Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

NPOV Issues - October 2009

Current Status - issues below have been addressed

Xenophrenic is repeatedly reverting the tags I have placed on this article, justifying it on my personal talk page at Gustnado Talk Page. I am re-adding the POV tag and the POV request, because no matter how many times Xenophrenic states it, the presence of a dispute about POV is clear, and his assertion that the strongly POV wording is supported by sources is simply irrelevant. Sources are about facts, not balance. I will not re-add the factual dispute tag at this time, as it reasonably requires more justification than I have time to add right now. Gustnado (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction: As stated in the edit summaries, and on this page, if you are going to place tags in an article, you need to detail a specific reason for the tag here. Just saying, "there's a dispute!" without describing what that dispute is doesn't cut it. Improperly justified tags will be removed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NOT RESOLVED - Xenophrenic has claimed that my POV objections are resolved, and again reverted the POVdispute tags. When the claim for specific reasons was made before, I supplied many. Xenophrenic claimed incorrectly that they were resolved, incorrectly marked individual items "RESOLVED," and reverted my NPOV dispute flag immediately. I would place the tags again but all indications are they would be immediately removed. I do not understand the objection to having those flags present (and the flag requesting review of POV). Whenever they are placed, they are immediately reverted by Xenophrenic. This talk page contains many outstanding issues, and an ongoing discussion of the CID report which is not abandoned. That the POV is rightfully disputed should not be denied. There are other objections to the POV, but raising them here would be pointless, given the history of the discussion so far. Gustnado (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, lack of immediate activity on any of the many unresolved issues I have raised does not mean they are abandoned, but rather that I have not had time to address them (work pressures, etc) Gustnado (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

EDITING NOTE: I broke the details seciont below into sub-sections for easier tracking and editing. I marked the RESOLVED tags that I consider incorrect with strikeouts. I did not sign each change as it would make the article harder to read. This paragraphs stands as notice of those changes Gustnado (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Again I emphasis: the NPOV objections stand, and the revert and the phony marking of issues as resolved is not with my agreement, and not in the spirit of improving the article. Gustnado (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The issues you outlined, including the "many specific reasons" supplied by you, have been addressed and marked resolved. If you feel other issues remain unresolved, you are welcome to detail them here. Marking resolved issues as unresolved, with your only explanation being "I consider incorrect", does not advance the discussion. The discussion of alleged CID reports on this page has nothing to do with the article. You are correct in assuming that unsubstantiated tags placed in the article will indeed be removed, pending substantiation. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added the NPOV tag back, because nobody can honestly assert that the POV is not in dispute, given the current large number of significant, open issues documented on this page. Gustnado (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that you see issues that need addressing. However, the POV tag must be accompanied by a specific, legitimate issue described here - not just an exclamation that it is in dispute. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Details

See current active, detailed discussion between Xenophrenic and Gustnado on this page. The article has a POV that the those who testified at WSI were truthful in their testimony. This is a matter of serious dispute. IF they were not truthful, then the article has a POV that is not neutral. There are a number of items to be settled about the POV and verifiability - the discussion has just started. Hence the page will appropriately be marked as disputed. Gustnado (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion on the NPOV of the article hasn't started. X & G are presently discussing some stuff found on a non-RS site, and have not discussed issues of POV in the article. Please cite the specific sections you find problematic, as previously requested the last time you applied the tag. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The following sections have problems and will be addressed:

• RESOLVED - "The VVAW challenged the morality and conduct of the war by showing the direct relationship between military policies and war crimes in Vietnam." is incorrect and sounds like it came from a propaganda leaflet. It only shows a "direct" relationship to the extent that in all wars, some atrocities are committed; and as such hardly challenges the conduct. If the phrase "intended to" was added, the NPOV would be re-established.

The sentence is correct per cited sources; your personal opinion notwithstanding. They obviously didn't gather to show something already known, "some atrocities are committed" in all wars, as you suggest - as that would be a waste of everyone's time and serve no purpose. As further explained in the first paragraph after the lede, it was "...to prove that incidents like My Lai were not isolated and rare occurrences, but were instead the frequent and predictable result of official American war policy." There is a vast difference. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

by showing the direct relationship between military policies and war crimes Show the source for this. Are you claiming there is a reliable, undisputed source that they showed the direct relationship? The sentence doesn't say what they intended, it says what they achieved, and that is in dispute. Gustnado (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You will find the sources cited at the end of the sourced content. "Challenged", it says, if you stop taking incomplete snippets out of context, implies neither achievement nor failure - only intent. The sources do indicate that they did show policies resulted in criminal conduct. By the way, your mere disagreement does not constitute "disputed"; please provide reliable sources for this dispute. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Challenged is not the issue. "by showing..." is the issue. My disagreement on tone does not require "reliable sources." Gustnado (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

True, you can disagree all you want - and you don't need sources to do it. However, if you want to change that part of the article, which is reliably sourced, you will require "reliable sources" as well. Is that your intent, or do we mark this issue as resolved for now? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Marking this resolved until you dig up reliable sources to support your assertion that the above quoted sentence is incorrect. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• RESOLVED - "Discharged servicemen from each branch of military service, as well as civilian contractors, medical personnel and academics, all gave testimony about war crimes they had committed or witnessed during the years of 1963–1970." The lack of qualifying adjectives and statement in and about this (such as the fact that only one war crime of all alleged has been verified) shows a strong POV. The use of the word "testimony" in a media event is incorrect. They made statements, not gave "testimony" - the use of "they had ocmmitted or witnessed" presumes certainty, which nobody has shown at all. The only disputes have been about whether falsity has been shown, not whether the statements were shown to be accurate - because they have not been.

The lack of qualifying adjectives, we call them weasel words, is because the sentence reflects the wording of the source, not our own expectations or opinions. As for your new fact, please provide a reliable source for this fact so we can have a look at it. The use of the word "testimony" is correct and appropriate, per numerous sources, including the congressional record of the transcript of the event, as well as in the 2 verified authentic CID reports I have viewed. Your same concern about the use of that word was already raised and addressed previously - see the talk page archives. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence states as fact that they had committed or witnessed the war crimes they testified about. That "fact" has not been established. What is a fact is that they claimed to have done so. Gustnado (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence states what the reliable source to which it is cited says. Your personal opinion as to whether it has been factually established is irrelevant. You will need a reliable source for that, and I am still waiting for the reliable source to support the other "fact" you claimed above. Should we consider this issue closed? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we shall not. I am obtaining the so-called reliable source and do not have it yet. Furthermore, the sentence is part of a broad pattern of POV, and has to be viewed in that context. Gustnado (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to view sentences in the article in whatever context pleases you. This particular one is sourced to reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia. This sentence accurately conveys the information from those sources, as required by Wikipedia. I understand that you feel that sentence, or the sources from which it is derived, isn't completely factual or true. From Wikipedia policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

There is no issue with that sentence, regardless of your desire to make an issue of it - and as such, I'm marking it resolved. However, please continue with your attempts in "obtaining the so-called reliable sources", and we can revisit this once you have done so. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• RESOLVED - "the VVAW was determined to expose a broad pattern of war crimes in Vietnam." - no, the VVAW was determined to dramatize a claim about a broad pattern.

