Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 3

Copyvio revert

This article has been reverted to an earlier version do to a copyright violation existing for about a year. This was done per instructions on WP:CP and after the page being listed there, and after discussions on WP:AN and here.

The offending history has also been deleted, per suggestions on WP:AN. This is because of an ongoing problem with anon(s) re-inserting copyvios. Deleting the history will help preempt reverts to the copyvio version (besides removing the copyvio).

Reverting pages to pre-copyvio versions is done to remove the possibility of them being considered derivative works, it's standard practice on wikipedia for dealing with copyright violations (although deleting history is not). This page was exceptional because of the length of time the copyvio was present.

If any registered, non-admin user who's work was deleted would like a copy, let me know, I'll look through deleted history and aid recovery of your edits.

As one of the editors of this article, I agree with all of the above. It would have saved a few headaches if it were done sooner. 165.247.204.51 10:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

To the anon editor(s) who've stalked the page over the last year, inserted the original copyvio and who removed the copyvio tag yesterday; you are responsible for the loss of hundreds of good edits by many hard working wikipedians. I'll leave this note here since you don't seem to have a home;

You'll be reverted on sight and blocked from editing for your earlier removal of the copyvio tag, and if you;

• re-instate copyvio material
• re-instate a derivative work copyvio (per my opinion, event if it is a fragment of a sentence)
• engage in disruptive behavior of any kind - including trolling on this page (again, per my opinion)

The rationale will be either vandalism or WP:IAR (take your pick), and your lack of a user name which prevents other actions being taken against you. I'll apply this to any editor who (in my opinion) is you, including newly registered new users. Consider this your only warning.

Otherwise, I haven't and won't edit this article or talk page, unless for copyvio reasons or to deal with above anon(s).

--Duk 17:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Temp page merge

As suggested at WP:CP, the article's text has been replaced with re-written content at Winter Soldier Investigation/Temp, minus the copyvio material and derivative works. 165.247.204.51 10:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio and derivatives, again

Does the following, from the article seem a bit to close to excerpts from this article [1], highlights of this have been put in bold.

Of greater impact than the atrocities testimony was the revelation of the U.S. invasion of Laos in February, 1969 -- code-named Operation Dewey Canyon I. While the Pentagon was publicly issuing denials, declaring "We have never had ground troops in Laos," veterans were describing their excursions into this neutral country. Several of the veterans, in the course of giving their testimony, raised for the first time this lesser known aspect of American foreign policy, often referred to as the U.S. "shadow government" in subsequent investigations.

The veterans alleged an entire regiment of the Third Marines had penetrated several miles into neutral countries such as Laos and Cambodia and engaged in fierce fighting. They also described efforts by the military to avoid discovery of these operations, such as stripping the soldiers of all American-related identification, arming them with the Russian-made weapons of the enemy, instructing them to never reveal their true identity and refusing to use air lifts to evacuate the wounded and dead, lest the press find out. As this news began to make the front pages of local newspapers, the Marine Corps dispatched a spokesman to the event who was quoted as saying, "We can say of a certainty that no platoons or any large number of marines ever crossed the border." Follow-up investigations by the Detroit Free Press would uncover other veterans throughout the country who confirmed taking part in the operations. Additional investigations by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Boston Globe uncovered a 16-month period during which the United States had transported troops into Laos, in violation of international law and the Cooper-Church amendment. Some of the witnesses in these investigations included helicopter pilots from the 101st Airborne who had participated in the top-secret program, code-named Prairie Fire, coordinated by Command and Control North in Da Nang.

Now from the article [2]

Five veterans described their role in the invasion, claiming that an entire regiment of the Third Marines had penetrated several miles into that neutral nation, conducting combat maneuvers along Highway 922 and beyond, and "suffering dozens of casualties in fierce fighting." They further charged that the U.S. military had refused to medevac out (evacuate by air) the wounded and dead, to prevent press discovery. Their expose made front-page headlines in Detroit and Chicago, and a follow-up investigation by the Detroit Free Press uncovered other veterans throughout the country who testified to having taken part in the operation.

The testimony was explosive because the Pentagon had issued a blanket denial only days before, declaring:

"We have never had ground troops in Laos."

The revelation of Operation Dewey Canyon was followed for days and months by other news stories in which American military personnel testified to systematic fighting in Laos. In late 1972, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Boston Globe ran credible stories asserting that the United States had regularly transported combat troops into Laos over a sixteen-month period that extended to the very end of 1971.

The witnesses were helicopter pilots from the 101st Airborne who had participated in the top-secret program code-named Command and Control North. Although the missions, consisting usually of mercenaries commanded by Army Special Forces, were primarily intended to gather intelligence, these troops had been involved in combat and several had been killed. Such missions were in violation of the Cooper-Church amendment, passed in 1970, which prohibited the use of American ground troops in Cambodia and Laos. But even before Cooper-Church was passed, it would have been a violation of international law for the United States to launch combat troops against a neutral nation. And even as these missions were occurring, the Pentagon was issuing statements denying that American combat forces were operating in Laos, and asserting that all Special Forces had already been withdrawn from Vietnam.

TDC 19:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you could have a point, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. To me the correspondences seem a bit contrived. There isn't a lot of evidence that the one work is a derivative of the other (though clearly the writer of one work was aware of the other, and probably had it to hand when he created the other--which is a completely different matter). --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering that one source (the material in the Wiki article) was written well after the other one (the online piece) and that this particular article has been a continual source of copyvio by the anon, I feel this is just one more lame ass attempt to skirt scrutiny. TDC 00:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a copyright violation here; for example, the statement follow-up investigation by the Detroit Free Press uncovered other veterans throughout the country who testified to having taken is straight-out copied. It isn't a simple statement of fact, it's a copyrigth violation all by itself. Add to that the numerous other copied phrases and fragments. Then add to that the paragraph structure and the large amount of text that has simply been re-phrased. The article needs to be reverted to the pre ciopyvio version. (I'll do this tonight of nobody else has already)--Duk 16:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, there seem to be a couple of copyvio arguments going on; the stuff from bigmagic.com that has been co-opted, and the large quotations that were moved to wikiquote - some one correct me if i'm wrong. The bigmagic.com stuff is the same as last time, so I think the article needs to be reverted to before these additions. Please don't edit this article while tagged. --Duk 03:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

First, there is only one copyvio issue. The large sections of quoted material that have been moved to WikiQuote were properly cited and never in violation, but TDC deleted them because he objected to their length. I objected to their complete removal, so I reverted TDCs deletions. I see that Travb has attempted a compromise by moving those sections to WikiQuote.

I have no opinion on this --Duk 05:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No opinion required. You said "some one correct me if i'm wrong," so I did.  :)

Second, regarding the copyvio issue you are addressing, I've reverted your blanking of the article page. Blanking the whole page and tagging it is an action specifically reserved for when every version of the article contains the copyvio material in question. A brief glance at the article edit history assures me this isn't the case with this article. If you are certain there is a copyright violation, then the proper procedure is to revert to the most recent version without the questionable content. I'd make such a reversion myself, if it weren't for the third point...

This is a repeat of the earlier copvio. The page needs to be reverted. I tagged it to keep people from wasting edits that are going to be reverted. --Duk 05:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"This page needs to be reverted." Then it should be reverted. (although I disagree, since an actual copyvio has not been cited) Comparing the inconvenience of 1 or 2 editors wasting an edit to the inconvenience of hiding the article from view for (potentially, if the last instance is typical) weeks - I'd choose the lesser of two evils. 165.247.213.210 07:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Third, you have claimed (4 paragraphs) above that the statements are "straight-out copied." They are not. Please read them again. You also claim the statement isn't "a simple statement of fact." It is indeed. I would appreciate it if you'd look at them again. I can't verify the similar "paragraph structure" you mentioned, as I can't seem to get the bigmagic.com link to work (is anyone else having the same problem?), but I plan to look into it. By the looks of the two samples above, they don't appear to be all that similar. 165.247.213.210 05:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same problem. Use Google cache. --Duk 05:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[3]

Thank you, using the cache is an excellent idea, and it worked. However, that wasn't the grist of "point three." After reviewing the bigmagic link (and editing the above excerpt slightly, since it wasn't accurate), I can see the paragraph structure and wording are not similar. I also see the words you claim are "straight-out copied" are absolutely not. Further, I've checked the policies at [4] and everything seems in order. If I'm missing something here, can you please point it out? 165.247.213.210 07:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Just as an outside opinion, I hardly think a few sentences that appear to be slightly restructured justify tagging the ENTIRE article a copyright violation. If you really have a problem with it remove those sentences and those sentences alone until consensus has been established. Frankly, it's a tad absurd. I am going to restore the article, if you are still adverse to those sentences, remove them from the article. Sasquatcht|c 16:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright policeman

Duk are you working for the company which wrote these books? Has anyone who wrote these books complained to wikipedia? I dont think so.

no --Duk 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Many of these statments are on in government records which means they do not fall under the absurd copyright laws of this country..

Then they need to be cited as such and identified as public domain. Use citations to do this, not telepathy. --Duk 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are you constraning information which helps and teaches others? There are two types of people on wikipedia: people who add dialogue to the debate, and people like yourself, self proclaimed policeman, who constrict and destroy knowledge. You are a F***ing joke, someone who instead of adding to a project, takes away.

Can we stick to the discussion about the copyright violation? please :) --Duk 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, who made you the information police? Which author has complained about the content of this article? NO ONE. You are taking it upon yourself to destory the works of others.

This is about a copyright violation, it doesn't matter who reverts a copyright violation. We can't include copyright violations in Wikipedia. --Duk 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And please dont roll out the rules of wikipedia. I am aware of them, dont waste my time.

Happy editing :) --Duk 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks, I wont get so angy anymore...sorry for getting so frustrated, I was really POV. sorry.Travb 20:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use under copyright

To those who are so zealous about protecting wikipedia from copyright lawsuits, please read the following:

• Fair Use
• Wikipedia: Fair use materials and special requirements
• Common dreams website, which 90% of its content is under Fair Use Common dreams pulls whole entire articles off of the internet and posts them, in their entirty on their site. The Fair Use notice that Common Dreams uses:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

See also: What is "Fair Use" in Copyright Law?

Well, that might mean something had the information been cited and stated thuswise. But even then, Wiki policy is very clear on fair use and Copyvio's. TDC 22:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedias policy on fair use text (see WP:FU);

• Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services) is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

The current article is a copyright violation and not fair use. --Duk 01:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Duk did you read any of the articles? HELLO! Read the articles or dont waste my time man. The article said small quotes, which I cited, which is completely OKAY within copyright READ the article or I will have to post it here! (and therefore break copyright myself). PLEASE explain how commondreams.org is able to take FULL articles and post them? Please tell me how book reviewers are able to take large portions of books and take excerpts. The large quotes are GOVERNMENT FILES--they are open to everyone! PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES--at least look at the definition of free use.

Where is the attribution for follow-up investigation by the Detroit Free Press uncovered other veterans throughout the country who testified to having taken ? --Duk 01:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Duk have you ever got in a fight with a security guard? I did once, over my bike on the metro. I told him that security guards are people who dont have enough motivation or intellegence to become real cops, lawyers, or politicans, those who weld real power.

I see a security guard mentality among many of you "volunteer police" here on wikipedia--you enjoy the power of deleting other peoples work (for the detrement of all)--it makes you feel powerful. (and no, I am not saying you are not motivated or intellegence--just that it seems you like to delete works of others)

All the tags for /commons.wikimedia.org

- for images created by the US Federal Government that are ineligible for copyright

Notice that commondreams.org doesn't feature law in its explanation of copyright: "We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc." The organization's purpose is their justification. The ends justify the means. The ends trumps fairness in that organization, but not in Wikipedia. (SEWilco 04:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC))

SEWilco that fair use policy is EXACTLY what you are LEGALLY supposed to do. That is what you are SUPPOSED to do here too. You obviously have not read anything I posted, including links about copyright here on wikipedia.

What exactly is your "ends" what are you trying to create by destroying, or supporting a policy of destruction--commondreams "ends" is the creation of works that for their leftist readers, what are your "ends", to curtail the use of information?

"The ends trumps fairness in that organization" HUH? Fairness? Fairness according to who? The ends is no harm to anyone--anyone--there has been no lawsuits to commondreams--none--zero--zip.

Your "ends" destroys knowledge, and it is a barrier to the free exchange of ideas.

Lets take the example of : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Khaled3.jpg

and here is the fair use policy of this picture, EXACTLY what you are LEGALLY supposed to do:

When it all comes down to it, people like yourself and duk destory and suppress knowledge--call it what you want---but that is the end result.

suggestion about quote conflict

Folks, before you delete, How about just add a link to wikiquote and add the info there?

I have done this a lot recently and it works very well.

This would solve the problem of people wanting to delete portions of long quotes:

{{quote}}

I will do this right now, to stop all of the reverting....Travb 20:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

More Copyvio tinkering from the anon

Found another one

Dr. Bert Pfeiffer of the University of Montana presented the first public testimony about the potential toxicity and health effects of the chemical Agent Orange.[5]

and from the article

Dr. Bert Pfeiffer of the University of Montana presented the first public testimony at WSI on the toxic effect of Agent Orange.

And another

New York Times explained that he found nothing newsworthy to report because "this stuff happens in all wars." There were a smattering of articles sympathetic to the veterans in the underground press; and Pacifica Radio, with major channels on both coasts, devoted to a pacifist, left-wing perspective on current events, gave them excellent coverage. The CBS television crew that showed up were themselves deeply impressed, but none of their footage made it to the nightly news. [6]

from the article

New York Times commented that he found nothing newsworthy to report because "this stuff happens in all wars." A few articles that were sympathetic to the veterans appeared in lesser-known publications, and Pacifica Radio, known for its left-wing perspective, gave the event considerable coverage. The CBS television crew that showed up were impressed, but only three minutes made it to the nightly news on the first night.

Whats truly interesting is that all this has been documented before [7]. So instead of rewriting and crediting the information, the anon has simply rearranged a few sentences and changed significant factual portions of the plagiarized work, i.e: but none of their footage made it to the nightly news as has been changed to only three minutes made it to the nightly news on the first night. I mean which one is it? The source that the material was clearly ripped off from states something completely different.

I will admit Rob, you are getting better at hiding your tracks, but not good enough I suppose. TDC 22:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

TDC instead of deleting those stubs you spend so much time "outing", why not simply add a footnote and credit them? Just a friendly suggestion :) Travb 22:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, that aint my job, secondly as I was made aware in another article citing a word for word rip-off is not a defense against plagiarism. And why should we cater to this anon user that will not cooperate with other contributors, continually breaks every rule with near 100% impunity (I know, know I should be one to talk) and when chastised just does it again? TDC 22:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

okay, i will do it. Thanks for brining it to my attention. Have a nice day. Travb 23:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware of the "fair use" rules: The fair use policy of the United States copyright law, and under Wikipedia fair use policy See also: What is "Fair Use" in Copyright Law?

