Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 5

Newly released documents
This recent Los Angeles Times article would seem very significant, as it confirms some of the stories told at Winter Soldier. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0806-07.htm 24.223.167.112 07:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Valley Forge
I've commented out references to the encampment at Valley Forge. That occurred over the winter of 1777-1778. Paine's first Crisis was written a year before those events. One of the phrases implied he wrote it at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, rather than about VF, but if Paine was in VF a year before Washington got there someone should dig up a citation. --J Clear 14:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

g0lem.net
Footnote 1 links to http://www.g0lem.net/PhpWiki/index.php/VietnamVets which is now advertising. MDonoughe 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right. Fixing it...  Xenophrenic 08:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is still available, but I think better sources can be found for the same information in the article. Xenophrenic 09:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits
1) Why was the Stacewicz citation and punctuation removed from the article in this edit? Xenophrenic 02:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * According to JobsElihu below, this was done by mistake. They have been readded to the article. Xenophrenic 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

2) I moved this sentence here for discussion. "When the event began, Lane returned to participate in the media event, acting as its "general council (ref)Peter Michelson.Bringing the War Home, The New Republic.February 27, 1971. Ironwood Daily Globe, Jan 28, 1971(/ref) When the event began, Lane returned?  I was under the impression he returned before the event began.  Also, this seems to imply he participated as general council at the event, yet this was printed in a publication days before the event began.  Is the date correct on the citation, and could you tell me the page numbers for these citations, please? Xenophrenic 06:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, TNR is a much better source for this information, as it contains the same material,and was published after the event. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm missing something here. I am right about what?  Do we have a page number? Xenophrenic 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We do now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at page 25 as I type this, and it says nothing of the sort. Nothing about "returning" anywhere; nothing about "general" anything; nothing about him "participating" in anything.  Is it possible you got the wrong article or page number?  Xenophrenic 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt you are looking at pg 25, because if you were, you would see it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Page 25, The New Republic, dated February 27, 1971. Begins with, "ities was to jeopardize oneself.  In short, American soldiers, like any surviving..." The article also ends on this page.  I have the full article, and will probably be using portions of it as source material.  Please provide the text in the TNR article that you are citing as a source. Xenophrenic 05:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have the article, the information is there, and I dont feel the need for hand holding here. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. If you don't feel the need for me to hold your hand and step you through this, no problem, but after the episode with "Page 284 in Stacewicz," I'm sure you understand why I check your citations thoroughly now.  Pg 25 (or any page of that article) does not support the above content. Xenophrenic 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, its been cited, and I am sure you have seen it as you have used it as a source in the article. But, here it is: Many were only vaguely aware of who Mark Lane was, and many were opposed to his association with the investigation (he is the legal counsel and a fund raiser for the VVAW, which claims to have 2000 members).  Most of them ignored Jane Fonda, though she was present through most of the testimony. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I expanded your excerpt a little. Lane did do fundraising and give legal counsel to the VVAW, that was never in dispute.  The dispute is, as noted above: He didn't participate in the media event.  He didn't act as general counsel for the WSI (he was legal counsel for the VVAW only, remember?).  And "When the event began, Lane returned..." means what, again?  While I know from other sources that Lane, like Fonda, was also present for a portion of the event, Michelson doesn't say so in this article.  He certainly doesn't say either of them participated in any of it. Xenophrenic 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

3) I moved this section here for discussion:


 * ''"Other Veterans commented on the treatment they received as POW’s under North Vietnamese control. Unlike accounts from other POW’s describing widespread mistreatment, torture and starvation, from Veterans such as John McCain and Admiral James Stockdale, WSI participants such as George E. Smith described their captivity under the North Vietnamese as humane and lenient. Although it was later revealed that two Special Forces POW’s held in captivity with Smith, Sgt Kenneth Roraback and Captain Humbert Versace, had been executed in retaliation for the execution of 2 Viet Cong., and Smith was charged with violation Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice after his release."
 * Xenophrenic 02:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is this George E. Smith guy, and on which panel of the WSI did he testify again? The links in this section say nothing about it.  Is there a source?  Xenophrenic 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm George Smith. I was a member of the Special Forces Aide Team in South Vietnam in 1963. My camp was overrun. I was captured by the NLF troops and held prisoner for two years and released in November 1965.. And now we know the rest, apparently he bacame a big fan of the NLF and lied his ass off in Detroit. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere! The new link you have provided shows he did testify at WSI; he did make statements in support of the NLF while in captivity; he did face court-martial charges after he was released; he still, now that he is free and no longer a POW, is sympathetic toward the NLF.  Here is another informative link to review.  None of the links above show which Article(s) he was charged under, or what punishment he received.  Article 104 would be a good guess, but we need an actual source to tell us.  I also don't see anything in the above links about McCain or Stockdale, or Smith ever using the words "humane" or "lenient".  Smith never described captivity under the North Vietnamese, but the NLF in the south instead.  Lastly, the sentence beginning, "Although it was later revealed..." just makes me go: huh?  The supposed executions were revealed half a decade earlier.  Xenophrenic 04:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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," although he would often grow ill from intolerence.  Smith admitted fearing for his life when he heard Hanoi Radio broadcasts saying NLF soldiers were being executed in Saigon, and the NLF was promising to execute Americans in retaliation.  Shorty afterward, two American prisoners held in the same camp with Smith are believed to have been executed in reprisal.  At a press conference when Smith was released after two years as a POW, he made statements in support of the NLF and against US involvement in Vietnam, and immediately faced court-martial charges for violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (aiding the enemy).  The charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence, and five years later at the WSI, Smith says he still stands by his statements.
 * The above is a rough replacement based on information in the links you provided. Please give me some feedback. Xenophrenic 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess you didnt look to hard . Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another good link, thank you. I've modified the paragraph to include charge & result. Xenophrenic 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

4) I moved this section here for discussion:
 * "NBC News later reported that VVAW executive and Winter Soldier co-organizer Al Hubbard had lied about being an officer and lied about being stationed in Vietnam during a Meet the Press television interview several months after the WSI hearing. Journalist William Overend states he had met Hubbard and he had also been introduced as being a former Air Force captain. Overend learned Hubbard was only an E-5 Staff Sergeant when Hubbard had apologized on the Today Show a few days later for exaggerating his rank.  NBC's Frank Jordan recalls, "He was convinced no one would listen to a black man who was also an enlisted man."  Hubbard did not testify at Winter Soldier, but detractors of the WSI frequently raise Hubbards fabrication to generate doubt."

