Talk:Jessica Lynch/Archive 1

Staged resuce
A new section named staged rescue should be added. This should be the first section becasue the Jessica Lynch is famous because she was used by the Pentagon for their own gain. It seems there are two points of view to this story: - US point of view. - non-US point of view.

In the US, the mass media is subject to manipulation and censorship, therefore US citizesn who access this will be inclined towards the ir story which exposes private Lynch as a hero. The non-US media emphasizes this story as pure propaganda.

We must make sure we can constrain the US attitudes so this stays in the neutral point of view

I have changed the introduction. Feel free to correct/change.

beyond pov

 * cool, wikipedia is also an propaganda instument for the white house and the pentagon 195.234.80.5 12:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

i removed the section labled "differing accounts" and added the sentiment to the section above it. i beleive this portion of the article was beyond editorial and into the realm of deceiptful. apparant syllogisms where used to support a conspiracy theory and it is shameful to have this connected to the name of a soldier. the idea that the mission was staged is false. i know this first hand being that i was in the hospital. perhaps a bigger media hype was made than should have been, but to make the leap from media hype to scandal without factual basis is uncalled for. if you wish to express opinon about the war do it elsewhere. there are many places on the web where you can accuse the government of scandal. when scandal is present i agree with the need. in this case though the accusation is unfounded. although there was "verification" added to this section the source is more than questionable and harldy expert. i do beleive it pertinent to mention the alternate theories and the link section povides several avenues for intersted readers to explore these theories. i beleive assosiating conspiracy theory with this poor girls name is adding insult to injury litteraly. the theory is adaquately described in the new edit without sensationalism

also there where 8 bodies discovered at the hospital i added this to the portion describing the rescue in addition to providing credible verification in the links section Lukebruhns (former army ranger who took part in the operation)11:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Serious POV
Wow, this is one of the more POV articles I have read in Wikipedia. It is notionally about Jessica Lynch, but maybe 50% of the text concerns her. The rest is either 'bad war, bad Americans' or character assasination of some guy called Mohammed. One example of the POV - how is it relevant to Lynch that someone asserts that the US Miltary did not offer to compensate an Iraqi hospital for damage caused during her rescue? Editors seem to have dewlt almost lovingly over every slahed sand bed, broken door or offended Iraqi, while dismissing in one sentence the notion that the troops concerned considered that they were undertaking a Prisoner snatch in a war zone.

The war and the US armed forces must be incredibly unpopular if this passes as unbiased in the US. Or is that that editors are attempting to use this article to counter a perceived Government bias? I'm not an American and I live half a world away, so I don't know the answer, but I suspect my remoteness is the reason why I see a lack of balance here that other US-based editors do not.

I can't be bold on this one I'm afraid, because I have no expert knowledge, but I can recognise bias when I read it. For the record, I don't like the war or my own country's involvement in it either - but that's no excuse for polemic. RichardH 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I find the above comment amusing. Jessica Lynch was used as a propaganda tool by the Bush administration. The only reason we ever heard her name is because Bush wanted to promote the idea of a West Virginia girl hero to sell the war. What would Jefferson think?

Irony
Wanna know another irony? Saddam Hussein was a friend of the United States, and actually visited Detroit. He donated money to the local churches (which Middle East oriented of course), and received the key to the city of Detroit.


 * Presumably, this was back in the days when the Iranians were the bad guys and anyone who opposed them, including Hussein, were the good guys. Osama bin Laden had a similar status with the USA for a while because he was anti-Soviet Afghanistan. Arno


 * Gosh times, they are a'changing. --PY

Yup, better believe the irony, but Lynch is from a town called Palestine.


 * Hmmm. On a similar note, there is a town just north of Hobart, Tasmania called Bagdad. There's no h, but it's pronounced the same as Baghdad. So far, no US forces have shown up over there.Arno

This has nothing to do with the article. ThePartyVan 22:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good you point that out -- we may not have figured it out ourselves! -- Imladros

"Pfc"
What does "Pfc" stand for? I assume it means "Private first class". This should be explained, preferably by someone who knows for certain (i.e. not me). -- Stephen Gilbert


 * Good point. I'll take care of it.  -- Zoe


 * Pfc is indeed short for Private First Class. Arno

Source
is an interesting news item that may prove valuable to the evolution of this article. Kingturtle 04:43 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

Various Topics

 * Jessica Lynch was compared with Rachel Corrie. These comparisons failed to improve the article, and has thusly been snipped. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and talk pages are for improving enyclopedia articles, not for going off on wild tangents.


