[WikiEN-l] Censorship campaign: Ann Coulter article

Wed Mar 9 14:32:56 UTC 2005

> Clearly the government of Canada did not send troops to Vietnam. 
> Clearly also, Canadian citizens fought alongside Americans in 
> the Vietnam.
> 
> However, I believe the only reasonable neutral interpretation 
> of "Canada sent troops to Vietnam", in the context provided 
> (when talking about the actions of the Canadian government 
> w.r.t. wars) is that the Canadian government sent soldiers 
> from its army to Vietnam.
> 
> I quite agree that the anti-Coulter arguments deserve 
> balance, and I think it's important to mention that Canadians 
> did serve there (in Coulter's defence).  But I also think 
> that suggesting that Canada
> *did* send troops is an inaccurate characterization of the 
> facts surrounding that particular POV.
> 
> Steve

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