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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
I did a quick check - not thorough, mind you.
So there's a distinction between:
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:
But we might also point out this:
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)
I snipped the following op-ed as it's conspicuously light on sources and heavy on original research:
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)
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))
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:
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)
Allison Delaney, wrote (on an official Canadian government website):
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:
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:
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 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)
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".
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,
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,
Another blogger was more mild:
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)
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 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?
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:
My response was as follows:
Feel free to comment on any of the above. -- Saforrest 01:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
I think it all hinges on this:
Let me break this into two parts:
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)
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)
I continue to change these, and someone continues to change them back.
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.
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)
And that's about as much "due respect" as I can muster. -- Ben 05:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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:
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:
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)
Would you cut this shit out and move it to your respective talk pages? -- kizzle July 1, 2005 02:33 (UTC)
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)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
I did a quick check - not thorough, mind you.
So there's a distinction between:
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:
But we might also point out this:
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)
I snipped the following op-ed as it's conspicuously light on sources and heavy on original research:
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)
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))
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:
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)
Allison Delaney, wrote (on an official Canadian government website):
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:
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:
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 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)
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".
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,
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,
Another blogger was more mild:
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)
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 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?
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:
My response was as follows:
Feel free to comment on any of the above. -- Saforrest 01:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
I think it all hinges on this:
Let me break this into two parts:
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)
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)
I continue to change these, and someone continues to change them back.
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.
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)
And that's about as much "due respect" as I can muster. -- Ben 05:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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:
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:
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)
Would you cut this shit out and move it to your respective talk pages? -- kizzle July 1, 2005 02:33 (UTC)
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)