Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

CSI Investigation of Some WSI Participants

(moved from section "Current version of ..." to new section due to length, added subheadings for same reason Gustnado (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Where Swett's website is involved, one cannot rule out doctoring. The website does not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources standards. Valid secondary sources covering the same material already exist in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Village Voice editorial? THAT is a reliable source? Is the American Spectator an equally reliable source? Simply comparing the photocopies of the original reports to the Village Voice editorial referenced shows how misleading the editorial is. So we are left with one of three contradictory factual assertions:(1)The Village Voice is not referring to the same investigation; (2)The Village Voice report is unreliable because it is an incorrect representation of the reports, or; (3)The documents on Scott Swett's site are forgeries or doctored. Please explain which of those is the case, or if there are other possibilities. This response refers to The Village Voice, because that is the only reference I could find in the WSI entry that addresses the investigation of WSI participant veracity. The LA Times article (mentioned by you below) is not about Winter Soldier and does not address the veracity of the WSI participants - rather, it establishes that (big surprise) there were a number of previously unreported atrocities in Vietnam. That is a fair source for an article on Vietnam, although the disappearance of the original source documents after the LA Times, not a neutral source, read them, is disappointing. It does not, however, address the specific issue of the veracity of WSI participants, whereas the FOIA documents go directly to that point for a significant percentage of them. Hence, there are no reliable secondary sources addressing this issue. Gustnado (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to the news article in the Village Voice, a reliable source publication that meets Wikipedia standards, cited in the WSI article. No, the American Spectator is not a reliable source for factual information. The LA Times also meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source, and the cited article does indeed reference the WSI; and details the validity of allegations made by a WSI participant. You did not specify details about the inconsistencies you presumably found between Swetts material and that in the news article, so I can't comment until you do. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The village voice article is entitled "Swift Boat Swill" - hardly a neutral POV, and in fact it is an editorial. Do editorials count as reliable sources? Regarding the veracity of participants, the article states:

As of March 1972, the army's CID noted that of the 46 allegations, "only 43 complainants have been identified" by investigators. "Only" 43 of 46? That means at least 93 percent of the veterans surveyed were real, not fake. Moreover, according to official records, CID investigators attempted to contact 41 people who testified at the Detroit session, which occurred between January 31 and February 2, 1971. Five couldn't be located, according to records. Of the remaining 36, 31 submitted to interviews—hardly the "few" asserted by SBVT.

In this section, it does NOT mention these relevant facts:Of the 46, 6 could not be located, 25 refused to provide information, 10 backtracked on or renounced their WSI testimony, 6 caused subsequent investigations which found no corroboration, and 1 provided information resulted in an ongoing investigation. Is it Wikipedia policy to honor an editorial with the word "Swill" in its title as a "reliable" source, while denying photocopies of actual government documents. I think not. While VV may have articles of actual reporting, this clearly is not one of them. This "reliable" source is not reliable and ignores information contradicting its POV. Gustnado (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The cited news article is not an editorial, and no amount of fist pounding and name calling will make it an editorial. If you wish to discuss the applicability of the Swill adjective to Swift Boat claims, you may do so here. I've asked twice now for you to provide direct quotes from your alleged government documents to support your claims (i.e.; "10 backtracked or renounced", "clear that the veracity of a significant number of WSI participants is highly suspect", etc.). Twice now you have avoided doing so, instead opting to blow smokescreens about POV, editorials, bias. Facts are facts, regardless of where you get them, right? I now ask you, for a third time, to back up your assertions. I'm prepared to ask you a 4th, or 10th time, if needed, so why not get it over with now? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I provided a link to the documents. You can easily read them yourself. They are summary sheets, quite short, with a standard format, so it is easy to locate the results of each case. Am I to manually transcribe them to here, because it is too much trouble for editors to themselves follow the links to these documents? Would I not then be subject to assertions that I had mis-transcribed them, which would require reference to the original documents to resolve, in any case? If the assertion is that my counts of the case results are significantly incorrect, the links to those documents makes my assertions easily challenged. If I transcribe the case results here, will you challenge the transcriptions? Gustnado (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've asked thrice now for you to provide direct quotes from your alleged government documents to support your claims (i.e.; "10 backtracked or renounced", "clear that the veracity of a significant number of WSI participants is highly suspect", etc.). Thrice now you have avoided doing so, instead opting to blow smokescreens about POV, editorials, bias or fear of being challenged. Facts are facts, regardless of where you get them, right? I now ask you, for a third time, to back up your assertions. I'm prepared to ask you a 4th, or 10th time, if needed, so why not get it over with now? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Here is the link to a page containing individual links. I provided it but it was deleted and only shows in reversion history. My apology to other editors whom I thought would find it easily. Now it is available to all. Here are a few excerpts (typed by myself and may contain typos). These are not complete documents, but include the COMPLAINANT, BACKGROUND, and STATUS/PROGNOSIS sections:

Douglas Craig

COMPLAINANT: Mr. Douglas S. Craig

BACKGROUND: Between 31 Jan and 2 Feb 71, at Detroit, MI, Mr. Craig testified in the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI) as a member of an organization identified as VIetnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Mr. Craig alleged that between Mar and Aug 69, at LZ St. Barber, RVN, unidentified members of his battalion nightly fired mortar rounds into a local dump with the knowledge that local civilians would be scavenging food. Mr. Craig said that, as a result of this mortaring, approximately two civilians a week were killed.

STATUS/PROGNOSIS: Investigation completed; insufficient evidence.

In a CID interview on 8 Jun 71, Mr. Craig stated that he had no direct information that civilians were killed and he had no knowledge as to who fired the mortars or what targets were offered. He further stated that he had misgivings about testifying in Detroit, as he could not substantiate the allegations. Mr. Craig said he did not desire to make a written statement because he had nothing to offer.