The webpage commondreams.org publishes full articles from leftist groups and posts a fair use warining on their webpage:

FAIR USE NOTICE

<font="green">This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

<font="green">Although I have not taken copyright/intellectual property right law yet, I think this would definately qualify.

"Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia."--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others

Even if Anon cut and pasted portions of the article, Anon still probably could post it under the free use policy. I say "probably" because the law, like most laws, appears very ambigous and very broad, open to the interpretation of the courts. One of the first things I learned as a first year law student is NEVER tell your client it is a sure thing...because the laws are so broad and every situation is different....I will let you know next semester after I take the intellectual property class what is up.

Also here is a quote under Common misunderstandings of Fair Use in wikipedia,

First comment: Because of the deliberate ambiguity of fair use, it is commonly misunderstood. Here are some of the more common misunderstandings with explanations of why they are wrong:

• It's copyrighted, so it can't be fair use. If a work is not copyrighted it is in the public domain and you can use it anyway. Fair use describes conditions under which copyrighted material may be used without permission.

As often the case, the "fair use" four prong test was codified from the 1841 famous case:

[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy... In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.Travb 02:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

True intentions

First of all I believe that TDC may have personal vandetta against someone, TDC wrote: "I will admit Rob, you are getting better at hiding your tracks, but not good enough I suppose. "

Second: notice what TDC wrote: "So instead of rewriting and crediting the information" which assumes that crediting the information is one of two options--

when I ask TDC why doesn't he do it, he states that it "aint my job", so what do I do, I go ahead and do what TDC refuses to do (because his real intention is not scholastic integrity, it is to delete this article from wikipedia all together--see below) I go ahead and cite the article myself--

$1 million says TDC is not satisfied of this either because again....his real intention is not scholastic integrity, it is to delete this article from wikipedia all togetherTravb 08:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Another 3rr from the anon

Congratulations! You have once again demonstrated your inability control yourself with another 3RR. I would report you, but since all you would have to do to avoid it is log out and log back in, is there a point? TDC 22:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

TDC wants..."all the time there is"

Reporting anon

TDC, two sentences are not breaking Copyright. We all know this. You will be laughed at if you "reported this".

Maybe the Anon person doesnt want you to know who he is afraid you will be a "wikistalker" the term you coin(?) on your personal page.

I can see why Anon may be afraid--I read your jingoism earlier today and the very agressive way that you want to "officer friendly history" to fit your ideology, by erasing whole sections of posts.

I was afraid that you would do the same with me, and I reverted some of your massive changes today while being logged out an anonymous.

But the more I read about fair use policy, the more I think this tactic of reporting me for "copyright violations" will fail miserably if you attempt it on myself. So I am "coming out", so to speak...

A Disney version of history

The real thorn in your side is that you don't support the facts shared here, they contradict your ideology, America is that "beacon on the hill" as Reagan parroted from someone centuries before. I have looked over your user page, and also your changes, and I see you want only your "officer friendly history" to be espoused, and NO ONE ELSES. If someone elses version of history doesnt fit your own, you are not above erasing large sections of material to "sanitize" and white-wash history.

"Creationists don't want equal time,... they want all the time there is."--Isaac Asimov

Like Creationists who only want their own version of "why we are here" taught, and no one elses, your American jingoism is like a religion, those who don't believe as you do are heritics.

"the 1995 book Lies My Teacher Told Me, points out that high school American history textbooks give ”a Disney version of history”: heroic, egalitarian, jam-packed with progress, and almost entirely free of class conflict. Teaching such an “Officer Friendly” account of reality, the author concludes, is merely to “make school irrelevant to the major issues of the day.” The kids know bullshit when they see it."

"The disaffection of the Kansas conservatives with public education is almost precisely the opposite. They do not have a problem with the idea that schools should be designed to churn out low-wage workers; indeed, Kay O’Connor (A conservative Kansas state senator) told me that was a worthy goal. The Cons (conservative wing of the Republican party) are pissed off because they think the schools don’t provide enough Disney, enough Officer Friendly.""

You can never win against a jingoist

As I have argued against other jingosists, like a creationist, the real issue is that you only want your version of history to be taught.

These complaints that you have with sites you don't agree with is just a smoke screen, just like the intellegent design debate--were the creationist are attempting to get "all the time there is" but can't legal ban evolution in schools.

Similarly, you can't deleted this article (or delete portions of it as you have with other less monitored sites, so you have to come up with new tactics to slowly errode this wikipedia site. As I said, I have seen it before on other controversial sites.

If you had your way, like the creationists, only YOUR version of history would be taught.

You are trying to revise this article out of existence.

The VERY fine line when agressively promoting Disney history

In fact, many jingoists have been banned from wikipedia and severly repremanded for the same tactics that you have done, large scale reversions of text.

I argue that your widespread reverting and deleting, similar to the other jingoists (like Very) is more likely to get you booted and severely repremanded than two sentences which are protected under "free use" policy.Travb 00:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes to the main page--added wikiquote site

FYI, I spent a while tonight taking out many of the long quotes and adding links to a new wikiquote site http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation. Hope this steams the latest attack on this site, although I await many more POV attacks from jingoists...As I wrote above....This will not satisfy those who only want an "officer friendly version" of history taught.

I am shocked

I look on the copyright page and you are responsible for "reporting" hundreds of pages. Hundreds of pages of information on the internet that you simply destroy--and this is just for October. Fair Use policy is legal. That is reality--you have spent hundreds of hours destroying peoples work for nothing--obviously there is no way to comprimise--we have given you many examples of free use policy, but that obviously doesnt matter.

I actually tag very few copyvios. The hundreds of listings I've made on the copyright page are from an automated script that finds articles that people tagged but forgot to list on WP:CP. I tagged almost none of these. --Duk 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. I learned something new today Travb 21:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In a couple of weeks all the information on this google cache will disapper from the internet. Instead of attacking annon, you should praise him for preserving it in his own words....

Sorry, I'm not going to rationalize a copyright violation. --Duk 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

this anonymous person has spent hours on this site, and you have the arrogance to come along and pull the rug out from under him. I just dont get people like you, except that I think you like the power...

spent hours on this site violating other people's copyRIGHTS and wikipedia's rules. --Duk 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In addition, you are being used as a tool by TDC, who wants to suppress any mention of anything which is not "officer friendly history"--I was wrong, dead wrong to see you as a jinogist and for that I apologize--but I think I am dead right with TDC. Travb 07:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

and to think, none of this would have happened if people would just write with their own words. --Duk 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Repeat after me :it is perfectly legal to reformulate a work in your own words

Repeat after me: it is illegal to violate other people's copyRIGHTS

The original sentence was this:

==Repeat after me :it is perfectly legal to reformulate a work in your own words==

Please do not change my text again. There is probably some wiki rule on this.Travb 06:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia."--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others

I just read the entire article--both of them--and Anon's article is protected two ways:

First, fair use

Second, he rewrote the entire article.

then how come there was all this copied work, like follow-up investigation by the Detroit Free Press uncovered other veterans throughout the country who testified to having taken?--Duk 01:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is EXACTLY WHAT Anon has done. Quit being so god damn zealous, and instead of destroying peoples work, start creating your own. I am sorry I am starting to get beligerant towards you again, but I have ZERO respect for what you do here on wikipedia: destroy.Travb 07:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Just think, we wouldn't be having this conversation if people hadn't put copied work into this article. --Duk 01:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

charge number one

Here is the charges of the jingoist, TDC:

Original Google Cache article: claiming that an entire regiment of the Third Marines had penetrated several miles into that neutral nation

Modified wiki article: The veterans alleged an entire regiment of the Third Marines had penetrated several miles into neutral countries

charge number two

Modified wiki article: Follow-up investigations by the Detroit Free Press would uncover other veterans throughout the country who confirmed taking part in the operations.

Original Google Cache article: follow-up investigation by the Detroit Free Press uncovered other veterans throughout the country who testified to having taken part in the operation.

Charge number three

Modified wiki article: "The testimony was explosive because the Pentagon had issued a blanket denial only days before, declaring:

"We have never had ground troops in Laos."

Original Article (in a different paragraph):

"While the Pentagon was publicly issuing denials, declaring "We have never had ground troops in Laos," veterans were describing their excursions into this neutral country."

Charge number four

Modified wiki article:

Dr. Bert Pfeiffer of the University of Montana presented the first public testimony about the potential toxicity and health effects of the chemical Agent Orange.[5]

Original Article:

Dr. Bert Pfeiffer of the University of Montana presented the first public testimony at WSI on the toxic effect of Agent Orange.

Charge number five

Modified wiki article: New York Times explained that he found nothing newsworthy to report because "this stuff happens in all wars." There were a smattering of articles sympathetic to the veterans in the underground press; and Pacifica Radio, with major channels on both coasts, devoted to a pacifist, left-wing perspective on current events, gave them excellent coverage. The CBS television crew that showed up were themselves deeply impressed, but none of their footage made it to the nightly news.

Original Article: New York Times commented that he found nothing newsworthy to report because "this stuff happens in all wars." A few articles that were sympathetic to the veterans appeared in lesser-known publications, and Pacifica Radio, known for its left-wing perspective, gave the event considerable coverage. The CBS television crew that showed up were impressed, but only three minutes made it to the nightly news on the first night.

Repeat after me

TDC's allegations ignore large portions of the text in between these five sentences. Large portions of text which are the work of anon and countless others. So for five despersed sentences in a NINE PAGE ARTICLE--you are going to slap a label on the entire article. five sentence in a NINE PAGE ARTICLE

Gee, I guess copyright violations don't pay :) --Duk 01:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

REPEAT AFTER ME DUK:

REPEAT AFTER ME - Copyright violations don't pay :) they will eventually be deleted, every time!

"Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia."--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others

And from the plagarism wikipedia site:

It is sometimes humorously said that "copying from one source is plagiarism, copying from several sources is research". Of course, this is not literally true, because all good researchers do cite their sources.

So instead of being congratulated for his research, you overzealously slap a big copyright sign on his site.

And all we have to do to avoit this is to write with our own words, instead of stealing from others. :) --Duk 01:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know enough about wiki, nor have I done it long enough to know enough about arbitration etc, but if this continues, I will look into possible arbitration on this, and I will also start investigating your other "copyright charges".

I have no respect for what you do here on wiki. ZERO. Again, what you spend a good portion of time doing, is you destroy information that people try to create. There is nothing commendable in this. Sorry to speak my mind, but this is riduclous.Travb 09:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Clear conflict of interest, previous ban, and similar tactics

Maybe someone else should take care of these copyright violations, it is clear from TDCs talk page that Duk and TDC know each other, and appear to be friends.

I wrote above that TDC should be careful otherwise he will be banned, from the look of his talk page, looks like I am several months late.

I just noticed (sorry if I am late to this discussion) that TDC attempted the same copyright violation rubbish on Vietnam Veterans Against the War. in addition Duk attempted to put the same Copyvio on Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Nice tactic you two, if you dont agree with the content, just slap a big copyright violation on it. What BS.

I am going to look into how wikipedia works, and maybe have Duk reprimanded. (I have decided to stay) He is clearly abusing the copyright violation ability.

I have alerted the group on Vietnam Veterans Against the War about this.

TDC also just reported user:165.247.208.115 to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

Travb 09:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with quoting passages up to 300 words in length, if the purpose is scholarly or critical. This is an encyclopedia; its aim is scholarly. We are allowed to quote their material even against their will, provided we don't plagiarize it. A footnote with page and book, or even a web link should suffice.

By the way, I re-wrote the introduction. My aim was to clarify whose point of view the various ideas were. VVAW said this; veterans claimed that.

Just a little FYI... the VVAW ARE veterans. So your aim is to clarify different points of view between veterans? Or more simply, pro-war views versus anti-war views. I looked at your Intro Rewrite, and I see phrases like "...sought to portray the US intervention as irredeemably evil." Nice and inflammatory, but not accurate and certainly not encyclopedic. Phrases like, "Hundreds of Vietnam Veterans came to the microphone and..." which are grossly inaccurate -- there were only 109 veterans that gave testimony. 165.247.221.190 17:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What remains is to tell the other side of the story: opposition to the event. I recall that some partisans cast doubt on the truthfulness of the atrocity tales. A major argumnt of WSI critics goes like this: If these tales are true, why didn't they come forward earlier and confess their crimes or accuse their fellows while there were still in the service? This argument, of course, is a Wikipedia:POV. It should not be assumed to be true. On the other hand, it should not be ommitted from the article either, merely because several of our volunteer contributors disagree with this POV. Uncle Ed 14:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like to find a home for the text, "Some people questioned why these veterans didn't come forward earlier with their complaints." go right ahead, but I don't see that it adds to the article. I'm sure the reasons are numerous and unique for each of the veterans that stepped forward, as well as those that did not. In fact, if you read their testimonies (and yes, "testimony" is the appropriate word, and doesn't require a courtroom oath) you will see that many address that very question. In addition, literally thousands of reports were indeed filed through normal military channels, but I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why these vets felt a public forum was still necessary. 165.247.221.190 17:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of sourced text this article needs. Not "Some people questioned why these veterans didn't come forward earlier with their complaints." but more like Historian Gunter Lewy questioned why these veterans didn't come forward earlier with their complaints.", or "Vietnam Veteran and author B.G. Burkett questioned why these veterans didn't come forward earlier with their complaints." Information like that is sourced, well defined and presented in as NPOV a manner as is possible.

As for the term testimony, you are clearly wrong again, if testimony is defined by Wikipedia's own article on the subject. TDC 21:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Listen, my objections to content on this article has more to do with the fact that the way the anon edits it makes it sound like it is a VVAW press release, and considering his use of sources, that’s basically what it is. That and even after he had been caught, he just does the same thing over and over again. An article cannot be made when it is compromised almost entirely of copvy vio material and entire sections consist of nothing more than one long rambling quote. And for the record Travb, nothing you can do will get me banned or blocked, so take your threats and whining and cram it. TDC 14:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

TDC wrote: "That and even after he had been caught, he just does the same thing over and over again."

First of all, you are a hypocrite. You have been caught again and again with 3RR violations, you are beligerent to those who reprimand you, and you continue to do it.

But this is irrelevent, as we are discussing anon. Again, lets focus on the definition of fair use, and what the moderator said below:

"Alrihgt, here is my last plea. Do not remove content just because it appears to be mostly comment. Rather, use your brain, read it thouroughly and edit it. There's a reason why it's called edit this page. Just because one sentence in a paragraph is copied, don't delete the whole thing. Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly states "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed". The only case where you should remove ALL content is if the entire thing is a clear and cut copyright violation. Also, if you take an idea and rewrite it (i.e. put some creative effort into it) then it is no longer a CP. The next time you observe a CP, do not just delete it right away. Read it and see if there's a better way to summarise it and then fix it. Deleting it is a last resort. I'm pretty sure the policy on this is very clear. Remember: don't just go around deleting stuff. That's counter-productive to what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish in the long run (i.e. store as much encyclopedic information as possible)."

