Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Politics
 Politics Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] The controversial excerpt

Goodness, I'd no idea that the question of whether to include an excerpt from the organization's own version of its history could be so controversial!

Perhaps the problem is that TDC thinks that a quotation could be taken as an endorsement of that text? If so, would it be okay to include some or all of it, with suitable framing to distance Wikipedia from it? --Tony SidawayTalk 12:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

The copyvio tag needs to stay in place until the copyvio is resolved (working my way down the list at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Others). --Duk 18:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, editing may resume at Vietnam Veterans Against the War/Temp. Please do not re-insert "Operation RAW" content that is presently under review. 165.247.204.83 14:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the copyvio tag, there still seems to be some dereived writing here. I'll resolve it today - sorry its taken so long. Anon's, don't remove the copyvio tag again, thanks --Duk 15:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio resolution

The areticle has been reverted to a version prior to copied text being added, below is a copy of the discussion on WP:CP;

  1. Is this just another RWN attempt to vandalize an anti-war article?
  2. If Duk listed the vio, how is it that TDC is filing it here?
  • I didn't list this copyvio (unless it was my automated script that catches tagged pages not listed here as they should be.) I did re-tagg it, however, in the course of working this list of copyvios. Copyvio tags need to stay in place until the copyvio is resolved. --Duk 18:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course this is another RWN sabotage attempt. Just look at TDC's Edit Summaries in the edit history - you'll see him first trying large scale reverts under the pretext of NPOV, then under the pretext of calling the content "garbage," then under the pretext of calling reasonable edits vandalism, and finally trying to claim plagiarism and copyvio. 165.247.200.30 09:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Why take the lazy route and blank the whole page, when the proper method is to blank the particular sections (will be checking the links, BTW). Are you claiming the whole article to be a vio? -St|eve 18:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Other way around, being lazy and not tagging the page and resolving the copyvio (per instructions) leads to lost edits (when the page has to be reverted to the pre-copyvio version). See [5], where hundreds of edits were lost because nobody bothered to deal with the copyvio when it was first noticed. See also the instructions on this page for resolving copyvios, and the discussion I initialted on WP:AN regarding this topic. As far as this article - I'm not claiming anything - I just added a missing copyvio tag since the page was listed here. I've been nibbeling away at this Others list for a while but haven't started working this page yet. --Duk 18:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I see that the anon has been difficult. An WP:RFAR would be in order, at least to force the anon to take an identity. Two of the links were dead (goingupriver.com), and its certainly valid to quote from the New Soldier book. -St|eve 18:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I did a little research on the alleged copyvio material supposedly taken from [6]. The material first appeared in the wiki-article on 20:55, 28 October, 2004, as submitted by 209.86.4.182. The content at the internet link provided proclaims in the first paragraph, "This story is taken from material saved by Joe Urgo-VVAW AI. Joe was one of the marchers, a former national officer of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)..." I thought the material looked familiar. The content in the wiki-article is a direct extract from the press release distributed by VVAW after this event. The press release, made available for public dissemination without restriction, was entitled, "Operation RAW: Viet Vet March Stirs Thought" and was issued September 7, 1970. The following text is from that press release, and also appeared in earlier versions of the wiki-article:
More than 150 combat veterans gathered and began a long march through the countryside toward Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. The veterans, who held 110 purple heart medals between them, had enlisted the help of the aptly named Philadelphia Guerrilla Theater Company and also volunteers from Nurses for Peace to go ahead of the march and plant themselves in the villages and towns along the march route. Sweeping through the rural back countries of New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania, the vets wore as much of their combat fatigues and battle gear as they had been able to scrape together. Their "infantry company" was realistically armed with toy rifles. As the column of veterans passed through the communities, they cordoned off the villages, "Interrogated," "tortured," and "shot" the actors posing as civilians, and in general tried to recreate the brutal realities of war. Leaflets were handed out to shocked onlookers, explaining that such events were regularily occurring for real in villages across Vietnam.
The press release, and accompanying leaflets were among the many nostalgic items of that era seen here [7] just this last week, and they are referenced (not coincidentally) in Nicosia's book (pg. 638) that User:Duk is probably familiar with by now, after dealing with the WSI issue. The website alleged here as a copyright protected source no doubt referenced the same Public Domain material. 165.247.200.30 09:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Public domain text used in an article needs to be referenced as such. When dealing with copyvios, the default assumption is that previously published material is copyrighted and unusable in wikipedia. If public domain material gets put into an article, and nobody can identify the source for sure, the material has to go. The burden of proof is on public domain status, and the people processing copyvios don't always have the time or ability to track down and positively identify a public domain source. --Duk 15:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The public domain source has been identified for sure. The text is from a press release distributed by VVAW, dated Sept. 7, 1970 and entitled "Operation RAW: Viet Vet March Stirs Thought." If you don't "have the time or ability to track down and positively identify" this, then may I recommend that you do the next best thing: delete the present article, as well as the history of edits since the text was inserted on 20:55, 28 October, 2004. A re-written version of the article, without this questionable text (and all edits possibly derived from it), exists at Vietnam Veterans Against the War/Temp may then be substituted. Leaving the article blanked indefinitely because no one has time seems an unacceptable solution. 165.247.204.83 14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