If you could clarify, which of your claims does this substantiate? WSI participants, 1) Backtracked; 2) Renounced; or 3) have highly suspect veracity? Craig didn't retract his claim that his battalion nuked the local dump nightly, causing injury & death. He doesn't have specific info about the civilians hit, or who fired the mortars and he feels bad about that, and he doesn't have anything else to offer in a written statement. Sounds straight forward to me, and doesn't conflict with his testimony. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Craig testified "And it was battalion-originated policy to mortar the neighboring dump on the pretext "the gooks are scavenging food." It was proven that it was civilians from the town of Loc Minh. Roughly two a week were killed and occasional injury was often treated at the battalion first aid hootch." In his interview, he admitted that he had no first hand information that civilians were killed, didn't know who fired the mortars and what was targeted. So at WSI he testified that events were a fact, while to CSI he reported no reliable knowlege. This would be characterized as either backtracking (on the certainty apparent in his testimony) or highly suspect veracity. Gustnado (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, he didn't "admit that he had no first hand information", he stated that he had no direct information. Leave the innuendo and subtle word-twisting to Swett, and let's keep this factual, please. It is perfectly reasonable that he saw, first-hand, frequent night-time mortaring of the nearby dump. It's dark, so he isn't going to see who is firing, or who is hit. If bodies or wounded are brought into the camp, it will quickly become common knowledge to people in the camp, but he isn't going to have "first hand" information about them. It appears the interviewer also asked him to name the people firing mortars, which tells me Craig is sticking with the mortar firing allegations; he just regrets he can't give specifics. At WSI he testified to events as fact, and in this report he is standing by his allegations, but is unable to give specific first hand information -- and doesn't backtrack at all. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

At WSI, he claimed 1-2 persons killed per week. When he is checked on it, he states that he has no first hand knowledge. The credibility of his claim of civilian casualties is hence suspect - at WSI he stated it as a fact, but actually it's hearsay. Anyone with military experience knows the unreliability of hearsay in that environment. He also stated that it was "policy" to mortar the dump because "the gooks are scavenging food." Again, he does not subtantiate this, and cannot say what "targets are offered" - in other words, why the mortars are shooting at what they are shooting at. Once again, unreliable.

1-2 persons killed per week, correct. When he is checked on it, he states he has no "direct information" (please note the interviewers actual language here) about the civilian deaths, compared to "no knowledge" at all about who was firing the mortars. Even if he saw the dead civilians, and helped haul them out of the dump, and discussed them with others, there is no direct information he can provide - but he can still factually make the assertions he did at the WSI based on his observations. He just can't provide proof (other than his own eye-witness accounts), hence his misgivings. Personal observations, even if he cannot substantiate them, do not equal hearsay. He obviously hasn't retracted any of his assertions; the interviewer specifies lack of "direct information", indicating he does have some information as opposed to "no knowledge"; and the file is marked as "insufficient evidence", as opposed to "unsubstantiated" or "disproven". You are doing backflips here trying to make the report imply things it simply doesn't say. Once again, no contradictions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on this argument thread, it appears that these photocopies are acceptable to Xenophrenic. Hence we should proceed from that basis.

(cut & pasted from above as a reminder)"The source you are citing is not valid for our purposes here, but, despite that, I'm willing to see your line of reasoning a little farther if only to better understand where you are coming from. Please quote this source of yours that directly supports the assertions you just made. Exact quotes, please, no paraphrasing." Xenophrenic (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: the 1-2 per week: "he had no direct information that civilians were killed" directly contradicts your reasoning aove. He couldn't "help haul them out" and no have direct knowledge. Since he did not have first hand knowledge (direct knowledge), the only alternatives are that his knowledge was either hearsay or made up. Let's call it hearsay. He did not testify at WSI that he "had heard" - he testified that "X happened." Hence his credibility is clearly questionable. The only one doing backflips is you.

Again, incorrect. The wording of the report does not preclude Craig having personal information that civilians were injured or killed, without being able to provide direct information. Craig simply "saying so" does not qualify as direct information, but having hauled a fresh corpse of an approximately 10 year old female from the recently fragged dump would certainly give him the standing to give the testimony that he did. The report's conclusion of insufficient evidence would be accurate, while your conclusion of "questionable credibility" is inaccurate and strained. I find it curious that while Craig indicated in testimony that it was "proven" that some of those civilians were from a neighboring village, the report interviewer doesn't address that (or maybe he did, and omitted it from the report). Xenophrenic (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the sources, you asked me to provide direct quotes - which could only be done fairly by typing them in. Do you accept that the CID report we have been analyzing is truth? Gustnado (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The "CID Report" we are discussing may or may not be an image of an actual government document; may or may not be doctored; may or may not have been updated or superceded by another document; may or may not be an incomplete part of a self-referencing set of such documents - I make no such assumptions about the item we are discussing. Beyond all that, do I accept it "is truth?" I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if I think it is a legitimate document, or are you asking if I think the content of the document is factual? I know that the military has "investigated" some charges against itself, and produced a number of reports. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Donald Donner

COMPLAINANT: Mr. Donald C. Donner

BACKGROUND: Between 31 Jan and 2 Feb 71 at Detroit, MI, Mr. Donner testified in the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI) as a member of an organization identified as VIetnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Mr. Donner testified that sometime in May 68, approximately 25 kilometers south of Saigon, on Highway 1 or 4, 12 mile north of a bridge crossing the Mekong River, a 5-ton truck (driver unidentified) in a convoy ran over a VN civilian male about 40-45 years of age. As a result, the injured man bled to death. Mr. Donner contended that head requested a helicopter to remove the injured man to a hospital for further treatment and was rebuked by the CO, 86th Cbt Engrs, who denied the request. Donner further alleged that in the Nha Be area, the unit fired across a river for no reason which resulted in the wounding of a 14-year-old girl. As a result of the wounds, the girl was permanently crippled. Donner also said livestock were killed for sport. On one occasion, on Highway 4, 12 miles north of the Mekon, a dead VC (16-year-old) was taken to a road by ARVN troops, tied to a pole, and left for three days as an example to others. Mr. Donner also related that at Bear Cat, 30 miles northeast of Saigon, 50 villagers who had fled from VC occupying their village were treatedd as enemy and placed in a PW compound when they came to Bear Cat for help.