Xenophrenic 02:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems a little misleading. Even with the last sentence trying to qualify it, it is still out of place in the WSI "credibility" section.  This happened long after the WSI, and had nothing to do with it.  Good stuff for a Hubbard article though, or maybe VVAW article.

Xenophrenic 01:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hubbards participation, as he was a phony, was raised a number of times with relation to the credibility of WSI. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was a "phony" after he lied about his rank during a TV interview, but that was months after the WSI. At what point prior to that, and more importantly, prior to the WSI, did he become a "phony?"  I don't see an indication on his BLP. Xenophrenic 04:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He lied about his rank, he lied about the nature of his disabilities (got them playing basketball, not in combat) and he lied about his service in Vietnam. What part of phony escapes you? And as I said before, the notability of his participation at WSI has been picked up upon by several other reliable sources. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In reverse order: His participation as a co-organizer of WSI is not an issue here - he is mentioned several times in the article already.  I was asking you to explain how something he did months (or years or decades) later should be made to appear as if it affects the credibility of the WSI.  If Hubbard were to rob a bank tomorrow, would you stick a paragraph in the WSI article mentioning it?  As for lied about his service in Vietnam, "... Defense Department officials stressed it was still possible Hubbard could have served in Vietnam..." -- Same Overend Article.  As for his disabilities, "...Hubbard had been seriously injured while in the Service. But the VA would not say whether it was during the Vietnam years or earlier." -- Overend Article.  Nothing says he got disabilities from basketball, and nothing says he lied about his disabilities.  His med records show injuries, of course.  Sports injuries, service injuries, a broken bone due to falling out of his little red wagon at age 6, whatever.  The article confirms he is receiving 60% disability, and the VA doesn't give that for a bruised rib.  It was already confirmed he suffered a serious injury while in the service.  As for lying about his rank, yes he did, long after the WSI, and not in relation to the WSI.  When he was asked about it, he admitted it, and explained why, quite publicly. I also notice this paragraph is missing a source, especially one tying the lie to the WSI.  The Overend article never mentions it.  I doubt there is one, prior to the wild concoctions published by politicos during the recent years of Kerry's political campaigns.  Xenophrenic 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced it in the article, minus some innaccuracies, but I still think the whole paragraph is misplaced in the article. It has nothing to do with WSI.  I commented it as needed consensus.  Xenophrenic 12:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

5) From an Edit Summary:
 * (a soldier is not an airman is not a sailor and is not a Marine)

Good point. I've changed "soldier" to "serviceman" to make it more generic. Xenophrenic 02:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

6)The following links in the article are dead:
 * http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=YesterdaysLies1
 * http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=PitkinWSI
 * http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=CamilAff
 * http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=PitkinAff

Removing them, and trying to find suitable replacements. Xenophrenic 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

7) The following sentence about media coverage of the WSI:
 * While the event was not extensively covered outside Detroit several journalists and film crews recorded the event...

Isn't completely accurate. Small 'indi' news outlets and stations like Pacifica Radio did extensive coverage (even a total audio playing of the whole event). Mainstream media, on the other hand, mostly ignored the event. I replaced it with:
 * While the event was largely unmentioned by most mainstream media channels, several journalists and film crews recorded the event...

Xenophrenic 10:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainstream media is a subjective term. To say that it was not covered extensively outside of Detroit (almost all major Detroit newspapers covered it) is more appropriate. IT was covered in the Washington Post, NY Times and Chicago Tribune. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have issue dates for the WaPo, NYT and CTrib articles that covered the WSI? "Mainstream" can be subjective, but in this context it is used to mean "mass media outlets," or very wide distribution across all of the news platforms.  Check the link.  The WSI story certainly didn't reach that level of coverage.  It sounds like we are both saying basically the same thing, but you just have an aversion to the more contemporary phrase mainstream media. Xenophrenic 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

More recent edits
Can you please edit in a more deliberate way, with edit summaries, so that we know what elements you are changing, and why? For example, why was "academics" removed from the lead? Badagnani 01:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Academics" was added to the lead with this edit just last night, without explanation. The Edit Summary said only (a soldier is not an airman is not a sailor and is not a Marine).  I checked the source citation (which you have deleted for some reason), and did not see that "academics" had participated, so I removed that word. Xenophrenic 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is correct, please make each edit, with an edit summary explaining why you've made that edit. The fact that you made misspellings and deleted things without stating why you did that cast doubt on the veracity of your major edit to the article. Badagnani 01:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did make an edit summary with each edit. And if the description of the edit is too complicated for a one-liner summary, then I direct the reader here to this page for more detail.  I'm sorry for the confusion, but you caught me right in the middle of expanding the discussions on the edits here.  Also, many of the "unexplained" deletions or insertions have been discussed elsewhere, and I am just now getting around to editing them.  Xenophrenic 02:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's good. Understandably, if you could be deliberate in your edits, not making 50 in one go, and explaining each clearly with an edit summary, that would be great. Badagnani 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The edits were initially made in smaller quantity. If you'll look at the discussion above, you'll see that JobsElihu had accidently deleted citations, punctuation, etc., when making edits.  I replaced them, along with making my edits at the same time.  That, too, is noted above.  You have me concerned when you mention misspellings, however.  What did I screw up? Xenophrenic 02:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's right there in the edit: "attrocities." That, combined with unexplained deletions and changes, cast doubt on the rest of the edits. Badagnani 02:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, must have been a lazy finger on the 'T' key. Would you mind explaining your removal of citations, please?  As for doubt on edits, the best way to resolve those doubts is to discuss them.  Which edit would you like to start with? Xenophrenic 02:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason for this deletion? If it's factual, I don't see why anyone would want to remove it, as it seems relevant. Badagnani 01:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not deleted, it was moved to this page for discussion, along with an explanation. Have you read it? Xenophrenic 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

TDC's removal, without edit summary, or consensus, of two categories
TDC, you know better. Would you please explain why you just removed two categories from the article without any discussion nor consensus? That doesn't seem good editing practice and quite opposite of what you seem to be demanding of other editors here. Badagnani 08:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I canput them back in until there is some agreement on keeping or removing them. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When you put the catagories back, you also (accidently?) deleted citations to several publications, inserted dead footnote pointers, inserted misleading or false information about a living person, etc. The Edit Summary only says (re added categories).  I will assume it was accidental and revert.


