Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)
As another point of information, John Kerry does not hold the copyright to the book, and so can't "allow" anything in that regard. The copyright is held by VVAW.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] Copyvio information

CopyVio information:

--- From article

The veterans, recipients of more than 100 purple heart medals combined, had recruited the help of volunteers from the Nurses for Peace and also the Philadelphia Guerrilla Theater Company. These participants went in advance of the march and positioned themselves in the towns along the march route. The veterans wore whatever combat fatigues and military gear they still possessed, and carried toy rifles in place of real weapons.

taken from [6]:

The veterans, who held 110 purple heart medals between them, had enlisted the help of the aptly named Philadelphia Guerilla Theater Company 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.
  • The above two descriptions of the same event, while similar, do not constitute a copyright violation.
Clearly this is the source, and as is in its current form, is neither cited and is borderline plagarism. TDC 19:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

--- From article

Led by Gold Star Mothers (mothers of soldiers killed in Vietnam), 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. Included with his passages of scripture and citations of poetry was a personal statement, including the following:
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. The march reformed and continued to the Capitol, with Congressman Paul McCloskey joining the procession enroute. 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 injuction that they not camp on The Mall, and they set up camp anyway. Later that day, the District Court of Appeals lifted the injuction. 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.

taken from Kerry and Vietnam Veterans Against the War’s book: “The New Soldier” [7]

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) head the procession. A brief ceremony for the war dead on both sides 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 chaplainship a few days before.) After the ceremony, a small delegation of mothers and veterans is barred from entering the Cemetery and lays two memorial wreaths at the entrance. The march re-forms and makes its way to the Capitol.
The march reaches the capitol steps. Congressman Paul McCloskey, who joined the march en route, and Representatives 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 small grassy quadrangle between Third and Fourth streets. Some veterans go directly into the halls of Congress to lobby against the war.
  • The above two descriptions of the same event do not constitute a copyright violation. Names, numbers, dates and locations are simple facts that are expected to be identical.
Once again, it is not just that the descriptions are similar but some of the phrases are exact in their wording. TDC 19:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

--- From the 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 Nat'l 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. That evening, 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. 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.

Taken from [8]

  • Alleged source removed
A contingent of 200 veterans return to Arlington Cemetery to lay wreaths. This time they are allowed to enter the cemetery.
That afternoon veterans perform guerrilla theater on the Capitol steps re-enacting fighting scenes from Vietnam.
The Supreme Court overturns the District Court’s ruling and gives the Vets until the next day at 4:30 PM to break camp and move off the Mall.
  • Similar, but again, no copyright violations. The use of a single sentence of fact, that contains no duplication of creative effort, is well within the realm of WP:FU.
Once again, it is not just that the descriptions are similar but some of the phrases are exact in their wording. TDC 19:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Just an additional note... the material you listed from this article pre-dates the existence of your source site (goingupriver.com) -- did goingupriver.com copy Wikipedia? 165.247.222.104 17:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The material in question was added by you beginning in late September of 2004, the material from “Going up River” was created in mid August, 2004. Nice try though. TDC 18:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
The material was added by SEWilco (Before September), and modified by 2 other people, myself included. See Meanwhile, veterans and mothers of soldiers killed in Vietnam marched to Arlington Cemetery, and veterans camped out in protest on The Mall. There was also a medal-returning demonstration on the steps of the Capitol. Nice try though. Regardless, there is a more simple solution. I've removed the source you claim was copied. 165.247.213.27 09:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The first mention of the information in question was put in the article by you (209.86.247.242 cor01-p5-0.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net) 17:00, September 22, 2004. It was then expanded by you (209.86.254.201 cor01-p5-0.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net) [9], and you spent the better part of a month reverting SEWilco’s attempts to properly cite and source it. Now, stop lying about what you did and when you did it and let us get to the meat of this issue.. Propose new language below that does not look like a cheap cut and paste job. TDC 14:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep trying, TDC. You may think no one will verify your lies, but Wikipedia keeps everything recorded for anyone that takes the time. There is no entry for 17:00, September 22, 2004. First mention of the information predates September, you need only look at any version prior to September to see mention of the Gold Star Mothers and demonstrations on the steps. Furthermore, the expansion you cite isn't mine. All of this is moot because, as I noted above, I've removed the source that you claimed was copied. You might wish to verify that yourself. (And no, I'll not be 'proposing new language' until a violation of copyright is actually presented.) 165.247.213.27 16:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with trying, the evidence is pretty clear that although there was a mention of “mothers of soldiers killed in Vietnam marched to Arlington Cemetery, and veterans camped out in protest on The Mall. There was also a medal-returning demonstration on the steps of the Capitol.” The particular information about Dewey Canyon (from the website) was your cut and paste job. I have provided links and information, all you do is rant. I doubt anyone takes you seriously. Once again, considering your behavior on this and other articles, evey change you make will need to be well vetted and sourced. I am sorry, but you did this to yourself. TDC 17:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Every change you properly bring up in Talk for sourcing will be sourced -- welcome to Wikipedia. Your apology is accepted. 165.247.213.27 17:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

