Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vietnam Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Vietnam may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Winter Soldier Investigation article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
This article is the subject of an ArbCom ruling. Please abide by the letter and spirit of that ruling.
Notice: TDC and Xenophrenic are banned from editing this article for a period ending 1 year.
The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing this article. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. At the end of the ban, any user may remove this notice.

Posted by Anthøny 20:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4
About archives

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [1] [2], 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. [3]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. [4][5][6]
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 [7]. 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)

[edit] Inserting conclusions without sources

(this conversation moved here from personal Talk pages)

Hi, Jobs. I notice you have edited the Winter Soldier Investigation article and deleted a source citation by Richard Stacewicz, along with punctuation in the citations. You have also inserted adjectives such as "allegedly" and "allegations" without providing a source citation. Could you please explain these deletions and the adjectives? Thanks much! Xenophrenic 22:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The deletion, if I did it, of the citation by Stacewicz was a mistake and the same applies to the punctuation. However, the words "allegedly" and "allegations" must be added to the article. Wikipedia does not take sides. None of the things alleged have been proven. --JobsElihu 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I will replace the citations and punctuation; I assumed that might have been a mistake. As for adding "alleged" words to the article, that is fine if the sources provided also contain those words. We don't want to form our own conclusions about what is fact and what is only "alleged," lest we violate Wikipedia original research rules. You are 100% correct when you say Wikipedia does not take sides, but remember that goes for all sides -- including the side that claims the testimony was not factual, but allegation. Go ahead and add the "allege" words if they are appropriate, but please make sure they are accompanied by source citaations.
By the way, your claim that "None of the things alleged have been proven" is not correct. The Detroit Free Press verified many of the claims as true while the event was still ongoing. Many of the claims were obvious and didn't need proof, such as those concerning racism, body counts, fragging, and other already acknowledged problems. Did General William Westmoreland issue direct orders prohibiting cutting ears or fingers off the bodies of the dead because it wasn't happening? Another editor points out on the WSI Talk page that even more of the claims have been proven since the recent declassification of military documents [8]. Much of the testimony has been substantiated, and to my knowledge, none disproven. Xenophrenic 08:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT a place to argue politics. In your comments above you are arguing politics. The fact that you believe that "none" of the information has been "disproven" indicates that you have taken sides.
You misunderstand. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I meant to say that to my knowledge the claims have not been disproven.
I am only a causal Wikipedia user and I don't have time to investigate all of the information in the article but let me just point out that just because the Detroit News says something is true DOES NOT mean it is true. Newspaper reporters are wrong all the time and I'm sure that their tons of misinformation in the article that you are attempting to dominate.
Newspapers are indeed wrong all of the time. For that reason, Wikipedia articles often contain incorrect information. Unfortunately, Wikipedia regards "verifiability" over "accuracy", so some incorrect information sneaks in. If you feel there is misinformation in the article, let's see if there is some way we can address it.
For example, on the website for the Eastern Arizona Courier, right now, there is an article by Pam Crandall that quotes Mr. Jesse MacBeth about war crimes that were supposed committed in Iraq by him and other soldiers. There is no questioning of MacBeth's motives or accuracy--just word for word repetition of MacBeth's claims. ALL of the claims/allegations in the article are damn lies. How do I know this? Well, there was investigations done on MacBeth's claims and it turns out that only served in the military for 44 days and did not even make it through bootcamp before he was booted out of the Army for being "unfit." He was Stateside the whole time and he has never been to Iraq and he has never, ever been in a warzone, so therefore all of his claims are lies.
That man is dispicable, and I hope he gets a good flogging. It sounds like Pam Crandall deserves a bit of flogging as well, for not questioning the accuracy of her subject. There will always be imposters, I'm afraid. Organizers of the WSI knew this, and took steps to weed them out beforehand.
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." Your comments are incorrect and they belie your bias and your attempts to engage in POV.--JobsElihu 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I invite you to help sort out all instances of "that going on here" so that we may improve the article. I understand you are a casual Wikipedia user with limited time, as am I, but every little bit helps. Xenophrenic 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Bad-faith reverts on the part of User:Badagnani & User:Xenophrenic