 * As for the agreement on the two catagories, they look applicable to me, so I recommend keeping them. Is there an argument to be made for removing the two catagories? Xenophrenic 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Torture of Vietnamese was discussed at length, and many, if not most of the activities the former GIs described would constitute war crimes (which, no matter how much certain people would love to wish did not take place at all in Vietnam, did verifiably take place there). Thus, the categories are accurate and will bring our users looking for such information to the right place. I still cannot understand why they were removed in the first place, without even an edit summary or valid explanation here. Badagnani 09:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Massive edits and reverts

 * Badagnani, I appreciate your concern here, but my edit was done to undo the first massive edit made by Xenophrenic which removed a significant amount of information from the article, as well as drastically skewed the general POV of the article. Despite what Xenophreic is claiming, the changes he is insistent upon making have neither been adequately discussed on the talk page, and there is zero consensus to insert them. Some of the smaller changes certainly do make sense and should be incorporated, but the more massive one, done without discussion cannot be allowed (and discussion being a 2 way street, not just a quick comment and followed quickly with several major edits to the article). Xenophrenic is insistant on making changes to his base article (which several editors have argued is POV), and not on the long standing version that no one raised any POV issues on. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Badagnani, the "massive" edit of mine TDC describes above as removing significant information and skewing POV is in reality a simple (undo) revert of TDC's massive edit just prior. I have never made an original "massive edit." Period.  When you revert a massive edit, you get a massive revert.  TDC's prior edit, with the misleading Edit Summary "(re added categories)" did indeed re-add the 2 categories he previously deleted.  What that edit summary doesn't tell you is that TDC also wiped out citations to Hunt, Olson, Lewy, and Stacewicz, leaving huge blocks of valid content without any citations at all.  TDC made no mention of those deletions in Talk or Edit Summaries elsewhere, either.  TDC's Edit Summary also doesn't tell you he deleted the Wikify brackets from the phrase war crimes so readers can't link to it.  He doesn't mention he deleted "New York University Press, 1999;" from a citation, so readers don't see where the book came from.  He doesn't mention he deleted stardardizing punctuation or pointers to specific sections in WikiQuote, etc.  Did he mention he even reverted your edit (the redundant "(CCI)" removal)?  No, nothing discussed here or in his edit summaries, except "(re-added categories)", so I reverted his edit.  Just as I reverted him when he tried the same thing several edits earlier, and my edit summaries reflect that.  It is humorous that JobsElihu calls that edit "valid and productive".  I can only assume JobsElihu hasn't even looked at it.  JobsElihu has made blind-reverts before, where he wipes out valid content unknowingly.
 * TDC is correct when he points out some of my changes haven't been adequately discussed and don't have consensus. What he doesn't mention is that is due to no fault of mine.  When I make a significant change, I describe it here in Talk.  But for discussion to take place, there needs to be more than just me involved.  You don't need consensus to insert content; only to keep it - and I've always taken the first step to open discussion on my edits.  Now that editing has been protected on the article page, I see TDC is starting to discuss neglected issues, instead of just reverting the changes away.  I am hoping JobsElihu and Badagnani would join the discussions and add their input as well.  TDC has made a lot of edits to this article amid objections by several editors, so I can understand a protective reaction when I arrived here.::TDC is correct when he points out some of my changes haven't been adequately discussed and don't have consensus.  What he doesn't mention is that is due to no fault of mine.  When I make a significant change, I describe it here in Talk.  But for discussion to take place, there needs to be more than just me involved.  You don't need consensus to insert content; only to keep it - and I've always taken the first step to open discussion on my edits.  Now that editing has been protected on the article page, I see TDC is starting to discuss neglected issues, instead of just reverting the changes away.  I am hoping JobsElihu and Badagnani would join the discussions and add their input as well.  TDC has made a lot of edits to this article amid objections by several editors, so I can understand a protective reaction when I arrived here.
 * Just because I have made a mistake that I admitted to does not mean that your attempts to remove the word "allegation" over and over again is appropriate and that is does not violate the rules of Wikipedia. The word allegation is going to be used in the article.  That is given because Wikipedia cannot make the decision on whether the Detroit News's opinion is correct or not.  Wikipedia cannot take sides and this article will not be a exception to that basic rule.  When the protection is lifted then there will be a change by change discussion.  And each and every change will go through the analysis of whether or not the word allegation is appropriately applied or not.  Just because someone served in the military during the Vietnam War does not mean that what they are stating is true.  Wikipedia cannot make that determination and the article will reflect that requirement.  Also, you state above, "I can only assume JobsElihu hasn't even looked at it" borders once again on the civility issue.  You do not know me.  You do know anything about me.  You just know a few tiny comments that I have made on the talk page of Wikipedia.  This is an example of the difference between allegations and facts.  You are commenting on what you admittedly "assume" about me.  But you don't have even the bare facts to make that claim.  Stop commenting on me and start commenting on the edits.  You do not have right to make assumptions about what I have done or haven't done.  Once again, I would ask you to focus on the edits and not the editors.  Please review the rules of civility one more time.  You comment is outside the rules of civility.  I am asking you to stop commenting about me.  You have no knowledge about to make any claims about anything.  Just focus your effort on properly editing the article and making sure that the article properly qualifies the comments and article quoted to make up the article.  That is only place where comments should be focused.--JobsElihu 02:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clarification, one editor, Xenophrenic in this cases, does not equate to several. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally it sinks in! I've been telling you Xenophrenic is one editor that does not equate to several since I arrived here. Xenophrenic 10:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We should still be able to work together, although I am going to be rather insistent on sticking to Wikipedias rules on points of view and sources. Xenophrenic 21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, this series of edits is what took a nominally stable article, and started all this, not my edits, or JobsElihu, or Badagani's. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, that Diff shows edits that are just the start of much needed improvement to a dormant article. Don't be shy about accepting some of the credit yourself. It was your edits on the Lane article that directed my attention here in the first place. Xenophrenic 10:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversions are bad
The massive reversions are bad. Stop editing in this manner and edit in a deliberate, thoughtful manner in which each edit is carefully explained. The last couple of reverts were particularly bad in this regard. Thanks. Badagnani 00:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. Short, concise edits.  With edit summaries; discussion here, and consensus.  We can all agree to that.  Before we can edit, however, there are still a few issues left to be hammered out here before the page protection is lifted. Xenophrenic 10:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alleged veterans describing alleged warcrimes in an alleged war
There have been recent and not so recent edit skirmishes involving the word "alleged" in the WSI article. Some people want to insert it before any mention of the words "war crime" or "veteran" or "atrocity". Other people remove the word "alleged" from the article, claiming it is a weasel word inserted to subtly and inappropriately imply doubt or deceit. Wikipedia lists it as a word to avoid using in articles. The debate basically boils down to which of two statements we should use:


