Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

According to the categories description, it is "for articles related to persons [...] that express sentiments opposed to the religion of Islam". Ann Coulter has written plenty of articles in which she expresses such sentiments. In one article she writes, that Islams "tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'". Therefore I consider adding Coulter to this category complies with WP:BLP. Raphael1 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a pretty broad brush. If it is that general, I'm not sure how its encyclopedic. Additionally, it seems to pass judgement on those included that is contrary to WP:BLP. Caper13 17:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you consider the categories description as being too broad, I recommend you suggest a different description on the categories talk page. Every use of a category requires the editors to judge the article and I don't see how that would violate WP:BLP. Raphael1 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, WP:NPOV says that given a dispute, we should select the top 4-5 categories to describe her, and while I agree with Raphael that Coulter has expressed anti-Islamic statements, I wouldn't put "Anti-Islam sentiment" as one of the top 5 descriptors for her. --kizzle 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why only 5? She is already in 16 categories. Why not 17? Raphael1 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to wonder if the entire category in question is unencyclopedic. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --kizzle 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Then lets vote on whether to delete that category. I vote for deletion. I assume Kizzle will as well. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good case for CfD. Kyaa the Catlord 10:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would that category be unencyclopedic, while we have Category:Anti-Semitic people, Category:Fascists, Category:Neo-Nazis, ... Raphael1 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:Anti-Islam_sentiment, result was keep January 3, 2007. If I had to pick either Category:Anti-Islam sentiment or Category:Critics of Islam, I think Category:Critics of Islam would be more appropriate for this article. --Dual Freq 13:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between useful scholarly criticism and hostility or incitement. "raghead" and "smell bad" is of the latter kind. Raphael1 14:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1, you've been warned about adding this category two days ago. Please desist in readding it. I've warned you again and taken the appropriate step of adding a request for blocking to ANI. Please don't make me take this to the next step. Kyaa the Catlord 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been warned by Will and haven't heard from Will again after I provided references on his talk page. [1] Do you have any arguments why this category is not appropriate apart from threatening me with a block? Raphael1 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I love how you fall back to a biased group to support your POV. This is like quoting the Nazi Party when labelling a jew.... Kyaa the Catlord 16:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but the International Herald Tribune resp. Associated Press can hardly be called biased group, can it? Raphael1 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers and wire services DO have biases, yes. Is Fox News unbiased? Kyaa the Catlord 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? Does it mean, than you can dismiss reliable sources as you please by calling them biased? Raphael1 17:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding biased and malicious content is against BLP is "what". Presenting a minority opinion as a majority one is what. Firmly following BLP is what. Kyaa the Catlord 17:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds do you claim, that the Associated Press published a biased minority POV? Here's another reference: Le Monde diplomatique cites Coulter as an example for the islamophobic media.[2] Raphael1 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper doesn't say that, an opinion columnist does. Opinion is subjective and not neutral. Kyaa the Catlord 19:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, newspapers don't say anything, journalists do. 2. On what grounds did you add Coulter to the category "Critics of Islam"? [3] Is it your own subjective opinion WP:OR, did you find that in a biased newspaper (would violate WP:NPOV) or do you have references in multiple non-partisan newspapers (as I do [4][5])? Raphael1 20:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Number 1, there's a world of difference between a news article and an opinion piece. Number 2, I'm not pushing for her to be added to "Critics of Islam". She's not primarily a critic of islam, she's a critic of islamofascists and terrorists. Overall, I'm against categorization of persons period. Labelling is always POV. Kyaa the Catlord 20:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CAIR has been criticized for ties to Extremist groups, and jut the other day, US Senator Barbara Boxer rescinded an award that was issued to a representative of that group because of criticism that "the group holds extremist views and has ties to international terrorist organization". Additionally "In 2003, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said the council was "unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect." See [6]. Extremist groups by definition hold minority POV's. Caper13 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never argued against CAIR being biased. Stating that any opinion an extremist group holds is a minority POV is a logical fallacy. Al-Qaeda might state, that the sun is hot. Does that make it a minority POV? Raphael1 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You've attributed the biased viewpoint to the media organizations which run their stories. Simply because it is quoted by a media organization doesn't give it any additional weight.... And more so, when these biased opinions become mixed with news reporting, it causes the media source to become sullied by bias. Kyaa the Catlord 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AP and Le monde is running CAIRs story? Neither [7] nor [8] quote CAIR. I wouldn't worry about IHTs or APs reputation. IMHO they are still way less biased than FOX news. Raphael1 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The AP article in particular is telling. What does Coulter's "ridicule Islam and Moslems" have to do with her voter registration. Is the AP trying to make a point? This is a prime example of bias slipping into a new article. I already pointed out that the Le monde article is an Opinion piece. The opinion, see also POV, of the writer is that Coulter is an example of the islamophobic US press. Bias? Indeed. Kyaa the Catlord 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you are complaining about bias, because you are indeed holding the minority POV, that Ann Coulter is NOT "expressing sentiments opposed to the religion of Islam". If Coulter does not qualify for this category, who does? Raphael1 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm opposed to the categorization due to it being defamatory and against BLP. I'm opposed to the categories existance due to it being used to push a political stance. And as I stated earlier, I'm against the categorization of persons period unless they are categorized for something truly neutral, like "firemen" or "dog catcher". Kyaa the Catlord 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not against WP:BLP as long as it's sourced. OTOH if you just don't like this category because it's defamatory, you might be violating WP:BLP ("a sympathetic POV should be avoided"). Raphael1 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's speculative. Its a leap of logic to go from "islamofascist terrorists should be stopped" to "I'm against Islam". Are some of her remarks controversial and do they go too far? Yes. Does she stereotype terrorists? Hell yes. Does this make her anti-Islam? Not necessarily. Kyaa the Catlord 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

<----

The problem is that she doesn't differentiate between islamofascist terrorists and Muslims. If she'd merely say, that "islamofascist terrorists should be stopped" I wouldn't even think about adding her to this category. In her saying about the tenets of Islam for example, she expresses sentiments opposed to the religion of Islam (NOT militant Islamists). Do you see the difference? Raphael1 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, evidence from a non-biased source for this? In order to come to this conclusion from the examples in the article, you need to assume that she means every Muslim, not simply the "jihad monkeys" and "street dancers". She gives specific examples of who she feels are the "enemy" in her viewpoint, not labelling all Muslims but only those doing specific acts and professing specific beliefs. Being oversensitive and misrepresenting her views is OR. Kyaa the Catlord 22:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

She writes about the tenets of Islam not the tenets of terrorists. If she wouldn't mean the tenets of Islam, why did she write "tenets of Islam"? Raphael1 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did she write "tenets of Islam?" This phrase is not found in this article. Kyaa the Catlord 22:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone quibbling here? Raphael1 22:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, just keep putting words into her mouth. Maybe eventually I'll believe the libelous claims you make! Kyaa the Catlord 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa: Maybe she's talking about where Coulter says "smells bad." As for me, I never connected smelling bad with any of the tenets of islam. But I don't claim to be an expert. Lou Sander 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No one said every opinion an extremist group holds is minority or invalid. Al-Quaeda would be perfectly accurate if they opined on the sun being hot. However, extemist or biased groups don't get labeled as such because they tend to have mainstream opinions, and as such they tend to be unreliable sources. Caper13 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1, I think you'll get a lot further by simply adding the citations and the quotes into the article, rather than fixating on this category business. The category provides no information whatsoever anyway. Every single shred of information you want to add can be added by legitimate quotes and citations. Do that. Then you won't need the category to make your point for you. Show, don't tell. — coelacan talk — 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

13.January 07, Kornelia0. Hi, may I join your discussion? I read Coulter´s new book/excerpts Chapter 1 yesterday - and could not believe the evil lanquage she choosed. If you do not like the category "anti-Islam-Sentiment" (what I cannot understand as that is what she writes) why don´t you call it "Hate-Speech"? Then you could have several subcategories - religious - political - society - gender etc. And may I add/suggest another point? This unbelievable Anti-Darwin position(NewRepublic-Article by Jerry Coyne) she takes! The reason why I´d like to see it added: That´s the danger Coulter is to society. Her joining the IntelligentDesign-Campaign (after Judge Jones verdict) is the one and best way for the Wedge strategy to succeed: She has, obviously, a huge audiance. An audiance of people who do not mind , how do I call it - ToughTalk on the border to the unthruth ( Where is the quote for " Do whatever you feel like doing -- screw your secretary, kill Grandma, abort your defective child -- Darwin says it will benefit humanity!" in Darwin´s texts?). NOT mentioning this in the opensource wikipedia would cut an important piece out of the overall picture of Ann Coulter. --- Kornelia0

Ann responds to brutal acts by Islamic terrorists by describing those terrorists accurately, and you want to label her anti-Islamic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.244.25 (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't think so. Specifically, I don't think anybody wants to label her anything for “describting terrorists accurately” in response to “brutal acts by [those] terrorists”, because she doesn't stop there. — NRen2k5 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter contradicted by a CBC reporter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKF4Z36hyQ
It should go in the main article :)
88.112.147.89 11:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed to death here. Canada's troops were in Vietnam for many years. A great many of them got medals for their service, and at least one of them was killed. They were peacekeeping troops, not combat troops, but they were troops, sent by the government of Canada. The interview doesn't mention their role, just that they were "troops," which they were. At the end, the voice says "Just for the record, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam." The voice was not speaking the truth. You can look it up.
Lou Sander 12:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Canada contributed 250 peacekeepers for 6 month in 1973 (not many years). Raphael1 16:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it would appear that Coulter was speaking the truth and the CBC reporter was not.
Caper13 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Coulter was speaking of Canadian troops being sent as allies of the US (she was putting this forward in "contrast" to Canada not supporting the US in Iraq). She was wrong. Sixth Estate 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the abovementioned facts, another fact remains: several thousand Canadian Males crossed the border and signed up with the U.S. Military to fight in Vietnam due to their gratitude for, friendship with, and love of The United States of America, and showed far more courage and fortitude than their homeland government.
67.177.55.111 13:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's irrelevent. She was alleging that the Canadian government sent troops to Vietnam to fight alongside Americans when this clearly wasn't the case. There were also Americans who went to North Vietnam and supported the Viet Cong yet this doesn't mean that "The US sent troops to fight alongside the Viet Cong."
Sixth Estate 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is absolutely relevant, true, and no amount of wishing or pretending otherwise can change such facts. Next, there is absolutely no way you can honestly assert that Coulter's comments mean what you want them to mean; you clearly aren't her spokesperson, and as such, your argument is nothing more than a strawman. Jane Fonda and other leftist traitors who supported the Communist revolutionaries (who, after Democrats removed funding for the South Vietnamese, plunged South Vietnam into a bloodbath and forced millions to flee [remember the Vietnamese "boat people?"]) were nothing more than traitors, and fools to boot. Analogies comparing American traitors to Canadian peacekeepers, allies, and friends is disingenuous at best.
Ldspatriot.org 15:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

“there is absolutely no way you can honestly assert that Coulter's comments mean what you want them to mean; you clearly aren't her spokesperson, and as such, your argument is nothing more than a strawman”. You're the one who's twisting her words out of context. The context of Coulter's quote about Canadian troops in Vietnam is one of Canada supporting the United States of America. Canada's role in Vietnam was a peacekeeping role NOT one of support to the United States. You are debating semantics. “Jane Fonda and other leftist traitors who supported the Communist revolutionaries (who, after Democrats removed funding for the South Vietnamese, plunged South Vietnam into a bloodbath and forced millions to flee [remember the Vietnamese "boat people?"]) were nothing more than traitors, and fools to boot. Analogies comparing American traitors to Canadian peacekeepers, allies, and friends is disingenuous at best.” Wow. Just wow. “Leftist traitors”?! “Supported the Communist revolutionaries”?! “Forced millions to flee”?! You should maybe read your own post before accusing someone else of spinning. — NRen2k5 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Her assertion was right by the slimmest of technicalities (approx. 250 neutral peacekeepers deployed over 6 months in a conflict that spanned decades and involved millions of combatants) and even if she was aware of this truth it contrasts the overall point she was making. These peacekeepers were part of Operation Gallant and were neutral participants. If she was hinging her arguement on this fact then she was being disingenuous. You could even go as far as saying it's perverse to twist the mere presence of peacekeeping soldiers into evidence of support for a specific side in the conflict. It's giving her the benefit of the doubt to conclude that more than likely she simply had no idea what she was talking about and made a gross error. (154.20.20.7 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Coulter: "I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"
The interpretation put forth that "troops" did not mean military troops renders the analogy contained in the second part of Coulter's point incomprehensible, unless you truly believe she was calling for Canada to send non-combat troops to Iraq as well, which is ridiculous. --kizzle 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people just don't get it. Or won't. Maybe they spend too much time with fantasy roleplaying games. Canada sent troops to Vietnam in August, 1954, and kept them there until January, 1973. Here's some of what they did (read the second paragraph):

"During the years 1954 to 1975 Canada served on 2 international truce commissions and provided medical supplies and technical assistance. Canadian diplomats were involved in negotiations between Washington and Hanoi and successive Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, maintained that Ottawa was an impartial and objective peacekeeper, an innocent and helpful bystander negotiating for peace and administering aid to victims of the war. However, Cabinet papers, confidential stenographic minutes of the truce commissions as well as top-secret American government cables revealed Canada to be a willing ally of US counterinsurgency efforts.
"Canada's record on the truce commissions was a partisan one, rooted in the presumption of Hanoi's guilt and Saigon's innocence and designed to discredit North Vietnam while exonerating South Vietnam from its obligations to uphold the Geneva Agreements. Canadian delegates engaged in espionage for the US Central Intelligence Agency and aided the covert introduction of American arms and personnel into South Vietnam while they spotted for US bombers over North Vietnam. Canadian commissioners shielded the US chemical defoliant program from public inquiry, parlayed American threats of expanded war to Hanoi, and penned the reports legitimating both the rupture of the Geneva Agreements and the US air war over North Vietnam. Ottawa would later assert that these actions were necessary to counterbalance the activities of the Eastern bloc countries with whom they shared membership on the truce commissions."

The source for the above is this article in The Canadian Encyclopedia. There are many others, such as this one. Lou Sander 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not what she was talking about. LouSander, did you read that passage carefully? You are refering to very limited covert efforts cited in a book by a Gestalt therapist. Many people cite this book but few seem to have read it. Is this really the author? Right name. Right college. http://www.geocities.com/victorlevant2000/ . What is the authors PhD in? I read this book some years ago. It does not describe troops or a level of support in the way Coulter was talking about. It does not validate her statements. It is not reasonable or logical to match what Levant is describing, even if he is accurate, to the point she was making. Again, it is very unlikely she was aware of this material at the time and if she was she would still be misrepresenting it in her arguement.
Trajan Cavalous 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I am REALLY wondering... why is it so hard for people to acknowledge that Canada DID send troops to Vietnam, and why is it so easy for them to assume that Coulter was talking about anything more than that? And it's TRULY, TRULY, TRULY hard to see how anyone can believe the CBC guy's repeated assertions that Canada DID NOT send troops to Vietnam, when those assertions are so easily shown to be incorrect? (It is as though he was insisting that Baffin Island is a tropical paradise in Antarctia.)
Lou Sander 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Pity. No response to Trajancavalous's specific points? --kizzle 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because she herself framed the issue as a representation of support for the US when this example is not that. If she was aware of this point and was no longer talking about Canada acting in support of the US but rather suddenly referring to 250 or so neutral peacekeepers then she should have just opened her mouth and said so. The example given is extremely slight, more akin to hair splitting and does not fit her arguement or the context of the discussion which was centered around support for the US. Compared to the fact that Canada never sent combat troops to Vietnam to fight on the American side this example seems pretty irrelevant to the actual issue that was being discussed. 250 (+-) neutral peacekeepers who were there for 6 months; irrelevant to the overall subject of their conversation. And again, if she was attempting to make her overall point using that example then she was being disingenuous and pretty twisted because that is not an example of support for the US. A (I'd say) hippie philosophy teacher/therapist allegations that Canadian civilian delegates to peace missions in Vietnam conducted espionage to support the US; sketchy and also irrelevant to the overall point she was making. The CBC's statement was incorrect for one extremely small example that did not support her arguement. Kudos to whoever first came up with that but I'd say it's more an interesting footnote than a smoking gun. The Canadian government never sent troops to fight in the Vietnam War in support of the US. That's the fact that matters in regards to her faulty arguement. If either party thought those peacekeepers were relevant to the discussion then they should have mentioned them. If she was conscious of that info and was making her overall arguement based on that info then she was being very misleading and sleazy.
Trajan Cavalous 06:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. They DID. They really, really, really, really, DID. They were Canadian citizens who volunteered for the Canadian armed forces and were sent to Vietnam by the Canadian government. Coulter was right and the CBC guy was wrong. How many times did he deny that Canada sent troops to Vietnam? (HINT: In Montreal, they call it cinq.) What else did he talk about? (HINT: Nothing. Or rien, if you're French.) Believe it or not, and I'm getting back to you on this, Canada sent troops to Vietnam. They were troops. They got shot at and killed. They spotted bombs for the Americans, and they spied for the CIA. They got medals. They wore uniforms and ate crappy Canadian Army food. Canada sent them. They were troops. They were in Vietnam. In Hanoi, at first, then, later, elsewhere. All in Vietnam. From August, 1954 through January, 1973. You can look it up. (By the way, Canada DID send troops to Vietnam.) Lou Sander 07:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So Lou. What is it you are saying exactly? ;) Caper13 07:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Caper: Sorry about the lack of directness. ;-) Before the subtleties got in the way, I was trying to make the point that in the following dialog, the government-sponsored spokesman who kept saying "no troops in Vietnam" was wrong (and I apologize for under-counting the number of times he said it):

Host: Explain...why you said that.

Coulter: We were on Hannity and Colmes discussing the...the antiwar protestors. Canada...used to be one of our most...most loyal friends, and vice versa. Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam less containable, and more of a threat than Saddam?...

Host: (interrupting Coulter) No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.

Coulter: I don’t think that’s right.

Host: Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.

Coulter: (looking puzzled) Indochina?

Host: No. Canada...Second World War, of course, Korea, yes...

Coulter: (talking over him) I think you’re wrong.

Host: Vietnam, no, took a pass on Vietnam

Coulter: I think you’re wrong.

Host: No. Australia was there, not Canada

Coulter: I think Canada sent troops.

Host: (shaking his head no)

Coulter: I’ll get back to you on that.

Host: OK.

Voice: (haughtily) Coulter never got back to us. But for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam.