STATUS/PROGNOSIS: Investigation completed; insufficient evidence.

Mr. Donner was interviewed by CID On 10 Jun 71. He stated that it was not the policy of the VVAW to give specific names, dates, and locations that might result in prosecution against anyone. He went on to say that he was of the opinion that the incident involving a 5-ton truck, which struck an old VN man on a bicycle, was an accident. A sharp projection on the bicycle had cut open the VN man's abdomen and medical aid had failed to stop the profuse bleeding. Donner said even if a medevac helicopter had arrived immediately, the man would not have lived. Donner also stated he thought the crippling of the VN girl was an accident. He said the incident occurred before his assignment to the unit and later he had talked to the girl involved. Donner further stated he never saw livestock killed for sport, but acquired the information through hearsay. Concerning the incident involving a VC body displayed by ARVN troops, Donner said members of his unit complained about it until the body was removed. He also said that the villagers who had fled from the VC were processed, and this was probably standard procedure.

If you could clarify, which of your claims does this substantiate? WSI participants, 1) Backtracked; 2) Renounced; or 3) have highly suspect veracity? The 5-ton truck accident and the severity of the bleeding wound correspond exactly to his WSI testimony. His complaint was that his CO wouldn't authorize assistance, and told him not to do anything until he arrived there (more than 20 minutes later, after the man bled to death). The testimony and this report check out. At the WSI, Donner said that the crippling of the VN girl happened 6 months before he got there, and was accidental (and he speculated that everyone involved was probably messed up on dope). This checks out exactly with this CID report. His statement about water bufallo being shot was not his allegation, but was made to corroborate a first-hand allegation by another vet from the same unit at a much earlier date. Regarding the displayed VC body and treating villagers as the enemy, the CID report just repeats what he said at the WSI, no contradictions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WSI participant backtracked. He started his testimony by showing his intent:

I'm going to testify about the refusal of medical attention to civilians wounded by Americans, the allowing of desecration of dead Vietnamese bodies by ARVNs, corroboration of the destruction of livestock, and many of the other things that have been mentioned.

The water buffalo allegation is clearly not true (bold added): "We often shot water buffalo while on convoy sort of to relieve the boredom" which is directly contradicted by his CID interview: "Donner further stated he never saw livestock killed for sport, but acquired the information through hearsay."

You'd better read that again. The killing of livestock allegation is made by over a dozen vets at the WSI; some admitting to shooting at them themselves, while others offer second-hand or indirect corroboration. You incorrectly say his "allegation is clearly not true" (it is probably very true), when the worst you can say about it is that it is based on hearsay. He began his testimony by explaining that he was in the same unit as other testifiers, and referred to their unit as "we" thereafter. "First of all, I would like to corroborate a little bit which has already been said. I was with an engineer unit, the 86th, with the other gentleman at a much later date. The engineer unit is...". He didn't recant his allegation, and the interviewer only concluded "insufficient evidence".

When someone "testifies" at an "investigation" and says "we did [this or that]", and then when asked about it later, admits no direct knowledge, that person has walked back. If he had said "I heard that we did..." it would be different. That others made that allegation is irrelevant - we are discussing Donald Donner's testimony, not whether others observed it. He says he is going to corroborate, but when questioned by a real CID investigator, is unable to corroborate anything. Gustnado (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

When someone testifies that his unit has shot at livestock for sport, and then further adds, when asked about it later, that he did not personally witness it, that person has given additional information. He still stands by his assertion, obviously; he didn't "backtrack" one bit of it, and he didn't "admit" anything to CID. That many others made the same allegation is very relevant, since he mentioned it in support of the testimony from others. The CID report does not go into detail about the nature of the "hearsay". It could be as simple as Donner asking Joey and Sammy where they got that buffalo head they were mounting on the wall. You are correct that Donner's testimony, if taken as stand-alone, could be interpreted as implying first-hand knowledge - but it is equally correct that nothing in his testimony states first-hand knowledge. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue with the wounded civilian is likewise contradicted. He testifies:

Our medic checked him over fast and said he couldn't do anything for him. They'd have to get him on to a different hospital or something. So, I got on the radio and called for another medivac which would take about 15 minutes to get there. I called in on the straight medivac band. My company was monitoring that band and, unfortunately, I guess, the CO of the company was walking by at the time. He came back and asked me what was happening. I explained we had a wounded Vietnamese civilian. He said not to do anything till he got there."

but to CID he states "Donner said even if a medevac helicopter had arrived immediately, the man would not have lived." The clear implication of his WSI testimony was a disregard for civilian life, while his CID testimony shows that not calling in a Medivac was not inappropriate."

Wow, can we possibly misrepresent his statements to any greater extent? Yes, Doctor Donner told CID the man would not have lived, just like he said in his WSI testimony, "About five minutes later the civilian was in much, much worse shape. It was obvious that he was going to die by now. I called back to the company again and said, "We got to have a medivac now. It's not right just to leave this man bleed to death in front of his own people. We're the ones who wounded him, therefore we should at least try to show that we're trying to help him." Again the captain came back. Said, "Don't do anything till I get there. He's a civilian, you know." Another five minutes later and the medic brought my poncho to cover him up with. He was dead. About fifteen minutes, twenty minutes after that, the CO finally got there." Neither testimony says the CO was told the man wouldn't survive, therefore it would be inappropriate to try to help. Donner hasn't backtracked a single step from his testimony, his point was made and no credibility issue is raised by the CID.

