Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

October 2004 protection

This article and Vietnam Veterans Against the War are the subject of an edit war between one or two logged-in users (I see User:TDC and User:SEWilco) and a series of anonymous IPs, which I have good reason to suspect are the same person or coordinated persons. User:165.247.204.75's second edit was a comment on my protection of the VVAW article. To see more of my reasoning and brief back and forth with -Rob see the bottom of User talk:Cecropia. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am still awaiting Cecropia's suggestion on how I am to procede with a user that refuses to enter discussion about his vandalism. -Rob

I have already given Rob suggestions on my talk page. Basically, appeal to other admins to get their input or possibly unprotect and/or explain what his changes should be here and request comment from other editors at RfC. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: Open-ended protection is against policy. If there is no movement here in 24 hours, and no one else has unprotected, I will and see what happens. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ceropia don't unprotect the page just yet. As a completely disinterested party who knows nothing about the subject, I can hopefully have a crack at reaching a compromise solution. I'd like to give it a go anyway, before we let the edit wars return. (I'm off to read the article now) Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 13:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK I've read it through quickly once. I have to say, that at a first read through parts of the article are not all that well written. For example I found the large number of TLA's confusing, plus I don't like the fact that the quotes are not clearly seperated from the main text, parts of the commentry are dull, parts are repeated, maybr I'm being too harsh, but if people spent more time in writing a good article and less in editwarring think how brilliant the article would be by now. What I propose to do is this:

1. The disputed tag stays on the article. It's clear that the factual accuracy of the article is disputed by someone at least, so we keep the tag in place until everyone is satisfied that the article is factually correct.
2. We go through the article paragraph by paragraph here on the talk page. Once we reach a compromise wording that everyone is happy with - (and only then) we correct that paragraph on the article. Everyone will need to agree not to edit the article in the meantime.
3. Once we have gone through the entire article, and everyone is happy with it, we remove the dispute tag.

Is the above idea acceptable? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 14:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The above idea is not only acceptable, but appears to be very close to the standard procedure followed up until very recently. The only addition I would make to your suggestion is that we start with the most complete NPOV version, and work through paragraph by paragraph. Presently, over a third of the document appears to be missing. -Rob

Rob we can start with any version you like. Let's work on a temporary verion Winter Soldier Investigation (temp).I'll put you preferred version there. Then we can compare you preferred version with the current version, and we can hammer out the details on the temporary versions talk page. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 20:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK I've done it. Please check that the version I've put there is the one you wanted, then we can begin. This page is getting too long, we can iether archive this page and discuss the temporary version here or we can move the discussion over to talk:Winter Soldier Investigation (temp). I'm happy with either solution. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 20:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The version you put up as a temp looks OK, and we can use the Talk page associated with that version for now, since this page is indeed cluttered. But I have a hunch I'll be citing old discussions here from time to time. So what is the first editing issue on the agenda? -Rob

I started Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation (temp) with a comment about the Russell Tribunal discussion. Rob's preferred version has more detail than does TDC's preferred version (the one that received protection). I've muddied the waters by preferring less detail than either. JamesMLane 21:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reasoning behind TDC's deletions

TDC - can you tell me why you have deleted the "November" date from the portion of the article that references the Russell Tribunal? -Rob

Ed Poor's Additions

Ed, I believe the organizer's stated intent of showing the relationship between the cause of war crimes and the policies of the administration and military is more accurate than the shorter and more inflammatory statement that they intended to blame the leaders. Please let me know if you disagree. -Rob

I'm not going to revert - mostly because I'll do almost anything to head off an edit war. But I don't understand the difference between "showing the relationship" and "blaming". -Ed

Obviously you do see a difference, or you would not have deemed it necessary to replace the phrase "showing the relationship" with the similar but different word "blaming." Both phrases indicate the intent to indict the administration, but the word "blame" also carries with it a strong connotation of censure, and I seek to avoid such vehement POV words. -Rob

My dim historical recollection of the event was that it was almost literally an indictment of the US goverment for intervening in Vietnam: an assertion that America did not have any good reason to support South Vietnam's government against a Communinist takeover, whether by invasion by the North or local insurrrection; and that the result of this misguided action inevitably caused all sorts of war crimes; an assertion that murder, rape, etc. were not a by-product of the US military campaign but an inevitable consequence: (not aberrations of individual soldiers committing crimes against military law but agents carrying out policy). -Ed

Your recollection of the event differs slightly from my recollection. The WSI was indeed an indictment of the U.S. government -- but not of its reasoning behind its interventions in Vietnam, whether on behalf of the French, or any of the subsequent competing factions of government. In fact, the reasoning behind America's participation in that conflict hardly rose to even secondary consideration status, as far as the objectives of the WSI was concerned. The primary focus was on the prosecution of that war, regardless of what brought the U.S. there in the first place. I do not see any correlation between the U.S. "misguided action" or reasoning and the "cause" of war crimes as you suggest, nor do I see an attempt by the Winter Soldier Investigation to establish that correlation. -Rob

I think that your bland phrasing sweeps the meat of the thing under the rug, where it can only rot. (Hope I'm not stating this too forcefully...). A former US soldier, --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps you should define "the meat of the thing" in a little more detail. I get the feeling you may be referring to "meat" that I am simply not seeing. As for stating things too forcefully, set all your fears aside - I doubt there is much you can do to through the printed word to scare or offend me, and if forceful communication will serve to make your point, by all means use it. (Note: I can't speak for other viewers, however.) I see that you signed your comment with the indication that you have served - just like the participants and organizers of the WSI. Very well. I'll see your claim to military service, and raise you 1 degree in American History and 1 militantly strong conviction to fight revisionist history. -Rob

I fold ;-) I'm not a combat veteran. I served 1982-84 & 1986-89 in the "peacetime army", 85% of the time sitting at a desk.

Was the WSI really (a) ignoring America's motives and (b) only protesting its methods of fighting the war? Were they exposing atrocities only to stimulate the US military to clean up its act and battle the enemy more humanely? I find that hard to believe. My impression of the entire "anti-war" movement of the sixties and early seventies was that they had only one aim: make the US pull out of Vietnam, so that the Communists could win.

I talked to a lot of college students in Boston during 1967-1973, and I never found one who asserted both A & B points (as expressed above). Oh, I'd run into the occasional 'hawk' who wanted the US to conquer the "whole damn country" and didn't care how many civilians "had to die" for this. But I'm talking about those holding the VVAW mindset.

If we can clear this perspective thing up, I bet we can end the edit war. Most user conflicts I've mediated have been resolved once the different points of view (POV) were clarified and stated explicitly in the article. --user:Ed Poor (dope rouser) 14:13, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Your self-deprecating manner is a little disarming. Rather than brandish your military service as proof of the superiority of your perspective, you wave it off as a "desk job." Rather than bludgeon me with your opinion as if it were fact, you instead qualify it as merely "dim historical recollection." Even your nickname (El Dunce) is something less than strident. Good traits for a mediator. :^)

This WSI article has been a six-month long edit war, which isn't a bad thing in itself. Each edit was usually accompanied by discussion, agreement and disagreement, substantiation and ultimately concession. Until a few days ago, when a particular editor arrived and took it upon himself to do massive reverts coupled with obstinate refusal to discuss - that wasn't an edit war. That was just a juvenile attack against the Wikipedia way of doing things. The instigator appears to have lost interest and moved on, so now the normal give & take of article development can resume.

