the "I was wrong" or "I was right" statements she made. Those are her words. However, I interpret the word "troops" to be active military. I always have, I always will. Apparently Coulter just calls any person in the military, active, inactive, or discharged "troops." Fine, she can say it that way if she wants. But paraphrasing her is not going to work in this situation because of the way she interprets the word: Substituting "10,000 troops" for "they" (what used to be in place of what is now "10,000 Canadians") is ambiguous and can easily be rightfully or wrongfully interpreted as meaning active-duty Canadian soldiers. Now, in the context of her quote, this doesn't make much sense, but considering she then says she was both wrong and later says she was right, this must be made clearer and without giving her the benefit of the doubt. She could be reasonably talking about an exchange program as well, where active Canadian soldiers fight in the US army, much like the few Canadian troops in Iraq. I've changed it and hopefully it's acceptable to everyone now. My problem is that she seems to be continuously implying that active-duty Canadian soldiers fought alongside the US in Vietnam, which is in untrue, and which I personally find offensive to me as a Canadian in its blatant arrogance and disrespect for our military who did not "run across to sign up with the Americans." Those who did were not members of our military, yet the word "troops" suggests they were.

In regards to the NPOV, it has been changed a bit since I last looked at it, but the last line which says "the interviewer contradicted her numerous times." I beg to differ, she contradicted him, but how about we neutrally say they contradicted each other? Plus the arbitrary (and incorrect) selection of the point of the end of the conversation which certainly did not end at the point suggested. I will change that as well.--Ben 06:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Factual notice on Canada & Vietnam

What is not factual in the section. Coulter did make the statement, and the interviewer did contradict her. Coulter then said the following quote. What is not factual? --jag123 16:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Americans born in Canada

Sorry, I forgot to post my reasons this morning when I removed it. That sentence is inflammatory, and insulting, to put it mildly. A cousin of mine was KIA in Vietnam, so maybe this is hitting closer to home than it would otherwise. She's saying that any Canadian who participated in the Vietnam war isn't really a Canadian, but an American, as if it's embarassing or inferior to be Canadian. When Americans were heading up here to dodge the draft, Canadians were heading down there to go fight for another country. Despite this, Coulter has the nerve to use the pine box of Canadians who died for her country as a grandstand for jingoism. I don't think so. That part of her quote doesn't add anything to the article, nor is it crucial to her apology and a bunch of stuff is excluded from the quote anyway, so I don't see a reason to keep it. --jag123 20:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It IS inflammatory. If her "joke" needs further explanation feel free to add it after or before the quote, but I think it should stay in because it demonstrates her audacity and extreme arrogance. By taking it out I think you've actually made her look less arrogant. I don't even think she succeeded in defending herself, she just made herself look even more stupid because her "defence" is barely comprehensible in the first place. I've added more of her quote and maybe this will make it flow better. Here's the full quote: [6]--Ben 02:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. If you want to make Ann Coulter look arrogant or stupid, start your own website. --jag123 11:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about if, instead, we accurately report what Coulter actually said, and let the reader decide if Coulter is arrogant or stupid? JamesMLane 22:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accurately report her quotes in Wikiquote, and include the relevant parts in the article. Not everyone cares to form an opinion on Coulter. If someone wants to learn about Coulter for a school project or something, they shouldn't be insulted by a part of her quote that is not related to the point discussed in the article just because you want to make her look stupid. --jag123 00:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or alternatively, if we actually put in a correct balance of Coulter quotes, readers my decide that she's witty, well informed and speaks the truth. That said, JML's comments again reveal his bias. 216.153.214.94 23:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's just say that not making Ann look stupid requires removal of all quotes. Gzuckier 21:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's just say the quotes are a good way to give you an idea of her personal motivations and general nature. They help put her statements and elements of her story in perspective, and effectively tell you what kind of person she seems to be. I have to say, comments about converting entire countries and the liberal left's plans to destroy America seem to give a good idea of where she stands on the intellectual and psychological scale. It's not really anyone's fault but her own that more statements affirm negative aspects of her character than positive ones.

