Talk:Ann Coulter

The External Links

Could some liberal brace himself and find even one pro-Ann Coulter external link, just to preserve the neutrality and good name of Wikipedia?

There are "pro-Ann" links in the article: anncoulter.com, coulterwatch.com, jewishworldreview.com. Of course you're welcome to add any you know of. Christiaan 17:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Quotes - already in Wikiquote

The purpose of adding these quotes seesm to be to show how outrageous Coulter is. We only need a couple in order to do that. Adding more is just piling-on. All of the quotes that were here are already on Wikiquotes, so nothing is lost. I don't care which couple of quotes are used, but even four is more than are necessary. Cheers, - Willmcw 00:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing some quotes, but I do object to enforcing some arbitrary standard which isn't wikipedia policy. I've restored the quotes because some of them are among her most notable/famous/notorious statements. Gamaliel 16:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have to support Gamliel on this; the quotes are perhaps the part of the page which most effectively and efficiently gives the reader the picture of what Coulter is all about (one quote is worth a thousand words?) and the reader shouldn't have to go looking on another page for them. Gzuckier 19:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Me too. --kizzle 19:57, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

If one quote is worth a thousand words then do you really need 24 of them? That'd make this article 24,000 words long! Anyway, I bow to the editorial consensus. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

small incorrectness

From the paragraph: Coulter is quoted in an article in Newsday as saying that the media are biased to the left because Republicans don't have the wealth to start media outlets, while Democrats do. That Republicans are rich, she says, "is one of the stunning lies that Democrats have been able to palm off.... Liberals really are the idle rich." In Slander, she writes that "liberals have absolutely no contact with the society they decry from their Park Avenue redoubts." Critics such as Joe Conason, author of Big Lies, point out that Coulter herself is a rich woman from an affluent background, and that she does not similarly dismiss Republican politicians because of their wealth. Coulter's position is further undermined by the Gallup poll, which found that "regular voters in the two higher-income categories prefer Republicans by an average of about 15 percentage points, while the two lower-income groups support Democrats by an average of about 23 percentage points. The crossover point appears to be at an annual income of about $50,000 a year".

I dont think the Gallup poll is relevant. She is saying that democrats, because they are rich (richer than republicans), are not in a position to represent the lower or middle class, while the poll shows that they are statistically supported by that group. More relevant would be some stats showing that republicans are richer than democrats, and that they recieve a lot more funding. Mir 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is racist and sexist

Just to experiment with the wikipedia policy, I want to know what people think of stating in the article (along with "republican") that Coulter is:

Racist:

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages." -- she is implying that white men (sexist and racist), are more sane then non-white men.
- Logical fallacy. All she is saying is the known fact that at the time she said it, in countries where there is a majority of white people, the countries are ruled by laws. The fallacy is confusing: "nearly all white men live in a nation of laws and are therefore sane", with "nearly all white men live in a nation of laws because they are sane". Rather, it's the law that enforces the sanity.
  - I am not making a fallicious statement. If it is her belief that race has nothing to do with rule of law, why does she bring it up. Clearly she thinks race is important in this issue, which makes her racist. Mir 04:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - As a class the white race is nearly universally an educated one. That's simply a fact, not racism.

Next! Gzuckier 19:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- - - She realized her audience would recognize this and form in their minds a vivid contrast to those zealots, like those who crashed airplanes into the U.S. landmarks, who seem to not even possess reason.

Of course! That's the point; her audience is as racist as she is. And, apparently, just as capable of denying it.Gzuckier 19:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sexist:

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." -- From wikipedias definition, sexism is discrimination (double standard) between people based on their gender.
- Possible use of humor. We don't know if Ann is being facetious or not. It's likely that she is--would she take away her own right to vote? Doesn't her opinion against a fundamental right seem ridiculously contrary to her own political activism, and her extreme conclusion appear in the disguise of having been reached as a result of a free flight of a femininely light imagination that accidently carried the argument too far? So that if someone objects that the conclusion doesn't follow from the argument, or that she's oversimplifying, she can say, "Well we know that's exactly how women argue, so you're proving my point that they DO have trouble understanding any number of things"? And having "proved" her argument, she at the same time disproves it by the fact that she has just outsmarted you. When you realize all those things nearly all at the same moment, (as long as you don't hold a grudge) it makes you laugh.
  - No, she is being serious and refering to women in general, herself being the exception. If you disagree, please state what possible non-sexist point could she be making here. Mir 15:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - As I just got through explaining, to parade her own cleverness, mainly. I might add the point that it's a comic cliché that women as class like to go shopping. Comedy depends on these kinds of generalizations, and no one calls it sexist. Coulter seems to be merely extending the comic image of women not being able to control their enthusiasm for spending into the realm of whom they choose in government to spend money for them.