--- From the 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 Edward Kennedy spends 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."

Taken from [10]

  • Alleged source removed
Wednesday 04/21/71
Fifty veterans march to the Pentagon to turn themselves in as war criminals.
Vets continue to lobby their representatives on Capitol Hill.
Guerrilla theater is staged in front of the Justice Department building.
Senator Edward Kennedy joins the Vets on the mall.
John Kerry is asked to testify the following morning in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of the VVAW.
The veterans all expect to be arrested for continuing to camp on the mall, but no arrests occur.
  • The two examples above aren't even similar, except that they describe the same events. No violations here.
Your lack of understanding of Copyvio would make a Chinese movie pirate proud. TDC 19:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

--- From the 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 this week regarding atrocities committed in Vietnam, the media's innacurate coverage of the war, and also hearings on proposals to end the United States participation in the war. A tree was planted on the mall as part of a ceremony symbolizing the veteran's wish to preserve life and the environment.

Taken from [11]

  • Alleged source removed
Friday 04/23/71
Veterans cast down their medals on the steps of the Capitol, repudiating the Vietnam war and the significance of those medals.
Several important hearings in Congress and the Senate are held regarding the mass media’s dissemination of misinformation about the war, and atrocities committed in Vietnam.
Veterans plant a tree on the mall as a symbol of their wish to preserve life and the environment.
  • The above examples aren't identical, but are close enough to warrant further investigation. Might be better to simply re-write that paragraph to convey the same factual information in a different manner.
As a former professor of mine put it, they are exactly similar.
Just an additional note... the material you listed from this article pre-dates the existence of your source site (goingupriver.com) -- did goingupriver.com copy Wikipedia? 165.247.222.104 17:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Does a single questionable paragraph support the vandalism of 90% of the current article? 165.247.214.66 19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but do 5 large segments support the removal of the material, I think yes. TDC 19:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
You do realize that articles have been blanked for infractions less than this? So, what I would like to see is a complete rewrite of all disputed sections, as well as citations on any contentious material on a temp page where they can be discussed further. TDC 20:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you would. Instead, how about we follow Wiki procedure and submit seriously questionable material on the WP:CP page for review? That way you don't trash the rest of the work of a half dozen editors over a questionable paragraph or two. 165.247.222.104 13:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, that’s really not procedure, unless you are privy to some bit of information that I am unaware of. I would also like to emphasize that this is not the first time you have attempted to include large sections of questionably sourced material into the article, and not the first time it has caused some major points of contention. And while I agree, it is a shame to see so much work go to waste, that still does not get around the fact that almost all of the above mentioned material is yours. Most other edits were minor in nature (providing links, and grammar corrections). I am afraid this is the way it is going to have to be. TDC 15:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
"...this is not the first time you have attempted to include large sections..."
I've included nothing. I have merely reverted you, since your first trashing here. You are correct about you trying this before, however. See above. 165.247.222.104 16:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] to anon ip

Can I suggest you read Wikipedia:Vandalism?Geni 10:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