 * The veterans gave statements about war crimes they personally witnessed or committed.

or instead:
 * The veterans gave statements about war crimes and alleged war crimes they personally witnessed or committed.

I'd like to know your opinions. Wikipedia's rules say to leave "alleged" out. My opinion: I have already taken out many instances of the word simply because their addition to the article wasn't sourced. No sources; no insertion - sorry, it's the law. But beyond that, inserting "alleged" just sounds stupid. 150 people don't travel to Detroit to talk about stuff they don't know happened or not. They limited it to things they had proof of, in the form of eye-witnesses. To stick "alleged" into a description of their testimonies would be to say they were lying. Good luck finding a source to support that.
 * Torture of Vietnamese was discussed at length, and many, if not most of the activities the former GIs described would constitute war crimes (which, no matter how much certain people would love to wish did not take place at all in Vietnam, did verifiably take place there). -- Badagnani 09:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted by Badagnani, war crimes took place and that has been verified. Some specific claims made by the veterans were even verified by independent investigations while the 3-day event was still ongoing, and reports were printed.


 * ALL of the claims/allegations in the article [on MacBeth] are damn lies [...] Now, there is clearly some of that going on here and you have no evidence to prove that none of the claims in the Winter Soldier situation are not "disproven." --JobsElihu 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...the article will have the word allegation pasted in it over and over again... --JobsElihu 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above from JobsElihu, "there is clearly" some information that he has that we don't. I am eagerly awaiting his presentation of the lies that are "clearly going on" with the WSI. This should be enlightening. As for pasting words into an article over and over again, that is fine -- as long as he pastes in the sources with them. Try it without sources, and I fear he'll just end up being one very frustrated editor. Xenophrenic 10:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, I am not going to get into a debate about the Vietnam War. That is not the point of this discussion and I am not going to re-fight the Vietnam War with you.  I have stated that personally I believe that there was probably war crimes in Vietnam, but that is not the point here. (And my personal opinion about the Vietnam War is not relevant, just like your personal opinions about the Vietnam War are not relevant.) Just because there was war crimes in Vietnam does not mean that all of these people are telling the truth.  I dont' know if they are lying either.  (That goes back to your earlier attempt to put the word "liar" in my mouth, I have never called these folks "liars" either.)  As Wikipedians we don't know if each and every claim being made at the conference is true or not.  Now, I gave you an example of where Jesse MacBeth was making broad, outlandish claims about seeing and participating in war crimes in Iraq.  We now know, based upon his own testimony to a jury, that he has never been to Iraq and that he has never been out of the United States in his whole life and we now know for a fact that he only served in the Army for a total of 44 days, did not finish bootcamp, and was kicked out for being, as the Army stated, "unfit."   I gave you MacBeth example because you are claiming that because the Detroit News has covered the conference and since the Detroit News is a newspaper then the claims and allegations of the "Winter Soldiers" are true and should be presented in the article as true.  Wikipedia cannot do that.  Wikipedia cannot take sides.  The information should not presented either for or against the claims of the "Winter Soldiers."  We can't do that because the newspaper reporters could be getting the story wrong also.  The MacBeth example is instructive.  The local newspaper in Eastern Arizona, which is called the Eastern Arizona Courier has on its website, right now as we speak, an article about Jesse MacBeth that extensively quotes MacBeth and repeats his false accusations about his so-called time in Iraq.  He claims in the article that he killed women and children without provocation in Iraq. He claims in the article that he saw other men kill women and children.  All of these claims have turned out to be untrue, yet the Eastern Arizona Courier repeats them on their website today, without pointing out that the claims have been proven to be untrue.  So, to summarize, we need to go through the article and check each and every claim and put in context so that Wikipedia does not falsely claim that Wikipedia has verified the claims or that the Detroit News (or whatever media source) has verified the claims.  --JobsElihu 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fairness and neutrality
When it comes to war crimes, should Wikipedia articles declare that such things occurred? Should it go further, and identify the guilty parties?

Or do we have guidelines which suggest that we avoid taking sides on the controversy as to whether certain parties are guilty? --Uncle Ed 00:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should neither declare such things occurred nor declare such things didn't occur. Wikipedia should, instead, accurately convey only what reliable sources have already declared.  Those are the guidelines.  Official policy, actually.  Wikipedia doesn't exist to make its own declarations.  Wikipedia editors don't determine guilt or innocence, and an article only conveys such a determination if it already exists in a reliable source.  Did you have a particular example in mind? Xenophrenic 05:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia is very cautious about calling people criminals. That is a well discussed topic.  If we stating that war crimes definitively occurred then it seems logical that we must have a conviction of some type.  That is based upon the comments of Jimbo.  I would direct your attention to previous discussion about the words "criminal."  You can review that discussion here--JobsElihu 01:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC):


 * There has been an ongoing discussion on the Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders page relating to this subject. I was part of the discussion at one point, but lost track of it (due to time constraints). In that conversation there were some things brought up that are something worth thinking about. In a discussion about rape categories Jimbo Wales, the creator of Wikipedia stated,


 * "Conviction is a sufficient standard. A lack of a conviction should strong predispose us against listing a person in this sort of category, but there could be other *clearly defined* criteria which would do work for us similar to a conviction. 