The article has been reverted and the copyvio history deleted per discussion on WP:AN regarding Winter Soldier Investigation, since this is the same situation. I've left the article at /temp for the editor(s) who worked on it to merge into the current article. Let me know when you are done and I'll delete it. --Duk 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Article merged, and editing continues. Thank you for your attention to the matter. 165.247.200.208 18:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Duk and TDC are attempting to use aggressive copyright violations again

Hi guys, I am fairly new to wikipedia, and dont know what to do. I stumbled upon Winter Soldier Investigation were both TDC and Duk are attempting to delete the entire wikipage by using "copyright violations" as an excuse, the same as they did here, can you help? What can I do?Travb 09:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

We are in no way trying to delete a whole page, simply remove copyvio material and deal with a particularly rude and stubborn anon. TDC 14:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History Section

The blockquote from the VVAW's wabsite currently used in the article, is a violation of WP:RS and WP:V

"Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is:

  • *relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
  • *not contentious;
  • *not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
  • *about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;
*The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

I beleive that it is contentious and self serving and self aggrandizing. VVAW was a marginal organization, despite one of its more well know members, and several of the following statements from the website currently in the history section are not attributed and make

VVAW exposed the truth about U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia and their first-hand experiences helped many other Americans to see the unjust nature of that war.

Single handedly while leaping over tall buldings to be sure, but were there not many other groups and organizations founded well before VVAW whose aim and efforts were to "exposed the truth about U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia and their first-hand experiences helped many other Americans to see the unjust nature of that war", such as the Russel Tribunal?

VVAW quickly took up the struggle for the rights and needs of veterans. In 1970, they started the first rap groups to deal with traumatic after-effects of war, setting the example for readjustment counselling at Vet Centers now. They exposed the shameful neglect of many disabled vets in VA Hospitals and helped draft legislation to improve educational benefits and create job programs.

Once again, VVAW was not the first group, or even the first veterans group to deal with PTSD in returning veterans. Also, what "major legislation" did they help draft?

VVAW fought for amnesty for war resisters, including vets with bad discharges. They helped make known the negative health effects of exposure to chemical defoliants and the VA's attempts to cover-up these conditions as well as their continued refusal to provide treatment and compensation for many Agent Orange Victims.

Much of this is covered elsewhere in the artcle ans seems redundant, not to mention self agrandizing. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the objection to the deleted text. From the notes above, it appears the only objections are:
  • the organization wasn't huge
  • the organization wasn't alone in their efforts
  • the organization's "rap group" method wasn't the first method used to deal with PTSD
  • the legislation promoted by the organization wasn't "major legislation"
  • a reader objects to expanded information being provided elsewhere in the article on items mentioned in a history overview
The text doesn't qualify for deletion based on the personal opinions expressed above.
Xenophrenic 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
These are not personal opinions. The excerpt from the organizations history is contentious, unduly self-serving and self-aggrandizing, and are not about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject. This is why it constitutes a violation of WP:RS and WP:V. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:V - I verified the source. The article states the text is a quote from the VVAW website, and indeed it is. WP:RS - I've read and re-read the deleted text, and I do not find it contentious, nor self-aggrandizing. The organization concerned itself with the issues of the war and the war veteran, much as it continues to do today. If you find their stated purpose contentious then that is a matter of personal opinion and not fact. Is there some way we can get additional input from others as to whether inclusion of the history summary is a violation of Wikipedia editing rules? Xenophrenic 03:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
You could file an RfC to get more input, but my objections still stands that the mater is a violation of WP:RS for the reasons stated above. No other articles allow the use of such a large block quote from the subject of the article to describe it. In inherently NPOV as the subject, in this case the VVAW's website, it not an impartial commenter. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If the information was presented as a second-source description of the organization, then you might have a complaint, but it is not. It is clearly identified as being quoted directly from the VVAW website as their description of the organization's history and purpose. If you believe the article does not present a NPOV, why not help to improve the article by presenting alternate POV that you feel is lacking? As stated at WP:NPOV, "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." Having reviewed some of your edits, my first impression is that you are striving for No Point Of View, rather than NPOV. You claim information should be in WikiQuote, yet you delete it instead. You claim a well sourced viewpoint is not NPOV, yet rather than present a balancing counter-view, you delete it instead. A cynical mind might suspect a goal of supression rather than improvement. I know a little something about the subject matter and I would be glad to help you, but I would need a starting point. Can you be more specific about the views expressed that you feel are not being presented in a balanced manner? Xenophrenic 09:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute -History section

From the NPOV Dispute page: "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article."

You have marked the article with a tag, Cudgel, but you left out the part where you "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." I have taken the first steps of making a new section here and entitling it for you. The next step is yours. Xenophrenic 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, if you feel the section presents a biased view, please add alternative views to balance it instead of deleting large portions. Per WP:NPOV, an article may contain biased viewpoints if they are attributed to those that hold them, and are balanced by substantiated alternative viewpoints. As noted above, the text is sourced and cited in the article. Just because much of it comes from the VVAW doesn't make it self-aggrandizing or false, and I wouldn't expect it to be self-critical either. If you are going to make claims that any portion is not true, I will be asking for substantiation. I'm still waiting for specifics, and you are still not providing them. Xenophrenic 10:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And after a week of waiting, I see that specifics are not forthcoming. Xenophrenic 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Rob, the shell game that you have been playing here for the past 2 years is very transparent, and as such, I think that I will just wait until you are blocked to make the changes. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Rob, you have not made any case other than your usual to retain the material. Come up with a good reason based on a relevant polciy or it goes and stays gone. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Rob, you simply must stop playing these games. The excerpt from the organizations history is contentious, unduly self-serving and self-aggrandizing, and are not about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject. This is why it constitutes a violation of WP:RS and WP:V and most importantly in this case WP:NPOV. Allowing the history section to contain nearly half if its content from the VVAW website gives it undue weight.
Also from WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Since much if what is in the groups history section on its website is false, as demonstrated above, Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded details of article edits

Expanded details of edits I made to article: Added fact that Carter did grant amnesty to draft resisters, something the VVAW pushed for a long time. Also removed link to Muller, same name but not the same guy.

What does VVAW's advocay of amnesty have to do with Carter's decision? Can you privide a source that VVAW's advocacy had one iota of impact on Carter's decision? Didnt think so. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone puts in text that states the VVAWs advocacy of amnesty directly influenced Carters decision, then I am sure they will provide sources. VVAW also advocated ending United States involvement in the war in Vietnam, but you don't see us hiding the fact that we pulled out just because we can't quantify the influence the VVAW had. Carters "pardon" of resisters was his first act, on his first day in office, so it was obviously of some importance. Other veterans groups were strongly opposed to any kind of amnesty for resisters. Can you honestly say Carter would have issued the pardon if no one was clammoring for it? I didn't think so. Xenophrenic 04:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cudgel notes:

  • 20,000 memebers? Everything i have read puts it at several thousand

It depends on what year you are talking about. Several thousand may be accurate during the early years, or in later years. Over 20K at it's peak. VVAW memberships records confirm this, but so do other published sources such as "The Turning: A History of Vietnam Veterans Against the War" by Andrew E. Hunt (New York University Press, 1999) and "Home to War" by Gerald Nicosia. What sources have you read that put the membership at several thousand during it's peak (1971-73 era)?

  • merge sections and remove fluff, VVAW claim in exposing both Agent Orange and PTSD seems only to have one source, itself

Added information showing de Victor exposed AO, not the VVAW. Added information that the VVAW is still organizing events, some people actually think the VVAW isn't around anymore. Added info explaining that VVAW didn't "expose" PTSD, but organized "rap groups" to explore and address the symptoms while pushing to have the disorder recognized. Added Chaim and Lifton. Moved Avakian's RCP info out of VVAWs post war activities section, so we don't accidently mislead the reader into thinking they are the same group. Or was that the intent? Xenophrenic 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VVAW records on membership are not a WP:RS for this, considering that severalother sources put the number at 7,000 at most. Thes would include Dan Cragg, Burkett, James S. Olson and Nicosia. VVAW's role in pushing legislation is supported by one source, itself. VVAW-AI was, for all intent and purpose the same group from 1973 and 1978 when they split. Therefore I am reverting. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
VVAW records on membership are the only source for membership numbers, unless those records have been independently audited. Nicosia is another source for the 20,000 figure as well. The membership is estimated at "about 22,000" in an August 25, 1971 "The Denver Post" article and interview with Kerry, transcribed in FBI file notes. Tod Ensign writes, "VVAW reached it peak around 1972 when it had 25,000 members loosely affiliated with dozens of chapters across the country." VVAW's role in pushing legislation is supported by several sources, including again Nicosia. The Avakian RCP splinter was already explained clearly. With no reason given for deleting information on Chaim, Lifton and Carter, I am reverting. Xenophrenic 09:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
With no reason given for deleting information on Chaim, Lifton and Carter, I am reverting (again). Worse still, these new deletions and edits came with no edit summary whatsoever, so they are being reverted. Xenophrenic 09:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Rob, clearly there was reason, so please stop misleading. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well Rob, if there is a clear reason, then it should be easy for you to present it. Why the evasion? Xenophrenic 04:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Membership numbers and Groups claims

While there are some rather bold claims of the effectiveness and accomplishments of the group in the article, they only seem to have their source from the organization itself. The organization claims responsibility for major pieces of unnamed legislation, and a membership of over 40,000. In reality VVAW never had more than 7000 members (The Historical Dictionary of the 1970s, James S. Olson, Page 349 and the Idiots Guide to the Vietnam War both list the VVAW membership at 7,000) and factional infighting from the RCP wing that had began to slowly co-opt the group made its efforts past 1973 pretty much non existent. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are asserting the VVAW was not a very effective organization and they accomplished little. You support this notion by citing Olson & Maga on low membership numbers, and also question information citing VVAW as the source. Fine, let's take a closer look.
  • In Timothy P. Maga's Idiots Guide to the Vietnam War, he does show the VVAW membership at 7000 and he cites his only source: the VVAW. The VVAW did publish membership numbers at just over 7000 near the turn of the decade, and they also published a three-fold jump in membership in the early 70s. So citing Maga (who cites VVAW as his source for one year) is more reliable than citing VVAW directly?
  • In Olson's words (Where the Domino Fell: America and Vietnam 1945-1990, page 239) about the antiwar movement, he begins the chapter with the very clear statement, "They were probably the most influential antiwar group of all -- the Vietnam Veterans Against the War." Wrong person to cite to support your "VVAW was ineffectual" theory. In his more relevant dictionary (Dictionary of the Vietnam War, page 475), Olson says the membership "included several thousand veterans and a few government infiltrators. The VVAW participated in most major antiwar activities, including the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Government officials saw the VVAW from its inception as a special threat because Vietnam veterans had a unique credibility. Furthermore, officials feared their capacity for violence although VVAW demonstrations were always among the most peaceful and orderly." Olson then cites his sources, Myra MacPherson, Nancy Zatoulis and Gerald Sullivan, two of whom cite the VVAW as their source, and one even noting the later rapid expansion to over 20K members. Once again even your examples are sourced back to the VVAW. Xenophrenic 10:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Other sources (The Vietnam War Remembered From All Sides, Christian G. Appy) state, "In 1967, six veterans formed Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW), a group that had twenty thousand members by 1971." And as mentioned above, the membership is estimated at "about 22,000" in an August 25, 1971 "The Denver Post" article and interview with Kerry, transcribed in FBI file notes. Tod Ensign writes, "VVAW reached it peak around 1972 when it had 25,000 members loosely affiliated with dozens of chapters across the country."

So there you have it. You don't approve of the VVAW being cited as a source for some information, yet every source YOU provide ultimately cites the VVAW anyway. You suggest the importance of the organization is inflated, yet the sources YOU provide call it the most influential antiwar group of all. You suggest the VVAW "organization claims responsibility for major pieces of unnamed legislation," yet you don't say where they make this claim. Certainly not in this article. The closest text even remotely related would be "helped draft legislation," and that is easily supported by their documented lobbying efforts and meetings with congressmen in April, 1971. "Claiming responsibility" and "major legislation" are ideas you must have concocted yourself, because I don't see them in the article. Xenophrenic 10:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I am supposed to WP:AGF, but Rob, you burned that bridge along time ago.

  • A Companion to the Vietnam War By Marilyn B. Young, puts it at 5000.
  • Divided We Fall: How Disunity Leads to Defeat By James Rothroc, puts it at 600-10000
  • The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Vietnam War By Timothy P. Maga, does not provide any sources, contrary to your claims.
  • The FBI files on VVAW also estimates their numbers at 7000.

Since there are so many differing numbers for the organizations membership, this has to be noted, and the current version does not accomplish this. Also, I still feel that any mention of any if VVAW’s alleged accomplishments be attributed to a RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again, Rob. I did a little more checking on your claim that Olson lists the membership at 7000 in his dictionary. He did not. I also rechecked Magas Guide, and the 7000 number is sourced to the VVAW. You might take another look. Since you again omit direct quotes from your latest sources (Young and Rothroc), I must assume there may be similar deception afoot. Why not show what your sources really say, exactly as it was said, and in proper context? Xenophrenic 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
From Olson, page 349: Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW) was founding in 1967 after six veterans who marched together in an antiwar movement demonstration decided veterans needed their own antiwar organization. Its membership ultimately included several thousand veterans and a few government infiltrators.
Maga: Founded in April, 1967, the Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW) claimed a membership of 7000. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
(Young and Rothroc) Xenophrenic 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you are making my case that there are discrepancies in reporting the groups membership, and this discrepance is not reflected in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I make no such case. I mentioned Young and Rothoc as a reminder to you that I requested in-context quotes of what they actually said. The Olson and Maga quotes above make my case, not yours. Maga says the "VVAW claims" and Olson estimates how many veterans were among the VVAWs total membership. Xenophrenic 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, lets just give you a refresher then:
From Olson, page 349: Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW) was founding in 1967 after six veterans who marched together in an antiwar movement demonstration decided veterans needed their own antiwar organization. Its membership ultimately included several thousand veterans and a few government infiltrators.
Maga: Founded in April, 1967, the Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW) claimed a membership of 7000.
So some sources say 20K+ and others say several thousand, which would seem to indicate a discrepancy which is not addressed in the current article. All of the above sources, except the VVAW, conform to WP:RS, so this discrepancy has to be noted in the article. End of story. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Some sources give their average membership, some give their peak membership, some give the number of just the veterans while others give their total membership. All of the above sources, including the VVAW, conform to WP:RS, and several of them may be accurate at the same time. Can you give me a refresher on exactly what Young and Rothoc said? Xenophrenic 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you know which sources give "average" membership, and which sources give "peak membership"? This is not an exercise in mind reading. If the source does not indicate it, then it cannot go in to the article. What Young and Rothoc said are contradicted by what other sources have said. And here is another: Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, Spencer C. Tucker, gives the number of members at “around 7000”. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual entry at the top of the page

"Dear Dad, One of our platoons went out today and came across a 155 mm artillery round that was booby-trapped. It killed one man, blew the legs off two others, and injured two more. On their way back, they saw a woman working in the fields. They shot and wounded her. Then they kicked her to death and emptied hetheir magazines in her head. They shot every little kid they came across. It was murder and I'm ashamed of myself for not trying to do anything about it. This isn't the first time, Dad. I've seen it many times before."

I don't have the skill to edit this properly, but it doesn't look right (to me). Also seems a bit out of place, is unsourced, and appears randomly added to the wrong area.

I'll have a go at editing it properly later but if anyone else wants to give it a shot be my guest! 82.110.109.214 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Selbstopfer

Spelling and grammar aside, the lack of source precludes the above from being included at this time. Had any luck in tracking down the origin of that text? Xenophrenic 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on After Activities

As VVAW gained members in the late '60s they realized that many veterans were having readjustment problems. As early as 1970 VVAW initiated "rap groups" in which veterans could discuss the troubling aspects of the war, their disillusionment with it, and their experiences on arriving home. They enlisted the aid of two prominent psychiatrists, Dr. Robert Jay Lifton and Dr. Chaim F. Shatan to direct and add focus to their sessions. Their continued pressure and activism caused what had been known as "Post-Vietnam Syndrome" to be recognized in 1980 as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The VVAW "rap group" treatment methods are the basis for treating PTSD today.

Were the VVAW "rap groups" really the basis for modern PTSD treatment? This seems like a bit of a stretch, to say the least, and is completely unsourced. According to this source, the "rap group", or group therapy is one of many treatment options for PTSD, and is not the "basis" for modern PTSD treatment, but one of a combination of methods. It would also appear that group therapy for PTSD began as far back as the late 40's and early 50's for WW2 and Korean War vets. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

From your source, "Group therapy sessions (often called "rap groups") developed following the Vietnam War in response to pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union and Veterans-rights organizations. Xenophrenic 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny, but no where do I see VVAW's name mentioned. Interesting, thank you for making my point. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If your point was that rap group sessions began after the Vietnam war, and not the Korean War or WWII, and due in part to Veterans-rights organizations like the VVAW, then you are most welcome. Xenophrenic 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In 1978 Chicago Veterans Administration caseworker Maude de Victor noticed a pattern in cancers and other illnesses suffered by Vietnam veterans and linked those illnesses with exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange, and it's dioxin contaminants. VVAW led the struggle to force the government to test, treat and compensate the victims of those poisons. Congress mandated a study of Agent Orange in 1979. Veterans sued the herbicide manufacturers in 1982. Two years later the companies settled the suit for $180 million to compensate what at that time was over 200,000 claimants.