Lets emphasize what Sasquatch wrote:

Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly states "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed". The only case where you should remove ALL content is if the entire thing is a clear and cut copyright violation. Also, if you take an idea and rewrite it (i.e. put some creative effort into it) then it is no longer a CP. The next time you observe a CP, do not just delete it right away

This is EXACTLY what I have said, repeatedly to you are your buddy Duk (and above), despite this, you ignored me, and slapped a copyright infringement on the entire 9 page article.

AGAIN: 5 sentences in the ENTIRE Article and you erase 9 PAGES of text.

TDC wrote: "And for the record Travb, nothing you can do will get me banned or blocked, so take your threats and whining and cram it. "

Time will tell, won't it, you have been banned and blocked several times before, what stops me from pushing to ban you too? I am already discussing whether I can get you blocked with Sasquatch--Travb 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what this is all about, but 3 out of 4 of the remaining paragraphs after my massive cut just now, were written afresh by me personally. So at the moment, I think we can all agree that there is no copyright violation per se. Uncle Ed 16:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the opening paragraphs were at issue as far as copyvio allegations. As for TDC's "objections to content on this article," don't be fooled. He simply objects, and waving a copyvio flag is just another tool (besides huge deletions, revert wars, personal attacks, etc.) he uses to try to attack content of which he disapproves. 165.247.221.190 17:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Another tool? Do you really have the nerve to suggest that the material you have been adding to this article for the past year is not an exact word for word match to material taken from Al Aronowitz's article? [8]

AGAIN: 5 sentences in the ENTIRE Article and you erase 9 PAGES of text. Those who disagree with you are "tools". Which happens to be a lot of wikiposters and administrators who have blocked you before. Get a life--Travb 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Since when...

Since when do we allow whole sections af articles to be nothing more than single quotes from single sources? Removed. TDC 16:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

We have entire articles which are (or were, in many cases) nothing more than a quote from the article by that name in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica. Deleing long quotes is vandalism. Don't do it. Rewriting them is common here at wikipedia but nowhere in the policies is it mandated. That said, the best solution to this specific article's current difficulties might just be to use the Ed Poor rewrite and add to it one piece at a time with each piece properly referenced and given time for editing and debated before the next piece is attenpted to be readded. You don't have to make wikipedia perfect by tomorrow. Most important, be nice to each other guys! WAS 4.250 05:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Fresh start

Sasquatch, you may have missed the other guy's point. But that's not your fault: his explanation is on my user talk page. Let's move it here, when we get a chance.

I have supplied a perfectly legal version of the article, having written 75% of it right out of my own head: 3 of the 4 paragraphs of the current "mini-version". So that nips the copy-vio thing in the bud right there.

I'd like to ask each of us to write down their plans for future development of the article, with special attention to 2 points.

1. How do you plan to deal with the controversial aspects, so the article can adhere to the NPOV?
2. How do you plan to deal with copyright issues?

I'll go first: (1) I plan to inclued the Wikipedia:POV of both sides - not just my own anti-Communist side. (2) I haven't included any copyrighted text, but if I do I will cite its source: indented and with a web link (or page number and book title). Uncle Ed 16:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Is copyvio the real issue here?

I would like to determine whether copyvio is really an issue, or is just being used by one or more parties as a smokescreen for their real issue.

So I am going to revert to my "short version" one more time. And then I am not going to add anything more to the article until this copyvio thing gets resolved.

If anyone wants to add a quotation from a copyrighted source, please post it on the talk page first. Do not revert to a previous version without discussing it first. We've got to have clarity on this.

If anyone refuses to abide by "being clear about copyright violations", then they can't edit the article.

Either:

1. There are real copyvios - in which case we can't allow them.
2. Someone sincere thinks there are copyvios, but is mistaken - in which case the insertions are okay.
3. Someone knows these are not copyvios, but is using this issue illegtimately - in which case they are disrupting Wikipedia and I will block them or get the arbcom to intervene.

Get ready for clarity! Uncle Ed 19:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken the extraordinary step of protecting "my" version - which is usually considered wrong. If anyone feels that I have done this for the purpose of advancing my POV about WSI, then I will immediately unlock the article. I believe that I am innocent of any ulterior motives here; I conceded only that I might be (1) sloppy with details or (2) unaware of how unbalanced the article may look to others.

I suggest that we consider this a "core version" and discuss all changes here on the talk page while it remains locked.

If there is anything in this core version which is inaccurate or biased, tell me, and I or another Administrator will take it out. We'll keep taking out bias and error, even if that leaves us only with:

• "The WSI took place."

...because we have to start somewhere. --Uncle Ed 19:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, let me be as clear as I can about this: as has been documented before there are/were real copyvio issues in the article [9]. If you go to the link I think that case is more than clear and undeniable. The material in the article and the material on the page is an exact match, there is no denying that, and there is a very clear copyright protection notice on the page the material was taken from. Simply changing a few words does not, in my experience and understanding, does not clear up the issue, especially when taking into account that the source is not cited anywhere in the article. This leads to another point, the content. If material of questionable copyvio status is taken, and this material is clearly biased towards a VVAW POV, what good is it?

What we have is an article that consists primarily of cut and paste sources from the VVAW website, an author who is decidedly sympathetic to the VVAW and direct quotes from VVAW members. How in God's name could an article whose content is based almost solely from these three sources comply with NPOV?

Consider this as well, in an attempt to comply with Wiki's copyvio standards, instead of rewriting and crediting the information, the anon has simply rearranged a few sentences and changed significant factual portions of the plagiarized work, i.e: but none of their footage made it to the nightly news as has been changed to only three minutes made it to the nightly news on the first night. The source that the material was taken from states something completely different. How can this be? This is one perfect example of something that is factually wrong, and the anon who added it knew it was factually wrong, but decided to put it in anyway so he could skirt the copyvio issue.

What the real issue here is an editor who refuses to cooperate with others, yourself included Ed, to either make a balanced NOPV article or clear up his own transgression with respect to copyvio issues. But please ask others to review the material, as well as all the past incidents that SEWilco and I have brought forth and then who decide who the intransient party is here. TDC 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

copyvio is NOT the real issue here: Argument in favor of anon

Ed please keep this in mind as you evaluate the situation:

TDC recently reported anon to for a 3RR violation, when TDC began this revert war.

Comments in defense of 165.247.208.115

I stumbled on the article two days ago. I have followed this argument since then at Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I hope that I am doing this right posting here.

TDC history of 3RR violations

• With all due respect, TDC has a history of aggressively reverting back articles. He has been kicked off from posting several times in the past two months for 3RR's (check his Talk page)--at least four times, for stretches as long as 48 hours...

TDC BEGAN this revert war by erasing large portions of the text

• 19:34, 20 October 2005

TDC and Duk revert wars

When Both TDC, 172, and Duk erased large portions of the quotes in the Winter Soldier Investigation article, by reverting to TDC's cuts, 165.247.208.115 would simply try to revert back to the original BEFORE TDC came.

--To try and solve this contention about too long of quotes, I changed the article extensively myself to try to accomadate them--adding a wikiquote page. Everyone seemed to be happy about it,165.247.208.115 (talk · contribs) agreed

This, of course, did not appease Duk and TDC. They then went on to plan B: Copyright Violation Attacks, a tactic they used recently on the VVAW wikisite.

Copyright Violation Attacks

TDC and Duk are attempting to try the same tactic on [Winter Soldier Investigation] that they did on Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

22 October 2005

They nitpick the article and find a couple of sentences which is copied from a copyrighted source, then they slap a copyright violation templated on it, erasing all the content. They did the same thing just a couple of days ago on VVAW.

Large portion of text deleted

TDC has deleted large portions of articles on a regular basis:

• Talk page: Deletions by user TDC
• The intellectual and artistic section about Che Guevara
• Fidel Castro

Conclusion

165.247.208.115 (talk · contribs) has simply been fighting TDC's aggressive revisions and dirty tricks.

TDC and Duk have contributed nothing to the article except contention and bad feelings.

If anyone should be punished, it should be TDC, for deleting large portions of text wihtout any notice--his several 48 hour bans in the past couple of months has not changed his behavior. Travb 10:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

See also

comments about TDC from 165.247.208.115 (talk · contribs)

newest information

TDC just put another copyright violation on one of my pages today, in retribution for my comments here. I will edit the article.

Ed you are absolutly correct, this is NOT about copyright violations, this is about an aggressive ideologue destroying information which does not fit his pet ideology. The record is clear: He has been repremanded many, many times about this.

Oh please, this is not about retribution. I was curious as to why you would come to the defense of an individual who is so obviously trying to squeeze in copyvio material, when I began digging into your articles. Sure enough, birds of a feather and what'n. I reported the anon for 3RR, because guess what, he reverted the article 4 times in a 24 hour period. TDC 00:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Un-lock

I don't think I have the authority to settle this dispute. So I unlocked the page again. But I still am going to try to figure out if "copyvio" is being "used" - in a mistaken but sincere way, or as a deliberate but illegitimate tactic.

I have yet to see one single example given of an alleged copyvio. I've read dozens of assertions that copyvios are there - but nothing specific. Uncle Ed 20:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing content versus fixing content

Alrihgt, here is my last plea. Do not remove content just because it appears to be mostly comment. Rather, use your brain, read it thouroughly and edit it. There's a reason why it's called edit this page. Just because one sentence in a paragraph is copied, don't delete the whole thing. Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly states "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed". The only case where you should remove ALL content is if the entire thing is a clear and cut copyright violation. Also, if you take an idea and rewrite it (i.e. put some creative effort into it) then it is no longer a CP. The next time you observe a CP, do not just delete it right away. Read it and see if there's a better way to summarise it and then fix it. Deleting it is a last resort. I'm pretty sure the policy on this is very clear. Remember: don't just go around deleting stuff. That's counter-productive to what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish in the long run (i.e. store as much encyclopedic information as possible). Sasquatcht|c 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sasquatch, wikipedia's policy for dealing with copyright violations is to revert to the pre-copyvio version. See WP:CP. Doing this not only removes the copied text but also any derivative work, which is also a copyright violation. --Duk 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Also, the anon IP has violated 3RR, therefore, he should not edit this page for another 24 hours. Now since it a dynamic IP, there's not too much we can do to enforce it but if I see any more revert from him I'll start blocking IPs. Sasquatcht|c 21:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there not a way to block anon's, and only an anon, from editing an article? TDC 21:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

how about TDC's violation of reverting text? Do I need to post a 3RR to have that resolved? He has a long history of being reprimanded for 3RR's, and lest we forget, TDC started this revert war, not the anon.

Its not a violation to revert text, especially when its copyvio. And, yes, sadly I have had many 3RR reprimands, but not too many as of late. I have learned my lesson. TDC 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have not found any evidence that he has in the page history. And I honestly don't care about his past unless he's Willy on Wheels or something. Sasquatcht|c 00:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

TDC's Prior Consistent Conduct

TDC wrote: Its not a violation to revert text, especially when its copyvio. And, yes, sadly I have had many 3RR reprimands, but not too many as of late. I have learned my lesson. TDC 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The text you deleted, which began this war, was quoted from the text of the US government record.

‘’’QUESTION for TDC’’’: Can we agree that US government text is protected by copyright?

Yes or no please.

Sasquatch wrote: I have not found any evidence that he has in the page history. And I honestly don't care about his past unless he's Willy on Wheels or something. Sasquatcht|c 00:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

TDC’s history with other wikiposters establishes his state of mind, intentions, and motives. I would like to establish that TDC is really not interested in copyright, that this is a smokescreen. Instead, what he is interested in deleting information which is contrary to what he believes.

I argue that TDC contributes little to build wikipedia. Almost everyone of his contributions the past few months —mostly subtle changes to text to fit his own POV have been accompanied by IMMENSE amounts of deletions. I estimate the ratio of deletions to contributions for TDC is at least 10 to 1. 10 words deleted for ever one word added.

Ask yourself: What has TDC contributed to this wikisite Winter Soldier Investigation? TDC contributions to this wikisite is even less than his 10 to 1 average.

20 deleted words for ever one word contributed?

50 deleted words for ever one word contributed?

I estimate the ratio of deletions to contributions on this wiksite for TDC is 100 to 1. 100 words deleted for ever one word added.

Ask yourself, based on his REPEATED actions on this wikisite and others:

• Is TDC attempting to build up wikipedia or is TDC trying to tear down portions of wikipedia?

• Is his actions in harmony or grievously opposed to the intention and spirit of wikipedia?

Lest we forget, before TDC started his latest revert war here, I was attempting to accommodate both sides. I moved large portions of this text to wikiquote, TDC’s first complaint, and began to add footnotes to those controversial sites.

This was after I asked TDC to add these footnotes. What was his response? He was belligerent, as he has been belligerent to so many other people in the past—he refused to do change the text, he argued instead to delete the text—not just those five sentences, but the entire article. That was his desire all along.

So I added these footnotes myself. What was TDC’s response? He recruited Duk, as he had recruited him before on the Vietnam Veterans Against the War site, and Duk blocked ALL 9 pages of text for 5 sentences.

• 5 sentences, I want you to remember, which were not even verbatim from the original.

• 5 sentences I had started to footnote to accommodate TDC’s demands.

As mentioned above, fair use has existed nearly as long as copyright law has existed.

In this long, long talk page, TDC and Duk have never said the word “fair use”. TDC and Duk ignore this phrase because the concept of “fair use” destroys their latest weapon. Added to TDC’s arsenal of erasing large amounts of text and reverting documents is his newest bludgeon:

The threat of copyright violation, a threat that he has used this week at Vietnam Veterans Against the War and again today on my new site Hughes-Ryan Act, ignoring both moderators, Ed’s and Sasquatch’s words on this talk page today.

Judicial precedent and legislative history of Copyright was never intended to be used the way TDC and Duk use it: as a weapon to suppress views which contradict their own. In fact the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court have consistently ruled that tactics like TDC and Duk are a violation of free speech.

Regardless of what you think, just let it go. And I still remain a contientious objector to deleting entire articles because of one paragraph. Next time, just delete the paragraph. Sasquatcht|c 09:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

I believe that a verbatim quotation which is not excessive in length can be used for critical or scholarly purposes. I intend to insert plenty of quotations into this article, all properly sourced, footnoted, cited, or linked as the case may be.

John Kerry said this. Whosie said that. What's his face even claimed PDQ, and did you hear what Joe Blow said? Right: all that. And that's not a copyright violation.

We can also summarize someone's argments in our own words, if we're good enough writers. (For those of us who can't figure out how do this in a certain case, then "fall back" to a "previously prepared position", to use a military phrase: i.e., use a verbatim quote and source it!