Next time, I'll try to make it clearer. Maybe I can find the names of the 1,940 Canadian troops that Canada sent to Vietnam/Indochina and later decorated for their service. That might be a challenge, because their presence was spread out over almost nineteen (19) years, between August 7, 1954 and July 31, 1973, and because none of their names appear in the Canadian government's grateful acknowledgment of their service.
Do you think I should look for addresses and phone numbers, too?
Lou Sander 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what's funny? Do a word search for "troop" on the citation you provided Lou, detailing the medals they got. Get back to me on how many results you get (I'll give you a hint, it's starts with "z" and ends with "ero"). This is just absolute Coulter apologist behavior at its worst. She wasn't referring to 240 non-combat peacekeepers, or else her next sentence wouldn't have made sense (unless you are seriously going to argue that Coulter wanted Canada to send non-combat peacekeepers to Iraq as well in order to "contain" him, which is entirely ridiculous). TrajanCavalous is spot-on: If either party thought those peacekeepers were relevant to the discussion then they should have mentioned them. Coulter wasn't even sure about the fact, and had to "get back" to him. It's quite possible that Ms. Coulter actually got something wrong, though I know it seems inconceivable in the Sanderverse. Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam. They didn't. They really, really, really, really, really did not, at least not in the way Coulter was talking about. You've already been proven wrong once on this matter, Lou, about the date in which they were present: ICCS was withdrawn by 1969. And the fact that you keep mentioning medals without saying that they are non-combat 90-day participatory medals is borderlining on disingenuous. I'm sorry, but the facts just do not support Coulter's or your assertion. --kizzle 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It is strecthing it to claim Coulter is correct and the CBC wrong because of the example of less than 2000 people over a multi-decade period, never more than 260 at once in country, whose own government cites as non-combatant neutral servants of an international commission. TrajanCavaloos is right. It's an odd footnote. Nothing more and the example contradicts her main point she was trying to make. And as for Levant and Quiet Complicity, its a singular work by an amateur historian who hates the establishment and the military and is trying to dump some kind of guilt on Canada. Nobody denies it's a technical exception to the CBC statement, even the guy above. And to get really technical, Canada assigned the personnel to the commission and the commission sent them.
142.179.94.211 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep up with this no-response policy. I love it, as I feel I don't even have to work :). You keep ignoring my main point: read what Coulter says before she gets interrupted by the interviewer (bolded so you don't miss it again) - "was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?". Instead of waving our hands up in the air and shouting "SEE! She was right!", let's look at what her actual point was. Lamenting that "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends", she supported this opinion by arguing that Canada had sent troops to Vietnam (back when we were friends), but not Iraq, and here's the kicker: "Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" So the "troops" she was (allegedly per Lou, et al.) referring to, the 250 non-combat peacekeepers, how exactly do non-combat peacekeepers play any role in "containing" or extinguishing a "threat" that another country poses? I have more respect for Ms. Coulter's intelligence than to assume that she truly believed that Canada sent 250 non-combat peacekeepers in order to "contain" the "threat" that Vietnam posed. This, of course, is entirely ridiculous, as the non-combat peacekeepers who were received 90-day participatory medals were not sent to "contain" any "threat" but to monitor a cease-fire, as per the Paris Peace Conference. Even non-combat economic sanctions, no-fly zones, and non-combat mandatory weapons inspections put upon Saddam Hussein could be considered efforts to "contain" a "threat", but overseeing a ceasefire, the explicit duty of the "troops" you are talking about, does not fall under that category. The "threat" that needed to be "contained" had passed. So yes, Canada sent a group of non-combat peacekeepers to Vietnam. But assuming that Coulter was arguing that these non-combat peacekeepers were sent there to "contain" a "threat", as per her actual words, quite frankly insults her intelligence. --kizzle 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsection-of-convenience: an ad hominem interlude (mostly)

The sad thing is that this discussion has everything to do with hatred for Ann Coulter. An impartial observer with an angstrom of sense could be forgiven for believing that those who dispute Ann Coulter's statement (which is correct as spoken by Ann, but incorrect if we add qualifications that she didn't necessarily intend) are not doing so from a sense of righting the wrong, but rather from a sense of ingorance and hatred. Ann Coulter may not be the kindest, gentlest polemicist in history, but she is certainly effective, judging by the hatred she seems to engender in leftists with such apparent ease.
Ldspatriot.org 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to join the discussion, you might want to try to address the actual premises put forth by the various editors here rather than minimalizing their viewpoint as simply "hatred for Ann Coulter". --kizzle 00:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit, in some cases, that is certainly a part of it. Not in all, but in some, absolutely. Dislike for the subject, in some cases, intense dislike, prompts some people to push marginal, negative items that would never even receive minimal consideration if it was not for the unpopularity of the subject of the article. Not just in Ann Coulter, but Hillary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, George Bush, John Kerry, etc. This is an achilles heel of Wikipedia...the collaborative nature and desire to include all viewpoints make certain subjects a dumping ground for partisan crazies (on both sides). Ldspatriot's comments might paint some unfairly with a broad brush, but his point is a valid one if you look deep enough. The fixation on this item, and the tortured logic needed to try to make coulter appear in a negative light, say something about at least some of the accusers.
Caper13 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I definetely agree. I've seen editors who I think are rabidly anti-Coulter come and go, as well as rabidly pro-Coulter, I just try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to refrain from minimalizing either argument based upon a prima facie estimation of support the editor gives the subject. I think it's an Achilles heel of society as well, with the left/right division in America so deep that it permeates almost every issue, every debate, so much so that people, almost like Red Sox and Yankee fans, stop seeing it as a policy or issue debate and start seeing it as a team competition. Back to his comment, I definitely take issue with it. I believe I laid out a argument that had points that at least merited consideration or reply rather than blanket dismissal (assuming LDS places me in the "hatred of Coulter" camp). If I responded to the specific points of an argument you made with "Well yeah but you want to marry Ann Coulter", I'm sure you'd be frustrated as well. Characterizing my position as "tortured logic" (since I assume that LDS's non-specific blanket assertion of those who disagree that Coulter was right includes me as a member) seems to be counterproductive by avoiding responding to or addressing specific points I or others made and only offering "Ann Coulter's statement (which is correct as spoken by Ann, but incorrect if we add qualifications that she didn't necessarily intend)" as the sum total of his counter-argument. I would also hope that you see examples of rabid pro-Coulter bias as well as anti-Coulter bias on this page as well. But yeah, it should surprise no one that Coulter has a tendency to piss off liberals with "apparent ease", just as when you call an Arab a "camel jockey" or "raghead", you should expect them to get pissed off with the same "apparent ease". --kizzle 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt trying to characterize your position or anything you wrote and I wasn't referring to anyone's tortured logic in particular. Sure, partisans exist on both sides, even here. I think ideally articles should be written by people with a neutral viewpoint, though I have slightly more tolerance for rabid pro-partisans on this page than rabid negative partisans, as I think they do less damage to the article in the long run. (the same can be said for, say, the Hillary Clinton page which completely reverses the political poles). Having seen the clip, and knowing Canadians who served in Vietnam, and reading the cited sources that Canada did send troops to Vietnam, I feel my position in this item is fair, and the nitpicking trying to prove her wrong (if I may call it that) is a little unfair. Caper13 03:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe there exists anybody who has a purely neutral viewpoint, otherwise we could leave the writing of all of Wikipedia to them. I'm afraid we must agree to disagree, as I'd rather believe that Coulter was simply wrong on one instance rather than assume that she meant to say 250 non-combat peacekeepers awarded 90-day participatory medals to oversee a cease-fire at the end of the war were meant to "contain" the "threat" that Vietnam posed. The former is just a minor factual error (we all make them sometimes, it's not a big deal), the latter is just plain ridiculous. --kizzle 03:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(In answer to comment by Caper13 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

It's not tortured logic and no hatred going on here at least. Both sides in this arguement have made good points. There is a fact based, relatively small exception to the CBC's closing statement. Unfortunately this exception does not support her overall point she was making and if she was knowingly using it do so she was being deceptive and sleazy. Her confusion and failure to voice any specifics in the face of the challenge from the interviewer suggests she really had no knowledge of any of the information we are hashing out here. That's what makes all this kind of silly. And I for one do not hate her. I don't really know much about her at all. Canada did not offically send troops to Vietnam to fight in support of the US. Unofficially, according to one very odd 'historian' they had some delegates to a peace commission conduct espionage on behalf of the US. Like others have said if she knew this and was arguing for a return to this kind of 'support' then she was making at the least a very odd arguement. Put it this way, if you asked 10 Canadian historians 'Did Canada send troops to Vietnam?' they would answer 'No, Canada was neutral in that conflict' and only a couple would either remember or consider it necessary to qualify the statement by mentioning the peacekeepers and delegates to the peace commission. TrajanCavalous 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion of what Canadian historians might think and your opinion on what Coulter was thinking... I don't necessarily disagree but you are not making claims supported by WP:RS so it is a moot point per wiki policy.
-- Rtrev 06:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but the issue is whether non-combat peacekeepers awarded 90-day participatory medals sent to oversee the ceasefire count as the "troops" that Coulter referred to that were sent to "contain" the "threat" that Vietnam posed. Trajan also has a valid point in addressing a violation of one Wiki policy, WP:AGF, in assuming that he is making his argument because he "hates" Coulter. But you are right, that his conjecture about a hypothetical concensus of Canadian historians, though a reasonable opinion, is not going to be placed within the article.
--kizzle 07:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then we can just stick to the facts. Coulter, while trying to make a point about how Canada used to be a 'loyal friend' and the need to 'contain' Saddam being comparable to Vietnam claimed 'Canada sent troops to Vietnam.' The host said this was not true and the host and the CBC's closing statement said Canada sent no troops to Vietnam. Coulter offered no specific rebuttal and said 'She would get back to him on that.' In the Vietnam War Canada was officially neutral and did not officially send any troops to fight in the war. Canada did send a few hundred peacekeepers and over the span of decades up to 2000 in total delegates to a peace commission that operated in Vietnam. And this fact is really not even worth mentioning but I'll throw it in; A therapist/philosophy teacher (I am still having trouble believing that??) has written a book that serves as the sole source which claims some of these delegates acted as spies and covert agents for the US. Whatever your pov those are the facts. And yes, I should have been more exact. I talked to 4 Canadian historians. I'd have been 5 but my answer would be tainted. ;)
Trajancavalous 07:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsection-of-convenience: dead parrot references

It's amazing to watch encyclopedia editors who cannot see/understand/acknowledge/comprehend the incorrectness in direct, unambiguous repeated statements of "no troops" when those statements are contradicted by government-sourced evidence of "some troops." One is reminded of the funny/pathetic/laughter-provoking shopkeeper in the Parrot Sketch, except that the shopkeeper finally acknowledged that the parrot was dead. Lou Sander 13:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Coulter clearly meant combat troops to fight the North Vietnamese and put this forth in contrast to Canada not allying with the US in Iraq. In fact, the Canadian government sent no combat troops to Vietnam and, actually, Canada did attatch some soldiers with US units in Iraq so she's wrong on both counts. see PM says 'it's possible' Canadian soldiers in Iraq.
Sixth Estate 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the parrot is dead. How, pray tell, do you know what Coulter "clearly meant" by saying "Canada sent troops to Vietnam?" (Which is the only part of her very brief comment to which the Crown corporation spokesman responded.) And how, pray tell, does "sent no combat troops" have anything to do with what was said in the interview? (As opposed to what you imagine might have been said, or feel was truly meant, or exists, unseen and uncitable, between the lines, or what the voices in someone's head proclaim, or whatever.) Lou Sander 15:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The dismissive 'parrot is dead comments' reek of a sad attempt at whitewash. In answer to your last question, because her arguement makes no sense otherwise? There are only 3 ways to look at this. 1) She made a mistake and was confused. 2) She intentionally was invoking Canada's commitment of a few peacekeepers and delegates to a peace commission in Vietnam for some reason believing the leftist loon Levant as a sincerely preferred example of 'loyalty' in contrast to the effort to deal with Saddam. This makes little sense. 3) She was aware of the neutral peacekeepers and the peace commission delegates and was intentionally being deceptive in invoking them as 'troops' from a better time of more 'loyal' support. #1 she made a simple mistake. #2 she's making a really wierd and weak arguement. #3 she's being deceptive. You choose.
142.179.94.211 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is Canada was neutral in the Vietnam War (and the peacekeepers sent over the years underscore that fact - the 1950s peacekeeping mission was in regards to the Indochina War incidentally between France and the Vietnamese communists, not the Vietnam War involving the US so bringing that up is a complete non sequitor) while Coulter was alleging that we were not.
Sixth Estate 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The parrot, like Franco, is still dead. The Canadian Encyclopedia disagrees with your patriotic assertions about Canadian neutrality. See the article HERE (and in the discussion above) Focus on the fourth paragraph. There are many other sources about this (just as there are many signs that the parrot is dead). Lou Sander 15:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

lol Now you are being deceptive. Your citation has been challenged quite effectively. Why should we listen to Levant, the unqualified philospophy teacher and 'personal growth' therapist who so obviously has an axe to grind? What are the many other sources? Please cite one that says why we should consider delegates to a peace commission, most of whom served before 1965. And before you do keep in mind that the source you did cite does mention in his book that the delegates were serving the commission, were a mix of soldiers and civilians, they were sent there not to fight or to support the US and that comparatively only a handful have been accused of espionage. It doesn't change the official Canadian history or the description of Canada's role in sources from the Time-Life series on Vietnam to Brittanica. What's next? Every country who ran an embassy in Vietnam can be regarded as having 'sent troops?' Those delegates to a peace commission should not be a part of this discussion. Stick to the peacekeepers. That example has some merit but it still makes her overall arguement sound crazy or intentionally deceptive.
142.179.94.211 16:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Peacekeepers are troops. The two are are almost synonymous in Canada. The Canadian Army's main function is peacekeeping missions. Caper13 19:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian military would disagree with that assessment (and various retired officers have been arguing against that very belief in the press for months). Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan would also disagree. During the Cold War the main function of the Canadian Army was to be part of NATO's front line in West Germany. Since the Cold War their main activity was fighting in the first Gulf War and, now, the combat mission in Afghanistan.
Sixth Estate 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

They are indeed. It's still a slim straw to grasp and my 3 choices given above on how to interpret her comments are right. As for Levant, man that guy is full of it. His article is talking about some guys doing espionage. His article is why Wiki discourages the use of most encyclopaedia. He is not an expert in the field. His article contains no factual references or counter points of view. It is insanely biased. Read this part "The failure of US policy became apparent in February 1968 when 525 000 American soldiers were unable to stop the insurgents' Tet Offensive. In Jan 1973 the Paris Peace Accords were signed, upholding the unity and territorial integrity of Vietnam and providing for the orderly withdrawal of US troops, the release of 200 000 civilian detainees and POWs and the organization of free and democratic elections in South Vietnam. The refusal to implement these last conditions provoked an armed insurrection and on 30 April 1975 Saigon fell." The US stopped the Tet Offensive in it's tracks. It was a pr failure more than anything. And calling the invasion of the South an 'armed insurrection' provoked by a failure to have democratic elections that year? Total hogwash. LouSander, your source is a disgrace. 142.179.94.211 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A disgrace? A DISGRACE??? You should take that up with the editors of the esteemed Canadian Encyclopedia. Maybe they'll be impressed by your insights and offer you a job in on editorial staff. And by the way, the parrot has left this vail of tears, Franco is still dead (like the parrot), and "no troops" is still different from "some troops."
Lou Sander 20:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

lol Very dramatic. Unfortunately your outrage is not a rebuttal and it doesn't make up for the many noted shortfalls in the worth of your source. Your source still does not mention troops. It is still from a person who has no relevant qualifications. It is both not relevant to this issue and is of dubious worth. It is obviously extremely biased and makes no effort to explore any other pov. It contains no examples or citation of direct fact on this issue or acknowledgement of any primary source. It is a summary written by a non-historian, military or otherwise. You claimed other relevant sources. Put up or shut up. And yeah, like many have said, the peacekeepers are potentially a good point. I don't think they are important enough in this issue to be considered relevant but that would be an editor's call. And tell me you think your sources summary that you linked to is fair and accurate. Tell me that. Tell me that you think it's a fair and quality summary. 142.179.94.211 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsection-of-convenience: mooting sources, expertise, and what Coulter meant

Lou, since you're taking the Canadian Encyclopedia as gospel I wonder what you think of the following passage from its article on "Canada and the United States":

The VIETNAM WAR was the classic example, a war so dreadful in its effects on the American polity that draft-dodgers and military deserters by the thousands sought and found sanctuary in Canada, along with thousands of ordinary men and women looking for a saner lifestyle. For the first time, the flow of immigration from the south to the north exceeded that of Canada to the US. Canada's smallness and what many Americans perceived as innocence had become virtues as the US seemingly lost its way.[9]

Sixth Estate 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please. The Canadian Encyclopedia isn't Gospel. It's a respected, professionally edited work, and it's Canada's only encyclopedia. The passage looks fine to me, though my current expertise on the Vietnam war is limited to a narrow sliver of knowledge about Canada's participation in it. (They sent troops there, you know. And there was quite an outcry on the Canadian home front against what the protestors called their government's "complicity with America." Lou Sander 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are just playing the raw prawn. The imagined glorious pedigree of the Canadian Encyclopedia does not give it a free pass for hosting articles of low quality and worth. I get that you are more interested in kidding around and pulling peoples legs than going over the many faults and inconsistincies in your reasoning, posts and this source. Good luck with that.
142.179.94.211 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are what academics Edelgard Mahant and Laurentian University historian Graeme S. Mount found in their book Invisible and Inaudible in Washington: American Policies Toward Canada

"During the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson (1963-69) was livid about Canadian neutrality and considered Canada's diplomatic behaviour in Vietnam disrespectful."[10]

Could you please explain why no mention of Canadian troops, noncombatant or otherwise, is made in the official US Army history Allied Participation in Vietnam (1975)? Sixth Estate 20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest; you might want to take it up with the publisher. (None of the Harry Potter series mentions Canadian troops in Canada. Neither do the Christian Gospels or most other books ever printed about subjects such as jungle warfare, parrots, and General Francisco Franco. Canadian troops in Vietnam are mentioned in just a few places. One of them is an official Canadian government site, and that is good enough for me.) Lou Sander 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Great find, Sixth Estate. Lou, are you kidding me? If I have to explain to you the difference in relevancy to this debate of the Harry Potter books versus the official US Army history Allied Participation in Vietnam, then we're in serious trouble. Your entire argument, Lou, greatly perplexes me. Are you seriously saying that these non-combat peacekeepers given 90-day participatory medals to oversee a ceasefire constituted the "troops" Coulter was talking about that were sent to "contain" the "threat" that Vietnam posed? How exactly do non-combat peacekeepers sent to oversee a ceasefire "contain" any "threat"? Or are you arguing that these weren't the troops she was talking about, but that she was accidentally right on a technicality because Canada sent non-combat peacekeepers to oversee a ceasefire, even though these same "troops" were not sent to "contain" any "threat", as the "threat" had already passed? Does this mean that if someone brought over weapons of mass destruction into Iraq now, that we can all jump up and say "SEE! Bush was right! There WERE weapons of mass destruction!"? --kizzle 21:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so nobody is confused he means the Canadian gov site that says in regards to the 1550 recipients of the ICCS medal "The mandate of the ICCS in Vietnam was to supervise the cease-fires and withdrawal of French troops and to supervise the movement of refugees." And "Much of the work was done from 1954 to 1955 and Canada had only token representation after 1958. The commission withdrew completely in 1969." Or the 240 Canadian Forces personnel who operated between "between 28 January 1973 and 31 July 1973" whose role was to "monitor the cease-fire in South Vietnam as per the Paris Peace Conference." That's it. That is the crux of it. I'd like to see an editors decision on how relevant that is.
142.179.94.211 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, but I'm waiting for Lou's answer above so I can hear what he thinks. He generally avoids answering any of my posts, so I won't be surprised if he takes his ball and leaves the playground. --kizzle 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood Kizzle. I don't think it really matters at this point what he says. The facts have been pretty well laid out. By his own source the only group that could even be remotely seen as relevant is the 240 Canadian Armed forces personel who served as neutral monitors in 1973, when the Americans were withdrawing. I'd say put it in the entry and let readers decide. I think people could figure out it's relevancy.
142.179.94.211 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's EXTREMELY simple: Ann Coulter said, among a few other words, "Canada sent troops to Vietnam." The CBC guy repeatedly denied that "Canada sent troops to Vietnam." He did not mention her few other words. Six times, (seven, if you count the nod), using different wording each time, he plainly stated that Canada sent no troops to Vietnam. Neither Coulter nor the CBC guy further described the kind of troops, or their role, or anything else about them.
At least three pages on the Canadian government's Affairs Canada/Anciens Combattants Canada site conclusively demonstrate the inconvenient truth that Canada sent troops to Vietnam.
Ann Coulter's words "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" were accurate. The CBC guy's repeated denials, including "For the record, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam," were not. The parrot is NOT alive. Canada DID send troops to Vietnam.
Think of it like this: Mary said X. John said NOT X. Reliable expert source proves X. Mary is right, John is wrong. Lou Sander 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because you dismiss her actual point as a "few other words" doesn't mean you can simply ignore them. Lou Sander, the biggest complainer about missing context on this article page, and now you're choosing to ignore context?! The "troops" that Coulter were talking about were supposed to "contain" the "threat" per her explicit line: "Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein" (which renders your assertion that "Neither Coulter nor the CBC guy further described the kind of troops, or their role, or anything else about them" patently false). So the questions I ask of you which you have meticulously skirted around are: Are you seriously saying that these non-combat peacekeepers given 90-day participatory medals to oversee a ceasefire constituted the "troops" Coulter was talking about that were sent to "contain" the "threat" that Vietnam posed? How exactly do non-combat peacekeepers sent to oversee a ceasefire "contain" any "threat"? Or are you arguing that these weren't the troops she was talking about, but that she was accidentally right on a technicality because Canada sent non-combat peacekeepers to oversee a ceasefire, even though these same "troops" were not sent to "contain" any "threat", as the "threat" had already passed? Does this mean that if someone brought over weapons of mass destruction into Iraq now, that we can all jump up and say "SEE! Bush was right! There WERE weapons of mass destruction!"?
--kizzle 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kizzle poses a good question. It's not our job here (as I understand it) to parse statements or impose self-censorhip by limiting our analysis to just a few lines from their conversation. We should be working to present as comprehensive an entry as we can. This is not a contest to determine whether Coulter was absolutely right or absolutely wrong. An entry reading 'Coulter said Canada sent troops to Vietnam. CBC said Canada did not. CBC was wrong' would not be a service to our readers. LouSanders determination to limit analysis would result in an entry that would be in effect misleading and incomplete.
142.179.94.211 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Give us a break. This incident is non-notable, and is only mentioned by those who want to show that Coulter is "stupid," or "didn't know what she was talking about," etc. They use the claimed falseness of "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" in an attempt to discredit her. It doesn't matter to malicious editors that Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. It doesn't matter to malicious editors that Coulter attempted to clarify her remarks by asking "Indochina?" (Now why would she have said THAT? Were there any Canadian troops in Indochina? Naah.) It doesn't matter to malicious editors that their work is misleading to readers. Nor does it matter to malicious editors that WP:BLP says "Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial material." Instead of trying to comply with that policy, they try to find ways around it. Some of them can be excused because they just aren't very bright ("Fools' names and fools' faces are often seen in public places") and have a hard time making cogent arguments. But their maliciousness cannot be tolerated.
Lou Sander 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of wasting time on ad hominems, you might want to be searching for a source that says Canada sent "troops" (explicitly using the word "troop") to Vietnam. Just a thought.
--kizzle 00:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a little exercise. Think of it as a way to show off your editorial skills: Write the words "Canada sent no troops to Vietnam." Then cite some sources other than the CBC reporter.
Lou Sander 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as none of the sources you have described the Canadian involvement as "troops" (even the Canadian Encyclopedia doesn't refer to them as troops), it's kind of hard for me to find a source that says your faulty assertion "did not" happen. Find me a source that says Canadian "troops" (explicitly using the word "troop") were sent to Vietnam and then we'll see. --kizzle 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsection-of-convenience: enter Ramsquire

