Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] The controversial excerpt

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

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

[edit] Copyvio

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

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

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

[edit] Copyvio resolution

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

[edit] History Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not understand the objection to the deleted text. From the notes above, it appears the only objections are:
  • the organization wasn't huge
  • the organization wasn't alone in their efforts
  • the organization's "rap group" method wasn't the first method used to deal with PTSD
  • the legislation promoted by the organization wasn't "major legislation"
  • a reader objects to expanded information being provided elsewhere in the article on items mentioned in a history overview
The text doesn't qualify for deletion based on the personal opinions expressed above.
Xenophrenic 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
These are not personal opinions. The excerpt from the organizations history is contentious, unduly self-serving and self-aggrandizing, and are not about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject. This is why it constitutes a violation of WP:RS and WP:V. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:V - I verified the source. The article states the text is a quote from the VVAW website, and indeed it is. WP:RS - I've read and re-read the deleted text, and I do not find it contentious, nor self-aggrandizing. The organization concerned itself with the issues of the war and the war veteran, much as it continues to do today. If you find their stated purpose contentious then that is a matter of personal opinion and not fact. Is there some way we can get additional input from others as to whether inclusion of the history summary is a violation of Wikipedia editing rules? Xenophrenic 03:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
You could file an RfC to get more input, but my objections still stands that the mater is a violation of WP:RS for the reasons stated above. No other articles allow the use of such a large block quote from the subject of the article to describe it. In inherently NPOV as the subject, in this case the VVAW's website, it not an impartial commenter. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If the information was presented as a second-source description of the organization, then you might have a complaint, but it is not. It is clearly identified as being quoted directly from the VVAW website as their description of the organization's history and purpose. If you believe the article does not present a NPOV, why not help to improve the article by presenting alternate POV that you feel is lacking? As stated at WP:NPOV, "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." Having reviewed some of your edits, my first impression is that you are striving for No Point Of View, rather than NPOV. You claim information should be in WikiQuote, yet you delete it instead. You claim a well sourced viewpoint is not NPOV, yet rather than present a balancing counter-view, you delete it instead. A cynical mind might suspect a goal of supression rather than improvement. I know a little something about the subject matter and I would be glad to help you, but I would need a starting point. Can you be more specific about the views expressed that you feel are not being presented in a balanced manner? Xenophrenic 09:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Rob, the shell game that you have been playing here for the past 2 years is very transparent, and as such, I think that I will just wait until you are blocked to make the changes. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Rob and Cudgel, you both seem to have difficulty in describing the text you feel presents an unbalanced view. Maybe you should both look into enlisting neutral third-party assistance to help you clearly state your objections? Xenophrenic 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute -History section

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

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

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

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

And after a week of waiting, I see that specifics are not forthcoming. Xenophrenic 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Rob, your selective interpretation of facts and citations is well known to anyone who has argued with you before. The agent orange issue is a no go and yes the RCP did destry the effectiveness of the VVAW. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As I suggested above: Rob and Cudgel, you both seem to have difficulty in describing the text you feel presents an unbalanced view. Maybe you should both look into enlisting neutral third-party assistance to help you clearly state your objections? Xenophrenic 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded details of article edits

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

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

Cudgel notes:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Membership numbers and Groups claims