I'll give it a few more days to sort itself out, but if I still don't see any specific example of a copyvio, I'm going to assume that one (or more!) contributors are using "copyvio" as an excuse to gain some sort of POV advantage. Which is an open and shut case of "disrupting Wikipedia", and I will ask them to stop doing this. Uncle Ed

Mock dialog:

Ah, but what if they don't listen to you, Uncle Ed? You're not so sane or authoritative as you like to think: you even talk to yourself! Uncle Ed

That's true, but if they won't listen to me I'll get help. Uncle Ed

Oooh, I'm scared! Uncle Ed

Oh, quit the sarcasm. Uncle Ed

Oh, yeah, who's the schizo? Nyah, nyaah! Uncle Ed

Anyway, psychodrama aside, let's try to work together on this. The goal is to produced an accurate and unbiased article which doesn't violate the copyright laws and which presents a balanced and fair summary of each major point of view.

The two main POVs I've seen so far are:

1. The VVAW, WSI, John Kerry et al., were all absolutely right (or close enough): the US shouldn't have been in Vietnam, and the atrocities are proof of this. We exposed them and put them on trial, and we're proud to say we ultimately made the do the right thing and get the hell out of there.
2. The above were no more than half right, and their aims were perverted. They made things worse in Vietnam by forcing a US pull-out, leading to 500,000 to 1,000,000 civilian post-war deaths (see boat people), tyranny, oppression and misery.

Since around 75% of Americans believe in point #1, I have no objection to the article devoting 75% of its space to that POV. But even if 90% to 95% of Wikipedians entertain this POV, that doesn't justify making 90% to 95% of the article about that. The other side - even if it's a minority amoung contributors - should still get sufficient coverage to make a balanced article. Uncle Ed 00:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I am not pushing a POV with my objection to the “alleged” copyvio material, and I wish you would stop implying that I am. For the last time, this is a cut and paste from an unattributed source. I am not talking about “quotes” from those involved in the WSI, but of content in the article taken from another source. At least have the courtesy to acknowledge that the anon has continually done this. Have a good weekend. TDC 00:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

TDC, Sorry about attributing you to the conversation above, I looked back, and I guess Ed was having a conversation with himself--which confused me---a kind of mock dialogue...Sorry about that.Travb 21:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=prev&oldid=26231171

Ed see my message above: Comments_in_defense_of_165.247.208.115 based on his history, this is exactly what TDC is doing.01:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Just one final note, we should all remember that the purpose of a Wiki is that anyone can fix it. If you think something is done wrong, fix it, don't just delete it. Heck, if everyone started deleing text that had spelling mistakes, there'd be nothing left of the wiki by now. If you really really have a problem with the text, rehashing it doesn't take that long at all. And once you put some creative effort into it, copyright doesn't apply (unless there is some sort of weird intellectual property rights issue involved). Anyways, bottom line, deleting content in general is bad, taking the time to fix it is good. I'll shut up now. Sasquatcht|c 04:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Article submitted for mediation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediationTravb 06:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rehashed

I completely rehashed the problems that I am aware of. Point out any more and I will be glad to fix them. Sasquatcht|c 06:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Credibility of atrocity accounts

Cut from article:

The organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation took several steps to guarantee the validity of the participants.

Each veteran's authenticity was checked before the hearings by the investigation event organizers.

Phrases like guarantee the validity and authenticity was checked imply that (1) the organizers are to be completely trusted and relied upon and (2) that they succeeded in proving that the veterans who gave testimony were all telling the truth. That's way too much for Wikipedia to vouch for.

It is the POV of WSI and its supporters that the veterans were telling the truth. Not everyone agrees with this. So Wikipedia shouldn't endorse this POV. Uncle Ed 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing about Laos

Cut from article:

The U.S. invasion of Laos in February, 1969, code-named Operation Dewey Canyon I, also added to the controversy as the Pentagon denied that any American troops had crossed the Laosian border and carried out military operations. Almost immediately, five veterans from the Third Marines who had returned from the war refuted the claims of the Pentagon.

The phrase "added to the controversy" puzzles me. What controversy? So far in the article, unless I'm skimming it too quickly, I haven't seen anything controversial - not if we define "controversy" as a dispute over different accounts or evaluations.

Was this supposed to mean "adding one more piece of evidence that the US was bad and had been covering up all its bad activities"?

I was going to copy-edit this, but I was afraid I might change the meaning. Please, whoever wrote this (or anyone who knows what it means), fix it and then put it back. It looks important. Uncle Ed 22:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Errr.. go ahead and change it but I think the controversy is more clearly explained later in that paragraph when it goes through how it's a violation of international law and the whatever accord thing.. anyways, I'm indifferent on the wording. Do what you will. Sasquatcht|c 06:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Notes on recent edits

• The intro accurately stated 109 vets gave their testimonies. That was changed to "hundreds of veterans," so I changed it back. Then it was changed from 109 to "dozens of veterans," so I changed it. I expect next it will be changed to some randomly generated number, and I will change it back again. It's 109 vets - it's in the congressional record - it's on film - easy enough to count.

• The event was not a "public relations" event. Public relations is defined as generating goodwill. Not only did this event NOT generate goodwill, but the organizers knew full well that such an event would likely generate considerable animosity. I'm removing that misleading phrase.

• "controversy over" because "verification" implies that their credibility WAS verified Yes indeed it does, and your point...? Replaced. Note: We're talking about two different things being checked, by the way. The credentials of the participants (Were they indeed Vietnam Vets?) and the credibility of the testimony they gave. The veteran status of the participants was indeed verified by multiple sources. Obviously some of the testimony would not be corroborated until later, if at all, due to the fact the vets refrained from naming specific individuals at this event. 165.247.219.193 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• "In the words of" implies that these are true words No, it does not. It implies that he truly did say that. And yes, it's true -- he did say exactly that. 165.247.202.136 00:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the event

Cut (again?) from intro:

An anti-war event, testimony was topically-structured by group panels.

Can you explain what these phrases mean? They look like English, but I don't understand them:

• topically-structured
• group panels

I do, however, feel I understand "opposition to the Vietnam War". It usually means oppostion to America's part in the war - as opposed to North Vietnam's part - or the Viet Cong's part. I don't recall too many demonstrations in the 1960s protesting their involvement in the war or calling on them to withdraw from, say, South Vietnam.

In another article we can (or do) make clear that opposition to "the war" refers to America's involvement in it (sorry, did I just say that twice?).

Anyway can you explain what "topically-structured by group panels" means? Uncle Ed 00:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Points of View

(Clipped from a conversation above...)

The two main POVs I've seen so far are:

1. The VVAW, WSI, John Kerry et al., were all absolutely right (or close enough): the US shouldn't have been in Vietnam, and the atrocities are proof of this. We exposed them and put them on trial, and we're proud to say we ultimately made the do the right thing and get the hell out of there.
2. The above were no more than half right, and their aims were perverted. They made things worse in Vietnam by forcing a US pull-out, leading to 500,000 to 1,000,000 civilian post-war deaths (see boat people), tyranny, oppression and misery.

Since around 75% of Americans believe in point #1, I have no objection to the article devoting 75% of its space to that POV. But even if 90% to 95% of Wikipedians entertain this POV, that doesn't justify making 90% to 95% of the article about that. The other side - even if it's a minority amoung contributors - should still get sufficient coverage to make a balanced article. Uncle Ed 00:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a couple questions after reading the above. When you say 2 POVs, ...points of view about the war? Or our involvement in it? Or POV about war crimes? There is an article about Kerry, and another about the VVAW, and yet another about the Vietnam War. This article is about a 3 day event... an event attended by people holding quite varied points of view. Among them were vets that weren't part of VVAW. Among them were vets that supported the war, and several of them even re-enlisted. I'm sure some also held more radical, fringe element POVs as well (I hear they were quite trendy in that era). Anyway, as for whether or not we should have been in Vietnam, that sounds like a POV that should be examined in the Vietnam War article. Stating that atrocities are proof that we shouldn't have been in Vietnam sounds a little paralogical.

One assertion above is ridiculous: "They made things worse in Vietnam by forcing a US pull-out, leading to 500,000 to 1,000,000 civilian post-war deaths..." Heh. That might ring true of the combined efforts of the Media + Several hundred thousand Anti-war people + sensational events such as My Lai, Pentagon Papers, Kent State killings, etc. But as for the Winter Soldier Investigation about which we are writing, they got a write-up on page 8 of a local newspaper, and hardly much more. Even the organizers considered it a failure. 165.247.202.136 01:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was being clear that I meant POVs about the WSI event. If attendees were "people holding quite varied points of view", then perhaps my division into 2 opposing views is too simplistic. Can you jot down here a few of the other POVs which people held? Uncle Ed 16:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

POV Issues with statements from VVAW website

As noted in VVAW records, each veteran's authenticity and testimony were checked after the hearings by Nixon's "plumbers." Charles Colson was assigned the task. In a CONFIDENTIAL "Plan to Counteract Viet Nam Veterans Against the War", Colson wrote, "The men that participated in the pseudo-atrocity hearings in Detroit will be checked to ascertain if they are genuine combat veterans." At one point, the Nixon team suggested in a memo about VVAW, "Several of their regional coordinators are former Kennedy supporters." With the exception of revealing that non-participant Al Hubbard had lied about his rank (Staff Sergeant E-5 instead of Captain), nothing worse was ever produced by these investigations.

This is taken right from the VVAW's website [10], and as such, its verbatim inclusion in this article is heavily POV.

Please explain how the source of a factual paragraph makes it's inclusion POV.

Also, the continual referral to the term testimony has legal implications, and as this was not a trial, as such, the term is inaccurate and has been removed. TDC 03:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "testimony" also has non-legal definitions, and as such is perfectly acceptable. The testimony is also referred to as "testimony" in Congressional record, newspaper articles, and even in the book by Lewy to which you refer below. It has been reinstated. 165.247.204.9 08:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

More questionable material

From the article:

Winter Soldier: Prompted by revelations from numerous investigations into war crimes, such as the Russell Tribunal, National Veterans Inquiry and Citizens Commissions of Inquiry, leaders of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War saw the need for a large scale public hearing. With the murder trials for the My Lai Massacre making front page news, and the recent disclosure by members of the CIA's Phoenix Program of its record of terror, torture and murder, the VVAW was determined to expose a broad pattern of war crimes in Vietnam. The Winter Soldier Investigation (WSI) was organized to show that criminal incidents like My Lai were not isolated and rare occurrences, but were instead the frequent and predictable result of official American war policy.

[11]

It is cut and paste, but I just cant wait to hear how this is neither a copyvio or plagarism.TDC 04:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC) TDC 04:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is cut and paste. No, it is neither a copyvio or "plagarism" (sic) because it was released here under the GFDL, and as such may be freely copied by the site you linked, or any other site.. I hope your wait wasn't too long. :) 165.247.204.9 08:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a bit Ironic too:

It was released under GFDL? Intresting, it does not say that anywhere. And bu the way, if you look in the bottom left hand part of the page [[12]] you will see the following ©2003 University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Menus by Milonic

You should look more closely. It says: All text is available under the terms of the GNU at the bottom of the article page, just as it does on all Wikipedia pages. That UofH site may freely use text from this article without being in violation. But if you want to press copyright charges against them, you just go right ahead - good luck.

The U of Hawaii site states ©2003 University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Menus by Milonic predates by over one year your cut-n-paste of it into this article. You should look more closely at what I write before sticking your foot in your mouth again.TDC 19:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not my "cut-n-paste," it's yours. Furthermore, the UofH site also has a 2003 Copyright stamp on EVERY page of its website, even pages just recently created like this one. The Wiki-article content about the WSI pre-dates the cut & paste job the UofH did in Feb. 2005 for their calendar. Yes, UofH copied that text from Wikipedia. If this is too complicated for you, give a ring to Rebecca at the number provided on that website and have her explain it to you. Oh oh oh... did I just miss my mouth and hit you in the arse again instead? 165.247.214.182 06:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The material from the UofH site was created at least sometime before February 16 of 2005 (all you have to do is look at the date of the presentation), and appeared in this article in March of 2005. Therefore, I fail to see how you can make such a boldfaced lie as to say that they copied from Wikipedia. Not to get into a detail about temporal physice, but March of 2005 comes after February of 2005. And by the way I have email the contact on the site to find out even more details. So ………. plagiarist says what? (go ahead, you can say “what”) TDC 17:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"The material ... appeared in this article in March of 2005"

Yes, it did. It also appeared in the article in Feb and Jan of 2005. Go figure.

"Therefore, I fail to see..."

As usual. Perhaps your email correspondence will clear it up for you. 165.247.202.47 21:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It would appear you scared them into withdrawing their copied text from their website. Pity.

To prevent the Detroit hearing from being tainted by such irregularities, all of the veterans testifying fully identified the units in which they had served and provided geographical descriptions of where the alleged atrocities had taken place.

Guenter Lewy wrote this in America in Vietnam, pg 317. That’s most definitely has a copywrite protection. TDC 04:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I just read pg. 317 from top to bottom. That sentence is not on it. Nor is there a sentence remotely similar on that page. If it was, the use of a single factual sentence from a large non-fiction book about the Vietnam war would hardly qualify as a copyright violation. Regardless, Sasquatch has made the issue moot.

Its actually pg 316. TDC 17:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

165.247.204.9 08:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh.. My.. god... go fix it... you're really good at complaining about problems, I get it. But please do try to fix some of the problems... I mean.. that's all I ask of you.. really.. that's it. Thanks. Sasquatcht|c 06:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Claims that the article plagiarizes other sources

I hesitate to use the term copyvio because it's been thrown around a lot, and it entails something dreadful. Let's retreat to safer ground and talk about plagiarism. As the Sorting Hat said, "I know just what to do with [it]." (Note the irony of the deliberately mangled quote ;-)

When one discovers plagiarism in a Wikipedia article, the thing that comes to find is {{sofixit}} - that is, insert a reference to the source of the material; put quotation marks around it; block indent it; add a web link, a footnote, a "see also"; etc. - one or more of these will do the trick.

I don't have the same copy of the book which TDC and 165 say they have. If it's the same edition, then one of them is blind or lying. No matter: whoever asserts that they've read that quote on that page should put that reference in this article. Period. Uncle Ed 13:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We know that this text has been previously published, see [13]. Since it's been previously published elsewhere we have to assume it's copyrighted, unless there is evidence to the contrary. We don't need to know the text's origin to remove it on copyvio grounds, only that it has been previously published and there is no evidence that it is PD or GFDL, etc.

However, we _do_ need to know the origin and properly attribute it for fair-usage (wikipedia requires attribution for fair use). This text should not be in the article until attributed. And the article should be reverted to the pre-copyvio version, per instructions on WP:CP, not necessarily because of one copied sentence, but because of the copied paragraphs, sentences and fragments masquerading as wikipedian's GFDL contributions, which have been identified since the last revert. And the long history this page has of plagiarism and copyright violation.