Was she on a humor program? did she laugh? Did anyone else laugh? Anyway, all Ann's humor in the past has involved death and injury to people she didn't agree with (I didn't mean they should blow up the new york times building, only kidding!) so this doesn't fit the pattern. Gzuckier 17:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You mean like when Saturday Night Live, on which Al Franken (mentioned in the article as a critic of Coulter) was a writer, had Dan Ackroyd dress up like Nixon and say to a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, "You're lucky, Abe...All they did was shoot you!" Are we to assume that Franken's comedy writing team didn't really want us to believe that Nixon wanted to have himself assassinated? Or should we instead harbor suspicions about them that they really wished "death and injury to people [they] didn't agree with"? What I see conspicuous in the so-called examples that are put forward under this header is not racism or sexism, but rather prejudice against conservatives.

Yes, exactly like that; Franken and Ackroyd were on a comedy program, they were obviously grinning, and the audience at home and in the studio did laugh; these are generally good indicators that they were not being serious. So, like I said, Was she on a humor program? did she laugh? Did anyone else laugh? Gzuckier 19:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will ever know whether or not Ann believes anything that comes out of her mouth or if she, like Howard Stern, realizes that the only reason why people know her name is because she'll say what other people won't say. So I don't think we'll know if she really is sexist or racist, she promotes obviously conservative traditional values and yet she sleeps around all the time, clearly there is a divide between what she says and who she is. Personally, I don't care whether or not she is. Anyways, see below. --kizzle 21:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of my personal beliefs, any such attempt to include such an analysis of Coulter would be a clear-cut case of spoon feeding. --kizzle 21:00, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

So you mean that saying racist/sexist comments doesn't make her sexist/racist. Thats bs.

Anyways, is there still any disagreement that the above quotes are racist/sexist? 66.185.85.74 03:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. See above. 64.154.26.251 05:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course, one could always put 'Critics believe Coulter is racist and exist because of her statements that ......' and leave it to the Coulterites to follow upo with 'But of course, what she really meant was.....' This is not 'spoonfeeding', is it? Gzuckier 19:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mass delete of criticism section

(Text temp-moved to Ann Coulter/criticism)

The criticism section consisted of several passages of text of the form:

Coulter says this, but the reality is this.

This essentially makes Wikipedia endorse the POV that Coulter is wrong. Which obviously violates our policy.

It would be fine if any number of named critics each were quoted as saying they disagreed with Coulter. Or if we merely summarized the views of these critics.

For example:

Al Franken says Coulter misinterprets stuff, takes quotes out of context, etc. (Here are a few examples he gives from Lies and Liars.)

Somebody (but say who, please) gave a rejoinder to her "liberal idle rich" remark, asserting that Republicans are just as rich (richer?).

Rush Limbaugh says she goes too far (need source for this)

I'm not sure what to do with Franken's crack, "...hysterical right". Is this a criticism? Or just name-calling? Should it go first, as a kind of intro to his arguments? If Franken is asserting that the right is "hysterical", what does he mean by this? Is he dismissing ALL right-wing criticism of liberals? (Right wingers are crazy, they just can't see the truth.)

Where to go from here:

Any part that can be salvaged can go back in, properly sourced and cast in neutral language. Nothing of the form Coulter claims this but is clearly wrong can go back, unless attributed to a source: e.g., Some people contest Coulter's claim that liberals constitute an "idle rich". These people argue that.... 19:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hard to argue that Canada's not participating in the vietnam war, or the voting habits versus income structure of the us are merely matters of point of view. Therefore I returned ann's disagreement with the common reality on these topics to the article. Gzuckier 04:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point. Nobody here is disputing whether Canada participated in the Vietnam War. The point is whether Wikipedia may support the POV of the anti-Coulter crowed that Coulter distorts facts and refuses to concede error. It's better to couch it in terms like the following, which I propose to add to the article:

On several occasions, other commentators and writers have taken issue with Coulter's handling of historical facts. For example, on a talk show she made reference to "Canada not sending troops to Vietnam" and refused to agree with the interviewer's rejoinder that "Canada had indeed sent troops to Vietnam" (see Canada and the Vietnam War).