As I read your two paragraphs of perspective above, I think I see a major obstacle to the productivity of our little discussion here. Perhaps we can remove the obstacle. In those two paragraphs, you appear to mesh concepts together, when I clearly see them as seperate: The VVAW is not the Anti-war movement of the 1960s and 70s. The WSI is not the VVAW. The reason of "so that the communists could win," is not the reason Americans desired an end to the war. Such blurring of distinctions could only hinder productive discourse. Do you honestly believe every one of the millions of Americans that protested the war during that decade "had only one aim" of a communist victory in a foreign country?

"(Disputes) resolved once the different points of view (POV) were clarified and stated explicitly in the article" is one method, I agree. However, sometimes it is better to just leave all points of view (POV) out of the article, and just stick with facts -- especially when one or more of the points of view directly controverts the facts. In answer to your specific questions posed above:

Yes, the WSI mostly ignored America's motives, and instead focused on its methods and policies regarding the war. In fact, some of the participants were multi-tour veterans that supported Americas war effort, yet still attended the WSI. This does not mean that the VVAW didn't question the motives of the administration, for they most certainly did, but this was not what they were doing through the Winter Soldier Investigation.

Was the WSI exposing war crimes only to make the U.S. clean up its act? Of course not - the time had already passed for that. The ultimate goal was to speed the U.S. extraction from Vietnam. (Important note: I said "speed the extraction" because by that time the U.S. had already conceded to end its participation in Vietnam, having already withdrawn more than half the troops, and continuing to withdraw the rest through "vietnamization" of the conflict.) It was hoped that by raising public awareness of the brutality and destruction of that war, additional public pressure would be put on the government to act more expediently.

During my research this week, I stumbled upon this point of view regarding the issue of war crime hearings like the WSI and the issue you raised about questioning the American government motives for being in Vietnam. I must admit that I find myself in agreement with the majority of that point of view, even if I disagree with much of the other content at that website. I am of the opinion that the United States is strong enough in its morals and ideals to withstand a little soul-searching and truth regarding a somewhat darker period in its history. -Rob

Thank you for your polite and thoughtful remarks. Next chance I get, I'll read the pnews.org article. I'm interested in facts AND points of view, so I hope you don't mind if I lobby for some explanation of motives to be added to the article. I know more about the military history than about the internal politics of the various "anti-war" groups. I even met a man who bribed his way out of Communist Vietnam after the end of the war: Doan Van Toai, author of Le Gulag Vietnamien.

I did a bit of editing of the My Lai massacre article as well, since William Calley and his crew were the subject of a very interesting TC (training circular) on ethics the army put out in the 1980s. --user:Ed Poor (porous reed) 22:44, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I see on another page your comment: "...I think I'll leave the tropical heat of this issue and return to the relatively cooler Middle East." I don't envy you your preference -- you are a braver man than I. Regarding adding "explanation of motives" to the article, of course I don't mind such additions. The article does appear, however, to contain quite a few explanations already. At just a cursory glance, I see the following elaborations on the motives and intents behind the WSI and the testimony given there (please do add more to the list, along with sources):

Motives, Intents and Objectives

• ...intended to publicize war crimes and atrocities by Americans and allies in Vietnam, while showing their direct relationship to American administration and war policies.

• The purpose of the Winter Soldier Investigation was to show that American policies in Vietnam lead to war crimes.

• In the words of one participant veteran, Donald Dzagulones, "We gathered not to sensationalize our service but to decry the travesty that was Lt. William Calley's trial for the My Lai Massacre. The U.S. had established the principle of culpability with the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis. Following those principles, we held that if Calley were responsible, so were his superiors up the chain of command — even to the president. The causes of My Lai and the brutality of the Vietnam War were rooted in the policies of our government as executed by our military commanders."

• The veterans giving testimony were also instructed not to reveal the specific names of others involved in war crimes. The goal of these hearings was not to indict individual soldiers, but instead to expose the frequency of criminal behavior and its relationship to U.S. war policy.

• "...we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out." -- John Kerry

• "A recurrent theme running throughout the testimony is that of institutionalized racist attitudes of the military in their training of the men who are sent to Vietnam--training which has indoctrinated them to think of all Vietnamese as "gooks" and subhuman. Further, the thrust of the allegations made in the 3-day testimony is that such actions were the consequence of reasonable and known policy adopted by our military commanders and that the knowledge of incidents resulting from these policies was widely shared." -- Senator Hatfield

• "We as a Nation must find the proper way to honestly confront the moral consequences of our actions, and to corporately turn ourselves from the thinking and the policy that has degraded our moral posture and to recognize that out of contrition and self-examination can come a genuine rebirth of the ideas we hold as a people." -- Senator Hatfield

• "In effect, the veterans were asking America to listen to its own much-touted morality, and to begin to practice what it had spent two centuries preaching. At the same time, though, the veterans were careful to point out that the war crimes the United States was committing in Vietnam did not stem from the misconduct of individual soldiers -- which the government had tried to establish by scapegoating Calley and a handful of his fellow officers -- but resulted rather "from conscious military policies... designed by the military brass, National Security Council, and major universities and corporate institutions, and passed down through the chain of command for conversion into Standard Operational Procedures (SOPs) in the field." -- Gerald Nicosia

From the opening statement given prior to the WSI procedings, describing the intent and objectives of the event:

• We went to preserve the peace and our testimony will show that we have set all of Indochina aflame.
• We went to defend the Vietnamese people and our testimony will show that we are committing genocide against them.
• We went to fight for freedom and our testimony will show that we have turned Vietnam into a series of concentration camps.
• We went to guarantee the right of self-determination to the people of South Vietnam and our testimony will show that we are forcing a corrupt and dictatorial government upon them.
• We went to work toward the brotherhood of man and our testimony will show that our strategy and tactics are permeated with racism.
• We went to protect America and our testimony will show why our country is being torn apart by what we are doing in Vietnam...

• But we intend to tell more. We intend to tell who it was that gave us those orders; that created that policy; that set that standard of war bordering on full and final genocide.
• 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.
• We intend to show that war crimes in Vietnam did not start in March 1968, or in the village of Son My or with one Lt. William Calley.
• We intend to indict those really responsible for My Lai, for Vietnam, for attempted genocide ... You who hear or read our testimony will be able to conclude for yourselves who is responsible.
• We are here to bear witness not against America, but against those policy makers who are perverting America.

Page protection

Allegations have been made that plagiarised material has been entered into the article. I see nothing recent on this talk page about this, and now the page is locked. Please provide a source for the allegations. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a source as well. It will be interesting to see if the sources warrant the trashing of several pages of content that resulted from anonymous user TDC's reverts. -Rob

Source for plagarism allegations: [1] TDC 23:19, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I have reviewed your source material. You list four instances of alleged plagiarism, and further infer that more plagiarism may exist from the book, The New Soldier. I've checked each of the 4 suspect sentences and found similarities, not plagerism. One sentence appears to be a direct quote from author Nicosia, who is quoted elsewhere in the article, but missing a quotation attribution. That is easily fixed.