Wow, I cannot believe the legs of this discussion. One it isn't even a notable topic, yet some anon wants it in the main article. Two, if we as editors have to dechipher what she meant or what the moderator meant in order to put it into the article, it is original reasearch and shouldn't go in. And finally, have we forgotten about WP:BLP. YouTube or any other primary source does not qualify under that standard. In other words, there is no way this gets into the article, and if it can't get in, why have the discussion about who was right in the discussion. BTW-- It was Ann. Sorry to all the haters out there, but you can't deny history. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. The fact that I don't believe Canada sent troops to Vietnam necessarily means I hate Coulter. The logic is flawless. But I do agree with you that this whole incident is non-notable. --kizzle 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Way to personalize a general comment. So I checked your user contributions and it seems to you show that do not like her ("haters" in my original post was "hip-hop" slang for detractors, if meant the other way, that would be too strong). It is apparent from just a quick glimpse of your contributions here at Wikipedia that you don't like Coulter or George W. Bush. That's fine, and they have done much to gain a large following of detractors. But I'm sorry, I saw you invovled in a longwinded discussion into whether she meant "combat warriors", "soldiers", or "enlisted persons" by use of troops in discussion that has no notability. I find it weird to say the least. Both sides. Especially when Canada did send a peacekeeping force to Vietnam. [11]
Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like Coulter. That doesn't mean I always try to put her down, as I defended her on the bullshit plagiarism charges. I just simply disagree that her assertion was correct. By the way, the citation you provided says nothing even close to what even Lou is talking about. Just because Canadians were in Vietnam doesn't mean they were sent by Canada: they were volunteers in the U.S. Army. The most your site can come up with is arms sales to the U.S. I personally think it insults Coulter's intelligence to think that she believed that Canada sent 250 non-combat peacekeepers awarded 90-day participatory medals overseeing a cease-fire, as the war was concluding in order to "contain" the "threat" that Vietnam posed.
--kizzle 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The volunteers who joined the US Army and the official troops Canada sent as peacekeepers are two different groups, but the fact remains that Coulter was accurate in her statement and trying to parse her words and placing your interpretation of what you 'believed' she was saying is Original Research. Fact is, she said that Canada sent troops to vietnam, and Canada did. She didnt say what they did, only that they were there. Caper13 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's stop for a second. One, my original post was not directed to you and I've explained what the haters language was in reference to. I've also admitted that I had to go through your contributions to see how you felt about her. I never implied that you weren't fair or that you were letting bias get in the way of your editing. Two, I don't even know who Lou Sander is and what point he is trying to make. I provided the link to show Canadian Veterans of Vietnam and also the support Canada gave--as showing that Canada didn't take a pass in that conflict. That is separate from the discussion over whether the peacekeepers were troops, or whatever Ann and the CBC guy was talking about. Three, I don't want to get into the mind of Ann Coulter. Some of the stuff that comes out of it personally frightens me. But again, why are we even having this discussion about what she could have meant, on such a non-notable topic.
Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, the crux of this argument is a semantic one over whether or not "troops" means non-combat peacekeepers sent to oversee a ceasefire at the end of the war. If you want to include a passage that says something along the lines that it turns out Coulter was right, then you need to source that with something that says "troops". Like I told Lou above, if you are so sure of your opinion, then find a citation that meets WP:RS and WP:BLP that states that Canada sent "troops" (using that explicit word "troops") to Vietnam. I may be mistaken, but so far I haven't seen one (including the Canada Encyclopedia citation). The question I have for Caper, Ramsquire, Lou, et al.: do you think Coulter was referring to the 250 non-combat peacekeepers sent to oversee the ceasefire when she said "Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam any less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" I'd love to hear the answer to that question. --kizzle 03:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No Kizzle, the crux of the matter is you don't get to tell Lou, Caper, or Ann or myself the parameters of the debate. Whatever Ann meant, these are the facts--Canada sent a peacekeeping force to Vietnam during the Paris Peace Conference to support the demarction line between North and South Vietnam. This force was under the auspices of the UN. In addition to that Canada supported the US cause by providing weaponry and it was Canadian research that led to Agent Orange. Although officially neutral because of its role in the ICC, Canada did provide assistance to the US. Many Canadians enlisted in the US Army and fought alongside Americans. However, Canada did not send a combat force to Vietnam. There it is. So if you don't want to consider a peacekeeping force as troops, fine. But many do. When the US peacekeeping force was attacked in Mogadishu, I am sure their attackers considered them troops. To me it is a silly distinction. And this is a silly discussion that does not belong here. If you want to do this, put it on your blog. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements and changes to the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Asking you to adhere to WP:BLP and WP:RS by finding a source that says Canada sent "troops" to Vietnam is not telling you the "parameters of the debate", it's asking you to follow Wiki policy. If you want a section that says something like "It turns out Ms. Coulter was correct, Canada did send troops to Vietnam", then you're going to have to find a citation that says Canada sent "troops" for it. Even the medal page and the Canadian Encyclopedia pages don't use the word "troops". If it's as blindingly true and all us "haters" are so wrong, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find a reliable source that says Canada sent "troops" to Vietnam. 5 bucks if you answer this question though without waffling phrases like "It doesn't matter what I think" or "I can't tell what she was thinking" : Do you think Coulter was referring to the 250 non-combat peacekeepers sent to oversee the ceasefire when she said "Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam any less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" I'd love to hear the answer to that question. --kizzle 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I give up. You are obviously not understanding what I am writing. Clearly you have missed my point that it should not be in the article because a) it is not notable, b) the meaning of what both parties meant is not clear and requires original research (as depending on where you are coming from both sides are right) and c) Youtube is not a sufficient for WP:BLP (read my original post-- I know you want to stick to the last sentence but there was a point made before it). I have not asked for any section of the article or for anything to be . And I won't be pulled into your bait by answering your silly and unecessary question. Keep the 5 bucks and get a new obsession. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that the incident is non-notable and shouldn't be included, I guess I got tripped up about your intentions when you said "why have the discussion about who was right in the discussion. BTW-- It was Ann. Sorry to all the haters out there, but you can't deny history" and confused you with the rest of the pro-Coulterites in here. My apologies. One note, I don't think YouTube is being used as a primary source, if it is, it can easily be replaced by quoting the transcript of the show to satisfy your third point. I'm sorry you didn't answer my question though, it wasn't bait, I'm honestly perplexed at what the answer would be. --kizzle 20:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word that the question is not being asked as bait. My opinion upon seeing the piece the first time was that the BBC guy was saying Canada took a pass on the Vietnam conflict. History shows Canada's role was more complex than that, and that it many ways it did give support for the US or more accurate South Vietnam. So my initial response was that Ann was right, based on viewing the clip once. I believe peacekeepers are troops. However, if Ann meant that Canada fought alongside the US with combat forces (a point I don't think she is trying to make, but she could be, I don't know) then she is wrong. To answer specifically, I don't know if Ann is referring to the peacekeeping force or something else, because the interviewer never asked her to clarify, and he gives a misleading summary at the end of the piece. So that is my opinion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that honest, reasonable answer. What SimonP (I believe) and I are arguing is that Coulter's substantive point was that Canada, back when they were our "friends", assisted the U.S. in Vietnam by sending troops, unlike today, where they sent no troops to Iraq. I don't see how she could think that non-combat peacekeepers sent to oversee a ceasefire would help justify her point. And later, when she attacked the CBC host on C-Span (click on U.S. response) by saying:

"People keep saying, well he didn't tell you that 10,000 Troops ran across to sign up with the American Forces...I don't think he knew, he's a bubblehead Ted Baxter"

No mention of non-combat peacekeepers. No mention of ceasefire. Coulter's subsequent justification was that the 10,000 Canadians who voluntarily signed up with the United States Army counted as the "troops" that she was talking about. C'mon, that's pretty damning evidence against the belief that she meant non-combat peacekeepers overseeing the ceasefire. --kizzle 22:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. There is a War Memorial to them, at least for most of that. The Canadian Government didn't send troops [...] but [...] 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... People keep saying: "well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans" - Ann Coulter. --kizzle 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And there's the smoking gun, admitted by Coulter herself: "The Canadian Government didn't send troops...So I was wrong."
But still she seemingly clings to her own rightness. The, "So I was wrong," is equivocal; besides completing the admission of her wrongness, it begins a (seeming) defense of her claim, coupled with an overt attack on Bob McKeown, both defense and attack hinging on the cross-border volunteers -- which don't even prove her right, as she'd just admitted the moment before! It's hard to make out exactly what line of thought she is putting forward, here, because it really is not coherent or logical, but it seems to go like so: "I was wrong that Canada sent troops to Vietnam, and yet I was right because of the Canadians who volunteered for the U.S. military and, further, McKeown is a fool who did not know about the cross-border volunteers, thereby making me even more right." There's logic, for you -- and good sportsmanship, too.
One thing that is crystal clear from this, however, is that Coulter meant soldiers fighting on the American side, not neutral peace-keepers.
-- Lonewolf BC 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsection-of-convenience: Lonewolf comments

The utter absurdity of the argument being made by those, here, who are insisting that Coulter was right on the basis of Canada's having sent peace-keepers to Vietnam, stands out even more clearly if one considers that according to such an argument Coulter would be "right" if Canada had sent troops to Vietnam to fight as allies of North Vietnam, against the Americans.
-- Lonewolf BC 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course she would have been right. Troops are troops, regardless of their duties. Those "peace-keepers" were troops, just as are military peace-keepers everywhere. They were troops. Canada sent them to Vietnam. The CBC guy, in his repeated denials, didn't refine his definition. Were his denials correct? No, they were not. The Canadian troops were troops, and Canada sent them to Vietnam. No amount of weasel-wording, wishful thinking, attempts to redefine "troops," or faux original research into the CBC guy's thought processes can change those facts. Lou Sander 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to find a source that says Canada sent "troops" to Vietnam. --kizzle 16:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Canadian historian who has done work in this area, I can say that Coulter was unquestionably wrong. She was quite clearly arguing that Canada had troops fighting alongside the United States in the Vietnam War. While the one line, when quoted out of context, does not make this clear, the entire interview makes her meaning both explicit and undeniable. Canadian observers serving in a multinational force alongside soldiers from Communist Poland and Hungary is irrelevant to a discussion of Canadian support for the U.S. - SimonP 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

SimonP: Could you help us by explaining how she was "quite clearly" arguing what you say she was arguing? It is not at all clear to me, and I'm the one who transcribed the interview. I don't see anything at all in her words, tone, body language, etc. to indicate that she was talking about fighting. She hardly said anything at all before the CBC guy jumped on "Canada sent troops to Vietnam." And after he jumped on her, she offered "Indochina?" as clarification, but the CBC guy didn't seem to pick up on it. Didn't Canada send troops to Indochina? Didn't some of them even die over there?

For the record, here are all of Coulter's words before the CBC guy jumped: "We were on Hannity and Colmes discussing the...the antiwar protestors. Canada...used to be one of our most...most loyal friends, and vice versa. Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam less containable, and more of a threat than Saddam?..." Which of those words, if any, make it clear she was talking about fighting alongside the Americans? Or was it maybe something else? What ever it was, if it's clear, it shouldn't be too hard to pinpoint. Thanks in advance for anything you can do to pinpoint it. Lou Sander 00:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. There is a War Memorial to them, at least for most of that. The Canadian Government didn't send troops [...] but [...] they came and fought with the Americans. So I was wrong." Wow, that was easy. --kizzle 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Answering Lou Sander 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
One word for you, Sander, and that word is "context". When considered in context (that is, within the rest of the conversation wherein Coulter spoke the words) Coulter's "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" plainly meant that Canada sent troops there to fight on the American side, as "one of [the USA's] most loyal friends". This is not a guess, nor an exercise in mind-reading. It is a matter of common-sense and commonplace understanding of language, in which context must be taken into account. (The importance of taking context into account, and the folly of ignoring it, are well shown through the point I made in my last post: Ignore context and one could make Coulter out as having been right under a (hypothetical) circumstance that would, in truth, make her diametrically wrong in relation to her actual meaning.) Accordingly, in the context of the interview and the program, "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" was a claim that Canada sent American-allied troops to fight there, and likewise "Canada sent no troops to Vietnam" means that Canada sent no such troops there. With that understood, Coulter was wrong.
It is telling that Coulter herself, although she afterward continued to insist that she was right, did not insist so on the basis of the Canadian peace-keepers.
Granted, if we take "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" out of context, there is are senses in which it might be true, or at least arguably true. This potential depends on, among other things, what exactly one means by "troops", and on whether the peace-keepers fit the definition of "troops" one chooses. However -- and a good thing, too -- the endless and hair-splitting arguments that could flow from such out-of-context-taking can be left aside, here, because Coulter's meaning was not any of those which might make her claim true. It was the one that is plain when her words are taking in context.
Accordingly, Coulter was just plain wrong. -- Lonewolf BC 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lone: Your comments don't make any sense to me, but maybe that's my fault. If there is some context, it would be helpful if you'd repeat it here, so we all can see what you're talking about. I've provided an exact transcript of the part of the film clip where the CBC guy was interviewing Coulter. There doesn't seem to be anything there that relates to whatever you are trying to say. If there are other parts of the program that provide context, I haven't seen them. Maybe you could transcribe them and copy them here, with the important context highlighted somehow. Whatever the case, it would be good for us all if you could be more specific about the context surrounding the CBC guy/Coulter exchange. Lou Sander 02:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

View the videos, Lou. I've given a link to the CBC site itself, below. Watch the program. Watch the particular clip a bunch of times. Think about what they are talking about, and about Coulter's purpose for saying what she is saying. What is her point? What must she therefore mean? Re-read the several places in this thread were these matters have already been dealt with, by others. Sleep on it for a couple of nights, at least. If, having done all that, you still honestly don't understand how the context makes plain what Coulter meant, then ask me again.
I must say that this is a matter of extremely elementary "listening comprehension". -- Lonewolf BC 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lone: You can't be specific about the "context" you're talking about? I'm not surprised. When somebody can't clarify themselves, it usually means they don't know what they're talking about. But this is Wikipedia, and every participant deserves the benefit of the doubt.
I'm telling you that your words don't make any sense to me, and I'm asking you to help me by being more specific about them. You don't seem to be able to do that, and that puzzles me. All you do is provide a link to some video and give some instructions for how to deal with it. Well, YOU'VE dealt with it, and you've made some fuzzy assertions about it that you don't seem to be able to clarify or support. Please DO provide some clarification of what you are trying to say. We'll all read it carefully and make up our minds about its worth.
By the way, I'm sure you know by now that regardless of what Coulter or the CBC guy might have said two years ago, or subsequently, or in the future, Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. We even know the names and units of several who died. The stated duty of the Canadian troops was as peacekeepers, and they were friendly to the United States. If you want to talk about it, I'd like to know if you agree that Canada actually DID send troops to Vietnam. A simple "I agree" or "I don't agree" is all I'm asking for here. But if you don't want to say, that's OK. Lou Sander 08:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Lou, I'm just not willing to explain it to you further -- others have already laid it out to you quite well -- until you've made an honest effort to understand, by doing the things I've suggested. Please do those things first, think on it for a few days, and then ask me again if you still don't understand. I will say, now, that "context" has no extra-ordinary meaning, here, just in case you were confused about that
Do you have trouble with reading comprehension, perchance? If so, please tell me so now, and I shall try to take that into account, henceforth. -- Lonewolf BC 09:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming a lot clearer whether you know what you're talking about on the matters of context and meaning. In fact, it's even clearer than the plainly documented fact that Canada sent troops to Vietnam and Indochina. You agree that they did that, don't you? (If you're not sure, you can look it up. Did you know that the troops were there for almost 19 years? Did you know they got medals for their service? Did you know that the troops had orders from their government to preserve friendly relations with the Americans? Did you know that some of them didn't return alive from the far-off corner of the world to which their government sent them? And that one of the dead was a Francophone and another an Aboriginal Canadian? When Canada sends troops, she sends troops representative of her wonderfully diverse population.) Lou Sander 16:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Whereas it's been crystal clear from the outset that I do know what I'm talking about on matters of context and meaning, it's scarcely getting any clearer that I do. But I'm glad that you now agree that I know. I hope this indicates that you now also see how context makes clear that Coulter meant American-allied troops to help fight the Vietnam War. Because she did mean that, and because context does make that meaning of hers plain, and because her later comments confirm (redundantly) that meaning, the rest of your comments are irrelevant. (However, neither I nor anyone in this discussion denies that Canada sent the peace-keepers, so you can cease going on as though someone says otherwise.)
If you understand now, good. If you still don't understand, then do as I've suggested. If you still don't understand after doing that, then ask me again for a further explanation, in a few days.
-- Lonewolf BC 21:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Answering Lou Sander 16:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ann Coulter does not agree. ""The Canadian Government didn't send troops...So I was wrong."- Ann Coulter. heh Sorry, couldn't resist. =P I took her to mean regular combat troops officially fighting for the US, not peacekeepers some of whom might have conducted espionage, based on her comments. The example she gave later was combat troops officially fighting for the US, not officially neutral peacekeepers. By her own example that was her meaning. We don't have to guess. Unless she has since clarified her point or added more information that's it. ?? You are ignoring the depth, context and some of the most relevant facts here Lou Sander. I'm not accusing you of being insincere but it is noteable. The issue is not simply limited to a rebuttal of the CBC's comment. That is essentially giving her a free pass for the breadth of her statements and the arguement she was trying to make, which I think was at the least very faulty and she herself has admited was 'wrong.'. Trajancavalous 17:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Trajancavalous: Who are you going to believe about Canadian troops in Vietnam: Ann Coulter or the Canadian Government's official sites? It's not hard to understand why Coulter might have later said she was wrong: she's an American with little understanding of Canadian history in a period before she was born. Also, she probably hasn't studied these particular details as closely as WE have. If you notice in the video and in Lonewolf's meticulous transcription, she was never very strongly forcing the point about Canadian troops in Vietnam (Examples: "Indochina?", "I think you're wrong on that," etc.). On the other hand, the CBC and its Ted-Baxter-like interviewer strongly, unequivocally, and repeatedly made the in-your-face false assertion that Canada sent no troops to Vietnam. They even summed it up, "for the record."