 * Who was that masked man? -- NetEsq 02:49 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Bravo. this article is very well done. Kingturtle 02:21 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Last I heard 8 of the 9 bodies brought to the U.S.A. were identified as Americans. Was one of them not from her unit? Rmhermen 03:05 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes, one was from the 3rd Division Support Battalion.  --Minesweeper 01:46 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

"Despite early reports, she was said not to have suffered gunshot or stab wounds" is a more accurate account than rmhermen's last edit. See this news source: Kingturtle 03:10 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * This article is more recent. Rmhermen 03:19 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * Touche. Kingturtle 03:24 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, the ubiquitous news reports narrating the story of Mohammed the lawyer and his wife the nurse cannot be characterized as "unconfirmed" or "apocryphal." Dozens of well-respected journalists have met this man and interviewed him. -- NetEsq 20:02 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)
 * Some references would be nice. I'm not alleging any conspiracy--it's just that he's disappeared and his story hasn't been confirmed by the military. Fog of war and all that. --The Cunctator 23:09 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * Mohammed's story was originally reported by embedded reporters with the Washington Post and USA Today, and it has been confirmed by various other well-respected journalists from the associated press. Unless some credible source questions these reports, it is absurd to question their authenticity. -- NetEsq 05:33 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning their authenticity, just the authenticity of Mohammed's story. I don't disbelieve that's what he said, just that what he said is necessarily true. --The Cunctator 20:07 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the initial reports by the embedded reporters, which were in fact confirmed by the military:


 *  He's sort of an inspiration to all of us," said Lt. Col. Rick Long, who hosted the family in his trailer for a dinner of Meals Ready to Eat tonight.


 *  If not for his help, the Marines said, they might never have been able to rescue Lynch. "The information was dead-on," said Col. Bill Durrett, who was helping process their refugee status to keep them safe from reprisals.


 * (Iraqi Man Risked All to Help Free American Soldier By Peter Baker, Washington Post, April 3, 2003.)


 * I did. Barring the fact that's not "reports" by "reporters" but "report" by "reporter", I'm similarly inclined to trust the later report:
 * Mohammed's role hasn't been confirmed by the military.
 * (Residents Want Iraqi Who Helped Rescue POW Lynch to Visit West Virginia, AP, April 9, 2003.)
 * I don't blindly question the media, but I don't blindly trust it, either. And the facts that a) later reports state that the military doesn't confirm Mohammed's story and b) the guy has disappeared give reason, imho, to state that there is a plausible possibility that his role was overstated/embellished/misreported. --The Cunctator 21:53 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)


 *  The quotes from Lt. Col. Rick Long and Col. Bill Durrett, who are members of the United States military, were provided by Peter Baker, the embedded reporter from the Washington Post. David J. Lynch of USA today also interviewed Mohammed and filed a separate report.  Perhaps FOX had not yet been able to get confirmation from the military, but that hardly gives rise to "plausible doubt." -- NetEsq 22:23 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * * Iraqi's videotape guided raiders in Lynch's rescue By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press, April 16, 2003.

There should definitely be more references to the sources of information in this article. Times of war are times of lies and propaganda, after all. Matthias


 * There's nothing wrong with citing references. To that end, does anyone know of *ANY* news reports, much less credible ones, that refer to the story of Mohammed the lawyer as being "unconfirmed" -- NetEsq 21:24 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)?

This article contains nine external links. That is excessive, especially since they point to news items that say the same thing this article says. Are they meant to be references rather than external links? If they are meant to be references, then they should be in reference format, not external link format. External links are meant more to take users to official sites, sites of experts on an issue, sites that offer different points of view on a contraversial topic. What exist in this article, IMHO, are references. References have a different syntax and format to follow. Kingturtle 06:07 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus on the role or formatting of external links and references, at least that I'm aware of. That's why I always call the external links section "References and external links". And there are different needs for links on a developing or recent news story than there are for links on a historical topic. --The Cunctator 21:38 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Unlike the excessive multitude of photographs of Rachel Corrie, many of them of questionable copyright. -- Zoe


 * And another thing . . . Does anyone know who did the makeup for the movie _Chicken Run_? -- NetEsq 23:32 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

May be a small thing but was this really the first rescue of a POW since WW2? If that were true there would have to be no rescues during Vietnam or Korea, which sounds unlikely. Any references? DJ Clayworth 21:05, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, yes. Prior to Lynch's rescue, the last sucessful raid was on the Japanese Cabatuan POW camp in the Phillipines.  I don't recall any attempts made during Korea, but camps may have been out of range of US forces.  Cabatuan wasnear the end of WWII when the allies were eating up Japanese held teritory at great speed...not so in Korea.