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

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

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

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

  • A Companion to the Vietnam War By Marilyn B. Young, puts it at 5000.
Rob, Young says it grows toward 5000 right after Nixon invades Cambodia in 1970. It keeps growing after that.
  • Divided We Fall: How Disunity Leads to Defeat By James Rothroc, puts it at 600-10000
Rob, Rothrock says estimates range from 600-10,000. He clearly hasn't seen all the estimates that Cudgel and I have.
  • The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Vietnam War By Timothy P. Maga, does not provide any sources, contrary to your claims.
Rob, Maga said the VVAW claimed a membership of 7000. No argument there -- VVAW did indeed claim 7000 in December, 1970.
  • The FBI files on VVAW also estimates their numbers at 7000.
No, Rob, not until page numbers are produced to back it up. Then I'm sure we will see those files reflect the membership during a specific time period. Xenophrenic 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Wrong again, Rob. I did a little more checking on your claim that Olson lists the membership at 7000 in his dictionary. He did not. I also rechecked Magas Guide, and the 7000 number is sourced to the VVAW. You might take another look. Since you again omit direct quotes from your latest sources (Young and Rothroc), I must assume there may be similar deception afoot. Why not show what your sources really say, exactly as it was said, and in proper context? Xenophrenic 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
From Olson, page 349: Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW) was founding in 1967 after six veterans who marched together in an antiwar movement demonstration decided veterans needed their own antiwar organization. Its membership ultimately included several thousand veterans and a few government infiltrators.
Maga: Founded in April, 1967, the Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW) claimed a membership of 7000. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
(Young and Rothroc) Xenophrenic 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you are making my case that there are discrepancies in reporting the groups membership, and this discrepance is not reflected in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I make no such case. I mentioned Young and Rothoc as a reminder to you that I requested in-context quotes of what they actually said. The Olson and Maga quotes above make my case, not yours. Maga says the "VVAW claims" and Olson estimates how many veterans were among the VVAWs total membership. Xenophrenic 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, lets just give you a refresher then:
From Olson, page 349: Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW) was founding in 1967 after six veterans who marched together in an antiwar movement demonstration decided veterans needed their own antiwar organization. Its membership ultimately included several thousand veterans and a few government infiltrators.
Maga: Founded in April, 1967, the Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW) claimed a membership of 7000.
So some sources say 20K+ and others say several thousand, which would seem to indicate a discrepancy which is not addressed in the current article. All of the above sources, except the VVAW, conform to WP:RS, so this discrepancy has to be noted in the article. End of story. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Some sources give their average membership, some give their peak membership, some give the number of just the veterans while others give their total membership. All of the above sources, including the VVAW, conform to WP:RS, and several of them may be accurate at the same time. Can you give me a refresher on exactly what Young and Rothoc said? Xenophrenic 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you know which sources give "average" membership, and which sources give "peak membership"? This is not an exercise in mind reading. If the source does not indicate it, then it cannot go in to the article. What Young and Rothoc said are contradicted by what other sources have said. And here is another: Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, Spencer C. Tucker, gives the number of members at “around 7000”. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If I understand the above dialog correctly, we have concluded:
You are unable to quote exactly what Young or Rothoc said
You agree "if the source does not indicate it, then it cannot go in to the article,"
Maga and Olson say nothing about "Peak membership" numbers, yet you try to slip that in anyway
A text search of Tuckers encyclopedia doesn't return "around 7000" anything; verify?
Xenophrenic 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually what we have concluded is that the majority of the sources indicate "several thousand", not the 30,000 (uncited of course) that you continue to put into the article. As for Maga, you already quoted the relevant portion above.
The VVAW was formed in 1967 in New York by six Vietnam Veterans. Estimates of its membership ranged from 600 to 10,000 at its peak. pg 120 Rothrock
Its leaders claimed a membership of several thousand, although it was not clear how many reported members really held active membership, how many were government infiltrators and how many had seen service in Vietnam pg 476 Tucker Also on pg 476, funding for WSI is credited to both Lane and Fonda. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting for just one source to state VVAW membership peaked at only "several thousand" Xenophrenic 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead should say "almost 25,000" members as the maximum. Xenophrenic's edit summary [8] cites a source that gives 50,000 w/ "honorary members", which doesn't seem very meaningful in light of all the other sources. VVAW's own website claims a vaguely lower "over 30,000". As to the website, citing their figure in the lead is clearly unduly self-serving to the organization. It is more appropriate to cite the maximum figure published by an independent source besides Stacewicz. Hunt's "almost 25,000" is OK, although 20,000-25,000 might be even more appropriate.--chaser - t 07:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"More appropriate" would be whatever is most accurate, in my opinion, as long as it is properly sourced. The Stacewicz source (Winter Soldiers: An Oral History of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, page 253) states:
The national attention received by Dewey Canyon III did bring veterans, GIs, and civilians from across the country into VVAW. From the summer of 1971 through 1972, the organization grew dramatically, signing up roughly 50,000 new members.
However, this source is immediately followed by a footnote directing your attention to page 444, where Stacewicz further explains:
This number includes everyone who signed a membership card and supported the organization financially, civilians as well as veterans. Several interviewees indicated that somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 members were veterans.
50,000 over and above the original membership, with the 20-30K number representing only the veteran portion (and probably the portion to which the VVAW site refers). If the 30K number is accurate, then how can it be 'unduly' self-serving? Perhaps the lead should, instead, state: "Membership varied greatly, from over 50,000 (20-30,000 veterans) during the height of the war to fewer than a couple thousand in subsequent decades." Please note these numbers are from the period of late 1971 through 1972, a period not yet covered (in detail) in the history section of the article. Also note that Hunt's 25,000 number specifically refers to veterans, not all supporting, dues-paying members. Xenophrenic 13:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason I disfavor using VVAW's website in the lead is the same reason I disfavor long statements from the White House Press Secretary in the George W. Bush article; statements from an organization about itself are inherently suspect because they have a strong incentive to put a positive spin on things. Would you expect the NRA to accurately report their own membership figures?
The organization is Vietnam Veterans Against the War, so putting only the veteran membership figure in the lead is appropriately concise. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. It appears that every other source reports figures for veterans, so reliable published sources don't indicate that the non-membership figure is important enough to include in the lead, though I agree that it should be in the article. Since you clarified what 50,000 meant, I inserted it in the history section and credited you in the edit summary [9]. How's that?--chaser - t 19:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'd expect the NRA to report accurately! (Sorry, as a gun owner and card-carrier, I couldn't resist... but I get your point.) The clincher to your argument was pointing out Veterans in the name, so I have to agree with your position. Yes, the current phrasing is fine. I reserve the right, however, to modify it if new reliable sources present themselves -- and I've been prompted recently by certain editors to expand the sources I draw from considerably. Xenophrenic 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, elusive consensus has been found! I agree with your last point; the balance of reliable sources should determine the contents of the article.--chaser - t 03:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual entry at the top of the page