This edit was labeled as a "partial revert" but was in fact an exact revert. Despite my request for deliberate editing, with each edit explained carefully with an edit summary, this editor has simply chosen to take the easy route and revert everything. As explained above, that simply doesn't work well, because it casts doubt on the good faith of the editor making such a massive edit in a contested article, if each edit is not carefully explained, and the editing conducted in a deliberate manner. Badagnani 03:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit listed above was not an exact revert, as it also included the removal of the Hubbard "Meet the Press" paragraph, that was previously moved to this Talk page for discussion, and also spelling corrections. Badagnani fails to mention that it was also a revert of his/her revert. Despite my several repeated offers to discuss any problematic edits, Badagnani has refused, casting serious doubt on Badagnanis intentions with this article. A quick review of the edit history of this article shows that Badagnani has a habit of swooping in, making a large scale revert of considerable content, and then departing without ever actually contributing to the article (with one exception to fix tortured grammar). Every edit in the Diff listed above is already explained in detail here on the talk page, and this was explained to Badagnani. Bold edits, when properly discussed on the talk page, are not "bad-faith." My offer to discuss any edits with Badagnani is still open. Xenophrenic 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is "Bag"? I've simply asked, several times, that each edit made with all due deliberation, with careful edit summaries and explanations here. This is an article that has generated controversy, so huge edits with 20 things changed without explanation generate a lot of questions for other editors. Badagnani 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have asked several times. I have replied, several times, that every edit of mine is made with all due deliberation, with careful edit summaries and, when necessary, explanations here. As for "huge edits," let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you suppose would happen in the following scenario:
Editor X makes a small edit to the article, with an edit summary.
Editor X makes another edit to the article, with an edit summary and an explanation in Talk.
Editor X makes yet another small edit, a punctuation change, with an edit summary.
Editor X makes a possibly controversial small edit, and starts a discussion about it here.
Editor X makes one more small edit to add sorely needed citations, with an edit summary.
Editor O now comes along, disagrees with an edit made by X, and reverts all of the above without discussion - making one huge edit.
Editor X comes back, sees all the previous edits wiped away without discussion and clicks (undo), also creating a "huge edit" comprised of all the previously deleted edits.
When editor Y comes along and sees this latest "huge edit" sitting there, what do you suppose he does? I mean, it has like 20 things changed in it. Hypothetically, of course. Xenophrenic 04:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if one were doing it deliberately, all 20 edits wouldn't be made in a single 10-minute period but over some reasonable amount of time so that consensus could be developed, sources examined, etc. Badagnani 07:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, providing all 20 edits involve sources or issues requiring consensus. But suppose 1 of those 20 edits was just to add a couple brackets to Wikify a name, after starting a stub article for that name elsewhere? No discussion required. Suppose 5 of those 20 edits were the simple deletion of external links to websites that no longer exist? Again, no "deliberation" required there. Suppose 1 of those 20 edits was a simple spelling or punctuation correction? Not much to talk about there. Suppose a few of those 20 edits were the insertion of source citations to replace the {{Fact}} tags that have been in the article forever? Self-explanatory. Then you are left with just a small handful of edits that were made, deliberately, over a couple days not minutes, to examine, discuss and develop consensus upon. Would you care to join?
This article is tagged as part of the WikiProject Vietnam, of which I see you are an active member. The more voices around here, the better. Do you know how tedious it can be trying to build consensus between just 2 people? Xenophrenic 08:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's much better to present the actual substantive proposed changes and rationales for such rather than go over, again and again, hypothetical situations. Badagnani 08:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] TDC's revert, without edit summary + various discussions, sarcasm, wit and filibustering for fun!

