Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 13 October 2007

Vietnam Unassessed

This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Template:ArbcomArticle

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Newly released documents

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

Valley Forge

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

Changing perceptions of veterans

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

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

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

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

g0lem.net

Footnote 1 links to http://www.g0lem.net/PhpWiki/index.php/VietnamVets which is now advertising. MDonoughe 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Fixing it... Xenophrenic 08:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Recent Edits

1) Why was the Stacewicz citation and punctuation removed from the article in this edit? Xenophrenic 02:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

According to JobsElihu below, this was done by mistake. They have been readded to the article. Xenophrenic 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

2) I moved this sentence here for discussion. "When the event began, Lane returned to participate in the media event, acting as its "general council (ref)Peter Michelson.Bringing the War Home, The New Republic.February 27, 1971. Ironwood Daily Globe, Jan 28, 1971(/ref) When the event began, Lane returned? I was under the impression he returned before the event began. Also, this seems to imply he participated as general council at the event, yet this was printed in a publication days before the event began. Is the date correct on the citation, and could you tell me the page numbers for these citations, please? Xenophrenic 06:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, TNR is a much better source for this information, as it contains the same material,and was published after the event. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing something here. I am right about what? Do we have a page number? Xenophrenic 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We do now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at page 25 as I type this, and it says nothing of the sort. Nothing about "returning" anywhere; nothing about "general" anything; nothing about him "participating" in anything. Is it possible you got the wrong article or page number? Xenophrenic 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you are looking at pg 25, because if you were, you would see it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Page 25, The New Republic, dated February 27, 1971. Begins with, "ities was to jeopardize oneself. In short, American soldiers, like any surviving..." The article also ends on this page. I have the full article, and will probably be using portions of it as source material. Please provide the text in the TNR article that you are citing as a source. Xenophrenic 05:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You have the aritlce, the information is there, and I dont feel the need for hand holding here. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

3) I moved this section here for discussion. "Other Veterans commented on the treatment they received as POW’s under North Vietnamese control. Unlike accounts from other POW’s describing widespread mistreatment, torture and starvation, from Veterans such as John McCain and Admiral James Stockdale, WSI participants such as George E. Smith described their captivity under the North Vietnamese as humane and lenient. Although it was later revealed that two Special Forces POW’s held in captivity with Smith, Sgt Kenneth Roraback and Captain Humbert Versace, had been executed in retaliation for the execution of 2 Viet Cong. , and Smith was charged with violation Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice after his release." Xenophrenic 02:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is this George E. Smith guy, and on which panel of the WSI did he testify again? The links in this section say nothing about it. Is there a source? Xenophrenic 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

4) I moved this section here for discussion. "NBC News later reported that VVAW executive and Winter Soldier co-organizer Al Hubbard had lied about being an officer and lied about being stationed in Vietnam during a Meet the Press television interview several months after the WSI hearing. Journalist William Overend states he had met Hubbard and he had also been introduced as being a former Air Force captain. Overend learned Hubbard was only an E-5 Staff Sergeant when Hubbard had apologized on the Today Show a few days later for exaggerating his rank. NBC's Frank Jordan recalls, "He was convinced no one would listen to a black man who was also an enlisted man." Hubbard did not testify at Winter Soldier, but detractors of the WSI frequently raise Hubbards fabrication to generate doubt." Xenophrenic 02:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems a little misleading. Even with the last sentence trying to qualify it, it is still out of place in the WSI "credibility" section. This happened long after the WSI, and had nothing to do with it. Good stuff for a Hubbard article though, or maybe VVAW article. Xenophrenic 01:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

5) From an Edit Summary:

(a soldier is not an airman is not a sailor and is not a Marine)

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

6)The following links in the article are dead:

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=YesterdaysLies1

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=PitkinWSI

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=CamilAff

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=PitkinAff

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

Inserting conclusions without sources

(this conversation moved here from personal Talk pages)

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

The deletion, if I did it, of the citation by Stacewicz was a mistake and the same applies to the punctuation. However, the words "allegedly" and "allegations" must be added to the article. Misplaced Pages does not take sides. None of the things alleged have been proven. --JobsElihu 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will replace the citations and punctuation; I assumed that might have been a mistake. As for adding "alleged" words to the article, that is fine if the sources provided also contain those words. We don't want to form our own conclusions about what is fact and what is only "alleged," lest we violate Misplaced Pages original research rules. You are 100% correct when you say Misplaced Pages does not take sides, but remember that goes for all sides -- including the side that claims the testimony was not factual, but allegation. Go ahead and add the "allege" words if they are appropriate, but please make sure they are accompanied by source citaations.