Canadian troops and Coulter Quote

"Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. There is a War Memorial to them -- at least for most of [them]. The Canadian Government didn't send troops at the beginning, didn't send troops at the end, but most of that was not under the Canadian flag, they came and fought with the Americans. So I was wrong. It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada."

"I talked to him Bob McKeown for three hours and the topic was not Canada's war history. It was an incidental point that he challenged me on and I didn't believe him because I had read about Canadian troops in Vietnam. I was right. People keep saying "well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans" because I don't think he knew."

Note that, here, Coulter is presumably referring to members of the U.S. military with Canadian citizenship and/or those formally in the Canadian military as "Canadian troops."

What is the matter with including this sentence? Coulter's statement has multiple interpretations and is ambiguous. This helps clarify what she was saying. It is perfectly reasonabe to interpret "Canadian troops" as "active members of the Canadian armed forces". This, presumably, is not what Coulter meant. I think Coulter is using "troops" in an Americocentric way, and thus, her quote does not make sense to people who are not American.--Ben 01:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coulter's statement has multiple interpretations and is ambiguous.

vs

This helps clarify what she was saying.

We don't put words in people's mouths. We don't "presume", speculate or spin.

The section already includes Coulter's explanation of her explanation as a pacifying concession to your unilateral accusation of inaccuracy and POV. What next? An explanation of your explanation of her explanation of her explanation?

I think Coulter is using "troops" in an Americocentric way, and thus, her quote does not make sense to people who are not American.

The article is about Ann Coulter, not about you.

chocolateboy 02:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time magazine re: Vietnam

The addition proposed by user:Plain regular ham has no place in the Vietnam section. What a Time magazine writer has to say on the issue is irrelevant, unless what he is saying is being backed up by historical evidence/documentation, which he isn't in this case. The Vietnam section is fair as it exists right now -- both McKeown and Coulter have had a chance to explain their position, Coulter has admitted she was wrong and offered another view as well. Leave it as is unless you can source primary sources about Canada sending or not sending troops. 66.36.155.157 20:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quoting a Time article is enough for Wikipedia, I don't see why the quote should leave this page altogether, I just didn't like the spoon feeding earlier. What a Time magazine writer has to say is relevant, as Time articles are not exactly the national inquirer... let us leave it in for now until someone can come up with a primary source saying whether or not they did. If his argument is not backed up by historical evidence, then please present the contrary evidence for those wishing to come to their own conclusions on the matter. --kizzle 00:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the reasoning, but I'll give in. I've added a rebuttal. 66.36.145.221 02:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Canada and the Vietnam War

I would like to discuss this subsection:

More recently, however, a Time Magazine article on Coulter dated April 25, 2005, stated "Canada did send noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972." Media watchdog FAIR disputes this assertion, however, saying that writer John Cloud was "making quite a stretch" to prove that Coulter wasn't inaccurate. They explain: "Canada was officially neutral during the Vietnam War, so if any noncombat troops were sent [...] they would not have been sent to support U.S. forces there." FAIR also notes that the alleged troops sent are not mentioned "in a detailed 1975 U.S. Army history, Allied Participation in Vietnam." [9] [7] Canada sent officials to Vietnam in 1954 and 1973 as observers with the International Commission for Control and Supervision.

This subsection contains an interesting discussion about Canada's involvement or lack of involvement in the Vietnam War. It claims that John Cloud wanted to "prove that Coulter wasn't inaccurate". If that were true, we might have grounds for including the quote. But actually, Cloud only mentioned the non-combat troops to basically say, paraphrasing Cloud's words, "Bob McKeown was wrong too" when he made a blanket statement about Canada sending no troops to Vietnam. But this article isn't about Bob McKeown, or about John Cloud and whether he was wrong to call the Canadian monitors that were sent to Vietnam "troops". Such speculation is not necessary to show Coulter was indeed mistaken about Canada sending troops as allies of the United States, nor does it help excuse Coulter of her mistake, since she already admitted the mistake and offered a different reason for making it. These are the grounds I am employing for removing this subsection. 216.119.143.4 19:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Canada and Vietnam