I checked the cited sources, and the wording is presently correct. Aside from that, your wording ends up sounding absurd. Who would travel across the country, without recompense, to "dramatize a claim"? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The implication is that the broad pattern is a fact. Again, VVAW can imply that. Wikipedia should not without substantiation. Gustnado (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The content, including any implications, is cited to sources - not to Wikipedia or VVAW. Is there any reason we shouldn't consider this issue closed? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere in my comments yesterday, "reliable" does not mean balanced. The heavy use of one source which has a strong POV does not render an article NPOV. No, the issue is not closed. Gustnado (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see over a dozen sources used in this article, with a variety of POVs, or lack thereof. The above sentence is reliably sourced and does indeed correctly convey the information in the source, and meets all of Wikipedia's criteria, so yes, this issue is closed. If you would like to raise the different issue of adding more content from reliable sources, then please do so (at the bottom, as this section is getting swamped). We aren't limited to discussing a finite number of issues here. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• RESOLVED - "As of March 1972, the CID reported successfully locating 36 of the people who had testified, 31 of whom submitted to interviews. [8]" - but many refused to provide any information, which is not mentioned here and should be. Only one provided enough information to result in verification. The lack of that information, again, causes the article to have a strong POV.

"Only one provided enough information to result in verification?" Can you please provide us with a reliable source for that incredible proof of a negative? As for mentioning the policy of the WSI that the testifiers would not be providing specific "scapegoat" information to military investigators, you may have a point about needing to expand that in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not asserting a proof of a negative, but rather a lack of proof. That is significant. If I were claiming a proof of a negative, I would demand a statement that the claims had been refuted. More appropriate than my wording above would be that CID failed to substantiate charges by all but one of those investigated. That is a fact. Gustnado (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, more appropriate would be wording from an actual reliable source, and not Gustnado. You also, again, avoided providing a reliable source for your personal opinion that only one "provided enough information to result in verification". We'll consider this one closed, and move on to the next issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you insisting on a source when I am not asserting anything that needs a source. This issue is not closed. Unless you have a source that shows that a significant number of charges were sustained, the POV of view of this article, which implies (through the attack on those who disagree) that the charges were valid, remains unsubstantiated. Gustnado (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless I have a source that shows that a significant number of charges were sustained ... what, exactly? If I ever add content that says that, then I will provide a source, as required. If you intend to add content that says only one claim made at the WSI was ever verified, then you will provide a source, as required. And it is not me doing the insisting; it's Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon subsequent review, I see the article already does mention that the veterans would refuse to give specific information like names, and also explains why. Marking this resolved until you provide a reliable source to support your assertion that only one vet provided enough information for verification. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• RESOLVED - "Other veterans testified to the treatment they received when held captive as POWs by the NLF. In contrast to accounts of mistreatment described by prisoners of the NVA in the north, the former prisoners speaking at the WSI said they were never physically abused, except for some rough handling during their capture. The NLF provided enough food and medical attention to sustain them, and in the particular case of Sgt. George E. Smith, he claims "I usually had more food than I could eat," The non-critical acceptance of this paragraph, without qualification, in spite of the long established and documented policy of POW mistreatment by NLF, results in it being pure anti-American propaganda. The "in contrast" clause is especially telling, since it is irrelevant to WSI but appropriate to an article with an anti-American-Vietnam-War participation slant, which this is.

The incomplete section you presented of the paragraph in the article conforms to sources. I am not clear as to what you mean by "anti-American-Vietnam-War participation slant" here. As for "acceptance" of content by Wikipedia, could you be more specific as to what you see as the problem? I am also unfamiliar with the "long established and documented policy of pow mistreatment" of which you speak, and don't understand the relevance to this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Conforming to sources is not sufficient for NPOV. I could cherry pick all sorts of stuff from reliable sources and the result would have a very strong POV. The statement implies that they actually received that treatment, when that has not been shown to be true and the evidence of NLF and NVA mis-treatment of POWs is long established. Are we in agreement that the "in contrast" clause is inappropriate to this article, since it clearly has only one absurd and extremely biased purpose: to show that NLF/NVA POW policies were superior to that of the US? Gustnado (talk)

You appear to have misread or misunderstood. The content doesn't say "in contrast"; it says, "In contrast to accounts of mistreatment described by prisoners of the NVA...". The sources never make a comparison with US policy, they are contrasting NVA treatment to NLF treatment. We'll consider this issue resolved?Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct on the NLF treatment comparison. I misread. My mistake. Hence the issue of the treatment is resolved. My comments on sourcing remain (but not regarding this statement). Gustnado (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• RESOLVED - "While only 109 veterans gave testimony, over 700 veterans attended the hearing." The former (109) was disputed by Guenter Lewy, an established historian in a book that clearly meets Wikipedia reliable source standards. That this book is itself disputed is irrelevant - it is still a reliable source. Furthermore, no evidence has been offered of the attendance by 700 veterans.

Incorrect, Lewy acknowledges and confirms that the vets, "over 100" of them, gave testimony, so that is not disputed. The attendance by 700 vets lacks a citation, correct. Have you looked for one? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked for one? As for Lewy, you may be correct about "vets" as opposed to "vietnam combat vets" in which case the wording of that part is correct.04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. Resolved, then. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source for the 700, I will accept it. If not, it requires a fact tag at a minimum. NOT RESOLVED Gustnado (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't see the fact tag? The 700 figure isn't an edit of mine, but I can probably locate a source if it is true. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I found this from the Nicosia source, "There was never a time when the main hall of the Howard Johnson's wasn't packed with people — sitting on the floor, lining the aisles, even listening out in the hallways. A little over 100 veterans testified, but another 500 to 700 veterans from all over the the continental United States came to listen and share." - Page 90. I added the ref to the article, and marked this resolved, but I'm reviewing other sources (newspaper articles from that era) for more detailed information and citations as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• RESOLVED - The details of the Laos operation and its revelation go far beyond the scope of WSI, but are consistent with a general anti-Vietnam-War POV. They should be removed as irrelevant.

This article is not concerned with the details and scope of the Laos operations, that is correct. The relevance to the WSI is the government denial and cover-up exposed by several WSI testifiers. Absolutely relevant, and consistent with the theme of the event. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not relevant. The "testimony" about the Laos operation is relevant. The rest is not. Gustnado (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is - but not because you or I say so. When reliable sources refer to the Laos revelations at the WSI as "the most startling news to come out of Winter Soldier" or "their expose made front-page headlines" and "was followed for days and months by other news stories in which American military personnel testified to systematic fighting in Laos...", it is obviously relevant and significant. Shall we mark this one resolved? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the information about the Laotian incursions is not relevant, only the WSI testimony. The long section starting with "The 1969 operation was committed " and extending to the end of the paragraph should be removed. It belongs in a history of the war, and you might suggest adding a section on the secret operations in Laos to the Vietnam War page. Gustnado (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have trimmed some of the less relevant Laos content, starting with "The 1969..." section per your suggestion, and I also added another reference citation. However, I did not remove everything; I left the very last section noting the allegations were further substantiated. Marking this one resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• RESOLVED - There is no reason other than WSI-accuracy POV to include an entire section devoted to discrediting Steve Pitkin, an WSI "witness" who later publicly disputed the accuracy of WSI and the actions of its organizers, and who never retracted the central tenets of his charges. This, in comparison to the lack of information about the phony credentials of Hubbard, one of the primary organizers of WSI, is strongly gout of balance. Likewise, Pitkin's affidavit changes were of less significance than those of some of the attendees that are already in dispute in this talk section.