As for material from The New Soldier, you should be aware that over 90% of the content of that book also exists in the public domain as part of the Congressional Record. Transcripts of the testimony given by the veterans; transcripts of John Kerrys speech before the Senate Committee; etc., are all part of the Congressional Record, even though you will see the same material both in this article as well as in The New Soldier.'

When I review your edits and deletions, TDC, I see no fewer than 47 unrelated major changes - in fact, 2/3 of the articles content has mysteriously vanished. Spelling and typo corrections have been undone; formatting, grammar fixes, link maintenance, images have disappeared. Yet you offer up a mere four sentences of alleged plagiarism to support your wholesale slaughter of the rest of the article? -Rob

• Please note that the "wholesale deletion" problem with TDC is not new. You'll notice the discussion earlier on this page (unless TDC continues to try to bury it in an archive) here [2] concering TDCs previous attempts at sabotaging this article. Several months ago, he attempted to delete the very same material, spelling corrections, formatting, etc., by claiming it was all POV content. -Rob

Are there any other comments or additional info you'd like to provide, TDC? -Rob

Page protection, again

This page has been unprotected then protected again. Might I suggest you try for a rewrite on this article at Winter Soldier Investigation/temp? -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Been there, done that. You might scroll up and review the top of this page to see what happened last time an admin (Theresa Knotts) suggested collaborative rewrites between User:TDC and -Rob. TDC never participated, despite implying he would. I think Winter Soldier Investigation (temp) and [3] might still exist from that endeavor. -Rob 23:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, this way I could check to see if Anon is placing more cw material into the article. But I would have to insist that all current info be erased due to all the cw violations. TDC 16:44, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

We're still waiting for you to cite "all the copyright violations." I don't see any in the article, and I don't see you listing them as a reason for your repeated reverts. If a CW violation does exist, please cite it so that the problem can be resolved. -Rob 18:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I will wait till you leave here permanently. TDC 00:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

at->in

The first sentence should probably read: "The Winter Soldier Investigation was a meeting of American Vietnam War veterans as well as civilians in <not "at"> which..." once this page is unprotected. — Itai (f&t) 22:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence reads:

The Winter Soldier Investigation was intended to publicize war crimes and atrocities by Americans and allies in Vietnam, while showing their direct relationship to American administration and war policies. -Rob 18:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

The article has been unprotected. I am going to assume good faith and that this article will not become another edit war again. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, AllyUnion. I too will assume good faith. Let's see if we can't resolve any issues TDC might still have with either article. -Rob

VVAW and WSI articles

Quoted from User talk:AllyUnion:
I really do not know what to say on this subject other than there is no possible outcome for these articles other than another edit war. The Anon is unable to be negotiated with, and does not like people making edits to what he views are his articles. I would also remind you that these two articles are full of plagiarized material and past instances have shown me that this user is extremely uncooperative in removing such material. I think the only solution is that the article is blanked and started over again. Articles have been blanked in the past for large scale plagarism and dont see how this is an exception. TDC 13:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) (This editor may or may not approve this quoting)

Perhaps I can help, TDC. I'm going to follow AllyUnion's advice, and assume good faith. Since you see no possibilities other than edit war, please allow me to offer some suggestions:

• 1) Please list your editing issues. Problems can't be solved unless you cite them for everyone to see. Claiming plagiarism without saying which text you think is plagiarized doesn't really do much good. We're not mind-readers. I've tried to discover just what text you are complaining about by looking at your edit, but your revert has wiped out 60% of the articles content from several editors.
• 2) Be willing to discuss changes and be willing to compromise. If there is a verifiable instance of plagiarism or copyright violation, of course we should edit it or remove it immediately. However, if you just find yourself disagreeing with the content or presentation of a passage of text -- try raising your concerns for discussion. Perhaps common ground can be discovered and changes made that will be acceptable to all concerned.
• 3) Don't confuse one unregistered editor with another. Your descriptions, "unable to be negotiated with," "does not like people making edits," and "extremely uncooperative" do not apply to me, (-Rob). Just view the Discussion Pages for each article (including what you archived away) to see that I always encourage negotiation, editing and cooperation.
• 4) Don't fear the Discussion Page. Rather than clutter up AllyUnion's talk page, we should move this discussion to the appropriate article discussion pages. I'll start by pasting these comments there. I look forward to your participation, TDC.

Does this sound reasonable to you, AllyUnion? Any other suggestions would be welcomed. I'd also like to ask one favor of you: Can you help us with step 1 above to get us started? TDC has resumed his reverts, claiming plagiarism in the edit summary, yet his reverts don't appear to remove suspected text. Instead, his reverts trash edits from as far back as the middle of last year, and I can't make heads or tails out of what his edits are trying to accomplish. Once we have identified the problem, we can work to correct it. TDC won't cite the alleged problem. I can't find the problem by looking at his revert. Can you help? -Rob 19:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rob's suggestions. I add these ideas:

• Although I haven't been closely involved with the details of the plagiarism charge, I had the impression that some of the material at issue might well be released by the (alleged) copyright owner if the request were made. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for useful forms. Rob, even if you consider such a step unnecessary, let's be practical. It might be much less effort to obtain an arguably superfluous release than to continue to hassle with TDC over the matter. If no release is forthcoming, the argument that the material is not a copyvio is still available.
• In that same vein (i.e., going around a problem rather than fighting to the death because It's A Matter Of Principle), some disputed passages could presumably be paraphrased. Copyright law protects words and pictures; it does not protect facts or ideas.
• Blanking the articles and starting over is not a realistic or sensible approach. A variant that might work, though, would be to build a new article from the existing material, going section-by-section, so that the controversies can be identified and managed. We could set it up as a /temp or a subpage on a user page, and, when it was finished, copy it onto the main article. One problem I've had in the past is that there were so many issues flying around, being argued by people who knew much more about the subjects than I did, that I frankly couldn't keep track. Chunking it down to one section at a time might facilitate participation by people in my situation (i.e., those of us who don't already have a vast amount of information on these subjects at our fingertips).
• Rob, your request that you not be confused with other unregistered editors is understandable, but something of a hopeless cause. However you're logging in is apparently a dynamic IP. The result is that you don't always have the same number. Looking at Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the four most recent anon comments are made by four different IP's but are all from you (or at least are all signed "Rob"). Several months ago I suggested you register, and I think you expressed reluctance to do so during the Presidential campaign. Perhaps now you'll reconsider? I've made multiple edits critical of Bush, under my own name no less, and no FBI agents have come to my door yet. Nor do I have any reason to think that my Wikipedia registration has generated spam. Most people are like TDC, not me, in that they don't use their real names as their user names; if you adopt a pseudonym, I really don't think you'll encounter any problems.

