Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War:/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The New Soldier cover image

I cut the following paragraph from the John Kerry page. It would be more appropriate here, as it is not specific to Kerry:

The cover photo of John Kerry's and the VVAW's book, "The New Soldier" was intended to be a mocking of the famous Iwa Jima soldiers hoisting the flag of the United States after the battle. Beyond the Iwa Jima symbolism, an upside down flag is understood to be a signal of distress. Upon requests during the Election of 2004, John Kerry declined to allow the book to be reprinted. Photo of Iwa Jima Memorial - (unsigned)

Just as a point of information, that would be Iwo Jima, not Iwa Jima. - Nunh-huh 06:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Name linking

Should every single name mentioned be linked? I link those with existing articles but not every name in existence. If someone creates a new page for a person I assume they'll do a search. -- SEWilco

No, every name mentioned shouldn't be (and isn't) linked. I'm introducing some of the links now. The red-letter link indicator is often more expedient than the search function anyway. Just checked the vvaw.org link you mentioned - yes, much of the information is similar. So Romo is lazy ... *shrugs* no copyright limitations, however. -Rob
Psst - use Preview.

Representative Paul McClosky?

I don't know your source, but Google and house.gov don't find much about McClosky. As in the original source, The New Soldier, check: representative "paul mccloskey" -- SEWilco 15:25, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Try checking under Congressman McClosky, as he is listed in the article. -Rob
Already had. Now I found where a directory was tucked away. Try both last names here: http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp -- SEWilco 05:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Paul Norton McCloskey, Jr. stub. Added to list of former Representatives. -- SEWilco

Related Groups

There are several related groups which might be included in this section. At the moment only VVAW and VVAW-AI are mentioned. Mention of VVAW-AI's split is easily found [1], web searches find confirmations with various POV [2] [3]. As there are references to changes after the war ended, it is obvious that one should check the last VVAW FBI files in case the RCP influence had been noticed in 1975, and the first few pages of the file has many references to components of RCP's beliefs. [4] That's enough info for the summary which is needed here. Nicosia obviously dug through the details. -- SEWilco 06:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Check the latest revision. I basically melded your info with the previously existing info. I changed back the "Related Groups" since that phrase implies a relationship when there clearly is not one. Just because Bo Jackson played football for the Raiders and baseball for the Royals, that doesn't mean the Raiders are "related" to the Royals. By all accounts, the -AI contingent was a sparce minority. As an FYI, while Nicosia did a lot of research, he has slipped as far as many of the facts go. The FBI documents are also known to contain an abundance of errors and omissions as well. -Rob

Protection

I protected this page as I earlier saw an edit war going on. When I returned to Wiki later I saw the edit war still going on. I realize that someone will likely complain the User:TDC violated the three-edit standard. However, I see that this has been him vs. a series of anon IPs, all of whom are in turn reverting to their own version.

I suggest (1) that the anons log in; (2) the substance of the differences be debated here, not by reverts. I have not read the substance of the differences, and have no opinion on the content. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As you will note in the Edit Summaries, I have been trying to engage the vandal TDC in discussion about the sweeping deletions he is implementing. He refuses. I also note that you have protected the vandalised version, which is now missing a significant amount of accurate content additions made over the past few days. I request that you reinstate the non-vandalised version until the vandal at least agrees to discuss his changes in a civil manner. -Rob
I will revisit this in 24 hours to see if there is any movement. You can also appeal to any other admin. If you want commentary on the article changes, mount an RfC.

Deletions by user TDC

TDC - can you please explain why you have removed the formatting of sponsored events from the article? -Rob

You never explained your sweeping changes originally. The last stable version was by SEWilco [5], and your following edits were never explained. Do so now, or this edit war will never end. That I can promise you. TDC 19:41, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Please try to maintain a productive attitude here. Your threats and ultimatums are unwarranted. The version you cite by SEWilco is very old by several edits. What changes, besides formatting, do you take issue with? -Rob
Gee, I dont know, everything. TDC 20:02, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
I have protected this page, sort yourselves out. AdamJacobMuller Fri Oct 29 18:17:47 EDT 2004
From TDC's user page, "Beware the wikistalkers. Wiki members who investigate certain users contributions and continually revert them." That is totally inappropriate, and in complete violation of Wikipedia rules. I suggest you go back and read the rules of Wikipedia, if you are not prepared to be a good citizen here you will be dealt with. AdamJacobMuller T@lk Fri Oct 29 18:42:25 EDT 2004
Any chance of getting *why* you take issue with things? Or people just supposed to guess at what you don't like? I wasn't aware that there's a requirement to "explain" edits adding content. If you think they're inappropriate edits, say why, then the people who originally made them can answer your complaints, but to expect people to have to preemptively give complete justifications of every single line they add to any article is rediculous. Plasma 06:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Erm... AdamJacobMuller, your intentions may be good, but you are not an admin, AFAICT, and you are not able to protect pages (and this isn't) nor post the protection notice (which I am removing) and certainly not to threaten edutors with being "dealt with." FYI, I am not going to either protect or unprotect this or the Winter Soldier Investigation articles for the time being. Contact another admin if you wish to make a case for/against protection. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, I see User:Michael Snow has protected this in fact, so I'm going to leave this alone in that state. I also see a request for unprotection. Please post your comments there, or here, or appeal to Ed Poor or Michael Snow with further comments. Geez, we're still fighting the Vietnam War on many fronts. Maybe this will simmer down after Tuesday, but I'm not holding my breath. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am not going to complain about the temporary protection presently on the VVAW page because, honestly, it is the most recent accurate and NPOV version to date -- and I can hold my additions to the article for now. I am still waiting for TDC to explain what edits he has issues with, rather than just saying "everything" and then refusing to discuss further. The request for Unprotection you see is for another article entirely: Winter Soldier Investigation. Your point about this war still being fought is well taken. -Rob

My role

I don't like to take sides against people. It's the article which interests me. Let's strive for accuracy, and where we cannot agree on the facts let's "agree to disagree". --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to drop it all in Cecropia's lap. We're a bit of an ochlocracy around here. But Theresa Knott has taken up the slack, thank goodness! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:46, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protection

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

Since this appears to be a cut-n-paste suggestion from another page, I'll direct you to my response at Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation. -Rob 22:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

We're still waiting for you to cite "all the copyright violations." I don't see any in the article, and I don't see you listing them as a reason for your repeated reverts. If a CW violation does exist, please cite it so that the problem can be resolved. -Rob 18:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

The article has been unprotected. I am going to assume good faith and that this article will not become another edit war again. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

VVAW and WSI articles

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

Perhaps I can help, TDC. I'm going to follow AllyUnion's advice, and assume good faith. Since you see no possibilities other than edit war, please allow me to offer some suggestions:
  • 1) Please list your editing issues. Problems can't be solved unless you cite them for everyone to see. Claiming plagiarism without saying which text you think is plagiarized doesn't really do much good. We're not mind-readers. I've tried to discover just what text you are complaining about by looking at your edit, but your revert has wiped out 60% of the articles content from several editors.
  • 2) Be willing to discuss changes and be willing to compromise. If there is a verifiable instance of plagiarism or copyright violation, of course we should edit it or remove it immediately. However, if you just find yourself disagreeing with the content or presentation of a passage of text -- try raising your concerns for discussion. Perhaps common ground can be discovered and changes made that will be acceptable to all concerned.
  • 3) Don't confuse one unregistered editor with another. Your descriptions, "unable to be negotiated with," "does not like people making edits," and "extremely uncooperative" do not apply to me, (-Rob). Just view the Discussion Pages for each article (including what you archived away) to see that I always encourage negotiation, editing and cooperation.
  • 4) Don't fear the Discussion Page. Rather than clutter up AllyUnion's talk page, we should move this discussion to the appropriate article discussion pages. I'll start by pasting these comments there. I look forward to your participation, TDC.
Does this sound reasonable to you, AllyUnion? Any other suggestions would be welcomed. I'd also like to ask one favor of you: Can you help us with step 1 above to get us started? TDC has resumed his reverts, claiming plagiarism in the edit summary, yet his reverts don't appear to remove suspected text. Instead, his reverts trash edits from as far back as the middle of last year, and I can't make heads or tails out of what his edits are trying to accomplish. Once we have identified the problem, we can work to correct it. TDC won't cite the alleged problem. I can't find the problem by looking at his revert. Can you help? -Rob 19:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've put in my two cents' worth, but, to try to keep all the discussion in one place, I'm commenting only at Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation#VVAW and WSI articles. My comments on that article apply to this one as well. JamesMLane 20:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)