I somewhat agree with you that a separate Pitkin section is probably undue weight; I have some ideas regarding that. Regarding what parts of his various "affidavits" he retracted, and whether they were central to his credibility, are matters of the reader's personal opinion. You attempt to compare Pitkin to Hubbard, when there is no comparison - not sure where you are going with that. As for Hubbard's "phony credentials", I know of none, except his exaggeration of his rank many months after, and unrelated to, the WSI. I am also unaware of affidavit changes made by participants other than Pitkin. Source? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pitkin was a legitimate Vietnam Veteran, and his changed affidavit continued to affirm his account that he gave at the VVT rally, which is the relevant information.Per Burkett, there is no record of Hubbard ever serving in Vietnam, however briefly (he would have routinely received a Vietnam Service Ribbon if he had been there for even one minute as an air crewman - check the regs - I did). In other words, the executive secretary of the WSI event was a phony Vietnam Veteran. That is a relevant fact which I am going to assert belongs in this article, for balance and completeness. Currently there is a remarkable lack of balance - a paragraph attempting to destroy Pitkin's credibility and no mention that a senior VVAW official at WSI was a phony. Gustnado (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, the relevance of what information Pitkin did or didn't quickly backpeddle out of his various affidavits is your personal opinion - unless you (sorry to sound like a broken record here) are going to supply actual reliable sources. The WSI event didn't have any secretaries, by the way. As for the content you are suggesting belongs in the article, let's see it, please. And with proper sourcing (not just vague names). Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of that information is a valid subject for disagreement, and my personal opinion is as valid as any on that subject. The information on Hubbard is from Burkett. Since I am not at the moment proposing putting that information in, I'm not going to waste space quoting it. My point was about the imbalance of a detailed (but deceptive) attack on Pitkin vs. the lack of even a mention that the Executive Secretary of VVAW (not WSI - source: Burkett, pg. 136) was almost certainly not even a Vietnam Veteran (Burkett) shows a strong POV. Gustnado (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Burkett isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia criteria (or by most publisher's criteria, as he was forced to self-publish his book). Hubbard didn't testify at WSI, and his misrepresentation of his rank was long after the WSI, and as far as I know from more reliable sources, he is a VV. Should you propose putting additional Hubbard info in the article in the future, please be sure to cite it to a reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of a reliable source for Hubbard changes, and having moved Pitkin out of the "entire section devoted" to him, I've marked this resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• RESOLVED - "The U.S. participation in the Vietnam conflict was the source of much deeply divided sentiment among Americans. The Winter Soldier Investigation produced a conglomerate of testimony resulting in the implication and indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct, and thereby further drove a wedge between proponents and opponents of the war." means that the testimony imdicts American leadership, when it did no such thing. A collection of anecdotal descriptions of misbehavior and atrocities, even if all were true, which is in dispute, does not indict leadership - since the leadership's responsibility for specific policies of atrocities or specific responsibility for them was never shown. The quote about the Nuremberg trials gets the principle backwards - the Nuremberg principle assigns responsibility to those "only following orders" (such as some of the witnesses at WSI, per their claims), not their superiors' superiors' superiors'. The idea that it helped further drove a wedge is contradicted by the reporting in this article of the little coverage WSI received. This sounds more like some puffery from a movie blurb, not an entry in an encyclopedia.

Incorrect, on several levels. The testimony of the participants does indeed indict the leadership in criminal conduct in numerous instances. The quote about the Nuremberg trials is spot on, and it is your reading of the quote that is backwards. Read again, please - they did not cite the Nuremberg Principles as you cleverly imply. They referred to the principle of culpability of the leaders, as used at the Nuremberg trials (see: "leaders, organisers, instigators and accomplices"; and the Medina standard). The "puffery" is sourced, whereas what it "sounds more like" according to Gustnado is not. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the testimony does not indict the leadership, because the testimony is not verified, in spite of attempts by Congress (through military investigators) to verify it. You don't indict with unverified informaiton. The testimony *accuses* - an indictment requires weighing the evidence by a third party. You are right that the reference to Nuremberg is not what is known as the Nuremberg principle - I erred there. Again, that the puffery is sourced is irrelevant. Puffery is puffery. Gustnado (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand, again. To indict 'IS to accuse, albeit more formally. Easy mistake to make. Marking this one resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

NOT RESOLVED - Not so fast. The word "indict" is not appropriate, and there are other issues I raised that you have casually dismissed. I would request that you not throw around RESOLVED tags until something is resolved.

The sources use "indictment", and it is appropriate. The principles cited at the Nuremberg Trials, and referenced by the WSI, were explained. The content asserting that the WSI further drove a wedge between anti & pro war people, and the content that asserts the media coverage of the event was poor are not mutually exclusive, and not even related. If there is a remaining issue you feel was "dismissed", please point it out. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• RESOLVED - "For more than thirty years since the WSI, individuals and organizations have sought to discredit or at least minimize the painful revelations brought forth at that event. Critics have claimed that participants were frauds; that they were told to not cooperate with later investigators; that their testimonies were inaccurate or just plain fabricated.[28] To date, no records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been produced.[29]" This is false; Lewy, a UMass Professor Emeritus of History, reported on such records in his book. That the CID reports show fraudulent testimony as is under discussion above.

Incorrect; the sourced content above is true. Perhaps you could cite just one name of a fraudulent participant "reported on" by Lewy? No? How about citing just a bit of fraudulent testimony, quote it please, reported on by Lewy? You can't? How about if we go directly to the source Lewy claims to have used; oh no - he now says he doesn't have it, and can't remember if he saw it or was told about it? Despite this glowing display of emeritus professorialism, Lewy's opinions have still been expressed in this article already. Perhaps they should be removed in the interest of accuracy. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph is weasel worded. There is a record, a reliable source, secondary as preferred by WP standards, which is Lewy's book. As for your sarcasm about Lewy, we are talking about a report of one comment, made decades after the book and almost 20 years after his retirement, which is hardly a refutation of a book or a confirmation that he did not, in fact, have the sources at one time. In fact, in that same interview, he stated that while he did not remember the specific details of the source (this guy wrote a lot of books and did a lot of research in the intervening decades), he was confident of its accuracy. He reports fraudulent participation. Pitkin claims he made fraudulent statements under instructions from the participants, and his statements (in a source I provided) are in fact a record of fraudulent testimony, unless one uses the deceptive legalism that since his statements were in his introduction, rather than his "testimony," they somehow don't count. Furthermore, balance would certainly point out that after almost 40 years, only one participant's claims have been validated (as far as I know). As the paragraph is written, it contains a very strong message that the participants were telling the truth and nobody could disprove them. That is far out of balance, because nobody could prove them also (with one exception I know of). Gustnado (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I just realized something. Lewy says he may have been briefed on this alleged NIS report, instead of seeing it first hand, yet he's still confident of its accuracy? Isn't that your very definition of "highly suspect veracity" you are using to try to indict the WSI witnesses in the section above? Wow, he backtracked. He can't provide first-hand information, just his word. What a fraud; I'll bet he's a commie that kills babies, too. Xenophrenic (talk)