Trying to keep the discussion in one place, I'm putting all my comments here, though they also apply to the VVAW article. I'm leaving a note on that talk page. JamesMLane 20:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, JamesMLane. I can't find fault with any of your suggestions or ideas, but I would like to comment on them:

Copyright release permission from original sources is always an option, but suspect content and sources must first be identified. TDC seems hesitant to do so, short of a few example sentences he now says were "graciously" dealt with (and I doubt were violations in the first place). Even if permissions are persued, I still feel it is prudent to rephrase or remove verifiably questionable content in the mean time. RE: setting up a Temp page and going through it section by section... that all sounds vaguely familiar. If I recall correctly, we tried that. TDC refused to participate; you, Ed Poor, Theresa Knott and others discussed and contributed for a bit then went elsewhere -- then TDC showed up a month later and reverted away all of the changes yet again. RE: my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required. Rest assured that TDC would still make his misrepresentations of me even if I were logged in - his sleights really have nothing to with his confusing multiple unregistered editors, but in the interest of polite discussion I figured I'd leave him that egress. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't spam, Rob. A sufficient note pointing to a central location where your comments exist does a better job. And get your damn user page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By "spam," do you mean Copy & Paste the same comment to several locations, such as "I am going to assume good faith. Please do not start another edit war on those articles..." that I find on this Talk page? And on the VVAW Talk page? And on the WP:RFPP page? And on TDC's Talk page? Sorry, but that wasn't my spam. And I already have a User Page, thank you very much. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the comments made by TDC were addressed to me directly. Although all comments are subject to public view, I would like to remind everyone that the information presented has been taken out of context. This is not a fair presentation, because it has been ripped out of context. The anon user who refers himself as Rob has, in effect, rudely interrupted a conversation. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that any comments placed here by -Rob are completely IN context, and are a completely fair presentation. (Anyone disagreeing is welcome to attempt to prove otherwise - good luck.) The anon user who refers to himself as AllyUnion should take heed. For those new to the conversation, a summary of the context:

A revert war on 2 articles is in progress, resulting in multiple page protections and unprotections. Anon user TDC claims rampant plagiarism, futility of discussion, and requests that articles just be deleted. Anon user -Rob asserts TDCs claims are vague or untrue, and pleads for reasonable discussion to ensue on outstanding issues, and makes 4 suggestions to that end. Anon Admin AllyUnion is threatening Arbitrations, Blocks and other voodoo if the editors don't put an end to the revert war, thereby ingratiating himself to both of the editors. Not-so-anon JamesMLane dares to interject with common sense suggestions and comments, despite having tread this very same rocky road in the past.

My comments on your Talk page, Ally, were to YOU and TDC directly, after you directly addressed me on WP:RFPP. That you consider communications to you made on your Talk page to be "rude interruptions" sounds like a problem you should look into. Seriously, you should look into it. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How to address all of this? Let me begin with JamesMLane’s comments.

• 1. I have several issues, and I will try and list them here briefly. First, after listing several examples of plagiarism that “Rob” had inserted into the article [4] , it took over two weeks for him to even consider removing them [5]. Another issue is the excessive use of material directly cited from the VVAW website and its resources. Another is the excessive use of direct quotations. Clearly this form of style is not encyclopedic and examples similar to this article as it currently exists would be difficult, if not impossible to find in Wikipedia.

2 Weeks to consider addressing your concerns of suspected plagiarism? You posted a link to your list here on the last hour of Dec 29th. (See above on this page.) My Edit Summary of Jan 2nd notes that your concerns were addressed, and that was a holiday weekend as well. 72 hours versus "over 2 weeks" is all the same to you, eh? Yes, I made a good faith effort to address your claims, despite the fact they were bogus. You raise the issue of excessive quoting for the first time now; an issue I haven't reviewed yet. Perhaps we can look into this further. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• 2. I don’t think you understand the scale of plagiarism that exists here. Please look to my examples, and verify the scale of plagiarism. I also have more examples that I have not listed. I would like you to comment on whether the evidence I have put forth is conclusive by checking the evidence I have cited and a version of both disputed articles from before and after the anon so graciously decided to change a word or two. This anon is only willing to deal with these issues when bludgeoned with them.

This anon is always willing to deal with issues. You'll never hear me respond to a request for discussion with, "I think I will wait till you leave here permanently. --TDC" As for the "scale of plagiarism, see the hypothetical sample and explanation below. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• 3. Every anon edit for the past several months is from the same user. This is not difficult to prove, just time consuming.

False. And it is even easier to disprove. Do you really assume that no one is going to verify your assertions, TDC? After just a cursory glance at the edit history, I see multiple edits by 172.184.154.85. Not -Rob. I see edits by 67.166.228.171 (I thought that was you!). Not -Rob. I see edits by 206.124.131.198. Not -Rob. Now if you want to accuse me of reverting you every time you attempt to vandalize 60% of an article under the vague pretense of 1 or 2 sentences of alleged plagiarism, I'll proudly stand accused of that. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• 4. All you have to do is look to my user page to see how I deal with discussion with idiots. The anon is most definitely a no faith editor, as prior discussions with SEWilco have shown, and I see little reason to chase my tail in the talk pages.

I have read your user page. It warns me that you will drag me down to your level and beat me with experience. All I can say to that is good luck. As an interesting bit of trivia, there is more of SEWilco's content in those articles than mine. While I often disagreed with him, I don't recall him ever resorting to threats, personal attacks or "I'm going to hold my breath until one of us turns blue" tactics. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a few general comments. I would ask Ally to look at my evidence for plagiarism as well and comment on it. “Rob the Anon”, hereby know as RTA, will never get an account because it provides him or her with a degree of plausible deniability when confronted with his or her plagiarism. I have many more examples of plagiarism in the articles, but since RTA placed all the material there, perhaps RTA should remove it as well.

Here's a better idea. If you believe there is plagiarized content in the article: Cite it. Don't tease us with "I have many more examples, blah blah blah..." without actually citing the actual instances. That doesn't do anyone any good. If you see it, point it out. That way someone can verify it and edit or remove it. This is my suggestion to anon user "DTC Insinuating Copyvios," hereby known as anon user DIC. Insinuations without actual information is not much better than vandalism in my book. Quit DIC'ing around, and talk to us. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Or how does this sound: let us give RTA 48 hours to remove any more plagiarized material he or she has contributed. If after that 48 hours, all plagiarized material has not been removed, RTA can no longer contribute to the article. If RTA does comply, then I will rationally discuss the article. Sounds fair to me. How about everyone else? TDC 00:31, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

DIC threatens, "If (-Rob) does comply, then I will rationally discuss the article." Gee whiz, you mean there is actually some way we can get you to rationally discuss articles? You won't always be a DIC? That is comforting. My Counter-suggestion: List your perceived copyvios or plagiarism and we will fix it. Simple? Good. Might I also suggest that, as an editor of this Wiki, you don't require stipulations be met before you concede to rationally discuss articles? I've found it much more productive to try to rationally discuss articles right from the start, without setting prerequisites. Give it a try. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism versus Copyright Violations

It has come to my attention that anon user DTC might have a skewed understanding of the terms Plagiarism and Copyright Violation. He seems to use the two terms interchangeably. Allow me to present a hypothetical example to help illustrate the differences between anon user DIC's assertions and reality:

Anon user DIC has created a sub-User page wherein he claims to list instances of plagiarism, located here [6]. On this page, the DIC has quoted a sentence from a Wiki-article, then quoted a similar sentence from some website he has Googled up. Since the instances on the DIC's page have already been graciously dealt with, allow me to use this fictitious example to illustrate the point...

• The anon DIC would start by quoting a sentence from an article, such as from the make-believe article General Intelligence Directorate... "The Technical Support Division is responsible for production of false documents, communications systems supporting clandestine operations, and development of clandestine message capabilities."

• Then the anon DIC would Google up a similar quote from some website, such as (hypothetically, of course) Sooper Dooper Spy Website "The Technical Support Division is responsible for production of false documents, communications systems supporting clandestine operations, and development of clandestine message capabilities."

• The DIC would then claim since the quote from the Wiki-article matches the quote from the website, it must be plagiarism! And just to add weight to his accusation, he would say something like, "In fact, the whole General Intelligence Directorate article appears to be just a re-worded and plagiarized rewrite of this website Sooper Dooper Spy Website!!!! Then, being a real DIC, he would use that similarity of sentences to justify his vandalism of many paragraphs and months of edits of an article with which he disagrees.

The fictitious example above, illustrating text from a Wiki-Article and text from a website being similar, does not constitute plagiarism. As you will note from here Plagiarism:

"The use of mere facts, rather than works of creative expression, does not constitute plagiarism."

The above fictitious quote from our fictitious article presents facts, not creative expression, and therefor doesn't qualify as plagiarism. This needs to be explained to the DIC. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Credibility

Reference to Burkett and Lewy "and others" is without citations, and the claim that they "confirmed" anything relevant to WSI/VVAW is mostly speculative. In fact, as discussed in the Chicago Tribune article I linked to in the article, Lewy cannot produce the alleged NIS report that is the source of his claim re WSI/VVAW imposters. Burkett and the "others" usually cite back to Lewy. Also, no documentation cited for the "documented case." --EECEE 10:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding 8/12 edit reverting to language saying that "Army investigators found the allegations of 46 soldiers who testified to be worth investigating" - even though this may have actually been my language at some point, the linked article says it was 46 allegations, not the allegations of 46 soldiers. In other words, we don't know if some made more than one allegation.

"According to the formerly classified army records, 46 soldiers who testified at the WSI made allegations that..." 209.86.1.192 22:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh Good Lord, how could I have missed that??!! My bad. Thanks for catching that - feel free to edit away! --EECEE 22:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

And they were able to identify a lot more than 33 complainants. According to the article, they identified 43 people in relation to the 46 allegations. Then they attempted to contact 41, found 36, and interviewed 31.

I suggest having the wording of this paragraph track as closely as possible to the article upon which it is based. --EECEE 21:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Threats

I have not threaten to block anyone. I have, politely warn both of you to stay within Wikipedia guidelines or appropriate action will occur. It may not happen from me exactly, but 3RR applies to every user, as well as all other Wikipedia policies. I have, threaten to take this issue to Arbritation which I do not wish to unless the issue remains unresolved. The only problem for me is that I can't tell exactly what content is being referred as a copyvio due to all the edits and reverts. It's really all confusing. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ally. There is no need to defend yourself. Your comments such as (emphasis mine): "If the anon user reverts it, he may be blocked for it, as investigations..." And also, "If I find out that these articles had to be protected again, I will file a WP:RFAr for..." are perfectly acceptable threats in your role as an Admin. You are merely reminding users of the repercussions of rules violations, and yes, you did so politely. No problem.

What bothered me was seeing your contribution on this talk page (see above) wherein you make false accusations of spamming; false accusations of taking things out of context; false accusations of rude interruptions... all of these personal attacks, and not a single constructive attempt to actually address the issue at hand: revert wars on this and the VVAW articles. I apologize if I was a bit terse in my response to you, but I felt the accusations were unwarranted and unfair.

Now it appears that you and I are in agreement. Neither one of us can tell exactly what TDC is referring to when he makes claims of Copyvio. I've traced TDC's reverts back to October 29th of last year. He began reverting by claiming the articles weren't NPOV, and calling the content "garbage." When that failed he continued to try to remove the very same content through reverts, but changed his reason to plagiarism instead. Now he is again trying to institute the same revert, while changing his excuse yet again. Now it is copyright violations. At each stage he has been invited to discuss his deletions. Most recently, as you'll note above:

We're still waiting for you to cite "all the copyright violations." I don't see any in the article, and I don't see you listing them as a reason for your repeated reverts. If a CW violation does exist, please cite it so that the problem can be resolved. -Rob 18:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And anon user TDC's response:

I think I will wait till you leave here permanently. TDC 00:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

You are right, Ally - it is confusing. It is impossible to tell what text TDC is referring to by looking at his edits. All I can do is continue to politely request that he explain his complaints, while reverting his sweeping edits until he does so. I could request that he be blocked from editing these articles, but he would just reappear under a new psuedonym and IP. I could launch a RFAr, but again it is a simple matter for him to return in a different guise. I think it is better to just exercise patience and persist in our requests that he engage in discussion about his complaints. It would produce a longer lasting solution, in my opinion. -Rob 20:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

From the Article:

Those who wanted to testify were carefully screened by Oliver, Hubbard, Scott Moore, and other officers of VVAW, as well as by Fonda and her associates, to make sure that they were who they said they were, that they had served where they said they did, and that only the strongest testimony went before the microphones.

After the severe criticism of the accuracy of Mark Lane's book a month before the event, the organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation made the credibility of the participants a top priority. All veterans participating in Winter Soldier were required to bring their discharge papers (DD-214's) and IDs.

In addition, Oliver and Moore had fashioned a special "atrocity room" in a nearby house, with hundreds of papers taped to the walls -- lists of troop movements and unit assignments which they correlated with the individual claims of war crimes that were being brought before them every day.

Taken from [7]

Those who wanted to testify were carefully screened by Oliver, Hubbard, Scott Moore, and other officers of VVAW, as well as by Fonda and her associates, to make sure that they were who they said they were, that they had served where they said they did, and that only the strongest testimony went before the microphones. All veterans participating in Winter Soldier were required to bring their discharge papers (DD-214's). Moreover, Oliver and Moore had fashioned a special "atrocity room" in a nearby house, with hundreds of papers taped to the walls---lists of troop movements and unit assignments which they correlated with the individual claims of war crimes that were being brought before them every day.

From the Article:

As riveting as the atrocities testimony was, some of the insights given by veterans into the clandestine workings of American foreign policy -- illuminating, for the first time, what would come to be known in future investigations as the secret or "shadow government" of the United States -- had even greater national impact. Perhaps the most startling news to come out of Winter Soldier was the revelation of the U.S. invasion of Laos in February, 1969 -- code-named Operation Dewey Canyon I.

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 exposé 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." Indeed, during the event a Marine Corps spokesman said "We can say of a certainty that no platoons or any large number of marines ever crossed the border."

Taken from [8]

As riveting as the atrocities testimony was, some of the insights given by veterans into the clandestine workings of American foreign policy---illuminating, for the first time, what would come to be known in future Watergate and Contra-Iran investigations as the secret or "shadow government" of the United States---had even greater national impact. Perhaps the most startling "news" to come out of Winter Soldier was the revelation of the U.S. invasion of Laos in February, 1969---code-named Operation Dewey Canyon I.

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."

From the Article:

One of the points brought out at Winter Soldier, and verified in subsequent news stories, was that servicemen participating in these illegal missions into neutral countries were often required to sign papers in which they promised never to tell the true location and nature of their activities. When they went out on the missions, they wore uniforms stripped of all American insignia and personal identification tags, and if caught in Laos they were under no circumstances to reveal their true identity; but even if they did, the United States would not acknowledge them as its soldiers. On certain missions the Americans even dressed in North Vietnamese Army uniforms and carried the Russian weapons commonly used by the NVA.

Taken from [9]

One of the points brought out at Winter Soldier, and verified in subsequent news stories, was that servicemen participating in these illegal missions were often required to sign papers in which they promised never to tell the true location and nature of their activities. When they went out on the missions, they wore uniforms stripped of all American insignia and personal identification tags, and if caught in Laos they were under no circumstances to reveal their true identity; but even if they did, the United States would not acknowledge them as its soldiers. On certain missions the Americans even dressed in North Vietnamese Army uniforms and carried the Russian weapons commonly used by the NVA.

From the Article:

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 only three minutes made it to the nightly news on the first night. The veterans still showed inexperience when handling the press that did show up, but overall the Winter Soldier event was very well organized for such a large-scale event.

The Detroit Free Press printed several stories about the event, including comments from the military. This included confirmation by the Pentagon that participants investigated by reporters were Vietnam veterans as well as a denial of large scale activity in Laos.

Taken From [10]

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.

The vets still showed inexperience when handling the press, but overall Winter Soldier was stunningly well organized for such a mammoth event. The testimony was so thorough because Mike Oliver, Jeremy Rifkin, and Bill Crandell had spent months crisscrossing the country in search of a representative sampling of veteran witnesses. Not the least benefit to the organization of this diligent search was the fact that new VVAW chapters got set up in many of the places they stopped. The workload was lightened, too, by the growing

You are like some kind of sick plagiarism junkie aren’t you? TDC 16:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Article Quality

I would like to comment on how horrible this article is. It appears to be nothing more than cut and paste uncited sources, and rambling quotes. This is a very poor quality article and needs significant work. TDC 17:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

You are certainly right to remove copyvio text sections, but I disagree with removing the whole article. Its a horrible article about a horrible subject, which people have worked hard on. Pls. distinguish baby from bathwater, T. -St|eve 02:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have <!-- commented out --> the sections mentioned above (list below) Though I mentioned the 56/15-20k ratio, it seems more that the questionable sections are only about 7k - which hardly justifies removing text for a whole article.-St|eve 02:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Those who wanted to testify were carefully
• After the severe criticism of the accuracy
• In addition, Oliver and Moore had fashioned a
• As riveting as the atrocities testimony was,
• Five veterans described their role in the invasion,
• One of the points brought out at Winter Soldier,
• The Detroit Free Press printed several
• Pacifica Radio, with major channels
• The vets still showed inexperience

Page lock

Page locked due to repeated page blanking. TDC, it looks on the face of it like you are trying to censor the article, i.e., prevent it from existing at all. I do not understand the "copyvio" claims.

I will assume good faith (to start), but you have to point out the exact violations of copyright or else it's just going to look disruptive to everyone else (including me). Bear in mind that quotations of up to 400 words are generally permitted, if proper credit is given.

Also, TDC, consider this your first warning regarding Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You can't call other contributors "sick" or "junkie". Try saying This looks lake plagiarism to me, and I'm really ticked off by it instead, which is a perfectly legitimate editorial comment. Uncle Ed 12:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, my evidence is listed in a section above, have a look and then tell me what you think. i am not trying to censor the article, but as is the article is nothing more than cut and paste quotes, and cut and paste passages from a few articles. TDC 20:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

No hurry on the wholesale quotes. Just turn them into cited quotes, or rewrite them into GFDL text. And I'm unlocking the page so that you can do this, so please don't simply revert everything. Uncle Ed 21:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

And the rest of the information documented above? TDC 22:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Just don't delete material solely on the grounds that it's uncredited. There are 2 main POVs about the Vietnam War: (1) that the Communists were right and (2) that the Communists were wrong. I'm suspicious that a deletionist might censor the article with the purpose of undermining one of these POVs. Let's not allow that to happen. Uncle Ed 23:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I am hardly deleting material solely on the grounds that it's uncredited. I dont know if you have looked at what I have cited, but the sources for the material in the article is very clear on its Copyright status:

COLUMN SIXTY-EIGHT, FEBRUARY 1, 2002 (Copyright © 2002 Al Aronowitz)[11]

COLUMN SIXTY-EIGHT, FEBRUARY 1, 2002 (Copyright © 2002 Al Aronowitz) [12]

TDC 16:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that these quotes range from 500 words, to 800 words a piece. TDC 16:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

All suspected copyvio material has been removed, or substantially edited. Also restored some recent content from Stevertigo and EECEE that was lost during a recent reversion to January. TDC indicates there might be more copyvios in the article, so I'm going to comb through what I can to see if anything looks questionable. 209.86.4.24 18:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Fake testimony of war crimes

Here is a disputed claim:

As confirmed by the subsequent investigative work of Burkett, Lewy and others, there were many impostors and liars who joined the ranks of the anti-war movement, and, in some cases, falsely claimed to have witnessed war crimes and atrocities in order to get attention and sympathy. In one documented case, a particularly convincing fraud was able to obtain medals and honors. The organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation were acutely aware of this, and took several steps to guarantee the validity of the participants.

It should not say confirmed by ... investigative work but according to. Then it's a POV and thus can be put back into the article.

One of the central claims of the WSI is that:

• The US military campaign was so vicious as to be unsupportable.
  1. The human rights violations were not aberrations by local commanders, but part of a deliberate policy.
  2. That policy was far worse than Communism.
  3. Therefore, either change the policy or leave.

Nixon decided to leave - partly because of the pressure of Watergate.

Maybe "according to Lewy" rather than "according to Burkett, Lewy and others." "Others" merely point to Burkett. Burkett points to Lewy. And Lewy, according to the sources cited recently by EECEE, is shrugging it off and stating he doesn't have an investigation report, and maybe never even saw one. The military can't produce this report either. There are apologists at both extremes of most Vietnam war related issues, and I suspect Lewy was one defending American policy. Regardless, I'm sure there were some crackpots claiming to be vets, then, just as there are now. Is it sufficiently related content to warrant inclusion in the article? 165.247.214.201 18:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comment. It is true that Lewy's claim is a POV, but so is a claim that Elvis was sighted at the local 7/11 ... "according to" somebody. Is every point of view worthy of inclusion absent any substantiating material? I don't think it's enough to say "I'm sure there were some crackpots claiming to be vets," for the same reason.

In addition, Lewy didn't even make his claim until seven years after the WSI hearings, so it could not have had any effect on the organizers at the time.

Personally, I think it is sufficient to just say WSI took precautions to ensure witness credibility. Especially as one of the main reasons they did so - the discrediting of Mark Lane's previous claims - appears just two paragraphs later. Just my opinion.

By the way, I don't think unsubstantiated POVs should show up on the pro-VVAW/WSI side either. --EECEE 20:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits: 8/15 - 8/17

(note that many "war crimes" charges publicized at WSI were never backed up - hence + "alleged" in first sentence of article)

Actually, "many" of the charges were backed up. (see [13] provided by EECEE) In fact, the bulk of the charges were based around the broader topics of bombing in the north, use of chemical defoilants, racism and discrimination both internally against minorities, and externally against asians ... stuff that was somewhat widely known, and self-verifying. It is the relatively few sensational claims such as dismemberment of bodies or the rape of a villager that beg further investigation, and most of those are being verified as information becomes declassified. With the vast majority of the charges having been verified, slipping in the qualifier of "alleged" is disingenuous and misleading.

(did not just INTEND to publicize: it DID publicize the allegations, i.e., the "intent" succeeded)

The intent of the event was to publicize the war crimes, regardless of whether they succeeded or not. Not a big issue either way you word it. (As a side note, it is universally agreed that the event was mostly a failure as far as publicity went... it received hardly more coverage than the frog-jumping contest in Mudpuddle, AL)

(redundant: ", while showing their direct relationship to American administration and war policies" same as last sentence in the same paragraph)

Agreed, the sentences duplicate each other. I snipped the last sentence in the paragraph.

(general POV edit, removal of superfoulous quotes)

I agree with many of the edits performed here (i.e.; removal of the gratingly long testimony quotes; spelling corrections; changing header to "Media Coverage"). However, removal of sections such as Hatfield's Senate address or the exerpt from the opening address of the WSI event aren't justified. They add significant and valuable content to the article. Also, under the Controversy section, deleting the statement of a sympathetic VVAW member while leaving the statement of a critical VVAW member -- not good.

(Major intro rewrite: please vet for ERRORS and/or unconscious BIAS)

Vetted. I moved some paragraphs around, and changed "military chain of command" to "military leadership," but my biggest problem is with this section, which I removed:

Their purpose for doing this is controversial. Some say that they simply wanted to end the atrocities, out of genuine humanitarian concern. Others say that their primary concern was to achieve an American withdrawal of forces leading to a North Vietnamese victory.

Here we go with the "some say..." stuff again. To paraphrase an editor in the section above, some say that Elvis was sighted at the local 7/11 - Is every point of view worthy of inclusion absent any substantiating material? Honestly, Ed, how many of the 109 honorably discharged veterans that testified do you think were secretly working for NV's victory. How many of the medical doctors discussing the dangers of chemical agents, or shrinks discussing the psychological traumas, looked forward to buying a condo in Hanoi? No, I said honestly, Ed. Well, per your request, I'm meeting here on the Talk page. Let's see exact quotes from your "some say," please. And yes, I'll be viewing what you present with a very critical eye. No, I'm not "defending communists" as some paralogist chided above -- I'm defending the well-intentioned efforts of the American servicemen that did as their conscience guided them -- against bias, innuendo and politically motivated defamation. Looking forward to hearing from you. 165.247.221.166 11:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Actually, "many" of the charges were backed up." Not the stories told at WSI. The Village Voice had to look over the whole war in order to find a few events which might fit the quoted descriptions. The Village Voice also reported on prosecuted events; if such events were as widespread as presented there would have been many more prosecutions. Investigators were unable to verify the WSI tales, as well as a number of participants. (SEWilco 15:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC))

"Actually, "many" of the charges were backed up." Not the stories told at WSI. - Yes, they were backed up, since the majority of the charges were self-evident and non-sensational as explained above. The Village Voice had to look over the whole war in order to find a few events which might fit the quoted descriptions. - The WSI consisted of testimony about the time spanning 1963-1970. The Village Voice listed charges about events from 1967-1969. So much for that. As for why there weren't more prosecutions -- oh, but there were. Or did you mean specifically based on the charges raised at WSI? As explained in the article, as honorably discharged veterans, they were immune from prosecution for acts committed during active duty. Note also that the CID investigation cited by that article was conducted in the year immediately following WSI, while the war was still on -- I'm sure they bent over backwards to validate transgressions commited during that war. Investigators were unable to verify the WSI tales, as well as a number of participants. - Wrong. Investigators verified the participants they felt "merited further inquiry," and nowhere does it say they were unable to verify charges or participants. "Didn't" is not the same as "could not" no matter how much you'd like to convince readers they are. 165.247.221.166 17:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

as honorably discharged veterans, they were immune from prosecution for acts committed during active duty, in short according to the UCMJ, this is simply not true. Although you cannot be prosecuted under military jurisdiction, criminal charges may be filed against you in a civilian court of law. The NCIS as well as JAG did investigate the charges brought up at WSI. While the reports could not be found in the national archives, (they said it wasn't in the folder where it was supposed to be), there was a record of them in the national archives, and they do exist. It will be interesting to see just how full of shit the WSI participants were when I get my hands onthat report. Needless to say, it will require an article all to itself, as well as a consuming most of this page. TDC 17:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Although you cannot be prosecuted under military jurisdiction, criminal charges may be filed against you in a civilian court of law. In Vietnam, perhaps. Who in US courts would file charges against a vet that fragged a hooch in a village in another country, during war time - regardless of injuries or death caused to civilians within? Regarding this report you claim exists, I'd very much like to see it as well. In fact, if you aren't just blowing smoke, I'd even help you hunt it down -- if you can point me in the right direction or give me a lead as to its existance. 165.247.221.166 18:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Page protect (again)

I see an awful lot of heat and not very much light. It should be perfectly to report this three-day event in an Wikipedia:NPOV way, without making the article itself into an enquiry on the nature of US actions in Vietnam. BTW, it might help (marginally) if anons get an account name: Special:User login. I wanted to add something on the re-release of the film [14] - please sort yourselves out. This is not usenet. Rd232 13:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. Time to give editing a chance. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I've been working copyright violations and this page is listed as an unresolved one. The current talk shows an alleged copyright violation. The archived talk has a Winter Soldier Investigation verification processes section that covers some of the same alleged copyvio material, but I don't fully understand the purpose of that section with regards to copied text.

I'd like to resolve this copyvio. From where I stand it looks like there is still a copyvio, the minimal rephrasing done to the text isn't close to fixing this.

Since the alleged copyvio text has been around for over a year, and many administrators and long time editors have edited this page during this time, I'm left asking myself, and everyone else "what am I missing".

--Duk 19:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If there's still a copyvio, rephrased or not, rip it out. People will fill in the gaps soon enough, the longer it's left in the longer people will waste their time trying to improve material we can't keep anyway. --fvw* 19:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, it looks like most of the copyvio had already been re-written. I had just stumbled across one paragraph that was still mostly copied, and which I've removed.

Instructions on WP:CP say to revert to the pre-copyvio version of the article. This wasn't done here. Work carried on for a full year with large amounts of copied material. Writing continued above, below and with respect to the copied material. The copied material was only recently morphed into something refactored, barely.

I think the current article is a copyright violation because it is a derivative work, due to the barely refactored material, and the large amount of work done to the rest of the article in the midst of the copied material over a period of a year.