It's helpful in understanding the context of this whole episode if you can acknowledge that Canada DID send troops to Vietnam (and Indochina), regardless of what you may think about what Coulter and Baxter meant when they were talking.

It's also helpful in understanding the context if you understand that Vietnam is a very sensitive matter in Canadian history. The government's official position was and still is that their troops and civilians were neutral in the war, but there is quite a large body of evidence that they weren't. It isn't at all surprising that the CBC, a Crown corporation, so strongly promotes the government's position.

On the other hand, it's VERY surprising that supposedly neutral encyclopedia editors have such a hard time accepting the facts of Canada's involvement in Vietnam and Indochina. (I'm starting to understand their reluctance, though.)
Lou Sander 18:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are again falling back on an example that she herself has indicated is not what she was refering to. If this was an empirical investigation into whether or not any Canadian soldiers were ever in Vietnam it would be relevant. As an exception to the CBC's comments, taken apart from their understanding of her own acknowledged meaning, it is noteable. As evidence that it somehow contradicts her own acknowledged point, which she herself has stated was wrong and by her own example was not in reference to the peacekeepers, it is irrelevant. When we are discussing her credibility, examples like the peacekeepers that she admits by her own given example were not relevant to the discussion and were not what she was talking about, such 'exceptions' do not matter. You can use the examples of the peacekeepers to potentially (tho I don't agree, as I said the CBC knew what she meant and by her own admission they had understood her correctly) criticize the CBC's blanket closing statement but it is not relevant in judging her credibility. She does not get off the hook because an example is found that justifies an alternative meaning to one of her statements. She knows what she meant, she has acknowledged what she meant, she was not talking about the peacekeepers, she has admitted she was wrong. A technical exception to the CBC's statement does not change any of that. And the CBC could, if it really wanted to, it could challenge the notion that the peacekeepers were not neutral. They have made many more controversial assertions about our govenrment (see The Valor and the Horror). In this instance there is no need because again she has acknowledged and the CBC understands she was not talking about peacekeepers. Trajancavalous 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsection-of-convenience: the Canadian dead

It might help us all to see the names, organizations, and dates of death of the Canadian army and navy personnel who died while serving the Queen and their government in Vietnam and Indochina. Here they are:

• Sergeant James S. BYRNE, CD, Royal Canadian Army Service Corps. Died 18 Oct 1965. His body was not recovered.
• Corporal Vernon J. PERKINS, Royal Highland Regiment of Canada (Black Watch). Died 18 Oct 1965. His body was not recovered.
• Leading Seaman Ned W. MEMNOOK, HMCS TERRA NOVA. Died 15 Mar 1973. He was posthumously awarded the Special Service Medal & "PEACE" Clasp
• Captain Charles E. LAVIOLETTE, CD, 12e Regiment Blinde du Canada. Died 7 Apr 1973.

I know that their families have our very deepest sympathy. Lou Sander 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please let's show a little more respect than to mention dead soldiers to win an argument, shall we? Just make your point without appealing to sympathy. --kizzle 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

How sad -- and irrelevant. I suppose that the two deaths from '65 are from the helicopter that was shot down in a seeming case of mistaken identity. Peacekeeping can be dangerous work, but neither that fact nor these tragic showings of it make Coulter any less wrong. -- Lonewolf BC 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the links and transcript, in the last subsection ("See it all...")

McKeown seemed VERY sure of himself, every time he spoke. But it was false certainty. Canada DID send troops to Vietnam, as we all have seen. (Although it's not asserted or implied in the dialog so accurately represented above, the troops that Canada sent to Vietnam and environs were part of two "control commissions" that served in the region for a few weeks short of nineteen years. Their role was said to be partisan by many Canadian sources, including the Canadian Encyclopedia, though the government denies it to this day.)
McKeown, a Canadian, was mistaken about Canadian history, and that seems to have puzzled Coulter. Clearly, Coulter was trying to clarify her remarks when she said "Indochina?" in response to McKeown's challenge. (Canada not only sent troops to Vietnam, it sent troops to Cambodia and Laos. At the time the troops were first sent, the whole area was known as Indochina. Coulter, an American, seems to have had some conception of this aspect of Canadian history, though she might not have had the detailed information that we do.) Lou Sander 09:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so many posts since I was last here. Great discussion. I think the admission from Coulter that she was wrong pretty much says it all. If the issue was indeed simply the two statements, 'Canada did send troops' and 'Canada did not send troops' then LouSander, your summary would be worth more. And you are guessing at her state of mind after railing against others for doing so. Whatever you mean by this line, 'Coulter, an American, seems to have had some conception of this aspect of Canadian history, though she might not have had the detailed information that we do.)' it is really weak. You've introduced some quality facts and arguements to this discussion. This summary is not your best work. If you completely discount the CBC's claim (and Coulter herself does not) we are still left with an overall arguement or point from Coulter that is, I would say, deceptive. And 'many Canadian sources?' I'm not aware of any besides Levant, the author of the article in the Canadian Encyclopaedia. As someone noted above his own exceptions in the book do not prove the Canadian delegates as a whole were conducting espionage. As noted, his book is talking about a handful of people. His summary in the Canadian Encyclopaedia does make it sound like many more were involved when his own research shows that not to be the case. And I'd add that the attacks on Levant are not entirely justified. He has an issue with credibility based on a lack of any relevant qualifications. I would not say as someone said above 'he hates the military and the establishment' (sic). He has a particular pov but that attack is unjustified. To her credit Coulter herself has admitted she was wrong and cited an example to support her arguement that indicates she was indeed not talking about peacekeepers. I'd say she knew what she meant and the CBC knew what she meant. There is just at least one user here who doesn't understand. Trajancavalous 16:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Trajancavalous: Gimme a break! I'm not "guessing at her state of mind," I'm making a cogent argument about why she might have said what she said. Nobody can know her state of mind, but intelligent people can make reasonable inferences (they might be wrong, of course). When some buffoon (or non-buffoon) asserts what she "clearly" meant, and then can't even explain what makes it so "clear," that's a bit of a different situation than making a cogent inductive argument. (Do you have any OTHER ideas on why she might have said "Indochina?")

And gimme a break on sources. PLEASE gimme a break on sources. The Canadian Encyclopedia is a solid source, in spite of the protestations of people who don't think it is, or who don't like Levant's qualifications, or whatever, especially if they are unwilling to acknowledge that Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. Some other sources are Canada Vietnam Newsletter: U.S. Aggression in Vietnam & Canada's Complicity (1969) and Student Association to End the War in Vietnam: Ottawa's Complicity in Vietnam (1967). They're contemporaneous with Canada's involvement in the war, but they might not be as credible and mainstream as Canada's prestigious encyclopedia. Lou Sander 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

MORE:What I mean by Coulter, an American, seems to have had some conception of this aspect of Canadian history, though she might not have had the detailed information that we do. is this: She is an American, so we might suppose that she doesn't know much Canadian history, especially that which happened before she was born and while she was a little child. But from what she says in the interview, it sort of seems like she has a little fuzzy knowledge about her neighbor to the north: she knows that Canada sent troops to Vietnam, though it's hard to tell if she knows if they were peacekeeping troops, combat SEALS, or something in between (I would guess she didn't have much idea about it). Her "Indochina?" question seems to indicate some sort of grasp, maybe a fuzzy one, of the name that the region was known by when Canada first sent its troops. Further, the CBC guy's failure to pick up on "Indochina" is an indicator of his own grasp of Canadian history (it looks pretty weak). And considering the context of the interview (a non-scholarly one for a lightweight TV opinion piece about U.S./Canadian relations), it would be reasonable to think that she hadn't seen the web sites about the medals, the lists of dead Canadian troops, the Canadian Encyclopedia entry, Lester Pearson's secret orders to his delegation in Vietnam, and all the other things we've researched. I hope that explains what I meant. If it doesn't, just ask for more. Lou Sander 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not cogent. It was far from cogent. Theorizing that she might have had some conception of this aspect of Canadian history based on one word is meaningless. That is completely worthless. She could have been completely guessing or speaking out of desperation. She has not clarified that point like she has clarified the rest of her statements. Thank you for citing more sources. You are putting together a stronger arguement that the CBC should be criticized for making their blanket statement. Based on her own assertions as to her own meaning and her own admission that she was wrong I don't think it is relevant to gauging her credibility. But ty for making the effort. It's interesting stuff, even more biased than Levant and the sources are 'fringe' but they do have worth. No denying that. As to the rest, you seem to be theorizing that she has some half-remembered knowledge that Canada sent troops to Vietnam but has forgotten the specifics. If this was at all true and of any relevance you can expect that she would have explored this point later and added the peacekeepers as an exception or not have admitted she was wrong. But she didn't and guessing doesn't help us much. That kind of theorizing is too much of a reach. What we do know is she has stated she knew what she meant, the CBC knew what she meant, she admitted she was wrong and by her own example it is clear she was not referring to the peacekeepers. You still only have a possible reason to criticize the CBC. This does not change the facts that her arguement was flawed, by her own example she did not mean peacekeepers and she has admitted she was wrong. Trajancavalous 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Tran: Sorry, but you just don't seem to get it. It IS possible to discern thoughts and meaning from behavior, and even to discuss different interpretations. Maybe one day you'll even be able to do it yourself.

Bertrand Russell said "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." The CBC guy was cocksure, wasn't he? So are some fellows over here, but Lord Russell never met them, so they couldn't have been part of his sample. But Russell was a pretty smart guy, with a pretty good understanding of the world.

Ann Coulter is pretty smart, too. She COULD have been speaking in tongues, or in a code that is only intelligible to members of the Order of the Coif. Or maybe she had been hypnotized into saying what she did (truth serum, maybe?) Nobody knows for sure, do they? But intelligent suppositions CAN be made. What do you suppose she might have been driving at when she said "Indochina?"

And do you agree that Canada DID send troops to Vietnam? Are you, like the CBC's Tex Baxter, cocksure that they did NOT? Do you think that they might have? Or are you maybe convinced by all the governmental evidence? (If you don't want to say, that's OK -- most of the readers will understand.) Lou Sander 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

See it all, courtesy of the CBC

The CBC provides the Coulter-McKeown clip at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html, in view-online video. The same CBC webpage also hold links to that whole episode of the fifth estate, and to Coulter's later attempt to use the cross-border volunteers to imply that she was actually right, likewise as view-online videos. -- Lonewolf BC 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For added convenience, below is a thorough transcript of the Coulter-McKeown exchange, together with a proper introduction. In the transcript, ellipsis shows a hesitation or momentary pause in speech, and asterisks show where Coulter or McKeown began talking before the other had finished, or answered the other without the usual conversational pause. (The exchange was somewhat sharp.) Words spoken with emphasis are underlined, and non-verbal aspects are given in parenthsised italics (This is my own transcript, with which I took great care but which is not in any way "official". If in doubt, watch the video.)

McKeown (voice-over): Ann [or "And"; if "Ann" then rightly "Rachel"] Marsden isn't the only one on Fox to base outspoken opinions on misconception.
(There follows an introduction to, and then a showing of the occasion when, shortly after Bush had been met in Ottawa by protesters against the Iraq War, Coulter went on Fox and said, "They [Canadians] need us. They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them."; and then the cut Coulter's exchange with McKeown.)

McKeown: Explain*...why you said that, that way.

Coulter: We were... I was on Hannity and Colmes. We were discussing the...the anti-war protesters.*

McKeown: Yeah.* (softly, without interrupting)

Coulter: Canada used to be...one of our most...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?

McKeown: No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.

Coulter: I don’t think that’s right.* (unsure inflection; surprised look)

McKeown: Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.

Coulter: Indochina? (unsure inflection; surprised/unsure look)

McKeown: Uh...no. (shaking head) Canada... S- Second World War, of course. Korea(?) Yes.* Vietnam... (question-inflection on "Korea(?)" slight and rhetorical)

Coulter: I think you’re wrong.* (now sounding sure and slightly aggressive)

McKeown: No, took a pass on Vietnam.

Coulter: I think you’re wrong.

McKeown: No. ... Australia was there. Not Canada.

Coulter: I think Canada sent troops.

McKeown: No. No. (almost silently; shaking head)

Coulter: Well, I’ll get back to you on that.

McKeown: (little laugh) Okay.

McKeown (voice-over): Coulter never got back to us, but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam.

-- Lonewolf BC 09:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's wrap it up people

Look down at the end of this page so we can finish this discussion up and unprotect the page. --kizzle 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Housekeeping

This article is currently in the following categories: Semi-protected | Articles with unsourced statements | American columnists | American political pundits | American political writers | American federal lawyers | American conservatives | American anti-communists | Creationists | Intelligent design advocates | Cornell University alumni | University of Michigan alumni | People from Connecticut | Delta Gamma sisters | Lawyers | 1961 births | Living people | Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism

• How about we cut these down by removing the duplicate/more general ones? I'd say Intelligent design advocates could go, since she's already in Creationists. Pundits and Columnists could be removed since she's in "political writers". Anti-communists could go, since she's in conservatives and it seems superfluous. Fabrication/plagiarism is just dumb and overly long. Anyone against these changes? Kyaa the Catlord 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism" should stay. See Ann_Coulter#Negative_reactions_from_publishers Raphael1 21:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Coulter and the others in this category is that Coulter's been checked and cleared of the allegations. One of these things is not like the other.... Kyaa the Catlord 21:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is one of the accusations [12]. Where is the clearance? Raphael1 21:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the archives. But since you're unable to view those, apparently, here ya go: [13] and [14]. Kyaa the Catlord 21:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a publisher response from July 06 could be a clearance from allegations made in Aug 06? Raphael1 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The allegations were over the same material? Simply because you run the same record twice doesn't make the song any different. Kyaa the Catlord 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you trust The Crown Publishing Group more than you trust MSNBC. Anyway, we have an accusation and we have an answer from the publisher. I'd say it fits perfectly in this category. I wonder whether MSNBC was sued for those claims. Raphael1 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I trust the editors in the publishing business more than I trust a leftist website like Media Matters.... Kyaa the Catlord 22:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

...and rightly so.

CAIR's press release

This has been repeatedly added to the article. This is 1. Self-published 2. From a biased source.

It has been removed per BLP: "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." So, find a third party source. WP is not a soapbox for such groups. Kyaa the Catlord 03:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Does this mean that the Simon Wiesenthal Center can't be cited as a source for identifying people who are considered anti-semitic? :] All Muslim groups which accuse Coulter of bigotry and racism are going to be 'biased' against her (go figure). That doesn't make them any less valid as sources on this subject. If CAIR were claiming that Coulter murders infants that would require some sort of 'non-biased' source. CAIR saying that they consider Coulter islamophobic doesn't... the reliable sources policy allows citation of even "biased" or "extremist" groups (which CAIR is not) in reference to themselves. That a major american muslim organization considers Coulter a bigot is clearly relevant to her notability... as the very offensiveness of her commentary is what makes her notable. There is no BLP issue here. It is a relevant and properly cited fact. --CBD 13:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it means that editors are seing biased or malicious content in this article. CAIR's support of terrorist organizatons is well-established and extensively documented, and vigilant editors are reacting accordingly. Lou Sander 14:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote the passage you link, "CAIR itself has never been found guilty of supporting any terrorist organization." --CBD 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote it a bit more completely, "CAIR's leadership and members have supported organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Both groups are classified by the United States Department of State as terrorist organizations. CAIR itself has never been found guilty of supporting any terrorist organization." And a lot more follows, of course, including a section on Convicted Members of CAIR. Lou Sander 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly all Catholics are pedophiles... or so this sort of 'guilt by association' would conclude given the church child abuse scandals and convictions. Regardless, it's a notable muslim organization. It can be cited as accusing Coulter of racism. That's relevant, sourced, and therefor appropriate for inclusion. --CBD 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The piece you've repeatedly tried to add is negative, defamatory and self-published. Read bloody BLP, this is an example of text specifically banned from inclusion. Kyaa the Catlord 21:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So I have "repeatedly" tried to add a sentence about the CAIR press release with my single edit? I think there may be a mathematical error there. :] Your description of the BLP policy is equally inaccurate. BLP bans uncited negative material. Not all negative commentary or 'all negative commentary from groups Kyaa does not like'. The BLP policy exists to avoid situations where >Wikipedia< calls someone a racist... not to hide the fact that other major organizations have called someone a racist. --CBD 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable third-party sources. Not self-published sources. As I stated in the beginning.... Kyaa the Catlord 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but my actions elsewhere seem to be having an unintended consequence on articles I've contributed to. I'm taking a very short wikibreak, but I wanted to apologize that my actions may have consequences on this article. (I hope this is obtuse enough.) Kyaa the Catlord 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, on the revert- building off what is said above- (and yes, i've read the guidelines)- the piece in question is notable because it relates to the heading, a notable... ugh sorry, I'm a little tired. Let's try and be clear.... point is, the whole 'biased' thing is too sticky here. What if tomorrow, I had a highly publicized release saying 'fuck you christian sods (i guess that would be me too, but stick with me).' The Catholic Church condemns my tirade. We put the article in question on WP. Now, the fact that the church condemned me has to do with the subject, since it is reaction to my actions- controversies, same with this article. According to your reasoning, we shouldn't add the ref because the Church is biased! Of course! But we aren't representing its view as true, so its NPOV and helps give the reader more clarity into he actions, consequences, and percieved feelings of the subject. If you really want to stop this from turning into an edit war, maybe a RfC? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

CAIR appears to have a history resorting to the 'racist' charge in reaction to criticism of Islam or people from the middle east, racist. That as well as their connections to terrorist and extremist groups put their usability as a source into question. Caper13 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the clear demonstration of this press release's relevance to Ann Coulter's notability? WP:BLP requires that we insist on it. Lou Sander 02:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How notable would Ann Coulter be if she didn't say things which offended people? Relevant to her notability? It >IS< her notability. As to CAIR... the ACLU calls it the largest muslim civil liberties organization in America... making it a notable organization. Their 'impartiality' is irrelevant to the question of >their< position... they may not be a reliable source for the price of tea in China, but they are a reliable source for their own (notable and relevant) position on Ann Coulter's comments towards muslims. --CBD 12:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Caper and et, you're saing that CAIR is a terrorist (or at least linked to terror organizations, which you have not proved. Either way, it IS relevant in the context of the article, and while it cannot be said it is exactly nuetral, it doesn't matter in the context. They are still reliable. (see CBD's comments above). Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that CAIRs press release is relevant. Are we now having 3 editors pro inclusion and 3 editors against its inclusion? Doesn't seem to be a consensus, does it? Raphael1 17:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the press release is relevant too. As for the link between CAIR and Hamas / Hezbollah, it is important to remember that Hamas and Hezbollah, whatever you think of the militant wings, also have civilian wings who provide vital infrastructure and public services. Either way, CAIR are notable so their commentary on Coulter is worth including, as long as it is presented as their opinion and not as fact. That doesn't cause any problems with BLP, surely. 121.44.41.146 09:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be included. CAIR is a major Islamic lobbying firm ($50 million on ad blitz alone). I see no section in WP:BLP or WP:RS that deals with whether to include sources connected to terrorism (as implied by Lou), nor that partisan or biased sources cannot be used, only that sources must be notable, verifiable, etc. CAIR is fully qualified and notable enough to be quoted. Press releases do not warrant unconditional dismissal from Wikipedia under the "self-published" clause, and in this case, the quote is germane and satisfies notable and verifiable as well, as per WP:BLP and WP:RS. --kizzle 09:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments about the New York Times

The lead paragraph of this section says:

Coulter has had a long-running animus toward what she sees to be the liberal bias of the New York Times. About half of her columns written between July 1999 and July 2002 (the time of the publication of her second book, Slander), mention the newspaper , usually evaluating its conduct in a negative way. Slander itself was dedicated to the New York Times as epitomizing the practice of stealthily calumniating conservatives.