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

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

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

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

[edit] More on After Activities

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

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

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

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

VVAW member Frank McCarthy was very instrumental in raising the level of attention given to Agent Orange. Recall his nationally televised outburst at the presidential reception of veterans, "What about Agent Orange victims, Mr. President?" Carter agreed to a study. But does this qualify as a VVAW effort? I'll research it more. Xenophrenic 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
While Frank McCarthy was a founding member of Agent Orange Victims International, he was not a member of VVAW. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he was a member of VVAW. There is a whole list of VVAW members that were instrumental in the formation of other organizations.
Nicosia observes that the VVAW took up the "Agent Orange cause with a vengeance."
When the Agent Orange story broke in Chicago in early 1978 with Bill Kurtis's "Deadly Fog" TV special, the isssue helped the organization restore its focus on veterans' issues. Still headquarted in Chicago, VVAW immediately contacted Maude DeVictor, conferred life membership upon her, and made her their principal speaker for the next half-dozen years. They also became the mainstay of her existence after she was pressured to leave the VA. She recalls how the local vets would drop off boxes of food outside her door in the middle of the night, and how chapters around the country would hold benefit suppers to pay her rent. VVAW took the lead among veterans' organizations in putting out Agent Orange introductory pamphlets and self-help guides, as well as covering the developing story in almost every issue of its newspaper, The Veteran (successor to Winter Soldier). Even after VVA created its hotline, VVAW was still the best source of detailed, up-to-the-minute reports on dioxin studies, changes in VA policy, and legislative action at all levels.
He goes on to describe the VVAW initiating a boycott against Dow products; pressuring the Air Force to release its HERBS tapes (records of when and where Agent Orange was used); holding a "Winter Soldier Investigation of Agent Orange" in 1979, with the results being made public at press conferences and forwarded to legislators. He describes the VVAWs efforts to educate veterans about how to deal with the VAs cursory Agent Orange exam; what questions to ask VA doctors; how to file disability claims so that a paper trail existed of their concerns. Nicosia notes the collaboration of the VVAW with the National Veterans Task Force on Agent Orange, sponsoring the first national conference on Agent Orange in Washington, D.C., May 22-24, 1981. Then there was the picketing of the VA Central Office. There was the "Dewey Canyon IV" demonstration on the Washington Mall where 200 vets and their families lobbied on Agent Orange issues. "Extraordinarily successful," says Nicosia. "They are learning what it takes to effect change. We know that we have to listen," commented an aide to Wisconsin's Republican Senator, Robert Kasten.
The lead attorney in the largest of the lawsuits against the chemical companies, Yannacone, was quoted as saying various chapters of the VVAW "...did a tremendous amount of work for us during the course of the litigation. They created the network that both distributed information and acted as group support."
Saying they led the struggle does not to seem too "glorified" a description. They were obviously on the front lines of the struggle, if not in the lead. I'll add the citations of the afore mentioned information. Xenophrenic 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, funny, but I dont seem to see Frank McCarthy's name mentioned anywhere in what you posted here. Victor Yannacone, the lawyer in question, did not work for VVAW, nor did he have any affiliation with them, in fact, he distrusted the organization as a whole. He may have appreciated the work “some” of their regional chapters did (those chapters that were not debating Bob Avakian’s finer points on Maoism). He was hired by Agent Orange Victims International, and to say that “led the struggle” when VVA and Agent Orange Victims International were the primary actors. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, I shall remove all reference of Frank McCarthy and Victor Yannacone from the article forthwith. And minor points: Yannacone was first approached by the attorneys for Paul Reutershan and was eventually hired by McCarthy, and that was long after the RCP faction had been purged from the VVAW. Yannacones only problem with the VVAW was he didn't share their desire to expand the issue politically to show the illegality of the war. Xenophrenic 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is the material about Agent ornage and PTSD still in the article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
For the exact same reason there is material on their other endeavours in the article. Information is good; don't fear it.
From the same Hunt source you cited (page 183): "...the groundswell of activity around the deadly aftereffects of Agent Orange offered some promise for a VVAW revival ... VVAWers pioneered early advocacy efforts for Agent Orange victims. They organized demonstrations in Milwaukee and Chicago in 1978, participated in the National Veterans Task Force on Agent Orange, and assisted veterans seeking to join one of the scores of lawsuits being filed around the country." Xenophrenic 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Rob, your selective interpretation of facts and citations is well known to anyone who has argued with you before. The agent orange issue is a no go and yes the RCP did destry the effectiveness of the VVAW. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Cudgel and Rob, you two should refrain from the personal attacks, and stick to the article content. The article now conveys that VVAW was significantly involved with the Agent Orange issue, and also conveys that the RCP political rift was significantly disruptive, per the sources listed above. Xenophrenic 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit without summary by Cudgel

I don't see the purpose of your edit. It duplicates sentences. Deletes sourced material without reason. Inserts factual inaccuracies. So as noted, I have reverted that edit. I've also cleaned up obvious errors in the timeline of that section. (i.e.; the RCP didn't exist until 1975, but the RU did, etc.). Xenophrenic 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Again with whole paragraphs being deleted without comment? Do you disagree that the VVAW has held reunions? Xenophrenic 17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I left that in, I will make sure its there in my next edit. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
As will I. Xenophrenic 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Agent Orange: After reading the section in Nicosia’s book, the only mention of VVAW’s organized activities with regard to AO are when Yannacone used selected chapters when preparing his lawsuit, no where in the source does it state that they took “led the struggle”, as it was Yannacone who was in the lead of that one.
Please re-read pages 490-492 about VVAWs efforts in regard to Agent Orange, outside of Yannacone's litigation, including their relationship to Maude DeVictor; distribution of AO introductory pamphlets and self-help guides; articles in their The Veteran magazine; their distribution to legislators of testimony from veterans exposed to AO; initiating boycotts against AO associated companies like Dow Chemical; educating vets about how to deal with the VA on OA matters, etc. In addition to all the afore mentioned activities unrelated to Yannacone, they did also get vets to sign on to his class action suit. VVAW was dealing with the AO issue before the first legal action was filed. Xenophrenic 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
They were part of a class action suit involving over 160 organizations, they were not taking a "leading role" in AO activism. This information is grossly over exaggerating VVAW's role in the AO suits and litigation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they were part of class action lawsuits. They were also involved in AO activism prior to these lawsuits. The two are not mutually exclusive. Which part of the afore mentioned activities on AO do you feel is grossly over exaggerated? Xenophrenic 17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Describing thier involvement as "VVAW led the struggle to force the government to test, treat and compensate the victims of those poisons", gorssly overemphasizes what invovlement they had. They were a minor player in a much larger issue. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The level of involvement is described that way in the source material, and the source material does support that description. I think I see a wording change that may help to resolve this particular disagreement. I'll make the change, then let me know what you think. Xenophrenic 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This is actually a combination of sources, on being Nicosia, and the other (uncited of course) is the VVAW themselves. and as stated earlier grossly overstates VVAW's level of involvement in AO litigation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You opened this line of disagreement above by claiming "no where in the source does it state that they took “led the struggle”" in the Agent Orange issue. The source cited is Nicosia's HtW book, pages 490-492. In that source I see Nicosia stating:
VVAW took the lead among veterans' organizations in putting out Agent Orange introductory pamphlets and self-help guides, as well as covering the developing story in almost every issue of its newspaper...
Nicosia is cited in the article as the source. Nicosia states the VVAW led vets organizations on the issue. The article reflects that same fact. As far vets organizations were concerned (there were what, maybe a half dozen of them at most?), the VVAW was in the forefront on pushing the AO issue. If you feel Nicosia "overstates VVAW's level of involvement," then can you please provide a source to support that? Xenophrenic 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, to deny that the factional split destroyed the organization flies in the face of everyone who has commentated on the spilt (as cited in the article).
The factional split was destructive to the organization, no one denies that. It is stated in the article. The end of the war was also destructive to the organization (that was built on opposing the war that no longer existed). Also destructive to the organization were the efforts of the FBI, Nixon Admin henchmen and others to discredit them and cause strife. Those that comment on such issues with the organization, like Hunt and Nicosia, say the VVAW carried on despite the turmoil. "But in 1982, a veritable Lazarus, VVAW was thriving again, and active on a whole host of issues." - Nicosia, 490 Xenophrenic 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not stated in he article, rather it is tucked away in another section on a "similarly named group", and Nicosia’s description of their activities post 1982 as a “veritable Lazarus” cannot be supported by the facts. They had virtually no membership at this point and there is no supporting information as to the effectiveness of the organizations activities. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I just checked, and the information is in the VVAW article. Some of it is sourced to Hunt. Some of it is sourced to Nicosia. Some of it is sourced to VVAW website. All three sources agree on all points: War was ending and organization was shrinking for several reasons -> membership requirements were loosened -> radical elements entered and gained influence -> group fractured causing much animosity, more people left --> court action brought to oust the radicals and forbid them to use the name --> VVAW went on supporting veterans issues. You cite Nicosia and Hunt at various junctures, and here you say the same sources "cannot be supported by the facts?" Could you be more clear, please? Xenophrenic 17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Its all part of the post war activities section, its not about a "similarly named group", it was the group for several years. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The post-war activities section is about activities of the organization, not about the internal politics and in-fighting. The political rift has a whole section devoted to it at present. Considering the division and internal conflict only lasted a few years our of four decades of the organizations history, I'm thinking it might be better to scrap that section in favor of just a passing mention of the rift in the history section. What do you think? Xenophrenic 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The political infighting, according to all the sources, had a dramatic effect on the activities and decline of the group, it is not going to be minimized. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
...and that is why it is present in the article. The radical elements gained a foothold, eventually gained significant control, caused a lot of turmoil, created a rift wide enough to force some to institute court action against the radical segment. There is a whole section devoted to it; just the opposite of minimized. Xenophrenic 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reddi, the format is treating is as if they were two separate organizations and two separate issues, and ignores the impact of the rift on the minimization of the organization in the post war period. And now you have threatened to remove it just to goad me. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cudgel is right, Reddi. The article does treat it as if they were two seperate organizations, much the same as the court of law has treated them. But you should be happy to note, Reddi, that the article now also conveys the disruption that rift caused before the court resolution. Xenophrenic 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On the removal of the quote, typically quotes that are included at such a great length in an article have some notability and significance. What is the specific notability and significance of this particular excerpt from Day? Who has commented on it, and why? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hunt, Nicosia, McCormick, Duffett and others all have commented on it, and even quoted him, so there must be something to it. The quote is not such "a great length," and adds a significant perspective of an event and its sponsors from an actual participant. Xenophrenic 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"Must be something to it", sounds like WP:OR. If no one quotes the speech, it does not have enough notabilty for use in the article at this length. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
See above. Not sure what speech you refer to, but the statement he gave is not quoted at length. The article contains a small excerpt. You can view the whole ceremony, including the full statement, on the Winter Soldier film. Xenophrenic 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
As above, quotes that are included at such a great length in an article have some notability and significance, this one does not or it would have been reproduced in a WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, do provide a reference with a page number. Nicosia only mentions Jackson H. Day on page 109, and does not mention his speech. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
He mentions the ceremony Jackson H. Day performed. Xenophrenic 17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of the speech, and therefore no notability to include it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
He mentioned the ceremony, which included the afore mentioned statement, prayers, poetry reading, etc.
A speech isn't included. There is, however, a small excerpt of the statement made by Day as part of the ceremony. You are correct in noting that Nicosia doesn't transcribe what was said at the ceremony, but then Nicosia isn't cited as the source either. Interested readers can view the ceremony in its entirety on the Winter Soldier film produced by the Winterfilm Collective, or read the full transcript at the source noted in the article. Whether or not it is significant enough to qualify for mention in the VVAW article appears to be our main point of contention, and our differing opinions are mostly subjective. This would be a good topic to open up for comment from others. Xenophrenic 19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"A speech isn't included", so no notability, agreed. This material is a candidate for Wikiquote, and thats a big if. Not citing Nicosia, when he is obviously the source of the material, is called "plagiarism". Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A speech isn't included because there isn't a speech to include, unless you know of one that I do not. As for Nicosia being "obviously the source" of the transcript of Day's remarks at that ceremony, I can't find those words in any of Nicosia's writings. Could you please give me specific source and page number info? Xenophrenic 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No speech to include there, no speech to include here Reddi. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Cudgel is correct, Reddi. There is no speech in the wiki-article. You will have to settle for the short excerpt of a statement given at the ceremony mentioned in Nicosia's book instead. You shouldn't run into any problems putting the full ceremony into WikiQuote if you want. Xenophrenic 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note on footnotes

Can a footnote in a source be used as a source? It would appear that most of the newly added footnotes in the article are taken from the bibliography of Nicosia’s book. Is it proper etiquette, or worse is it a violation of WP:CP to use a source this way? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources are good, but original sources would be better. If meanings are lost or diluted every time something is quoted or retold, then shouldn't we strive to track back to the origin of the information for the best possible accuracy? Which footnotes, by the way? Xenophrenic 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I beleive what you are doing is called plagarism. Unless you produce the orgininal sources, all the passages will have to be cited to Nicosia. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Which passages? If you really feel you have plagiarized, you should undo those edits and write in your own words. Xenophrenic 17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Everything that cites one of Nicosia's footnotes and not Nicosia. You should know better Rob, this is not the first time you have been called to task of plagarism and Copyvio. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Cudgel, I'm still waiting for a response as to which passages you feel you have plagiarized. And Rob, you should probably reveal any such passages as well. Xenophrenic 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving the impasse

I'm withdrawing my earlier offer to mediate this case, as I don't think it will be very amenable to mediation and I now lack the time to do a good job on that. I have a different suggestion. This is basically a disagreement between two editors. As such, a request for comment or an even more informal third opinion would probably resolve the situation (as long as both TDC and Xeno agree to follow those options). How's that sound?--Chaser - T 04:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history here, it looks like others have already tried with little success. I'm willing to give anything a shot that has a serious chance of producing a resolution, but I won't be holding my breath on those last two suggestions. Xenophrenic 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a look at the history will demonstrate that several users have attempted to edit this article, and have been reverted sight on seen by one anonymous user, now editing under the account Xenophrenic, I while heartedly agree. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobody else is editing under my account, and any reversions I make are documented and for good reason. So which of Chasers suggestions do you feel will be most productive? Xenophrenic 17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I moved your interjection of your conversations with Rob to a different section to avoid clutter. Your recent edit, however, deleted some of my comments, so I reverted it. A little care, please. Xenophrenic 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

The article has been protected for over 2 weeks now and cannot remain in this state indefinitely. There has been no discussion from Mr Redding (as the version protected is his preferred version), and I have agreed on Chaser's page for his offer of mediation on the article. Where do we go from here? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If mediation is to open between Cudgel and Rob on this article, may I participate as well? Maybe you could help us iron out the few remaining issues, which appear to me to be rooted more in method of presentation rather than content. Xenophrenic 18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well Mr Redding, its nice to see that you could log out of your other user account (user:Reddi) and come to defend the protection of this article. There are most certainly content issues with the article, and if a mediation goes foreward, they will have to be dealt with as well.
With Mr. Redding joining, that makes five of us. Would that be sufficient for a consensus? We should have this hashed out in no time. Xenophrenic 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Current Issues include:
  1. Agent Orange information:
  2. Inclusion of the groups own version of its history, quoted at some length in the article
  3. The VVAW/WSO period
  4. The membership issue, as there are several varied estimates as to the organizations total # Membership, figures range between 3K and 40K.
  5. The use of POV adjectives all over the article
  6. Using a source's citations, instead of the source
  7. And, naturally, the SPA sockpuppetry issues involved with user:Reddi .
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to address a few of these.

1) I'm confused, what's the Agent Orange issue?

2) I've rewritten this section. It still needs some work, including probably rewriting the rest of that quote to move the 40,000 figure to a part of the article containing explicit discussion of membership figures, as in point three.

3) As I indicated to Xenophrenic in an email, we can always cite the disagreement between sources and the various numbers they give. If we do cite the claimed 40,000, we ought to make it clear that it is coming from the organization itself, and not an independent source. WP:V and WP:OR indicate that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth (that is, we shouldn't try to reproduce the research done by various sources to determine the true membership figure, whatever that is). WP:NPOV#Balance addresses the issue of reproducing conflict between sources. I will try to get to the library tonight to get some of these sources myself.

I took a stab at it. It's very detailed, but appears a bit bulky to me. I may try to trim it down a bit. Xenophrenic 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

4) Let's see if this issue doesn't become much easier to resolve after resolving others.

5) This is a bizarre aspect of point three above. I don't know what to make of the fact that the website gives a different figure than the other sources which got it from the organization. One possibility is that the website quotes a peak figure from after these figures got their data. Another possibility is that the group just inflates it's own membership figures; I think our readers would figure this out on their own. We can note that the various membership figures given in reliable sources are different. I doubt this is unusual. In any event, did you all notice the website now says the group had "over 30,000" members [10]? Interesting.

Every cached source I check has the VVAW using the 30,000 number. Even as far back as 1993. If anyone is inflating the figures it would be the wiki-editor that introduced that quote, but it is more likely a numerical typo. Most historians that I've read put the peak membership near the 30,000 mark. The quote should be corrected in the article. Xenophrenic 19:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

6) Well, that was cleared up by this checkuser (unrelated).--Chaser - T 18:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Save yourself a trip to the library and use Google Book. And thanks for the intervention. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources cited directly or indirectly

There's a slow-boil dispute (best summarized in this diff over sources cited in Nicosia's source. In brief, I understand that Xenophrenic asserts he found those sources and is citing them independently of Nicosia's citation. TDC , at least in part, doesn't believe him. I think WP:AGF demands a little more trust than that, but it's also reasonable that Xeno give us some more detail about how he got that source so we can check it, too. A bit of context from the source could also be a plus if Xeno is willing (email is a good option to avoid posting copywritten material online). Xeno, if nothing else, would you mind stating here, for the record, that you accessed those sources yourself? Finally, let's please not blow this into bigger proportion than it needs to be.--Chaser - T 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All citations that I add to an article are personally sourced. So stated. Xenophrenic 19:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright/sourcing issue

Sectioned off from above.--Chaser - T 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Personally sourced", oh brother, here we go again. Chaser, after reviewing some of the older talk page material, this appears to still be a copyvio/sourcing issue. A few examples of issues still in the article that Rob/Xenophrenic, or whatever he now calls himself, has repeatedly inserted into the article without attribution.