I think the article should be reverted to this version per instructions on WP:CP. Any other opinions? --Duk 21:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

...it is a derivative work, due to the barely refactored material, and the large amount of work done to the rest of the article in the midst of the copied material over a period of a year.

Sounds like Wikipedia to me. Most of the content here on Wikipedia is derivative as a matter of course, lest it be confused with original research. It is common practice to "stick closely to what the sources say" (from the first paragraph on avoiding Original Research) when producing Wiki-articles. Facts and factual statements are often transcribed verbatim, while creative works are cited or excerpted to avoid copyvio issues. Just because the sports sections in the NY Times and the LA Times both declare "the Mets beat the Padres 5-0," you don't see them pointing Copyright Violation fingers at each other -- there are simply not very many unique ways to present the same factual statements. Raw facts are, I believe, exempt from copyvio restrictions, while creative work duplication is the usual target of copyvio complaints. Just another opinion, of course. 165.247.213.43 03:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

We're not talking about raw facts, but rather creative work. You copied and pasted paragraph after paragraph of someone else's writing into the article. You didn't bother refactoring it for a year, and only after edit wars and a listing on WP:CP, and you did a poor job of even that.

First off, you'd do well to get your facts straight before making such assertions. I copied and pasted nothing, and have been working to either remove or rewrite content that has been alleged to be in Copyvio. Most of the content to which you refer (correct me if I am wrong) were introduced by "Rob" and "SEWilco" - and may or may not have been copyright protected. Rather than get into legal technicalities about their contributions, I prefer to rewrite where possible.

Sorry, you're right- I thought this edit was you. Was it? --Duk 04:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and no - that is not one of my edits. Looks like one of Rob's, or one of the Poli-Sci students editing that mess during the election season. 165.247.213.43 04:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Both you and this ip are EarthLink, Inc., 1375 PEACHTREE ST, ATLANTA. I hope you can understand my suspicion.--Duk 05:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your statement equating the stealing of someones else's creative work with avoiding original research (or, conversely, writing with your own words implies original research) is idiotic and doesn't deserve a response.

In this sentence alone, I see you are a shining example of Admins for Wikipedia. Bravo.

Most of the content here on Wikipedia is derivative as a matter of course, lest it be confused with original research. This doesn't rationalize copying large blockes of other peoples creative work and altering it in a minor way.

Most of the content here on Wikipedia is derivative as a matter of course. You are completely wrong. Creating derivative works is the exclusive right of the copyright holder. --Duk 04:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice strawman, but you've been discovered. I said nothing about creative derivative works. I said "Most of the content here on Wikipedia is derivative as a matter of course," but I'll bet you knew that.

Nice semantic squirm, don't you attach meaning to your words?

It is common practice to "stick closely to what the sources say" (from the first paragraph on avoiding Original Research) when producing Wiki-articles. That doesn't mean it's ok to copy large blocks of other people's creative work, altering it in a minor way.

Facts and factual statements are often transcribed verbatim, while creative works are cited or excerpted to avoid copyvio issues. You didn't cite or excerpt. Your additions weren't factual statements. They were many large blocks of someone else's writing that you stole.

Patently false. My additions are (barring outright mistakes) factual. I'll take your stolen blocks comment as a failed attempt at humor.

Your additions weren't simple statements of fact, they were paragraphs, altered a little, but containing the same arrangement and way of saying things, similar structor, and there were lots of them.

Wrong again. My additions to this article are usually reverts of simple vandalism, as well as rewrites of some "questionable" content.

Again, my apologies. As I mentioned above I assumed you were the anon who initially inserted this copvio (you both have EarthLink ip's)--Duk 05:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

...while creative work duplication is the usual target of copyvio complaints. I agree totally with this statement --Duk 03:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we are in agreement. 165.247.213.43 04:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

copyvios

I've removed a paragraph several times that was initially copied into the article. And more recently refactored a little, but still structured the same and with parts copyied verbatim as long as they wore uniforms stripped of all American insignia and personal identification tags. Please, anonymous editor who had been inserting copyvios for the last year, try to write with your own words. It's not that hard. --Duk 04:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Until your "anonymous editor who had been inserting copyvios for the last year" writes his own words, allow me to remove the afore mentioned dozen words that offend you. 165.247.213.43 04:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, upon further review, even the sentence you quoted above doesn't appear in the article text. But why should that surprise me? 165.247.213.43 05:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats right, I just removed it, check the history ;) But really, it's not just a dozen words, its the cumulative copying of a whole bunch of paragraphs, with most of their structural arrangement and way of of saying things intact.--Duk 05:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I checked the history. You did not remove it. You quoted inaccurately. But hey, no one cares about accuracy. The ways of saying things aren't protected under copyright, but you have every right to be concerned about legit copyright issues. As an aside, feel free to rewrite rather than delete. All contributions are welcome. Or, if you are just trying to stir up debate, we can see if a mere 9 words apparently from a single paragraph in a 700 page work qualify as copyright violation or Fair Use. Or maybe your motivations are other than what you would have us believe, and claiming "copyvio" to remove text is just a convenient means to an end. I'm sure we'll never know. 165.247.213.43 06:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• 1) I guess you missed this edit.
• 2) and claiming "copyvio" to remove text is just a convenient means to an end. I'm sure we'll never know. Just check my edit history and admin log; I'm a registered user so you can do that. You will find that I have no interest in political or vietnam related articles. But I have thousands of edits dealing with copyright violations.
• 3) I'd appreciate an apology.--Duk 19:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The actual text from the article: they wore uniforms stripped of all American insignia and identification and had instructions not to reveal their true identity if caught.

What you claimed to be "verbatim" text from the article: they wore uniforms stripped of all American insignia and personal identification tags

As I said above, "the sentence you quoted above doesn't appear in the article text." Sucks that everything is recorded right there in the history, doesn't it? If you are going to put something in quotes, please quote accurately.

"I'd appreciate an apology." I assure you I am quite forthcoming with apologies, when deserved. 165.247.202.83 22:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, your right, I got a couple of words wrong, my sincerest apologies. Oh, wait, it doesn't change my point _at all_. You are grasping at straws and deflecting the argument with insignificant details. You were still copying substantial amounts of other people's creative work, changing it slightly, and claiming that it isn't a derivative copyright violation. --Duk 23:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, my right? I'm not sure what my right (or my left) have to do with this. You are quite the apologetic maniac lately, no? First you confused me with an earlier editor that you allege inserted copyright material into the article, and you apologized. Then you wrongly assume a particular edit was mine, and you apologized. You misquote a wiki-article, and you apologize. The apologies are nifty and all, but you should learn from your mistakes - and apparently you did not. Now you are again confusing me with another editor. If your game is to engage in circular arguments with me, then please don't be offended if I withdraw from your game -- you win. As for your changing point, I guess that is just lost on me. I doubt I am missing much. 165.247.202.83 01:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's the joy of editing behind anon ip's. You can deny you were the initial ip that installed this copyvio and beat your breast in righteousness over being falsely accused. While continuing to reinstate copied paragraphs that other people wrote, and which you modified slightly, over and over again. But what really matters is that the whole article is now a copyvio. --Duk 01:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep spinning. I already told you I quit your game. 165.247.202.83 04:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)