The last sentence of a paragraph three paragraphs below says:

Coulter claims the New York Times is liberally biased (a theme of Slander) and deserves severe castigation.

It seems to me that that sentence is redundant, redundant, and unnecessary. I propose it be deleted. (In fact, the paragraph that contains it seems to have been inserted in the middle of two other connected paragraphs, and doesn't mention the Times. Maybe it needs to be moved. First things first, though.) Lou Sander 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that cites a Google search as its source has been deleted as original research. I offer no comment on the rest of the sub-section. --ElKevbo 21:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I sort of liked the stuff you deleted, and I thought it put a nice perspective on things, but I guess it really was original research. Out it goes! Lou Sander 22:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Persist With the Euphemism 'Conservative'?

From the Apple Dictionary 2005

conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

reactionary: opposing political or social liberalization or reform.

extremist: a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

I propose - throughout Wikipedia - that where the American-language use of 'conservative' is made, it be replaced with something more objectively accurate.

In Coulter's case - right wing extremist.

This would be used for the likes of LePen and Mosley, so why not those of a similar stripe in the USA? If racism, homophobia, religious intolerance and general prejudice against those with disablities, different class, intelligence, education or political beliefs - articulated using extreme language, dissimulation and outright abuse - make a person merely 'conservative' - then god bless America! --TresRoque 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find a problem agreeing on the definition of extremist. If coulter is an extremist, what do you plan to call someone who advocates or participates in the murder of political opponents (eg, Timothy McVeigh) as opposed to coulter who limits herself to writing snarky articles about leftists. I would suggest that your usage of extremist, is extreme. Caper13 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also if you want to refer to Coulter as an "extremist" on the Wikipedia you are going to have to find non-biased, reliable sources that make the argument that she is an extremist. Then you have to convince editors that she is to gain consensus. Finally you would have to add that information in a way that avoided weasel words as well as maintain a neutral POV. However I take contention with your assessment of Coulter. I think she is acerbic, provocative, and even mean but I don't believe she is seriously advocating anything so extreme as to make her an outlier on the political spectrum. She is definitely far right but labeling her an extremist would be a discussion greater than this article. Would we also have to call her liberal counterparts like Al Franken "extremist?" --Rtrev 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Errmmm... Coulter does advocate the murder of political opponents, and specifically stated support for Timothy McVeigh. Label it however you like. --CBD 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see sources where she advocates murder of political opponents or where she voiced support for blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City and killing several hundred people. Caper13 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." Conservative Political Action Conference; February 26, 2002.
• "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."New York Observer article; August 26, 2002.

There you go. --CBD 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Executing convicted criminals is not extremist. John Walker Lindh and Timothy MacVeigh were traitors who took their opposition to the US government so far that they took up arms against their own countries. Any college liberals who took their opposition that far would be traitors too. Its certainly an incendiary way to say it, but it is not advocating the killing of political opponents. Only advocating the death penalty for enemies of the US who take up arms against their own country. Caper13 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The second comment appears, again while incendiary, to be sarcasm in poor taste. Ann Coulter is not a supporter of Timothy McVeigh. Caper13 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your first problem is relying on Apple Dictionary's elementary definition of conservative. Kyaa the Catlord 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the bright side... if McVeigh had done the Times rather than the Federal building, all those Oklahoma lives would have been saved. New York might have been better prepared for 9/11. Times management wouldn't have had to make all those difficult decisions about layoffs. The disaster would have been easier for East-Coast-based media to cover. Et cetera. Reporters martyred vs. civil servants bombed? No brainer. Good Cop 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

CAIR release

I support the inclusion of this information. If there are multiple RS which are not conservative sources but neutral sources that attest they are terrorist aligned they can be mentioned to balance the inclusion without giving it undue weight, as remember our job is to present Ann Coulter in a neutral light, not pick apart CAIR or defend her. I see only two people objecting to this so far. Two is not concensus. Let's work on concensus. By Coulter's own words/implied admissions, the description could be apt. So, we have a global organization releasing a press statement about her. This is notable, they are notable, she is notable. It gets included. F.F.McGurk 14:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I am removing this material on WP:BLP grounds until we have consensus that it belongs in the article. My two cents worth is 1) it is defamatory (which puts it in a special class, requiring extreme care and caution by all editors), 2) it is from a biased source (see THIS and THIS), 3) it is a self-published press release that was apparently not later published by any neutral party (see WP:RS), 4) this item's relevance to Coulter's notability has not been clearly demonstrated, as urged by WP:BLP. 5) the material is just presented as a defamatory statement, without any explanatory material, context, expression of contrary views, etc. For an example of how controversial material like this is handled in a responsible, and non-defamatory way, look HERE. Lou Sander 15:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your 'good example' states that Louis Farakhan has been accused of anti-semitism... but cites NO source for such an accusation. Just throws it out there totally unsupported by any reference. That is a violation of WP:BLP. --CBD 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the Farrakhan material as defamatory, or presented in an unfair way, or in any way a violation of WP:BLP. If you do, I certainly hope you deleted it and stated your reasons. Regardless of their citations or lack of same, I hope that all editors can see the difference between the ways that Louis' and Ann's alleged "bigotry" is handled in the encyclopedia. Lou Sander 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the press release might merit inclusion if an independent and reliable source has commented on it. As-is, it's a self-published defamation. Cool Hand Luke 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, within two minutes of google searching I found that the thing was published on usnewswire.com as well as distributed by AP... those don't count as independent sources? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide URLs to the Associated Press running it? F.F.McGurk 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to pay me for it... its all archived, and I can only find cached versions... stupid redirects and shoddy keyword searching. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Archived content can be sourced, right? What is the valid method for sourcing archived material that WAS published by an RS? F.F.McGurk 23:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem is that its a pay-to-get in method, which is retarded, but that means that you can't see it. As for the page caches, I think they have very specific URLs relating to your computer, etc. That means you can use them as sources. So for right now, I'm stumped as how to source it (unless I can find it without paying on a non-AP site, which is possible, but I don't think it would have the weight of AP.) Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too soon... see if you can follow this link to usnewswire.com otherwise it redirects you automatically away from the source. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that link worked, but isn't this simply duplication of material already included in the article? We have a quote from Ibrahim Hooper already in the article. Kyaa the Catlord 23:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But the point is, it was carried by someone other than the organization itself. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may have been carried by someone other than the organization itself, but its material covered previously in the article. We have multiple, longer, context bearing quotes that appear to be from that very statement (or one with amazingly similar text) already presented. I don't see why we need to repeat ourselves over the same material at this point. Kyaa the Catlord 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(Those long colon threads are annoying me) ... hmm.. can you just point out where Hooper is already mentioned? I'll be willing to concede if something to the effect of the disputed info is already mentioned. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He's like the third paragraph in the "islam" section. Other pieces from that are mixed into that section rather hodge-podge. This press release and the article you found really don't contribute anything that isn't previously said, in my opinion. I think it pretty much says what the one-liner states, but does so in a somewhat more neutral way that allows the reader to make his own judgement which is better than stating it straight out in a one-liner. (This article is sort of a mess and needs some serious rewriting.) Kyaa the Catlord 00:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I still think that adding the source would help, but I suppose there's enough info more or less covering the same thing that it wouldn't break my heart (or the article) if it wasn't there. I still have no idea why this article was on my watchlist... whatever. The source is banished to wiki-history hell! Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 01:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well if it's redundant, then I guess it's moot? In general WP:RS suggests there's less of a problem when it's an independent article with editorial oversight (that is, not just a reprint of the press release—which the usnewswire is). The only independent commentary on the release I found came from Editor and Publisher, here. I guess that's also not free, but the article isn't much more. It goes on to finish her Coulter-esque quote: "...(as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed)." End of story.

I don't think there's a rule that it has to be free online. In the real world people cite to print all the time, and it's not hard to get access to a news database from a public library to confirm it. I doubt this release was printed in any reputable newspaper. Cool Hand Luke 07:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

PR Newswire just distributes press releases to their subscribers. AP just distributes material to be potentially printed by their subscribers.

An important point, not addressed so far, IMHO, is "How is this particular criticism relevant to Coulter's notability?" She says many things that are criticized by many people. That is not a sufficiently clear demonstration of the relevance of every single one of them, IMHO.

In any event, merely reporting that party A was criticized in party B's press release doesn't seem to me to be a function of an encyclopedia. It's different if editors can discuss the subject of the criticism in a balanced way. Unfortunately, not all editors have the skills to do this. The editors of the Louis Farrakhan article DO have the skills, IMHO, as pointed out above. Lou Sander 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Stop edit warring, seriously. Can anyone really care that much? I'm willing to bet that whatever admin gets around to protecting this page will definently protect it in the wrong version, so there's no reason to have your version showing for the 2 minutes it takes someone else to revert. In fact, I'm begging whatever admin decides to protect this page to please revert it to the version that appears to be losing the stupid edit war - thus making it worth it for people to stop reverting BEFORE the protection and instead discuss on the talk page. That is all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Per policy all info must be sourced. People are fighting policy... F.F.McGurk 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Motive rings false. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

All info does not need to be sourced or else we would have a citation after every third word. Uncontroversial items do not need sourcing, the prime example being your request that Al Fraanken being a liberal needed to be sourced. Anyone who knows who Al Franken is, knows he is a liberal, and anyone who doesnt know who he is, wouldn't care. Your requests for sourcing appeaar to be a bit excessive, and your rapid deletion of items you have flagged for sourcing is a little troubling. I hope you are not doing this same thing on other pages, especially pages with light traffic where no one might even seee your citation request for the day or two it is up, before you delete the info you want gone. That would be troubling as well. Caper13 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Be the bigger man and don't edit war over it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Caper13 is spot-on. These sourcing demands and the prompt deletions following them are looking like a case of disrupting WP to make a point -- and not even a legitimate point, because, just as Caper13 says, not every last statement needs to be sourced. I assume that the demands and deletions are really just a matter of overzealousness and mis-understanding of sourcing requirements, but please stop. Even if you were perfectly right, McGurk, a more collegial approach would be in order. Holding a gun to the head of the rest of the editorship and pulling the trigger after only a few days is not the right way to proceed.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, if you're talking about the CAIR source, we already decided, POV or no, something to the same effect was already mentioned earlier and didn't need to be added. If its not about that- I don't care then. Stop bickering please. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are worse things than behaving antisocially to force fact citation: Edit warring over idiosyncratic notions of style, for example. What is your legitimate point? Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that a 3rr vio? F.F.McGurk 04:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Kyaa the Catlord 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, only 3 within 24. The first is much older, but emphasizes my point. Four independent editors found this wording wrong or cumbersome. While I'm sure we're all grateful to have such grammatically astute editors as Lonewolf BC, I really don't see why we should leave the article in a state that attracts wasteful edits. Cool Hand Luke 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tossing out accusations isn't helping any though. Kyaa the Catlord 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't really care who was driving the edit war, or whether F.F.McGurk's edits betray a bias. I'm not making accusations.

However, while the page is locked we should address the disputes of the edit war. The CAIR release was not involved. History shows a problem with the wording of that sentence (which I think should be resolved in the way that doesn't attract innocent and useless edits in the future), and this disputed block about media appearances. I'm not really sure what F.F.McGurk's getting at here, but I imagine he finds problematic the assertion of "frequent" appearances. Frequently compared to what? Who determined this? Might deserve a cite. If not, maybe we should drop the adjective. Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with dropping the frequent bit. I believe the majority of editors have pretty much come to a consensus on the CAIR statement being nothing more than duplication and spoonfeeding of previous material included in the article. Kyaa the Catlord 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I was gunning for a more neutral tone. Some of the adjectives throughout were a little too friendly, which is fine, but not quite npov. Also, since theres--what, 3?--unsourced sentences now, why not nail them all? A bulletproof sourced article is a stable article. F.F.McGurk 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want stability on this article, I think you're chasing shadows. :P Ann Coulter is too controversial for the article to remain stable imho. Which sentances are you referring to? The edit history is a mess, as they tend to be during contentious periods. Kyaa the Catlord 06:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to look in the records from the past 4-5 days. Compare the article version from before my first edit... a bunch of stuff had been unsourced for quite some time, so I removed it. Some came back with sources, most didn't, and I started tagging for clean up a bunch of additional unsourced stuff. I didn't want to be a jerk and just mass edit the whole article with like 40 fact tags so I did them in little batches to give people time to find stuff. The article has 100+ references now. Pretty much any fact that Wikipedia was asserting, I figured, let's tag and source. Once they're all sourced and the article sits stable aside from housekeeping it could theoretically go GA/FA then if the regulars felt like it, as long as no pro-Ann/pro-conservative (or vice versa, natch) POV gets pushed back in by vandals. F.F.McGurk 06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem was some of your tags seem rather... well, nitpicky. :) Al Franken is pretty much the poster boy for liberalist radio, similar to Rush Limbaugh and conservative radio. Calling his politics liberal isn't contentious or defamatory, so there really isn't a pressing need to source the statement. Kyaa the Catlord 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, your comment associated with this edit[15], didnt seem like it was simply asking for a reference. Of course no one reference would verify she was on every television show listed. We would have needed about nine...to accomplish what. Then you quickly deleted the entire section when no one jumped in to immediately source them. That isnt productive. Caper13 06:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also confused about this. It's true she's been on these shows, and some appearances have been mentioned elsewhere in the article. I can understand a beef against qualitative words like "frequent", but demanding references solely for completism—so that every sentence is cited—is more than Wikipedia policy demands. Cool Hand Luke 13:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A second Coulter alleged felony comes to light

Whenever the protection ends, the article should be updated to include Coulter's latest legal troubles. Her (allegedly) fraudulent voter registration is now joined by her (allegedly) fraudulent driver's license. From the Palm Beach Post earlier this week:

After Anderson asked the Palm Beach PD for help, the department issued a three-page report last month hinting at troubles ahead for the law-and-order Coulter. According to the report, she could end up charged with: one felony count for signing a voter form claiming she lived at her Realtor's Indian Road home instead of her Seabreeze Avenue homestead; one felony count for "unauthorized possession of a driver's license," also for providing the same wrong address when obtaining her license; and a misdemeanor for knowingly voting in the wrong precinct. [16]

I don't think this needs a separate section, though. Both issues arise from her use of a phony address, so they're essentially two aspects of the same dispute. JamesMLane t c 07:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

While this could very well become notable it is not yet. This is the kind of thing that we should wait on until we have more sources discussing it, see if anything pans out. Right now it appears to be pure speculation. If this turns out to be credible then we can be pretty certain that we will here more about it. Until then I think per WP:BLP we should error on the side of caution. --Rtrev 07:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, the Palm Beast Post itself has come under fire for this series of articles. Again, we need multiple, independant third-party sources for this type of material. Kyaa the Catlord 07:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I really have to wonder if this type of material is even relevant in an encyclopedia. Why have it? Do you hate her that much? Will (Talk - contribs) 08:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It has occurred to me on occasion that those who attempt to establish themselves as public moralists might justifiably be held to a higher standard of behavior, as they have assumed to themselves the right to judge others' behavior. Just a thought. Cheers, Kasreyn 04:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there multiple sources covering it yet? F.F.McGurk 13:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this is Palm Beach Post only, apparently. Other sources have commented on the reporting behavior of the Palm Beach Post, however. It's very interesting. Kyaa the Catlord 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have the link here in the talk section. If it spreads to more sources, no harm in adding it then. If it's factual and she's on the hook on that scale, it sure will... F.F.McGurk 13:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant by the other sources commenting on the Palm Beach Post is that the other sources are questioning the motives involved in the PBP. The elections officer also has a few controversies in his past, its quite an interesting situation. But its news, not encyclopedic. (Yet.) Kyaa the Catlord 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a gossip column, engaging in speculation. If something comes of it, include the incident. If not, not. Lou Sander 13:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Negative reactions from publishers

While the article is locked, it's a good time to look at the big picture. Right now, the 'Negative reactions' section is longer than either the section describing her columns or the one describing her five very successful books. This is a pretty unbalanced situation, IMHO. It is definitely worth noting that a few publishers have trouble with her columns and drop them, but why (other than bias and POV-pushing) is it necessary to list them, quote the publishers who decided to drop her column, etc.?

I think the article would be improved by deleting the five bullet points following the words "...some newspapers replaced her column with those of other conservative columnists." Lou Sander 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But then we'd be cutting bloat! We can't do that! (Do it!) Kyaa the Catlord 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to list them all. Coulter ius a controversial columnist and says things specifically designed to both cut through the noise of competing talking heads and piss off some people to gain more notice. If we list every episode in which that happens thats all the article will be. Noting this tendency and providing an example or two should be enough. What we have now is an article about how Coulter is essentially a bad person, that some are trying to turn into "coulter is a criminal". Caper13 19:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Coulter does say a lot of things to shock people. That's how she's known. But doesn't this suggest we preserve well-reported criticism for precisely this reason? I am fully in favor of removing garbage from the publishers section though. Columnists are often dropped from newspapers, and editors almost invariably print their rationale. It's not original research, but it's not really that notable. When one is widely syndicated, it's inevitable some markets will reject the content, and I do suspect it's mentioned for POV reasons. About everything in that section below "Arizona Daily Star" could fairly be cut IMO. Maybe replace it with as few lines about how the reasons for dropping her column differ from most others—but only if Editor&Publisher or some other reputable source has seen fit to report on the phenomena. Cool Hand Luke 08:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but I think the sentence about some newspapers replacing her column after the publication of Godless ought to stay. It was kind of a phenomenon -- a #1 bestseller comes out, and some papers react by dropping the author's column. Lou Sander 14:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Kornelia0, 13.1.07 -- Hi, may I join your discussion? (I tried before in the islam-chapter, but I am new, didn´t manage..) Here is, again, what I wrote:13.January 07, Kornelia0. Hi, may I join your discussion? I read Coulter´s new book/excerpts Chapter 1 yesterday - and could not believe the evil lanquage she choosed. If you do not like the category "anti-Islam-Sentiment" (what I cannot understand as that is what she writes) why don´t you call it "Hate-Speech"? Then you could have several subcategories - religious - political - society - gender etc. And may I add/suggest another point? This unbelievable Anti-Darwin position(NewRepublic-Article by Jerry Coyne) she takes! The reason why I´d like to see it added: That´s the danger Coulter is to society. Her joining the IntelligentDesign-Campaign (after Judge Jones verdict) is the one and best way for the Wedge strategy to succeed: She has, obviously, a huge audiance. An audiance of people who do not mind , how do I call it - ToughTalk on the border to the unthruth ( Where is the quote for " Do whatever you feel like doing -- screw your secretary, kill Grandma, abort your defective child -- Darwin says it will benefit humanity!" in Darwin´s texts?). NOT mentioning this in the opensource wikipedia would cut an important piece out of the overall picture of Ann Coulter. --- Kornelia0 And please let me add: I agree, let Ann Coulter speak for herself. Give quotes. But cancelling the publisher´s reaction would amount to charm the picture. Coulter stepped over the line in the opinion of the very people who hired her in the first place for what she does: making wind. Now she inherited the storm. Do not cancel it! Kornelia0 (-- Sorry, I do not know where to find the tildes for propper signature...)