His testimony implies, consistent with the purpose of the WSI exercise, a disregard for human life. His response to CID indicates no such disregard.

His response to CID is the same as his WSI testimony. He has established an act of disregard for human life. Nothing in the CID report counters that. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the civilian girl, his WSI testimony is

"Oh, six months earlier, or so. There was a very pretty, very vivacious little twelve, fourteen year old girl who lived within our perimeter at a hootch. She was permanently disabled. Her leg was stiff, would never straighten out again. She was on one side of the river and evidently somebody thought there was some VC over there and everybody opened up. Most likely everybody was messed up on some sort of dope or other. And she was wounded, could not be helped,"

again showing certitude, while to CID he said that it was hearsay (how does he know she was wounded across a river, for example?).

Wrong - As Donner stated at the WSI, this happened before he got there. He confirmed that, with the same certitude in the CID report. No backtracking at all here, and no indication of a credibility issue. (As a side note, I requested that you provide substantiation to back up your claim that CID reports show many of the WSI vets backtracked or were not credible. You haven't advanced your argument.) Xenophrenic (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, at WSI he asserted that she had been shot from across a river. To CID he admitted that he had no first hand knowledge. Again, we have a "witness" at an "investigation" who is "testifying" to something he has no reliable knowledge of. In a real investigation, a lawyer would have shredded him.

No, at WSI he asserted this happened 6 months before he got there, so he stated he had no first hand information at both the WSI and in the CID report - and he "admitted" nothing. That's your word. Keep weaseling it in there, and I'll keep calling you on it. What is it you think he's testifying to here, by the way? The CID report and his WSI testimony match perfectly. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In summary, of the three allegations: one assertion was completely backtracked, from the false "we" shot, to he never saw livestock killed for sport; one assertion implied that a civilian was left to die, which is contradicted; the third is stated with certainty, but that certainty was contradicted - he didn't know if it was accidental or not. Gustnado (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In reality (sorry, you can't avoid it), of the three allegations: one assertion that his unit ("we") had shot livestock for sport was reasserted, and he didn't personally witness it but had only second-hand information; one assertion implied that a CO rebuked a request for help for a mortally wounded civilian, and was not contradicted by the CID report; the third allegation was stated with certainty as hearsay at the WSI, and confirmed with equal certainty in the CID report as hearsay. The CID report further confirms his WSI claim that the injury was accidental, and doesn't contradict any of his allegations. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have stated my disagreement in detail above. No need for summary.

Then we can move on. I'm still waiting for substantiation of your assertion that many of the participants backtracked or refuted their testimony, or have extremely questionable veracity. You are not advancing your argument. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Donald Pugsley

COMPLAINANT: Mr. Donald Pugsley

BACKGROUND: Between 31 Jan and 2 Feb 71, at Detroit, MI, Mr. Pugsley testified at the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI) as a member of an organization identified as the VIetnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Mr. Pugsley alleged that in Dec 69, an unidentified COL ordered a gun-ship to strafe water buffalo in Poli-Klang village.

STATUS/PROGNOSIS: Investiation completed; unsubstantiated.

In a sworn statement to CID on 19 Jul 71, Mr. Pugsley stated that he was told by another individual that during a helicopter mission to extract a Special Forces Team, a U.S. Army LTC ordered a gunship pilot to strafe water buffalo with the aircraft's miniguns. However, the pilot, according to Mr. Pugsley, refused to strafe the water buffalo, and the mission was completed.

If you could clarify, which of your claims does this substantiate? WSI participants, 1) Backtracked; 2) Renounced; or 3) have highly suspect veracity? Pugsley's WSI testimony and this CID report both indicate an order was given, but not carried out; no contradictions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Larry Craig

COMPLAINANT: Mr. Larry Craig

BACKGROUND: Between 31 Jan and 2 Feb 71, at Detroit, Mi, Mr. Craig testified at the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI) as a member of an organization identified as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Mr. Craig alleged that he observed unidentified members of the 3/4th Cav shoot and kill a PW. On another occasion he observed an unidentified person partially remove dirt from a grave in an effort to determine the approximate time of burial. The grave site was subsequently used as a basis for a body count reported to an unidentified division headquarters.

STATUS/PROGNOSIS: Investigation complete; insufficient evidence.

Mr. Craig was interviewed by CID on 29 Jul 71. He stated that the VN male killed could have been VC and that the US soldier digging in the cemetery could have been looking for weapons caches. Mr. Craig was unable to provide specific information or identify any personnel, US or VN.

If you could clarify, which of your claims does this substantiate? WSI participants, 1) Backtracked; 2) Renounced; or 3) have highly suspect veracity? Craig's WSI testimony that a POW was shot and that Vietnamese graves were dug up (and counted for bodycount purposes) is not contradicted by this CID report, and there is no backtracking. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Craig:

"we would write stories about these glorious victories which didn't take place. And generally, what I saw were how the figures were turned around on body counts. One particular time I was with the 3/4 Cavalry where three of our men got killed."

I ask that you please stop editing my comments. You added a sentence to the previous comment. The result is misleading and is a violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Gustnado (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't touched your comments; however, I did expand a direct quotation to which we must both refer in this conversation. I'll be sure to annotate corrections to quotations in the future. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

""Our men killed one young Vietnamese who was actually a prisoner at the time that he was killed, laying in the grass in front of us."

"Unable to provide any specific information" is highly suspect, since this was supposedly important enough for him to remember and testify about.

Unable to provide any specific information" is highly routine; and the killing of people is generally considered memorable. Nothing suspect about any statements here.

He claims a killing but can't provide specific information. That is not credible, it is, in fact, incredible. Gustnado (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. For the WSI participants, not naming specific individuals and not giving information specific enough to indict an individual is standard M.O., as I am certain you aware. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"One actual instance that I was in on. We had a body count of 17 and it was a matter of digging up graves. The idea was to dig up a grave and verify that this particular Vietnamese had been killed in that action and had been hastily buried as the Viet Cong left. But, what we actually did was dug in one grave; it looked very old in this case, it was just an old graveyard. The fellow digging got tired of digging so we didn't even get down to any skeletons but we counted all the graves in the old graveyard."

Once again, please do not edit my comments. By adding an indent to the above, you confuse the timeline of the comment thread. It is hard enough sorting through all this information as it is. Gustnado (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I don't edit your comments. However, I have corrected or expanded direct quotations to which we both must refer. Any formatting I have done has been either accidental or an attempt to clarify, not confuse, the commentary. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here he claims he was in on this situation, yet he backtracks and says maybe the soldier was looking for weapons cache. That is a completely different explanation than "digging up graves to verify body counts." Clearly he was lying about the intent, or he didn't know the intent but lied that he did. Highly suspect veracity.

"digging up graves to verify body counts?" Could you provide a link to this quotation, please, and a notation as to who spoke those words? As for Craig's testimony, he didn't backtrack and the CID report doesn't contradict. His allegations were that a prisoner of war was shot; graves were dug up; whole cemetaries of graves were counted to inflate body counts - and all of these are supported by the CID report. You seem to be getting confused over what he said they were supposed to do versus what they actually did (counted the graves instead of digging them all up). Of course he's not going to name names or give other specific info - it's the military interviewing him, remember? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are being tendentious. My quotes marks were not to indicate a quotation, but a meaning. The paragraph is immediately above and comes from the WSI transcripts. His refusal to name names makes him less credible - he may not know the names, and if he does, he is impeding an investigation into war crimes - something he supposedly is strongly against. No, this guy's credibility is poor, and was clearly damaged by his report to CID. Gustnado (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, his refusal to name names is routine, and has nothing to do with his credibility. They said at the outset that they would not be naming individuals; and most certainly would not be doing so in an investigation of the military by the military. You can keep saying that it is a credibility issue, but you forget... I did not drink the Swett-Aid, and I can read. I'd suggest you try a legitimate tact to support your allegations. His credibility is intact, and even supported by the CID report. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

His allegation was that graves were dug up to verify who had been killed (for body counts - see the context), but he backtracks on that when talking to CID and says that maybe the grave was being dug up to look for weapons. Those are very different things, especially regarding the POV of his testimony. Digging up graves to inflate a body count is inexcusable; digging up a grave to search for weapons is quite legitimate. Gustnado (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am still investigating the "VN male killed could have been VC" in the summary, since it is a bit of a non-sequitur. Gustnado (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like you haven't finished "investigating" the previous events, either - since you were going to show me major contradictions and highly suspect veracity, remember? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of that comment. Gustnado (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder to not get ahead of yourself. You are supposed to be justifying your claims thst many of the CID reports show the WSI participants backtracked, and/or showed highly questionable veracity. You haven't done that. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

John Lytle

COMPLAINANT: Mr. John Lytle

BACKGROUND: Between 31 Jan and 2 Feb 71, at Detroit, MI, Mr. Lytle testified at the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI) as a member of an organization identified as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). My. Lytle alleged that during harassment and interdiction fire, 105 MM shells were at times fired into villages at night as a result of movements in the village.s Mr. Lytle inferred that no efforts were made to determine who was in the target area and the firing resulted in the destruction of villages.

STATUS/PROGNOSIS: Investigation completed; insufficient evidence.

In a 16 Jun 71 CID interview, Mr. Lytle stated that the villages were fired on because it was suspected that VC occupied them and because incoming fire had been received from the approximate area. Mr. Lytle was unable to identify ay of the perosnnel involved or name specific incidents.

If you could clarify, which of your claims does this substantiate? WSI participants, 1) Backtracked; 2) Renounced; or 3) have highly suspect veracity? Lytle's testimony that H&I was used at night, including on villages, without determining who was in the target area, is not contradicted by his statements in this CID report. When specifically asked at the WSI how it was known they were shooting at VC, his response was, "We were in areas that if there was movement at night, wow, maybe they're trying to get you, so we get them first." No backtracking here. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Palosaari

COMPLAINANT: Mr. Ronald C. Palosaari

BACKGROUND: Between 31 Jan and 2 Feb 71, at Detroit, MI, Mr. Palosaari testified at the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI) as a member of an organization identified as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Mr. Palosaari alleged that he heard men in his unit bragging about throwing a grenade intoa bunker, which was adjacent to a house, in an attempt to determine if anyone was in the bunker. Later, Mr. Palosaari looked into the bunker and saw two children and an old lady who had been killed. On another occation, in a valley (he believes it was known as "AK Valley"), Mr. palosaari observed a CIDG VN cutting off the ear of an NVA soldier who had just been killed by CIDG personnel.

STATUS/PROGNOSIS: Investigation completed; insurficient evidence.

Mr. Palosaari was interview by CID on 29 Jul 71. He was unable to provide specific dates, locations, or names of individuals allegedly involved. He said he did not know who threw the grenade into the bunker and did not actually witness the mutilation of any enemy dead.

If you could clarify, which of your claims does this substantiate? WSI participants, 1) Backtracked; 2) Renounced; or 3) have highly suspect veracity? Palosaari's WSI testimony was that their CIDG point-men had blown the head off a VN and cut an ear off it. "And as we walked by, you know, everyone thought it was, you know, kind of cool, to see this head there that was, you know, half gone to begin with and have the ear sliced off and there it was just like a, you know, it was flat--with a small hole left in the side of the head." The CID report incorrectly assumes Palosaari claimed to "observe" the cutting off of the ear, when his WSI testimony indicates the men ahead of him did it, and he then came across the results. The additional information in the CID report doesn't contradict Palosaari's testimony; it only clarifies it. No backtracking involved here either. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

David Stark

COMPLAINANT: Mr. David Stark

BACKGROUND: Between 31 Jan and 2 Feb 71, at Detroit, MI, Mr. Stark testified at the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI) as a member of an organization identified as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Mr. Stark alleged to the dropping of 6,500 pounds of bombs and the strafing of the Cholon area (Saigon) during late Feb 68. 1,300 to 1,400 bodies were found. It was estimated that 300 VC were in this area. Mr. Stark also testified to the maltreatment of PW's.