There is no record of fraud, there is only an assertion made by a single individual in a revisionist history book written specifically to espouse a particular point of view. All throughout that book he specifically names individuals, with the glaring exception of those supposedly involved with WSI. Lewy has no record, and your senility defense doesn't wash when we're talking about the defining work of his career. The military says the report doesn't exist (or was conveniently destroyed?). The Pentagon was given a full transcript, and complete list of attendees, and not one was pronounced a fraud. The CID, while they chose not to contact some individuals, and couldn't locate others, never cited any of the participants as frauds. Even if the Naval Investigative service doesn't have this mysterious report, they could certainly still investigate the authenticity of the participants from the Navy, at least - curiously, none of the critics want to go there. As for Pitkin, please, I've read what he said at the WSI (and watched it, too), so save your interpretations of his claims for the uninformed or easily beguiled. His political maneuver of claiming that he lied at WSI (when he didn't) is transparent; his affidavit retractions were not of minor mistakes, but of fabrications (the same ones he used at the rally) that were caught and changed after the rally damage was done. The article already contains Lewy & Pitkin, and your desire to morph them into credible crucifixions of the WSI participants is unbalanced. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your attack on my motives is inappropriate for this setting. Likewise, your attack on the professor (with your senility characterization) is inappropriate and also your opinion. BTW, that was not the defining book of Lewy's long career.

Acting the victim is unbecoming, Gustnado; calling your motives "unbalanced" is no more an attack than you saying, "You are straining to trash Lewy..." to me. Wipe away the crocodile tears and just note that I consider your motives in conflict with Wikipedia policy. Re: Lewy; I did not attack him either, nor did I characterize him as senile - again you have misread. I referred to the excuses you made for him as your senility defense. As for your opinions as to what works Lewy is most associated with, take them to the Lewy article to which I referred. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You assert that the CID chose not to contact some individuals - do you have any evidence of their motivation for not contacting some?

The sources say the military found some merited further investigation while others did not; the specific criteria or motivation used was not mentioned. I can speculate, of course - my first inclination is they were only concerned with investigating to the extent that they covered their behinds, and nothing more. If a witness would not, or could not offer more specific incriminating evidence, they were perfectly content to leave it at that. You can read the last 2 paragraphs of that Village Voice article for additional evidence followed by someone elses speculation. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Pitkin stated at WSI (transcript at virginia.edu sponsored by VVAW) "My name is Steve Pitkin, age 20, from Baltimore. I served with the 9th Division from May of '69 until I was airvaced in July of '69. I'll testify about the beating of civilians and enemy personnel, destruction of villages, indiscriminate use of artillery, the general racism and the attitude of the American GI toward the Vietnamese. I will also talk about some of the problems of the GIs toward one another and the hassle with officers."

That is a strong statement containing strong allegations, and he has repudiated it, three times - in both affidavits and at the VVT rally whose reference I provided and you deleted. That critical part of his affidavits was not changed. You are straining to trash Lewy, whose book meets the WP standards for a reliable source, and to discredit Pitkin, who has not been shown to be unreliable about the crucial allegations.

That is a strong statement containing allegations? Try again? That is an introductory statement, and he made no allegations - except to allege that he was going to speak about some things that he never spoke about. We'll never know if he was going to testify about the beating of civilians by the NVA before he rescued them, or about the VC infested villages he destroyed single-handedly - because he never got around to making those allegations. It is no surprise that you don't see Pitkin's claims at the WSI among those that "merited further investigation". As for me straining to trash Lewy and Pitkin: wrong. If Lewy's book didn't qualify as a reliable source as to his opinion, it would not still be in the article. As for Pitkin, his own words and actions trash him just fine, no help from me. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your argument rests on making various suppositions about Lewy, CID, NIS, and whether critics the NIS want to check the authenticity of the Navy participants.

You say Pitkin's political maneuver is "transparent" - transparent how? Do you think he was paid by Karl Rove, or what?

My argument? Which argument was that? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs balance - not the crucifixion of the WSI participants. The facts are that only one (that I know of) war crimes allegation was substantiated, and this article gives the impression that they were all telling the truth, which given human nature and the emotions about the war at the time, is absurd. My goal is to bring it into balance - where the article says what happened, and what validation did or did not happen, and what controversies exist about it. Is that too much to ask? If you know of more war crimes substantiated from WSI, please provide sources. Otherwise, that information is of far more import in balancing this article than a paragraph attacking Pitkin and some slurs directed at Lewy. Gustnado (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, please provide reliable sources for these facts of which you speak. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Lewy content mentioned is already in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Marking this as resolved as well, since your last two visits to this page have not introduced any new issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• In Summary: it is clear that the NPOV of this article is in dispute. The article is riddled with POV, as demonstrated above. I am re-establishing the disputed flag, per Wikipedia procedures. Gustnado (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that you question the NPOV of this article. As demonstrated above, there are well sourced and cited sections with which you disagree, but are factual nonetheless. I'm not removing the POV tag while you more fully flesh out your objections, but as they stand right now, your comments do not indicate a POV problem with the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, sourcing itself does not provide NPOV - it merely provides information. The sources can themselves have a strong POV (and Wikipedia recognizes this and strives to achieve NPOV by contrasting sources when possible). A "reliable source" is not a synonym for a balanced source. Gustnado (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And as I have pointed out, factual information that conflicts with your POV does not therefore become non-factual. If you read WP:NPOV, you'll find that "strong POV" is not a synonym for unreliable. I've marked a couple of the above issues as resolved, per our discussions. If you feel we should revisit them, go ahead and remove the "resolved". Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have disagreed with one of your "resolveds" and your decision to mark it without agreement. I have responded to the rest.

There are still a couple of unmarked issues that require your input. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Listed issues addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for photos

I'm having difficulty locating free or public domain images of this event for use in the article. There was a documentary film made of the event, and at least a few newspaper photogs were there. Does anyone have any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Background

The background section should explain the origin of the phrase 'winter soldier' and what it means. The phrase could probably support it's own article with all the uses over history. --Typoheaven III (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On superfluous link