A large portion of this article was a copy/past copyright violation for almost a year, then for a few months longer as a derivative work before finally being resolved. Copied text is again sneaking its way into the article. Unless we deal with this properly it's going to be one big copyvio mess for the foreseeable future. Sorry Ed, I don't see any easy answeres here. --Duk 14:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay. I'm not looking for easy answers. Let's just create some inter-contributor harmony around here, first. When we put our heads together, we'll come up with something. Uncle Ed 14:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, there is also the issue that the quote from Lewy’s book is being severely taken out of context. If you read the following few pages after the quote, Lewy rips into the credibility, motivations, and the veracity of the hearing. Its dishonest to use the source like this. TDC 17:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Charges that racism motivated US policy and actions in Vietnam

Donald P. Williams said:

"We, the black veterans of the Vietnam war, are expressing our experience with racism in Vietnam. We intend to show by our testimony that the war in Vietnam is nothing more than an extension of the racist policies as practiced here in the United States. Racism is the motivating factor in determining America's genocidal policy against non-whites. The overwhelming majority of people killed or maimed in Vietnam are non-whites, whether they are Vietnamese, Viet Cong, or American blacks. Whites' statistics say that blacks constitute only ten percent of the total population in the United States, yet they represent at least forty percent of the fighting forces in Vietnam, and, in many cases, due to racism, blacks are the overwhelming majority in the combat areas. The statement you will hear this afternoon reflects the reality of American society's attitudes towards non-whites. This attitude emanates from years and years of oppression based on the refusal of American people to eliminate racism." [14]

Simply outrageous. Sounds like just another black that didn't realize racism was eliminated from America back in Lincoln's day. Everyone knows during 1963-70 (the time covered by the testimony), racism was practically non-existant, both here and abroad. Just ask Charlie! Do you really think thousands of the little gooks would risk their lives to come to America if we were as bad as Mr. Willians paints us? And to insinuate that minorities made up a disproportionate share of the combat segment of the military is ludicrous and can be absolutely refuted if you just find the right year ranges, branches of military and other statistics to juggle. Sounds like a crackhead with an agenda to me. 165.247.212.112 02:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Before I place this in the article, can we all agree on whether this is fair use and not a copyvio?

If properly attributed, sure. 165.247.212.112 02:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Then, where should it go? And how will this affect the intro?

It shouldn't be in the intro, but can certainly go into the body of the article. A warning, though ... editors to this article have been down this road before. By the time they were done, we had nearly 3 cumbersome pages of verbatim testimony from many of the participants quoted in the article. TDC eventually clipped them from the article - one of those rare times when I found myself in agreement with his edits. 165.247.212.112 02:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the WSI was put on, to achieve a goal - or at least to make a point. And I guess the point is that:

1. America had a bad reason to be in Vietnam.
2. No one should do anything for a bad reason.
3. Therefore, America should not be in Vietnam.

Does this even come close to describing the mindset of the organizers or participants? Uncle Ed 14:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, no. 165.247.212.112 02:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Charges that US policy authorized or encouraged war crimes

An anonymous blogger (Denim) wrote:

The most damaging statement that John Kerry made, and the one that caused the most pain and suffering for POWs and all veterans, wasn't his "crimes" list, which were supposedly confessions of soldiers that were part of the VVAW, but his contention that the "war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, (were) not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

This was not only an unsubstantiable claim, but one that later became the verbatim template for Vietcong "confession statements" that were forced upon POWs and were the instrument of "justifiable torture" as far as the VC were concerned.

That's why John Kerry's picture has a prominent place in the Vietnam War Museum, where those who helped the Vietcong win the war are honored. [15]

I hardly think a blog should be a source for the article, but this gives us something to go on. Perhaps a more prominent or "up front" source has said something similiar. I think the quote above should not go in the article; it's just food for thought. Uncle Ed 14:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Be careful of falling for strawman traps, Ed, such as the one above. Denim brings up the sensational "crimes list" (chopping off ears, rape, etc.) and then jumps to the totally different topic of the crimes that were committed on a daily basis (free-fire-zones, interdiction fire, indiscriminate bombing, relocating civilians, racism within the military ranks, as well as directed at the Vietnamese, etc.), which were indeed daily occurances. While obviously not "official" policy, many in the military felt these had become "unwritten policy," and practically routine. Also, Ed, be wary of outright fallacies and myth, such as Denim's assertion that Kerry's words were used to justify torture (95% of all torture of Americans by the Vietnamese had ceased by 1971, and there are no credible accounts linking Kerry's words with torture). Or the myth that Kerry's picture hangs where "those who helped the Vietcong win the war..," instead of hanging with pictures of other statesmen and politicians that helped to normalize relations with Vietnam decades later. The truth is easily twisted by those seeking to smear an individual. (And note: the Vietcong didn't win the war.) 165.247.212.112 20:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's take these one at a time. First, in what way was a free-fire zone a "crime"? I just spent several minutes cleaning up that article, so you might want to compare the intro (which I just now inserted) with the "some people think" section (which was already there).

Even after your cleanup, it appears that link still expresses the basic notion that indescriminate killing of civilians is criminal, at least by the standards of International Law (if not the Geneva Conventions). But I wasn't at the WSI, nor was I in Vietnam during the war, so I won't presume to put words into the "accusers" mouths. Their testimony should answer your question better than I could. So which part of the testimony, and by whom, involving FFZs as criminal are you asking about? 165.247.212.112 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the rest of what you wrote, but you're opening a can of worms and I'd like to chew on them one at a time to get the maximum protein! Uncle Ed 21:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The above is a mere appetizer sampler, with the can being much larger. If you are going to chew on each one, then perhaps it would be better to go through the statements made by each participant, in order, so that the context of the accusations could also be understood. Might be educational. Or maybe, rather than nit-pick at the war crimes, we could ponder just what would motivate someone to concoct such fraudulent bile as, "The most damaging statement that John Kerry made, and the one that caused the most pain and suffering for POWs and all veterans..." 165.247.212.112 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Verification issue (3rd time?)

Kerry used "testimony" from the VVAW's "Winter Soldier Investigation" as the basis for his war crimes charges, although none of the witnesses there were willing to sign depositions affirming their claims. [16]

Already disproven. Many of the veterans were indeed willing to sign depositions, and even cooperated with further investigations conducted by the military. Don't confuse there refusal to name individuals (i.e.; scapegoats) at this event with a lack of truthfulness.

This brings up a very important point. The main argument of VVAW / WSI and the "anti-war movement" was that (1) US policy was based on encouraging war crimes

Not. Where have you seen this argument made? That sounds very different from the argument that war crimes were being commited as a direct result of US policy.

and (2) is thus morally bankrupt so (3) the US should withdraw from the Vietnam War. Evidence of point #1 was supposed to be brought out at WSI. But if NONE of the "witnesses" would testify under oath, this calls into question their truthfulness.

Yes, it might. If that were indeed the case. See above.

Note that I am NOT saying they are all liars. I personally interviewed a marine sniper who told me he killed 83 people before he stopped counting. Among those people were an unspecified number of civilians (notabbly childern - geez, I con't even type straight right now, okay :-(

I'm just saying there is controversy here, and a good encyclopedia article should describe the controversy. Uncle Ed 16:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

To paraphrase you from a previous discussion, "Where is the controversy here?" 165.247.212.112 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That should be simple enough, the vast majority of Vietnam veterans feel like the merry crew over at VVAW stabbed them in the back. TDC 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, good one ;p 165.247.212.112 01:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Veteran's POV on the US in Vietnam

Kerry told the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations that:

"We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American." [17]

• Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations - April 23, 1971

I've corrected the quote above. Isn't it interesting how the context of a quote may change when it is quoted correctly? Just as the context can be skewed when it is (mistakenly, of course!) quoted incorrectly.

Sounds remarkably similar to the sentiments expressed by (82%, according to a poll just last week) civilians in Iraq. I guess civilians haven't changed much over the years: simple, blind to what is really good for them, and just wanting to live their lives in peace and without foreign presence. Will they ever learn? 165.247.212.112 01:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Financing and the "propaganda angle"

The Winter Soldier Investigation was financed by pro-Hanoi radicals such as Jane Fonda and Mark Lane, who hoped to undermine American support for the war by framing American soldiers as mass murderers. At the same time, the North Vietnamese military was torturing American prisoners of war to make them confess to identical crimes. At least one former POW has stated that Kerry's testimony was used by North Vietnam to demoralize American prisoners during interrogations. [18]

Interesting allegations here. What financing, exactly, and how much, and where were these "hopes" presented? Just curious. 165.247.212.112 01:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No allegations, just facts. Mark Lane and Fonda were pro-Hanoi, they admit to as much. They were both radicals, by any definition of the term. I mean, seriously, Jane Fonda sat on top an AA gun and shared warm fuzzies with the NVA manning it. They were both doing some pretty heavy fundraising for VVAW and WSI. How much, who knows, I doubt anyone has seen their W2's. The North Vietnamese military was abusing POW's, once again, no one denies this. One former POW has stated that Kerry's testimony was used by North Vietnam to demoralize American prisoners during interrogations, once again, true.

Mark and Jane were indeed anti-war, and indeed lent support to the VVAW. Or so it says in the article here. But I'm interested in the details of this assertion that WSI was "financed" by them. They paid for the whole thing? No, according to the article, there were many sources of support. Perhaps they each pitched in $10? Surely someone knows -- at the very least, the person that penned the above allegations. Oh, and do you by chance have a source to the former POW's statement about Kerry's testimony? It sounds fascinating. 165.247.212.112 02:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The article does mention benefit concerts. Dollar amount not mentioned. Would VVAW be non-profit and having to make annual reports or IRS forms public? (SEWilco 02:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC))

And your problem with the statement is what exactly? TDC 02:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Which statement? 165.247.212.112 02:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This is another way of restating the POV that WSI was trying to make. And if it's true that American soldiers were mass murderers and that the US government wasn't doing enough to curb this - but (get this!) actively encouraging it - then this is a strong argument against the American electorate allowing its leaders to continue in Vietnam. Since, as nearly all Westerners believe, the "ends do not justify the means".

My general point in all this is that the point of view of the organizers and participants is relevant to the article. I don't think they were merely "looking into what was going on" with an eye to "figuring out what to do about it". They had a pre-conceived agenda, and come to make a point.

Wikipedia should not (as right-wingers would want) condemn their POV. But it should not endorse their POV either.

And it should not allow the whole thing to be a murky, confused mess. An encyclopedia article is supposed to lay everything out clearly, so everyone can see what's going on. Uncle Ed 16:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Testimony

Testimony carries with it a certain legal connotation, especially in this instance.

Or from Wikipedia’s definition:

In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.

No one was under oath, there was no rebuttal or hostile party questioning of the witnesses, and there were no penalties for false statements (luckily for them). There are two other kinds, aside from legal: religious and literary, and for obvious reasons, these do not apply wither. TDC 18:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll note the definition above begins, "In the law, ..." and then gives the definition of how the word "testimony" is used in the law. That doesn't concern us here, as we are using the more generally accepted usage of the word: evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof 209.86.2.114 21:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as we make it clear that the people who gave accounts of atrocities and war crimes were not giving legal testimony then I have no particular objection to the use of the word, in this month's draft of Wikipedia's Winter Soldier Investigation article.

This is already clear to anyone reading the article. If "legal testimony" were being given, then "legal testimony" would be the term used.

We might need to devote a section of the article to terminology, if people outside of Wikipedia are fighting about it as much as we WP contributors are. But it may be simpler to say that organizers referred to these accounts as "testimony" in the context of WSI being an "investigation" of sorts.

organizers referred to these accounts as "testimony"? Well, okay. But to be accurate, we should say: organizers of this event, as well as the Congressional Record, as well as authors and historians writing about the event, along with journalists covering the event, the movie about this event and even the participants that testified at the event, referred to these accounts as "testimony." Wouldn't want other fights to break out, y'know. 209.86.2.114 17:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Who cares what anyone called them, the statements they made at WSI do not fit Wikipedia's definition of "testimony", now does it?

Which of course leads to what sort of event it really was.

1. a "meeting" of vetererns, civilians and journalists
2. a "forum"
3. a citzen's tribunal, putting American foreign policy, military policy and/or fundamental principles on trial
4. an "investigation" (of what?)

And of course we should note the claims by anti-WSI, anti-VVAW partisans that "none of the veterans was willing to make a written deposition or give testimony under oath" - which contradicts the idea that the speeches they gave at the mike ought to be called "testimony".

If true and properly cited, of course. But as it turns out, the veterans were indeed willing. This kind of makes the inclusion of such a bogus claim look silly, doesn't it? 209.86.2.114 17:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The veracity of the claim, that WSI members were willing to make written legal depositions whose accuracy and truthfulness could find them in hot water for perjury is one made by VVAW members and WSI participants, and is one denied by amongst others Guenter Lewy and the Department of Defense. Speaking of which can you name me one individual who was willing to, or did, sign sworn affidavits confirming the statements they made at WSI? TDC 19:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It is denied by Lewy, not the Defense Department. (By the way, you said you were going to dig up that investigation report and teach us all a lesson, didn't you? So how is the progress going on that?) Name one individual who was willing? See John Beitzel from the article, and reprinted below for your convenience. Also note that at least 31 other WSI participants submitted to interviews by CID investigators (as of a 1972 report) [19]. Conservative pro-war writer Lewy is a well known apologist on the Vietnam war. He wrote a lot about fraudulent vets and exaggerated tales of atrocities, and he tried to include the WSI in his debunking. Instead, he has been discredited himself. He cited a Naval report, then later backpeddled saying he couldn't recall if he saw one or was told about one. [20] No one else has seen that report. He claimed none of the veterans would submit to questioning, yet the CID reports prove him wrong -- the majority of those contacted did. The testimony was read into the Congressional Record, and the department of defense urged to investigate the claims - yet the military has not refuted one word of it. 165.247.214.182 07:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Its denied by the DOD, according to Levy, just as my edit makes perfectly clear. The good Mr Beitzel, claims he was willing to work with the NIS, but aside from his “good solid reputation” what evidence does he have to back this claim? Oh, that’s right, we are just supposed to take his word for it without any other documentation. As for others who, in their own words mind you, affirm Lewy’s claim that the WSI participants would not fully cooperate with NIS or CID investigators, we have Larry Rottmann:

(Note: the following dialog refers to cooperation in interviews with CID *BEFORE* the advent of the Winter Soldier Investigation.)

• Mr. Findley. Mr. Rottmann, isn’t it a fact that you have not met with the Army personnel who have asked to meet with you?

• Mr. Rottmann. No, sir. Just a second. I’ll give you their names. I have met with and talked at great length on at least one occasion with Mr. Elmer E. Snyder, CID ID No. 0903, Mr. Richard J. Mahon, CID ID No. 0947. These meetings took place in Watertown, Massachusetts, which was my residence last year.

• Mr. Findley. Last year?

• Mr. Rottmann. Yes, sir.

