Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 15

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subsection-of-convenience: dead parrot references 

message: 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. 
Sixth Estate 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subsection-of-convenience: mooting sources, expertise, and what Coulter meant 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subsection-of-convenience: enter Ramsquire 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 thatDo 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subsection-of-convenience: Lonewolf comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Subsection-of-convenience: the Canadian dead 

message: 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)
thread_title: Let's wrap it up people

message: 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)
replies: text: "Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism" should stay. See Ann_Coulter#Negative_reactions_from_publishers Raphael1 21:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Here is one of the accusations . Where is the clearance? Raphael1 21:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the archives. But since you're unable to view those, apparently, here ya go:  and . Kyaa the Catlord 21:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Housekeeping 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  CAIR's press release 

message: 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 "'New York Times' google search", uexpress.com.  Retrieved October 7, 2006, 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments about the New York Times 

message: 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)
replies: text: Per policy all info must be sourced. People are fighting policy... F.F.McGurk 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Motive rings false. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Is that a 3rr vio? F.F.McGurk 04:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Kyaa the Catlord 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Tossing out accusations isn't helping any though. Kyaa the Catlord 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also, your comment associated with this edit, 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Stop edit warring 

message: 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. 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A second Coulter alleged felony comes to light 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: Looks like Coulter is the only human in :Category:Anti-Arabism. Is it appropriate to request an admin to remove it via ? 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Anti-arabism 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Anti-Islamic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: What quotes are you talking about, specifically? — NRen2k5 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling out fallacious reasoning