Bored? Got some time to kill? Feel free to exercise your keyboard in the space below. This space is reserved for a variety of activities! Tell a joke. Give a lecture. Attack someone while telling them not to attack someone! Remind someone that they must only comment on edits and not the editors, then comment about them! Tell them what to do and what not to do. Grab your wikicop hat and baton, and beat them over the head! Quote rules to them while you break those very rules, then smile sagely as you impart words of wisdom on your underlings. Spice things up a bit by taking someones edit, cutting it up, then yell at them when they try to put it back together again. Use your imagination. Pick a favorite sentence and repeat it over and over again. Use cut & paste if needed! Then repeat it again! When there is too much seriousness, have some wacky fun! Xenophrenic 10:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We now have a massive revert, without even an edit summary. Can we please edit in a more deliberate manner? This really reflects poorly on you, TDC, as we've now begun to try to make smaller edits, always discussed first. Badagnani 09:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Badagnani: Do not engage in personal attacks. The comment, "this really reflects poorly on you, TDC" is a personal attack and it is not allowed according the rules of civility in Wikipedia. Please review this policy: WP:CIV Let's face it. You don't agree with an edit that he/she made. That's it. It does not reflect poorly on TDC and you have no right, according to the rules of Wikipedia to personal attack another editor. Now, if you did not like the valid edit that TDC did then you should explain why you believe the edit should be done another way and you should not personally attack TDC and claim, falsely, that TDC's edit "reflects poorly on" him. That is a specific comment about another editor and not about the edit, a flat out violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, as to your other comments above, 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. As a Wikipedian, I do not have a position on whether war crimes were committed in Vietnam. As an American citizen, I believe that war crimes were probably committed in Vietnam, but my personal opinion is NOT relevant to editing Wikipedia and YOUR opinion on whether war crimes were committed in Vietnam is NOT relevant to editing Wikipedia. I don't want to know your opinion and you should not share it with me. It is NOT relevant. Wikipedia does NOT take sides. Now, the better question, and the one that you have not reached yet is: "Who is making these war crimes claims and where are the citations to back up the existence of the claims?" That's it. Wikipedia cannot report these claims without pointing out that they are allegations and they are not proven. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Now, if these folks you are quoting were reporting the conclusions of war crimes tribunals or other American or International court then we could report, as Wikipeidans, that these war crimes definitively occurred, but that, of course, is NOT what we have here. We have allegations which we do not know if they are true or not. And that is the way that they are going to be written in this article. Badagnani, I believe that your contributions to the article are worthwhile, but maybe you should take a step back and review your objectives before you move forward. TDC is engaging in valid, productive edits and commenting on him and not his edits is unproductive. Please step back and reflect on that before you move forward. Thank you.--JobsElihu 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear JobsElihu: Do not engage in personal attacks. The comment, "...you should not personally attack TDC and claim, falsely, that TDC's edit..." is a personal attack and it is not allowed according the rules of civility in Wikipedia. Please review this policy: WP:CIV. Let's face it, you don't agree with a comment Badagnani made. Badagnani did not "claim, falsely" anything, and did not "attack TDC," nor anyone else, and you have no right, according to the rules of Wikipedia to personally attack Badagnani like that. Now, if you did not like the valid comment that Badagnani made, then you should explain why you believe so, instead of calling people liars and attackers. Or better still, let the person to whom the comment was directed respond instead. The conversation was between TDC and Badagnani, and as they have a history of commenting on each other...
Comment: As an experienced editor Badagnani should be well aware of the rules involving 3RR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
...I doubt either of them feel attacked. Commenting that an editor should be aware of the rules, and commenting that it reflects poorly to make massive edits, are not Wikicrimes. Butting in specifically to comment about another editor and not about the edit, is a flat out violation of Wikipedia policy. Please step back and reflect on that before you move forward. Thank you. Xenophrenic 21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Xenophrenic: when I see someone engaging in a violation of civility I will point it out whether I am involved in the conversation or not. It is not your prerogative to decide on what to comment. I will take my own counsel on that issue not yours. And I will repeat that Badagnani's comment was a violation of civility and I will repeat my suggestion that Badagnani reframe from such comments. The rule of Wikipedia is clear: Comment on the edit, not the editor and that is not what Bagagnani did in that comment. I can only repeat that over and over again--especially if editor choose, with their own feel will, to ignore that rules of Wikipedia. This is the first step in this process. I would hope that comment in the future reflect a concordance with the rules of Wikipedia which applies to civility. Also, I will repeat, one more time, that on what issues I choose to comment upon is my decision and not yours. If any Wikipedia editor of this article chooses to engage in comments on editors personally and not edits then I will comment on that again, and will not follow your advise. Wikipedia is collaborative effort and I read your suggestions and I will think about and attempt to accommodate your suggestions but at the end of the day if any editor makes comments about another editor and does not focus on edits then I will comment upon it. You have made a suggestion that I butt out of the situation and sit silent while one editor makes an inappropriate comment toward another editor, (Badagnani's comment was: "this really reflects poorly on you, TDC"),I have reviewed that suggestion and I have decided to ignore it. Why? The rules of Civility take precedence your own personal sense of when I should speak up and when I should not. Please review the rules of Wikipedia concerning Civility one more time. They can be found here: WP:CIV. Let me repeat: I will speak up each and every time an editor comments on the editor personally instead of the edits. Now, as to your mocking of my earlier comments, I would like to point out to your that mocking others comments also borders on a civility violations also. Why not focus your efforts on how you can incorporate the valid and well-thought-out comments and edits of TDC into the article, instead of using your creative skills to mock me? I think that would be a more productive use of your talents.--JobsElihu 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No. That is not true. When there is a civility violations anyone has a right to comment on it and ask the offender to stop. You are not stating the rules correctly. That is not a question of opinion, but of fact. Your comment is flat out wrong. You have incorrectly stated the rules. What Badagnani did was violate the terms of Wikipedia's civility rules. That is a fact and you are now incorrectly stating the rules to justify Badagnani's comments. The rules of Wikipedia are quite clear: You must comment on the edits, not the editor. I once again, ask you to review the rules one more time. The rules state, "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." Once again, Badagnani's comment was "personally targeted". The definition is not based upon whether you find it offensive. It has to do with causing conflict and stress. Please do not state the rules incorrectly. Please state the rules correctly. Also, do not move my comments because that is considered vandalism and I will move them back to where I put them.--JobsElihu 02:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do not believe that your (Xenophrenic) "feelings" play any role here. The rules of Civility were violated and I pointed it out. Once again, I would encourage you to focus on the article, not the editors. If there are violations of civility on the talk page, regardless of who engages in it, I will point it out.--JobsElihu 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