If we put it like this, the Ann Coulter article neither supports nor condemns the view that Coulter made a mistake and refused to accept correction. But it also supplies an easily-checked reference so that the reader can make up their own mind.

The important issue is that Wikipedia articles should remain neutral and avoid taking sides in disputes. There is, as I believe you will agree, a dispute between Coulter herself and the "anti-Coulter" crowd about how accurate her remarks are. It is this point on which I urge you to help me make the article neutral.

I have no objection to making it easy for readers to check the facts about any specific example of Coulter's alleged sloppiness with facts. Add dozens of these, if you like. I'll even help you! But please just avoid having the article say outright (or even imply) that Coulter makes many mistakes and refuses correction. That conclusion should only come from the mouth of a critic. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Gzuckier 18:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Canada

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

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

So there's a distinction between:

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

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

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

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

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

But we might also point out this:

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

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

Main point that her critics make

We should try to figure out the main point (or points) that Coulter's critics make. Near as I can tell from superficial link-following, is that they make the following case:

Coulter plays fast and loose with the facts.
Coulter's sloppiness with the facts is egregious.
Coulter makes up stuff which is clearly, obviously false.
Her claim about Canada having "sent troops" to Vietnam is a typical example of her pattern of distorting history.
Therefore, she should be dismissed as a shrill, nonesense spouting mean-spirited bitch.

(This is only a first draft, maybe I could leave out the b-word, eh? But I think I've captured the gist of the argument.)

Now how shall we characterize this?

Coulter's critics rightly charge her with being sloppy with details or outright lies; the Canada thing proves that these critics are right
Coulter's critics claim that she is sloppy with details and even indulges in outright lies. They cite the Canada thing in support of their claim.
Coulter's critics are trying to discredit her with claims that she falsifies history and refuses to accept correction; she'll lie right to your face. The Canada thing shows that these critics are wrong, and are engaging in exactly the sort of tactics she rightly accuses them of.

I'd call the first, siding with Coulter's critics; the second, taking a NPOV; the third, siding with Coulter. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:38, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Blame Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

chocolateboy 04:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Points of view

Coulter's critics have one point of view, and her defenders have another. Wikipedia should not censor these points of view (POV). If you disagree, please say why; don't just censor. Thank you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:39, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Victor Levant, author of Quiet Complicity, wrote: "Ten thousand young Canadian men fought in the US armed forces in the war." [2]

Coulter complains that the CBC took 30 seconds out of a lengthy interview and magnified a small quibble to discredit her. Did "Canada" meaning the Canadian Government officially send troops in Canadian uniform under command of Canadian active-duty officers? I'm not sure; maybe not. But did "Canada" (the nation, the land, the body of people) send anyone to fight? Certainly.

Was Coulter 100% wrong? That's for each reader to decide for themselves. Wikipedia should not say the interviewer "corrected" her because that endorses the view that she was wrong. Moreover, nearly all the quotes in the Quotations section are being used by Coulter opponents (some of them Wikipedians) to imply that Coulter blatantly makes up falsehoods and therefore can be utterly disregarded.

We should not cooperate with or endorse this anti-Coulter campaign but describe it fairly. THere is a dispute between anti-Coulter forces and her defenders over what her "wild" remarks mean. Anti-Coulter says it proves she's mostly wrong. Pro-Coulter says her phrasing might not be spot on, but she was close enough.

Coulter was arguing that (a) Canada helped a lot during Vietnam but (b) is not helping as much now. The interviewer pounced on her "sent troops" remark. Bloggers all over are publicizing that did not, did too exchange as proof that Coulter makes mistakes and refuses correction. Wikipedia should not endorse or oppose this campaign, but merely report on it.

