Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 3

message: This article has been reverted to an earlier version do to a copyright violation existing for about a year. This was done per instructions on WP:CP and after the page being listed there, and after discussions on WP:AN and here.
The offending history has also been deleted, per suggestions on WP:AN. This is because of an ongoing problem with anon(s) re-inserting copyvios. Deleting the history will help preempt reverts to the copyvio version (besides removing the copyvio).
Reverting pages to pre-copyvio versions is done to remove the possibility of them being considered derivative works, it's standard practice on wikipedia for dealing with copyright violations (although deleting history is not). This page was exceptional because of the length of time the copyvio was present.
If any registered, non-admin user who's work was deleted would like a copy, let me know, I'll look through deleted history and aid recovery of your edits.
:As one of the editors of this article, I agree with all of the above.  It would have saved a few headaches if it were done sooner.  165.247.204.51 10:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio revert

message: As suggested at WP:CP, the article's text has been replaced with re-written content at Winter Soldier Investigation/Temp, minus the copyvio material and derivative works. 165.247.204.51 10:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Temp page merge

message: Duk are you working for the company which wrote these books?  Has anyone who wrote these books complained to wikipedia?  I dont think so.  
: no --Duk 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then they need to be cited as such and identified as public domain. Use citations to do this, not telepathy. --Duk 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Can we stick to the discussion about the copyright violation? please :) --Duk 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is about a copyright violation, it doesn't matter who reverts a copyright violation.  We can't include copyright violations in Wikipedia. --Duk 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Happy editing :) --Duk 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks, I wont get so angy anymore...sorry for getting so frustrated, I was really POV. sorry.Travb 20:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright policeman

message: Folks, before you delete, How about just add a link to wikiquote and add the info there?  
I have done this a lot recently and it works very well.
This would solve the problem of people wanting to delete portions of long quotes:  

I will do this right now, to stop all of the reverting....Travb 20:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion about quote conflict

message: :::: First of all I believe that TDC may have personal vandetta against someone, TDC wrote: "I will admit Rob, you are getting better at hiding your tracks, but not good enough I suppose. "
:::: Second: notice what TDC wrote: "So instead of rewriting and crediting the information" which assumes that crediting the information is one of two options--
:::: when I ask TDC why doesn't he do it, he states that it "aint my job", so what do I do, I go ahead and do what TDC refuses to do (because his real intention is not scholastic integrity, it is to delete this article from wikipedia all together--see below) I go ahead and cite the article myself--
:::: $1 million says TDC is not satisfied of this either because again....his real intention is not scholastic integrity, it is to delete this article from wikipedia all togetherTravb 08:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: True intentions

message: Congratulations! You have once again demonstrated your inability control yourself with another 3RR. I would report you, but since all you would have to do to avoid it is log out and log back in, is there a point? TDC 22:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another 3rr from the anon

message: ===Reporting anon===
TDC, two sentences are not breaking Copyright.  We all know this. You will be laughed at if you "reported this".  
Maybe the Anon person doesnt want you to know who he is afraid you will be a "wikistalker" the term you coin(?) on your personal page.  
I can see why Anon may be afraid--I read your jingoism earlier today and the very agressive way that you want to "officer friendly history" to fit your ideology, by erasing whole sections of posts.
I was afraid that you would do the same with me, and I reverted some of your massive changes today while being logged out an anonymous. 
But the more I read about fair use policy, the more I think this tactic of reporting me for "copyright violations" will fail miserably if you attempt it on myself.  So I am "coming out", so to speak...
===A Disney version of history===
The real thorn in your side is that you don't support the facts shared here, they contradict your ideology, America is that "beacon on the hill" as Reagan parroted from someone centuries before.   I have looked over your user page, and also your changes, and I see you want only your "officer friendly history" to be espoused, and NO ONE ELSES. If someone elses version of history doesnt fit your own, you are not above erasing large sections of material to "sanitize" and white-wash history.
::"Creationists don't want equal time,... they want all the time there is."--Isaac Asimov
Like Creationists who only want their own version of "why we are here" taught, and no one elses, your American jingoism is like a religion, those who don't believe as you do are heritics.
::"the 1995 book Lies My Teacher Told Me, points out that high school American history textbooks give ”a Disney version of history”: heroic, egalitarian, jam-packed with progress, and almost entirely free of class conflict. Teaching such an “Officer Friendly” account of reality, the author concludes, is merely to “make school irrelevant to the major issues of the day.” The kids know bullshit when they see it."
::"The disaffection of the Kansas conservatives with public education is almost precisely the opposite. They do not have a problem with the idea that schools should be designed to churn out low-wage workers; indeed, Kay O’Connor (A conservative Kansas state senator) told me that was a worthy goal. The Cons (conservative wing of the Republican party) are pissed off because they think the schools don’t provide enough Disney, enough Officer Friendly.""
===You can never win against a jingoist===
As I have argued against other jingosists, like a creationist, the real issue is that you only want your version of history to be taught.  
These complaints that you have with sites you don't agree with is just a smoke screen, just like the intellegent design debate--were the creationist are attempting to  get "all the time there is" but can't legal ban evolution in schools. 
Similarly, you can't deleted this article (or delete portions of it as you have with other less monitored sites, so you have to come up with new tactics to slowly errode this wikipedia site.  As I said, I have seen it before on other controversial sites. 
If you had your way, like the creationists, only YOUR version of history would be taught.  
You are trying to revise this article out of existence.
===The VERY fine line when agressively promoting Disney history===
In fact, many jingoists have been  banned from wikipedia and severly repremanded for the same tactics that you have done, large scale reversions of text.
I argue that your widespread reverting and deleting, similar to the other jingoists (like Very) is more likely to get you booted and severely  repremanded than two sentences which are protected under "free use" policy.Travb 00:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TDC wants..."all the time there is"