--especially if editor choose, with their own feel will, to ignore that rules of Wikipedia. --JobsElihu 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Well, that sums it up for me. No comment. Xenophrenic 02:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Xenophrenic, do not mock my comments. Badagnani's comment was a violation of the Wikipedia rules of civility. I pointed that out. I have asked him not to engage in the behavior going forward. You have asked me not to comment on Badagnani's comment even though it is my right as a Wikipedian to comment on another editor's violation of the Wikipedia rules. I chose to ignore your attempt to talk me into standing silent in the face of Badagnani's inappropriate comment because the Wikipedian rules of civility are not based upon what you "feel" is appropriate or not. It depends upon a basic rule that is not subjective but objective. I have also asked you to stop mocking my comments. You have chosen to continue to mock me--that is your decision. I will ask once more for your to stop mocking my comments and focus your attention on the edits of the article and not the editor. In summary, I will not be silenced.--JobsElihu 02:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mocking Comments

:::::Dear JobsElihu: Do not engage in personal attacks. The comment, "...you should not personally attack TDC and claim, falsely, that TDC's edit..." is a personal attack and it is not allowed according the rules of civility in Wikipedia. Please review this policy: WP:CIV. Let's face it, you don't agree with a comment Badagnani made. Badagnani did not "claim, falsely" anything, and did not "attack TDC," nor anyone else, and you have no right, according to the rules of Wikipedia to personally attack Badagnani like that. Now, if you did not like the valid comment that Badagnani made, then you should explain why you believe so, instead of calling people liars and attackers. Or better still, let the person to whom the comment was directed respond instead. The conversation was between TDC and Badagnani, and as they have a history of commenting on each other... This comment was posted by Xenophrenic. My comment: Xenophrenic, this commentary is a attempt to mock my comments about Badagnani's violation of the rules of civility. Dear Xenophrenic, please do not mock my comments going forward as we discuss change by change of the article, as we work to make sure the article is completely NPOV.--JobsElihu 02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment: Xenophrenic, this commentary is a attempt to mock my comments about Badagnani's violation of the rules of civility. Dear Xenophrenic, please do not mock my comments going forward as we discuss change by change of the article, as we work to make sure the article is completely NPOV. This comment was posted by JobsElihu. My comment: JobsElihu, the commentary above is an attempt to avoid acknowledging your attack on Badagnani when you commented that Badagnani was a liar and an attacker. It reflects poorly on you when, in the same breath, you make comments about an editor and also advise editors not to make comments about editors. Please refrain from making such comments as we hop, together, from one lillypad issue to another in the pond of NPOVness. Xenophrenic 10:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, Xenophrenic, you are mischaracterizing what has been said. I never called Badagnani a "liar" as you claim. Please reframe from attempting to put words in my mouth. Let's go over it again. You are mocking all of the comments made by other editors. This indicates that you are not editing with good faith. That is unfortunate. Also, let's repeat once again the rules of Wikipedia civility that Badagnani violated and now that you have violated. The rules are clear that you are supposed to comment on edits and not editors. Badagnani stated that a certain edit "reflected" poorly on TDC and that was a violation of the civility rules. Now, you have stated that my pointing out your mocking of my comments inappropriate and how I have asked you to stop "reflects poorly on you." Once again, I will ask you to stop engaging in violations of the rules of Wikipedia civility. Please review the rules. You can find them here: WP:CIV. Thank you. Now, remember all of the allegations that are contained the article will be noted as allegations. Mocking the comments of other editors and commenting on how you personally believe that someone's edits reflects poorly on them when the edit was a valid edit will not stop the fact that 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. Let's go over it again. 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. The Detroit News is NOT a court of law and Detroit News reporters can and do make mistakes so therefore Wikipedia cannot take sides. Therefore Wikipedia cannot state that these allegations are true and Wikipedia cannot state that these allegations are false. That is the way that Wikipedia works and mocking and attacking will NOT change the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you need further clarification, please let me know.--JobsElihu 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [9].
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)

Once again, there is no concensus on many of these issues. Also, Wikipedia cannot take sides in this on-going debate. Wikipedia can only point out what the issues are and what each side is saying. Wikipedia must call an allegation, an allegation. Wikipedia cannot decide if the Detroit News says its true then it is true. If the Detroit News says its true then Wikipedia must report that Detroit News says "so and so." That's all. There cannot be a POV in the article either for or against the comments of the soldiers, both the real ones and the phony ones.--JobsElihu 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely true. By the way, we need to reach consensus on many of these issues. Wikipedia is invited to join in on the discussions also; they are open to all. If the Detroit News says it's an allegation, then it's an allegation. If it's an allegation, then Wikipedia must call it a "so and so." We are agreed. If Pam Crandall says it's true, then Wikipedia must report that Pam Crandall says it is true. If other papers allege it is a fraud, then Wikipedia must call an allegation an allegation. I guess we agree. Xenophrenic 10:55, 16 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