There *is* a campaign to discredit Coulter. Wikipedia should report on this campaign. It should not say her critics are wrong for trying to discredit her (and that she is right). Nor should it say that they are right (and that she is wrong). It should just do what Larry Sanger, Wikipedia co-founder said: describe the dispute fairly. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

Answer below. -- Uncle Ed (talk)

Who are all these un-named "critics" and "defenders"? Can we have some links given for the arguments presented? Otherwise it too looks like original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Canada quotes

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

"While Canada did not officially send troops to Vietnam, over 30,000 Canadian troops served under the US flag. What was the deal? Aparently Canada was in the process of downsizing its military and 30,000 of her former finest joined the US Army while maintaining Canadian citizenship. Most of the troops returned to Canada after their tours. There is even a Canadian Vietnam War Memorial." [3]

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

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

From above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did "Canada send troops"?

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

"Although estimates vary, at least 12 000 Canadians served with the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. Some crossed the border to join, others were living in the U.S. during the war." [4]

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

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

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

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

Perhaps the proper distinction is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed's Recent Edits

Uncle Ed, I'm trying to see both sides of this. But this your recent addition just strikes me as "apologist" (emphasis mine below):

The following quotes are mostly in a style apparently calculated to irritate opponents deliberately, and nearly all of them have given offense to one opponent or another.

* Some of these quotes are flamboyant or tongue-in-cheek, others are in a polemical style. Many appear to be meant as satire or hyperbole (Coulter has stated, "Liberals love to pretend they don't understand hyperbole.")

* Some commentators make no distinction between her tongue-in-cheek remarks and her straightforward ones. They take them all equally seriously, citing Coulter's remark, "I believe everything I say."

Lots of ascribing motive with no evidence, and lots of hedges with "some" and "mostly." It just doesn't strike me as something that meets the standards. Fuzheado | Talk 01:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I second that. --Benna 06:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like I'm doing "original research". Feel free to correct or revert.

On the other hand, the Quotations section appears (a) to dominate the article and (b) intended to present some Wikipedian's idea of the "real" picture of Ann Coulter.

I doubt very much that ANYONE's selection of their political opponent's quotes could EVER provide an accurate picture (see damaging quotation).

My personal opinion is that the intent of the Wikipedia article section of Quotations is to induce the reader to dismiss Coulter as shrill and clueless. As such, it fails the neutrality test of our NPOV policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:31, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Then find some quotes which represent a side of Coulter that you feel the section does not portray. Gamaliel 15:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking forward to addition of another section of quotes showing Coulter's warm, thoughtful side. (^_^) Gzuckier 16:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You said (further above) that my text:

presents the anti-Coulter case as resting on a shaky foundation of "sound bites" and implies that there's nothing substantial to the arguments, as they are merely based on a couple scare quotes.

I can't argue with how it looks to you. I assume good faith on your part, so if the way I wrote it amounts to a condemnation of the anti-Coulter case, then I've written it badly! Please help me to re-write that text:

I want to avoid making Wikipedia endorse the view that the anti-Coulter case "rests on a shaky foundation", because that's just as bad (in the opposite direction) as saying that the anti-Coulter case is well founded.
Likewise, I want to avoid implying that there's "nothing substantial" to the anti-Coulter argument.

At the risk of going on a tangent, though, may I say that I had no intention of arguing that the anti-Coulter case was based on a small number of scare quotes. The article has dozens of them. It's not the number to which I object. It's the insinuation that these quotes are representative of Coulter. It seems plain to me that NONE of these quotes were selected to portray her in a good light. Rather, the quotations section violates the Wikipedia:original research policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

CBC Report is misleading

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

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

He should have said,

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

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

As one anti-Coulter blogger wrote,

Canadians did fight in Vietnam. That's true, but they did so AS MEMBERS OF THE US ARMED FORCES, NOT AS MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES. [5]

Another blogger was more mild:

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

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

Controvery over the Canada quote

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

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

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

My response was as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

[some intermediate comments deleted]

I do not think this incident or any of the facts about Vietnam and Canada suffice to prove that Coulter is or is not a deliberate liar. (My personal conclusion is that, like many claims she has made before, she was simply pulling facts from memory and hoping they were right, or at least not challenged.) --Saforrest 01:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)