We're not discussing removing the entire section, just shortening it. Removing bloat is good. Kyaa the Catlord 15:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kyaa. The publisher's part is a level three heading, and should be kept a little more concise. For the other 'criticism' sections, there are large amounts of events, etc. That are documented, but they seem a little more broad regarding how she is viewed. I think the publishing thing might go on a little... I suggest making it read, in July 2006, some newspapers replaced her column with those of other conservative columnists:[38]... and complete the sentence with those newspapers that dropped her. Since the impetus behind all the droppings is the same, if we just list the newspapers that dropped it, we save a good three paragraphs of extraneous info. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the names of the papers belong in the article. They are minor newspapers, and their actions do not much affect Coulter's notability. (Unlike NRO Online and USA Today, also discussed in this section.)

IMHO, what's important here is this: A) about 100 papers and a bunch of web sites carry her column, which features her outspokenness, etc.; B) a few of them drop her from time to time, as happens with all syndicated columnists; C) the reasons for dropping her sometimes have to do with her outspokenness, etc.; D) there was a minor flurry of this when Godless came out. Lou Sander 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, you know, you really don't sound nuetral when you try and cast the dropping of her columns as 'minor'; same thing with trying to justify why she was dropped. And not all the bulleted ones are 'minor' papers. If they deserve to be compressed, I suppose, but not removed completely. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there some justification for thinking that a newspaper's dropping a syndicated column is anything but a minor event? It happens all the time, and 5-10% turnover in a year is typical. (But then you may have some special insight into the subject; please let us know if you do.) And minor papers are minor papers; those in question are from small American towns -- their influence is almost exclusively local. The small-town editors often provide some justification for dropping whatever they drop, because their small-town audiences demand it. Why is it important that those reasons be repeated in a worldwide encyclopedia, especially when they are negative statements in a biography of a living person? It's not a matter of neutrality, it's a matter of notability and suitability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Lou Sander 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, David. Cool Hand Luke 18:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... well off my original idea, hows this sound:

In August 2005, the Arizona Daily Star dropped Coulter's syndicated column citing reader complaints that "Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives."

Following the publication of her fourth best-selling book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, in July 2006, some newspapers replaced her column with those of other conservative columnists; these included The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, The Augusta Chronicle of Augusta, Georgia, The Shreveport Times, and Yes! Weekly of Greensboro, North Carolina.

The edits above are truly pathetic. Drivel like this gives Wikipedia a bad name. Among adults, at least. Good Cop 02:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious - do you have anything positive and constructive to add to the discussion, or are you just here to be disruptive and inflammatory? Why not focus on specific points of contention rather than slinging around labels like "drivel"? Ref. WP:CIVIL. Cheers, Kasreyn 03:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The work is pathetic drivel. If you can't see why, ask a grownup. If you don't see the benefit in putting proper labels on pathetic drivel or on working to keep it in check, look here or here. Good Cop 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". Wish I could say it'd been a pleasure talking with you. Cheers, Kasreyn 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why is the page protected? I wasn't aware anyone was vandalizing the page or making significant changes. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. The Yes! Weekly announcement was a primary source, which also bothered me, but as part of a string cite it's probably ok. Article was protected for edit warring. See heading above. If an independent admin looks at this, I think it should be unprotected. Wasn't much of an edit war anyway. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Public Intellectual"

Good Cop's trollish comments above prompted me to check his edit history. Appart from a previous troll, he brought up the term "public intellectual," which was apparently once in the article. I'm surprised no editors followed up on this. She was listed in Judge Richard Posner's book as one of the 100 most-influential public intellectuals. Actually, it's unclear whether Posner meant this as any kind of "top 100" list, although most commentators seem to assume it is. He basically measured citations and impact in popular media. You might remember that Henry Kissinger topped the list. Coulter has used it in the inside flap of one of her books, but it might have a place in the article. Cool Hand Luke 20:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind it in the article, I just minded it previously when it was featured in the lead paragraph. I think it's a worthy tidbit to include somewhere, just not in the intro. --kizzle 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Luke: Please assume good faith, and please be careful with unsupported accusations of trolling. It is hurtful more than you know.

Trolling is "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia." The words you call "trollish" are impersonal comments, on a talk page, against proposed edits to a locked article. I do not see how they interfere with the usability of the encyclopedia. On the other hand, the proposed edits are obviously non-notable, and are negative comments in a biography of a living person. Their triviality is exceeded by their smarmy negativity. They are in flaunted opposition to the thoughtful talk page discussion that precedes them. Is it a stretch to call them "drivel?"

It IS contributing in a positive way to the discussion to call them what they are. Literary illustrations, understandable by little children, have been provided to illustrate the point.

What you so unkindly and unsupportedly call a "previous troll" is a description of what might have happened IF a different building had been bombed, thus sparing lives in Oklahoma at the cost of ones in New York. Such matters have not been discussed in the article itself; are they forbidden to be brought up on the talk page?

And thank you for at least linking to what you call "previous trolling;" it lets everyone see what you are talking about. One hopes that you would ALSO have linked to the previous material about "public intellectual." Coulter was evaluated as an important public intellectual by a thoughtful and respected author, in a book from a prominent university press. All mention of that has been ruthlessly and repeatedly (trollishly?) deleted from her biography, as have many similar accolades. Yet it is proposed that self-serving negative comments from the editor of a small newspaper be reported in full, and followed by four or five other negative comments from editors of even smaller newspapers, all of the comments having been made to justify dropping a column. The pathetic nature of this should be clear to all concerned, but it doesn't seem that it is. Good Cop 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

These edits are compromises with those who insist the cancellations are notable. If you compare the proposed block with what's in the current article, it's a vast improvement. Apologies on the trolling remark, but you wrote "drivel" without any context at all. I actually thought you were defending the status quo or demeaning the prose in the proposed compromise, which isn’t obviously less brilliant than the current blow-by-blow analysis of paper cancellations. Cool Hand Luke 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though "trolling" might be a bit overstated. However, constructive criticisms can be made without using "pathetic" or "drivel". --kizzle 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the book in question (is it notable?) and from what university press shop? F.F.McGurk 05:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline, Harvard University Press. It was very widely reviewed, often by people named as public intellectuals according to the book's table. Plus it's Posner. I'd say it's very notable, but it's not clear what being listed in the book even means. Cool Hand Luke 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's "not clear" what being listed in a 400-page scholarly book with page after page of methodology means, but it's crystal clear what "Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives." means. (Hey, maybe there's a little difference in credibility, notability, and suitability for an encyclopedia here, not to mention weasel-wordedness and defamatory intent. Nah. Sorry I brought it up. Anyway, everybody knows that Coulter's just a no-good lying felon who hates Arabs and muslims -- you can look it up in the free encyclopedia. And Al Franken says so, too. It's all backed by citations, so you can be absolutely sure it's accurate.) Good Cop 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me clarify. It's clear Posner finds here to be one of the most influentual public intellectuals. However, given the sad state that Posner finds intllectualism, that's not necessarily a good thing. You're right that this should be included in the article while much of the town paper hearsay should be removed—I agree with you on that. My point is much like that of the meta-review I linked. I think Posner's book has been unfairly maligned, usually by reviewers who misrepresent his project, focusing only on the tabulated lists. So yes, Ann Coulter is most certainly named by Richard Posner as one of the most cited public intellectuals, but there are plenty examples of him attacking people on this list in the very same book. Cool Hand Luke 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Disregarding the last half of Good Cop's last post, I'd like to semi-agree with both of you. I think there's some merit behind what Cool Hand Luke is saying about Coulter's inclusion in the list and what the list means exactly, but none of that precludes us from including the tidbit into the Coulter article. Before you go off on CHL, Good Cop, I'm not sure he's even advocating that it shouldn't be included, especially given "I'd say it's very notable". So you might want to take a deep breath and realize we're all on the same team here. --kizzle 08:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please calm down about this Good Cop. I've never seen someone try so hard to push their "N"POV into an article. Trying to fish for a tidbit that shines Ann Coulter in a good light, I admit, would be pretty hard, and I admire you for searching so far and wide to find one. But unfortunately the truth of the matter is that her being on that list doesn't mean what you want it to mean--that a liberal considers Ann coulter smart/intelligent/rational. Rather, it means she was influential, which considering that she has her own encyclopedia article of controversial quotes that have been spouted all over the airwaves many times over, I doubt anyone would deny that she has, in fact, had significant influence on things, good or bad. --Ubiq 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition

Whenever you guys get the chance to edit this article, which seems to always be protected or semi, i suggest adding to this what the Buffalo, New York satirical newspaper The Beast said about coulter:

26. Ann Coulter

• Charges: It was a run of the mill year for Ann: openly calling for the murder of a Supreme Court justice and the entire staff of the New York Times, accusing 9/11 widows of "enjoying their husband’s deaths" and Bill Clinton of being a rapist. Coulter’s neck gained an amazing 3 vertical inches in 2006; inside sources attribute this to a strict regimen of deep-throating Satan’s scaly cock. It’s projected that by 2010 Coulter will be able to plagiarize the Illinois Right to Life Committee website more deftly than she did in this year’s ode to mindless intolerance of tolerance, Godless, simply by snaking her grotesque head-ladder through the ventilation ducts of their office and skulking away with their webmaster’s hard drive clenched firmly in her masculine jaw. Ann’s slipping, though; she’s become an unconvincing fascist parody, increasingly betraying herself in televised interviews, blushing at her own brazen idiocy. She’s faking it, and so are her tits.

• Exhibit A: "Hi, I’m Ann Coulter."

• Sentence: Most "controversial" statements redacted from "Exhibit A," as they’re a naked ploy for attention–-and Adam’s apple removed with a backhoe.

The article can be found here, <http://buffalobeast.com/113/50_most_loathsome_2006.htm>. She was listed as #26 on the list of the "50 Most Loathsome People In America" list that they do every year. Just a thought. Lue3378 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This ranking is not notable unless an independent source covers it. Frankly, we have enough of the questionable attacks on her already. If we added every small paper's hate list to every article, we'd have a mess of sub-trivial nonsense. Cool Hand Luke 02:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A few suggestions

This article has been and continues to be an embarassment here at Wiki. Since the article is once again locked, I'd like to suggest a few things that could be done when and if the block is taken off.

1. Editors should wait a few days or until something is reported in the mainstream media about Ann Coulter before attempting to add sad information to this article. Because it appears that Ms. Coulter says something controversial every day, we should wait to see if these comments are in fact notable (e.g. the Jersey Girls statement) or is simply something that is creating blog buzz that will go away in a few days and never receive mainstream traction(the CBC interview).

2. Create an Ann Coulter controversies page. It is clear that because of the many controversies of the subject her biography is serving as a de facto controverises page. That shouldn't be so. If the bio here simply contained, her background, her appearances on TV, Film, radio, etc., and her books and columns. It would still be sufficient as an article.

3. Take out the section on Religious views as it is actually her political views that has gained her fame. I fail to see what is notable about her relationship with her God in that section. In addition it seems to be added only to further embarass Coulter.

4. If a controversies article was created, we could move the entire sections of the article that begins after "Columns" and ends with "References" into that off-shoot article. In it's place we can substitute in sections detailing Ms. Coulter's various views on a number of topics.

5. Also, to every editor who wishes to add the latest thing they read about Coulter. Before adding new information, please take note of the following policies and guidelines: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOTE, and WP:RS.

Well those are my thoughts. I'd love to hear yours. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article has been and continues to be an embarrassment. It seems to be a "bad editing magnet." (See the "Addition" section above.)

1) Good suggestion about waiting a while before putting stuff in. She specializes in controversial statements, so no individual statement is very notable unless a lot of media pick up on it. When they do that, the statement becomes notable and should go in, in an NPOV way.

2) We had a controversies page, but I'm pretty sure it was deleted. Like the main article, it wasn't very well done. I'd definitely be in favor of bringing it back.

3) I'd keep the religious views. Her book Godless pushed religious matters into prominence, and she DOES mention her Christianity from time to time. I think it's an important topic in a Coulter article, and for the most part I think the current section is pretty good. (Haven't read it in a while, though.)

4) Agree.

5) Agree, but most of the less-skilled editors of this article seem to think it's their job to knock her, report every allegation against her, show her as anti-Arab, etc.

Those are my thoughts. Thanks for asking. Lou Sander 01:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Couldn't agree more.
2. Wikipedia:Content_forking?
3. I'm ok with that.
4. See #2.
5. Couldn't agree more. Of course, I'll refrain from ad hominems in agreeing with you.

--kizzle 20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I know editors don't usually don't like doing the off-shoot articles, but there is a provision here at Wikipedia that allows a sub-article when the topic makes the original article too long, or gives undue weight to one specific aspect of the subject. I think since the bio of Coulter here has turned into a list of all her controversies, it may be appropriate to create a controversy article, and leave this article to simply state her bio and summarize some of her notable views, with a brief summary and link to the controversies article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

CBC - Wrapping up

It looks like we're reaching some progress here on the Ann Coulter / Vietnam section, so let's work to finish this up and get this page frickin unprotected. At first, I was reluctant to include this because I didn't think it was notable enough, until I saw that even Time magazine covered it and provided a defense for Coulter. Also, you know that every 3 months someone is going to try to bring this up, so we might as well do it right and spin it off into a daughter article if it gets too long. So here are the facts/quotes I want to include:

Paragraph 1: Incident

• Coulter: Canada used to be...one of our most...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?
• McKeown: No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam. (Alternatively, if Lou prefers, we can use the whole transcript)
• That in a subsequent C-SPAN interview, Coulter justified her statement by referring to the 10,000 Canadians who voluntarily signed up with the American troops, though admitting she was wrong that the Canadian government had sent troops while taking a shot at McKeown: "Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. There is a War Memorial to them, at least for most of that. The Canadian Government didn't send troops [...] but [...] 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... People keep saying: "well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans... I don't think he knew, he's a bubblehead Ted Baxter""

Paragraph 2: Relevant opinions

• Canada was considered neutral by the US Government at the time."During the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson (1963-69) was livid about Canadian neutrality and considered Canada's diplomatic behaviour in Vietnam disrespectful." - Edelgard Mahant and Laurentian University historian Graeme S. Mount found in their book Invisible and Inaudible in Washington: American Policies Toward Canada [17]
• Though Canada did supply arms, facilities, and other materials to the U.S. troops (similar to Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War#Military_assistance but making sure to cite)
• Time Magazine's John Cloud defended Coulter in the magazine's April 25, 2005 cover story on her by saying "Canada did send noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972," referring to Operation Gallant, where Canada, along with Hungary, Indonesia, and Poland, sent 240 non-combat peacekeepers in 1973 at the end of the war to monitor the ceasefire per the Paris Peace Conference.
• Media Watchdog group FAIR criticized Cloud's piece by saying it was "making quite a stretch to prove that Coulter was correct", asserting that any noncombat troops, if sent, were "absent from a detailed 1975 U.S. Army history, Allied Participation in Vietnam", and not to support the U.S. forces. [18]

Does anyone doubt any of these facts? Can we start wrapping this up? --kizzle 20:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's accurate. I live in Canada and this issue is imho the most promiment point relating to her credibility to Canadians. It was a national news segment that was repeated a number of times. Given her own subsequent acknowledgement it should be included in her entry and relevant exceptions to hers or the CBC's statement should be included. If anything she benefits from the clarification but regardless up north it is relevant. Imho. Good job Kizzle. [[Trajancavalous 22:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)]]

The incident sure SEEMS non-notable, but if it's notable in Canada, it might be OK to put it in (but the main article is already very long, and this incident took place two years ago). Trajan has asserted that the incident strongly pertains to Coulter's notability in Canada. There's no reason to doubt him/her, but someone needs to provide some clear, citable evidence of it. Otherwise it's original research, or unsuitable due to WP:BLP, etc.

There needs to be the factual information, backed by proper citations, that Canada did in fact sent troops to Vietnam, and that they stayed there from the 1950s through most of 1973. (The Time article implies there were two separate incidents, separated by many years.) It needs to be clear that "Indochina" includes Vietnam, so people will not think that no troops were sent to Vietnam in the 1950s. There need to be links to the two control commission articles. Since there is a lot of emphasis on the word "troops," they should not be weasel-worded as "peacekeepers." What they really were was members of the two control commissions. Part of the problem in discussing the incident is that the commissions were composed of troops and civilians, and the sources usually don't make that clear.

There absolutely must be an evenhanded presentation of the material. There absolutely cannot be any implication that Coulter was shown up by the CBC guy, or made a fool of, etc.

It seems to me that the main point of this incident is the dispute over sending or non-sending of troops, and CBC's insistence that they weren't sent. The whole dialog should probably be included, but is pretty long. Lone's transcription is accurate and very good work, IMHO. One trouble is that describing the whole incident needs to be pretty long, and maybe that means it shouldn't be in the already overlong Ann Coulter article. Maybe it needs an article of its own, or should be included in some sort of Canada & Vietnam article.

Canada's past friendly relations is a separate matter from "troops or no troops", but I wouldn't object to it's being in the article if it's handled fairly and in full, and if it fits. The York University reference isn't really about Vietnam, though Vietnam is mentioned briefly. And all that's available online is a press release about it. The Canadian Encyclopedia article is about Vietnam, is available online, and is from a reliable source that has its own article in Wikipedia. The FAIR stuff should not even be mentioned; FAIR has an agenda, their article is a comment on a comment, their point about the Allied history is meaningless (the Canadian troops were troops, but they were NOT "Allies.")

This material COULD, with skillful writing, be "good article" material, and an example of how controversial material can be handled in an encyclopedia. Also, it could be a shining example of how video clips can be dealt with, IF the transcript can be included.

The proposed writeup should be written and edited either on this page or a sub-page, and moved to the main article only after consensus has been reached. Consensus cannot be reached without a clear recognition that Canada sent troops to Vietnam, without a proper statement of their noncombatant role, and without a proper statement that there was and is strong disagreement about their "neutrality." (The government claims they were neutral. Academic researchers, Canada's only encyclopedia, contemporaneous publications of war protestors, and who knows who else claims they were not neutral.)

The first draft of the proposed writeup should not have any constraints on its length. (For example it should include the entire dialog.) Once it's in a form that has consensus, its length can be evaluated and it can be cut back if necessary (which it probably will be). Then it can be decided if it belongs in the main article, or in its own article that is referenced in the main article (as her books are), or whatever.

There should be a LOT of cited references, so that nothing about the article is in doubt.

There is an extensive writeup of all this stuff, with formatted references, on my User Page HERE. YOU MAY NOT EDIT OR VANDALIZE MY USER PAGE, but feel free to use anything that's on it.

One of the very best references, to an academic review rather than to the book itself, is Victor Levant, Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War. (Toronto: Between the Lines, 1986) Lou Sander 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Martin's book The Presidents and the Prime Ministers refers to an incident where Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson visited President Johnson at the LBJ Ranch a few days after giving a speech on a US campus critical of the war. Upon his arrival Johnson was so angry at the Canadian PM that he grabbed Pearson by the lapels and yelled at him [19] for having "pissed on my rug"[20]. Lou (and Coulter's) belief that Canada was "loyal" to the US on the issue of Vietnam certainly was not shared by LBJ or, I suspect, by any American supporters of the Vietnam War at the time. The decision by Pearson's successor, Pierre Trudeau to allow US draft dodgers to remain in Canada was a further wedge. Sixth Estate 07:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote

You can vote for more than 1, just sign next to one if you are ok with it's inclusion.