I removed it as it doesn't add anything to the article: every link that is cited in the MM piece appears in the article, and I don't see why we need such a highly partisan link that adds nothing. Furthermore, if there are links there that are missing that I'm not seeing, why not add those links instead? Why do you disagree? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if every link cited in the MM article already exists in our Wikipedia article, a certain amount of sourcing redundancy is a good thing, not a bad thing. Of the links that you say are duplicated, I notice that several of them are actually presently deadlinks (and not located in the same section of this article), and it appears that not "every" link cited by MM has been duplicated here. (I see that the references here need a lot of work in general, and am making a note to clean it up.) As a passing observation, "partisan" does not equate to "non-reliable" (else we would have to also excise thousands of cites to FOX News, MSNBC, etc.), but I agree with your general contention that less-partisan sources would be better when available. I see that you have recently been making a rather sweeping effort to remove MM from articles, or am I mistaken? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to replace them with actual links if possible, yes, especially in BLPs. My goal is to move onto other links, from Newsmax, WND, truthout, etc, when appropriate. I am curious as to what value you believe the MM link offers in this case, however. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"What value I believe the MM link offers" to the article, or to me? In this article, the MM citation helps to clarify content regarding a controversial but popular misconception. A single solid source citation is usually all that is required to support otherwise uncontroversial content such as a birthdate or name of a location, but factual content that is prone to being repeatedly challenged benefits by having multiple source citations. To me, personally, I find MM (and similar 'watchdog' and 'fact-checker') links valuable in that they are usually replete with numerous embedded links to other relevant reliable sources that may be additionally useful. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To the article, I don't think our personal opinions have any real place. In this specific case, what content is MMfA clarifying that cannot be clarified using existing sources, or better sources? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I never mentioned personal opinions. The MMfA source supports the paragraph to which it is appended. In this specific case, whatever redundancy exists is explained in my previous comment, so I'm not sure what you are asking. Did you have other sources you wished to add? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What I'm asking is what the MMfA piece adds that cannot be supported by other sources, preferably by what's cited in the MMfA piece that's not in the article. Using such a heavily partisan source doesn't seem appropriate when it can be avoided. If you believe it can't be avoided, why is that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What does the citation add? Additional source support for content that is routinely questioned. I don't have any motivation to include or exclude sources based on partisan slant; I base that on the reliability of the source per Wikipedia standards. You appear to be suggesting that we are faced with an either-or decision (between what can be perceived as partisan & non-partisan sources), when we are not in that situation -- there is nothing stating that we cannot use both. In fact, for particularily contentious content, an abundance of reliable sources is preferable. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There has been significant question regarding its reliability, which is also a factor, but what is the "routinely questioned" information that linking MMfA supports when the meat of the data is already here? As it stands, all we end up doing is pointing readers to a source that's effectively attacking someone. Is that necessary? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There has likewise been significant question regarding the reliability of The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal as well; I disagree that the mere questioning of sources is a factor in anything. The significance is to be found in the answers, not in the questioning. Are you questioning if MM can be cited as a reliable source per Wikipedia's requirements? That should be handled at the RS Noticeboard (This thread appears to be the most recent discussion there).

You can find the routinely raised "Lewy" information in the article body, under the "Attempts to discredit the WSI" header. The MM article not only cites other sources (some of which are also present in this Wikipedia article, as you noted), but adds its own independent supporting conclusions about the oft-parroted misperception about the discrediting of the WSI: "In fact, research by Media Matters for America has uncovered no evidence that any witness testifying in the 1971 Winter Soldier Investigation in Detroit has had his story discredited." and "Apart from Lewy's allegations, a search by MMFA turned up no other reports of evidence that any Winter Soldier witness was an impostor." As for saying the source is "attacking someone", could you point that out to me? If that someone is Sherwood, the source only refers to him as a right-wing film producer (he self-identifies as both) and attacks only the allegations and false statements. Did you mean Lewy, Campbell, Mathews or Kerry? I don't see any actual attacks on them either. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually did a rather large amount of research into the reliability discussions of MMfA which you can look at here under "MMfA and consensus," I'd argue that it's far from cut and dry. Regardless, I'm not arguing that they're outright unreliable in this context, but that the MMfA article does not add anything to the article that cannot be given by other sources. If you're arguing now that the MMfA piece is sourcing either of those statements in the article, it's not being cited as such. In fact, the claims in place don't come up anywhere, as far as I can tell, but MMfA, which makes me wonder what relevance it would have at all since it's a fairly unique viewpoint not being pushed anywhere except by MMfA. That one organization with a clear-cut agenda is unable to find something is not, in itself, worthy of note, correct? If it is worthy of note, where should that line sit in this case? As for who the piece is attacking, they're clearly saying that Sherwood is lying in his claims based *solely* on their "research," work they don't actually show. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

- the MMfA article does not add anything to the article that cannot be given by other sources.

I don't disagree; as I said above, "factual content that is prone to being repeatedly challenged benefits by having multiple source citations." So I'm not saying MMfA adds something that cannot also be added by other sources -- feel free to add those other sources as well. The more reliable sources supporting content that is likely to be questioned, the better. I haven't seen a valid argument to remove the cite. If I understand your initial contention, you felt it was redundant to other citations already present. I explained how that redundancy is intentional, and beneficial. If you are now shifting to questioning its reliability as a source, we can do that at WP:RSN. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that this is "repeatedly challenged." Looking in the archives, it came up 8 years ago. Hardly what we'd call repeated, and when the source itself is questionable and we already have four sources? It doesn't make any sense. The valid reasons to remove the cite are that it's highly partisan and adds nothing to the article. There doesn't seem to actually be an argument for keeping it either, to be honest. It's a duplicate source that doesn't actually provide *extra* evidence, it's just a partisan link dump of what we already have. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

- The valid reasons to remove the cite are that it's highly partisan and adds nothing to the article. (?)

I disagree on both counts. "Partisan" (that's actually a misnomer - it's not beholden to any political party; "bias" against conservative media would apply, however) is never a reason to remove a source, and it does indeed "add" something, as noted repeatedly above: redundant supportive sourcing to challenged material. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can't legitimately disagree on how its partisan (or, to use your words, biased). We should be avoiding those whenever possible, especially when we have better sources. As for it being redundant to "challenged material," where are the habitual challenges? Who's challenging it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Partisan is incorrect, as noted above; they are not beholden to the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Democratic Party, Socialist Party, etc. They definitely have a stated narrow focus on "conservative media", however, so that can be considered a bias in what they choose to report on (a non-biased agency would be equally critical of all media sources, for example). That doesn't disqualify them as a reliable source, and certainly doesn't encourage me to "avoid them whenever possible" (and you never offered a "better" replacement to maintain the same level of redundancy). Who challenges the material? Besides the afore mentioned Sherwood? And the Swiftboat attack politicos, or the publishers of books like Unfit for Command, Stolen Honor, etc., who parrot the misinformation? Or Wikipedia editors who then attempt to add the misinformation to Wikipedia articles? Gosh, I dunno... Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Bias or partisan, they may be a reliable source in certain instances (as I've found, there's no sitewide consensus on that, and the source is bad enough where they won't use it on FAs), but you're arguing in favor of redundancy for something you're claiming will be repeatedly challenged when it clearly hasn't been, and "redundancy" using a source that isn't high quality and isn't necessary. Why is that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

- you're arguing in favor of redundancy for something you're claiming will be repeatedly challenged when it clearly hasn't been

Just the opposite, and I even gave you examples where it has been.