STATUS/PROGNOSIS: Investigation completed; unsubstantiated.

In a CID interview, Mr. Stark stated that he personally saw no bodies, was unable to identify the aircraft used in the bombing of Cholon, was unable to identify the military units conducting the clean up operation, and did not witness the maltreatment of PW's except on one occasion when he saw a PW pushed and shoved by two ARVN soldiers.

If you could clarify, which of your claims does this substantiate? WSI participants, 1) Backtracked; 2) Renounced; or 3) have highly suspect veracity? The CID report confirms what Stark said in his WSI testimony. In his WSI testimony, Stark never claimed to have seen bodies; noted the involved Korean unit (no US military units to identify) and while he described aparatus used for electrical and water torture, he specifically noted that he didn't personally witness it being used. The only "personally witnessed" treatment of PWs he cited at the WSI was the "minor beatings" of their legs. Failing to repeat that allegation in the CID report is most certainly a grievous backtracking. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

George Smith

COMPLAINANT: Mr. George Smith

BACKGROUND: Between 31 Jan and 2 Feb 71, at Detroit, MI, Mr. Smith testified at the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI) as a member of an organization identified as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Mr. Smith alleged that PW's taken by his unit were beaten and then placed in barbed wire cages that were about three or four feet high.

STATUS/PROGNOSIS: Investigation completed; unsubstantiated.

In a 21 Jun 71 CID interview, Mr. Smith stated that in Oct 63, in the Hiep Hoa Hamlet, he observed SVN from the local Civilian Irregulard Defense Group beat PW's and place them in barbed wire cages too small to stand in. Mr. Smith further statded that his unit was acting in an advisory capacity only and was not involved in the maltreatment of the PW's.

Gustnado (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you could clarify, which of your claims does this substantiate? WSI participants, 1) Backtracked; 2) Renounced; or 3) have highly suspect veracity? This CID report confirms, and does not contradict, Smith's WSI testimony. Smith, in his WSI testimony, alleged this behavior occured in his camp, and he never specified who took the prisoners. There is no contradiction, backtracking or renunciation here. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

You have only cited 8 CID reports to support your assertion that the 46+ CID reports show rampant backtracking, refutation and highly suspect veracity. These 8 fail to show anything remotely resembling that. Should I assume you are starting with these 8, and working your way up to the actual damning CID reports? I'll await your identification of them. (Save yourself some typing and just quote the relevant contradictions you think you see, I can read the full transcripts myself.) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have only laboriously typed 8 into this page, and we have only discussed one at this point. I typed them in because you stated "Please quote this source of yours that directly supports the assertions you just made. Exact quotes, please, no paraphrasing. " after I wrote that the sources were the documents themselves. Now we can analyze them one at a time, and jointly reach conclusions directly, here. I don't expect the numbers to be an exact match with my original counts, as this effort will provide additional, very critical analysis. The result should be better.

You have indeed typed a lot. Seriously, though, you can just provide the specific supportive parts. It has to be a pain trying to transcribe every word from .PDF documents. I'm sure our analysis and original research will be very critical - perhaps we'll be able to sell it to someone ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to refer by HTML hot-link to the document and paraphrase or quote short parts. Somehow I doubt this analysis will sell ;-) Gustnado (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I was serious when I suggested that you must be holding back the "highly suspect veracity" examples. We're talking about three days of testimony from over 100 people - 108 single-spaced, micro print pages of allegations, and the best discrediting you can muster is a soldier clarifying that instead of shooting livestock himself, he was informed about it? I'm really hoping you are sitting on 70-80 such examples if you plan to cast any type of shadow at all. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In your preface you state, as if it were somehow indicative of evil intent, that many of the WSI participants refused to provide information or cooperate. That is highly inaccurate, and misleading. As you know from the opening statements of the three-day event, and the several reminders during the event, their purpose was not to indict their fellow veterans, but the policy makers and the leaders ultimately responsible. They would not be naming specific individuals so that the military could use them as scapegoats; they would not be providing detailed specifics that would allow the military to pass the blame off on "a few bad apples". The organizers and moderators would make clear time and again,

" Hold on a second, please. It's against the policy of the Winter Soldier to name any names of any officers or NCOs because we are trying to avoid scapegoating. That is one of the main premises, so once this man has been named let's just hold back on any tales about him specifically. If it had been mentioned "just a general" that would have been one thing, but we are not going to do anything by scapegoating; we don't want these people to just jump on them; we want the government policy changed; we don't want them scapegoating more Calleys.

It has been a popular tactic among critics attempting to discredit the WSI to cite the participants reluctance to name names (while those same critics conveniently fail to mention that those participants do agree to provide specific evidence to an impartial, non-military investigation). Being "investigated" by the very people you are accusing doesn't inspire cooperation. Keep in mind that this event took place during the My Lai revelations, when the big story wasn't that 500+ innocent civilians were slaughtered by American troops, but that the American military and government bent over backwards trying to cover it up. Any investigation of the military by the military had the primary goal of covering their arse, with the goal of getting to the truth of the matter being secondary. That was the contention of the WSI, anyway. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Credibility section

I've reorganized the credibility section into three sections, with the content listed in chronological order. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Current version of this Wiki article does not present information on invesigation of WSI