Passage #1

Coulter became involved in a controversy for a statement she made on CBC Television's news program the fifth estate. During a conversation with the host, Bob McKeown, Coulter asserted that "Canada used to be...one of our most...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?" McKeown disputed her assertion by saying "No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam," to which Coulter eventually said "I'll have to get back to you on that". In a subsequent C-SPAN interview, Coulter justified her statement by referring to the 10,000 Canadians who voluntarily signed up with the American troops, though admitting she was wrong that the Canadian government had sent troops, as well as taking a shot at McKeown:

Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. There is a War Memorial to them, at least for most of that. The Canadian Government didn't send troops [...] but [...] 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... People keep saying: "well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans..." I don't think he knew, he's a bubblehead Ted Baxter

While President Lyndon B. Johnson considered Canada neutral in the Vietnam War, Canada did participate in sending over $2.5 billion in arms, facilities and other materials. Time Magazine's John Cloud defended Coulter in the magazine's April 25, 2005 cover story on her by saying "Canada did send noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972," referring to Operation Gallant, where Canada, along with Hungary, Indonesia, and Poland, sent 240 non-combat peacekeeping troops in 1973 at the end of the war to monitor the ceasefire per the Paris Peace Conference. Media Watchdog group FAIR criticized Cloud's piece by saying it was "making quite a stretch to prove that Coulter was correct", asserting that any noncombat troops, if sent, were "absent from a detailed 1975 U.S. Army history, Allied Participation in Vietnam", and not to support the U.S. forces. [21]

I support this passage:

1. --kizzle 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
2. --Ubiq 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC) - if it is decided that this Canada-Vietnam part be included in this article, I support this version. But I'd recommend to include this, and other like bits of information in an Ann Coulter controversies page.

Discussion:

We don't "support" passages, we edit them. The first two paragraphs are pretty good, IMHO, but better would be: In 2005, Coulter drew some fire for a statement she made on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program the fifth estate. During an interview by host Bob McKeown, Coulter asserted that "Canada used to be...one of our most...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?" McKeown disputed her by saying "No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam." Coulter disputed him in return, and they went back and forth several times. The interview ended with Coulter offering to "get back to you on that." In a subsequent C-SPAN interview, Coulter justified her statement by referring to the 10,000 Canadians who volunteered for the U.S. armed services. She admitted she was wrong about the Canadian government sending troops, and she took a shot at McKeown:

Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. There is a War Memorial to them, at least for most of that. The Canadian Government didn't send troops [...] but [...] 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... People keep saying: "well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans..." I don't think he knew, he's a bubblehead Ted Baxter

There need to be citations for both the CBC and C-SPAN interviews.

The other paragraph needs a lot of work. What is it trying to say? Canada's past friendship with the U.S. is well documented. Her neutrality in Indochina and Vietnam is disputed. The quote from Time is an incomplete statement of the Canadian troops situation. There are no links to the articles on the two commissions. The stuff from agenda-laden FAIR is a comment on Time's comment. We can't include everything that everybody said about what somebody said about the interview.

I still keep wondering how this two-year-old interview is notable. What "fire" did it draw, if it even drew any? We don't have to prove notability in the article, but we DO have to establish it here. One person, claiming to be from Canada, but with not even a user page to back it up (if I remember), said it was notable up there. Pretty weak justification, IMHO. Lou Sander 08:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's be frank, we're at an impasse and are not going to agree here, so I'm putting my version up for a straw poll. You're free to do the same. I did make a few changes though from your suggestions. I don't see anywhere in WP:RS that has "agenda-laden" as criteria for inclusion or exclusion, so FAIR stays. --kizzle 09:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I can't find the date of the C-Span show on a cursory Google search, but if anyone can find the dates/transcripts feel free to add them to my version. --kizzle 09:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the third paragraph is needed. Coulter admitted she was wrong about the Canadian government sending troops and defended herself by referring to Canadians who volunteered for the US military. Coulter didn't say anything about the Control Commissions, peacekeeping troops etc so there's no reason we should since this is an article on Coulter, not on Canada's role in Vietnam. That Coulter apologists have after the fact brought up points that Coulter herself has never made is quite irrelevant to the article and borders on original research. Sixth Estate 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point, but for the record (as the snotty CBC voice said), Canada DID sent troops to Vietnam.

If somebody wants to build consensus, everybody needs time to weigh in. And somebody MUST provide a clear demonstration of this episode's relevance to Coulter's notability. Lou Sander 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't like it too much, but I don't mind if it's just the first two paragraphs. I just think the Time piece is part of what makes the incident notable, as well as the FAIR criticism of it. I even put the 240 peacekeeping troops in there as a compromise. That's about as far as I'm willing to go, so if you still don't agree Lou, then we're going to have to resort to a straw poll with your version. --kizzle 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:VOTE makes me wonder why anybody would propose straw polls. And Kizzle do you realize that you don't own the article? You don't own the talk page, either. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU, KIZZLE. It's about creating good articles and a good encyclopedia. Your bias probably makes you unable to do that for this article. At least it has so far, in my opinion. WP:OWN has some great advice that you badly need to act on. Beyond that, if you have something you want to add to a controversial article, you need to give some reasons that unbiased people can understand and relate to. From what I see here, instead of doing that you tell people what you like or don't like. Nobody much CARES what you like or don't like, except maybe your boyfriend if you have one. A lot of people DO care if you have something convincing and unbiased to say. Good Cop 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For the second time, Good Cop, I'd like to draw your attention to the guidelines of WP:CIVIL, which is a non-negotiable policy. Your comments here continue to be combative and overly focused on perceived personal flaws of other editors. Remember to focus on the contribution, not the contributor. Your speculations on kizzle's bias/es and romantic life are unconstructive, incivil, and have no place here. If you feel you have a valid point to make on WP:OWN grounds, please do so in a more positive manner instead of continuing in this vein. Kasreyn 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Be specific Kaseryn. The last time you objected, Goodcop had strong words for some edits. That was focusing on a contribution wasn't it? Now there are no strong words at all. But you object to something. It would be good if you point out what you dont like and how it is being civil. I think the cop was being quite civil in pointing out that somebody uses personal opinion and not much else as justification for things. How could that be done in a more civil way?? If it could be, I'd like to know how. Probably it would help the cop. What cop said sure is on the mark though. Same about the bias. This is one very bisaed article with a reputation for maybe being the worst one out of the millions. Kizzel seem to be part of that. A big part. Cop or anybody sure is being productive and truthful not speculating. He sez what need to be sad. If there is a better way please show it. We need your help. 63.3.19.2 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you might want to think about stepping back and taking a deep breath. "IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU", "Nobody much CARES what you like or don't like, except maybe your boyfriend if you have one" - WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. Thanks for your compliance in advance. Is there anything you would like to contribute besides yelling at me and calling me biased without discussing any points I made? Or are you merely practicing refutation by ad hominem? --kizzle 03:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kizzel you are 2 sensitive. The cop is right. Dont let him get under your skin tho. Just be less bias and more discussing and less wanting your own way 63.3.19.2 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

63.3.19.2, you are not helping anything. Statements like "He sez [sic] what need to be sad [sic]." don't have a place on wikipedia. Please stop pushing your POV and accusing people of bias without any evidence. Wikipedia is not a place to tell people they "are 2 sensitive" either. Wikipedia is also not a place for vandalism: [22] [23] [24]

Good Cop: please stick to focusing on improving this article and refrain from ad hominem arguments. I've read a lot of this discussion page and you seem to have particular interest in either including positive information about Ann Coulter or removing negative information about Ann Coulter. It is not up to me to make a judgment on whether or not you are biased, but you seem, from some of the statements that you've made, to have be very emotionally invested in making this article what you want it to be. Kizzel has been nothing but civil and is, like you, trying to improve the article as he sees fit, and has done so without extending the same incivility that you've extended him. Please be civil and courteous. Let's try to get this resolved without personal attacks and accusations to detract from the main objective: improving the article. --Ubiq 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ubiq: Your user page has two (2) claims that you are against censorship, yet you are ready to tell the world what "doesn't have a place on Wikipedia." Your very clever use of [sic] is petty incivility, itself. See our civility rules about "belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice." And then you accuse people of vandalism, even providing (how kind, how clever) "evidence." But you don't seem to "get it" that the user's URL is something from AOL that is used by thousands of people. IMHO, these actions, and their number in one short post, don't reflect well on their perpetrator. But that's only me, of course. Others will judge for themselves. Good Cop 12:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Free speech does not apply. Using [sic] is not belittling. It is pointing out plain fact. — NRen2k5 19:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Cop: First, it can't be derived that I was being uncivil by my use of [sic]. That is far too judgmental of an assertion to be making, for which you have no evidence. I use [sic] quite often, and it is never to belittle anyone, but rather, to correct them, in hopes that they improve their spelling and grammar skills. Secondly, you are wrong about the AOL thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:63.3.19.2 is the user in question and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AOL is the list of AOL IP ranges. The user in question has already been blocked once before and will likely be blocked again. Thirdly, I don't think you understand censorship fully (or the goals of the particular anti-censorship groups I belong to), or perhaps you were not careful in reading what I said. I was not insisting that the user in question be restricted of the right to speak or write, or that his words/voice should be censored or deleted. I was rather, trying to encourage the user to be a better, more productive contributor to wikipedia. He/she is close to being banned again for his/her blanking of pages and other vandalism. Lastly, I hope to encourage you, again, not to resort to ad hominem arguments. Looking on a user's personal userpage to find a way to prove they are a hypocrite in a particular way is unnecessary. Edit history is fine, as it represents a track record in editing. Please try not to look at this so personally and realize that I'm trying to encourage civility and ultimately get this article to be unprotected and therefore improved. Personal attacks, incivility, and similar things aren't going to get us there. Regards. EDIT: NRen2k5 beat me to the punch. Hehe. --Ubiq 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-arabism

Looks like Coulter is the only human in Category:Anti-Arabism. Is it appropriate to request an admin to remove it via {{Edit protected}}? I think there might be a BLP issue to include her in a category that isn't for people. --Dual Freq 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

She seems more anti-Islam anyway, and there probably is a BLP issue. Why don't we just request to have it unprotected? The edit war wasn't very intense anyway. I think we've covered most of the issues involved. Cool Hand Luke 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Back in Talk:Ann Coulter#Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, the general consensus was to delete a related category. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. I have noticed a troubling trend, especially on this article but elsewhere as well, to use categories as an indictment. Essentially add someone to the "anti-(insert ethnic group here)" category if they have made a comment or comments opposing any aspect of some movement or agenda, but the implication of the category isnt that the person is opposed to some aspects of an agenda, but that they are opposed to the ethnic group itself. This is a prime example where apparently the only person here who is anti-arabism is Ann Coulter. Categories shouldnt be used as enemies lists. Caper13 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

After a closer look, it was added here by User:F.F.McGurk, who is now indef blocked. --Dual Freq 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew there was something up with that user. It was obvious he was either a blocked user or a sockpuppet but didn't know who. Should be a simple matter to delete the category then. Caper13 03:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I even think the categories should be trimmed to the 5 most apt descriptors, per Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations. --kizzle 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit completed. From a quick look, you guys have a few disagreements, but this particular removal doesn't seem to be controversial (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). Glad to see people talking things over. Luna Santin 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic

It is funny how she gets a mild "critic of Islam" where is the critic of Jews? no it is called antisemetic, Holocaust denier. See the difference. I added Anti-Islam, look at Mel Gibson he made a silar outburst and he was drunk, and look at the tag he got, so why is this anti-Islamic woman spared the tag?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Heck, even I think she's anti-Islam, and I'm Jewish. Gzuckier 18:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

By using terms such as "raghead" and "camel jockey", I definitely think that Coulter has said racist and anti-Arabic/Islamic things in the past. The question is, according to Wikipedia categorisation rules per the one I cited a few screens up, I wouldn't put it down as one of the top 5 descriptors for her.--kizzle 04:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, any categories that label someone with a derogatory term probably violate WP:BLP. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Who says its a derogatory term? You might, I might, but she would probably love it. I'm sure she would put herself in that category. Jdcooper 03:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

CBC - Wrapping Up Attempt 2

Proposed Passage:

Coulter became involved in a controversy for a statement she made on CBC Television's news program the fifth estate. During a conversation with the host, Bob McKeown, Coulter asserted that "Canada used to be...one of our most...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?" McKeown disputed her assertion by saying "No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam," to which Coulter eventually said "I'll have to get back to you on that". In a subsequent C-SPAN interview, Coulter justified her statement by referring to the 10,000 Canadians who voluntarily signed up with the American troops, though admitting she was wrong that the Canadian government had sent troops, as well as taking a shot at McKeown:

Yes, 10,000 Canadian troops, at least. There is a War Memorial to them, at least for most of that. The Canadian Government didn't send troops [...] but [...] 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... People keep saying: "well, he didn't tell you that they - 10,000 troops - ran across to sign up with the Americans..." I don't think he knew, he's a bubblehead Ted Baxter

For more information on Canada's involvement in the Vietnam War, see: Canada and the Vietnam War

---

No paragraph that will balloon into a treatise. No defense or offense either way. Just what happened, and what Coulter said later. Any of those who want to continue working on what Canada's relationship was to the Vietnam War can then go to the real article where this should be discussed and hash it out there. Also, this is an appropriate amount of space to dedicate to a bio page; any more and it would threaten to start taking over the article as more details are added. --kizzle 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For those who want a discussion of the work only, here it is:

1. The passage is better than it used to be for the reasons stated by Kizzle. In my opinion, it still has a long way to go.
2. Whoever puts something negative or questionable into a BLP needs to provide a clear demonstration of its notability. This was requested several times above, but ignored. On the other hand, several things point to the non-notability of this incident: 1. It is only one of many heated things said by Coulter, and it's really not very heated--she said Canada didn't send troops, then she said she'd been wrong. 2. We are approaching its second anniversary, so whatever notability it might have had no longer exists. 3. The community hasn't advanced any credible reasons why the incident IS notable. That one editor, or several, think or feel that something is notable is quite a different thing than providing unbiased third party evidence that it is notable, or rational and/or discussable reasons why it is notable.
3. The passage asserts that there was a controversy, but doesn't demonstrate that there was one. There is no indication that there was ever any of the wide discussion in many places that accompanies controversial remarks such as, for example, what Coulter said about the Jersey Girls.
4. Nothing other than Coulter's statement about troops was contested by the host or anyone else. Troops are the crux of what is going on here, yet all Coulter's words about Canada's relationship to the Vietnam war are still in the proposed passage. Even "I'll get back to you" is still there. Even if the incident were notable, those words are not, and in any event it has been wisely suggested that that sort of material be moved elsewhere.
5. The CSPAN interview is key to understanding the incident, and IMHO definitely belongs in any discussion of it. It is quoted at length, and is probably accurate, but no source is provided.
6. There are other questionable things in the proposed passage, but the questions above are more basic. I will be glad to bring them up later if the basic flaws are addressed in a meaningful way. Good Cop 13:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Phew, thank you for addressing this civilly. I changed your bullets to numbers so I could address them, hope you don't mind.

2. CBC covered it subsequent to their own coverage, Time Magazine mentioned the incident, CSPAN mentioned the incident and gave it a good amount of time, Coulter admitted she was wrong, Youtube clips of the incident have over 200,000 hits, and that's more or less U.S. coverage (besides YouTube) as I don't know how to check Canada mentions. For me, the Time magazine mention is the selling point to its notability. Of course, I'm not a huge proponent that this is a very notable piece, I just think that mentioning the CBC interview in this manner, which is only one paragraph with a quote and redirect link will preemptively stop any future attempts at justifying/defending Coulter, as I've seen this requested many times. The passage is sourced (assuming someone can find either the transcript or the date of broadcast or a video clip of the extended portion of the CSPAN interview) and I think this one part will help keep the article stable.

3. I'd like to mention the Time Magazine article, the FAIR article, and a Salon piece covering the Time piece, which details most of the controversy, but if I add any of that in, then we're back at filling this article out beyond belief.

4. If you want to drop "I'll get back to you" I have no problem with that, I think Lou was the one who wanted an extended mention of the conversation.

5. I can't find a link with a cursory Google search, and C-SPAN only keeps online videos for the last 2 months. I think if we find simply the date of broadcast (I believe the program is "Book Notes"), then I believe that will suffice as a proper citation. --kizzle 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we want to show its notability, we would have to show that this debate is notable in Canada. I don't think a blurb in a larger Time magazine article would normally satisfy notability. Usually, the subject needs independant discussion. Here, that would mean that Time would have had to have an article solely discussing this controversy, and not just have it listed in with other controversies. However, if it could be demonstrated that the CBC extensively covered this, as well as other notable media in Canada or in the US, then I think it can be added. Otherwise, I don't think this can be put into this biographical article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, I'm not a huge proponent of this incident's notability, but it does rise above the level of her other comments, albeit slightly. I don't think a paragraph can hurt, and if we do it like I have written above, it would stop future attempts at justifying/accusing Coulter on the matter, as this incident has been requested to be put in multiple times and will continue to be requested. If the passage doesn't get included because of notability, that's fine with me, I just think in a pragmatic sense I slightly favor it in than out. What do you think? --kizzle 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the points you've made. It has been on US air a bit, much more so in Canada I believe. Moreover, a quick search on youtube for "coulter canada" reveals several of the same video, some of which have several thousand views (one has 100,000 another has 80,000). Not that youtube is a great indication of notability but it's certainly not been ignored in comparison to her other comments. It was not as notable as the 9/11 widows controversy but certainly more notable than other things she's said/done. Like I said in my vote on your straw poll above, I think it'd be better if her controversies were put into an Ann Coulter Controversies page so we don't have to include every crazy thing she's said into her biography here. But if that can't be done, I favor your version to be included here. --Ubiq 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Daughter articles due to length I agree with, but syphoning off content due to its controversial nature is bad re: Wikipedia:Content forking. If the section gets way too long, then a daughter article will then become appropriate IMHO. --kizzle 03:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Though nobody up here seems to hate including this whole incident in the article (IF it's fair and NPOV), nobody seems to be really, really convinced that it's notable enough to go in. IMHO, there's not much justification for including it, other than to try to embarrass Coulter. Discussing the numbered points above:

2. There has been reasoned discussion of the incident's notability as an event. I thank everyone for demonstrating that this WAS a bigger deal than many of her other comments. But WP:BLP actually asks/requires editors to "insist on a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." I haven't seen the clear demonstration of its relevance to her notability. Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the event, and it's rarely talked about any more. Since then, she has authored a #1 bestselling book, and it continues to be available in stores, as do her others, which were written as long as five years ago. The books are clearly "relevant to her notability," but I just don't see that this incident meets that test. If somebody can clearly demonstrate that it does, please do.

3. Whatever the suitability of articles commenting on the articles about the interview, there ISN'T room for all that stuff. If this incident goes into the article, which nobody seems extremely keen for it to do, it needs to be short, short, short, short, short.

4. Dropping "I'll get back to you" doesn't fully address the issue raised by this point, which is that the incident is about the "troops in Vietnam" argument. The "friends of the U.S." stuff needs to be deleted, too. IMHO, anything not directly related to "troops in Vietnam" needs to be mercilessly deleted. If any of it is left in, it's eligible to be debated, discussed, and expanded upon, and the article gets even bigger.

5. If the CSPAN interview is going to be quoted, which it SHOULD be if the incident goes into the article, it needs to be sourced. (So, by the way, does the original incident. Somewhere sourcing has been lost.)

6. New point: No matter how much someone may want to deny it, and no matter what Coulter may have said on CSPAN, the fact remains that Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. They didn't fight alongside the U.S., but nobody ever said that they did. Ted Baxter kept claiming they weren't even there. The facts are impeccably sourced, and there are other WP articles that refer to them (the ones on the commissions). The entire incident revolves around, and is notable because of, Ted Baxter's going ballistic about "sent troops to Vietnam." IMHO, the underlying facts about the troops need to be mentioned in the article, IF the incident is mentioned there at all. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes something designed to embarrass Ann Coulter. ("Oh look, she doesn't know what she's talking about.")