- they may be a reliable source in certain instances

And in this specific instance, if you have any concerns, we can take that up in the proper venue as suggested above. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to give any examples of it being "repeatedly challenged" here at the article, which is what that means. As for it being a reliable resource for this page, you also haven't demonstrated that. Given that there are now two editors disagreeing with inclusion, and that the burden of evidence is on the person who wants to include information, we should really be removing it until further notice. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't, because a valid reason for removal hasn't been given. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The valid reasons for removal are that we should avoid partisan/biased attack sites whenever possible, especially when the source is basically duplicative. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

MMfA is a proud advocacy organization. It is reliable source for it's own opinion, not as a reporting organization. There are better sources that should be relied upon for this article. This source detracts from the article as far as I can see. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion, Capitalismojo, has been refuted time and again on the reliable source noticeboards. That said, if you could introduce better sources, that would be great regardless. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. There's no consensus that MMfA is an appropriate source at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

By that reasoning, there's also no consensus that the NYTimes is an appropriate source at this point. You are encouraged to raise that concern in the proper venue. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I can show that there's no consensus about MMfA. No one would ever seriously argue that about the NYT, or they'd be laughed out of the discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, the NYT is one of the oldest and largest journalistic organizations in the world. MMfA is a relatively new non-profit 'advocacy' organization. Its like comparing apples and auto parts. I will, of course, look at the Reliable Source Noticeboard as you suggest. Perhaps I have missed the many MMfA discussions there refuting my opinion that it isn't an unreliable source/advocacy organization. If so I apologize.Capitalismojo (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a lot of that legwork last year here, under "MMfA and consensus". There doesn't seem to be a strong feeling in either direction. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits (Feb 2014)

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted content deletions and unsubstantiated tagging with this edit pending discussion. An editor has again reinstated the edits with the following edit summary:

(The content is either redundant or POV. And the tags were explained in edit summaries. Don't delete tags and pretend this information is uncontested.)

I've double-checked, and the content is not redundant. There has been zero explanation in the edit summaries for the removal and tagging of sourced information, only claims that the cited content is "simply not true" or that "all top Google results are debunking this as a myth" without any evidence supporting this editor's claim. The editor is invited to provide reliably sourced information for review and discussion, as required by Wikipedia policy, to support the tags and deletions mentioned above. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works at all. Tags are not "bold" editing. We don't edit war over tags. That's childish. Tags are a compromise until the dispute is over. Bold editing would be removing the content entirely.

The information that was deleted said this, "The testimonies made by the soldiers during the racism panel of the WSI serve as evidence that the veterans were justified in their disapproval of the war, on the grounds that basic principles such as civil rights were not being upheld during the war." In the first paragraph, it says this, "This serves as an explanation for much of the resentment felt by blacks in the United States towards the war effort, as newly established fundamental rights were being neglected." That is redundant.

And whether or not minorities really suffered more casualties during the war is contested. I've found contradictory information, so casually stating it as was done here, won't cut it. We need more sources and to be more thorough in our explanation. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, that's not how it works at all.

Actually, that is exactly how it works. Any undiscussed edit to article space, regardless of complexity or size - including the insertion of tags, is a bold edit. The reversion of your tag insertion should have made this even more evident to you, and prompted you to accompany your tagging with justification here on this Talk page. Edit-warring over tags is still edit-warring, and is therefore prohibited by Wikipedia policy. As I explained above, the correct response would be to substantiate the tags, as required by policy. Your assumption that tagging is some form of "compromise" in a dispute is incorrect; tagging serves only to notify interested editors of an actual specific concern that needs to be addressed. The dispute still needs to be defined and then resolved. Unfortunately, actual defined concerns did not accompany your insertion of those tags, which leaves editors like myself no way to address them. We aren't mind readers. If you feel a source is not "credible", or feel content is "dubious" like a statement of fact in a peer-reviewed paper in The Journal of Politics, please explain why - and please include supporting reliable sources - so that we have something to discuss. Otherwise the tags serve no purpose, and will be removed pending substantiation by you. Merely saying something is "contested", without providing sources showing where or how, fails to advance the discussion.

• I've found contradictory information...

Then, by all means, please present it so that everyone is on the same page. Edit warring to re-insert tags based on vague, unspecified concerns isn't productive.

• That is redundant.

I did see some possible duplication, but you deleted more than that. I'll restore the non-redundant content that was deleted and copy edit it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol, this kind of logic allows you to justify any reversion and is a complete contradiction to WP:ONUS. I would be within my rights to remove the material entirely and wait for you to prove that it is supported by more than one source per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I don't know how long you've been here, but edit wars are over content, and tags are a compromise until a better solution is found, that's how constructive disputes go. Only the most aggressive of edit warriors actually delete tags. Historian Mackubin Thomas Owens claims that the disproportion of minority casualties is a myth, and I have two sources citing him:

1. Ashland University:http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-02-combat/
2. National Review:http://old.nationalreview.com/owens/owens100402.asp

I have therefore added a disputed tag to the lines in question. I thought it was suspicious that Vietnam War casualties didn't mention anything about this controversy, so I wonder if other editors haven't already dismissed it? This kind of disconnect is indicative of POV pushing, either for or against, so we don't get to just casually say how obvious it is that it happened, because it's not obvious at all when reliable sources are contradicting it completely. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Lol, this kind of logic allows you to justify any reversion...

...any reversion of unexplained and unsupported tagging, that is correct. And if you'll read the guidelines to which you linked (WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL) a little more carefully, you'll see that those requirements are already met by existing source citations.

• tags are a compromise until a better solution is found

Incorrect. POV and Dispute tags are not a "solution", compromise or otherwise. Tags are merely notifications that something in the article needs to be corrected, and such tags must be accompanied by substantiation -- which until now was missing. Thank you for providing the link to the source which prompted you to tag that content.

• edit wars are over content

Incorrect. Any "edit" to Wikipedia can be part of an edit war, whether it is an edit to content, punctuation, capitalization, format, naming, wikilinking, tagging, article moving, etc. (You may find this an interesting read.) You'll get no disagreement from me that edit wars can arise over the insertion and removal of tags. The key to avoiding such conflicts is to not repeat an edit without first addressing and resolving expressed concerns about that edit. If there is any remaining confusion, please let me know. With that hurdle finally out of the way, let's see if we can move forward with your concern. I'll comment on your Owens source in the section below. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• any reversion of unexplained and unsupported tagging - It was explained in my edit summaries.
• (WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL) - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". So you restored contested material. You did not provide multiple sources. Explain to me again why is it that I need to read the policy again and you don't?
• POV and Dispute tags are not a "solution", compromise or otherwise. - Uhhh yes they are. I suppose if you just watch a handful of pages to which you are highly specialized you don't encounter a lot of editorial disputes that you won't be that well-versed in policy. But outside of this sphere of expertise, you'll find that conflicted editors will often both have sources or justifications for their edits. So whose edits remain on the page during the dispute? WP:ONUS would suggest a minimalist/deletionist approach, but is usually disregarded, as you have done in this case, on the grounds that the concerns warranting the material's deletion are invalid. Well I think they are valid. The compromise is to leave the material on the page with tags so that we don't potentially mislead our users by pretending a problem doesn't exist. Disputes are pretty common on Wikipedia so it will only indicate that the material should be viewed with additional scrutiny.
• Any "edit" to Wikipedia can be part of an edit war - Yes, you can make any edit into an edit war if you so wish.