In the article, it quotes someone as saying that Canada's official position on the Vietnam war was neutral - this isn't entirely accurate. Canada was officialy a "non-particapant", but it was certainly not neutral. The Canadian government at the time vocally supported the american effort in Vietnam. The same was true of the recent war against Iraq - the Canadian government didn't send troops, but at the same time it admitted during question period that it morally suppoerted the Americans and wanted them to win. Anon

In point of fact, Canada's official government position was neutral- comments made in question period do not form official government policy. Having seen the original interview, it seems clear that Coulter was incorrect. As I wasn't alive during the Vietnam war, perhaps you could provide sources for the assertions you made about the Canadian govt.s involvement in it. --Scimitar 19:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- As I recall, Canada was, as usual before the present era, in vocal support of the US, but by the time Trudeau got elected, was in a position to be not so supportive. Just my memories. Gzuckier 19:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Possibly you're right, but Lester B. Pearson made an anti-Vietnam speech in the states which enraged Johnson (the "pissed on my rug" incident). I have little doubt Diefenbaker supported it. --Scimitar 19:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

New version

I don't see how my version is POV or biased. chocolateboy you keep reverting. Please let me know what is wrong with it.--Ben 20:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canada and the Vietnam War

In January 2005, Coulter gave an interview to CBC's The Fifth Estate (video clip of this part of the interview). At one point, she argued that Canada's uninvolvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated that Canada's "loyal friendship" with the United States had weakened. She contrasted the Canadian government's decision to not participate in the Iraq War with Canada's role in the Vietnam War.

"Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

However, the comparison breaks down as, contrary to Coulter's statement, Canadian troops were not involved in the American campaign. Though the Canadian government had expressed support for the United States, and sent peacekeeping forces and noncombat assisstance later in the war, Canada was officially a non-participant (See Canada and the Vietnam War). Interviewer Bob McKeown corrected Coulter, noting that "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam," but Coulter insisted Canada had. After a short "he said, she said" dispute, She finally concluded "Well, I'll get back to you on that." [8] Coulter did not get back in touch with the show. [9]

In a subsequent interview on C-SPAN, Coulter was asked about her statement: "...you said the Canadians had troops in Vietnam and he said no they didn't, what is, did you find out of the real answer?"

"Yes. 10,000 Canadian troops--at least. There is a war memorial to them--at least for most..." this time referring to Canadian citizens who joined the American army. "The Canadian Government didn't send troops at the beginning, didn't send troops at the end--but most of that was not under the Canadian flag. They came and fought with the Americans. So I was wrong." In jest, she added "It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada." [10]

Later in the interview, when asked about the taping of the CBC show, she added:

"I talked to him [ interviewer Bob McKeown ] for three hours and the topic was not Canada's war history. It was an incidental point that he challenged me on and I didn't believe him because I had read about Canadian troops in Vietnam. I was right. People keep saying 'well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans' because I don't think he knew." ibid

Further detail about Canada's involvement in the Vietnam war can be found in the CBC's "Canada's Secret War: Vietnam". [11]

----

the comparison breaks down
contrary to Coulter's statement
Coulter insisted
"Coulter did not get back in touch with the show. [12]" vs "Later in the show, McKeown stated that Coulter never did get back in touch with The Fifth Estate, and reiterated the filmmakers' position that Canada had not sent troops to Vietnam. [13]" (cf. "Ben's version is POV" and "... according to chocolateboy, Ben's version is POV". Note that both statements are "true" :-)
"... this time referring to Canadian citizens who joined the American army" vs "In jest, she added... ". She's more than capable of speaking for herself, and her critics and supporters are more than capable of criticizing and defending her.

Ben/Wikipedia aren't primary sources.