• Mr. Findley. Those documents to which Mr. Bingham referred indicate that attempts by Army personnel to interview you followed a news conference in May, 1970. Since the attempts to investigate the allegations were unsuccessful, the investigator was referred to Rottmann’s attorney, Mr. Richard M. Howland, who said that Rottmann would not make a statement. Would you care to explain why you chose that course of action?

• Mr. Rottmann. Certainly I would. Yes, sir, I would. We held sort of an investigation, informal one, in Boston which some of us who had been in Vietnam aired our views on the subject. Immediately following that presentation I was accosted — the man put his hand on my arm and said that he wanted me to make some kind of a sworn statement or something. And I said, Who are you? And he said he was with the Government, but he would not show me his identification, and I didn’t know who he was. And I said, If you are with the Government please, see my attorney, Mr. Howland. And I instructed my attorney, Mr. Howland, that he should let me know {13106c3} if anybody got in touch with him so that he could work it out.

• Mr. Findley. With regard to your meeting that you just mentioned with the CID personnel, do you feel that you responded to each question raised at that time?

• Mr. Rottmann. They were around, you know, sort of around the periphery, and talking to my boss and things like that—

• Mr. Findley. Did they talk directly to you?

• Mr. Rottmann. Yes, sir. And I responded in every instance to their questions, except I did not name names because it was not my feeling that I wanted to prosecute anybody, only to make a point about policy.

• Mr. Bingham. Is that still your feeling, Mr. Rottmann? That is, today would you be willing to name names or dates, or do you still feel that this is something that you cannot in good conscience do?

• Mr. Rottmann. That is correct, sir. I am not trying to prosecute anybody. All of us who went to Vietnam and participated and all of us here in the states who allow the war to go on year after year after year are to some degree guilty. I would be unwilling to name names because I’m not trying to prosecute anybody for atrocities or anything. I just want to raise a point of official and de facto military policy in Indochina. I think if the American people were fully cognizant of the scope and the extent of the way that we wage war there that they just wouldn’t permit it to go on. And that’s the main thrust of why I testify like this.[21]

Without specifics like a who, what, when, where, why, and how, the NIS as well as the CID were unable to substantiate any one single claim made by the WSI participants.

It would appear specifics about what, when, where, why and how were indeed given -- just not "who," and he explains well enough why. Perhaps that is why the CID was able to substantiate the claims of the WSI participants. 165.247.202.47 20:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I also like your reference to the Village Voice article whose comments you summarize in the article as gospel truth. Turse’s piece takes a CID report and condenses it down to what, 3 sentences? And his interpretation of it is completely opposite of Lewy’s, which leads me to Turse’s qualifications. He is a doctoral candidate at the Center for the History & Ethics of Public Health in the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University and writes articles for on the “military-corporate complex”. As much of a “Vietnam apologist” as Lewy may or may not be, Turse is hardly an individual whose bias can be neglected when evaluating his work (if that’s what one would call it) Turse also says nothing about the NIS report.

It doesn't bother me that Lewy is biased toward defaming veterans, or that Turse is biased toward defending veterans, as long as they stick to presenting verifiable facts, and not their POVs. Just the facts, ma'am. As for an NIS report, would you care to elaborate on that? 165.247.202.47 20:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Turse cites a report that is no doubt several hundred pages and is able to summarize it into two sentences? Smells like bullshit to me. Verifiable facts? Is that why not one allegation made at WSI was able to be prosecuted, or advance past an initial investigation from the NIS of CID? You see the term “verifiable” refers to something that can be independently corroborated, a standard that not one allegation made at WSI was able to meet. And hey, if Lewy wants to expose the borderline treasonous actions of a few malcontent’s who stabbed their fellow soldiers in the backs, that’s fine by me, and I aint the only one who thinks that. Fifth columnists exist in all conflicts, why should Vietnam be any different.

Is that why not one allegation made at WSI was able to be prosecuted?

No. They were unable to be prosecuted because they were all honorably discharged veterans, so the military no longer had jurisdiction.

Bullshit, I said allegations, not individuals. Other individuals involved in the "atrocities" would still be liable for UCMJ violations, as they were still in the armed services. But since the WSI participants wanted to milk their bullshit allegations for PR value, instead of holding those individuals accountable for their supposed actions, nothing more was done. TDC 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Other individuals involved in the "atrocities" would still be liable

Oh, you mean those ultimately responsible for policy? The WSI participants were VERY willing to hold them responsible - and there is plenty of documentation to support that.

The ones who committed the offences and ordered them, it the WSI participants were so racked with guilt about what they had done (ho ho he he), perhaps they could have named the CO or XO in charge of the mission. But did they ....... oh that’s right, NO. TDC 17:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Got a citation for that little leap in logic? I didn't think so...

Citation for what? The fact that they refused to name anyone else present at the "war crimes"? They attest to that themselves. TDC 18:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, a citation backing your assertion that no WSI participant ever named a commanding officer as responsible. 165.247.203.197 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

...corroborated, a standard that not one allegation made at WSI was able to meet.

Correct - not one. More like dozens.

Bullshit, more like zero. Or is there an untold story here of the "dozens" of allegations having been independently (an adjective you conveniently omitted) corroborated. TDC 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Untold? No, it's in the article ... oh wait, it appears you've removed it yet again. There, I've replaced it for you. Please see the link.

Nope, doesn’t pass the independently corroborated test (as you keep claiming it does). Thank you, drive through. TDC 17:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Just another batch of evidence in the mound of evidence about war crimes during the Vietnam war. Deny all you want, TDC, shit did happen and the world isn't flat.

Once again, violations of the UCMJ were indeed prosecuted when real evidence (you know, that nasty little thing that the WSI fakers were unwilling to provide, oh I know, we should take them at their "word") was presented. Since the WSI "veterans", as they like to call themselves, were unwilling to cooperate with NIS and CID investigators, as two of my citations now show (one from the VVAW website no less), that constitutes "un-corroborated", Thank you, drive through.TDC 18:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect again. Your citations show that it was left up to the participants, and your citations show the vets had good reason not to provide scapegoats to the military command. As seen in more recently released military archives, many did indeed submit to further questioning, and this is corroborated by the personal accounts of some of these vets (see Beitzel note). And again you use the term "WSI fakers," so again I will ask you to name one, just one, and explain why. 165.247.203.197 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

One can submit to further questioning without fully cooperating, considering that when DOD investigators actually had enough information on an allegation, they did file charges, prosecute and convict. (Edit: Incorrect. Couldn't prosecute honorably discharged vets.) And where are these “more recently released military archives” you speak of? The one source, from the VVAW, states that WSI participants were loath to cooperate and another, Lewy, specifically cites that the VVAW discouraged participation, and that none of the WSI participants would cooperate in any meaningful way.

The archives are in the archive. Just as the link says. Maybe read the article more closely?

...if Lewy wants to expose the borderline treasonous actions of a few malcontent’s..."

He has. And not one of them was a participant in the WSI. Got that damning report yet? (No comment, Mr. TDC?)

As to the level of cooperation that the individuals who were at WSI and the DOD investigators, I think your own citation just proved their lack of enthusiasm and cooperation:

• Mr. Findley. Those documents to which Mr. Bingham referred indicate that attempts by Army personnel to interview you followed a news conference in May, 1970. Since the attempts to investigate the allegations were unsuccessful, the investigator was referred to Rottmann’s attorney, Mr. Richard M. Howland, who said that Rottmann would not make a statement. Would you care to explain why you chose that course of action?

The WSI didn't exist yet.

When the “veterans” bullshit charges were looked into more fully, they clammed up, not surprising considering the source. Or from the VVAW’s own website:

Which bullshit charge was that, exactly? (Again, no comment Mr. TDC?)

How about every allegation they made that they refused to help investigators look into in any meaningful way, oh wait, that would be ALL OF THEM. TDC 17:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• The VVAW leadership left it up to individual members to decide how to respond to requests for depositions. And veterans had good reasons to decline. For one thing, they argued that their purpose was to protest U.S. policy, not to draw attention to individual soldiers. What's more, with the VVAW under direct assault from the Nixon administration, it's understandable that the group's members were loath to cooperate with government investigators. [22] TDC 22:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, considering it is the accused doing the investigating. 165.247.200.102 06:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My point exactly, the WSI fakers were unwilling to cooperate with DOD investigators in any meaningful way. Thank you, come again. TDC 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Who was this "WSI faker" again? Specifics, please. Oh, can't name even one? Please drive through. 165.247.200.102 16:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How about Pitkin? There's one. Thank you, come again. Or from the great John Kerry himself:

• A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some [accounts] been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not - I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. [23] TDC 17:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Pitkin never cited fake testimony. And didn't you just say "EVERY" allegation made by the veterans was fake? Yet you cite the king of nuance, Kerry, who says a lot of them have been documented. I'm still waiting for you to cite one of these fakers, or fake testimony. Thanks for playing. 165.247.200.102 17:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Pitkin signed a sworn affidavit that his "testimony" was fake. You know an affidavit, something that if found to be untrue, one can go to jail for signing? How many WSI "veterans" singed these? Oh, that’s right, none. And, for the record, I never said that ""EVERY" allegation made by the veterans was fake" so keep your lies and slander to the article and the "veterans" you write so glowingly about. I said that since none of them were willing to fully cooperate with investigators, knowing full well they could not be prosecuted by the DOD for any information they divulged, their "testimony" is suspect. thank you, drive through. TDC 18:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

To which of Pitkin's sworn affidavits do you refer? I guess he is going to jail, because one contradicts the other. And as for his "fake" testimony, he never testified to war crimes. Maybe you should take a look at just what he did babble on about.

Not one allegation that the fakers make at WSI were ever independently verified. That means they carry no weight and might as well be bullshit. As for Pitkin, here is his affidavit: [24].(Edit: No, that is his 2nd affidavit. After his first one, Camil called him on his bullshit ... so he claimed failed memory, and created that second affidavit.) And you are right about one contradicting the other, but which one are we going to believe? (Edit: neither, in my opinion. He seems to have real trouble remembering names, dates and places.) He made one in 1971 to a kangaroo “court” in Detroit with no repercussions if he lied, and another he made in a court of law, and could go to jail if he lied there. (Edit: Uh, no. There were no affidavits at the WSI. His 2 contradicting affidavits were both fabricated in 2004) This is why the term “testimony” is garbage. Testimony, in this sense, implies that one is sworn in and can be held accountable in a court of law if that sworn testimony is found to be untrue.

Testimony is a perfectly applicable term for the testimony given at the WSI.

One day, TDC claims: How about every allegation they made that they refused to help investigators look into in any meaningful way, oh wait, that would be ALL OF THEM.

And the next day, TDC claims: And, for the record, I never said that ""EVERY" allegation made by the veterans was fake" so keep your lies and slander...

You lose. 165.247.203.197 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Which leads me to another port about the existence of the report. The report does exist, Lewy cites it specifically in his bibliography of “America in Vietnam”, and the National Archive confirms the reports existence. Its hard to conceive that Lewy would invent this report, and if you are stating that he did, that could be considered libel. His recollection on the report is 30 years old, and I am not surprised if he can’t remember details of it. Senator Hatfiled requested the Commandant of the USMC (Leonard F. Chapman, Jr.) to look into the charges, and Chapman complied. My contact at the NIS has found an individual (retired JAG investigator) who has a copy of the report, and I will have it with the next several weeks. Someone went through a great deal of trouble to disappear this material, and I think that it does not reflect well on the WSI, which is why I eagerly anticipate its arrival. TDC 17:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"The report does exist, Lewy cites it specifically in his bibliography"

No, he does not. He vaguely cites the "Winter Soldier Investigation files," not any specific report, at the Office of the Director, JAD, USMC-HQ. As for the National Archive confirming its existance, could you please be more specific?

"His recollection on the report is 30 years old, and I am not surprised if he can’t remember"

24 years old, and conveniently claiming to not remember a significant detail about one's life-defining work is highly suspect, considering he seems to have no difficulty remembering everything else about it.

He says he doesn't recall ever seeing the report.

He didn't cite a specific report in his bibliography, instead vaguely referencing a collection of files.

No other writer or historian has seen or referenced this supposed "most damaging" report, nor can Lewy's alleged source produce it.

He vociferously cites specific names of questionable veterans throughout that chapter of his book, when talking about inquiries such as the CCI, Russell Tribunal, Delums Hearings, etc., ... BUT WAIT - when he gets to the WSI participants, he refrains from naming a single one. Instead, he curiously opts to vaguely refer to a "black marine" and a nameless "several veterans." Sorry, but that has gone beyond suspicious. I'd be interested in seeing a copy of such a report as well, but I won't hold my breath. 165.247.202.47 20:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, there. Let's not try to settle this point. We've finally identified a point of contention. I suggest that instead of arguing here on the talk page about the veracity of the claim, we write in the article about the dispute over whether:

1. any VVAW member / WSI participant ever offered to give legal testimony or sign a deposition or affadavit
2. veterans were willing but were told NOT to, by WSI organizers and/or VVAW leaders

Related to this, of course, are reports of efforts by the army to confirm, corroborate or otherwise track down these stories.

All of the above is already in the article. (In versions of the article that TDC hasn't tried to sabotage, that is. Maybe he thinks no one notices him deleting content and links from the wiki-article about Lewy. Tsk.) 165.247.214.182 08:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I found the entire WSI transcript online (it was only posted in April of this year), but I have only read the first few pages so far. Nothing but vague complaints there - no name/date/village references like "I saw SGT Hill stick the grease gun up her cunt" (if you'll excuse my French: I was in the army 5 years, and never met any enlisted man who would have used language like "inserted into her vagina"). Uncle Ed 21:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it's an interesting read. Sounds like it is newer than the online transcripts I've been using -- they have been online for years. 165.247.214.182 08:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

We contributors to the Wikipedia article need to find a mutually satisfactory way of characterizing all of this, even though it seems complicated. Uncle Ed 16:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

On September 23, 2004, another veteran recalls: I testified at the Winter Soldier investigation in 1971. I told the truth and to my knowledge not a single statement has ever proven to be false. I have heard a lot of false claims that the people at winter soldier were not veterans. If so many people were frauds at the Winter Soldier Investigation, why hasn't someone released the names of the vets who falsely testified? Wouldn't this be front page news? Maybe one or two frauds slipped through but I doubt it. The truth of the matter is no one was allowed to testify at the Winter Soldier Investigation unless they had DD214 military separation papers. For years I tried to tell everyone who was willing to listen, about the official and de facto policies of our government that were against the Geneva Convention. They were in fact war crimes. I testified before Congress, before the U.N. Human rights Commission, at the Winter Soldier Investigation, at public hearings, at the Philadelphia Naval Base Criminal Investigation Department, and at the Pentagon. We spoke out against the POLICIES of our government, that were in violation of US law as well as International law. We never spoke out against our fellow soldiers. After all they were our friends, family members and neighbors. I went to the Naval Criminal Investigation Division and told them if they were interested in pursuing those responsible for the policies that resulted in war crimes, I would give them a sworn statement including pictures of war crimes that I personally took. They said they would get back to me but they never did. No one has ever challenged my statements, nor has anyone ever proven that I have made any untruthful statements. From my experiences as an infantry veteran, I was deeply concerned about my fellow soldiers in Vietnam being killed, or coming home severely injured. I wanted the war to come to an end, so that the destruction and madness in Vietnam would also come to an end. I lost many friends in Vietnam. Some were fellow soldiers and others were friends that I grew up with and knew from an early age. Earlier this year (2/2004), I returned to Vietnam and visited the old base camps and battlefields from my year in Vietnam 35 years ago. It was reassuring and very healing, to experience the peace, that is the reality of today's Vietnam. Almost no one in Vietnam talks about the "American War." To them it is ancient history. It is certainly sad to see so many of the old wounds being reopened and the old debates argued once again. In 1971, the members of VVAW were looking for a way to help put an end to the war, and bring peace to this country, as well as Vietnam. The members of VVAW that I knew were good people, with good hearts, that were trying to do the right thing. I have no regrets about working for peace. I still know many VVAW members today. All of them are very proud of their efforts in working for peace. It's time to put the Vietnam debate behind us. It's time to debate the current issues of today. And, let the chips fall where they may.