By the way, your claim that "None of the things alleged have been proven" is not correct. The Detroit Free Press verified many of the claims as true while the event was still ongoing. Many of the claims were obvious and didn't need proof, such as those concerning racism, body counts, fragging, and other already acknowledged problems. Did General William Westmoreland issue direct orders prohibiting cutting ears or fingers off the bodies of the dead because it wasn't happening? Another editor points out on the WSI Talk page that even more of the claims have been proven since the recent declassification of military documents . Much of the testimony has been substantiated, and to my knowledge, none disproven. Xenophrenic 08:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is NOT a place to argue politics. In your comments above you are arguing politics. The fact that you believe that "none" of the information has been "disproven" indicates that you have taken sides.

You misunderstand. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I meant to say that to my knowledge the claims have not been disproven.

I am only a causal Misplaced Pages user and I don't have time to investigate all of the information in the article but let me just point out that just because the Detroit News says something is true DOES NOT mean it is true. Newspaper reporters are wrong all the time and I'm sure that their tons of misinformation in the article that you are attempting to dominate.

Newspapers are indeed wrong all of the time. For that reason, Misplaced Pages articles often contain incorrect information. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages regards "verifiability" over "accuracy", so some incorrect information sneaks in. If you feel there is misinformation in the article, let's see if there is some way we can address it.

For example, on the website for the Eastern Arizona Courier, right now, there is an article by Pam Crandall that quotes Mr. Jesse MacBeth about war crimes that were supposed committed in Iraq by him and other soldiers. There is no questioning of MacBeth's motives or accuracy--just word for word repetition of MacBeth's claims. ALL of the claims/allegations in the article are damn lies. How do I know this? Well, there was investigations done on MacBeth's claims and it turns out that only served in the military for 44 days and did not even make it through bootcamp before he was booted out of the Army for being "unfit." He was Stateside the whole time and he has never been to Iraq and he has never, ever been in a warzone, so therefore all of his claims are lies.

That man is dispicable, and I hope he gets a good flogging. It sounds like Pam Crandall deserves a bit of flogging as well, for not questioning the accuracy of her subject. There will always be imposters, I'm afraid. Organizers of the WSI knew this, and took steps to weed them out beforehand.

Now, there is clearly some of that going on here and you have no evidence to prove that none of the claims in the Winter Soldier situation are not "disproven." Your comments are incorrect and they belie your bias and your attempts to engage in POV.--JobsElihu 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to help sort out all instances of "that going on here" so that we may improve the article. I understand you are a casual Misplaced Pages user with limited time, as am I, but every little bit helps. Xenophrenic 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

More recent edits

Can you please edit in a more deliberate way, with edit summaries, so that we know what elements you are changing, and why? For example, why was "academics" removed from the lead? Badagnani 01:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Academics" was added to the lead with this edit just last night, without explanation. The Edit Summary said only (a soldier is not an airman is not a sailor and is not a Marine). I checked the source citation (which you have deleted for some reason), and did not see that "academics" had participated, so I removed that word. Xenophrenic 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is correct, please make each edit, with an edit summary explaining why you've made that edit. The fact that you made misspellings and deleted things without stating why you did that cast doubt on the veracity of your major edit to the article. Badagnani 01:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did make an edit summary with each edit. And if the description of the edit is too complicated for a one-liner summary, then I direct the reader here to this page for more detail. I'm sorry for the confusion, but you caught me right in the middle of expanding the discussions on the edits here. Also, many of the "unexplained" deletions or insertions have been discussed elsewhere, and I am just now getting around to editing them. Xenophrenic 02:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What is the reason for this deletion? If it's factual, I don't see why anyone would want to remove it, as it seems relevant. Badagnani 01:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That was not deleted, it was moved to this page for discussion, along with an explanation. Have you read it? Xenophrenic 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Unassessed Vietnam articles
• Unknown-importance Vietnam articles
• All WikiProject Vietnam pages
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs