Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Riddle me this, and this debate can end

Were there any specific and verified allegations of specific atrocities or war crimes made at Winter Soldier that have been subsequently verified as having come from someone who was demonstrably present at the specific known war crime in order to witness same, and are therefore possessed of the minimal credibility to make such claims? Show real war crime actually occured as claimed. Show that the WSI person making the claim was actually present to witness same. That's what I haven't seen, and what I keep asking for. TDC 18:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The war crimes of violating the neutral territories bordering Vietnam were specifically testified to; specifically investigated further; and specifically found to be true, including corroborating testimony by both active and inactive witnesses, and eventually by commanding officers.
The incursion into Laos were done with the full permission of the Laotian government (or didn’t you know that) to fight the Pathet Lao, so its “legality” was questionable at best, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could declare any such incursions into Laos as a “war crime” (and if it were, does that mean the North Vietnamese were also guilty of the “war crime”. Also, I missed the part where people were indicted, tried and convicted for this. Nice try, but this clearly does not fit the definition of the question I posed.
You didn't pose any definition in your question, much less a request for proof that anyone was indicted, tried, and convicted. Nice try. --EECEE 05:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, the legality was questionable. And no question at all about the illegality of Dewey Canyon. Kind of explains our government policy of deny, deny, deny until you can deny no more. It's nice that the debate can end.
Ummm, I am sorry, please repeat the names of the individuals who were tried and found guilty in a court of law for the secret war in Laos? Or please tell me how the 1969 Dewy Canyone Operation was in violation of a law signed 2 years later? TDC 16:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Were any tried and found guilty? I don't have that information.
So in other words, you mean to say that no one was found guilty and there were no trials because no crime had indeed been comiited? TDC 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
So in other words, you mean to say
No, TDC. It's best to not try to reinterpret what I 'mean to say' by using 'other words.' I meant what I said. 165.247.212.110 02:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
You "Were any tried and found guilty? I don't have that information" because none exists backing up your claim. TDC 22:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect. That is your claim that any were tried and found guilty. Scroll up and look. I have no knowledge of any that were "tried and found guilty," as you say, hence I have no information about that. 165.247.212.92 10:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Or did you mean the rarer and more sensational war crimes of rape, collecting body part souvenirs, etc.? There are IDENTICAL crimes detailed in military archives, but do those archives specifically identify a WSI participant as the "reporter" or primary witness of the crime? I can't say - I haven't seen the archives. If the vets say it happened, and the military records say it happened, what further significance is gained by connecting a specific vet as a witness to a specific crime? 165.247.203.197 20:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
No, they are SIMILAR in detail to crimes in the military archives, and you are right those SIMILAR crimes never mentioned anyone from the WSI, or their “testimony”. And since you have not seen these archives, how can you even make the statement that the “crimes” are identical? Seems you me that tripped over your own lie there, I guess I know why you are such a fan of Camil Hubbard and the rest of the fakers. I would be like me saying I witnesses the rape of a young woman in a back alley in Lower East side of Manhattan last week, something similar surely happened, but unless I could provide more information about the situation (who, what, when, where, how and most importantly give a description of the actual perps) I doubt I would be called as a witness to any trial.
how can you even make the statement that the crimes are identical?
Not too difficult, really. I read the testimony transcript, and compared the crime descriptions to excerpts from the military archives. And you are right, those crimes in the archives are SIMILAR. Eerily so. I'm not sure who this Camil Hubbard chick is, please elaborate.
WHAT MILITARY ARCHIVES! You just said you never saw them.
do those archives specifically identify a WSI participant as the "reporter" or primary witness of the crime? I can't say - I haven't seen the archives.
That is correct, I haven't seen them. Only the redacted excerpts, as I mentioned above.
Where, exactly, are these redacted excerpts of any court marshal trials for the events described in the WSI? TDC 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't aware there were excerpts of WSI related court marshal trials. 165.247.212.110 02:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, drive through TDC 16:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
You are very welcome, glad I could help. 165.247.202.196 10:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
You said the following I read the testimony transcript, and compared the crime descriptions to excerpts from the military archives.. What military archives? You mean the archives of court marshals for crimes committed by US servicemen during Vietnam? If so, please provide a reference, and be specific. Do you mean stories from journalists (those are, by the way, not "military archives")? Do you mean the WSI testimony? If that’s the case I don’t know how you can compare the testimony transcript with itself. TDC 22:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Or 'D' None of the above. I refer to excerpts from military archives. Archived investigation information.

So, I suppose the short answer to my question in bold (see above), is no, not one story presented at the WSI has been shown to be true in the sense that the individual who told it could either prove that it happened or that he witnessed it. TDC 22:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You are saying that you have been through the hundreds of declassified files in the military archives on war crimes and atrocities, and verified that not one of the cases is the same as a case refered to by a WSI participant? Even the Army CID folks determined at least 46 of the allegations made at WSI warranted further investigation - and you are now saying you have researched each of those case files, and they discovered crimes didn't happen? Heh, your short answer is, "No, I don't know yet, and neither do you." Proving a negative not so EZ? What's the status on the report you were going to get from your "contact?" Still waiting on it? 165.247.212.92 10:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion (again) to end the revert war

Tony Sidaway was dead wrong to unprotect this page, as obvious from the new revert wars, which both of you are guilty of.

I have a suggestion to end this, which is not disengenous like TDC 's "Riddle me this, and this debate can end" "suggestion".

TDC no matter whether you like it or not, the Winter Soldier Investigation ACTUALLY HAPPENED. You may not agree with what was said, and may not agree that there was no basis in what was said, but that does not change the historical fact that the Winter Soldier Investigation event happened.

And anon, 165.247.202.196, whether you like it or not, there are some who have criticized the event, which should remain here on the page.

First suggestion:

TDC, give up the stupid idiotic "testimony" war, which started the last revert war. LEAVE THE WORD TESTIMONY ON THE PAGE. As mentioned above:

The definition can include:

Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.

How are you going to justify this TDC?

Second suggestion:

Split the article up, as I attempted to do in my last edit, into a pro section and a critism section. Both of you will agree to leave each others section alone.

Who has historically comprimised?

Of the two of you, I have only seen comprimise from 165.247.202.196.

What is so pathetic is no matter how much is comprimised, TDC finds another thing he dislikes about the article.

I moved several of the quotes to wikiquote.org, and that wasn't enough for TDC, we took out all of the exact quotes, which TDC wasted all of his time finding, but was too lazy to modify, and none of this was good enough for TDC.

As I argue above, TDC is trying to make this historical fact of the Winter Soldier Investigation disappear from wikipedia. I have seen no comprimise at all from TDC.

"TDC doesn't want equal time,... TDC wants all the time there is."

165.247.202.196, although he has comprimised more, is also guilty of wanting to squelch critism of the Winter Soldier investigation.

Overwhelming majority fabrication

And TDC, having your ideological cronies, Duk, 172, SEWilco, and Uncle Ed help you edit this page in no way shows that there is some overwhelming majority against 165.247.202.196, as you suggest in this statment: "I am not the only one who is having issues with the anon."


recap

Again these two suggestions would settle the problem:

First suggestion:

TDC, give up the stupid idiotic "testimony" war, which started the last revert war. LEAVE THE WORD TESTIMONY ON THE PAGE. As mentioned above:


Second suggestion:

Split the article up, as I attempted to do in my last edit, into a pro section and a critism section. Both of you will agree to leave each others section alone.

Lets finally see some comprimise from TDC, as we have from 165.247.202.196.-- Travb 04:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ending the edit war

I've warned TDC to stop the reverts. The fact that someone editing from anonymous IP numbers is also engaged in this shouldn't be used to disguise or excuse his pathological editing. Until some kind of agreement is reached, nothing can be achieved by this endless, pusilanimous game of ping-pong. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Amen to this. I agree. I gave up editing, I agree with TDC: "have you seen the edit history? Every editor who tries to work on the article gives up after a few weeks." (although TDC of course forgot to mention that he has started the last two edit wars)
The first time I tried to stop the edit war, I set up a wikiquote page to stop the quote war, but then TDC found yet another reason to criticize the article.
The second time I tried to stop the edit war, was when I added a "controversies sections", etc, and spent a good amount of time on the article, digging up old sections that had been deleted for no reason but what as I saw as spite on both sides of this controversy.
But not two hours later, another anon, 209.86.2.114, who was "pro" Winter Soldier, came along and deleted everything I had worked on. This is when I realized, as TDC said, that working on the article was a waste of time. I also noticed that many of Duk's changes have also been lost to overzealous reverters on both sides, with no explanation.
This article should never had been unprotected. I think that it should be protected again until these two idiots (the anon and TDC) stop acting like little children, grow up, and reach a consensus. Talk about a meaningless waste of a person's life. Nothing is added to wikipedia in these childish revert wars.
I personally think the two suggestions I had above is a good start(keep the word "testimony" in the article and have a controversy's section--TDC agrees to only work in the controversies section, and anon agrees only to work in the pro-winter soldier section).
TDC, as I mentioned above, has got to come to terms with the historical fact that the Winter Soldier Investigation happened.
Anon has to come to terms with the fact that some authors criticize the Winter Soldier Investigation. Travb 09:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? I haven't edited this article at all, besides addressing the copyvios.--Duk 17:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Excerpts from Lewy, or not really from Lewy?

(The following content has been moved from the article to here for further discussion)

Seven years after the hearings, historian Guenter Lewy wrote in his book, America in Vietnam, that a Naval Criminal Investigative Service report could not corroborate even one of allegations made in Detroit. According to Lewy, the NIS could compel few witnesses to speak with investigators, even after assurance that they would not be asked about their own actions. The NIS concluded that many of those interviewed had no combat service record and that some of the most gruesome claims came from men who were imposters using the names and documentation of real Vietnam veterans. One particular Marine who had been in combat eventually told investigators that a member of the Nation of Islam helped prepare his statement, and admitted that he had never witnessed any of the atrocities he had testified to in Detroit. According to the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name. In the end, the Navy was unable to verify any of the hundreds of war crimes alleged by the Winter Soldier Investigation. Lewy goes on to note that journalists, historians, and military and Congressional investigators have failed to verify even one specific allegation made at Winter Soldier.[1]

Lewy also notes that, "The refusal of [those alleging atrocities] to give substantiating factual information . . . created a situation in which the accusers continued to reap generous publicity for their sensational charges while the Army in most cases could neither investigate nor refute them." Lewy concluded that there was another reason to be wary of such allegations: They were retrospective reports and therefore subject to distortion, "created by the veterans' perception of the interviewers and organizers of the hearings, by their attitudes toward the military and by their difficulties in adjusting to civilian life after discharge."[2]

Initially, I tried to edit the above two paragraphs to improve accuracy. After wrestling with several factual errors, and then discovering several more errors, I decided to move the content here for additional review. Among the issues regarding the above two paragraphs: 165.247.200.100 04:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The first sentence says Lewy wrote that an NIS report "could not corroborate even one of allegations made in Detroit." I have read through this book and I do not see where Lewy wrote this. The book is huge, so it is quite possible I missed it. Could I have an exact quote, along with page number, please? Contrary to the implications of that sentence, I do see where Lewy writes, "Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated."
Not suprisingly, you forgot the second half of the quote: Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a "criminal policy." The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity. It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals. TDC 04:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry TDC, but I still don't see those words in the second half of the quote either. May I have the exact quote and page number, please? 165.247.200.100 06:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
America in Vietnam Paperback, pg 317, the quote is exactly as it appears on both the weblink as well as in the book. TDC 22:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry TDC, but I still don't see those words anywhere on page 317. And after a text search at the web link you provide, it is clear that Lewy did NOT write that a NIS report "could not corroborate even one of allegations made in Detroit." Perhaps you speak about a different Lewy? 165.247.212.92 08:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The first sentence inaccurately cites "historian Guenter Lewy," when Lewy is a Political Science prof. He is a political writer that contributes to several conservative periodicals, and his major written works are more political than historical. Is "historian" an accurate qualifier?
  • The first paragraph implies that Lewy says an NIS report describes one particular Marine that "admitted that he had never witnessed any of the atrocities..." After reading Lewy's book, I don't see where a Marine admits to never witnessing atrocities. The closest thing to that I find anywhere in the book is this excerpt: "A black marine who agreed to be interviewed was unable to provide details of the outrages he had described at the hearing, but he called the Vietnam war "one huge atrocity" and "a racist plot." Sounds like two totally different interpretations to me. But as I said before, it is a big book -- could I have the exact Lewy quote, and page number, describing the marine that "admits to never witnessing an atrocity?"
  • From the end of the first paragraph, the claim "the Navy was unable to verify any of the hundreds of war crimes alleged by the Winter Soldier Investigation" needs sourcing. I don't see it in the external link provided, and it certainly isn't anywhere in Lewy's book. On the contrary, Lewy states in his book that these war crimes did indeed occur, but he doubted they were as wide-spread as alleged.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph reads, "Lewy goes on to note that journalists, historians, and military and Congressional investigators have failed to verify even one specific allegation made at Winter Soldier." Having read Lewy's book cover to cover, I fail to find this alleged conclusion of Lewy's. I ask for the specific quote and page number where this conclusion of Lewys may be found.
  • The first paragraph has an external link at the end of it. Exactly what does the content at that link have to do with the paragraph that preceeds it?
  • The second paragraph above has a Lewy quote that contains brackets and ellipsis (...) instead of the complete quote. When the missing information is inserted, the quote reads: "The refusal of men like Osborn to give substantiating factual information in support of their atrocity allegations created a situation in which the accusers continued to reap generous publicity for their sensational charges while the Army in most cases could neither investigate nor refute them." Lewy was refering to Osborn, someone that never participated in the Winter Soldier Investigation, but in a completely different inquiry. Osborn, unlike those at the WSI, was in the public limelight. Lewy went on to say, "Most of the allegations were so general as to defy investigation."
In context of what Lewy was writing about, it is clear that he was describing both the CCI as well as the WSI. TDC 05:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
All Lewy info is from pg 317-325 of America in Vietnam.
I'm sure it is, but that isn't the issue. The questions above are about the non-Lewy content you are trying to pass off as Lewy's. Exact quotes and exact page numbers, please. 165.247.212.92 08:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I refuse to continue to play these games, where you pull "contentious" quotes in to talk and drag users into a never ending debat about thier validity. I will allow the Rfc to decide this. TDC 04:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that ANY discussion of Lewy's claim about the so-called NIS report include the fact that no government entity can find it, that no historian has ever seen it, and that Lewy himself can't recall if he ever saw it or was simply "briefed" as to its alleged contents. See Baltimore Sun article linked at article. --EECEE 07:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


Protocol for arguments about text of wikiarticle (I still disagree about this article being deleted, but anon followed protocol):

Please do have a look at Wikipedia:Be bold#...but don't be reckless!. I've copied the most relevant passage here:
If you are unsure how others will view your contributions, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to either:
  1. Copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there (if the material in question is a sentence or so in length)
  2. List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is (if the material is substantially longer than a sentence)
Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning.Travb 14:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Misc. cut & paste by Travb

Previous relevant argument about Lewy from EECEE, erased by himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2&diff=prev&oldid=20571712

+ I see that someone has reverted the claims of Burkett and Lewy:

>>>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. <<<

Once again, these were claims only, not confirmed facts. As state above, Lewy cannot support his claim about imposters, and Burkett relies mostly on Lewy - when he makes his own claim, he does not back it up with names or other evidence.

In short, it is incorrect to state as confirmed facts that the many imposters and liars joined the antiwar movement. These were claims, if included at all, should be described that way.

In addition, there is no cite for the claim about the "documented case" about a fraud getting medals and honors. If you can't cite to the documentation, it shouldn't be included here.

This entire paragraph seems to have been included solely to state the poster's beliefs about the antiwar movement, and as such doesn't belong in a factual analysis. It doesn't even go to show that the organizers of WSI were "aware" of this, as Lewy and Burkett didn't even write their books until years later.

It is sufficient to say that the organizers took pains to make sure that the witnesses at WSI were credible...or, at most, that they were aware that others' questioned the legitimacy of some antiwar activists.

I will clean this up if the poster doesn't. --EECEE 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (Travb 23:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

RFC on Winter Soldier Investigation

The two competing versions of this article are currently the source of a long standing edit war. Since there has been no agreement on rather significant portions of proposed changes to the article, a consensus decision on this article should resolve this debate.

Removal of POV descriptions of events and conclusions, condense lengthy quotes into meaningful paragraphs, remove section which is nothing more than a 528 word excerpt from a book. Added critics POV.

(keep it short, talk page already too long)

Comparison side by side of two recent versions: Version 1 and 2


In Favor of Version 1

  1. TDC 19:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. SEWilco 06:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC): No copyvio and more accurate than other version.

Comments on Version 1

In Favor of Version 2

Comments on Version 2

Other Comments on dispute or an alternate version

  1. Travb 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(Is recruting your friends to comment on this allowed TDC? You sure have asked a lot of people lately to comment on the article)

Considering that they were all involved in editing the articles content, I thought they might be interested in this. TDC 21:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
So perhaps Travb can notify editors missed by TDC. (SEWilco 06:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC))
I await for you to use your friends opinion to show "I am not the only one who thinks" version 1 is best, as you have before :-) Travb 22:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

version 1 (TDC's) As mentioned before, TDC's version uses a lot of "weaselspeak". The word "Testimony" should remain. (See definiton 2)

So WSI was a "religious experience"? And “weasel speak” is exactly what I am trying to avoid. Words like allegedly are NPOV adjectives used to describe the events, they are "alleged" because they were never proven. TDC 22:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
TDC, Thanks for correcting this, I meant #2, as you know.
Definition of weasel speak: "The term Weaselspeak refers to expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged"." It shows how partisan you are that all of your sources which criticize Winter Soldier Investigation have no "its alledged" "is claimed" but you add these arguements liberally against those whose views you don't support. Travb 22:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

version 2 (Current) (anons) has much of the criticism deleted, (or as anon calls it "reverted"). As I suggested before, split the article into a "pro" and "con" section. This is consistent with many other controverisal sites do for example the Wal-mart page.-- Travb 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of anon

Anon, I was going back through the sorid history of this page, to find out who really added the words: ...writer Guenter Lewy claimed...the alleged report...

While I was doing this, Anon deleted a large paragraph. Anon does not seem to want a real criticism section, he only wants his POV alone on this page. Earlier this evening, I attempted to add back the section on Lewy (whose views I personally find repugnant and who I think it at the worst lying, at the best is a biased ideologue) and anon promptly deleted it (Anon, so much for your claim that you never deleted anything huh Anon?).

Anon, don't you think that people can logically, rationally judge both sides of the story, independent of one narrow view? In fact, having both sides of the story strengthens the article, it does not weaken it.

Unless, of course, you feel that your side of the argument is so weak that it cannot stand up to valid criticism. Revert it one more time and I submit this article to arbitration. It is long over due Travb 02:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon Travb, please read the Edit Summaries that accompany each of the edits I made. Please feel free to respond. Thank you, 165.247.200.100 02:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Request for arbitration


Arbitration has been accepted.

Three cheers!

Arbitration has been accepted.

Please add your two cents here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Evidence

According to the page: Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page.

Another one?

I always wondered where you ripped this off from [3]:

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
These words were written to inspire a depressed band of American patriots whose number had diminished due to a series of defeats - the "sunshine patriots" and "summer soldiers" having deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough. In contrast with the "sunshine patriots," those patriots who chose to continue to fight even in rough times were thus by implication "winter soldiers."

That was unitl I strolled over to the VVAW weviste and read through some copies of “The Veteran” [4]

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
December 1776, Valley Forge Pennsylvania. These words were written to inspire a dispirited band of American patriots whose number had diminished due to a series of defeats. Thomas Paine had begun a series of pamphlets which helped inspire the American Revolution. There were those, Tory conservatives, who branded Paine and his fellow patriots as traitorous radicals. The principals of freedom and liberty were radical ideas and independence the treason for which these patriots fought and died. They were the original Winter Soldiers.

Notice any similarities? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TDC (talk • contribs).[5]

Focus on what is being left out, not what is already in the article

TDC, I don't support your weasel word war. Leave the pro-information about the WSI intact. If you would just focus on what anon has deleted and refused to allow in the article, without resorting to peity arguments about the word "testimony", your case would be much stronger, and I think more people would support your position.

Can you live with the word testimony in the article? I think you can.

Can you live with only one side being espoused? No, and neither can wikipedia.

Choose your battles carefully. If you can get a far left liberal (myself) to support your contention that anon is not allowing dissent in the article, this is a strong argument. Your "testimony" weasel word war is a weak argument, which is frowned down upon by wikipedia, and will only weaken support for what I think is your intention here on wikipedia: to portray America as you see it: as a beacon of freedom and liberty around the world, and those dissenters who feel differently as traitors.

Changing the word "testimony" is an incredibly weak way to support your viewpoint, which will change no ones view of WSI and only inflame passions against your cause. Do you think a casual reader will be convinced that WSI is false simply because the word "testimony" is no longer in the article? will a casual reader be convinced that WSI is false simply because the word "alleged" appears in the article several times?

Whereas adding dissenters views to WSI is a very strong way to support your viewpoint. By focusing on weasel words, you are not only losing the weasel word battle, you are losing the entire war. Travb 03:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Content

The article is presently tagged as Disputed. Could someone elaborate here on which parts are disputed, and why? 165.247.202.59 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon, you of anyone should not ask such a question. Where is the info on Lewy? I won't be more critical than that, althought I want to be.Travb 02:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If I don't ask the question, who will? As for info "on Lewy," I would suppose that is in the Lewy article. If you mean to ask where is the information on the WSI by Lewy?

Seven years after the hearings, writer Guenter Lewy claimed that a Naval Investigative Service report stated that some who testified had falsified their identities or weren't even in Detroit. Government officials today cannot verify the report's existence, and no other historian has seen it.[6] Lewy later said that he could not recall if he had actually seen the alleged report or simply been told of its contents.[7] [8][9]

What else is disputed? 165.247.202.59 03:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ask TDC :) Travb 06:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Seeing that you have no more disputes to discuss, I'm sure you won't mind if the "disputed" tag is removed from the article. 165.247.214.107 19:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cooper-Church amendment

Since Cooper Church was enacted on January 5, 1971, and "testimony" was on events witnessed prior to this date, no violation of Cooper Church. Unless one of the participants describe incursions into Laos that they participate in after January 5, 1971. TDC 21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Cooper-Church amendment was passed in 1970. It was enacted in January of 1971. The testimony at WSI (Feb 1971) exposed the fact that secret operations involving ground troops and combat in a neutral country were ongoing, and had been for over a year, in violation of international law. Yes, America had already expressed agreement with these mystical International Laws of Warfare. That explains why the military took several steps to hide such activity from the press and the public (dressing servicemen up in unmarked or enemy gear, swearing them to secrecy, and even refusing to risk airlifting casualties out). They even denied these ongoing operations during the WSI. The operations continued through the end of 1971, which put them in violation of the Cooper-Church amendment as well. 209.86.4.80 04:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
It was enacted January of 1971, that means, in case you did not pay attention in your social studies class, that this is when it became law, not one day before. You have yet to cite a reference that operations in Laos were in violation of international law, considering, as I pointed out before, that the Laotian government was not only fully aware of this, but assisted these operations into Laos. Since this article is on the Winter Soldier Investigation and the individuals who participated in it, and none of them gave (or could give) information regarding operations in Laos after Cooper Church became law, then the statement is not factually correct.
And since the factual accuracy and the POV of the article are still in dispute, dont take the tag down. TDC 05:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Still waiting on that source. TDC 18:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Since you have failed to back this statement up in any meaningful way, I have removed it. TDC 17:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
As mentioned above, Cooper-Church amendment was passed in 1970. It was enacted in January of 1971. The testimony at WSI (Feb 1971) exposed the fact that secret operations involving ground troops and combat in a neutral country were ongoing, and had been for over a year, in violation of international law. Yes, America had already expressed agreement with these mystical International Laws of Warfare. That explains why the military took several steps to hide such activity from the press and the public (dressing servicemen up in unmarked or enemy gear, swearing them to secrecy, and even refusing to risk airlifting casualties out). They even denied these ongoing operations during the WSI. The operations continued through the end of 1971, which put them in violation of the Cooper-Church amendment as well. 209.86.4.80 04:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

165.247.214.230 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you plagiarized this snippet from the following source (which appears to be you MO), lets look at it a bit closer.
Such missions were in violation of the Cooper-Church amendment, passed in 1970, which prohibited the use of American ground troops in Cambodia and Laos. But even before Cooper-Church was passed, it would have been a violation of international law for the United States to launch combat troops against a neutral nation.
I will keep this civics lesson brief, but a bill only becomes law when either the President signs it, congress overrides his vetoes, or if the president takes no action on the bill for 30 days. The author of the piece you plagiarized states that Cooper Church passed in 1970, but as we know it did not become law until 1971. The actions described by WSI participants took place in 1970 and before; 1970 is before 1971 by the way. Since Nicosia is the only one claiming that military operations in Laos were in violation of Cooper Church, and you have not cited material to show otherwise, Nicosia is clearly in error here. As far as the violation of international, that too is dubious. Nicosia does not elaborate on why this was a violation of international law,and he is most certainly not an expert in the field. You claim it was because the US attacked a “neutral country”, but as I have shown, the US was conduction joint operations with the Laotian government to stomp out the Pathet Lao as well as the VC and NVA that were using Laos as a base and transit point. Since the US was there under the invitation of the Laotian government, the violation of international law is non existant. As far as further incursions into Laos after Cooper Church, the law specifically pertained to ground troops, not combat aircraft which were active until 1973. Simply citing your same weak argument over and over again is not going to get you anywhere. TDC 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Since you persist in editing this section of the article, let's establish come common ground. First, the relative passage from Nicosia:
The revelation of Operation Dewey Canyon was followed for days and months by other news stories in which American military personnel testified to systematic fighting in Laos. In late 1972, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Boston Globe ran credible stories asserting that the United States had regularly transported combat troops into Laos over a sixteen-month period that extended to the very end of 1971.
The witnesses were helicopter pilots from the 101st Airborne who had participated in the top-secret program code-named Command and Control North. Although the missions, consisting usually of mercenaries commanded by Army Special Forces, were primarily intended to gather intelligence, these troops had been involved in combat and several had been killed. Such missions were in violation of the Cooper-Church amendment, passed in 1970, which prohibited the use of American ground troops in Cambodia and Laos. But even before Cooper-Church was passed, it would have been a violation of international law for the United States to launch combat troops against a neutral nation. And even as these missions were occurring, the Pentagon was issuing statements denying that American combat forces were operating in Laos, and asserting that all Special Forces had already been withdrawn from Vietnam. Clearly, Winter Soldier drove a heavy wedge into the American government's credibility, creating a crack that kept widening all the way through the Nixon Administration's Watergate fiasco in 1973 and 1974. (emphasis mine)
Now to your statements...
the piece you plagiarized...
It's not my piece. Get over it.
I know its not your piece, thats why its called p-l-a-g-i-a-r-i-s-m TDC 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Plagiarism is claiming someone elses work as your own. It's not my piece. Get over it. 165.247.202.59 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Cooper Church passed in 1970, but as we know it did not become law until 1971.
Correct. We are in agreement. It passed in 1970, and was enacted in January, 1971.
actions described by WSI participants took place in 1970 and before
Correct. We are in agreement. Statements about violation of int'l law by launching ground troops into neutral countries were some of the actions described.
The assertion that this is a violation of international law is your opinion, and not back up by any notable source on the subject. As wide as Nicosia's knowledge on the Vietnam Veterans movement is, he is not a legal scholar, and has not himself cited the opinion of one. TDC 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the matter. I'm merely citing Nicosia. 165.247.202.59 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Nicosia is the only one claiming that military operations in Laos were in violation of Cooper Church
Wrong. Several investigating newspapers were making the claim, and it was front-page news.
Once again, without knowing what the original articles said, this is all conjecture. TDC 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Then read them. "Five Ex-Marines Tell of 1969 Invasion of Laos," Detroit Free Press, Feb., 1, 1971, pgs. 1A, 5A; "Protest Planned Near Capitol," Washington Post, March 17, 1971, pgs. A13; "Three Ex-Pilots Report Secret Raids in Laos by U.S. Soldiers," Boston Globe, Nov. 2, 1972, pgs. A16; etc... 165.247.202.59 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
as I have shown, the US was conduction joint operations with the Laotian government
Actually, you have shown nothing. You have claimed. Time to call you on your claims and ask for sources, please.
Strait from Wikipedia's own article on the subject:
To disrupt these operations without direct military involvement, the United States Central Intelligence Agency trained a force of some thirty thousand Laotians, mostly local Hmong tribesmen, led by General Vang Pao, a Hmong military leader. This Secret Army, supported by Air America and the Royal Lao Air Force, fought the North Vietnamese, Viet Cong, and their Pathet Lao allies to a standstill, greatly aiding U.S. interests in the war. TDC 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Humorous, but that isn't an article, mate, it's a stub. And a completely unsourced, uncited stub at that. In addition, the stub you linked says nothing about "joint operations with the Laotian government" as you claim, but instead refers to a U.S. supported Hmong military force -- not our forces. We had MACV-SOGs in the region over an almost 9 year span of time. We also had ground combat engagements in a neutral country, which does qualify as a violation of established international law, primarily because of the incidental involvement of noncombatants in that country. There was a reason it was "secret," TDC. Might I suggest we get back to the actual subject; and again, I'll be asking you for (real) sources. 165.247.202.59 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
incursions into Laos after Cooper Church, the law specifically pertained to ground troops
Yes, it did. And as revealed by several independent news investigations, ground troops conducted operations in neutral countries at least through the end of 1971. 1970 is before 1971 by the way.
165.247.214.71 01:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The "ground troops" were SF units and, were not barred by cooper church as were air units. Please read the original legislation instead of relying on a poor interpretation of it. TDC 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No, not all the "ground troops" were SF units and, yes, ground troops were prohibited. It even prohibits advisors, and makes no special exemptions for special forces. I've read the actual Act, earliest versions as well as amended and passed versions including the debate and conference notes. Give it a try. 165.247.202.59 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to have another go at providing a source, TDC, or shall we consider this particular issue closed for now? It's been a while. 165.247.214.107 19:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources, Separating between fact and opinions

The following from the article, is a mix of undocumented facts and your opinions

The U.S. participation in the Vietnam conflict was the source of much deeply divided sentiment among Americans. [10]1 The Winter Soldier Investigation produced a conglomerate of testimony resulting in the implication and indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct, and thereby further drove a wedge between proponents and opponents of the war. Many people viewed the Winter Soldier proceedings with a critical eye, and questions have been raised about the testimony given at the Winter Soldier Investigation.[11]2 Details in the testimonies have been questioned, as have the identities of participants, since the first day of the three day investigation.[12]3 It has been claimed that participants were frauds; that they were told to not cooperate with later investigators; that their testimonies were inaccurate or just plain fabricated. For more than thirty years since the WSI, individuals and organizations have sought to discredit or at least minimize the painful revelations brought forth at that event. To date, no records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been produced.[13]4

There are so many things wrong with this, I don’t even know where to start.

1 You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference in an article.

I didn't. I cited it as a source for the fact that the Vietnam war deeply divided Americans. Hey, when I previously asked you for a source, didn't you try to cite the Wiki-article on "Secret War?" Changing the rules as you go? Anyway, I can't believe you are actually asking for a source supporting the statement that the war divided America. I can't believe that I'm actually responding, but thems the rules. (The earth really is round, TDC, not flat.) Here's a non-Wiki source then: Page 1 of "A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan, "...lasted longer than any other in the nation's history and had divided America more than any conflict since the Civil War."

2 The following is making a claim but is presented as a fact. The impact that the WSI had was marginal at best, according to Nicosia.

The impact was indeed small, and the statement doesn't imply otherwise. The sentence says the event further divided pro and anti-war Americans. The sentence certainly doesn't say the event created the division. The statement is factual.

3 You have not cited who reported this, but simply regurgitated his conclusions as fact, when it is an assessment or opinion

No, the sentence says the testimonies and the identities were questioned since day one, and they were. Substitute "Detroit Free Press" as another source if you want - they were on the phone with Pentagon contacts verifying IDs right from the motel where the WSI was ongoing. The statement is factual.

4 You have used a citation which accurately summarizes the material, but does not reference the source (i.e. who said it), and comes to an entirely different conclusion that the source does. DTC 17:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The citation cites Lewy. Did Lewy not claim there were fraudulent participants? Did Lewy not attempt to portray the WSI event as discredited? Has Lewy (and the DoD) failed to produce records of any fraudulent testimony or participants to date (and Lewy now isn't sure he even saw such records as he claimed)? Yes, yes, and yes. The statement is factual. Lewy's unsupported conclusions are in the Lewy section of the article. 165.247.222.111 19:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Clearly you did not write this yourself, it has been ripped off from someone. But that is neither here nor there. The passage combines facts along with opinion. Opinion has to be cited and sourced. Facts have to be sourced if they are in contention. These are two simple and necessary steps that you have been unwilling to do, and the article will be forever in dispute until you do so. TDC 20:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be addressing an individual, but I hope you don't mind if I comment. Some facts are self-evident, such as "the sky is blue" and "the earth is round." Surely you would not require such facts to be cited and sourced. I see similar self-evident facts in the paragraph above. Which ones do you consider "in contention?" 165.247.213.84 21:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
TDC, oh the hypocricy. I have never once seen you document any of your sources, I bet you don't even know how to footnote. There is the standard you set for yourself and your views, and then their is the standard you set for those whose views that you oppose.
Okay, TDC, I understand why you want to delete that criticism, but have you ever actually written an article? Travb 07:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
On November 17, 2005 (just above this) I asked if you would point out which facts in the above passage you considered "in contention." You have not responded. I'll be removing the "Disputed" tag from the article until an actual dispute is defined here for discussion. 165.247.214.107 19:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I may know who the anon is

TDC, you may want to investigate this: I think the anon may be User:EECEE

Look at his user contributions, they all involve the same topic: vietnam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EECEE

Just as anon's interest seems only to be Vietnam.

See how passionatly EECEE talks just like anon about winter soilder: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2&diff=prev&oldid=20571712

This is only spectulation, but the way to know is to find similar but unique spelling mistakes between anon and User:EECEE. I wonder if User:EECEE has such a "Colorful" history on wikipedia as you do User:TDC? I figure if anyone can find the identity of the anon, its you, since you are good at investigating copyright violations on google. Travb 23:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Curses, foiled again... 165.247.214.161 10:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Unless an admin were to look into EECEE's IP adress, we can never be certain. TDC 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, much less who this "anon" is. I only post or edit under my own screen name. I'm not a "he," I'm a "she." Who would bother to "message" me with this nonsense, anyway? --EECEE 05:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a hunch who would, but if I told you, she would no longer be Anon. 165.247.204.80 06:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
As someone is obviously interested enough to trace through my past postings, I'll save you the trouble and just tell you that I just edited out the part of my prior paragraph where I called you guys "a little nutty." I'll try to keep this civil, as you are obviously concerned about some sort of trolling going on here. But it isn't me. And again quite honestly ... the idea of people checking out your identity is more than a little creepy, not to mention offensive. And possibly against the rules. --EECEE 05:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it is more than a little creepy. To me, this is offensive. 209.86.4.114 08:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Eccchhhhhhh. --EECEE 00:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Temporary solution until the arbitration is complete

I just built Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation and included critical information about the Winter Soldier Investigation which anon refuses on HIS wikipage.

This is a temporary solution until the arbitors rule and inevitably allow criticism on this page.

Anon: If you erase the tags linking to Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation, and the "mergefrom|Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation" ...tag, I will add that to the evidence page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence, showing prima facie (Definition: Evident without proof or reasoning; obvious: a prima facie violation of the treaty. Law: sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved) evidence, once again, that you are willing to allow only one side of the debate: your own, as I have reported you before.

Nifty. Fortunately for both of us, Wikipedia rules don't allow for the presentation of fallacy as if it were fact. Even on your sandbox playground you call Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation. I have taken the liberty of commenting out portions of text from that page, until they are properly sourced. I am sure you can do that, since you compiled that information -- correct? Please remember this when you go to update your arbitration page: Only 1 of 2 possible explanations for my actions can apply...
  • 1) As you accuse, I am unwilling to allow critical information into the article, or...
  • 2) I am unwilling to let unsubstantiated, unsourced and plain fabricated information into the article. When TDC tried to insert that "information," I yanked it, copied it over to the Discussion page, and detailed the problems with it. It remains there, unsourced and unexplained to this day. Why don't you go take a look at the questions, and answer them -- or do you have something to fear? What makes you think you will be able to sneak the same "information" in without citing sources either?
anon wrote: "take a look at the questions, and answer them -- or do you have something to fear?" Weren't you the one who said that you were not going to be baited. Touche. Travb 15:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Does this mean you agree to take a look at the questions, and answer them? 165.247.214.161 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You say you are in training to become an Attorney? Well then, you'd better get used to reviewing the facts a little more carefully. Happy holidays to you, Travb. 165.247.214.161 10:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Anon wrote: "You say you are in training to become an Attorney? Well then, you'd better get used to reviewing the facts a little more carefully." If I had a quarter for everytime that someone who disagreed with me said this on a web blog. Ad hominem attacks will be ignored. The arbitration committee with decide, it is out of our hands now.Travb 15:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Should I ever make an ad hominem attack, you will know it. As for you reviewing facts more carefully, committees have nothing to do with that. 165.247.214.161 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
(repeating the question asked of Travb just 3 paragraphs prior) Does this mean you agree to take a look at the questions, and answer them? 165.247.214.107 19:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

user:TDC, feel free to actually build a page Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation, for the first time in your life. Travb 23:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And I will feel free to edit it mercilessly, just like any other Wiki-page, in order to improve the content, neutrality and accuracy of the article. 165.247.214.161 10:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Anon, well, I see some progress at least. You haven't erased the entire Lewy section in the criticism page yet. Maybe you just forgot, but if not, that is real progress. Travb 15:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Travb, I have never "erased the entire Lewy section," and you know it. There has always been a Lewy section. I have, however, moved unsourced additions to the Discussion page for further review, as is standard here on Wikipedia. Remember what I said about reviewing facts more carefully? 165.247.214.161 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

anon wrote: Pitkin was previously removed by Travb

Regarding the removal of:

Veteran Steve Pitkin, who was 20 years old at the time, has claimed that he was not originally planning to testify at the WSI, but came to Detroit to support his fellow veterans and listen to live music [14]. Pitkin says he was asked by event leaders to speak on the second day of the event. On the panel Pitkin criticized the press for its coverage of the war, and detailed what he considered poor training for combat in Vietnam, and low morale he claimed to have witnessed while there [15]. Pitkin is quoted as saying he was later contacted by a reporter for Life Magazine who asked about war crimes and atrocities. "I didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear," Pitkin is quoted as saying, and nothing he claims to have said was included in the final story [16]. In August, 2004, 33 years after the Winter Soldier Investigation and during the 2004 presidential campaign season, Pitkin signed an affidavit stating "John Kerry and other leaders of that event pressured me to testify about American war crimes, despite my repeated statements that I could not honestly do so." [17] Upon hearing of these statements by Pitkin, another participant named Scott Camil filed his own affidavit refuting Pitkins statements [18]. Pitkin has subsequently admitted his recollections were flawed, and has re-issued an affidavit now reflecting a different date of discharge from the Army, different people traveling with him to the Winter Soldier event, and different circumstances under which he joined the VVAW [19]. On September 15, 2004, Pitkin signed a second affidavit stating that he had been instructed by organizers to "publicly state that I had witnessed incidents of rape, brutality, atrocities and racism, knowing that such statements would necessarily be untrue" [20]. However, although he introduced himself by saying, "I'll testify about the beating of civilians and enemy personnel, destruction of villages, indiscriminate use of artillery, the general racism and the attitude of the American GI toward the Vietnamese," his actual testimony contained no statements about atrocities [21].

anon wrote: Pitkin was previously removed by Travb [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&curid=2806609&diff=29533301&oldid=29532237

If that is true, it was inadvertenly. Sorry. Travb 05:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I believe it was quite intentional. You created a WikiQuote section, moved the Pitkin content there, and put a link to it on the article page. Then TDC put the Pitkin info back in the main article. I wish you two would make up your minds; either method is fine. 165.247.202.245 06:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Anon, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I removed large numbers of quotes to wikiquote to stop the first revert war perpetrated by TDC and exacerbated by the anon. This was obviously a mistake, because their is more information here then quotes.
I do NOT appreciate you, Anon, quoting me, and using my actions selectively to support your(the anon), and TDC's biased and pig-headed revert war. Anon, you are very selective in what edits of mine you accept and what edits you reject. Edits which support your own narrow view are quoted and supported, edits which contradict your pet wikipage are scorned and deleted with impunity.
Moving the now infamous Pitkin paragraph to the wikiquote page I now see was a mistake, made in haste to stop the first revert war by the two of you. Again: It was a mistake. As such, I do not support your actions now, so DO NOT quote my actions again, When you quote my actions, it subltly makes others erroneously think I support what you are doing to this wikipage. I support maybe 5% of what you, anon, are doing here, tops--and at this point, the other 95% is so grevious, it cancels out that single digit support.
Anon, you are alone in this clumsy jihad against TDC. You lost my support a long time ago. (I await the biting witty criticism) Travb 16:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Check the link you pasted above. I moved the Pitkin text from the "Testimony" section to the "Controversy" section, where it was originally. Before you removed it from the article and put it in WikiQuote. I noted this in the Edit Summary, as required. I have not quoted you, and I have no clue what you are rambling on about in the several paragraphs above. 165.247.204.80 19:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I was reviewing the original Lewy stuff that you inserted into the WSI article (and also your Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation article) again. We've already determined that much of it is embellished and fabricated. I just now noticed something else about that Lewy text, and I wanted to ask you about it. Did you copy that text from this site? Please note the similarities between your version and the content from the political smear website.

...some of the most gruesome claims came from men who were imposters using the names and documentation of real Vietnam veterans. One particular Marine who had been in combat eventually told investigators that a member of the Nation of Islam helped prepare his statement, and admitted that he had never witnessed any of the atrocities he had testified to in Detroit. According to the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name. In the end, the Navy was unable to verify any of the hundreds of war crimes alleged by the Winter Soldier Investigation. Lewy goes on to note that journalists, historians, and military and Congressional investigators have failed to verify even one specific allegation made at Winter Soldier.

Almost identical to the content below from here.

...Some of the most gruesome claims came from men who were imposters using the names of real Vietnam veterans. One Marine who had been in combat eventually told investigators that a member of the Nation of Islam had helped prepare his statement, and admitted that he had never witnessed any of the atrocities he had testified to in Detroit. In the end, the Navy was unable to verify any of the hundreds of war crimes alleged by the Winter Soldier Investigation. Neither has anyone else during the 33 years since, including journalists, historians, and military and Congressional investigators.

Isn't this exactly the kind of "derivative copyvio" that Duk and TDC are crusading against? It doesn't matter now, since that text has already been removed from all articles. But I just found it curious that you would do what everyone else is presently griping about. Cheers, 165.247.208.95 21:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My bad, I just reviewed the edit history and it appears TDC was the first to introduce the above content, not you. So TDC wants to play both Cop AND Robber at the same time? 165.247.208.95 22:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
When, exactly, has it been established that "much of it is embellished and fabricated"? And yes, I did copy the text from this. And FYI, it was referenced and cited at the end of the excerpt, (something you failed to mention on the talk page). TDC 18:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh I see TDC, copyright violations are OK if a person sites the source.
When I argued this with you TDC here, this was your response[22]:
There is a difference between copyvio and plagiarism. Please do a little homework before you come in here and talk about things you know nothing about. The material I have cited contains no specified CW protection, the information the anon keeps putting in has a specific copywrite protection posted right on the page he cuts and pastes it from. I post, cite it (i.e. Lewy says..) and provide a link. The anon attempts to pass it off as his own. If you cannot see a difference, then I suppose the issue is lost on you. TDC 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
And FYI, it was referenced and cited at the end of the excerpt, (something you failed to mention on the talk page)
Yeah, you cited it alright. Here is your edit. Here is your citation. Please humor us and point out just where your content can be found at your citation? Ain't there, is it? 165.247.213.227 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Repeating the question just above, where is this content at the site you listed in your citation? The content you provided did not come from the citation you provided. 165.247.214.107 19:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The material I have cited contains no specified CW protection...
If it is on the World Wide Web, it is copyright protected by default unless specifically labeled otherwise - this has been the law for a couple decades. Copyright law not so EZ? 165.247.213.227 00:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The anon attempts to pass it off as his own.
I believe you and that anon are the same person. Let's take a quick glance at some edits...
  • From TDC in February, 2004 edit. Copied from Website here. Called on it? yes.
  • From TDC in April, 2004 edit. Copied from Website here. Called on it? yes.
I was a new contributor to Wikipedia and it was fixed as soon as it was brought to my attention, something which you refuse to do. TDC 17:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From TDC in May, 2004 edit. Copied from Website here. Called on it? yes.
I was a new contributor to Wikipedia and it was fixed as soon as it was brought to my attention, something which you refuse to do. TDC 17:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From TDC in October, 2004 edit. Copied from Website here. Called on it? yes.
I was a new contributor to Wikipedia and it was fixed as soon as it was brought to my attention, something which you refuse to do. TDC 17:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From TDC in May, 2005 edit. Copied from Book by Martin Duberman, pg 382 Called on it? yes.
Content dispute, and it was resolved to the satisfaction of both editors, something which you refuse to do. TDC 17:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From TDC in October 2005 edit Copied from Website here Called on it? yes
I fail to see your point on this one, the source was cited and credited, something which you refuse to do. TDC 17:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From TDC in October, 2005 edit. Copied from Website here Called on it? yes.
The source was given in the link and referred to in the article, and for the life of me I don’t understand why you are refusing to admit this. And FYI, you did not even put the correct source down for it, nothing from the NRO article is in my edit. TDC 17:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Just scratching the surface here. 165.247.213.227 01:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
On the above 7 samples of TDCs copyright and plagiarism violations, TDC variously claims he didn't know any better, or he fixed them, or he cited them, or I didn't reference the correct source, etc. To each of TDCs claims, I simply reply: Wrong. Many of the violations do still exist at this very moment; I have double-checked the sources I linked and they are correct; and I believe TDC is operating under the misconception that if he just denies repeatedly and forcefully enough, no one will bother to verify his claims. 165.247.204.50 03:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Many of the violations do still exist at this very moment, delete them. --Duk 04:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
As found on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence, User:TDC claims that: "The material I have cited contains no specified CW protection, the information the anon keeps putting in has a specific copywrite protection posted right on the page he cuts and pastes it from."
Copyright law states:

"With one important exception, you should assume that every work is protected by copyright unless you can establish that it is not. As mentioned above, you can't rely on the presence or absence of a copyright notice (©) to make this determination, because a notice is not required for works published after March 1, 1989. And even for works published before 1989, the absence of a copyright notice may not affect the validity of the copyright -- for example, if the author made diligent attempts to correct the situation."[23] If necessary I will find the actual code which states this.

I personally feel that both anon's and TDC's sentences are protected under the fair use doctorine, but TDC, as a "POV warrior" employed Duk, who I feel overreach their administrative authority, and erase the entire Winter Soldier Investigation and VVAW article for copyright violations. TDC uses the rules as a weapon and applies different rules for himself. Travb 00:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Travb;
  1. you are right, anything published in the US is automatically copyrighted and we can't use it without an appropriate license, except for under the fair use clause. The same is true for almost every country in the world.
  2. Wikipedia requires that all fair use be attributed. In other words, it can't masquerade as a wikipedian's creative work and get thrown into the mix and edited. Has to be presented as a quote and cited.
  3. ...but TDC, as a "POV warrior" employed Duk... heh, this is really funny :) --Duk 01:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Duk! I want to cry! You said the word "fair use". Sometimes I get discouraged about this arbitration, but your words made my day thanks! (I am serious)Travb 03:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You two never cease to entertain me!

Well, looks like the heavy hand of an arbitror will soon decend on this article because neither of you could act like adults, comprimise and see the beam in your own eyes.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

TDC

TDC, I wonder if you can now admit, or you will ever admit that the copyright violation ploy to get this article erased was a mistake, and unfair. I find it so entertaining that anon wasted hours with you old edits "outing" your own hypocricy.

I am really getting tired of engaging you in these pointless merry go round shit throwing events, but for the last time, this was never about getting the article erased, it was about exactly the opposite, a point I had brought up in February of 2005 [24]. TDC 14:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

anon

And anon, I wonder if you can now admit, or will ever admit that your heavy handed edits are unbalanced, and that you have different standards for your "facts" and the "facts" of TDC: Lenient standards for your "facts" and strict standards for TDC's "facts". --Travb 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You have made this accusation before, and my response remains the same: Please provide one example where my standard for facts differ between myself and TDC. I suspect your response will be the same as last time: nonexistent. 165.247.214.71 19:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You made an accusation, and I asked you to please back it up. I predicted that you would not support your accusation. The prediction was correct. 165.247.214.107 19:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I ran across an edit of a far right person a couple of days ago, and it was like deja vu.

LOL--look at the similarities, it is so funny[25][26]--you BOTH have this empty criticism section. You both leave this empty subsection title. Why? Why not delete the whole thing? LOL. By leaving the criticism subsection title with no words underneath mean that their is no real criticism of the subject?

Why leave the empty subsection? Because I assumed you were going to fill it with valid criticism. I left the empty section there for a few days, but instead of adding criticism, you instead claimed you "knew little about the subject matter" and didn't touch it. Why not delete the whole thing? I did delete it after giving you a few days, and you would know this if you'd bother to look at any of the more recent versions. As for your information that I removed from that subsection, you eventually agreed with my reasoning and had this to say:
TDC, Not that it is worth much, but I have to agree with most of Anon's edits. If this information is not in the book, it should not be embelished by wikipedians. --Travb 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this explains a lot about you two's psychology, and is telling what you believe: A critism header but no criticism. In otherwords, there is no criticism. Out of sight out of mind, right? LOL. SO FUNNY.

I think it's good that you aren't majoring in psychology. 165.247.214.71 19:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to ask the right-wing person on the DuPont talk page about this. This cracks me up.

Anon the only difference between yourself and this person was the direction of the pet ideology (yours is left, his is on the right). This person had the same refusal to accept any criticism that falls outside of his own POV as you do, and he probably has the same tired transparent justifications as you have used.Travb 12:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool. That is the 11th Wikipedia editor I've been compared with (or accused of being) in the past several months. Quite trendy, I am. I must say I am now in agreement with TDC regarding your motivations here, Travb. To use TDC's colorful language, you appear to take great pleasure in these "pointless merry go round shit throwing events." You claim to have little or no knowledge of this articles topic. You claim to have little or no interest in this articles topic. Yet you come here with personal attacks, chiding remarks, pages upon pages of "proof of wrong-doing" that you've cut & pasted into these Talk Pages, all while bubbling over with glee. What, exactly, is your goal here? You continually ignore the guidelines boldly posted at the top of this page regarding Etiquette, Assuming Good Faith and Being Nice. How many times have I visited your User Talk page and politely requested that you refrain from personal attacks? How many times have you posted here while assuming a condescending or confrontational attitude? "neither of you could act like adults," we've heard you say numerous times, as if you spoke from some position of maturity. As editors of Wikipedia, we don't need you quoting the bible at us. We don't need your amateur psychoanalysis of us. We don't need to submit to your amateur attempts at playing Perry Mason ("I wonder if you can now admit, or you will ever admit..."). And we don't need to submit ourselves as objects for your entertainment ("You two never cease to entertain me!" "I find it so entertaining that anon wasted hours...").
For the umpteenth time, I'd like to request that you observe the above mentioned guidelines a little more closely, Travb. A little less spam on the talk pages, and a little more effort directed toward improving articles would be great. TDC will continue to interject his slanted content into the article, but at least his motivation is transparent - and he does occassionally make an article improvement. Your motivation, however, still eludes me -- unless it is simply to pick fights with editors, insult editors, spam editors and conduct mock gradeschool litigation upon editors, all while claiming "no interest in the actual article." It is my opinion that if you'd spend just half as much effort on article improvement as you do on berating and chiding other editors, all concerned would benefit greatly. Thanks, 165.247.214.71 19:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Disputed" tag

A disputed tag has been replaced on this article by TDC with an Edit Summary stating:

(put tag back, I have only refrained from editing pending the outcome of the RfArb, I suggest you do likewise)

I have removed this tag. TDC, please use this space to describe what it is that is disputed so that the disputed content can be discussed, and edited if necessary. Regarding your claim to not editing pending the outcome of the RfArb, I respectfully disagree. The edit history not only shows you editing this article several times during the arbitration, but also shows you edit warring and even receiving blocks by administrators during this arbitration. I also notice that you anticipate being banned from editing this article for a prolonged period. If this is the case, and if you do indeed feel a valid dispute exists, now would be a good time to present it. If it means the possible improvement of a Wiki-article, what better time than now? 165.247.214.107 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems fairly certain that neither one of us will be able to agree on a version of this article. So, we should just leave it, as is, and allow other editors have a crack at it. DTC 05:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why so pessimistic? The tag says the "factual accuracy" of the article is in dispute. It doesn't matter what you and I agree on -- that part is actually out of our hands. This is all about simple facts. I know you understand quite well the difference between fact and fiction... I've seen your edits on other articles. List whatever it is in the article that you feel is non-factual, and I will do my best to provide all necessary sources to support the facts. If I can't find factual support, then I won't stand in the way of removal or revision of the content.
I see that you have reinstated the "Disputed" tag again without explaining just what it is you are disputing. I am now going to remove that tag, and again request that you give at least a brief explanation here supporting your tagging. Other editors are always welcome, but until they show up it is best this article remain unfettered with unexplained tags. 165.247.214.107 06:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Listen, you know damn well what the POV and factual issues are in this article, so I don’t need to reiterate them. This 11th attempt by you to cram in what ever extra information into the article that you want to see in it and remove what you don’t, is pathetic. DTC 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what 11 attempts you are talking about. Editors have made easily dozens of attempts to address your POV and factual issues. You wanted Pitkin info in there, well it's back in there. You wanted Lewy info in there and it is, along with practically that whole chapter from his book now in the WSI WikiQuote. Earlier on this talk page, when you first put up that disputed tag [27] you said this:
The passage combines facts along with opinion. Opinion has to be cited and sourced. Facts have to be sourced if they are in contention. These are two simple and necessary steps that you have been unwilling to do, and the article will be forever in dispute until you do so. TDC 20:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Forever in dispute? The sources were provided, so I am removing the tag. If you come up with any more issues that warrant a "Disputed" tag, please list them here for discussion and re-tag the article. 165.247.222.111 17:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to my satisfaction you have not. See above, and keep in mind that this one paragraph is typical of the entire article. DTC 17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've added additional information to the sources listed above. Please review them and let me know what you think. Keep in mind that if you feel any other paragraphs in the entire article need similar attention, you may list them here for discussion. I'd be happy to work with you on that. 165.247.214.194 19:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you Agree With this?

Moved from user:travb talk page:

The originator of this arbitration case, User:Travb, concludes this on the Evidence page: "Anon refuses to allow critisism of Winter Soldier Investigation, depsite repeated attempts of myself and others to add critism, Anon refuses to allow this information in, causing revert wars." Travb has since, after more serious review, recanted this conclusion and found himself in agreement with my edits.

Do you agree with this statement from the Winter Soldier anon? DTC 20:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

no.Travb 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Travb. Could you please elaborate on your answer to TDC aka DTCs question? It would be greatly appreciated, as it seems to be a sticking point at the WSI Arbitration you initiated. The last thing I want to do is misrepresent your feelings on this, but I'm not a mind reader - I can only go on what you convey to me through typed messages.
I know you got upset with me when I removed certain Lewy information from the WSI article. You got even more upset when I removed that same information from your newly created Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation article. After lengthy discussion with you on the Talk pages, you grudgingly came to this conclusion:
"TDC, Not that it is worth much, but I have to agree with most of Anon's edits. If this information is not in the book, it should not be embelished by wikipedians. --Travb 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)"
You thought I was trying to block criticism, but you eventually learned I was only blocking embellished stuff that wasn't properly sourced. That is why I stated you agreed with my edits after reviewing the situation -- because that is what you told me. Yet you answer TDC's question above with a "no?" If your position has changed yet again, could you please explain it to me so that I don't misrepresent it during my discussions with Arbitors?
I know you got upset with me when I moved text from the articles to the talk pages for discussion, and you accused me of deleting content and trying to start edit wars. After lengthy discussion with you about Wikipedia editing guidelines, you grudgingly came to the conclusion:
Protocol for arguments about text of wikiarticle (I still disagree about this article being deleted, but anon followed protocol): ... always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning. Travb 14:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
You thought I was deleting text from articles without reason and trying to start edit wars, but you eventually learned that I was just following established Wikipedia editing practices by moving it to Talk for discussion. If your position on my editing practices has changed yet again, could you please explain it to me so that I don't misrepresent it during my discussions with Arbitors?
I've tried to work with you regarding any issues you might have about this article, but I feel as if I am being stonewalled:
Me: What else is disputed? 165.247.202.59 03:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
You: Ask TDC :) Travb 06:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Me: can you please list the edits with which you disagree so that they can be discussed? 165.247.204.80 22:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
You: As mentioned before, i know little about this subject, and I am quite frankly not very interested in the subject. Travb 02:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Me: Please provide one example where my standard for facts differ between myself and TDC. 165.247.214.71 19:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You: **no response at all**
Me: I'll make another plea here for you to please cite this "POV pushing" of mine. Of course I have points of view, we all do, but if you are going to accuse me of pushing it in the article, can you be more specific? 165.247.219.211 20:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You: **No response at all**
Me: (again) Please provide one example where my standard for facts differ between myself and TDC. I don't believe they do, but if you see things differently, I would appreciate hearing about it. 165.247.219.211 20:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You: I don't have an example, not because there is not one, but because I am too lazy to find one right now. I am busy building my own wikipage to make $. Travb 21:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You aren't too busy to make hundreds of edits since then, and not too busy to join other conversations on Talk pages. Do you think it is fair to make accusations about a person, but claim you are too lazy and busy to provide an example to back it up? Travb, I've seen you get passionate ... and angry ... and upset ... but I've never seen you be dishonest. I'm asking you to be honest with me and yourself here and just give me a few straight answers. Something more than a 'no' without any explanation. Thank you in advance, 165.247.214.26 05:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I will respond in a bit. working on non-wiki stuff now. I am burned out with this whole damn arbitration, it is taking way to long. But I will answer you in a bit.
The jist of it is, that you would not allow critisism on the page. Thats the bottom line. For example, I was all for allowing the Lewy info in, but it was cut out. I saw the way you argued with TDC over the smallest issues, and I didn't want to get sucked into the debate when I had only a passing interst in the issue. It reminds me of the Ward Churchill debate.
It is not that I am too busy to respond, it is that I am really tired of this arbitration, and it is starting to feel more and more like a root canal.
In regards to this comment:
"TDC, Not that it is worth much, but I have to agree with most of Anon's edits. If this information is not in the book, it should not be embelished by wikipedians. --Travb 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)"
I believe that I was refering to particular edits of that particular day. There have been hundreds of edits to this article, and I don't agree with all of them, from both of you. I am sorry if I gave you the wrong impression anon.
Although I am flattered you both ask my opinion. I think this dispute is now out of my hands, and the dispute has gone way beyond me, I don't think if I choose sides right now it would matter, in the final days of the arbitration.
If you want more elaboration, please let me know....Travb 10:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this arbitration feeling like a root canal, I can't argue with that - RfArbs always burn people out. Unfortunately, you unleashed this beast, so you are obligated to stay in the cage with the rest of us until it gasps its very final breath. I am absolutely NOT asking you to choose sides. This is all about facts to me (and the Arbitors), so I am pushing you for a few simple facts to clear things up.
You say the jist of it is that I wouldn't allow criticism on the page. You first made that accusation when I was removing certain Lewy information. The 2nd time you made that accusation was when I was modifying the Pitkin information. The third time you made that accusation that I wouldn't allow criticism, you took all that Lewy and Pitkin info, stuffed it into your new Criticism-merge article and warned me not to touch it. It was my edits on the Lewy and Pitkin info behind all of your accusations that I wasn't allowing criticism. It was my Lewy and Pitkin edits with which you finally agreed; see the Talk page of your Criticism-merge article. The particular edits of that particular day, less than a dozen of them (see the edit history of your Criticism-merge article), were all about Lewy and Pitkin. The same edits that prompted you to include me in the RfArb.
I believe that I was refering to particular edits of that particular day. There have been hundreds of edits to this article, and I don't agree with all of them, from both of you. I am sorry if I gave you the wrong impression anon.
Travb, I need you to be positive here -- not just "I believe this or that..." I don't want to sound like I'm "badgering the witness," but getting these last few facts straight is rather important. Of course you and I won't agree on every edit made, but that is to be expected between all editors. Sometimes we agree, like whether the word "testimony" is appropriate in the article. Sometimes we disagree, like whether Lewy qualifies as a historian (Note: I accepted your argument on that one). But simple disagreements over edits isn't the issue here. At the top of this conversation, TDC quoted me saying that you felt I wouldn't allow any criticism in the article, but that you have since changed your opinion. TDC asks if you agree with my statement, and you said simply "no." THAT is the issue. Certain edits of mine (Lewy and Pitkin) led you to believe I wasn't receptive to critical content, and you later agreed with those edits. What part of that could you possibly disagree with? I wasn't editing stuff out because it was critical - I was editing it out because it was false. Lewy and Pitkin stuff is still in the article, so I obviously don't have a problem with criticism being in the article. I must press you again to be a little more clear, please. 165.247.202.248 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason I asked is because I am sick to death of Rob's (the Anon) lying and deliberate misrepresentations. DTC 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, TDC. I'm not Rob. 165.247.202.248 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Another lie, but who cares right? I mean its all academic at this point. DTC 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Travb, seriously don’t respond to Rob, its pointless and a waste of time. Or read the first quote on my user page. DTC 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just be honest, Travb. TDC apparently has something to fear from your response. I do not. (And I'm not Rob, TDC.) 165.247.202.116 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, by all means Trav, let Rob suck you into a weeks long go nowhere debate just so he can twist what you say out of context in a later discussion. DTC 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I am glad that anon has added back some of the info on this site. Which shows a willingness to comprimise. You two just fight it out here.Travb 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


To Anon Poster of Jane Fonda Pic

If you feel it is appropriate to include a picture of only one "organizer" - Jane Fonda - taken a year after the hearings, with nothing to do with the hearings, maybe you will explain your reasoning here. Otherwise, it appears to be pure POV intended to discredit Fonda's involvement with the WSI. Thanks. --EECEE 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a well known picture of an important participant that illustrates context as to the mindset and sympathies of the organisers of this event. I don't see how a picture can discredit's Fonda's involvement with the WSI. 132.236.176.165
Actually, it illustrates your view of the mindset and sympathies of the organizers of this event.
The picture was taken a year after the WSI hearings, and is not related to them in any way. Plenty ::of WSI participants, including John Kerry, didn't approve of her trip to NVN. If you want to post a ::picture of a participant that "illustrates the context" as to the mindset and sympathies of the ::organizers, find one of Fonda appearing at VVAW rallies or WSI events. --EECEE 06:01, ::10 March 2006 (UTC)
The mindset and sympathies of the organizers of this event, would be entirely well known but for the desire of many people to whitewash their involvement in this publicity stunt after the fact. The picture is entirely realted to Jane Fonda's involment with WSI. 128.84.178.76 07:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The mindset and sympathies of the organizers of this event can be entirely well known by their statements and activities around the event itself - including pictures. The picture had nothing to do with Jane Fonda's involvement with WSI - you are simply imprinting your POV. And by the way, I don't know how anything about Jane Fonda has been "whitewashed" as that exact picture appears at her Wiki page, which is linked at the WSI page. --EECEE 20:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
By baysian logic the picture is quite relavent. Only someone so opposed to the Vietnam war, as to visit NVN, would support something as tawdry as WSI. The photo is contemporary to the time period of the WSI, and is a very defining picture of one of the key participants during the time period that WSI took place. 128.253.214.55 08:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that is some, uh baysian logic. Thanks for underlining the pure POV reasoning behind including the picture. --EECEE 00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To Anon Poster re "Purported Verification"

Unless you can show that the process described in the article did not take place, there was a verification process. It wasn't "purported" at all.

If you can provide evidence that participants lied, feel free to include it. You may notice that Lewy et al's claims in that regard are already discussed in the article. --EECEE 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/Talk%7EWinter_Soldier_Investigation_Archive_4_16e1.html"