message: In fact, many jingoists have been  banned from wikipedia and severly repremanded for the same tactics that you have done, large scale reversions of text.
I argue that your widespread reverting and deleting, similar to the other jingoists (like Very) is more likely to get you booted and severely  repremanded than two sentences which are protected under "free use" policy.Travb 00:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The VERY fine line when agressively promoting Disney history

message: I look on the copyright page and you are responsible for "reporting" hundreds of pages.  Hundreds of pages of information on the internet that you simply destroy--and this is just for October. Fair Use policy is legal. That is reality--you have spent hundreds of hours destroying peoples work for nothing--obviously there is no way to comprimise--we have given you many examples of free use policy, but that obviously doesnt matter.
:I actually tag very few copyvios. The hundreds of listings I've made on the copyright page are from an automated script that finds articles that people tagged but forgot to list on WP:CP. I tagged almost none of these. --Duk 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, sorry.  I learned something new today Travb 21:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I'm not going to rationalize a copyright violation. --Duk 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: spent hours on this site violating other people's copyRIGHTS and wikipedia's rules. --Duk 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: and to think, none of this would have happened if people would just write with their own words. --Duk 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I am shocked

message: Since when do we allow whole sections af articles to be nothing more than single quotes from single sources? Removed. TDC 16:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Since when...

message: Sasquatch, you may have missed the other guy's point. But that's not your fault: his explanation is on my user talk page. Let's move it here, when we get a chance.
I have supplied a perfectly legal version of the article, having written 75% of it right out of my own head: 3 of the 4 paragraphs of the current "mini-version". So that nips the copy-vio thing in the bud right there.
I'd like to ask each of us to write down their plans for future development of the article, with special attention to 2 points.
#How do you plan to deal with the controversial aspects, so the article can adhere to the NPOV?
#How do you plan to deal with copyright issues?
I'll go first: (1) I plan to inclued the Wikipedia:POV of both sides - not just my own anti-Communist side. (2) I haven't included any copyrighted text, but if I do I will cite its source: indented and with a web link (or page number and book title). Uncle Ed 16:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fresh start

message: I don't think I have the authority to settle this dispute. So I unlocked the page again. But I still am going to try to figure out if "copyvio" is being "used" - in a mistaken but sincere way, or as a deliberate but illegitimate tactic. 
I have yet to see one single example given of an alleged copyvio. I've read dozens of assertions that copyvios are there - but nothing specific. Uncle Ed 20:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Un-lock