First, let's go over the rules of civility again. I have never used the word "lies" and once again I would ask you to stop attempting to put words in my mouth. Second, you don't know if I am going to be "one very frustrated editor" or not. That is not a relevant issue. You should not be commenting on my "feelings" or whatever. It violates civility and it is based upon merely your imagination since you do not know me. You have never met me. You really don't know anything about me other than a few comments on a Wikipedia talk page, so please once again, Xenophrenic, please follow the rules and let's focus on edits to the article and not your opinion, which are based upon next to nothing, about me. Stop violating the civility rules. 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. That is not Wikipedia’s job or your job or my job. We cannot read the material then decide whether the claim is true or not. That would be original research and it would violate the basic tenets of Wikipedia. As Wikipedians we can write that so and so stated this and that, but is far as we can go. Now, I would be more than willing to have a discussion with you in a civil and appropriate manner each and every sentence in the article, but I will not get into a debate about the Vietnam War or whether atrocities happened in the Vietnam War because that discussion would be irrelevant, inappropriate, and inapplicable to the discussion that we supposed to be having. You quote Badgnani above about the Vietnam War: “which, no matter how much certain people would love to wish did not take place at all in Vietnam, did verifiably take place there” but the quote is not enlightening on what should be doing in the article. Once again, it is not our job here to re-fight the Vietnam War. There is NO ONE here that believes the premise of Badgnani’s statement. He is ASSUMING that the editors he is writing to (myself and TDC) are ignorant of the Vietnam War and that Badgnani feels the need to educate, lecture, and enlighten us. That is inappropriate on several levels. First, he should not make assumptions about our knowledge level. He should not make assumptions about our thoughts and beliefs about the Vietnam War. Why? It is no relevant to a discussion about the specifics of the article. No one here is attempting to re-write Vietnam War history. TDC and myself are only attempting to get the article accurate according the rules of Wikipedia AND all the while doing it in a civil and non-threatening manner. I will not debate Badganani’s premise. It is irrelevant. Badgnani does not know me and does not know how much or little that I know about the Vietnam War. And even if did, it is irrelevant to a discussion about how the sentences need to be constructed in the article to meet the defined rules of Wikipedia—which includes, above all, a NEUTRAL of point of view. Badgnani is clearly expressing a point of view—which for him is fine but that point of view should not come out in the article. Yes, I stated that I will use the allegation word over and over again if the situation calls for it. But, once again, you misquoted me. I stated that I would use the word over and over “in the appropriate places.” Of course, you cut off the end of my statement. I look forward to having the protection lifted so that we can work together to make sure each and every sentence puts the claims and allegations in context and to make sure that Wikipedia does not take a side in this issue—because that is what the rules of Wikipedia demand.--JobsElihu 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Hello, JobsElihu. You left a lengthy comment on the WSI talk page which I have moved here (see below). It begins with, "First, let's go over the rules of civility again." In big bold letters at the top of that page, it states, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Winter Soldier Investigation article. It is not the place to go over Wikipedia rules. It is not the place to lecture people. If you wish to discuss various Wikipedia rules at length, perhaps you should go to the talk page for that rule. If you feel a Wikipedia rule has been violated, then go to the appropriate Administrator Noticeboard and report it. Please don't clutter the WSI Talk page with lengthy pages of discusion about what a rule of civility is, or what a Wikipedia editor's job is, or what Wikipedia can and can't do. It makes it difficult for other readers to find pertinent discussions on that page. In short, if you see a violation, just go report it.

You did take the time, however, to write up that comment, so I will attempt to respond. I'm going to go through this section by section to help make things clearer, I hope.

First, let's go over the rules of civility again. I have never used the word "lies" and once again I would ask you to stop attempting to put words in my mouth.

Actually, you did use the word "lies" and I quoted you. In fact, you said "damn lies".

Second, you don't know if I am going to be "one very frustrated editor" or not. That is not a relevant issue. You should not be commenting on my "feelings" or whatever. It violates civility and it is based upon merely your imagination since you do not know me. You have never met me. You really don't know anything about me other than a few comments on a Wikipedia talk page, so please once again, Xenophrenic, please follow the rules and let's focus on edits to the article and not your opinion, which are based upon next to nothing, about me. Stop violating the civility rules.

Report it to the Administrator Noticeboard, as I suggested above. I stand by my statement that if you think you can paste in words, phrases, whatever, without citing sources, you will end up frustrated - because they will be removed.

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.

Great. I'm not sure why you felt the need to insert that, but whatever.

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.)

That's nice. I don't have any beliefs about the matter. Just knowledge. I reserve beliefs for more esoteric and spiritual matters where verifiability isn't a requirement.

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.

Ok. I'm following you so far. I have no argument against that; please continue...

(That goes back to your earlier attempt to put the word "liar" in my mouth, I have never called these folks "liars" either.)

You said all the claims made in the MacBeth article were lies, and then you said there is clearly some of that going on here, too. I said I'll wait to see your proof of these lies. If to you it is "clearly going on," then you must have some proof I don't know about, because it certainly isn't clear to me.

As Wikipedians we don't know if each and every claim being made at the conference is true or not.

We also do not know if any of the claims are not true, so we can't insert the word "alleged" to imply they might not be. The sources cited state the veterans made statements about war crimes. So that is what is in the artcle. They made statements about war crimes. No one disputes this much. The statements are on film. The statements are are recorded in the Congressional Record. The source says they made statements. The source does not say they made truthful statements or false statements about alleged crimes. If the source does not say it, then we can't put it in the article. That is one of the three primary editing rules.

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."

You do realize that you said all of this earlier on the same page, right?

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.

OMG, I did no such thing. Maybe your misunderstanding of what I said is at the core of this. Here is exactly what I said, and it it still on your talk page above:

By the way, your claim that "None of the things alleged have been proven" is not correct. The Detroit Free Press verified many of the claims as true while the event was still ongoing. Many of the claims were obvious and didn't need proof, such as those concerning racism, body counts, fragging, and other already acknowledged problems.

As you can see, I did not say the statements of the veterans were true and therefor should be presented in the article as true. I simply pointed out that some of the statements were verified, and they were. The Pentagon was contacted about statements; military personel that were NOT involved with WSI or VVAW were contacted about statements; and the Detroit Free Press reported on what they found out: that some of these claims made at WSI actually checked out. You said none of the claims were proven, and I was showing that you were wrong. I didn't say all of the claims had been proven yet.

Wikipedia cannot do that. Wikipedia cannot take sides. The information should not presented either for or against the claims of the "Winter Soldiers."

Exactly. The information must be presented in the article exactly as the source(s) present it. You don't then go in afterward and stick in words like "truthful" or "alleged" if the source didn't say they were truthful or only alleged.

We can't do that because the newspaper reporters could be getting the story wrong also.

Actually, that is not exactly correct. If the newspaper qualifies as a reliable source then content from that newspaper can make it into the Wikipedia article, even if the newspaper got the story wrong. I know that sucks, but it is the Wikipedia way. Wikipedia values verifiability over truth. What you need to do is find another reliable source that shows that first reliable source is incorrect. Much like they did in the MacBeth article. Take a look at WP:Verifiability.

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.

You do realize you said this before, right?

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.

Ummm, no. We don't put things in context. We don't go through claims and fact-check them. We do not verify claims made by newspapers, we can only quote them or paraphrase them.

That is not Wikipedia’s job or your job or my job.

Now you are getting it.

We cannot read the material then decide whether the claim is true or not. That would be original research and it would violate the basic tenets of Wikipedia.

Exactly! Which is why we can't read material that says a bunch of vets made statements about crimes, and decide in our own heads that those claims may not be true -- and try to sneak in the word "alleged" to support our opinion.

As Wikipedians we can write that so and so stated this and that, but is far as we can go. Now, I would be more than willing to have a discussion with you in a civil and appropriate manner each and every sentence in the article, but I will not get into a debate about the Vietnam War or whether atrocities happened...

Awesome! I accept your offer. Let's start with the first instance of the word "alleged" that you would like to insert into the article. Please point out the sentence you would like to modify, and also cite the source you are using to support that edit. We will discuss that small change, and then move on to others changes in order.

... in the Vietnam War because that discussion would be irrelevant, inappropriate, and inapplicable to the discussion that we supposed to be having. You quote Badgnani above about the Vietnam War: “which, no matter how much certain people would love to wish did not take place at all in Vietnam, did verifiably take place there” but the quote is not enlightening on what should be doing in the article. Once again, it is not our job here to re-fight the Vietnam War.

Sorry, I don't follow.

There is NO ONE here that believes the premise of Badgnani’s statement.

The premise of the statement is that war crimes took place, and that much has been verified, including some of those described by the vets at the WSI. It's true, so "beliefs" have nothing to do with it for me. Perhaps you intended to say that 'you' did not believe Badagnani.

He is ASSUMING that the editors he is writing to (myself and TDC) are ignorant of the Vietnam War and that Badgnani feels the need to educate, lecture, and enlighten us. That is inappropriate on several levels.

Really? Please educate, lecture and enlighten me as to why it is inappropriate to educate, lecture and enlighten you. I'll just pull up a chair here and listen...