Tags are not a bold edit. My bold edit was deleting the material entirely. But afterwards I self-reverted and replaced it with the more "timid" edit of tags. WP:BRD is not your shield to hide your aggressive editing. If you were upset by the deletion of redundancy, fine. I don't care enough to fight about it even though it seems to me that we say, "Black soldiers were treated poorly, and that's why they were against the war" multiple times. But don't pretend tags are an illegitimate temporary solution. That's exactly what they're there for. I'm sick of having this debate over and over again. I'll let you keep all the advocatory material in the world temporarily. But the tags are not something I will compromise over. PraetorianFury (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Briefly addressing your four bullet points above: 1) No, your edit summaries did not provide explanation. I understand that you believe they did, and it appears that you attempted a little research while you deleted, restored and then tagged content, but there was no substantiation given to support the tags. Hence the tags were removed. I believe you probably had an explanation in mind, because you mentioned in your edit summaries seeing "top Google results" and "conflicting information", but you never shared those results or information with us. Now you finally have, and you'll note that your tags have remained since then. 2) Sure, I can explain again why you need to read those guidelines more carefully. WP:ONUS "is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." (You seem to have left that part out when you quoted it.) The reliable sources directly supporting the material is already right there in the article. WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies only to exceptional claims. 3) No, tagging is not a compromise nor a solution. No amount of insistence will make that true. It is a temporary notification that a solution needs to be implemented. It is unfortunate that you find yourself "having this debate over and over again", but perhaps therein is a clue. 4) We are in agreement: "Yes, you can make any edit into an edit war if you so wish." But let's not. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• So my edit summaries. When I am explaining why I deleted content, you are aware that we refer to that as an explanation, yes? What you're really getting at in the most passive aggressive and obscure way is that you didn't think my explanations were sufficient. That's your only justification for deleting the tags. It was an entirely subjective decision on your part, not some policy or requirement outlined anywhere. I use tags when I'm deliberately trying to avoid conflicts with aggressive editors, but I guess you will just use any excuse to take up arms.
• (You seem to have left that part out when you quoted it.) - Lol you try so hard to be condescending and your attempts to WP:WIN are so juvenile and transparent. Let's add one additional sentence to my quote: Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
• WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies only to exceptional claims. - This claim is exceptional and controversial. Sources disagree on it.
• No, tagging is not a compromise nor a solution. - Try exploring outside a few articles you think you WP:OWN. I'll laugh when you start edit warring over tags and get blocked. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please not resort to personal attacks, name calling and mischaracterizations of fellow editors? Thanks. As I've already said above, yes, your explanation for the tags is sufficient and appreciated, and the tags have remained since you provided that explanation. My removal of your tags prior to you providing actionable explanation is indeed in line with Wikipedia convention, as explained in everything from essays to actual tag usage instructions. If you'd like to discuss your philosophy on tag usage further, we should find a more appropriate venue. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Minority casualties in Vietnam

I was trying to prove whether or not this was a myth, but I couldn't find reliable sources one way or the other, and lots of information was contradictory. I started a discussion at Talk:Vietnam_War_casualties#Minority_casualties_during_the_war and added templates in the meantime to show that some skepticism for this information that a lot of sources are saying is a myth. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've watch-listed that Talk page. Thanks for starting that discussion; let's hope for some useful input. As for "showing some skepticism" in the article, tags aren't the vehicle for that. The skepticism first needs to exist in reliable sources (we've seen none presented here), and if appropriate for this article, that skepticism or competing argument would be presented with the required reference citations. I've no problem with legitimate tags being added if accompanied by actual concerns presented here, so that we have something with which to work. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The following is an opinion editorial written by Owens, a professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College (both links are to the same piece):

1. Ashland University:http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-02-combat/
2. National Review:http://old.nationalreview.com/owens/owens100402.asp

The op-ed is written about the Iraq War, but he does make this comment regarding the Vietnam War:

The claim of disproportionate minority casualties wasn't true during the Vietnam War, where the record indicates that 86 percent of those who died during the war were white and 12.5 percent were black, from an age group in which blacks comprised 13.1 percent of the population.

Owens makes no indication of what "record" he refers to for his statistics, so we should try to find a useable reliable source for those numbers, as well as the date range and context for them. A source already cited in our article (published by Cambridge University in the Journal of Politics) notes that some, like Owens, have consistently tried to claim the disparity was untrue, but goes on to state that they have found their attempts to revise this perception discredited by scholars as ideologically driven and fatally flawed methodologically (see pg. 116). Another source already cited in our article (Darby and Rowley, pg. 44) further explains that in 1964, 18.8% of eligible whites were drafted versus 30.2% of eligible blacks, and by 1967 it was 31% of eligible whites conscripted versus 67% of eligible blacks. Both sources also note that after the government moved to a draft lottery in 1970, which no longer favored young men from wealthier families who could afford to stay in college and avoid the draft, and after civil rights movement icons like King criticized the disproportion in both the draft and casualties, the disparity between minorities and whites shrank dramatically. Are Owen's statistics among those derived from flawed methrdology, and can we find them in a Wikipedia-compliant reliable source somewhere (i.e.; not in an opinion piece, but published in a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy)? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Owens is a military historian, and supposedly an expert. His opinion alone could arguably merit WP:WEIGHT. He might be completely full of baloney, and I almost recoiled in disgust when I discovered the National Review was a conservative publication, but that doesn't get us off the hook for casually throwing around such a controversial claim. You say a disproportionate number of blacks were drafted. I heard more blacks volunteered than whites. If either of these were true, blacks would be a greater percentage of the military at the time than whites, right? Do we have these numbers anywhere? I keep seeing that 12.5% number, and at one point I saw about 10% for the number of blacks in the military. Something isn't right here. If it was really 12.5% compared to 13.1%, and more blacks were drafted than whites, wouldn't that imply that blacks suffered fewer casualties compared to how many were active in the military? I'm not an expert and I couldn't be completely confused, but none of these really seems to add up. If you have some numbers to give, I'd be relieved to see them. PraetorianFury (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The records of casualties are relatively easy to access. Here are the DoD records. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This source says 58,220 total casualties, of which 7,243 were black. 49,830 were white. That's 12.44% black casualties, and 85.59% white casualties. But how many were in the military at the time? And in the population? If the 13.1% figure is correct and blacks were drafted in greater numbers during the war, that would imply they should have been a greater percentage of the military and would have had a greater percentage of casualties, right? This also has a separate category for latinos, so they were not counted as white. So I guess that theory is out. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Historian? Not so much. But he certainly appears to have at least some level of expertise regarding the military, although a quick review of several of his articles just now indicates he also has an abundance of animosity toward "liberals", "lefties", "peaceniks" and "anti-war people" -- and this colors his writings to the point of tarnishing any semblance of objectivity. That's why I suggested finding a source for his figures in something other than an opinion piece. Like you, I'm no expert on this. I hadn't even edited that section of the article before now, so I'm picking this up as we go. If you Google "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics" By Anne Leland, you can see similar numbers to the ones Owens uses cited to the Department of Defense. Does that mean Owens is correct and the sources in our article are incorrect? No; in fact, the Cambridge and also the Darby & Rowley sources address these DoD statistics in their findings. This book by Appy breaks down the same DoD numbers fairly clearly, and explains how different "sides" use those same statistics to say opposite things. If you continue reading for a few pages, Appy also answers your above questions about the numbers. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

He says at the beginning of the war, black casualties were 20% of the war, compared to 11% of the national population. I think he says that the percentage of blacks who served in the military was 10%. This implies that in the later years of the war, black casualties were below average, doesn't it? The 11% figure is not one I've heard before, I'm currently downloading the 1960 US Census from https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html to try and verify. Also, I want to verify the 10% figure given for population in the military. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