You also censored the FAIR response which is both apropos (it's about Coulter on Canada and the Vietnam War rather than Canada and the Vietnam War) and verifiable.

chocolateboy 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

The comparison does break down. This is readily apparent. Coulter admitted it breaks down because she admitted that the fact she was attempting to use as contrast was wrong. This is needed for flow and clarity.
The facts are contrary to Coulter's statement. This is also needed for flow and clarity.
Coulter did insist she was right. It only ends up being perjorative because she was wrong. McKeown insisted too. This is an accurate description of her actions.
Coulter did not get back in touch with the show. The article does not need to beat around the bush with superfluous statements. The article needs to take ownership of the facts instead of offloading them onto McKeown and treating them as hearsay.
It is important to note that Coulter meant it in jest. If interpreted that she meant it seriously, which, considering her manner of speech, is possible, it is a misrepresention of what she meant, similar to taking a quote out of context.
I did not "censor" the last paragraph, I removed it because it is irrelevant. If anything it needs more context, however space is prohibitive and it does not contribute much of anything to the article.
You didn't notice, but I also changed the punctuation in the quotes. This is needed because the original transcription was poorly written and confusing. Considering the difficulty in transcribing informal speech to text, I believe my version better represents her meaning.

Next time I'm going to tell it like I am a lawyer. If you still refuse to see my point the time after that will involve an RFC. --Ben 30 June 2005 20:49 (UTC)

(And just too add to the nice wikilinks you've provided: Equivocation, Amphiboly) --Ben 30 June 2005 22:02 (UTC)

---

If the following statements are truths universally acknowledged, they should be easy to support with citations from notable sources:

The comparison does break down. According to... ?

The facts are contrary to Coulter's statement. According to who?

Coulter did insist she was right. According to whom?

"Coulter admitted it breaks down" vs "It is important to note that Coulter meant it in jest." Which part of your own spin ("in jest") don't you understand?

"I removed it because it is irrelevant." cf. "You also censored the FAIR response which is both apropos (it's about Coulter on Canada and the Vietnam War rather than Canada and the Vietnam War) and verifiable."

"... the original transcription was poorly written and confusing." Yeah, the original was confusing ("The Canadian Government didn't send troops at the beginning, didn't send troops at the end, but most of that was not under the Canadian flag... "), but the current version is pretty far removed from the original transcript.

The article needs to take ownership of the facts

We don't own facts; we borrow them from notable sources. Wikipedia is not a primary source.

As I mentioned the last time this section turned into a soapbox, we don't say: "Contrary to Conan Doyle's belief, fairies don't exist"; nor do we say: "L. Ron Hubbard's claim that we are all descended from aliens breaks down because...". We avoid the landmines of controversy by speaking softly and carrying a big citation.

As for the RfC: bring it on.

chocolateboy 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)

---

If the following statements are truths universally acknowledged, they should be easy to support with citations from notable sources:

The comparison does break down. According to... ?

According to Common sense.
According to Aristotle.
According to me.

The facts are contrary to Coulter's statement. According to who?

According to Ann Coulter.
According to Plato.
According to me.

Coulter did insist she was right. According to whom?

According to Webster's dictionary.
According to me.

"Coulter admitted it breaks down" vs "It is important to note that Coulter meant it in jest." Which part of your own spin ("in jest") don't you understand?

Neither of those are spin. The first is based on a deduced argument based on the fact that she admitted she was wrong. The second is spin in her favor, and is true (see also Occam's razor.)

"I removed it because it is irrelevant." cf. "You also censored the FAIR response which is both apropos (it's about Coulter on Canada and the Vietnam War rather than Canada and the Vietnam War) and verifiable."

I miss your point.

"... the original transcription was poorly written and confusing." Yeah, the original was confusing ("The Canadian Government didn't send troops at the beginning, didn't send troops at the end, but most of that was not under the Canadian flag... "), but the current version is pretty far removed from the original transcript.

No it is not. In fact, your version--which excises parts of the text--is more removed. I added hyphens.

The article needs to take ownership of the facts

We don't own facts; we borrow them from notable sources. Wikipedia is not a primary source.

No. This is not applicable. See Verifiability.

As I mentioned the last time this section turned into a soapbox, we don't say: "Contrary to Conan Doyle's belief, fairies don't exist"; nor do we say: "L. Ron Hubbard's claim that we are all descended from aliens breaks down because...". We avoid the landmines of controversy by speaking softly and carrying a big citation.