 * The lynch mob mentality is worse than failing to have some criminals listed. Calling someone a 'criminal' is a contentious matter which ought to be done only very carefully, cautiously, and conservatively."


 * It also might be a good idea for you to look at the conversation that took place on the Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders page here


 * Also note, that such disputes have been taken before arbitration, mainly Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu which looks at dealing with articles listing people as child rapists. One of the tenents of that decision was What_Wikipedia_is_not Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu.


 * I would encourage you to look at these listings in terms of precendants set by them which are from Jim Wales and the Arbitration Commitee. These urge caution against doing what you are advocating. Davidpdx 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick note to JobsElihu
Just in case you missed it above, I was still waiting for that source of yours that supports your edit mentioned above. Thanks again, Xenophrenic 05:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor change
Realized I needed to discuss my change... I changed no text, but I did a couple of redirects: Dale Arnett 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * FBI --> Federal Bureau of Investigation
 * The Pentagon --> United States Department of Defense (the context is "Pentagon records")

Proposed change by JobsElihu
(excerpted from above comments) Now, remember all of the allegations that are contained the article will be noted as allegations ... the article will have the word allegation pasted in it over and over again--in the appropriate places of course. The allegations in the article are allegations they are NOT proven and as such they must presented that way in the article ... The allegations in the article are merely the allegations and they are not proven and as such they must be presented that way in the article. I look forward to the lifting of the protection so that we can work together to make sure that ALL of the allegations in the article are labeled as allegations because they are merely allegations and they are not proven. Since they are not proven then they are allegations. Wikipedia cannot take sides. Wikipedia must present the material as what they are allegations and they are not proven ... If you need further clarification, please let me know.--JobsElihu 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Per your request that I ask for clarification if needed, here I am. Could you please give an example of where, in the present version of the article, an appropriate place to paste in the word "allegation" is -- accompanied by a reliable source that supports that addition?  That should give us a starting point. Xenophrenic 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

On "war crimes"
''...you claim that war crimes were committed in Vietnam. You might be right, I don't know. I was not there and neither were you.''--JobsElihu 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As an American citizen, I believe that war crimes were probably committed in Vietnam...--JobsElihu 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

''There is NO ONE here that believes the premise of Badgnani’s statement [that war crimes like many described at WSI did occur]. ''--JobsElihu 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a false edit. It is an attempt by Xeno to put words in my mouth.  Stop it Xeno and don't remove this comment.--JobsElihu 22:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion is rather pointless when you continue to misrepresent the things others are saying.--JobsElihu 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I haven't misrepresented; I choose instead just to quote you, and let your words speak for themselves. Xenophrenic 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to war crimes, should Wikipedia articles declare that such things occurred? --Uncle Ed 00:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this question really being asked? Looking at the comments above, I begin to wonder. War crimes, atrocities, whatever you want to call them, committed by people on all sides in the war, did occur. Period. There is no "I believe" or "probably" or "might be" about it.
 * That is beside the point. NO ONE is questioning whether the war crimes occurred.  The question is are the people at this conference telling the truth of they just more versions of the admitted liar, Jesse MacBeth???--JobsElihu 05:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In James Olson's Dictionary of the Vietnam War, he explains, "Unlike earlier wars in the United States, the conflict in Vietnam brought home to most Americans the fact that their country, as well as the enemy, was capable of committing atrocities. The case of William Calley and the massacre at My Lai was the most intense example, but the press regularily circulated stories of civilian casualties, torture and executions of Vietcong prisoners, throwing Vietcong prisoners of war out of helicopters, and cutting off the ears of Vietcong and North Vietnamese dead." Xenophrenic 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I met a U.S. marine sniper in 1987 who told me he killed 83 people in Vietnam (before he stopped counting). Many of these were unarmed children. So I believe that at least some atrocities were (a) committed in Vietnam (b) by American forces.
 * How do you know he was telling the truth? Xeno, do not remove this question.--JobsElihu 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know how many people were murdered by the US, by South Vietnam (or its other allies), or by North Vietnam (and its allies). My sense is that the bulk of the atrocities were committed by the Communists, but I have no statistics at hand. Leftists, of course, think it's the other way around.


 * How shall we treat this issue in the article? --Uncle Ed 22:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not including cluster bombing, fragmentation bombing, and napalming of civilians from the air, burning of villages, free-fire zones, and the undeclared invasion of a foreign nation as atrocities, then? Only hand-to-hand combat (i.e. troops shooting or stabbing non-combatants)? We'll need to discuss specifics when making such blanket statements as "most of the atrocities were committed by the Communists." The Gravel edition of The Pentagon Papers do outline massive use use of firepower and anti-personnel weapons by the U.S. military in civilian areas, right there in black and white. Badagnani 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue of whether war crimes exist or not? That can be treated in the war crimes article, and good luck to the editor working on the "no one here believes they happened" point of view.  The WSI article, already acknowledging the fact of war crimes, begins a little further down the road and considers the frequency of war crimes, and the causes of war crimes.  In context, the My Lai massacre and attempted cover-up/whitewashing were fresh on the public's mind.  The organizers of the WSI (mostly anti-war activists, keep in mind), wanted to prove a few things.  1) War crimes weren't as rare as the government, military and media would have us believe; 2) War crimes were not the result of "just a few bad apples," as the government and military would have us believe; 3) The "accepted way of doing things" by the military and government administration was directly responsible for significantly increasing the incidence of war crimes.


 * Which side committed the bulk of the atrocities? That wasn't an issue addressed by this three day event.  Proving which side was more guilty than the other wasn't going to serve the anti-war agenda of ending the war and bringing our guys home.  From that same Dictionary entry I quoted above, "But Americans were not alone in committing atrocities.  Terrorism was a major weapon used by the Vietcong in promoting their cause.  More than 25,000 people were part of the Vietcong Security Service, and between 1957 and 1972 they were responsible for nearly 37,000 assassinations and nearly 60,000 kidnappings -- usually government officials, religious leaders, civil servants, teachers and prospective draftees..."  He goes on to describe the innocent civilians killed by our indiscriminate bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong.  And those killed by the NVA and VC indiscriminate shelling of Saigon, Hue and Da Nang.  The entry concludes, "The magnatitude of the atrocities, on both sides, during the war in Vietnam helped reinforce in the mind of the American public that the conflict in Southeast Asia was a futile, brutalizing effort from which the United States ought to withdraw."


 * If I understand your question correctly, as far as the scope of this limited article goes, both the questions (did war crimes happen and which side was most guilty of war crimes) are non-issues. Xenophrenic 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you decide what is an issue or a non-issue? Once again, the question is not whether atrocities ocurred.  Were the people at this conference telling the truth?  I don't know and you don't know.  And that is the answer and it is the Wikipedia position.  There you have it. Xeno, do not remove this comment like you have been removing previous comments of mine.--JobsElihu 05:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not decide what is an issue or non-issue, I was answering a question from Uncle Ed as best I could.  As for your question, "were these people telling the truth?"  I see no reason for them not to.  If you want to call veterans of U.S. armed forces liars, that is your prerogative, but you will need sources to back that up if you want that in a Wikipedia article.  Xenophrenic 05:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On your question, "or are they just more versions of the admitted liar, Jesse MacBeth?" You are asking if 120 people got together and pretended to be veterans, and pretended to participate in a war overseas, and pretended to see or commit war crimes that we now all agree occurred -- and were not discovered?  One jerk, MacBeth, couldn't get away with it after a simple check of his service record, but you think 120 imposters did?  The participants at the WSI were vetted not just by the organizers, but also by investigative journalists in contact with the Department of Defense.  Nixon directed a task force to discredit the event any way they could - they couldn't.  Their testimony was entered into congressional record, and several senators and representatives demanded formal investigations.  So where is this list of WSI participants that pretended to be vets and pretended to see some bad shit going on in Vietnam?  Short list?  Maybe start with just one name?  Xenophrenic 06:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the user begins to insert in unreferenced materials, personal commentary/original research, and/or quips with citations that do not validate the claim, just revert the edits and file a RFC/RFA on the editor. It is an obvious sock of user:Getaway and user:Keetoowah, with very similar editing styles and talk page nonsense (i.e. inserting commentary in the middle of other people's posts, for instance). He has an |old incivility alert where he never replied to critism lodged against him from a variety of editors... and only a few days later, user:JobsElihu was created.
 * Shocked?  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternate terminology
Why don't you bypass the "allegations" business and just use the phrasing something like "The servicemen spoke about atrocities and war crimes they stated they either participated in or saw committed by other U.S. military personnel." I believe that to be a factual statement, borne out by the sources evaluating the testimony at the time. Badagnani 05:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The present form is:
 * 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.
 * Your suggestion to use "war crimes they stated they either participated in or saw committed..." is better than the "allegedly committed or witnessed" proposed by others. However, both suggestions are weaker than the current form, and both inject doubt into the lead paragraph.  The cited sources do not convey that doubt, so it shouldn't be inserted into the lead.
 * The body of the article can and does explore the issues of doubt, credibility, verification and other "controversies," whether real or fabricated. Several forms of the word "alleged" still exist in the article.  Also note, your use of "by other U.S. military personnel" is too restrictive, as some of the testimony concerned non-military personnel, Vietnamese allies, etc.  Xenophrenic 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To say that they saw “war crimes and atrocities” is far too definitive considering that nothing was ever legally adjudicated, and nothing proven. There are too many examples of this kind of wording being used in Wikipedia to mention, but the use of phrases like “allegations” is the NPOV way to state these things. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have much familiarity with the historical record, as sources (even some provided here) show that the U.S. military in fact proved and documented atrocities on both sides of that conflict, and even courtmartialed its own personnel for perpetrating such atrocities. Your blanket statement that "no atrocities were proven" during the Indochina conflict has no merit. Badagnani 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "NPOV way to state these things" is to accurately convey what the sources convey. Olson, the source, did not say they gathered to make statements about "allegations."  Olson said they came to testify about war crimes they had witnessed or committed.  I believe Olson, because it would be nonsensical to travel all that way to speak about things they had seen or done, only to instead speak about things they didn't have first-hand knowledge about, like "allegations".  If you personally flick your zippo lighter and set flame to a hooch, you don't later sit before the press and say, "Hi, my name is Bill and I allegedly helped to burn villages down."  If you have a problem with Olson (or Stacewicz or Nicosia or whomever) being too definitive, then take it up with them, but don't presume to dilute or whitewash or synthesize their material into something more to your liking.  Olson didn't say allegations.  Neither did Stacewicz.  Neither did Nicosia.  So neither should the sections cited to them in the article. Xenophrenic 07:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained Deletions by TDC
Sourced and cited content about the WS Film getting little distribution was removed without explanation, so I am replacing it. Also, Winter Soldier didn't debut at Cannes as you claim - I read every word of the source you provided, maybe you should do the same. Four times you removed information on the Winterfilm Collective without explanation. I have replaced that as well. Xenophrenic 07:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If that film debuted at Cannes, then someone better tell them. Xenophrenic 04:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

When it was first completed in 1972, it was shown at the Cannes and Berlin film festivals, in movie theaters in England and France, and on German television

When the film was finished a year later, it was shown at the Cannes and Berlin film festivals, at theaters in France and England, and on German television.

The film, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 1972, is rarely shown these days. 

Shown at the Cannes and Berlin Film Festivals and lauded throughout Europe, it only opened briefly in Manhattan, and was broadcast for a single showing on New York's WNET.

The film was shown at the Cannes and Berlin Film Festivals and went on to be lauded throughoutEurope. In the US, it opened briefly at the Cinema 2 in Manhattan. 