Hoa Binh John Beitzel, Vietnam Veteran 4/21 Infantry, 11th Bde, Americal Division. 1/1969 - 1/1970 Member - VVAW 9/1970 - 9/1971 Winter Soldier - Jan/Feb-1971

Suggestions to end the revert war

Hello all, I am going to touch on some of the changes, and suggest some ways to avoid the revert war.Travb 04:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

TDC should be warned

TDC has started 2 revert wars in the space of four days.

The "testimony" war (04:26, 24 October 2005), and the ""quote" war (19:34, 20 October 2005).

I suggest that if TDC starts one more revert war, he should be botted from this site, if this is technologically possible.

He already has been booted 13 times in the last year, the last one was on September 15, and at least 10 of them were for revert wars. He boosts on his wikipage that he has been "banned from too many chat rooms to mention".

TDC is the beginning and the heart of the contention here. Travb 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

3 RRR war

I believe that TDC has had more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, and should be reported to 3RR--he may be booted for the 14th time in a year. Anyone else with more than 3 reverts should also be reportedTravb 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Any user may report a 3RR violation by posting to WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel 07:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sasquatch needs to monitor this site more agressively, or give job to another moderator

Another revert war has began, again from TDC. If Sasquatch is unable to babysit this site because he has more of a life than most of us here, another moderator should monitor the site.Travb 05:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Words that should not be used

The following words should not be used on this web blog:

• alledged (from the imperialists)

This term is used when describing claims mad by anyone that have not been verified.TDC 14:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• the word "testimony" should remain (from the imperialists) Second meaning: Dictionary:Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.

Once again, these were not legal hearins, and “testimony” does not apply.TDC 14:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• the word "meeting" should remain (from the imperialists) Dictionary: To assemble.
• The word "frauds" should not be used (from the imperialists) Lane had recently published a book, Conversations with Americans, in which Lane relied on unverified interviews with veterans, some of which were later exposed as frauds by Neil Sheehan in a New York Times book review

By your own admission, these individuals were frauds. TDC 14:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• NO more debates on common words, see "meeting" and "testimony" above
• guarantee (from the anti-imperialists) The organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation took several steps to guarantee the validity of the participants.
• murder (from the anti-imperialists)...Prompted by numerous investigations into war crimes, such as the Russell Tribunal, National Veterans Inquiry and Citizens Commissions of Inquiry, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War wanted to have a large scale public hearing. With the courts martial for the My Lai Massacre making front page news, and the recent disclosure by members of the CIA's Phoenix Program of its record of terror, torture and murder....
• terror (from the anti-imperialists) ibid.
• evil (from the anti-imperialists) ...sought to portray the US intervention as irredeemably evil.
• many (from the anti-imperialists) Many media reviews have regarded the film highly, as a "powerful" and "emotional" record of the era. (instead list the name of the people supporting the reviews)

I am happy to report, that the only good thing that has come out of this, is most of these phrases, about 80%, no longer exist on the Winter Soldier Investigation wikisite.Travb 05:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Three to one ratio of deletions to additions

TDC again started a revert war, in his (in)famous "testimony" change (04:26, 24 October 2005). He started the last revert war with his ""quote" change (19:34, 20 October 2005).

testimony Many media reviews have regarded the film highly, as a "powerful" and "emotional" record of the era. Simply war crimes numerous record of terror, torture and murder prove unreliable testified testimony testimony The program consisted primarily of testimony, with to appear reports. Grouping experts testimony With legal advice from the giving testimony guarantee Each authenticity was checked hearings by the investigation event organizers, and subsequently by reporters and pentagon officials Those who wanted to testify were carefully screened by the officers of VVAW, and care was taken to verify the service records and testimony of the veterans. testifying fully As noted in VVAW records, each veteran's authenticity and testimony were checked after the hearings by Nixon's "plumbers." Charles Colson was assigned the task. In a CONFIDENTIAL "Plan to Counteract Viet Nam Veterans Against the War", Colson wrote, "The men that participated in the pseudo-atrocity hearings in Detroit will be checked to ascertain if they are genuine combat veterans." At one point, the Nixon team suggested in a memo about VVAW, "Several of their regional coordinators are former Kennedy supporters." With the exception of revealing that non-participant Al Hubbard had lied about his rank (Staff Sergeant E-5 instead of Captain), nothing worse was ever produced by these investigations. Testifying testify at testified testified testimony testimony Dr. Bert Pfeiffer of the University of Montana presented the first public testimony about the potential toxicity and health effects of the chemical Agent Orange. Testimony testifying veterans Before launching into their detailed testimony, each gave a brief statement of personal information including rank, division, unit, length of service and a summary of what their testimony would cover. Testimony testimony successful testimonies testimony of the event recollection of the testimony of one of the Winter Soldiers testimony testimony testimony in the testimonies To date, no records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been produced.

Which totals 310 words.

TDC then inserted 96 words:

Accounts allegedly demonstrate alleged American actions in Vietnam actions in participated alleged frauds information accounts appeared accounts of their conduct. It was hoped that grouping stories allegedly The informed the alleged war crimes check The organizers claimed to have authenticated each status who participated participating as well as his service in Vietnam and that he had been wounded in Vietnam could also not document any service in Vietnam, contrary to what he had claimed. Hubbard did not directly participate in participate participates activities Accounts Accounts were statements successful accounts event transcript WSI participant information information stories

Which totals 96 words.

This is a ratio of 3 to 1: three words deleted for every one word added.

This is actually minor compared to many of TDC's recent changes on other wikisites. As I have documented above, this is actually a minor revisions of text compared to what TDC has done in the past month--deleting entire paragraphs, sometimes mutliple paragraphs.

A small sample:

• Talk page: Deletions by user TDC
• The intellectual and artistic section about Che Guevara
• Fidel Castro

The bold text in the 310 words is the ideas that TDC erased completly, with no explanation, and did not replace with any comparable text.Travb 05:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have made my reasoning for the exclusion of the material more that clear. The cut’n-paste info from the VVAW website is excessively POV and tends to lead the reader to believe that the statements and the conclusions drawn from those statements are unquestionably true, when there are many people who think it’s a crock. Secondly the info about Dr. Bert Pfeiffer, besides being a direct cut’n-paste from a cp’d source, it is patently untrue. Pfeiffer was not the first individual to argue publicly that Agent Orange was toxic. The Food and Drug Administration released a public report on October 29, 1969 about the toxic nature of Agent Orange, and recommended it The Surgeon General ordered the use of Agent Orange to be completely stopped in June of 1971, well before WSI and the good Dr Pfeiffer said jack about it. TDC 15:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

June of 1971? That's long after the WSI. Best get your dates straight. And while you are at it, get your facts straight too. Pfeiffer's presentation at WSI was indeed the first "public" discourse on the toxic health effects to which the vets were being exposed. The FDA report of October 1969 merely reflected the findings of BR Labs tests on lab rats, and in no way was publicly disseminated, but was released to appropriate government departments. The Surgeon General only prohibited Agent Orange for home use, and he did so AFTER the good Dr. Pfeiffer's testimony. Oh, and while we're at it: it's not a "direct cut'n-paste" either. Wow, TDC - you're batting zero out of a thousand. 165.247.214.182 09:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, right you are about the dates, but I am sure you are well aware that all FDA, NIH and USDA reports are a matter of public record. The NIH and USDA also released studies on Agent Orange, and released them into the public domain (that means that anyone had access to them), in the summer and fall of 1969. A simple search on a library website confirmed that they were published before Pfeiffer gave his “groundbreaking” testimony. And since you have no source other than your opinion that these reports were released only to “appropriate government departments”, out it goes. And, oh yeah it is a direct “cut'n-paste", how else do you explain that the sentence is an exact match, punctuation and all. TDC 17:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

since you have no source other than your opinion that these reports were released only to “appropriate government departments”, out it goes.

Wrong. Just days after the generation of this report, the White House JCoS refers to it, "A report prepared for the National Institute of Health presents evidence that..." Note: it does not say the report was prepared for the Associated Press or the National Enquirer. Of course it wasn't a classified report, but that isn't what we are arguing. The WSI article states:

Dr. Bert Pfeiffer of the University of Montana presented the first public testimony about the potential toxicity and health effects of the chemical Agent Orange.

It doesn't say Pfeiffer was the first to generate a report that Agent Orange screws with the reproduction of lab rats. The health effects were known at least as far back as 1962, and many studies shown the negative effects have been conducted as far back as 1965 (they didn't start in 1969). In fact, Pfeiffer refers to these studies and their findings in his presentation. It was Dr. Pfeiffer that had Dr. Jacqueline Veret at the FDA conduct toxicity testing of Agents Orange, White and Blue. Sorry, TDC - the sentence stays. (Editors note: it would be a simple matter to add "in Vietnam" to the end of that sentence in the WSI article to make this argument moot, but nah... where's the fun in that?) 165.247.202.47 03:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

First, the information given by Pfeiffer was not testimony (as per Wikiepdia’s definition of the term). Secondly he was not the first individual who made this information public, as you have admitted. All one has to do is go through the library of congress, or any local library for that matter, look up the report and see the date on which it was published and released, both of which were before Pfeiffer gave his “testimony”. Lastly, its still a word for word undocumented rip off from another article. Strike one, two and three

First - not my problem. Second - incorrect. Third - incorrect.

First, it is your problem if you insist that this tidbit is part of the article. Second, he was not the first to publicly question the hazards of agent orange, and third your cut and past is clearly documented from the past year of your contributions to this article. Or are you going to deny that you have ripped off large pieces of other articles and incorporated them into this as well as the VVAW article? TDC 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

First - no it isn't. Second - no one said "publicly question." Third - Absolutely.

TDC, I know NOTHING about the Winter Soldier Investigation. As I mentioned below to Ed, there are a lot more productive things I would rather be doing. I actually unassigned myself to the page a couple of days ago, but curiosity got the best of me, and I saw the new revert war.

I have seen that historical you don't take advice well, but in my opinon, your revert style is too bold, which causes revert wars. I think you like the contention, as I do a bit (but our psychology is neither "here" nor "there").

"The cut’n-paste info from the VVAW website is excessively POV and tends to lead the reader to believe that the statements and the conclusions drawn from those statements are unquestionably true"

Take that up on VVAW, I don't even have that one marked, this one takes up too much time already. I think you simply disagree with what was said at the VVAW. But the fact is: the VVAW was a historical reality. The VVAW criticized America. The statements are historical reality. You may not agree with the organization, but it did exist.

Instead of cutting out portions of VVAW you dont like, add a "criticisms of VVAW" section and have at it--this has a better chance of avoiding many of the revert wars. I was going to suggest this yesterday, and I did not.

"when there are many people." these are Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms weasel words I just deleted one from War crime, which was critical of the United States, in the future, I plan to delete many more, or better yet substantiate the claims with the names of real people or groups of people. This editing will include sections that I support philosophically and ideologically.

War crime difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crime&curid=48626&diff=26473939&oldid=26473647

Instead of writing "there are many people." elaborate on who those many people are. This can be done very well in the "critism of Winter Soldier Investigation" section. I added two of these sections, which were deleted:

Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation

Criticism of process

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=26414691

Who deleted them? (more soon)Travb 23:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

My guess is your edits were casualties when a full revert of TDC's sabotage was performed. 165.247.214.182 09:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

the next step: Arbitration

If this revert war continues, this site and the members should be reported to the next step: Arbitration, since mediation does not seem to be working.Travb 05:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please give it time. I'm not the Mediator here, but I've mediated other similar kinds of article disputes. Internet time seems to pass very quickly, and 36 hours can feel like an interminable delay. But some people live more in the meat world than cyberspace. Three days is really a minimum time to wait before declaring that something "isn't happening". And some mediations can take weeks or months, until the REAL key points come out. Looks to me like the juices have just BEGUN to start flowing. Be patient; let it come to you. Uncle Ed 16:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I respect you Uncle Ed that is cool. I actually would rather forget about this wikisite, I have much more interesting things to write about, like the Lodge Committee, which is just crying for my attention.

I just have no respect for what I see as modern day book burners--I feel like I have to raise my voice and protect what is written here.

As I mentioned above, a lot of GOOD has come from this rigorous discussion:

I am happy to report...most of these [weasel word phrases, about 80%, no longer exist on the Winter Soldier Investigation wikisite.]

On a personal note, I am also slowly learning to calm my temper and not use so many Ad Hominem attacks (attack the person, instead of the idea).

Another good thing to come from this is that I realize that the "fair use" doctorine of copyright is not well understood here, and needs to be explained. New policies are needed here on wikipedia protecting portions of work that would be legally fair use, as agressively as copyright is protected now. I have read so much the past few days about "fair use"--and I have a lot of case law that I am looking forward to reading on the subject. Although I am not a lawyer yet, I am studying to be one, and I look forward to taking an intellectual property class next semester even though it will not be on the bar. I have always been interested in what I see as the incredibly detremental effects of copyright and this discussion has only heightened my interest.

t just said wrote on my talk page that he might protect the page, we will see what happensTravb 22:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

purpose of WSI - a whole bunch of questions

The intro states:

...was intended to publicize war crimes

I've tried to remove this phrase a few times, but it keeps popping up. It must be important to SOMEONE to have this in.

But it puzzles me:

1. What does intended to publicize mean?
2. Why would anyone want to publicize their own country's war crimes - and not those of the enemy?
3. Did the war crimes and atrocities which they intended to publicize actually get any publicity as a result of WSI - or of other VVAW efforts?
4. What connection, if any, did publicity attempts have with the goal of getting the US out of the Vietnam War?
5. Whose side were WSI organizers / participants on?
6. What did they hope to achieve by drawing attention to atrocities and war crimes? -- that is, ONLY those committed by the US and its allies
7. Why did they not mention (or give equal emphasis to) war crimes committed by North Vietnam and its allies, such as the Viet Cong? (kidnappings, murders, etc., of villagers who refused to aid the Communists or whom the Communists suspected of "collaborating with the enemy Americans"?