Take the entire section on Dewey Canyon III. Xenophrenic has attributed the material to Olson, Young and Nicosia. But is this so, did Xenophrenic really get this material from those sources? Clearly he did not, and as evidence please note the similarity between the material above and the material below from this source mentioned no where in the article:

From article:

Led by Gold Star Mothers (mothers of soldiers killed in war), more than 1100 veterans marched across the Lincoln Memorial Bridge to the Arlington Cemetery gate, just beneath the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. A memorial service for their peers was conducted by Reverend Jackson H. Day, who had just a few days earlier resigned his military chaplainship.

From source not mentioned:

About 1,100 veterans move across the Lincoln Memorial Bridge to Arlington Cemetery, some in wheelchairs, some on crutches. Mothers who lost their sons in Vietnam (Gold Star Mothers) lead the procession. A brief ceremony for the war dead is conducted by Reverend Jackson Day on the small plot of grass outside the Cemetery beneath the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the grave of John F. Kennedy. (Reverend Day had resigned his military chaplain-ship a few days before.

From article:

The Gold Star Mothers and a few others approached the cemetery gate to enter and lay wreaths, but the gate had been closed and locked upon word of their impending arrival. They placed the wreaths instead along the gate, and peacefully departed.

From source not mentioned:

After the ceremony, a small delegation of mothers and veterans is barred from entering the Cemetery and lays two memorial wreaths at the entrance.

From article:

The march reformed and continued to the Capitol, with Congressman Pete McCloskey joining the procession en route. McCloskey, and fellow Representatives Bella Abzug, Donald Edwards, Shirley Chisholm, Edmund Muskie and Ogden Reid addressed the large crowd in a show of support. VVAW members defied a Justice Department ordered injunction that they not camp on The Mall, and they set up camp anyway. Later that day, the District Court of Appeals lifted the injunction. Some members personally visited their Congressmen to lobby against the U.S. participation in the war in Vietnam. They presented Congress with their 16-point suggested resolution for ending the war in Vietnam.

From source not mentioned:

The March re-forms and makes its way to the Capitol. The march reaches the Capitol steps. Congressman Paul Mc-Closky, who joined the march en route, and representative Bella Abzug, Donald Edwards, and Ogden Reid address the crowd. Jan Crumb, member of the executive committee of VVAW, formally presents sixteen demands to Congress. The veterans march to the Mall and establish a campsite on a grassy quadrangle between a Third and Fourth Streets. Some veterans go directly to into the halls of Congress to lobby against the war. Washington District Court of Appeals lifts an injunction barring veterans from camping on the Mall. The injunction had been requested by the Justice Department.

From article:

On Tuesday, April 20, a couple hundred veterans listened to hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on proposals to end the war. Other veterans, still angry at the insult to the Gold Star Mothers when they were refused entry to Arlington National Cemetery the previous day, marched back to the front gate. After initial refusal of entry, the veterans were finally allowed in. Veterans performed guerrilla theater on the Capitol steps, re-enacting combat scenes and search and destroy missions from Vietnam. Later that evening, Democratic Senators Claiborne Pell and Philip Hart held a fund-raising party for the veterans. During the party it was announced that Chief Justice Warren Burger of the United States Supreme Court had reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the injunction. The veterans were given until 4:30 the following afternoon to break camp and leave the National Mall. It was noted that this was the fastest reversal of an Appeals Court decision in recorded history.[14]

From source not mentioned:

About 200 veterans attend hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on proposals to end the war. Veterans lobby all day in Congress. A contingent of 200 veterans, feeling that the affront of the day before cannot be over looked, marches from the Mall back to Arlington Cemetery. They march single file across the Lincoln Memorial Bridge. The Superintendent tries to stop the veterans at the gate but then backs down. In the afternoon, a guerilla theatre performance is given on the steps of the Capitol. Senators Claiborn Pell and Philip Hart hold a fund-raising party for the veterans. During the party it is announced that Chief Justice Warren Burger has reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals - allegedly, the speediest process of an appeal to the Supreme Court on record. The injunction is once again in effect and the Vietnam Veterans are given until 4:30 the following afternoon to break camp.