First, he should not make assumptions about our knowledge level. He should not make assumptions about our thoughts and beliefs about the Vietnam War. Why? It is no relevant to a discussion about the specifics of the article. No one here is attempting to re-write Vietnam War history. TDC and myself are only attempting to get the article accurate according the rules of Wikipedia AND all the while doing it in a civil and non-threatening manner. I will not debate Badganani’s premise. It is irrelevant. Badgnani does not know me and does not know how much or little that I know about the Vietnam War. And even if did, it is irrelevant to a discussion about how the sentences need to be constructed in the article to meet the defined rules of Wikipedia—which includes, above all, a NEUTRAL of point of view. Badgnani is clearly expressing a point of view—which for him is fine but that point of view should not come out in the article.

I have no idea what you are trying to say there, but the lecture sure looks cool when integrated into my spiral-rotating desktop animation with the color filters.

Yes, I stated that I will use the allegation word over and over again if the situation calls for it.

And I stated that if you insert stuff without sources, out it goes. Over and over again.

But, once again, you misquoted me. I stated that I would use the word over and over “in the appropriate places.” Of course, you cut off the end of my statement.

Cutting off several thousands of words from your statement is not "misquoting you." I only quoted the portion to which I wished to respond. The part where you threaten to insert stuff repeatedly.

I look forward to having the protection lifted so that we can work together to make sure each and every sentence puts the claims and allegations in context and to make sure that Wikipedia does not take a side in this issue—because that is what the rules of Wikipedia demand.--JobsElihu 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the protection. I requested it so that the edits would stop until we get things worked out on the talk page. We need to develop consensus on a few issues, and your input would be very welcome. If the expiry of the protection nears, and we have not yet reached consensus, I will have the protection extended. Xenophrenic 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't know you could do that unilaterally. I guess that we will have to have extended indefinitely.--JobsElihu 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(copied here from the Talk page of Xenophrenic)
What I stated is that I don't agree with your premise, which is that you need to educate either me or TDC about Vietnam. I stated in that post (ONCE AGAIN) that war crimes probably did occur in Vietnam, but once again my personal opinion is not relevant and it does not have anything to do with whether the specific allegations raised in Detroit are true or not. And once again whether you (Badagnani) draw a conclusion that the allegations in Detroit are true or not is NOT your job as a Wikipedian. Allegations are allegations until proven otherwise in a court of law. That is the way that Wikipedia works. Once again, Badagnani, as a Wikipedian, you cannot decide if the allegations are fact.

Once again, JobsElihu, you cannot decide if a statement is an allegation. The WSI was not a court trial. (Courts of Law have very specifically defined usages of the word "alleged.") The source didsay they made statements. The source did not say they made allegations. You may argue "well, since they didn't bring proof, the statements are only allegations!" That's a fine conclusion, and may even be true, but unfortunately we are not allowed to present our own conclusions in the article. (As a side note, they did bring proof. Eyewitnesses. Also photographs, slides, etc., but that isn't what we are concerned with here.)

You are not a jury. You are not a judge. You are Wikipedian that must follow the rules of Wikipedia and no where in those rules are you given the leeway to decide what really happened to Amelia Earhart or if Ali was a better boxer than Frazier or any millions of other things.

Exactly! And nowhere in the rules are you given the leeway to decide if the statements given by veterans are allegations or not.

You are trying to create "concensus" on what history should say. That is not your job. It is not my job. It is not Xenophrenic's job.

No, we aree trying to reach consensus on what the article should say.

We are only allowed to report. Did you notice that on Xenophrenic's talk page you actually made some comments that were worth reading, not correct, of course, but they were attempting of trying to work this out. Since you did not think I am reading this page, you did not feel the need to lecture or otherwise act uncivil. Please work that way over there and we might just get somewhere. Oh, by the way, I would not have to write so long winded posts if my words were not taken out of context and there were no civility issues to address and we just could focus on editing the article. --JobsElihu 18:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is trying to be uncivil. I think there has just been a string of misunderstandings. Next time you think someone is being uncivil, try applying a little WP:AGF and chalk it up to poor use of words, and move along. As for my part, I never intended any incivility toward you -- and I apologize if anything I said came off that way. I did make some humorous retorts to some of your longer posts about civility because I really thought you were just having some fun with us. Xenophrenic 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop wasting bandwidth

Please stop wasting bandwidth and address actual issues and sources. Badagnani 00:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No. It is not a waste of bandwith and it will not stop.--JobsElihu 05:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