 * Now that wasn't so hard, was it? The source you cited didn't support your edit, and the actual Cannes archives didn't either. I am glad you found a reliable source this time.  I put the edit back into the article.  Isn't it curious that the Cannes list of films doesn't mention this?  Xenophrenic 00:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And, as usually when one digs into your sources, nothing in Nicosia’s book even remotely matches what was presented in the article’s text. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article's text talks about the nature of the film, it's release and the limited distribution. The Nicosia source describes the nature of the film, its initial screening, and responses to it.  The SF Chronicle source (which you also deleted without mention) also describes the nature of the film, and why it received limited initial distribution.  The sources are accurate, and the article text accurately conveys what was in the sources.  I'll compare my presentations of sourced information to yours anyday, Mr. Stacewicz-284. Xenophrenic 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article
This article might be of interest, in reference to the claim that the U.S. never found evidence of war crimes having been committed during the Vietnam conflict. Badagnani 21:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This article also shows that events described at the WSI were directly investigated, substantiated and then concealed, such as the testimony of Jamie Henry regarding massacres, torture and civillian killings:


 * The Criminal Investigation Division assigned Warrant Officer Jonathan P. Coulson in Los Angeles to complete the investigation and write a final report on the "Henry Allegation." He sent his findings to headquarters in Washington in January 1974.


 * Evidence showed that the massacre did occur, the report said. The investigation also confirmed all but one of the other killings that Henry had described. The one exception was the elderly man thrown off a cliff. Coulson said it could not be determined whether the victim was alive when soldiers tossed him.


 * Some of the testimony was verified during the 3-day event. Some more of the testimony was verified during the few years following the 3-day event.  Even more of the testimony was verified after records were made public through FOIA three decades later.  Even with the administration's efforts to discredit, and the military's efforts to bury, the facts keep piling up.  Conversely, I'm still waiting for the name of just one man that testified falsely at the WSI.  Xenophrenic 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One story partially confirmed out of over 100, means that the all but one still qualify as allegations. Just because someone at WSI said “I killed 5 women and children” and there was an instance where five women and children were killed in Vietnam does not mean that the WIS participant was the one who did it. Just because the events described are similar does not mean that they are the same events. By the way, the article you cited labels them "alleged incidents".
 * The article states that: “Investigators determined that evidence against 203 soldiers accused of harming Vietnamese civilians or prisoners was strong enough to warrant formal charges”, Even if taken at face value, more that 2.5 million served in Vietnam between 1965 and 1973, that would mean that out 2.5 million serving, or .008% of those in theater were involved in warcrimes ... hardly the tales of rampant, widespread and indiscriminate killing as described by VVAWTorturous Devastating Cudgel 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One story confirmed? At last check, I see hundreds of accounts confirmed by eye-witness testimony.  I also see many accounts, not just one, verified through investigative research by different people.  Just because individual investigators stateside confirmed what was witnessed by individuals in Vietnam does not mean the events occured. By the way, the article I mentioned (not cited ... yet) uses the label "alleged incidents" Army investigators used in regard to the reports they received -- not in regard to the specific accounts given at the WSI.


 * One specific story from WSI partially confirmed, unless you have another. Was it Bangert’s, Camil’s .. please be specific, and be sure to mention your sources that state that “allegations made by so and so during the WSI were investigated and so and so’s account turned out to be true”, because we have not seen that to date. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not even going to touch that strawman. There were no allegations made at the event that I am aware of.  There was, however, testimony given at the WSI event that came with its own best possible comfirmation: personal admission by those that committed or directly witnessed the transgressions described.  The only thing stronger than first-hand eye-witness testimony is a confession by the perpetrators, and this event had plenty of both.  Any additional corroboration by the investigative arms of the military branches, or the journalists at The Detroit News, Chicago Tribune or LA Times is just inferior redundancy. Xenophrenic 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is about one investigative archive that was made public, albeit a large one. The article states it is "not a complete accounting of Vietnam war crimes" and notes that the records show "Hundreds of soldiers, in interviews with investigators and letters to commanders, described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with impunity."  The VVAW asserted the violations had gone beyond "rare isolated incidents" claimed by the military, and now the most recent batch of records revealed a problem of greater scale than even the VVAW described.


 * That’s a novel interpretation, but like I said .008% does not commonplace make. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That assessment is not novel at all. The veterans that testified at the WSI knew the problem was beyond "isolated incident."  The military investigations show that it had grown beyond "isolated incident."  The journalists that researched it have concluded that the problem had grown far beyond isolated incident.  And as you know, the VVAW already knew the administration and military were way off base when they described events like that at Song My "isolated incidents."  Xenophrenic 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All of that aside, your synthesis that "One story partially confirmed out of over 100, means that the all but one still qualify as allegations" is interesting, but until you publish that in a book that we can cite, we should just stick with what the reliable sources say. Xenophrenic 17:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They will remain allegations until a formal investigation shows them to be otherwise. This is the NPOV policy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In order for something to remain an allegation, it must be an allegation in the first place. I checked the sources again.  This "allegation" thing is coming from you, TDC, not the sources cited.  Your own original research, perhaps?  Xenophrenic 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hatfield called them “allegations”, Historian John Prados (sympathetic to VVAW), calls them “allegations”, Nick Turse calls them “allegations” According to the formerly classified army records, 46 soldiers who testified at the WSI made allegations, MSNBC called the “allegations” , The Boston Globe calls them “allegations” . A statement made without a disposition of its truthfulness is an "allegation". Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All that is well and good, and for the most part unrelated. We were discussing the lead paragraph, in particular the part describing what the VVAW was trying to do; the purpose of the Winter Soldier Investigation.  The text of that lead paragraph is sourced.  The source is not Hatfield, Prados, etc.  The sources in use do not speak of going to Detroit to make "allegations."  I will reiterate what I said above, the stuff on allegations is not supported by the sources in use.  Xenophrenic 02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Others"
Regarding this addition to the article, are these "others" actually historians? How credible are these claims? Badagnani (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph removal
A paragraph about Hubbard was added, complete with tags indicating it was unsourced, and a hidden comment indicating it shouldn't be in the article to begin with. Most strange, indeed. I have removed it. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote
Is it really necessary to have two Wikiquote infoboxes in the same article? I'd remove it myself, but I want to make sure it's a mistake before doing so. --MicahBrwn (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both linked to the same set of quotes, so I deleted one. Definitely not necessary to have multiples in this case.  Xenophrenic (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Wars
How do the allegations compare with other wars, such as the Second World War? Some discussion of the historical perspective of these charges would be useful, to determine the odds of their being credible. Was the Vietnam War worse than that war? If so, why is WWII not condemned? And if not, who was promoting the special focus on allegation of atrocities and why?