There seems to be substantial and well-referenced information about follow-ups to the Winter Soldier Investigation that have taken place over the decades; see e.g. here -- http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/investigate_the_winter_soldier.html The impression a neutral observer gets upon perusing what is available on the internet, is that while there clearly were atrocities committed by US troops in Vietnam, the standard Winter Soldier lore (e.g. as represented in this Wiki article) does not take into account neither the revelations, nor the lack thereof, that became apparent with time. Therefore, the Wiki article in its present form is incomplete. Furthermore, it cannot be considered to be devoid of a 'point of view' (as called for by Wiki policy), unless the contributors were unaware of the points I raise here. I therefore believe it would be a good idea for some person or persons to improve the article along these lines. 08:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrino421 (talk • contribs)

Of which "revelations, nor the lack thereof", specifically, do you speak? I've read the article (in a source deemed by unreliable by Wikipedia, by the way), and see nothing new there. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This article seems heavily slanted. Who wants to bet the guy writing and editing it is an anti-Vietnam War lefty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.45.173 (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC) 24.27.45.173

Did you mean the more than 35 guys and gals writing and editing it? No bet. Odds are that most of them are right handed, just as a matter of genetics. Speaking for myself, I see no reason why Vietnam should go to war. Have they been threatened? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This article, until edits just put in, is 100% slanted towards one POV. Only sources which support that POV are cited.

If one were to believe this article, every person who testified at WS was telling the truth, which is statistically absurd, not to mention that the Army and Burkette refuted it.

This article should at least be marked disputed. It is an example of why many hold Wikipedia in low regard.

It has all the appearances of being a scholarly, referenced article. In fact, it is total propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustnado (talk • contribs) 07:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of the edits just put in have been removed due primarily to sourcing. Swett's propaganda site is not a valid reliable source. Also, adding your own personal original research based on a link to the order page of a 2.5 hour C-SPAN video is also not allowed. What "specifically investigated" issues are you speaking of when you say you "added a source (Burkett)"? (Note: Sources are usually a published work, with page numbers and other details cited for the content you are adding -- not just someone's last name.) The Army, while not able (or not motivated) to confirm many of the allegations, never produced a fraudulent vet, nor a false allegation from those that testified at the WSI. Can you be more specific about what you feel is disputed? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I have found your comments, we can have a discussion. My apologies for missing this earlier.

You did, and re-did, and re-did a wholesale revert on my original changes (of which there were several) within 15 minutes of original posting, without providing the reason for most of the reversions. Please address each reversion specifically.

Swett's site "propaganda" contains the only online archives of original government FOIA material, and that is what I have cited, not Swett's content itself. If those are not reliable sources, what are?

Incorrect. Each edit of mine was accompanied by an edit summary giving a reason. The link you provided is to Swett's website, which allegedly contains actual government documents hand-selected by Swett; prefaced by "Summaries" written by Swett reflecting Swett's interpretation of the presumably undoctored documents. I assume the "only online archives" is an assumption of yours; as is your assumption that the documents conflicting with Swett's agenda were not intentionally left out of that collection. You ask what are reliable sources? That is explained here. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are rambling about the archives on Swett's site. What are the precise reasons for considering that information not-reliable? Gustnado (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not considered the reliability of the information. I have commented only on the unreliable source from which you draw that information. Citing a reliable source is the first hurdle; after that you can move on to consideration of the information from that reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is the US Government. Swett's site is only a repository in this case. Hence the source is reliable. Anyone doubting the veracity can use FOIA to get the documents for themselves, which is also apparently the only way to get this information other than on Swett's site. Since the information is extremely relevant to the veracity of the entire Winter Soldier investigation, suppressing it would be inappropriate and leave the article seriously deficient and strongly supporting a POV rather than the truth.

You did not link to the US Government. You linked to a site established with the rather obvious intent of disparaging a candidate during a presidential campaign season. That site may contain documents obtained through FOIA, or it may contain doctored copies, or it may contain only some pages, while conveniently failing to show us others. It does not meet Wikipedia's standard as a reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The idea that the documents are doctored requires a belief that the very complex technological task to do so was undertaken flawlessly, and that Swett was willing to commit a felony in public, when the information is easily checked. There is absolutely no reason to believe that these documents are doctored. If they were simply HTML text (as the cite allow in from the equally biased VVAW site), it would be a different case. They are not. They are high quality automatic copies of historical documents.

That the site may not contain all pages is irrelevant to the content of the referenced documents. It is, however, typical of almost all sources - they are rarely exhaustive. For exmaple, newspaper articles are heavily cherry picked and edited to support the tone of the article (otherwise they would be too long).

However, these documents clearly show that, of a significant minority of those testifying at WSI who were investigated in that investigation, only one was willing or able to supply information that was useful in further investigation. Such a statistic is extremely relevant to this article. Without that information, the article leaves no reason to believe anything but that the WSI participants were all truthful, while with the information, it becomes clear that the veracity of a significant number of WSI participants is highly suspect. Gustnado (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on there. "These documents clearly show ..." what, exactly? The source you are citing is not valid for our purposes here, but, despite that, I'm willing to see your line of reasoning a little farther if only to better understand where you are coming from. Please quote this source of yours that directly supports the assertions you just made. Exact quotes, please, no paraphrasing. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would rather that you read the readily available documents, if your asertion is that these documents do not show what I wrote. Have you read them - specifically, in each one, the disposition of the case? The number of witnesses documented is 48 (a significant minority). For each one there is a document which gives the disposition. My entry simply counted those dispositions by category - any editor or reader can do the same. Of course, if you insist, I can put a copy of each on wikimedia and provide a link to each image for you to peruse. I could even type in the relevant lines here, but that seems silly Gustnado (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read them. I repeat my request. You claimed, "...with [Swett's] information, it becomes clear that the veracity of a significant number of WSI participants is highly suspect." Please quote the information here that backs up your assertion. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My "original research" is merely a summary of a reference, and the link makes the content material available to anyone - with at least the same availability that references to online books not even available from Amazon (the bulk of the references) do.

You linked to a video of a political rally against a democratic presidential candidate. Your summary of your interpretation of what you viewed is not valid content for Wikipedia articles. A reliable secondary source would be required. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the information that I provided is incorrect, irrelevant or not backed up by evidence? If not, it belongs in the articleas it contradicts as strong POV in the article. I will add it back, since you have not responded. Gustnado (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may proffer a bit of advice: if you are having trouble finding my responses to you, you will find them located immediately after your comments. Repeating what I said before, but in the form of a direct quote from Wikipedia's WP:OR Policy page:

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Xenophrenic (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice the word "mainly" in that policy. In this case, the secondary sources do not exist, but the primary source does exist. Hence a description of that content is appropriate, especially since the content itself is provided for validation. Unless you believe the information to be false, you are rejecting it in the favor of inaccuracy of the original article - an inaccuracy that sustains a POV that is challenged by this source material.

You should re-read, please. "Mainly" secondary sources, or to a lesser extent, tertiary sources -- it did not leave room for primary sources. Read what it actually says about how to handle primary sources, please. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) From Wikipedia Primary source "As a general rule, modern historians prefer to go back to primary sources, if available, as well as seeking new ones, because primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions, and most modern history revolves around heavy use of archives for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. On the other hand, most undergraduate research projects are limited to secondary source material." Gustnado (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of this source falls into the acceptable use of primary material: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Since the use was simply to count up the categories, any reasonable literate person could verify that from the primary source. The primary source is the scan of government documents in one case, and a CSPAN video in the other. The FOIA documents additionally are accessible to anyone who wants to file an FOIA for the linked material, and the linked material gives precise information to allow one to get exactly the information, without the usual fishing expedition. In the case of the political rally, quotes were provided, not analysis, and backed them up with a precise reference to the primary material, again verifiable by a reasonable, educated person. If other quotes should be added for balance, that should be considered. The purpose of the rally is irrelevant to the issue of whether Pitkin did or did not make those statements on that date. Gustnado (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

wintersoldier.com is not a "primary source" for government documents, and it is not a reliable source for factual content to be added to Wikipedia articles. If you disagree, I suggest you raise the matter on the reliable source noticeboard and ask for feedback. As I've noted before, those same government documents are covered by reliable secondary sources like the LA Times. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

See above Gustnado (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean this particular issue is resolved. If you wish to revisit it in the future, I would suggest your first step be to raise the matter on the WP:RSN. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic also removed the characterization of Camil is a "VVAW leader" and a "Kerry campaign worker" aserting that this is POV unless balanced by a list of Camil's military awards.

Xenophrenic made no such assertion. I said, "They don't belong in this article any more than [Camil's military awards]." Please correct or strike your false statement. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate contrast. The (sourced) characterizations go to the POV of Camil as a witness, while his heroism is not relevant to the controversy. However, if it is appropriate, we can add "higly decorated combat veteran" to the list (even if it is irrelevant) if necessary to satisfy NPOV opinion of Xenophrenic.Gustnado (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither is appropriate, see above. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that there was an unchallenged reference to the VVAW site, to original content on that site. I removed the cite because that information was not in verifiable (scanned copy) form and was available elsewhere). However, in a courtesy I wish you would extend, I did not remove the related information.Gustnado (talk

That citation was not originally given for the content presently in the article, but for content that had been previously removed. Citations to the VVAW's web site can be used in that article for certain content, by the way. As for extending courtesy, if content is cited to reliable sources when it is introduced to the article, it is customary to leave the content during discussions. However, if you'll review the archives of this talk page, you'll find that this particular topic has been discussed many times already. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I will leave out the Burkett reference for now, until I have page cites which are relevant and not disproved by more reliable sources.

As noted in the section below this one, I believe you'll find Burkett relies heavily on Lewy's previous faulty assertions. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would have the courtesy to address each reversion

I have, in the edit summaries as well as here, and I will continue to do so. If you ever need further clarification, please do not hesitate to ask. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Gustnado (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(moved to more appropriate section) Gustnado (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the "Pitkin Controversy" section as follows:

• Added statements form Pitkins Sep 12, 2004 speech, and clarified reliable source reference to give exact time in the clip for his speech.
• Removed an unreliable source a movie review)
• Re-added information about Camil's POV, as it is highly relevant to this section
• Changed the POV word "refuted" to "contradicted"

(moved personal comment to editor's talk page for further discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

Should I assume this was added by User:Gustnado?

Yes, my apologies for failing to sign that part of my edit.

The edit which inserted content attributed to non-reliable sources was again reverted, per the above discussion. Wikipedia's policy on this has not changed in the past 24 hours. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have redone one part of that edit, again changing "refuted" to "contradicted," since the original objection did not address that issue, and because "refuted" is incorrect - Camil is not a and hence cannot "refute" anything. Gustnado (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There are others that are marked resolved that are not resolved. Please don't do that without agreement. I also notice that the dispute tags have been removed. I am adding them back, since the POV and Accuracy are in dispute, with a number of issues still open (and others I will introduce, but not while we already have a complex set of discussions in progress). Gustnado (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

When you do add them back, please do so with specific description of the justifications here. The original cited issues have been addressed, and while I agree we are still discussing, the tags are not at this point justified. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am adding them back. They are justified because we are disputing the issues. While you may ark things resolved that aren't, that does not change the facts. You told me that Wikipedia will be around a long time, so given that, why the rush to remove those tags? The tags may cause others to contribute to this dispute, which is appropriate. Gustnado (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As requested above, please provide specific descriptions and justifications for the tags. Just placing tags and claiming POV issues without actually specifically describing valid issues is inappropriate. If you wish the tags to cause others to "contribute to this dispute", then please give them something with which to work. There is no rush to remove tags; there is always a rush to have tags justified on the talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)