I've got to go to work, so I can't propose alternate wording right now. I'll try it later. It would be very short, relying on citations rather than quotes, and would be along the lines of: "There was a flap about Canadian troops in Vietnam (the interview won't be quoted, but WILL be linked to). Coulter later explained herself by referring to 10,000 American volunteers (ditto on quoting and linking). The historical facts about Canadian troops in Vietnam can be found HERE (more links). Of course, even if a very short mention goes in, some editors will want to expand it later. Good Cop 13:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly notable in Canada, the fifth estate is Canada's equivalent to 60 minutes and it also generated comment in significant media outlets such as Time so it does merit mention as a controversy. It should not be the focus of the biography, by any means, but the proposed passage which simply states what the controversy is and Coulter's response, is merited and deals with the issue directly without belaboring it. Sixth Estate 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP asks/requires editors to "insist on a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." I haven't seen that demonstration. Coulter appears on many important TV shows and is one of America's important public intellectuals. IMHO, this incident isn't at all relevant to her notability, any more than a single Toronto Maple Leafs game is relevant to theirs. Good Cop 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

2) What Sixth Estate said. Something notable said on 60 minutes gets covered here, same with CBC in Canada.

3) As you can see, the proposed passage does not include either Time or FAIR mention.

4) I'm sorry, but the answer is not to drop context. Coulter's point was slightly more complicated than "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" and the statement does not exist in a vacumn. It's not like we're violating undue weight here. Quote her point (which is only 3 sentences), the response, and the C-SPAN, and put the redirect link to stem future debate as to whether she was right.

5) I completely agree, but I'm having trouble finding the broadcast date for the CSPAN interview. As for the CBC interview, we can just use the CBC link to their video.

6) Completely and entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Take it up on Canada and the Vietnam War. The proposed passage neither claims she was wrong or right or that troops were sent or weren't sent, it merely quotes her, CBC, and her response to the incident. Go have fun on the appropriate talk page (not this one) if you want to continue this debate.

As for your proposed passage, it really isn't too much different from what I suggested, and I believe given the choice between editors interpreting what each of them said and letting the readers read the actual quotes in context for themselves, I'd much prefer the latter. --kizzle 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Something gets mentioned here just because it's said on 60 minutes or the much-less-influential fifth estate? Not unless it is clearly demonstrated to be relevant to Coulter's notability, it doesn't.

4) If you don't want to drop context, why do you drop the most important context of all -- the fact that Ted Baxter's repeated insistence that Canada did not send troops is absolutely incorrect? If you drop that context, other editors are certain to add it back in.

6) Please refrain from telling others to go away. It is uncivil. You do not own the article or the talk page. Please try hard to find the citation for the excellent CSPAN material that you propose adding to the article. (Trying to be polite here, your failure at that reflects a bit on your credibility.) And please DO try to provide a clear demonstration of this incident's relevance to Ann Coulter's notability.

Of course, Coulter's point was slightly more complicated than just troops. But Ted Baxter's objection was extremely focused, and their debate about troops is the only thing that makes this incident worth discussing. Good Cop 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(Just saw this, sorry.) The fact that you keep referring to Bob McKeown as Ted Baxter makes me doubt your ability to handle this discussion in a civil manner. To your substantive points: This one question on CBC was also mentioned in Time Magazine, so while it's not the most notable thing she said, I think the 3-sentence paragraph + giving Coulter the final word that we're using is good enough and does not violate undue weight. As for context, I don't want to drop context relating to the interview itself, not the larger substantive dispute. The context which you want to add, that Canada sent 240 non-combat peacekeepers to supervise the ceasefire, belongs on Canada and the Vietnam War. Once again, I believe given the choice between editors interpreting what each of them said and letting the readers read the actual quotes in context for themselves, I'd much prefer the latter. Also, please don't take my attempt to redirect your attempts at positive contribution as a sign to "go away", I'm merely telling you that debating whether Canada sent troops to Vietnam on a page about Ann Coulter is entirely inappropriate. The proposed passage neither justifies nor attacks Coulter's point, and even lets her have the last word. Readers who want to know Canada's involvement in the War can then go on to the redirect link to find out more, and that is also where you can continue this debate. --kizzle 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

6)I think not to include it on the basis that it is trying to make her look like she doesn't know what she is talking about would be a poor decision, considering these two points:

1. It was clear in the interview that she did not know what she was talking about. She expressed immense uncertainty and was not able to cite then and there the ways in which Canada was involved. It was a matter of coincidence that the facts ended up matching up with her statement. She learned, after the interview, that what she was saying was technically true. This doesn't mean she knew that Canada sent troops. And this also doesn't mean that what she claimed (something vague and catch all) represented what (given the context) she meant to claim (something more specific and untrue).

2. The proposed passage states the known facts of the situation without making her out to look like an idiot, which is what you (Good Cop) are claiming the inclusion of the passage will accomplish. Look at the passage and you will see that it does not do this. I think the proposed passage is very generous (to you, the only one seeming to have a problem with this part), considering the truth of the interview would likely be more accurately represented by some of the (insinuatory) statements in my first counter-point. --Ubiq 23:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1. It was not at all clear that she didn't know what she was talking about. Why did she mention Indochina? Ted Baxter is the one who didn't know what he was talking about. (The fact that Canada did send troops.) None of our original research matters, though. It's a two-year old interview that is not relevant to Coulter's notability, unless, of course, somebody can clearly demonstrate that it is. I am open to clear demonstrations, but there haven't been any.

2. Let's see... The interview makes it "clear" that she didn't know what she was talking about, but it doesn't "make her look like an idiot." It's getting hard to follow this stuff. Good Cop 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

1. First, Ted Baxter was a fictional character and did not conduct the interview. Bob McKeown conducted the interview. Please stop using Ann Coulter rhetoric in a formal argument to refer to Bob McKeown. It is detracting from your points. Secondly, It was clear that she was very unsure of herself once Bob contradicted her. She said: "I think you're wrong." Again, watch the interview. She did not say "I know you're wrong. Here are specific cases. [Listing specific cases would follow if she actually did know]." I am not asserting that Bob knew what he was talking about either. The false assumption is that either of them necessarily had to know what they were talking about. It was obvious that neither of them knew at that point in time. If Bob knew, he would have specifically said they didn't send combat troops.

2. You are not being a careful reader here. I said that it was clear in the interview that she didn't know what she was talking about, but that the passage (yes, the part of the encyclopedia article that is recounting the incident) as proposed by Kizzle does not make her out to look like an idiot (or anything close). Please read more carefully next time before trying to make it look like I'm contradicting myself, which is evidently not the case.

3. As a final point I will say this: I do not believe this passage should be included on the main Ann Coulter page. I think there should be a controversies section that leads to a separate controversies page for Ann Coulter because there are more than enough controversial things she has said. She is a political pundit who gets attention through such means. This is a notable controversy because it is understood that she (like many other pundits) is supposed to know her historical facts. And it was clear that she did not know. If there was at one point she did know, then it was clearly not demonstrated in the interview that she knew at the time, as she was not able to recall any evidence. I'm sorry, but a mere unassured utterance of "Indochina?" does not qualify as evidence. She stated something she believed as if it were something she knew and could prove then and there. And that is why, regardless of whether or not the facts aligned with her assertion, it made her look like an "idiot". Regardless, and as stated previously, Kizzle's passage is unbiased and NPOV such that it doesn't make her look that way anyway, so I don't know your problem is. If you're wanting to improve her public perception (and after reading through this talk page I'm almost certain you are) or perhaps neutralize it, you'd want this passage to be included, since it clears up misconceptions about Canada's role in Vietnam as mistakenly reported by Bob McKeown. This is notable too. If anything, it defends her much more than it does make her look bad. Look through the comments on the various videos for this incident and you will see that many of the people who saw the video have the mistaken idea that she was wrong and treated her with adjectives and nouns accordingly. --Ubiq 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See it all, courtesy of the CBC

The CBC provides the Coulter-McKeown clip at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html, in view-online video. The same CBC webpage also hold links to that whole episode of the fifth estate, and to Coulter's later attempt to use the cross-border volunteers to imply that she was actually right, likewise as view-online videos. -- Lonewolf BC 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For added convenience, below is a thorough transcript of the Coulter-McKeown exchange, together with a proper introduction. In the transcript, ellipsis shows a hesitation or momentary pause in speech, and asterisks show where Coulter or McKeown began talking before the other had finished, or answered the other without the usual conversational pause. (The exchange was somewhat sharp.) Words spoken with emphasis are underlined, and non-verbal aspects are given in parenthsised italics (This is my own transcript, with which I took great care but which is not in any way "official". If in doubt, watch the video.)

McKeown (voice-over): Ann [or "And"; if "Ann" then rightly "Rachel"] Marsden isn't the only one on Fox to base outspoken opinions on misconception.
(There follows an introduction to, and then a showing of the occasion when, shortly after Bush had been met in Ottawa by protesters against the Iraq War, Coulter went on Fox and said, "They [Canadians] need us. They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them."; and then the cut Coulter's exchange with McKeown.)

McKeown: Explain*...why you said that, that way.

Coulter: We were... I was on Hannity and Colmes. We were discussing the...the anti-war protesters.*

McKeown: Yeah.* (softly, without interrupting)

Coulter: Canada used to be...one of our most...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?

McKeown: No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.

Coulter: I don’t think that’s right.* (unsure inflection; surprised look)

McKeown: Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.

Coulter: Indochina? (unsure inflection; surprised/unsure look)

McKeown: Uh...no. (shaking head) Canada... S- Second World War, of course. Korea(?) Yes.* Vietnam... (question-inflection on "Korea(?)" slight and rhetorical)

Coulter: I think you’re wrong.* (now sounding sure and slightly aggressive)

McKeown: No, took a pass on Vietnam.

Coulter: I think you’re wrong.

McKeown: No. ... Australia was there. Not Canada.

Coulter: I think Canada sent troops.

McKeown: No. No. (almost silently; shaking head)

Coulter: Well, I’ll get back to you on that.

McKeown: (little laugh) Okay.

McKeown (voice-over): Coulter never got back to us, but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam.

(Copied down into this section, for the greater convenience of users -- Lonewolf BC 04:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Coldblooded trolling

For some reason a search of "coldblooded" redirects you to the Ann Coulter page. I was just searching a completely unrelated topic entirely that doesn't have a page, it turns out. But it hardly seems as if the search term "coldblooded" should redirect to Ann Coulter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.109.32.52 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and changed the redirect for coldblooded to cold-blooded. Someone had some fun in 2004 apparently. Kyaa the Catlord 11:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone "had fun", sure enough, but not back in 2004. Anonymous-IP 66.24.236.62 (dig its talk-page) did the vandalising redirect, just a few days ago (diff), right before making an alike edit to "Illogical". Then 64.109.32.52 (instead of righting that redirect, or commenting on it on that page, or both) came here, to "tell us all about it". These doings bring to my mind the question: "What's ugly and lives under a bridge?" Let us feed it (or them) no more.
-- Lonewolf BC 22:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse you. Those comments and insinuations are uncalled for and violate the policy of assuming good faith and not using personal attacks as listed above. I'm a casual Wikipedia user who was doing a search for something else and got directed here. I don't know how to change a redirect, and further more, I wasn't 100% certain that the redirect wasn't legitimate, like maybe this woman had a book by that title that redirected to this page for some reason, or something. I'm not that familiar with the process. I figured this would be the place to post it, I'm not sure why anyone would take not posting it on the redirect page or both places, or whatever exacting protocol wasn't pedantically followed, as some kind of malicious attack, but if anyone is trolling, you are. What's ugly is unfounded and insulting assumptions that you really have to work to find any justification for. Anyway, it's been changed, fine, but an unfounded and insulting rant that calls me a troll when I was just reporting when I found (somehow interpreted as bragging about it), I take exception to. Don't automatically assume everybody else is up to no good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.109.32.1 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't endorse vandalizing Wikipedia like that, but damn, that is funny! — NRen2k5 18:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Speeches at college campuses

“Shane Kennedy, then president of the IU College Republicans student group, defended her comments, saying, "I think the guy could have been more respectful to her."” should be removed.
“After the speech, during a question-and-answer period, many audience members, including the wife of a soldier stationed in Iraq, voiced their support for Coulter and apologized on behalf of the unruly students.” should be removed.
These detract from the rest of the section as they'e completely un-noteworthy comments made by obvious supporters of Ann Coulter. Curiously absent is any comment from her detractors. — NRen2k5 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it is not NPOV. Once Good Cop agrees to stop fighting everyone over a particular passage, we'll try to unprotect the page and get that changed. --Ubiq 18:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems kind of one-sided to present what the "protestors" said/did, but not to present what the non-protestors said/did. It's all copyrighted material, anyhow. Lou Sander 02:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree Lou. To my knowledge, nobody suggested we make the section one-sided in the opposite direction it is now. Neutralizing is the goal. My main problems with the section in question are these two portions:

1. "many audience members, including the wife of a soldier stationed in Iraq, voiced their support for Coulter" -whether or not someone is a wife of a soldier in Iraq is entirely irrelevant and should be removed.

2. "and apologized on behalf of the unruly students" -for obvious reasons the word unruly needs to be removed, as it is entirely too subjective.

We really need to get this article unprotected though. --Ubiq 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are direct quotations from the sources, and they're not ours to change. We just report what other people say, don't we? Sometimes source material is summarized, but that has to be done in a fair and neutral way. For whatever reason, editors of this article want to, or don't have the skills to, (or whatever else) to fairly and neutrally choose and summarize material about Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 14:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Direct quotations? Really? Doesn't look like it. They're not quoted properly, it would seem. Notice that in its current state, it isn't the Coulter shills who are calling the protesters unruly, it's Wikipedia itself that's calling them unruly. And it is entirely irrelevant that one of the apologists is “the wife of a soldier in Iraq.” It isn't relevant. I care that she's the wife of an Iraq soldier about as much as I would care if she was a schoolteacher from Abu Dhabi or whatever. It just isn't damned well worth mentioning. But that's just nitpicking, anyway. Including this sort of stupidity in the article, you'd have to be a hypocrite to not allow people to paste criticisms of Coulter in wherever they want. Because that's just what this is - pasting in support for Coulter wherever it fits. Either way it JUST. DOESN'T. BELONG. — NRen2k5 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not one-sided. It's to the point. You don't throw comments in there. If you're going to have comments, there might as well be comments on the comments. And then you don't have an article anymore, you have a talk page. — NRen2k5 23:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lou: I think you might not have read the parts I was referring to from this article. As far as I know, the passages I quoted are not directly from the sources. They are subjective interpretations of the events by a wikipedia user, at least in the case of the word unruly being used. The tidbit about the mother of an Iraq soldier, too, is unnecessary and irrelevant. If you can read the specific part of the article I'm referring to, and get back to me/us, I'd greatly appreciate it. Regards. --Ubiq 03:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ubiq: You're right about that. Sorry. It DOES seem that part of the crowd was "unruly," though. It also seems (to me) that if identifying the mother is unnecessary and irrelevant, so is identifying the organizations, behavior, gestures, etc. of the protestors. IMHO, this incident would be much easier to discuss than the Canadian troops stuff, and some good could be done by discussing it here. What do you think? Lou Sander 14:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that it seems to you to be that way, but that's just what it is: It seems to you to be that way. The fact of the matter is that group x protested a speech by party y. What parties a, b, and c think about the incident is irrelevant. What is important is noting the incident itself, not necessarily the actions of other people surrounding the incident, not their opinions on the incident, and certainly not who these bit players are.
Furthermore, Wikipedia is supposed to be as objective as possible, and outright calling someone “unruly” is subjective at the very best. — NRen2k5 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Lou: Like NRe2k5 just pointed out, it doesn't quite matter what it seems like. I don't believe our role as editors is to paint a situation with an adjective that's too subjective to be agreed upon. Furthermore, since none of us (at least the three of us discussing this matter) were actually there to see the behavior of the protestors, it can't quite be ascertained that their behavior was, in fact, unruly. And from the information provided in the article, I can't quite agree with you that "wearing red shirts and giving her the peace sign when she spoke out against attempts by liberals to equate gay rights with the civil rights movement" is unruly. Unruly is defined as: "not submissive or conforming to rule; ungovernable; turbulent; intractable; refractory; lawless: an unruly class; an unruly wilderness." Sorry, I just don't see giving peace signs and staging a walk out as "unruly".

I think you make a decent point about the wife of the Iraq soldiers, except for the fact that the protestors were mostly from gay/lesbian and feminist student groups. This is relevant because it explains why they were protesting, since Ann Coulter is noticably anti-gay. So let us ask what is relevant about a person's opinion who is also the wife of a soldier stationed in Iraq? Does that mean she supports the Iraq war, and is therefore more likely to be a conservative? I believe the fact that a person might be conservative would be relevant but I don't believe we can make such a stretch of a judgment to say that she was. So I think the best option at the moment would be to take that part out (and also take out the part that she apologized). The actual article that is sourced states this: "The wife of an American soldier in Iraq had nothing but praise for Coulter.

'My husband thanks you from Baghdad,' she said"

There isn't an actual apology there. In fact, looking at the article that is sourced [25], it only cites one person apologizing on the "unruly" students' behalf. Also, I don't think the word "unruly" was used in the article to describe the quiet gay/lesbian protestors, but rather one of the students who was unsatisfied with her answer to his question during the question/answer portion of her speech. Looking at this now, it either seems that there was some serious POV pushing by whoever wrote this part, or that whoever wrote this was not careful in reading the article they were sourcing. Either way this is inexcusable and needs to be fixed. And, yes, I definitely agree that this is an easier topic to discuss than the Canada-Vietnam thing. Best. --Ubiq 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, you're not getting the big picture here. Sorry. Lou Sander 13:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain then? Everyone but you seems to be confused, and none of us see this "big picture". ~Switch ^t 14:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep lookin' mate! (It's there.) Lou Sander 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Lou. I carefully pointed out not one, but multiple distortions of the truth in reference to this section of the article and all you have to say is that I'm "not getting the big picture here"? Explain that if you will. Being less vague might help.

I'm suspecting that, again, you might not be looking at this carefully enough. Do this: First, read the section of this wikipedia article that describes the incident we're discussing. Second, look at the article that is sourced [26]. Finally, compare the two and see how different they are. You haven't contributed anything with your last two or three posts and your opinion has now been rendered all but meaningless here, unless you'd be willing to rebut the claims I'm making, or tell me how I'm "not getting the big picture". Regards.

EDIT: Just for reference and to make things easy on Lou, I'm going to list things I believe to be wrong or untrue with this statement in the wiki article (in respect to the article that is sourced as being the account of the event): "After the speech, during a question-and-answer period, many audience members, including the wife of a soldier stationed in Iraq, voiced their support for Coulter and apologized on behalf of the unruly students."

1. That many audience members apologized on behalf of the students. (Just one of them apologized.)

2. That the wife of the Iraq soldier apologized on anyone's behalf. (She just complimented her.)

3. That the gay/lesbian/feminist students who quietly protested were the ones who were unruly. (They were peaceful and orderly. The guy who--wasn't a part of the LGBT groups--yelled, "Vote no for tyranny," was the one originally referred to as unruly. Note that he went unmentioned in this wiki article.)

4. That many of the audience voiced their support for Coulter but that many didn't voice their dissent. (The questions were split up evenly between detractors and supporters.)

5. That the fact that a supportive audience member happens to be the wife of an Iraq soldier is relevant.

So, to recap, this is basically what I'm saying: that the statement I quoted is one big distortion of the truth, in perhaps every possible way. If you want to rebut this claim alone instead of making vague inferences to my not seeing a big picture, be my guest. --Ubiq 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling out fallacious reasoning

Once this page is open to editing, I would love to see the various specious quotes attributed to their respective logical fallacies, as well as their author.Tasteslikechimp 10:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What quotes are you talking about, specifically? — NRen2k5 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)