Also, a comparison with the methods regularly used by the other side in this war as a matter of policy could help give the overall picture of what really happened. 65.89.68.24 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is correct, because the Vietnam Conflict was declared a loser because of the restricted military we see the vultures, harpies and then the preening bullies, cackling witches, twisted cynics and pompous windbags rise up and complain and dishonor; because they are not heroes, unlike the Second World War that is ennobled and made heroes. We are seeing political dissidents make their attack, and became credible when the Vietnam Conflict was a loser American conflict giving them political clout at the expense of the honorable soldiers who did follow their orders in the military conditions of warfare and its implications. We need to see more comparisons to other wars, for a better overview of what really is a war-crime on the bloody battlefield of weapons of death; that in world history has been used to remove enemy leaders as losers and hang them until dead, such as the famous Saddam Hussein of the invasion of Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.172.151 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As this article is about a very specific subject, your questions would probably be better addressed at an article such as War crimes by the United States. Badagnani (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporarily protected
Please work it out on the talk page, in accordance with our policies on reliable sources. Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Stolen Valor, and its false and unsubstantiated claims about WSI
Some 30 years later, we now know from the book "Stolen Valor," that many of the claims made by the "winter soldiers" were false and that a majority of them had never seen combat in Vietnam. Others hadn't even seen Vietnam. To give credit to all of the thousands of service people who served honorably and lawfully in Vietnam, the article requires revising with these latest revelations about the fraud that was perpetrated on the people of the United States, in the name of "ending the war now." Thank you, 97.115.0.165 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Larry Sigurdson, Salem, OR 97301
 * The section on the WSI in Stolen Valor has already been proven false. It's just a re-hash of Lewy's lies and misinformation.  You apparently aren't up to speed on the "latest revelations" of the real fraud being perpetrated during that era.  Not a single veteran was proven to be a fraud; not a single account given at the WSI has been proven false; many of the claims proved true 30 years later after FOIA releases.  This has been discussed and investigated previously on these talk pages, take a look.  Xenophrenic (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Xeno, can you please cite what proves that [*edit add 'the section on the WSI', Xeno correctly notes below that this is poorly phrased on my part. *end edit]"Stolen Valor" is false? I'm Canadian; I don't know you, John Kerry, or Larry Sigurdson from Adam. I've been editing Wikipedia for many years now. I certainly have the impression that the Winter Soldier affair was a combination of genuine outrage and, significantly, a propaganda exercise, and that this article is heavily slanted. I readily admit I could be wrong, but can you please provide citations rather than simply assertions about how your critcs "aren't up to speed". Thanks in advance. Holmwood (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Holmwood. Being Canadian doesn't excuse you. :) Did you know the WSI event involved Canada, too? Just in case you misread my previous comment, I didn't say "Stolen Valor" is false.  I said the section on the WSI in Stolen Valor has already been proven false.  That section (which is cited to Lewy) is just a re-airing of Lewy's claims made in his Vietnam book, which were based, he said, upon an NIS report.  That report doesn't exist.  The Defense Department confirms that it doesn't exist.  When Lewy was asked about it, he admitted he didn't have it either.  When he was further pressed about his claims, he couldn't recall whether he even saw such a report, or maybe was told about it. The specific citations showing all of this have been brought up and discussed time and again here by many editors; see the archives 1 through 4 and do a search on them for "Lewy".
 * You are not the only person to "have the impression that the Winter Soldier affair" is something that it was not. Political operatives spent a lot of time and effort to propagate those impressions back in the 70s, and they aren't likely to ever completely go away.  Perhaps you could more fully explain why you think the article is slanted, with specific examples? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm highly skeptical about political operatives propagating those impressions back in the 70's... Other than in the period 1970-1973ish. If that's what you're arguing ok, let's take a look at it. (The rest, it doesn't make much sense; Nixon fell from power (deservedly I think), and that was that. On your request for me to explain why I think the article is slanted and specific examples sure, though I'd like to hold you to the same standards! I'm overworked right now so can't respond but wanted to jot this down to know I'd read and thought about your response. Thanks. Holmwood (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No rush, I think Wikipedia will be around for a while. Don't work too hard! Xenophrenic (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing perceptions of veterans
This entire section consists of two things, one long quote and what appears to be an unsourced opinion piece from an editor. As such, I am removing the section. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Turns out that I was right about the paragraph that I called an "an unsourced opinion piece from an editor"

From article: ''While no one involved with the Winter Soldier Investigation, and subsequent Senate hearings, ever accused "all" servicemen of misconduct - it was made evident the problem had grown beyond "isolated incident" status. The problem was perceived by the participants as epidemic, and was seen as ignored and even condoned by leaders at all levels in the military and government. Winter Soldier was the culmination of efforts to bring national attention to this situation, and to expedite the end of America's participation in the Vietnam conflict.''

Now from a comment made on an article at hnn.us: [http://hnn.us/comments/39271.html ''While no one involved with the Winter Soldier Investigation, and subsequent Senate hearings, ever accused "all" servicemen of misconduct - it was obvious the problem had grown beyond "isolated incident" status. The problem was perceived by the participants as epidemic, and was seen as ignored and even condoned by leaders at all levels in the military and government. Winter Soldier was the culmination of efforts to finally bring national attention to this situation, and to expedite the end of America's participation in the Vietnam conflict.''] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Turns out you were wrong. The comment made at hnn.us was made August 1, 2004, while that same paragraph already existed in the Wikipedia article back in July, 2004. The person at HNN copied Wikipedia, not the other way around as you allege.  I plan to undo your removal and put it back in the article, but I don't know what source it came from; I'll search around a bit. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)