Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War

message: 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)
thread_title: The controversial excerpt

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Duk and TDC are attempting to use aggressive copyright violations again

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Rob, clearly there was reason, so please stop misleading. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Expanded details of article edits

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unusual entry at the top of the page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: A note on footnotes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Resolving the impasse

message: 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)
replies: text: All citations that I add to an article are personally sourced.  So stated. Xenophrenic 19:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources cited directly or indirectly

message: Sectioned off from above.--Chaser - T 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  OK. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Copyright/sourcing issue

message: 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)
thread_title: Unexplained deletion by [[User:198.86.17.38]]

message: Paragraphs about Hubbard and FBI allegations were added, complete with tags indicating it was unsourced or sources were missing.  Most strange, indeed.  I have removed it, pending sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph removal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070404015058/http://chicago.indymedia.org:80/local/webcast/uploads/metafiles/vets_against_warylbfsg.mov to http://chicago.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/metafiles/vets_against_warylbfsg.mov/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If you read this article and the RCP article you get very different versions of these events.  Not something I can fix but maybe worth mentioning here. 72.95.130.125 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCP split 

message: One of the images - of an unidentified veteran throwing a cane - is shown on Wikimedia as being sourced from a newspaper scan in the Wisconsin Historical Archive. The newspaper does not cite the author of the photo or identify the subject.
A higher quality version of this photograph is available directly from the website of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and it cites Michael Abramson as the photographer. 
I am a newbie editor and am unsure how to properly update the hosted file at Wikimedia, or of how to properly attribute it and re-incorporate it into this article. 
Leaving this note while I research. TheLoungingTreestump (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source attribution for an image used