There WAS an attempt to rescue POWs in Viet Nam, but the intel was old and the POWs had been moved several weeks prior to the raid.

What you MAY be thinking of are the numerous rescues of pilots shot down during both wars (particularly Viet Nam), such as Iceal Hambelton (Bat 21)...but those were not the same, as those aircrew were never under the command and control of opposing forces....the definition of a POW. Lynch WAS under the C&C of the Iraqis, meaning she was a POW (in fact, until US forces raided the hospital, her status was unknown, as her body wasn't in the pile the Iraqis filmed, nor was the shows with the others of her company), and thus, her rescue was the first rescue of a POW from behind enemy lines since WWII.


 * while U.S. forces were justified in going to the hospital with extreme force

We are not in the business of deciding on or reporting on whether the actions were "justified". DanKeshet
 * Certainly not w/o detailed explanation. (when i first heard the story, i wondered how many nonmilitary Iraqi got mown off in the rescue of this cute little blonde. Fortunately, not many, since it smells like an April Fool now)
 * Regarding things like this...why does most WP seem to be quick to bleeve or defend anything the US gov't says, no matter how counterintuitive, lacking in evidence, bathed in counterevidence, and the heap of lies the US gov't has been shown to have kited in the past, long past and short?

When you go into an unknown situation in a war zone, you MUST presume the worst...you don't just walk up, knock on the door, and politely ask for your POW to be returned, particularly ina country where local forces were using civlian buildings as military staging posts (which makes them legitimate targets, by the way)

For sure! Think of the agencies with floorspace in wtc7...


 * now a free citizen and is

"Free" from Iraq is evident from the article; the term for a discharged soldier is "private citizen" but since that's also evident from the article I removed the phrase. - Hephaestos 16:51, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Here's an interesting item:
 * ''The Lynches dispelled the reports Jessica suffered amnesia.
 * "There really wasn't no amnesia problem," Greg Lynch said. "Her
 *  memory is as good as it was when she was at home." 

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32824

"I am not a hero" she says...but she'll take the $1 million book deal. Kingturtle 16:29, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Let's clarify this...#1 she split the book fee with Bragg, then there are taxes on the remainder, AND starting her pwn charitible fund with the remainder. Couple that with the unknown factor of how much medical care she will need for the rest of her life -- some of which may not be covered by her vet's status -- and taking the book deal was a good call.

I am in the military, she has lifetime full health care as a veteran, starting her own charity involves no money of her own, and she read the book, and then approved of its content. Which means she agreed to all the lies that were printed in it. She is the epitome of the shitbag soldier. We in the army have no respect for her, her weapon did not jam. She simply froze. She ignored all of the training she had recieved, and froze. This is a proven, documented fact that only people who hace security clearance have access to the filed document. It was purposely witheld from the media that she froze, and she was the one who said the weapon jammed. Since it fit with what the suits in charge were going for, they let it rest.

Tim Collins
I'm wondering why there is link to a page about Tim Collins (soldier) which seems completely unrelated to Jessica Lynch except they were both soliders in Iraq.--enceladus 23:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Prisoner of War -- Iraqi resistance during her rescue...
Someone using the IP 71.244.108.146 wrote:
 * These claims have not been substantiated and it is believed that the American forces met with substantial resistance during the rescue.

I challenge them to produce documentation that the rescuers encountered any resistance. -- Geo Swan 20:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right. Such a claim, flying in the face of all published evidence, needs some heavy citing.  I've removed it until that time.  --Yamla 02:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the military said numerous times that while there was no resistance at the hospotal itself, there WAS resistance in the immediate area.

Topless Photos
I've heard on Alex Jones that Jessica Lynch did some topless spreads which I Googled saying there were photos that were pulled. Anybody have any insight?

Speculum

There apparently were candid topless photos taken of Jessica Lynch during a party with other soldiers while she was in basic training or advanced individual training. I remember a news story indicating that these were purchased by Larry Flynt to prevent publication.

--Ehrentitle 12:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Those photos could not have been taken during basic or AIT, if you knew anyhting about the military, both basic and AIT soldiers are watched over stricter than prison inmates. They dont have any time for something like that, and if they did, they males are kept separated from the females in any and all situations like that.

Shouldn't this section reference "alleged" photographs, since no one but Flynt has claimed to see them, and there is some dispute about whether the story was made up for Flynt's own publicity. 12.206.43.178 01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of voltairenet article
I removed the voltairenet article because, while well written, it seemed that the useful content could simply be incorporated into this wikipedia article. That is, it did not meet the fairly strict criteria for external links. Nevertheless, GeoSwan seems to have more experience on this category of wikipedia article so if you think this is a valuable link, I withdraw my objection. --Yamla 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced content
I removed the following from the article: "Though not publicaly, a lot of soldiers hold resentment towards Lynch for what some call stupidy and cowardice. The jam on her rifle was a simple round stuck in the chamber which could have been fixed by pulling back the charging handle and then didnt fix it and refused to fight out of fear. This is stated by herself in a personal times interview. In some circles of the amry there have she is seens as given a hero's status just becuase shes a woman." As it seems to be unsourced and contains a lot of weasel words ("a lot of", "what some call", "In some circles", "is seen as"). Z iggurat 22:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that others in her unit had the exact same problem....and one of her of superiors (Sgt. Dowdy, who died in the Humvee she was in) tried to clear the jam without success. It was a common problem in theater, and not just for the 507th.
 * those guys should get better guns

middle name?
The article clearly states at the beginning that Jessica Lynch's middle name is Dawn, but then goes on to say that she names her daughter Dakota Ann after friend Lori Ann Piestewa, "and all three individuals share the middle name of Ann." Both statements conflict. --Delong71487 05:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All three statements would appear to be irrelevant and could probably be deleted to remove any such conflict. Attriti0n 14:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Life outside the war?
there is very little info about ther life outside the war. 61.2.67.26 14:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New article on House investigation
I thought this news story merited a new article, since the investigation extends to the Tillman affair as well. Im not sure what to call it, though:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TILLMAN_LYNCH?SITE=KYB66&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

--popefauvexxiii 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rape allegations
Based not on her recollection, a statement by an examining doctor, or a claim by a Government agency but an article by a reporter based in New York who appears to have left his job after claiming other people's work as his own. Does this merit inclusion? --Herne nz 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No Evidence of Pentagon Hype
I'm not having any luck finding evidence that the Pentagon ever hyped Lynch as a "Rambo". The first official report on that subject appears to have come out in July, 2003, and said that she did not fight back. By contrast, there is plenty of evidence that they hyped the rescue but not her conduct in the fight in which she was captured.RFabian 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

is this true? sourced article doesn't appear to match assertion
The following is written under the "Lynch's Criticism" section of this article, and I just noticed it: In fact, the Pentagon never made such claims about Lynch. The first official report of Lynch's actions that day released by the Pentagon said that she did not appear to have fought back against her captors. The stories of her supposed heroics that day were spread by the news media and by Democratic Congressmen from her own state of West Virginia. [9]

The obvious intent of this remark appears to be to deflect criticism regarding the controversy around this story off of the Pentagon and on to unnamed "Democratic congressmen." It seems slightly POV against Democrats (or the news media, a frequent tip-off to a conservative bias), but that may be acceptable if the assertion is in fact true. The news media, notably the NBC movie, did perpetuate a false story. But who were the congressmen?

The problem is that the article sourced (note 9) as supporting evidence makes no reference of particular West Virginian congressmen, let alone that they were Democrats. I didn't make an edit to the page assuming the assertion might be true. Perhaps I missed the source reference? Perhaps the article could be made more specific by naming the actual congressmen?

72.11.81.88 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous Redirect - How to Fix?
It seems that Jessica Lynch, Miss New York 2003 erroneously redirects to this article. How does one fix that? --Chops79 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the redirect, but there was only a blank page there with no history. I don't know anything about her, but I did add a minimal amount of information.  Anyway, the answer to your question is add  ?redirect=no  to the end of the address in your address bar.  See WP:R. ~ Dusk Knight  05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Propoganda" vs "P.R."
While I, personally, would use the term 'Propaganda' as an appropriate description of the Pentagon's handling of PFC Lynch's story, I feel it is not appropriate for use here, because...


 * "Propaganda" implies intentional lies, and while many (myself included) may argue that there is evidence that the Pentagon used a lot of... let's say 'artistic license,' many of of the events described where true, and most of the wholes in their version of the story can be accounted to the fog of war.


 * "Propaganda" is also a very strong, derogatory, and incendiary word, who's use opens a Pandora's Box of stigmas, and significantly decreases the perception of its user's NPOV.

Therefore, I propose the use of less harsh phrases, such as "P.R." and "Spin"

They were intentional lies. Things stated by the Pentagon were flat out lies, not giving a vague subjective view but a flat out contradiction to the events witnessed first hand by Lynch and the staff of the hospital (not to mention those pesky inteligence reports that show they already knew). Nor is propaganda "derogatory", many government have officially called departments within their "PR" propaganda.

It's not a "durp P.R. spin", it was flat out lies known to those stating them in order to gain support during wartime. It's propaganda and it's going back in. 203.59.21.45 (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Intro
The intro makes no sense. " Lynch, along with major media outlets, fault the U.S. government for creating the story as part of the Pentagon's propaganda effort" What story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.87.209 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow
This is a really calm article...where are the gop memory-holers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.162.190 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) How does a comment like this help this article at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.119.62 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott Bruno
Former US Army Specialist Scott Bruno was the person who intercepted the 13 minute video depicting many of the dead in this case, many of which were shot point blank execution style. The footage was prime intelligence material as the video showed the external and internal buildings surrounding the area in which the battle took place as well as many other clues that would lead to forming a snatch and grab team to go in and retrieve the dead and survivors. Fox News at the time actually aggressively pursued this video from Bruno who nearly gave it up, this only after his Pentagon contact stated that after reviewing the video that it was closing time back east and he would DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE IN THE MORNING! Outraged, Bruno has yet to tell the entire story, which if things did not go the way they did under such time delays, may have very well allowed for more lives to be saved. We'll never know. To gain insite into Specialist Bruno's accounts and life in the military you are welcome to find his website at http://www.scottbruno.com and http://411.scottbruno.com -- 05:35, 12 August 2007 Caliwebman
 * I don't see any links to this information on the sites provided. -- Esemono 08:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Basic Training
The article says "Boot camp" (a term not used in the Army) was in Texas. That's impossible. There are 5 Basic Combat Training sites in the Army, Ft Benning, Ft Knox, Ft Leonard Wood, Ft Jackson, and Ft Sill. Females are only trained at Leonard Wood (Missouri) and Jackson (South Carolina). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal06 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the article to indicate that Lynch attended basic training at Fort Jackson, NC. Page 35 of her book I Am a Soldier, Too indicates that she trained there and the the next chapter "Boot" alludes to this training. After completion of basic training she, as did all Quartermaster solders, attended Advanced Individual Training at Fort Lee, VA. Ehrentitle 19:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Prisoner of War
I took out the line that says "It is entirely possible that she received the best care that that hospital could provide, which was not as good as American military hospitals could provide." While it may be true under the circumstance, it's unsourced, speculative, and I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the context. Polarrrbear (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Star Status
Considering the Bronze Star (being one of the highest military honors) was awarded under a bogus scenario, and Jessica sharply denies the events leading up to the award, is there any information out there as to why she has not forfeited the award? Or has she? Either way, I think if it can be sourced, it is worth a mention. I haven't been able to find anything.Angrymansr (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally these kinds of awards are not forfeited even if erroneous as long as no actual intentional act of fraud was involved in it being awarded. (An honest mistake is not fraud.)  For an example, note that Pat Tillman still retains his posthumous Purple Heart and Bronze Star despite the fact it is now known he died in a friendly fire incident.  75.70.186.213 (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The issuing of the award was an intentional act of fraud. Her Bronze Star was awarded to support the propaganda of her being shot and stabbed while going through several magazines killing Iraqi's until she was out of ammo. I was just asking given her criticism of the Pentagon, if she turned the medals back in. I was not asking why they were not taken away. Mr. Tillman's case is along the same lines, but he is clearly not in a position to return the medals, so I don't see how you can compare the two cases. Angrymansr (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The bronze star can be issued for valor (with a 'V' device) or for service (plain). Unless one reads the General Orders she was issued granting the award, it is not safe to assume it was awarded for false reasons, or acts that didn't occur. In precedence, it ranks above the Army Comendation Medal, but below the Silver Star, DSC, and Medal of Honor. I'm a Viet Nam veteran with 6½ years in the Army, and I take all medals with a big grain of salt (and so should you).

I think that is amusing that the government blames the media for the hype, and vice versa; and, it shows what crooks run the country and feed us our daily ration of bull shit (the news). Anyway you cut it; "The first casualty in war is..." It is appalling that she has received hate mail (if true), but that shows what a lot of neanderthals people this country.