So, "VVAW led the struggle to force the government to test, treat and compensate the victims of those poisons", according to whom, themselves? Seems a bit glorified, especialy considering that the passage is void of citations. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

VVAW member Frank McCarthy was very instrumental in raising the level of attention given to Agent Orange. Recall his nationally televised outburst at the presidential reception of veterans, "What about Agent Orange victims, Mr. President?" Carter agreed to a study. But does this qualify as a VVAW effort? I'll research it more. Xenophrenic 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
While Frank McCarthy was a founding member of Agent Orange Victims International, he was not a member of VVAW. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he was a member of VVAW. There is a whole list of VVAW members that were instrumental in the formation of other organizations.
Nicosia observes that the VVAW took up the "Agent Orange cause with a vengeance."
When the Agent Orange story broke in Chicago in early 1978 with Bill Kurtis's "Deadly Fog" TV special, the isssue helped the organization restore its focus on veterans' issues. Still headquarted in Chicago, VVAW immediately contacted Maude DeVictor, conferred life membership upon her, and made her their principal speaker for the next half-dozen years. They also became the mainstay of her existence after she was pressured to leave the VA. She recalls how the local vets would drop off boxes of food outside her door in the middle of the night, and how chapters around the country would hold benefit suppers to pay her rent. VVAW took the lead among veterans' organizations in putting out Agent Orange introductory pamphlets and self-help guides, as well as covering the developing story in almost every issue of its newspaper, The Veteran (successor to Winter Soldier). Even after VVA created its hotline, VVAW was still the best source of detailed, up-to-the-minute reports on dioxin studies, changes in VA policy, and legislative action at all levels.
He goes on to describe the VVAW initiating a boycott against Dow products; pressuring the Air Force to release its HERBS tapes (records of when and where Agent Orange was used); holding a "Winter Soldier Investigation of Agent Orange" in 1979, with the results being made public at press conferences and forwarded to legislators. He describes the VVAWs efforts to educate veterans about how to deal with the VAs cursory Agent Orange exam; what questions to ask VA doctors; how to file disability claims so that a paper trail existed of their concerns. Nicosia notes the collaboration of the VVAW with the National Veterans Task Force on Agent Orange, sponsoring the first national conference on Agent Orange in Washington, D.C., May 22-24, 1981. Then there was the picketing of the VA Central Office. There was the "Dewey Canyon IV" demonstration on the Washington Mall where 200 vets and their families lobbied on Agent Orange issues. "Extraordinarily successful," says Nicosia. "They are learning what it takes to effect change. We know that we have to listen," commented an aide to Wisconsin's Republican Senator, Robert Kasten.
The lead attorney in the largest of the lawsuits against the chemical companies, Yannacone, was quoted as saying various chapters of the VVAW "...did a tremendous amount of work for us during the course of the litigation. They created the network that both distributed information and acted as group support."
Saying they led the struggle does not to seem too "glorified" a description. They were obviously on the front lines of the struggle, if not in the lead. I'll add the citations of the afore mentioned information. Xenophrenic 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, funny, but I dont seem to see Frank McCarthy's name mentioned anywhere in what you posted here. Victor Yannacone, the lawyer in question, did not work for VVAW, nor did he have any affiliation with them, in fact, he distrusted the organization as a whole. He may have appreciated the work “some” of their regional chapters did (those chapters that were not debating Bob Avakian’s finer points on Maoism). He was hired by Agent Orange Victims International, and to say that “led the struggle” when VVA and Agent Orange Victims International were the primary actors. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, I shall remove all reference of Frank McCarthy and Victor Yannacone from the article forthwith. And minor points: Yannacone was first approached by the attorneys for Paul Reutershan and was eventually hired by McCarthy, and that was long after the RCP faction had been purged from the VVAW. Yannacones only problem with the VVAW was he didn't share their desire to expand the issue politically to show the illegality of the war. Xenophrenic 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is the material about Agent ornage and PTSD still in the article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/e/Talk%7EVietnam_Veterans_Against_the_War_95d6.html"