message: Alrihgt, here is my last plea. Do not remove content just because it appears to be mostly comment. Rather, use your brain, read it thouroughly and edit it. There's a reason why it's called edit this page. Just because one sentence in a paragraph is copied, don't delete the whole thing. Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly states "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed". The only case where you should remove ALL content is if the entire thing is a clear and cut copyright violation. Also, if you take an idea and rewrite it (i.e. put some creative effort into it) then it is no longer a CP. The next time you observe a CP, do not just delete it right away. Read it and see if there's a better way to summarise it and then fix it. Deleting it is a last resort. I'm pretty sure the policy on this is very clear. Remember: don't just go around deleting stuff. That's counter-productive to what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish in the long run (i.e. store as much encyclopedic information as possible). Sasquatcht|c 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sasquatch, wikipedia's policy for dealing with copyright violations is to revert to the pre-copyvio version. See WP:CP. Doing this not only removes the copied text but also any derivative work, which is also a copyright violation. --Duk 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing content versus fixing content 

message: TDC wrote: Its not a violation to revert text, especially when its copyvio. And, yes, sadly I have had many 3RR reprimands, but not too many as of late. I have learned my lesson. TDC 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what you think, just let it go. And I still remain a contientious objector to deleting entire articles because of one paragraph. Next time, just delete the paragraph. Sasquatcht|c 09:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:TDC|TDC]]'s Prior Consistent Conduct

message: I completely rehashed the problems that I am aware of. Point out any more and I will be glad to fix them. Sasquatcht|c 06:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehashed 

message: Cut from article:
:The organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation took several steps to guarantee the validity of the participants.  
:Each veteran's authenticity was checked before the hearings by the investigation event organizers. 
Phrases like guarantee the validity and authenticity was checked imply that (1) the organizers are to be completely trusted and relied upon and (2) that they succeeded in proving that the veterans who gave testimony were all telling the truth. That's way too much for Wikipedia to vouch for.
It is the POV of WSI and its supporters that the veterans were telling the truth. Not everyone agrees with this. So Wikipedia shouldn't endorse this POV. Uncle Ed 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Credibility of atrocity accounts

message: Cut from article:
:The U.S. invasion of Laos in February, 1969, code-named Operation Dewey Canyon I, also added to the controversy as the Pentagon denied that any American troops had crossed the Laosian border and carried out military operations. Almost immediately, five veterans from the Third Marines who had returned from the war refuted the claims of the Pentagon.
The phrase "added to the controversy" puzzles me. What controversy? So far in the article, unless I'm skimming it too quickly, I haven't seen anything controversial - not if we define "controversy" as a dispute over different accounts or evaluations.
Was this supposed to mean "adding one more piece of evidence that the US was bad and had been covering up all its bad activities"? 
I was going to copy-edit this, but I was afraid I might change the meaning. Please, whoever wrote this (or anyone who knows what it means), fix it and then put it back. It looks important. Uncle Ed 22:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Errr.. go ahead and change it but I think the controversy is more clearly explained later in that paragraph when it goes through how it's a violation of international law and the whatever accord thing.. anyways, I'm indifferent on the wording. Do what you will. Sasquatcht|c 06:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Awkward phrasing about Laos

message: *The intro accurately stated 109 vets gave their testimonies.  That was changed to "hundreds of veterans," so I changed it back.  Then it was changed from 109 to "dozens of veterans," so I changed it.  I expect next it will be changed to some randomly generated number, and I will change it back again.  It's 109 vets - it's in the congressional record - it's on film - easy enough to count.  
*The event was not a "public relations" event.  Public relations is defined as generating goodwill.  Not only did this event NOT generate goodwill, but the organizers knew full well that such an event would likely generate considerable animosity.  I'm removing that misleading phrase.
*"controversy over" because "verification" implies that their credibility WAS verified Yes indeed it does, and your point...?  Replaced.  Note:  We're talking about two different things being checked, by the way.  The credentials of the participants (Were they indeed Vietnam Vets?) and the credibility of the testimony they gave.  The veteran status of the participants was indeed verified by multiple sources.  Obviously some of the testimony would not be corroborated until later, if at all, due to the fact the vets refrained from naming specific individuals at this event. 165.247.219.193 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on recent edits

message: Cut (again?) from intro:
:An anti-war event, testimony was topically-structured by group panels. 
Can you explain what these phrases mean? They look like English, but I don't understand them:
*topically-structured
*group panels
I do, however, feel I understand "opposition to the Vietnam War". It usually means oppostion to America's part in the war - as opposed to North Vietnam's part - or the Viet Cong's part. I don't recall too many demonstrations in the 1960s protesting their involvement in the war or calling on them to withdraw from, say, South Vietnam. 
In another article we can (or do) make clear that opposition to "the war" refers to America's involvement in it (sorry, did I just say that twice?).
Anyway can you explain what "topically-structured by group panels" means? Uncle Ed 00:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of the event