Removed rescuers' deaths
Against all statistical odds at least four of the soldiers on the "rescue-mission" died between July-October 2003:

- Josh Daniel Speer (Jul 6, 2003 | single vehicle accident)

- David M Tapper (Aug 20, 2003 | shot in the back during ambush in Afghanistan)

- Kyle Edward Williams (Oct 1, 2003 | apparent suicide)

- Sok Khak Ung (Oct 19, 2003 | murdered)

The rescuers' deaths have nothing to do with an article on Jessica Lynch -- Wkerney 12:35, 2 September 2008
 * Seems like a conspiracy theory brewing. :P vlad§inger  tlk  02:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Get out the tinfoil hats!!!!!! 128.104.54.89 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Larry Flynt's respect for her honesty and integrity
In this Henry Rollins interview, he mentioned he had nude photos of her, but did NOT use or release them because she was so open and honest about NOT being the made-up hero that Bush & Co. wanted her to pretend to be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo__QEKVAmw 199.214.26.82 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the photos, it seems a user removed the entire section with the edit summary "just added a comma". Seems the user was trying to be deceptive with that edit summary??.. just wondering if anyone thinks this should be re-added. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the removal was done deceptively. However, I'm not so sure that re-adding it is the way to go. Flynt said he had the pics, but there is no evidence that he has them. The news coverage is simply repeating that he made the claim. I think there could be a BLP issue with an unsupported allegation of nude photos and "frolicking". And, to be honest, given Flynt's tendency towards self-promotion, I see it as a 50-50 chance that he invented it for the attention, getting to play the "See what a good guy I am" role. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Flint's claims should be included, as they are referenced in many interviews. I could say that 'he claimed' or whatever, but his efforts did bring the story to the forefront. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndarth (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Piestewa Peak
How can Piestewa Peak overlook a house in Flagstaff, AZ when they are separated by some 140 miles? Lowellt (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality scale
This article is rated Start class by one WikiProject, B-class by another, and GA status by a third. What gives? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, has this article even received a legit GA assessment or peer review? -- &oelig; &trade; 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of statement saying Piestawa Peak "overlooks" the house.
I removed this portion ", a nearby mountain-top over looking the valley where the house was built and commemorated by the design team." from the paragraph that originally read " In the course of the episode, a memorial for Piestewa was placed on Piestewa Peak, a nearby mountain-top over looking the valley where the house was built and commemorated by the design team."

My reason is this: according to Google maps, Piestewa Peak and Flagstaff Arizona are 139 miles apart, making it impossible to "overlook" the house. See Google Maps. 59.101.33.190 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughly confusing
The article currently mixes several versions of events in each paragraph, with each version contradicting the others. It's very hard to get any idea of Lynch's story from this. Perhaps the presentation would be clearer if we could distill some kind of cohesive narrative (perhaps the "official version" of events), then collect together all the disputes and contradictions in another section? --Doradus (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearinghouse for web speculation and conspiracy theories?
I see something in this article that shouldn't be here but I'm not sure what to do about it. Out of respect to the people who have actively worked on this page, I'm not the one to fix it. If this were a clearinghouse for conspiracy theorists and anti-war activists, I could add pages of material. Is it? Some pf the people involved can neither release, confirm nor deny information pertaining to operations ever, and cannot respond to these wild claims. The BBC article that claims Marines were using blanks and that a rescue was staged is known to be false by people who were there.

It doesn't belong here. Just because you can quote an online article doesn't give the information weight. In the civilian BBC writer's defense, I should add that to a bystanding doctor it may have looked like something they'd seen on TV, because that's the only place they'd ever seen anything like that. It's the conclusions woven here that are wrong. The Marines may well have used some noisemakers in their diversion. Without a real target, you wouldn't want them making noise with the real thing would you?

Spec-ops units don't usually send a couple guys down in a taxi to pick up a hostage from a hospital, no matter what somebody at a checkpoint tells them, or comes in with pictures of, it's just not how things are done. Nothing has to be staged, it's what they do. They aren't going to show up at that hospital differently because they think maybe there aren't any bad guys there. They were armed to the teeth and ready to control a section of the city if necessary.

I'm sorry for getting into the content. It's just that it's woven in here in such a way that it really needs redaction. There are 50 websites online spinning this, and that's all it is. If this Wiki is going to have factual information, this sort of speculation needs to be held in check. The facts aren't in evidence. I suppose I shouldn't complain, sometimes media myth spinners are a soldiers best ally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.219.231 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Renamed
Why was this renamed Jessica Lynch (Prisoner of War)? Wouldn't Jessica Lynch (soldier) be more appropriate? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I was just trying to do a disambiguation. If you feel that Jessica Lynch (soldier) would be more appropriate, feel free to move it. I just thought that since she was best known for being a POW that would be more appropriate. I think soldier would be appropriate as well. What does everyone else think? MissPageantNews (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I have asked admins for a requested move back to Jessica Lynch. It's reasonable to assume that most anyone searching for Jessica Lynch would be looking for this person. A hatnote at the top of the article would have been sufficient to point to the former pageant winner. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. This will be the one most are looking for and agree with leaving it as was. Re the other, no, she was best known for being a soldier who was captured as a POW. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry about that.MissPageantNews (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

fake reference jessica-lynch.com cyberscammer
The number one reference for this article shows jessica-lynch.com. That website is simply a fan site and is also a scam to use Jessica's name to sell services. Jessica Lynch DOES NOT ENDORSE the scamming site jessica-lynch.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.100.31.203 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct that it's a junk site and doesn't belong. Removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Al Sharpton vs medical staff
Why is it noted that Al Sharpton thinks Jessica's VA disability rate is higher than other black soldiers? This is absurd, as each soldier is rated for disability based on the injuries suffered. Jessica was clearly severely injured in numerous areas of her body. Medical Doctor's determine ones disability. Al Sharpton's conspiracy theories have no place on an article about Jessica Lynch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.97.72.162 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, the article makes zero mention of Al Sharpton so check your facts, Second, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the critique of her treatment. It's notable because it was reported in reliable secondary sources and its relevant to the topic. see WP:TRUE Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well the reference to Al Sharpton was there yesterday, so YOU check your facts! Such nonsense is a prime example of why Wikipedia articles are not allowed to be used as reference materials for school papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.97.72.162 (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference to Al Sharpton was not there yesterday or any time for at least the last month. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * None of it belongs. Jessica Lynch had no input over what her disability rate was or how much media attention she got. This is a bio about her. Criticism of how much she got isn't actually criticism of her, but of the government policies that were applied to her. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC.

Nighthift36, thank you! You are correct, none of it belongs for exactly the reasons you specify. Keep up the good work!


 * It doesn't matter, its relevant to the topic. Her media coverage is a huge part of the topic, would you not agree. That some have criticized this is certainly relevant to this article. Notice that the material comes from reliable secondary sources. I'm not going to edit war with you on this but that material was added for a reason and your removal of it is being challenged. We need to come to a consensus. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)   No! Nightshift36 is totally correct. This is supposed to be an article on the life of Jessica Lynch, not a tool to cyberbully her.
 * The topic is Jessica Lynch. Period. It is her bio. Jessica Lynch did not determine her own rate of disability. The VA did it. Lynch can't be honestly crticized for something she didn't do. She could be used as an example of disparity in rate based on race in an article about that topic. But this is not about disparity in rates, it's about Lynch. Just because a reliable source says something about a person doesn't mean it belongs in their biography. This material is a WP:COATRACK that is being given WP:UNDUE weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not she determined any of it is completely irrelevant. The Jessica Lynch story is a very prominent aspect of this topic. There is no reason to restrict an article named after a person, to only facts which that person was able to directly control. This is directly related to that story so its not a coatrack. The section is not an attempt to criticize the VA via Jessica Lynch but relates to how the Jessica Lynch story was covered. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. This article is a BIOGRAPHY. It is about HER, not what an uninvolved politician or writer thinks about the amount of money that a government agency decided to award her. As I said, if this were an article about racial disparity or something like that, it would make sense. In a biography, it doesn't. Had Lynch done something like said "I deserve more because I'm white", then it might belong. But as it stands, she gives all appearence of being a bystander. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I understand your position, but I am afraid we are at an impasse. I think it would be helpful to have a third party in this discussion. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Impasse? You've given no policy based reason for inclusion. All you've done is essentially say "there is a relaible source". So? If I found an interview where she said that she has been listening to the Jonas Brothers a lot this week, that wouldn't belong in here either. This is similar to an article saying that she was served tuna in the hospital, then using it to talk about dolphin save nets because some writer mentioned that Lynch ate tuna in the hospital. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not at all the argument I am making. I am arguing that WP:Consensus favors the inclusion of the material and that it should not be removed because it is relevant to the topic and is properly sourced. The burden of proof is on you to justify removing the material that others thought fit to include once that removal becomes challenged. You cite WP:COATRACK which does not apply for the reasons I have described above and you cite WP:UNDUE which has not been violated because the idea is not being presented in a way that suggests it is more widely held than it is. If you think the criticism is violating UNDUE then perhaps you can suggest changes to the wording which frame the criticism more appropriately. In this case UNDUE would not justify wholesale removal especially since the view is advanced by such a prominent figure. I am not suggesting that we include trivial facts in the article just because a source can be found. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, consensus is not what decides inclusion when the material conflicts with policy. Second, what consensus? I see you saying it belongs. Where is the consensus in that? WP:BLP's (which this is), are treated differently. In a BLP, contentious material is removed and put back IF it is in line with policies and the consensus agrees. Your subjective opinions that COATRACK and UNDUE don't settle the matter. That is where the consensus part comes in. However, saying that you don't agree with my policy reasons still doesn't give you a policy basis for inclusion. You still have not attempted to show how the material is relevant to Lynch as a person or how this debate is a significant factor in her life. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is that Jessica Lynch is known for one event. That event and notable criticisms directly related to the event and herself are suitable for inclusion. See for instance John Hinckley, Jr. whose is known for attempting to assassinate Ronald Reagan. That article includes a section called reactions to the verdict. Its there because its relevant to the topic even though Hinckly had very little control over the verdict and what people thought of it. This is a similar case. Notable criticism of the event is relevant and so long as it can be presented in language suitable for WP, it deserves to be included. When I refer to consensus I am talking about its inclusion in the article before you came along. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice try. Discussing WP:ONEEVENT is pointless here. Her notability is established. As for the "consensus before I came along", I'd suggest you check edit history. I've been making edits on this article for quite a while. Just because I didn't address it before doesn't mean I just stumbled in here. Acting like I just popped in for the first time today won't score you any points. Nor will the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS rationale about what other articles contain. The criticism about the disparity in VA disability determinations isn't really part of the original event anyway. It happened quite a while after the orginal event. Again, this all gives the incorrect impression that Lynch did something wrong, unethical or was somehow involved in a decision that someone later decided to criticize. She was a bystander. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph makes no such implication that she did anything wrong, it states what some critics have said in neutral language. I do not mean to suggest you haven't edited this page before, that would be a stupid argument, I meant "before you decided to remove the material". If you feel it is UNDUE would you support a much much shorter version which acknowledges the controversy without getting into a lot of detail? something like -

"Some, including Rev. Jesse Jackson have criticized the high level of media coverage given to Lynch, compared to other soldiers involved in the ambush, such as Shoshana Johnson, saying that Johnson, an African-American, received little media attention largely because of her race."


 * Yes, it does make the implication. No, I don't think that wording is a big mprovement. Honestly, I'd suggest you consider a new article on the topic. If you want to put it into someone else's bio, it would be appropriate for the controvery section of the Shoshanna Johnson article. The criticism is actually more relevent to her anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No the criticism is primarily in regards to coverage of Jessica Lynch, Johnson is part of it. This article would actually be the best place for it, especially since the article already discusses her appearance in the media. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of it is about the coverage, the rest is not. Regardless, that criticism is about the coverage, which is not Lynch's doing and doesn't belong in her bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The criticism is useful context for the issue of her coverage. This starting to get a bit circular. I think we need some outside help if we want to resolve this dispute. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The opinion of one person vs the qualified decision of the several Medical Doctors at the VA rating board is absurd. To put al sharptons opinion in this article means every conspiracy theorist should have their opinions in. Metal lunchbox... stop cyberbullying Jessica Lynch.


 * Again this has absolutely nothing to do with Al Sharpton. as to the accusation of cyberbullying I recommend you read WP:AGF and cyberbullying. - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Metallunchmeat, please STOP cyberbullying Jessica Lynch! Thanks!!!!


 * Please quit accusing me of cyberbulling and stay on topic. Thanks. - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ALSO, I have created a "See also" section pointing to Missing white woman syndrome, which contains directly relevant material and may be a suitable solution to this discussion. Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

incomplete media list
Jessica's first interview was with Dianne Sawyer, and that interview is neglected in the media section. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, I guess you get what you pay for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.11.165 (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the media section is intended to be a complete list of all Lynch's media appearances, the article isn't long enough for that. It is a section to group appearances that editors believed were important enough to include in the article that don't fit well in other sections. If you believe the Diane Sawyer interview is worth a few sentences, you can add it. --GRuban (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)