These are but a few of the questions that come to (my) mind when I think about the "intent" of WSI. Uncle Ed 16:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers:

1. To make public.
2. To put an end to them. Someone once said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Or, to use the quote that TDC dug up from a veteran named Rottman: "That is correct, sir. I am not trying to prosecute anybody. All of us who went to Vietnam and participated and all of us here in the states who allow the war to go on year after year after year are to some degree guilty. I would be unwilling to name names because I’m not trying to prosecute anybody for atrocities or anything. I just want to raise a point of official and de facto military policy in Indochina. I think if the American people were fully cognizant of the scope and the extent of the way that we wage war there that they just wouldn’t permit it to go on. And that’s the main thrust of why I testify like this."
3. Disappointingly little publicity for WSI. So little, in fact, that they decided to take their issues to Washington D.C., with the support of some anti-war Congressmen that took notice of the WSI proceedings. See Dewey Canyon III event in the VVAW article, which had considerably more exposure and success.
4. See answer #2. (Note, not every participant had a "goal of getting the US out of the Vietnam war.")
5. Side? By the looks of their testimony, they were on the side of average G.I. Joe, civilians, human rights, the environment and those descriminated against.
6. See answer #2.
7. Probably for the same reason they didn't mention the human rights violations and atrocities ongoing in the Soviet Union gulags. 165.247.213.58 04:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I could live with the following suggestions, but allow me to make a prediction: You will work on a new version, and 95% of it will be reverted by the anon. Look closely, you made 6 edits in between. TDC 17:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

More quotes

While studying various web pages about free fire zones and the My Lai Massacre, I ran across this statement:

Two months later, from 31 January through 2 February 1971, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) held the Winter Soldier Investigation at the Holiday Inn in downtown Detroit. During those three days, more than one hundred Vietnam veterans testified to having witnessed or participated in a wide range of atrocities.

In his opening statement, former Lieutenant William Crandell of the Americal Division said: "We intend to demonstrate that My Lai was no unusual occurrence, other than, perhaps, the number of victims killed all in one place, all at one time, all by one platoon of us. We intend to show that the policies of Americal Division which inevitably resulted in My Lai were the policies of other Army and Marine divisions as well." [25]

This could go in the intro:

Both hearings sought to demonstrate that, as a direct result of American military policies in Vietnam, American forces carried out actions usually considered illegal and immoral in war. [26]

The other hearing referred to is, of course, the Citizens Commission of Inquiry which "took place at the Dupont Plaza Hotel in Washington, D.C., on 1-3 December 1970." [ibid] Uncle Ed 22:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

More items down the memory hole

Deletion one

There were more items deleted today:

:"... veterans of Vietnam service described a wide variety of atrocities and war crimes in which they participated or which they witnessed during their tours of duty, often in the presence or with the approval of their officers. The veterans' testimony included charges of killing of unarmed women, children, and elderly peasants; the use of torture to elicit information from captured prisoners; the shooting of enemy soldiers attempting to surrender; and the wanton burning of Vietnam villages." [http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_32_3d_World.html]

Reason: (del incomplete quote from intro that only describes 1st day testimony, and not even the crucial stuff)

From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)

Still down the memory hole Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion two

"The''' "Winter Soldier Investigation" '''was a public relations event put on by opponents of [[America (US)|America]]n military policy in the [[Vietnam]]. The group accused the American goverment of deliberately violating the laws of war by tolerating, encouraging and often even ordering its soldiers to commit [[war crime]]s and [[atrocities]].

From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)

Reason: Was not a "public relations" event - rem too narrow sentence from intro

Note: This is also a concern of Ed's....I think we can delete the first sentence, keep the second--a casual reader needs to find out right away what this article is about.

Added back, more or less Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion three

"Lewy also notes that, "The refusal of [those alleging atrocities] to give substantiating factual information . . . created a situation in which the accusers continued to reap generous publicity for their sensational charges while the Army in most cases could neither investigate nor refute them." Lewy concluded that there was another reason to be wary of such allegations: They were retrospective reports and therefore subject to distortion, "created by the veterans' perception of the interviewers and organizers of the hearings, by their attitudes toward the military and by their difficulties in adjusting to civilian life after discharge." [http://68.166.163.242/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=38095]

From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)

Reason: deleted quote by Lewy that was not about a WSI participant

Severly edited by anon. Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion four

In any case, the withdrawal was completed in 1973 and North Vietnam conquered the South by 1975.

From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)

Reason: rem extraneous history lesson

Deleted, but not vitally important Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion five

==Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation== Critics of the event state that it was aimed more at forcing a US withdrawal from Vietnam, rather than any ethical reforms in the conduct of the war. Some went so far as to accuse Fonda and Kerry of "aiding the enemy" (see [[treason]]).

From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)

Reason: removed criticism that wasn't made until 30 years later when politically expedient

Note/opinion: Weasel words, but should not have been deleted. Need to seperate article out into criticism sections.

still no criticism section Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion six

According to Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at the Center for the History & Ethics of Public Health , the US Army's CID investigators found the allegations made by 46 veterans at the hearings to merit further inquiry, and were able to identify 43 of the complainants. The CID also attempted to contact 41 of the people who participates; of the 36 they were able to locate, 31 submitted to interviews. [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0438,turse,56936,1.html]

From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)

Reason: removed accolades for people not relevant to this article

Note/opinion: Absolutly should not have been changed, this makes a cited argument into a unsubstantiated argument.

added back, but without mention of Turse Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion seven

Major change to wikisite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26427592

Complete deletions:

Presentations were structured by topic in group panels. 109 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians described war crimes they had committed or witnessed during the years of [[1963]]-[[1970]]. Journalists and film crews recorded the event, and a transcript was later read into the Congressional Record.

[[Vietnam Veteran]]s came to the microphone and told stories of witnessing or personally committing these war crimes and atrocities, and they and the event organizers linked these attrocites to American administration and war policies.

Supporters of the event felt that it crystallized their sentiments, while disagreeing on the extent to which it influenced US policy.

Organizers described the event as "anti-war", not in the sense of opposing all wars (compare [[pacifism]]) or as a statement that North and South Vietnam should not have been fighting each other, but as strictly in the sense of opposing [[America (US)|America]]'s involvement in the [[Vietnam War]].

==Criticism of process==

...as well as his service in Vietnam.

...and that he had been wounded in Vietnam.

...Hubbard could also not document any service in Vietnam, contrary to what he had claimed.

...did not directly participate in

Seven years after the hearings, historian Guenter Lewy claimed that a [[Naval Criminal Investigative Service]] report could not corroborate even one of allegation made in Detroit. According to Lewy, the NIS could compel few witnesses to speak with investigators, even after assurance that they would not be asked about their own actions. The NIS concluded that many of those interviewed had no combat service record and that some of the most gruesome claims came from men who were imposters using the names and documentation of real Vietnam veterans. One particular Marine who had been in combat eventually told investigators that a member of the [[Nation of Islam]] helped prepare his statement, and admitted that he had never witnessed any of the atrocities he had testified to in Detroit. In the end, the Navy was unable to verify any of the hundreds of war crimes alleged by the Winter Soldier Investigation. Lewy goes on to note that journalists, historians, and military and Congressional investigators have failed to verify even one specific allegation made at Winter Soldier.

that he didn't find anything newsworthy to report because

Reason: NPOV edit; removed weasel words WP:AWT

From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)

Still down the memory hole Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Eight

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&direction=next&oldid=3643792

Guenter Lewy's 1978 book America in Vietnam and B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley's Stolen Valor (Verity Press, Inc., Dallas, Texas) contain similar information.

• Lawyer and activist Mark Lane was one of the organizers of Winter Soldier. In 1970, Lane had published a book called Conversations With Americans with many absurd Vietnam tales. [1]
• John Forbes Kerry and the phony Vietnam vets scandal

• Elton Mazione, claiming Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) credentials, along with his friends, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz, and Kenneth Van Lesser. They claimed to kill children and remove body parts as part of the notorious Phoenix program. They were neither in Phoenix nor in Vietnam.
• VVAW leader Al Hubbard lied about being an officer, Vietnam Veteran, and sustaining war injuries.
• Michael Harbert, another VVAW member, lied about his Vietnam service.
• Yoshia K. Chee claimed Phoenix operatives routinely resorted to the most hideous forms of torture, threw people out of helicopters, and decapitated prisoners. He was a phony.
• Mike Beamon, an alleged SEAL and Phoenix assassin, was never in the military.
• The VVAW and similar groups relied upon people like:

• K. Barton Osborn, a Vietnam veteran and testifier of atrocities to Congress. He told of prisoners being thrown out of helicopters, a woman starved to death, a prisoner being killed by a six inch dowel pushed through his ear. Osborn was not in Phoenix, refused to name names, and provided no documentation.
• Lieutenants Francis Reitemeyer and Michael J. Cohn. Both sought conscientious objector status because of Phoenix. Reitemeyer testified to being assigned to Phoenix as an adviser and maintain a kill quota of fifty bodies a month. They became famous as My Lai hit the news. Neither served in Vietnam, or in Phoenix. Reitemeyer later denied receiving any assassination training.

Deletion Nine

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Section%2002/Section%2002.pdf page 60 The February 2, 1971, Detroit Free Press found two soldiers in James Weber's unit who disputed his testimony. The Pentagon confirmed that Weber and the Detroit unit member were Vietnam veterans.

This evidence has been brought to you by the Gracetocome Foundation.

==Phony Vietnam veterans alleged but never found in '''Winter Soldier'''== Guenter Lewy's 1978 book America in Vietnam (pages 316-317) and B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley's Stolen Valor (Verity Press, Inc., Dallas, Texas)(pages 113, 131-137) contain similar disinformation about flaws in testimony and participants. Their research skills amount to little more than poor journalism.

• Lawyer and activist Mark Lane was one of the organizers of Winter Soldier. In 1970, Lane had published a book called Conversations With Americans purporting to be interviews with Vietnam veterans about war crimes, containing absurd Vietnam tales. Reporter Neil Sheehan showed some participants had never served in Vietnam and others had not been in the situations they described. Lane admitted he did not check military records, as confirmation of details was not relevant. Lane did, however, subsequently verify these records. Winter Soldier Source
  • The following are often falsely listed as being participants in Winter Soldier, but were actually in Lane's book instead. This is probably due to Stolen Valor having a misleading explanation of Lane's history within the section on Winter Soldier.
    • Chuck Onan, stock room clerk in Beaufort, S.C.
    • Michael Schneider, deserted in Europe and deserted again in the USA.
    • Terry Whitmore, was in an unpopulated area of Vietnam.
    • Garry Gianninoto, medical corpsman at battalion headquarters.
• Winter Soldier Source
  • Elton Mazione, falsly claiming Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) credentials, along with his friends, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz, and Kenneth Van Lesser. They claimed to kill children and remove body parts as part of the notorious Phoenix program. They were neither in Phoenix nor in Vietnam nor did they testify at Winter Soldier.
  • VVAW leader and Winter Soldier organizer Al Hubbard lied about being an officer, Vietnam Veteran, and sustaining war injuries - but he never testified at Winter Soldier .
  • Michael Harbert, another VVAW member, exaggerated his Vietnam service, but never testified.
  • Groups other than VVAW relied upon less reliable sources like:
    • K. Barton Osborn, a Vietnam veteran and testifier of atrocities to Congress. He told of prisoners being thrown out of helicopters, a woman starved to death, a prisoner being killed by a six inch dowel pushed through his ear. Osborn was not in Phoenix, refused to name names, and provided no documentation.
    • Lieutenants Francis Reitemeyer and Michael J. Cohn. Both sought conscientious objector status because of Phoenix. Reitemeyer testified to being assigned to Phoenix as an adviser and maintain a kill quota of fifty bodies a month. They became famous as My Lai hit the news. Neither served in Vietnam, or in Phoenix. Reitemeyer later denied receiving any assassination training.

Deletion Ten

The February 2, 1971, Detroit Free Press promptly found two soldiers in James Weber's unit who disputed his statements about a white phosphorous artillery attack on a village, and had photos of the nearby large arms cache which was the target. The Pentagon confirmed that Weber and a Detroit unit member were Vietnam veterans.

Deletion 11

Burkett, B. G. & Whitley, Glenna (1998). Stolen Valor : How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History. Dallas: Verity Press Inc. ISBN 096670360X.

Deletion 12

The VVAW maintains the validity of all accounts and participants except Al Hubbard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&direction=next&oldid=4885647

TDC and 165.247.212.112 for 3RR

I think given the history of this site, both should be booted Reporting it.

Start of latest revert war--"testimony war", started by TDC http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26330007

Revisions of TDC

Revision by TDC--offer to talk on Talk Page, ignored by 165.247.202.136

12:21, 24 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26342816

revision by TDC

17:24, 24 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26360497

revision by TDC

22:14, 24 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26385564

revision by TDC

00:20, 25 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26396251

Reversion by TDC

14:31, 25 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26432430

Reversion by TDC

17:19, 25 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26455568

Reversion by TDC

19:18, 25 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26460843

Revisions by 165.247.212.112

revision by 165.247.202.136

02:09, 24 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=26324262&oldid=26316481

revision by 165.247.212.112

17:43, 24 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26366756

revision by 165.247.202.136

22:05, 24 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26381099

revision by 165.247.202.136

00:15, 25 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=2638632

Other

Revision by Calton

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26352636

revision by SEWilco (SEWilco and TDC have had discussions before)[27][28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=prev&oldid=26375535

Reversion by 209.86.2.114 (2)

17:12, 25 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26445632

Reversion by 209.86.2.114

18:30, 25 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26456029

Is all of this really necessary? This talk page is hard enough to make heads or tails of. In the future, please just say "I'm reporting so and so" and just link to the report on WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel 02:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The first revert war

(cataloging only reverts by TDC, since 165.247.208.115 has already been reported)

Start of first revert war--"quote war", started by TDC

19:34, 20 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=26031346&oldid=25151822 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26031346

TDC reverts (quotes section)

14:06, 21 October 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26069901

17:02, 21 October 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26106394

18:02, 21 October 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26112627

172 reverts (quotes section) 18:51, 21 October 2005

209.86.1.147 reverts (quotes section)

04:07, 21 October 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26031463

Unprotected

The above stuff about edit wars and whatnot really doesn't belong here. Make an RfC or something. Looking at the recent page protection, I don't think it was really a constructive thing to do at a time when the article was undergoing some intensive and sometimes controversial editing. There seemed to be a fair amount of give and take, the edit summaries were fairly polite and informative. Not in any obvious way a sterile edit war of the kind I would say merits protection. I've unprotected for now. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont think you looked to closely at the edit history. Almost all of the anon's edits have been RV's. TDC 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)