From article:

On Wednesday, April 21, more than 50 veterans marched to The Pentagon and attempted to surrender and turn themselves in as war criminals. A Pentagon representative took their names and then turned them away. More veterans continued to meet with and lobby their representatives in Congress. Senator Ted Kennedy spent the day speaking with the veterans. The guerrilla theater re-enactments were moved to the steps of the Justice Department. After a close vote by the veterans, they decided to remain where they were. Many of the veterans were prepared to be arrested for continuing to camp on the National Mall, but none were arrested. Several of the patrolling park police officers reassured the veterans that arrests were not going to be made, despite orders to do so. Headlines the following day read, "VETS OVERRULE SUPREME COURT."[15][16]

From source not mentioned:

A contingent of fifty veterans marches to the Pentagon to turn themselves in as war criminals. They are not arrested. Lobbying on Capitol Hill continues all day. Guerilla theatre is performed in front of the Justice Department. The veterans retire into their various delegations and vote; in effect, on whether to sleep or not to sleep. By a close vote choose to sleep. All agree to abide by that decision. Washington Park Police state they have no intention of inspecting the campsite during the night. Senator Edward Kennedy makes a midnight visit to the Mall.

From article:

On Thursday, April 22, a large group of veterans demonstrated on the steps of the Supreme Court, and demanded to know why the Supreme Court had not ruled on the constitutionality of the war in Vietnam. The veterans sang "God Bless America" and 110 were arrested for disturbing the peace, and were later released. John Kerry, as VVAW spokesman, testified against the war for 2 hours in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before a packed room of observers and media.[17] Lobbying on Capitol Hill by the veterans continued all day. A Washington District Court judge angrily dissolved his injunction order, rebuking the Justice Department lawyers for requesting the court order and then not enforcing it. Veterans staged a candlelight march around the White House, while a huge American flag was carried upside down in the historic international signal of distress.

From source not mentioned:

A large group of veterans marches to the steps of the Supreme Court to ask the Court why it has not ruled on the constitutionality of the war. They sing "God Bless America." One hundred and ten are arrested for disturbing the peace and are led off the steps with their hands clasped behind their heads. John Kerry testifies before a special session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for two hours. Lobbying on Capitol Hill continues all day. A District Court judge angrily dissolves his injunction order, rebuking Justice Departmet lawyers for requesting the court order and then not enforcing it. Veterans stage a candlelight march around the White House. A huge American flag is carried upside down as a signal of distress. The march ends back at the camp when the flag carriers mount the stage.

From article:

On Friday, April 23, more than 800 veterans, one by one, tossed their medals, ribbons, discharge papers and other war mementos on the steps of the Capitol, rejecting the Vietnam war and the significance of those awards. Several hearings in Congress were held that week regarding atrocities committed in Vietnam, the media's inaccurate coverage of the war, and also hearings on proposals to end the United States participation in the war. The vets planted a tree on the mall as part of a ceremony symbolizing the veterans' wish to preserve life and the environment.

From source not mentioned:

Veterans cast down their medals and ribbons on the steps of the Capitol. Congressman Jonathon Bingham holds hearings with former intelligence and public information officers over distortion of news and information concerning the war. Senators George McGovern and Philip Hart hold hearings on atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Veterans begin breaking camp. A tree, donated by the veterans, is planted as a symbolic plea for the preservation of all life and the environment.

This one section alone (don’t get me started on the others!) is a paragraph for paragraph rip-off of another source, and all of this was brought up two years ago, to no avail[11]. Oh, sure, when I brought it up then a few words were changed here and there, and the order of sentences in the paragraphs has been modified but this is the same BS that has been going on in ever article this editor has been involved in. That’s what pisses me off the most, any other user who conducted themselves in this manner would have been booted a long time ago.

And before Xeno jumps in and claims that this material was copied from instead of to Wiki, the web archive from March 30, 2004, will confirm that the material existed there before it was cut n' pasted here. [12] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't be jumping in here. I'll leave this to Cudgel, Rob, Chaser and Reddi to sort out. I will reiterate my above comment as a reminder: If I place a citation in an article, that means I have personally checked that source for the relevant material. Xenophrenic 00:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Good, since you wont be a part of this, I'll just remove it, and someone can rewrite the section, with references, on a temp page until it can be vetted. Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War/Temp Section ReWrite Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Since Xenophrenic just reverted, would you mind pursuing the channels linked below instead of removing again? That way a third party will assess the issue.--Chaser - T 17:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not jumping in here either. I signed up to help resolve the content dispute and will limit myself to that (preferably the six points named above). I do, however, have suggestions for this copyvio/sourcing issue. If you think there is a copyright violation in the article, then refer to the processes at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. As to sources, I have no idea what's true, and really don't care to get involved in it.--Chaser - T 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained deletion by User:198.86.17.38

I am reverting the deletion of sourced material in the article. I'm not sure why it was deleted, as there was a blank edit summary. The text was removed from a paragraph all from the same source; some was left in, some was deleted. Explanation? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)