(Most of this section on civility discussions moved to JobsElihu talk page per Wikipedia rules.)
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. That is not Wikipedia’s job or your job or my job. We cannot read the material then decide whether the claim is true or not. That would be original research and it would violate the basic tenets of Wikipedia. As Wikipedians we can write that so and so stated this and that, but is far as we can go. Now, I would be more than willing to have a discussion with you in a civil and appropriate manner each and every sentence in the article, but I will not get into a debate about the Vietnam War or whether atrocities happened in the Vietnam War because that discussion would be irrelevant, inappropriate, and inapplicable to the discussion that we supposed to be having. [...] I look forward to having the protection lifted so that we can work together to make sure each and every sentence puts the claims and allegations in context and to make sure that Wikipedia does not take a side in this issue—because that is what the rules of Wikipedia demand --JobsElihu 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No one is asking to debate the Viet Nam War. I disagree with your notion that we must go through and check every claim and put it in context. If a reliable news source states that it verified something, it is perfectly acceptable to have that in the article if it is properly sourced. It is not our responsibility to "check the claim" of the news source for verification, or to put it into a "context" of our own devising. Find the content in a reliable source; quote or accurately paraphrase that source; cite that source. Let the reader do the verification, the checking, the forming of context. As for the protection, you don't need it to be lifted to begin productive discourse. Let's start now. The protection was put in place until we reach consensus on these disputed issues.
Let's start with your "allegations" edit here. The source cited for that lead paragraph says the vets wanted to publicize war crimes, not allegations of war crimes. Trying to hide the source by deleting it as you did in that edit isn't going to work. Wikipedia keeps a historical record of all edits, so you can't get away with deleting the source citations. Can you provide a source that said the vets intended to publize allegations of war crimes along with the war crimes they had witnessed or committed? Let's start with your source. Cite it here please. Xenophrenic 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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." [10]
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 [11]
Also note, that such disputes have been taken before arbitration, mainly Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Final_decision.
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Minor change

Realized I needed to discuss my change... I changed no text, but I did a couple of redirects:

  • FBI --> Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • The Pentagon --> United States Department of Defense (the context is "Pentagon records")

Dale Arnett 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
I don't have to start with any names, all though, I'm sure I could come up with a few if I felt the need to. I'm not calling them liars. That is a word that you are attempting in a frantic and inappropriate way to shove into my mouth. This is the fourth attempt to stick the work "liar" in my mouth. Check the record. I have not called anyone a liar except MacBeth. I am making the point that as Wikipedians we are supposed to be agnostics, we don't write the article as if the allegations are true and we don't write the articles as if they are lies. We write the articles in with a neutral point of view. This is all I have been saying over and over again. I NEVER, EVER stated that no war crimes ocurred in Vietnam, that was just a red herring that you and Bad came up with. I never stated it. You edited my words to get that point of view, but I never, ever stated it. Also, the fact that you think that I have called them "liars" in another figment of your imagination. And you have taken you imagination one step further by constantly attempting to put that word in my mouth. But I won't have it and it is just BS on your part. You are also constantly attempting to turn this into a investigation of the Wikipedia user JobsElihu, but that is just more BS.--JobsElihu 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
ALL of the claims/allegations in the article are damn lies. How do I know this? Well, there was investigations done on MacBeth's claims [...] so therefore all of his claims are lies. Now, there is clearly some of that going on here... --JobsElihu 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have never used the word "lies" and once again I would ask you to stop attempting to put words in my mouth. --JobsElihu 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You claimed MacBeth lied, then immediately claimed there is "clearly some of that" going on with the WSI. Sorry, but that sounds like you are calling the WSI people liars to me. Xenophrenic 17:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
More of your wordsmithing Xeno. The wordsmithing and twisting of my words is NOT going to stop me in any way from editing the article once the protection is lifted.--JobsElihu 22:35, 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)
...[Bagadnani] should not personally attack TDC and claim, falsely, that TDC's edit "reflects poorly on" him. --JobsElihu 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I never called Badagnani a "liar" as you claim. Please reframe from attempting to put words in my mouth. --JobsElihu 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You claimed Badagnani claimed something "falsely." Sorry, but that sounds like you are calling Badagnani a liar to me.Xenophrenic 17:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to start with any names, all though, I'm sure I could come up with a few if I felt the need to. --JobsElihu 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to. If you want to state, or even just imply, that the veterans were lying, then you need to cite reliable sources to support that. That isn't my rule, Jobs. That is a Wikipedia editing rule. Xenophrenic 17:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
NO. I do not not. I do not have to prove to you anything. I will edit as I see fit.--JobsElihu 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You will edit as you see fit? I disagree. I think you will edit as Wikipedia sees fit. I know I have to. If you intend to butt-heads with the Wikipedia editing policies, my money will be on Wikipedia. I never said you had to prove anything. I merely asked you to cite sources for your more controversial edits, as required by Wikipedia. I've tried several times, as one of the editors that has reverted you, to understand your "allegation" edits and discuss them with you. It is not possible for me to misrepresent what you say (as everything is historically recorded), but it is possible for me to misunderstand you. My requests for clarification (see above) from you have gone unanswered, so there is not much else I can do. Xenophrenic 05:48, 22 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 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [12]

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.[13]

The film, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 1972, is rarely shown these days. [14]

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.[15]

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. [16]

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)

[edit] 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” [17], Historian John Prados (sympathetic to VVAW), calls them “allegations”[18], 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” [19], The Boston Globe calls them “allegations” [20]. 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)

[edit] "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)