No. This is a straw man. Your analogy is not correct. Whether fairies exist is not verifiable. Whether Canada sent troops to Vietnam is.

As for the RfC: bring it on.

chocolateboy 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Chocolateboy: Just so you know: I do not enjoy this banter with you. You may find it amusing or intellectually exciting. I do not. I find it extremely frustrating--bordering on disturbing. I would like to see you banned from editing this article ever again. You are ludicrously stubborn and create a socially toxic environment on this page. For all intents and purposes you are an Internet troll. I will see to it that no leniency is to be given. Considering your recent responses, I believe an RFA is more appropriate in this instance, as you must be dealt with to restore order to this article.--Ben 1 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

See Invincible ignorance

Tony Sidaway, You are not a moderator. If you've got a problem do not just run around erasing people's comments. You could have written "Ben, that Invincible ignorance thing is too big, just link to it." and I would have probably removed it for that reason.--Ben 5 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)

ChocolateBoy and Ben

Would you cut this shit out and move it to your respective talk pages? --kizzle July 1, 2005 02:33 (UTC)

I'll do you one better. I've filed an RFA.--Ben 1 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

After what, like 6 paragraphs of disagreeing, you're going to RFA already? That's going to get rejected in like 2 seconds. Go to mediation first. --kizzle July 1, 2005 03:30 (UTC)

This has happend between me and him before. Mediation will not work, he refuses outright to listen to me.--Ben 1 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

Disputes on a topic such as this can get heated very quickly but an RFAr is premature. File an RFC first and see if a consensus emerges. David | Talk 1 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

Agree with David, you don't know how many times "Mediation will not work, he refuses outright to listen to me" has been used as a justification for going straight to Arbitration.--kizzle July 1, 2005 16:10 (UTC)

Well, my belief is that once someone starts using invincible ignorance there is no way you will be able to convince them otherwise. They go on and on trying to "prove" their case when the argument against it is staring them right in the face. People get taken in by arguments like that too because they think "oh, the other person can't defend themselves anymore, therefore this guy is right." I shouldn't have to be a philosopher and try to argue fundamental concepts of logic and argument which have been accepted for thousands of years. That's just ridiculous. There is no reason that chocolateboy should say my rhetoric is POV. He is hiding behind that claim. Not only is my writing accurate and truthful, it is perfectly fair and describes the situation far more effectively and efficiently than the current version. What chocolateboy wants to do is keep the waters muddied surrounding this issue--same as what Coulter did when she used a definitional retreat with the word "troops." Hell, at least she admitted she was wrong and only did it to try to save face. Chocolateboy won't even accept that she was wrong even though she admitted it. Thanks for your comments, but I think that an RFC is not going to stop him for continuing this. --Ben 1 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)

Well, if I may add my two cents, I agree with several of Chocolateboy's points.

"The comparison breaks down"
- With the inclusion of this phrase, the article breaks from a neutral stance and accepts one side of the controversy. Take ChocolateBoy's advice, if the information you are including is public knowledge, then it shouldn't be too hard to find a notable opinion claiming the same thing. However, as it stands, neither Aristotle, "Common Sense", or you are valid sources for this conclusion.
"The facts are contrary to Coulter's statment"
- Not sure what this is referring to, as I don't see this exactly in the above example of your inclusion text. However, if this is verbatim from your text, "The facts are contrary" is too phrase and looks like a conclusion rather than a descriptive sentence... why don't you specifically say what facts it is contrary to instead of "The facts"?
"It is important to note Coulter meant it in jest"
- Cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite.

Also, your move to RFA is entirely premature, as the point of this is not to get ChocolateBoy kicked off Wikipedia or punish him, its to come to some agreement over the proposal text. Take a vote, file an RfC, get mediation, but you're way ahead of where this conflict actually is. --kizzle July 1, 2005 22:21 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notice

This is a formal notice that I have filed a Request for Arbitration in the matter of Chocolateboy v Benapgar. Chocolateboy please visit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and add your statement. --Ben 1 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)