...And then he says..."After all, Lewy argued, black casualties for the whole war were 12.5 percent, no higher than the portion of draft-age black males in the total U.S. population. Lewy's charge falls apart, however, as soon as one points out that black casualties did not drop to the overall figure of 12.5 until well after King was assassinated. During the period King and others were articulating their criticisms of the war, the disproportions were quite significant." In other words, King and others were right at the time. I knew something smelled wrong about this, it wasn't as simple as critics nor proponents were suggesting. When I get a few minutes, I'm going to add a section to Vietnam War casualties, and then modify the Racism Panel section in this article to link to that discussion. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Document 4 of the census, on page 164 says there were 18,871,831 blacks compared to a total population of 179,323,175, for a total percentage of 10.52%. I couldn't find numbers for the draft-eligible population, but ~12.5% is believable. I'd also like a second source for the population in the military if one exists. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Some quick comments on the above mentioned sources:

Both the DoD archives primary source (updated 2008) and the more recent Congressional Research Service (2010 - Anne Leland) tables give 7243 as the number of African American casualties, so that much appears accurate. It follows that ~12.5% total black casualties during the whole war should be accurate as well.

I still haven't seen a source giving the "13.1 percent of the population" mentioned by Owens yet. Appy says blacks made up 11% of the civilian population. You say your census search says 10.52%. What I have noticed as I've reviewed several more sources is a critical difference in set definition between these sources. For example, one source compares casualties to the percentage of African Americans in the U.S., while another source compares to African American males in the U.S., and yet another source compares to African American draft-age males in the U.S. We should be careful when conveying this information that we aren't comparing apples to oranges. The same caution applies to the date ranges at which we are looking. King (as you've already noted above) and the veterans at the WSI were right about the disproportionate black casualties during the first half of the war -- and they couldn't have known at the time of the changes that would reverse that trend, to the point of almost erasing the disparity by by the end of the war several years later. Several sources (including the ones already present in our article, and Appy above) indicate that the disproportionate black casualty rate didn't begin to decline until it was publicized by the antiwar and civil rights movements and the military began implementing changes to address the issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I found a few more sources saying similar things. Hopefully the new section at Vietnam War casualties addresses everything you mentioned. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the new section. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

One more thing

I want to verify this statement:

Black soldiers were intentionally endangered by being placed as "point, rearguards, and side-guards"

But the link provided in the ref doesn't really indicate where on the page this is being taken from, and a text search did not yield anything. In the article, this is stated as a historical fact, it seems that most of the information we're including in the section are the allegations of the veterans in this panel. What I read here actually suggests the opposite, that racism was weakest on the front lines. Further, one could argue the greater proportion of blacks drafted and sent to the front lines explains the higher casualties, not deliberate endangerment, the numbers I've found seem to confirm this, with around 25% of combat units made up by black soldiers (at least at the beginning of the war). So is this a view accepted by historians, or is it something that was claimed by the veterans at this panel? PraetorianFury (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The link provided for the above statement says it came from Allen Akers portion of testimony, and like you, I'm having difficulty locating it because some of the transcript at the linked website loops back on itself after the third page. I've located some audio recordings of the testimony that I'm reviewing, and if needed, the testimony is transcribed in congressional records which I can access without too much inconvenience if necessary. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That Guardian article is an interesting read, and reads very similar to the first two dozen pages of Fighting on Two Fronts: African Americans and the Vietnam War by James E. Westheider. While both sources mention that racial tensions take a back seat during the heat of front line battle, I am confused as to why you interpret that to mean "the opposite". When I read in your link:

most disturbingly, black Americans were dying at a disproportionate rate and this only inflamed their indignation, as one black private remonstrated: "You should see for yourself how the black man is being treated over here and the way we are dying. When it comes to rank, we are left out. When it comes to special privileges, we are left out. When it comes to patrols, operations and so forth, we are first."

or in 1969, one black lieutenant commented somewhat cynically that the "threat of death changes many things, but comradeship doesn't last after you get back to the village", the disparity in inter-racial hatred at the rear army bases and in the war theatre itself was immense.

that doesn't convey to me the "opposite" of racial inequality in the military. But as I mentioned above, the situation changed for the better. Your Guardian source appears to agree and says this:

Ultimately, however, the military authorities were compelled to confront the deepening crisis, and in 1969 General Leonard Chapman conceded: "There is no question we've got a problem." Surprisingly, and to its credit, the army responded with impressive speed and instigated myriad reforms. It investigated and addressed each field in which discrimination and prejudice had thrived, from the post exchanges to the dearth of black officers. Mandatory Watch And Action Committees were introduced into each unit, and today, Terry confirms, the US military authorities "make it clear to their top officers that racism can cost you your career". He adds: "I call it the last civil rights movement. It started in the armed forces in Vietnam, and it spread into revolts on the high seas on certain ships and then to air force bases in the States and army bases in Germany." In fact, in 1972 Wallace Terry was hired by the US Air Force to examine parallel racial predicaments in Germany; and today he is adamant that "Colin Powell would not have become chairman of the joint chiefs had it not been for those black kids protesting in Vietnam. You can draw a direct line."

Xenophrenic (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well in particular I was thinking of the bit about the black guy rescuing a KKK member, and how one black soldier said that they relied on white soldiers to "cover your ass", and the quote you mentioned that racial hatred at the rear army bases was immense, distinct from the forward bases... Either way, quotes or perspectives from particular soldiers is not something we should be including in the article considering how skewed or non-representational they can be. I don't want to delete the line, if the soldiers made this allegation at this notable event, it's something we should include. But we need to make it clear whether it is an allegation or something with mainstream historical consensus. As it reads right now, we seem to imply that "it is known" that black soldiers were deliberately endangered and that that was an explanation for their higher casualties. We currently don't have the sources to support such a claim in this way. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Quotes from participants certainly may have their place in this article about those very participants, but I understand (and agree with) your concern about citing quotes from these individuals as if they were RS citations for basic facts -- something we shouldn't do. After listening to audio tapes and accessing other transcripts, I've located the "point, rearguards, and side-guards" quote -- it was indeed from Akers, but from the 3rd Marine Division panel, not the Racism or Third World Panels as I had originally assumed. I've returned it to the article, but made clear that it was testimony from veterans and not a simple factual statement. (I made an edit a week ago to fix this, but it appears the page-save didn't execute.) All sources so far appear to agree that the disproportion between whites and blacks in both casualty counts and representation in combat units was significant early in the war. The same sources also agree that the disproportion reduced significantly by the end of the war, after the military implemented changes. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "Winter Soldier"

An actual definition for "winter soldier" somewhere would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.37.169 (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's use in this context is described here. Other definitions may be found here. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those two links are of any help in providing a definition for the term "winter soldier". The first merely explains why "winter soldier" was chosen as the name of the investigation. The second just takes me to other uses of "winter soldier" with no explanation of the term. I mentioned the need for a "definition"--in other words, its meaning, not its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.37.169 (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing. The essay by Paine gives the original metaphor. It is at http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/crisis/singlehtml.htm. It begins: "THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." (italics mine) It goes on to mention winter 14 times, in the context of privations, though it doesn't use the phrase "winter soldier" not define it except implicitly by the contrast to summer soldier. 84.227.228.68 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)