Talk:Jessica Lynch/Archive 1

message: :::: cool, wikipedia is also an propaganda instument for the white house and the pentagon 195.234.80.5 12:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: beyond pov

message: Wow, this is one of the more POV articles I have read in Wikipedia.  It is notionally about Jessica Lynch, but maybe 50% of the text concerns her.  The rest is either 'bad war, bad Americans' or character assasination of some guy called Mohammed. One example of the POV - how is it relevant to Lynch that someone asserts that the US Miltary did not offer to compensate an Iraqi hospital for damage caused during her rescue?  Editors seem to have dewlt almost lovingly over every slahed sand bed, broken door or offended Iraqi, while dismissing in one sentence the notion that the troops concerned considered that they were undertaking a Prisoner snatch in a war zone.  
The war and the US armed forces must be incredibly unpopular if this passes as unbiased in the US. Or is that that editors are attempting to use this article to counter a perceived Government bias? I'm not an American and I live half a world away, so I don't know the answer, but I suspect my remoteness is the reason why I see a lack of balance here that other US-based editors do not.  
I can't be bold on this one I'm afraid, because I have no expert knowledge, but I can recognise bias when I read it. For the record, I don't like the war or my own country's involvement in it either - but that's no excuse for polemic.  RichardH 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious POV

message: I'm wondering why there is link to a page about Tim Collins (soldier) which seems completely unrelated to Jessica Lynch except they were both soliders in Iraq.--enceladus 23:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Collins 

message: Someone using the IP 71.244.108.146 wrote:
:These claims have not been substantiated and it is believed that the American forces met with substantial resistance during the rescue.
I challenge them to produce documentation that the rescuers encountered any resistance.  --  Geo Swan 20:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right.  Such a claim, flying in the face of all published evidence, needs some heavy citing.  I've removed it until that time.  --Yamla 02:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prisoner of War -- Iraqi resistance during her rescue...

message: I've heard on Alex Jones that Jessica Lynch did some topless spreads which I Googled saying there were photos that were pulled. Anybody have any insight?
Speculum
There apparently were candid topless photos taken of Jessica Lynch during a party with other soldiers while she was in basic training or advanced individual training.  I remember a news story indicating that these were purchased by Larry Flynt to prevent publication.
--Ehrentitle 12:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Topless Photos

message: I removed the voltairenet article because, while well written, it seemed that the useful content could simply be incorporated into this wikipedia article.  That is, it did not meet the fairly strict criteria for external links.  Nevertheless, GeoSwan seems to have more experience on this category of wikipedia article so if you think this is a valuable link, I withdraw my objection.  --Yamla 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of voltairenet article

message: I removed the following from the article:
"Though not publicaly, a lot of soldiers hold resentment towards Lynch for what some call stupidy and cowardice. The jam on her rifle was a simple round stuck in the chamber which could have been fixed by pulling back the charging handle and then didnt fix it and refused to fight out of fear. This is stated by herself in a personal times interview. In some circles of the amry there have she is seens as given a hero's status just becuase shes a woman."
As it seems to be unsourced and contains a lot of weasel words ("a lot of", "what some call", "In some circles", "is seen as"). Ziggurat 22:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced content 

message: The article clearly states at the beginning that Jessica Lynch's middle name is Dawn, but then goes on to say that she names her daughter Dakota Ann after friend Lori Ann Piestewa, "and all three individuals share the middle name of Ann."  Both statements conflict. --Delong71487 05:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All three statements would appear to be irrelevant and could probably be deleted to remove any such conflict. Attriti0n 14:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  middle name? 

message: there is very little info about ther life outside the war. 61.2.67.26 14:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life outside the war? 

message: I thought this news story merited a new article, since the investigation extends to the Tillman affair as well. Im not sure what to call it, though:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TILLMAN_LYNCH?SITE=KYB66&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
--popefauvexxiii 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article on House investigation 

message: Based not on her recollection, a statement by an examining doctor, or a claim by a Government agency but an article by a reporter based in New York who appears to have left his job after claiming other people's  work as his own. Does this merit inclusion?  --Herne nz 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape allegations 

message: I'm not having any luck finding evidence that the Pentagon ever hyped Lynch as a "Rambo".  The first official report on that subject appears to have come out in July, 2003, and said that she did not fight back.  By contrast, there is plenty of evidence that they hyped the rescue but not her conduct in the fight in which she was captured.RFabian 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Evidence of Pentagon Hype 

message: The following is written under the "Lynch's Criticism" section of this article, and I just noticed it:
In fact, the Pentagon never made such claims about Lynch. The first official report of Lynch's actions that day released by the Pentagon said that she did not appear to have fought back against her captors. The stories of her supposed heroics that day were spread by the news media and by Democratic Congressmen from her own state of West Virginia. [9]
The obvious intent of this remark appears to be to deflect criticism regarding the controversy around this story off of the Pentagon and on to unnamed "Democratic congressmen." It seems slightly POV against Democrats (or the news media, a frequent tip-off to a conservative bias), but that may be acceptable if the assertion is in fact true. The news media, notably the NBC movie, did perpetuate a false story. But who were the congressmen?
The problem is that the article sourced (note 9) as supporting evidence makes no reference of particular West Virginian congressmen, let alone that they were Democrats. I didn't make an edit to the page assuming the assertion might be true. Perhaps I missed the source reference? Perhaps the article could be made more specific by naming the actual congressmen? 
72.11.81.88 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this true? sourced article doesn't appear to match assertion 

message: It seems that Jessica Lynch, Miss New York 2003 erroneously redirects to this article.  How does one fix that? --Chops79 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the redirect, but there was only a blank page there with no history.  I don't know anything about her, but I did add a minimal amount of information.  Anyway, the answer to your question is add ?redirect=no to the end of the address in your address bar.  See WP:R.~ Dusk Knight 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Erroneous Redirect - How to Fix?

message: While I, personally, would use the term 'Propaganda' as an appropriate description of the Pentagon's handling of PFC Lynch's story, I feel it is not appropriate for use here, because...
* "Propaganda" implies intentional lies, and while many (myself included) may argue that there is evidence that the Pentagon used a lot of... let's say 'artistic license,' many of of the events described where true, and most of the wholes in their version of the story can be accounted to the fog of war.
* "Propaganda" is also a very strong, derogatory, and incendiary word, who's use opens a Pandora's Box of stigmas, and significantly decreases the perception of its user's NPOV.
Therefore, I propose the use of less harsh phrases, such as "P.R." and "Spin"
They were intentional lies. Things stated by the Pentagon were flat out lies, not giving a vague subjective view but a flat out contradiction to the events witnessed first hand by Lynch and the staff of the hospital (not to mention those pesky inteligence reports that show they already knew). Nor is propaganda "derogatory", many government have officially called departments within their "PR" propaganda.
It's not a "durp P.R. spin", it was flat out lies known to those stating them in order to gain support during wartime. It's propaganda and it's going back in. 203.59.21.45 (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Propoganda" vs "P.R." 

message: The intro makes no sense. " Lynch, along with major media outlets, fault the U.S. government for creating the story as part of the Pentagon's propaganda effort"
What story?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.87.209 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: This is a really calm article...where are the gop memory-holers?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.162.190 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: Former US Army Specialist Scott Bruno was the person who intercepted the 13 minute video depicting many of the dead in this case, many of which were shot point blank execution style. The footage was prime intelligence material as the video showed the external and internal buildings surrounding the area in which the battle took place as well as many other clues that would lead to forming a snatch and grab team to go in and retrieve the dead and survivors. Fox News at the time actually aggressively pursued this video from Bruno who nearly gave it up, this only after his Pentagon contact stated that after reviewing the video that it was closing time back east and he would DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE IN THE MORNING! Outraged, Bruno has yet to tell the entire story, which if things did not go the way they did under such time delays, may have very well allowed for more lives to be saved. We'll never know. To gain insite into Specialist Bruno's accounts and life in the military you are welcome to find his website at http://www.scottbruno.com and http://411.scottbruno.com -- 05:35, 12 August 2007 Caliwebman
:I don't see any links to this information on the sites provided. -- Esemono 08:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scott Bruno

message: The article says "Boot camp" (a term not used in the Army) was in Texas. That's impossible. There are 5 Basic Combat Training sites in the Army, Ft Benning, Ft Knox, Ft Leonard Wood, Ft Jackson, and Ft Sill. Females are only trained at Leonard Wood (Missouri) and Jackson (South Carolina).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal06 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic Training

message: I took out the line that says "It is entirely possible that she received the best care that that hospital could provide, which was not as good as American military hospitals could provide." While it may be true under the circumstance, it's unsourced, speculative, and I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the context. Polarrrbear (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prisoner of War

message: Against all statistical odds at least four of the soldiers on the "rescue-mission" died between July-October 2003:
- Josh Daniel Speer (Jul 6, 2003 | single vehicle accident)
Rescuer Speer - single vehicle accident
- David M Tapper (Aug 20, 2003 | shot in the back during ambush in Afghanistan)
Rescuer Tapper - shot in the back
- Kyle Edward Williams (Oct 1, 2003 | apparent suicide)
Rescuer Williams - apparent suicide
- Sok Khak Ung (Oct 19, 2003 | murdered)
Rescuer Ung - murdered
The rescuers' deaths have nothing to do with an article on Jessica Lynch -- Wkerney 12:35, 2 September 2008
:Seems like a conspiracy theory brewing. :P  vlad§inger  tlk  02:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Get out the tinfoil hats!!!!!! 128.104.54.89 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed rescuers' deaths

message: In this Henry Rollins interview, he mentioned he had nude photos of her, but did NOT use or release them because she was so open and honest about NOT being the made-up hero that Bush & Co. wanted her to pretend to be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo__QEKVAmw 199.214.26.82 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the photos, it seems a user removed the entire section with the edit summary "just added a comma". Seems the user was trying to be deceptive with that edit summary??.. just wondering if anyone thinks this should be re-added. -- œ™ 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Flynt's respect for her honesty and integrity 

message: How can Piestewa Peak overlook a house in Flagstaff, AZ when they are separated by some 140 miles? Lowellt (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piestewa Peak 

message: This article is rated Start class by one WikiProject, B-class by another, and GA status by a third. What gives? --Another Believer (Talk) 05:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, has this article even received a legit GA assessment or peer review? -- œ™ 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality scale 

message: I removed this portion ", a nearby mountain-top over looking the valley where the house was built and commemorated by the design team." from the paragraph that originally read " In the course of the episode, a memorial for Piestewa was placed on Piestewa Peak, a nearby mountain-top over looking the valley where the house was built and commemorated by the design team."
My reason is this: according to Google maps, Piestewa Peak and Flagstaff Arizona are 139 miles apart, making it impossible to "overlook" the house. See Google Maps. 59.101.33.190 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of statement saying Piestawa Peak "overlooks" the house. 

message: The article currently mixes several versions of events in each paragraph, with each version contradicting the others.  It's very hard to get any idea of Lynch's story from this.  Perhaps the presentation would be clearer if we could distill some kind of cohesive narrative (perhaps the "official version" of events), then collect together all the disputes and contradictions in another section?  --Doradus (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoroughly confusing 

message: I see something in this article that shouldn't be here but I'm not sure what to do about it. Out of respect to the people who have actively worked on this page, I'm not the one to fix it. If this were a clearinghouse for conspiracy theorists and anti-war activists, I could add pages of material. Is it? Some pf the people involved can neither release, confirm nor deny information pertaining to operations ever, and cannot respond to these wild claims. The BBC article that claims Marines were using blanks and that a rescue was staged is known to be false by people who were there. 
It doesn't belong here. Just because you can quote an online article doesn't give the information weight. In the civilian BBC writer's defense, I should add that to a bystanding doctor it may have looked like something they'd seen on TV, because that's the only place they'd ever seen anything like that. It's the conclusions woven here that are wrong. The Marines may well have used some noisemakers in their diversion. Without a real target, you wouldn't want them making noise with the real thing would you? 
Spec-ops units don't usually send a couple guys down in a taxi to pick up a hostage from a hospital, no matter what somebody at a checkpoint tells them, or comes in with pictures of, it's just not how things are done. Nothing has to be staged, it's what they do. They aren't going to show up at that hospital differently because they think maybe there aren't any bad guys there. They were armed to the teeth and ready to control a section of the city if necessary.
I'm sorry for getting into the content. It's just that it's woven in here in such a way that it really needs redaction. There are 50 websites online spinning this, and that's all it is. If this Wiki is going to have factual information, this sort of speculation needs to be held in check. The facts aren't in evidence. I suppose I shouldn't complain, sometimes media myth spinners are a soldiers best ally.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.219.231 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearinghouse for web speculation and conspiracy theories? 

message: Why was this renamed Jessica Lynch (Prisoner of War)? Wouldn't Jessica Lynch (soldier) be more appropriate? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I was just trying to do a disambiguation. If you feel that Jessica Lynch (soldier) would be more appropriate, feel free to move it. I just thought that since she was best known for being a POW that would be more appropriate. I think soldier would be appropriate as well. What does everyone else think? MissPageantNews (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I have asked admins for a requested move back to Jessica Lynch. It's reasonable to assume that most anyone searching for Jessica Lynch would be looking for this person. A hatnote at the top of the article would have been sufficient to point to the former pageant winner. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree. This will be the one most are looking for and agree with leaving it as was. Re the other, no, she was best known for being a soldier who was captured as a POW. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

text: *Oops. Sorry about that.MissPageantNews (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renamed 

message: The number one reference for this article shows jessica-lynch.com. That website is simply a fan site and is also a scam to use Jessica's name to
sell services. Jessica Lynch DOES NOT ENDORSE the scamming site jessica-lynch.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.100.31.203 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *You are correct that it's a junk site and doesn't belong. Removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  fake reference jessica-lynch.com cyberscammer 

message: Jessica's first interview was with Dianne Sawyer, and that interview is neglected in the media section. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, I guess you get what you pay for.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.11.165 (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the media section is intended to be a complete list of all Lynch's media appearances, the article isn't long enough for that. It is a section to group appearances that editors believed were important enough to include in the article that don't fit well in other sections. If you believe the Diane Sawyer interview is worth a few sentences, you can add it. --GRuban (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomplete media list