Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I agree that the [[Ann Coulter]] article should mention that (to use exact words): * Canadians did serve there 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: 1. No Canadian troops *whatsoever* were sent "by the Canadian government" to Vietnam (in any capacity). 2. Some Canadian troops were sent by the Canadian government, and the "served" in Vietnam (but not as combat troops). 3. 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. 4. Canada's *government* sent large numbers of combat troops to Vietnam (at least one battalion, i.e., 500 men), and they engaged the enemy. Option one definitely implies that Coulter was 100% wrong. Option two makes Coulter partially wrong, and McKeown partially wrong (but McKeown wins the "gotcha" game). Option three makes Coulter partially right, and McKeown partially wrong (i.e., they both were somewhat mixed up; gotcha game ends in a draw!). Option four makes Coulter 100% right, and McKeown and Moore 100% wrong. I don't think options #1 or #4 are correct, not based on reading [[Canada and Vietnam]] and Ray (Eclecticology)'s recent post. Then there's the other slant: to what extent is a person "wrong" if they say "the country sent troops" (possibly meaning its government) rather than "men from that country fought" (could be either gov't troops or citizens who joined another country's army)? Coulter's slant is that she was wrong (but she seems to regard it as a misstatement more akin to a slip of the tongue or choosing the wrong word. Moore's slant is that she was dead wrong (probably even *knowingly* wrong, i.e., lied on purpose; or possibly just ignorantly wrong, i.e., thought it was the government sending active duty personnel). The anti-Coulter crowd in general (based on blog posts) seems to regard this as Coulter being "exposed" as a deliberate liar. Finally, they have clear, definitive proof that the B###h (or Wh###) just goes around making stuff up even though she really has no case at all. I don't think the Wikipedia should take the side of the anti-Coulter crowd, but I have no objection to letting the article recount or summarize their argument. Ed Poor