To the anon Admin: Of course you can! May I return the favor, and suggest you read WP:HTSV? Good info there that you may find useful. Regards, 165.247.222.104 11:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

the 3RR only worries about simple vandalism which does not describe what you were reverting.Geni 12:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
What kind of vandalism would you say he is doing? "Simple vandalism involves a vandal spreading the textual equivalent of graffiti over pages, such as 'Tim loves Sally' or replacing the entire page with a slur or slogan, or other obvious and childish pranks. This is usually extremely easy to detect, and quickly reverted." Replacing entire page, childish, and easy to detect. However, I definitely see TDC qualifying for "disguised vandalism" as well, if you want to get specific. 165.247.222.104 16:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Well unfortunately for you, no one agrees with your definition of vandalsim. TDC 18:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
earthlink guy please stop trying to redifine vandalism. I've seen people try that way too many times. The article is now procted and is going to stay that way. Now do you think you can reqwork those sections so they are not copyvios or do with have to go to RFC?Geni 14:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Anon Admin lady, I can't stop trying to redefine something unless I first start -- and I haven't. The definitions I quoted for you already existed on the page I linked for you, but then I've seen people try to misrepresent what I've said way too many times. Now, to what sections do you refer? 209.86.4.13 02:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thats another 3RR

Keep it up and they are going to lock this article down. TDC 03:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately for Wikipedia, there are no restrictions on how often simple vandalism like yours may be reverted. Anyone that takes a moment can see your edits for what they are -- you aren't fooling anyone. Let your edit summaries reflect your edits, TDC. And as for any concerns you may have regarding copyright issues, please raise them at WP:CP, as I previously suggested. Just as others have suggested. Neither of us is a copyright attorney, so there won't be any further productive discussion about such issues between us here. 165.247.208.63 04:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Have you ignored everything everyone has said about this issue? No one agrees with your assessment that this is “simple vandalism”, and they have told you that time and time again. I would also like to tad that the only reason you have not been blocked is because a ranged IP block would affect too many other users. TDC 17:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Intro

I'm having a hard time with some segments in the introduction. Any back-up for them?

"Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) is a tax-exempt non-profit corporation, which adopted the North Vietnamese position on the Vietnam War and opposed US involvement in it."

And

"They did not oppose war per se, nor did they merely want the Vietnam War to end. They campaigned for the victory of the North." --Rroser167 13:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't support that allegation, which was a bit over the top, but the leaders were a bit spotty. Yes, this is CONINTELPRO declassified stuff, but it's been mostly accurate. You can read the lot of it at various places that I trust less, but here's something from a place I trust more:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/04/01/kerry_cant_recall_being_at_71_parley/
I hold myself to 1rr, so I'll let someone else revert to the Hipocrite/TDC intro
Hipocrite 21:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Why I hate the Romanian Comment:

He needs to be additionally identified as a right-wing columnist, that his statement was made in the context of the Kerry oppo-research, and that it was made in the National Review Online. I think it weakens the overall point that VVAW had some dodgy leadership back in the day. The Ho thing isn't about the activities of the leaders duing the war, but about how one of them was a communist after the war. That's just red baiting, I think, and probably adds nothing. I've made an edit to that section to make it accurate - please feel free to delete it instead. Hipocrite 19:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Come on now, that’s just a cheap kill the messenger ploy. Whoever Pacepa may write for, it does not take away from the fact that he was the highest ranking Iron Block defector and know a great deal more about covert Soviet propaganda activities during the Vietnam War than you or I. TDC 19:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but I've got this great rifle! Ok, I took a go at it - I think that this does a little less insinuating that they were the KGB vehicle (though they might have been, who knows), but sucks gramatically. As an aside, I think things were going swimmingly, and please don't let the anoynmous guy get your gander. I think adding the bit about leadership improved the article, personally, and looks like it solved the disagreement between the rationals in the room.Hipocrite 20:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
What the hell is the point, TDC and co. are just going to edit in whatever they want, wherever they want
You got that right. Just so long as its factualy correct and properly cited, that is. TDC 23:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The following Header and content were moved here for discussion. Could someone please provide a correct source, and include page numbers please, if the source is hundreds of fuzzy pages long. Thanks. 209.86.1.68 23:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of leadership collaboration with North Vietnam

Removed section:

VVAW was alleged by informants to the FBI to have cultivated ties with the North Vietnamese government, forming collaborative efforts to oppose US participation in the war in Southeast Asia. The FBI managed to gain the confidence of several VVAW members and used them to perform surveillance of the group’s activities. It was the determination of the FBI’s investigation, part of its controversial COINTELPRO operation, that VVAW was actively colluding with the Hanoi government and that this collusion began sometime in early 1970. According to FBI records, a "less than truthful" informant alleged Al Hubbard traveled to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese peace delegation to arrange for a Prisoner of War release, with his trip financed by the CPUSA. On August 13, 1971, Joseph Urgo, Second Vice-President of VVAW traveled to Hanoi. Urgo’s aim for his visit was to develop a closer working relation ship with Hanoi by using VVAW members to record tapes for broadcast over Radio Hanoi asking US servicemen to stop fighting and desert their units. http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Section%2015/Section%2015.pdf page 24 Hipocrite 13:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC) On April 4, 1972, a confidential source reported that “a representative of a North Vietnamese Government at the Paris Peace talks telephoned the 'movement' in the United States telling them to be ready to take action, presumably demonstrations, to counter expected escalation of bombing by American air forces in South Vietnam and North Vietnam as a result of the increased military action of North Vietnamese forces in Quang Tri Province, South Vietnam.” The source reported that VVAW had no specific "actions" planned at that time. Mike Oliver had sent another delegation to Hanoi to coordinate an American POW release with the North Vietnamese government. The rationale behind this was the release of US POW’s would be credited by the North Vietnamese to the VVAW organization, thereby boosting notability and credibility. Oliver had hoped that the successful release of prisoners could lead to more negotiations. The VVAW's leaders also decided in a July 1971 Executive Committee meeting that terms such as "Vietcong" and "North Vietnamese" were not to be used in VVAW press releases and communications. They settled on PRG (or Provisional Revolutionary Government) and "DRV (or Democratic Republic of Vietnam), with the two being chosen to reflect the groups belief that these were the legitimate authorities in Vietnam. [12] Former VVAW leader Robert Muller also led delegation to Hanoi in 1981, to lay a wreath at Ho Chi Minh’s grave.

(Could someone please provide a correct source, and include page numbers please, if the source is hundreds of fuzzy pages long. Thanks. 209.86.1.68 23:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC))

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp: Hipocrite 06:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Ion Mihai Pacepa, former Romanian Intelligence Chief, now an author and occasional writer in the conservative press, stated in the National Review that some of VVAW's claims sounded like planted KGB fakes.

KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. One of its favorite tools was the fabrication of such evidence as photographs and "news reports" about invented American war atrocities. These tales were purveyed in KGB-operated magazines that would then flack them to reputable news organizations. Often enough, they would be picked up. News organizations are notoriously sloppy about verifying their sources. All in all, it was amazingly easy for Soviet-bloc spy organizations to fake many such reports and spread them around the free world.
Just to be clear, the 'KGB infiltration' cliam is differnt to 'the ties with the North Vietnamese government' claim the former appears to be supported (at least as an accusation) by the nationalreview ref'. 209.86.1.68 seems to be correct in saying that the fbi file linked does not support the claim that the VVAW group had cultivated ties with the North Vietnamese government. I have been through the document and all I can find is quite the opposite claims like:

The information developed by these sourses and informants indicate that in the NYC area the VVAW is engaged primarily in anti-Vitnam War activities ... and is not in any significant way infiltrated by subservice elements. Copy of revelent section

and:

Based on the information avalible regardging the cleaveland chapter of VVAW, it appears that this organisation has shown itself to be non-violent in its activities and its purpose is to bring about an end to the war in Viet Nam. There does not appear to be any infiltration, domination, or control of this Cleveland Chapter by any basic revolutionary groups or individuals Copy of revelant section

Either this link had been added by accident by someone who ment to link to some relevant matterial or it has been linked on the hope that no one will bother looking through it. Either way, as it stands there is are no ref's provided for these very contensious accusations.--JK the unwise 08:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
On my talk page Hipocrite invited me to look at paperlessarchives dot com specifically www dot paperlessarchives dot com/vvaw dot html (Spamfilter won't let me link to that page so me thinks its probally of dubious quality) for "three sample pages" which should be "more than enough". On inspection the pages seem to be nothing of the sort.
The first page is on the "phoenix opperation" which is already covered in the arctile under Kansas City meeting section and is not related to the obove charges.
The second is about the VVAW sending a delegation to North Vitnam to try to secure POW release it does not accuse VVAW of "cultivated ties with the North Vietnamese government" or "actively colluding with the Hanoi government".
The third is about dissatisfaction with the NY office and threats to kill Jon Birch and Al Hubburd.
--JK the unwise 10:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


The link I added contains the complete Ion Mihai Pacepa quote and claim. Spamfilter knows that site sells documents, not dubious quality. I'll go ahead and find more cites for you later today. Can I ask that you at least try to work with people, as opposed to the above, which is just rude? Hipocrite 11:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if any of my comments were found rude they were not intended to be. Prehaps I am missing something in the links provided, please spelling it out for me. I await convincing.--JK the unwise 11:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone already edited this, so I assume they found the cite Hipocrite 13:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? User:209.86.1.68 removed this section because it is not backed up by any citations. The citations are nessisary for the inclution of this material not its removal.--JK the unwise 13:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually I'm getting confused. Sorry. I hadn't noticed that Hipocrite had added a new link in the middle of the section above, namely [http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Section%2015/Section%2015.pdf page 24, I't doesn't seem to be working for me at the moment, I'll keep trying to have a look at it.If people could try to state their comments and arguments as clearly as posible for slowen's like me.--JK the unwise 13:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wish you haden't totally butchered the attributions. I noted that 209.86.1.68 had obviously found the source docs, because he added in quotes from them in his second edit. In fact, at this point, I'm going to go ahead and put the sentance back in the top, because it's more than justified. I'm also going to start moving the paragraphs that are without dispute back in. Hipocrite 14:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are on about:-S --JK the unwise 16:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't you people ever get tired of defending communists--I-2-d2 14:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Nope--JK the unwise 16:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed from intro:

Some declassified documents allege that VVAW leadership was actively supporting the North Vietnamese cause.

An anon deleted the above sentence (and some others related to it). I'm not exactly sure why. Uncle Ed 19:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you look a little closer, the sentence was moved, not removed. Perhaps the accompanying Edit Summary will give us a clue: "Moved sentence to proper section, and reworded. Note: FBI files indicate it was Vietnamese Peace Delegation members that supported the VVAW's efforts, not visa-versa." I'm not sure why some anon introduced that sentence in the first place. The declassified documents tend to show the VVAW seeking NV support and cooperation, not the other way around. 209.86.0.13 19:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The FBI files are very clear that the relationship between VVAW, it senior members, and the North Vietnamese government was a mutual one. TDC 19:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
You make good point, wiki pretty much is a blog anyway, I think your style of editing is a good one, I will now adopt your style, and use it to insert POV material into the George Bush article, for instance, it's actually quite well documented that W is one of 2 American presidents to inherrit his vast personal fortune from Prescott Bush, who obtained it in the first place through quasi-legal arms sales to nazis, sounds good to me, it is documented, that means it can be added--152.163.100.70 12:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey, if that will help you feel like a more fulfilled member of the Wikipedia community, go nock yourself out. But you might have a problem as that issue has already been addressed in the above mentioned article. I also find it satisfying that you have confirmed that the material I am adding is factual. A small victory, but a victory none the less. Hero’s die hard, don’t they? TDC 14:44, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy of the following content

(moved here from main article for review)

Ion Mihai Pacepa, former Romanian Intelligence Chief, now an author and occasional writer in the conservative press, stated in the National Review that, to him, the allegations of the soldiers at the Winter Soldier Investigation sounded exactly like the disinformation generated by the KGB.

KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. One of its favorite tools was the fabrication of such evidence as photographs and "news reports" about invented American war atrocities. These tales were purveyed in KGB-operated magazines that would then flack them to reputable news organizations. Often enough, they would be picked up. News organizations are notoriously sloppy about verifying their sources. All in all, it was amazingly easy for Soviet-bloc spy organizations to fake many such reports and spread them around the free world.
I have several issues with the insertion of the above op-ed exerpt. 1) It's under a header about alleged collaboration between NV and VVAW leaders -- yet says nothing about this topic. 2) It's inserted into an article about the VVAW, yet makes no mention anywhere in the National Review article about this organization. 3) Not only is it exerpted from an opinion piece (apparently from the 2004 pre-election mud slinging era), but an ill informed one at that, filled with such silly rhetoric as:
  • The exact sources of that assertion (of various war crimes) should be tracked down. Kerry also ought to be asked who, exactly, told him any such thing, and what it was, exactly, that they said they did in Vietnam. Anyone with more than a "Swiftboat TV Ad" knowledge of the issue knows that the exact sources and exactly what was said is all part of public record.
  • As far as I'm concerned, the KGB gave birth to the antiwar movement in America. Uh-huh.
  • The quote from Senator Kerry (about atrocities alleged by vetrans at WSI) is unmistakable Soviet-style sloganeering from this period. I believe it is very like a direct quote from one of these organizations' propaganda sheets. Someone obviously hasn't read the testimony of those vetrans, from which Kerry's statement is directly derived. What a loon.
Perhaps this op-ed could find a home in a War Crimes article, but, in my opinion, has no relevance here.

I realize that you are going to argue at length about the relevance of the KGB’s involvement with the North Vietnamese propaganda front, but save it. Pacepa was the highest ranking defector from a Soviet satellite, and his firsthand knowledge of Soviet disinformation campaigns, including those used during the Vietnam War are directly relevant to, as Pacepa emphasizes, to the actions of VVAW and its affiliated organizations.

Once again you puzzling misrepresentation of a source so easily found, leaves much out of context.

Other passages of interest from the article that you neglected to mention:

As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was, he once told me, "our most significant success."
The KGB organized a vitriolic conference in Stockholm to condemn America's aggression, on March 8, 1965, as the first American troops arrived in south Vietnam. On Andropov's orders, one of the KGB's paid agents, Romesh Chandra, the chairman of the KGB-financed World Peace Council, created the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam as a permanent international organization to aid or to conduct operations to help Americans dodge the draft or defect, to demoralize its army with anti-American propaganda, to conduct protests, demonstrations, and boycotts, and to sanction anyone connected with the war. It was staffed by Soviet-bloc undercover intelligence officers and received about $15 million annually from the Communist Party's international department — on top of the WPC's $50 million a year, all delivered in laundered cash dollars. Both groups had Soviet-style secretariats to manage their general activities, Soviet-style working committees to conduct their day-to-day operations, and Soviet-style bureaucratic paperwork. The quote from Senator Kerry is unmistakable Soviet-style sloganeering from this period. I believe it is very like a direct quote from one of these organizations' propaganda sheets.
The KGB campaign to assault the U.S. and Europe by means of disinformation was more than just a few Cold War dirty tricks. The whole foreign policy of the Soviet-bloc states, indeed its whole economic and military might, revolved around the larger Soviet objective of destroying America from within through the use of lies. The Soviets saw disinformation as a vital tool in the dialectical advance of world Communism.

And of course there is the quote you deliberately truncated to try and make it sound bad.

As far as I'm concerned, the KGB gave birth to the antiwar movement in America. In 1976, Andropov gave my own Romanian DIE credit for helping his KGB do so.

We should reclassify the section then and reinsert the material. TDC 18:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Once again you puzzling misrepresentation of a source so easily found, leaves much out of context.
Nothing you have added above changes the context of what I presented. Pacepa still comes off as ill-informed, with no clue where the allegations made at WSI came from, what the allegations were, or who made them. I have no doubt the KGB (or any Intel org from any major country) participates in disimformation and propaganda. I'm not disputing "To me, this assertion sounds exactly like the disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietnam era." I'm sure the allegations do sound similar, TDC, but you and I both know exactly where Kerry's "assertion" came from, whereas poor Pacepa shows he is clueless.
As I suggested before, find a home for that thinly veiled opinion piece on Kerry in a more appropriate article. Just because propagandists can generate disinformation about war crimes does not mean all war crimes are really just propaganda. 165.247.221.166 21:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

This has been protected for weeks and nobody is discussing anything here, so I've unprotected. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)