message: (Clipped from a conversation above...)
::The two main POVs I've seen so far are:
::#The VVAW, WSI, John Kerry et al., were all absolutely right (or close enough): the US shouldn't have been in Vietnam, and the atrocities are proof of this. We exposed them and put them on trial, and we're proud to say we ultimately made the do the right thing and get the hell out of there. 
::#The above were no more than half right, and their aims were perverted. They made things worse in Vietnam by forcing a US pull-out, leading to 500,000 to 1,000,000 civilian post-war deaths (see boat people), tyranny, oppression and misery. 
::Since around 75% of Americans believe in point #1, I have no objection to the article devoting 75% of its space to that POV. But even if 90% to 95% of Wikipedians entertain this POV, that doesn't justify making 90% to 95% of the article about that. The other side - even if it's a minority amoung contributors - should still get sufficient coverage to make a balanced article. Uncle Ed 00:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought I was being clear that I meant POVs about the WSI event. If attendees were "people holding quite varied points of view", then perhaps my division into 2 opposing views is too simplistic. Can you jot down here a few of the other POVs which people held? Uncle Ed 16:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Points of View

message: :As noted in VVAW records, each veteran's authenticity and testimony were checked after the hearings by Nixon's "plumbers." Charles Colson was assigned the task. In a CONFIDENTIAL "Plan to Counteract Viet Nam Veterans Against the War", Colson wrote, "The men that participated in the pseudo-atrocity hearings in Detroit will be checked to ascertain if they are genuine combat veterans." At one point, the Nixon team suggested in a memo about VVAW, "Several of their regional coordinators are former Kennedy supporters." With the exception of revealing that non-participant Al Hubbard had lied about his rank (Staff Sergeant E-5 instead of Captain), nothing worse was ever produced by these investigations. 
This is taken right from the VVAW's website , and as such, its verbatim inclusion in this article is heavily POV.
::Please explain how the source of a factual paragraph makes it's inclusion POV. 
Also, the continual referral to the term testimony has legal implications, and as this was not a trial, as such, the term is inaccurate and has been removed. TDC 03:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "testimony" also has non-legal definitions, and as such is perfectly acceptable.  The testimony is also referred to as "testimony" in Congressional record, newspaper articles, and even in the book by Lewy to which you refer below.  It has been reinstated. 165.247.204.9 08:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Issues with statements from VVAW website

message: Donald P. Williams said:
:"We, the black veterans of the Vietnam war, are expressing our experience with racism in Vietnam. We intend to show by our testimony that the war in Vietnam is nothing more than an extension of the racist policies as practiced here in the United States. Racism is the motivating factor in determining America's genocidal policy against non-whites. The overwhelming majority of people killed or maimed in Vietnam are non-whites, whether they are Vietnamese, Viet Cong, or American blacks. Whites' statistics say that blacks constitute only ten percent of the total population in the United States, yet they represent at least forty percent of the fighting forces in Vietnam, and, in many cases, due to racism, blacks are the overwhelming majority in the combat areas. The statement you will hear this afternoon reflects the reality of American society's attitudes towards non-whites. This attitude emanates from years and years of oppression based on the refusal of American people to eliminate racism." 
::Simply outrageous.  Sounds like just another black that didn't realize racism was eliminated from America back in Lincoln's day.  Everyone knows during 1963-70 (the time covered by the testimony), racism was practically non-existant, both here and abroad.  Just ask Charlie!  Do you really think thousands of the little gooks would risk their lives to come to America if we were as bad as Mr. Willians paints us?  And to insinuate that minorities made up a disproportionate share of the combat segment of the military is ludicrous and can be absolutely refuted if you just find the right year ranges, branches of military and other statistics to juggle.  Sounds like a crackhead with an agenda to me. 165.247.212.112 02:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If properly attributed, sure. 165.247.212.112 02:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be in the intro, but can certainly go into the body of the article.  A warning, though ... editors to this article have been down this road before.  By the time they were done, we had nearly 3 cumbersome pages of verbatim testimony from many of the participants quoted in the article.  TDC eventually clipped them from the article - one of those rare times when I found myself in agreement with his edits. 165.247.212.112 02:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In my humble opinion, no.  165.247.212.112 02:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Charges that racism motivated US policy and actions in Vietnam

message: :Kerry used "testimony" from the VVAW's "Winter Soldier Investigation" as the basis for his war crimes charges, although none of the witnesses there were willing to sign depositions affirming their claims. 
::Already disproven.  Many of the veterans were indeed willing to sign depositions, and even cooperated with further investigations conducted by the military.  Don't confuse there refusal to name individuals (i.e.; scapegoats) at this event with a lack of truthfulness.  
This brings up a very important point. The main argument of VVAW / WSI and the "anti-war movement" was that (1) US policy was based on encouraging war crimes
::Not.  Where have you seen this argument made?  That sounds very different from the argument that war crimes were being commited as a direct result of US policy.   
and (2) is thus morally bankrupt so (3) the US should withdraw from the Vietnam War. Evidence of point #1 was supposed to be brought out at WSI. But if NONE of the "witnesses" would testify under oath, this calls into question their truthfulness.
::Yes, it might.  If that were indeed the case.  See above. 
Note that I am NOT saying they are all liars. I personally interviewed a marine sniper who told me he killed 83 people before he stopped counting. Among those people were an unspecified number of civilians (notabbly childern - geez, I con't even type straight right now, okay :-( 
I'm just saying there is controversy here, and a good encyclopedia article should describe the controversy. Uncle Ed 16:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To paraphrase you from a previous discussion, "Where is the controversy here?" 165.247.212.112 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That should be simple enough, the vast majority of Vietnam veterans feel like the merry crew over at VVAW stabbed them in the back. TDC 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, good one ;p  165.247.212.112 01:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification issue (3rd time?)

message: Kerry told the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations that:
:"We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American." 
*Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations - April 23, 1971
::I've corrected the quote above.  Isn't it interesting how the context of a quote may change when it is quoted correctly?  Just as the context can be skewed when it is (mistakenly, of course!) quoted incorrectly.
::Sounds remarkably similar to the sentiments expressed by (82%, according to a poll just last week) civilians in Iraq.  I guess civilians haven't changed much over the years: simple, blind to what is really good for them, and just wanting to live their lives in peace and without foreign presence.  Will they ever learn? 165.247.212.112 01:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Veteran's POV on the US in Vietnam

message: TDC has started 2 revert wars in the space of four days. 
The "testimony" war (04:26, 24 October 2005), and the ""quote" war (19:34, 20 October 2005).  
I suggest that if TDC starts one more revert war, he should be botted from this site, if this is technologically possible.  
He already has been booted 13 times in the last year, the last one was on September 15, and at least 10 of them were for revert wars.  He boosts on his wikipage that he has been "banned from too many chat rooms to mention".
TDC is the beginning and the heart of the contention here. Travb 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any user may report a 3RR violation by posting to WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel 07:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:TDC|TDC]] should be warned

message: I believe that TDC has had more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, and should be reported to 3RR--he may be booted for the 14th time in a year. Anyone else with more than 3 reverts should also be reportedTravb 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any user may report a 3RR violation by posting to WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel 07:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 RRR war

message: Another revert war has began, again from TDC.  If Sasquatch is unable to babysit this site because he has more of a life than most of us here, another moderator should monitor the site.Travb 05:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sasquatch needs to monitor this site more agressively, or give job to another moderator

message: The following words should not be used on this web blog:
*alledged (from the imperialists)
: This term is used when describing claims mad by anyone that have not been verified.TDC 14:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, these were not legal hearins, and “testimony” does not apply.TDC 14:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: By your own admission, these individuals were frauds. TDC 14:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Words that should not be used

message: The intro states:
:...was intended to publicize war crimes
I've tried to remove this phrase a few times, but it keeps popping up. It must be important to SOMEONE to have this in.
But it puzzles me:
#What does intended to publicize mean?
#Why would anyone want to publicize their own country's war crimes - and not those of the enemy?
#Did the war crimes and atrocities which they intended to publicize actually get any publicity as a result of WSI - or of other VVAW efforts?
#What connection, if any, did publicity attempts have with the goal of getting the US out of the Vietnam War?
#Whose side were WSI organizers / participants on?
#What did they hope to achieve by drawing attention to atrocities and war crimes? -- that is, ONLY those committed by the US and its allies
#Why did they not mention (or give equal emphasis to) war crimes committed by North Vietnam and its allies, such as the Viet Cong? (kidnappings, murders, etc., of villagers who refused to aid the Communists or whom the Communists suspected of "collaborating with the enemy Americans"?
These are but a few of the questions that come to (my) mind when I think about the "intent" of WSI. Uncle Ed 16:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could live with the following suggestions, but allow me to make a prediction: You will work on a new version, and 95% of it will be reverted by the anon. Look closely, you made 6 edits in between. TDC 17:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  purpose of WSI - a whole bunch of questions 

message: While studying various web pages about free fire zones and the My Lai Massacre, I ran across this statement:
:Two months later, from 31 January through 2 February 1971, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) held the Winter Soldier Investigation at the Holiday Inn in downtown Detroit. During those three days, more than one hundred Vietnam veterans testified to having witnessed or participated in a wide range of atrocities. 
:In his opening statement, former Lieutenant William Crandell of the Americal Division said: "We intend to demonstrate that My Lai was no unusual occurrence, other than, perhaps, the number of victims killed all in one place, all at one time, all by one platoon of us. We intend to show that the policies of Americal Division which inevitably resulted in My Lai were the policies of other Army and Marine divisions as well." 
This could go in the intro:
:Both hearings sought to demonstrate that, as a direct result of American military policies in Vietnam, American forces carried out actions usually considered illegal and immoral in war. 
The other hearing referred to is, of course, the Citizens Commission of Inquiry which "took place at the Dupont Plaza Hotel in Washington, D.C., on 1-3 December 1970." [ibid] Uncle Ed 22:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More quotes

message: There were more items deleted today:
:"... veterans of Vietnam service described a wide variety of atrocities and war crimes in which they participated or which they witnessed during their tours of duty, often in the presence or with the approval of their officers. The veterans' testimony included charges of killing of unarmed women, children, and elderly peasants; the use of torture to elicit information from captured prisoners; the shooting of enemy soldiers attempting to surrender; and the wanton burning of Vietnam villages." 
Reason:  (del incomplete quote from intro that only describes 1st day testimony, and not even the crucial stuff)
From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)
::Still down the memory hole Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion one

message: "The "Winter Soldier Investigation" was a public relations event put on by opponents of American military policy in the Vietnam. The group accused the American goverment of deliberately violating the laws of war by tolerating, encouraging and often even ordering its soldiers to commit war crimes and atrocities.
From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)
Reason:  Was not a "public relations" event - rem too narrow sentence from intro
Note: This is also a concern of Ed's....I think we can delete the first sentence, keep the second--a casual reader needs to find out right away what this article is about.
::Added back, more or less Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion two

message: "Lewy also notes that, "The refusal of [those alleging atrocities] to give substantiating factual information . . . created a situation in which the accusers continued to reap generous publicity for their sensational charges while the Army in most cases could neither investigate nor refute them." Lewy concluded that there was another reason to be wary of such allegations: They were retrospective reports and therefore subject to distortion, "created by the veterans' perception of the interviewers and organizers of the hearings, by their attitudes toward the military and by their difficulties in adjusting to civilian life after discharge." 
From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)
Reason: deleted quote by Lewy that was not about a WSI participant
::Severly edited by anon. Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion three

message: In any case, the withdrawal was completed in 1973 and North Vietnam conquered the South by 1975.
From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)
Reason: rem extraneous history lesson
::Deleted, but not vitally important Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion four

message: ==Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation==	 
Critics of the event state that it was aimed more at forcing a US withdrawal from Vietnam, rather than any ethical reforms in the conduct of the war. Some went so far as to accuse Fonda and Kerry of "aiding the enemy" (see treason).
From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)
Reason: removed criticism that wasn't made until 30 years later when politically expedient
Note/opinion: Weasel words, but should not have been deleted.  Need to seperate article out into criticism sections.
::still no criticism section Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion five

message: According to Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at the Center for the History & Ethics of Public Health , the US Army's CID investigators found the allegations made by 46 veterans at the hearings to merit further inquiry, and were able to identify 43 of the complainants. The CID also attempted to contact 41 of the people who participates; of the 36 they were able to locate, 31 submitted to interviews. 
From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)
Reason: removed accolades for people not relevant to this article
Note/opinion: Absolutly should not have been changed, this makes a cited argument into a unsubstantiated argument.
::added back, but without mention of Turse Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion six

message: Major change to wikisite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26427592
Complete deletions:
Presentations were structured by topic in group panels. 109 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians described war crimes they had committed or witnessed during the years of 1963-1970. Journalists and film crews recorded the event, and a transcript was later read into the Congressional Record.
Vietnam Veterans came to the microphone and told stories of witnessing or personally committing these war crimes and atrocities, and they and the event organizers linked these attrocites to American administration and war policies.
Supporters of the event felt that it crystallized their sentiments, while disagreeing on the extent to which it influenced US policy.
Organizers described the event as "anti-war", not in the sense of opposing all wars (compare pacifism) or as a statement that North and South Vietnam should not have been fighting each other, but as strictly in the sense of opposing America's involvement in the Vietnam War.
==Criticism of process==
...as well as his service in Vietnam.
...and that he had been wounded in Vietnam.
...Hubbard could also not document any service in Vietnam, contrary to what he had claimed.
...did not directly participate in 
Seven years after the hearings, historian Guenter Lewy claimed that a Naval Criminal Investigative Service report could not corroborate even one of allegation made in Detroit. According to Lewy, the NIS could compel few witnesses to speak with investigators, even after assurance that they would not be asked about their own actions. The NIS concluded that many of those interviewed had no combat service record and that some of the most gruesome claims came from men who were imposters using the names and documentation of real Vietnam veterans. One particular Marine who had been in combat eventually told investigators that a member of the Nation of Islam helped prepare his statement, and admitted that he had never witnessed any of the atrocities he had testified to in Detroit. In the end, the Navy was unable to verify any of the hundreds of war crimes alleged by the Winter Soldier Investigation. Lewy goes on to note that journalists, historians, and military and Congressional investigators have failed to verify even one specific allegation made at Winter Soldier.
that he didn't find anything newsworthy to report because
Reason: NPOV edit; removed weasel words WP:AWT
From anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.86.4.2 (From San Jose, California....)
::Still down the memory hole Travb 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion seven

message: I think given the history of this site, both should be booted Reporting it.
Start of latest revert war--"testimony war", started by TDC
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26330007
===Revisions of TDC===
Revision by TDC--offer to talk on Talk Page, ignored by 165.247.202.136
12:21, 24 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26342816
revision by TDC
17:24, 24 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26360497
revision by TDC
22:14, 24 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26385564
revision by TDC
00:20, 25 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26396251
Reversion by TDC
14:31, 25 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26432430
Reversion by TDC
17:19, 25 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26455568
Reversion by TDC
19:18, 25 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26460843
===Revisions by 165.247.212.112===
::revision by 165.247.202.136
::02:09, 24 October 2005
::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=26324262&oldid=26316481
::revision by 165.247.212.112
::17:43, 24 October 2005
::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26366756
::revision by 165.247.202.136
::22:05, 24 October 2005
::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26381099
::revision by 165.247.202.136
::00:15, 25 October 2005
::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=2638632
===Other===
Revision by Calton
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26352636
revision by SEWilco (SEWilco and TDC have had discussions before)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=prev&oldid=26375535
Reversion by 209.86.2.114 (2)
17:12, 25 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26445632
Reversion by 209.86.2.114
18:30, 25 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26456029
Is all of this really necessary?  This talk page is hard enough to make heads or tails of.  In the future, please just say "I'm reporting so and so" and just link to the report on WP:AN/3RR.  Gamaliel 02:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TDC and 165.247.212.112 for 3RR

message: Revision by Calton
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26352636
revision by SEWilco (SEWilco and TDC have had discussions before)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=prev&oldid=26375535
Reversion by 209.86.2.114 (2)
17:12, 25 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26445632
Reversion by 209.86.2.114
18:30, 25 October 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=next&oldid=26456029
Is all of this really necessary?  This talk page is hard enough to make heads or tails of.  In the future, please just say "I'm reporting so and so" and just link to the report on WP:AN/3RR.  Gamaliel 02:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: The above stuff about edit wars and whatnot really doesn't belong here.  Make an RfC or something.  Looking at the recent page protection, I don't think it was really a constructive thing to do at a time when the article was undergoing some intensive and sometimes controversial editing.  There seemed to be a fair amount of give and take, the edit summaries were fairly polite and informative.  Not in any obvious way a sterile edit war of the kind I would say merits protection.  I've unprotected for now. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think you looked to closely at the edit history. Almost all of the anon's edits have been RV's. TDC 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected