Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation/Archive 4

message: Previous relevant argument about Lewy from EECEE, erased by himself:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2&diff=prev&oldid=20571712
+ I see that someone has reverted the claims of Burkett and Lewy:
>>>As confirmed by the subsequent investigative work of Burkett, Lewy and others, there were many impostors and liars who joined the ranks of the anti-war movement, and, in some cases, falsely claimed to have witnessed war crimes and atrocities in order to get attention and sympathy. In one documented case, a particularly convincing fraud was able to obtain medals and honors. <<<
Once again, these were claims only, not confirmed facts. As state above, Lewy cannot support his claim about imposters, and Burkett relies mostly on Lewy - when he makes his own claim, he does not back it up with names or other evidence.
In short, it is incorrect to state as confirmed facts that the many imposters and liars joined the antiwar movement. These were claims, if included at all, should be described that way.
In addition, there is no cite for the claim about the "documented case" about a fraud getting medals and honors. If you can't cite to the documentation, it shouldn't be included here.
This entire paragraph seems to have been included solely to state the poster's beliefs about the antiwar movement, and as such doesn't belong in a factual analysis. It doesn't even go to show that the organizers of WSI were "aware" of this, as Lewy and Burkett didn't even write their books until years later.
It is sufficient to say that the organizers took pains to make sure that the witnesses at WSI were credible...or, at most, that they were aware that others' questioned the legitimacy of some antiwar activists.
I will clean this up if the poster doesn't. --EECEE 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc. cut & paste by Travb

message: # TDC 19:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Favor of Version 1

message: Anon, I was going back through the sorid history of this page, to find out who really added the words: ...writer Guenter Lewy claimed...the alleged report...
While I was doing this, Anon deleted a large paragraph.  Anon does not seem to want a real criticism section, he only wants his POV alone on this page.  Earlier this evening, I attempted to add back the section on Lewy (whose views I personally find repugnant and who I think it at the worst lying, at the best is a biased ideologue) and anon promptly deleted it (Anon, so much for your claim that you never deleted anything huh Anon?).  
Anon, don't you think that people can logically, rationally judge both sides of the story, independent of one narrow view?  In fact, having both sides of the story strengthens the article, it does not weaken it.
Unless, of course, you feel that your side of the argument is so weak that it cannot stand up to valid criticism. Revert it one more time and I submit this article to arbitration.  It is long over due Travb 02:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon Travb, please read the Edit Summaries that accompany each of the edits I made.  Please feel free to respond.  Thank you, 165.247.200.100 02:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of anon

message: TDC, I don't support your weasel word war.  Leave the pro-information about the WSI intact.  If you would just focus on what anon has deleted and refused to allow in the article, without resorting to peity arguments about the word "testimony", your case would be much stronger, and I think more people would support your position.  
Can you live with the word testimony in the article?  I think you can.  
Can you live with only one side being espoused?  No, and neither can wikipedia.
Choose your battles carefully.  If you can get a far left liberal (myself) to support your contention that anon is not allowing dissent in the article, this is a strong argument.  Your "testimony" weasel word war is a weak argument, which is frowned down upon by wikipedia, and will only weaken support for what I think is your intention here on wikipedia: to portray America as you see it: as a beacon of freedom and liberty around the world, and those dissenters who feel differently as traitors.  
Changing the word "testimony" is an incredibly weak way to support your viewpoint, which will change no ones view of WSI and only inflame passions against your cause.  Do you think a casual reader will be convinced that WSI is false simply because the word "testimony" is no longer in the article? will a casual reader be convinced that WSI is false simply because the word "alleged" appears in the article several times?
Whereas adding dissenters views to WSI is a very strong way to support your viewpoint.  By focusing on weasel words, you are not only losing the weasel word battle, you are losing the entire war. Travb 03:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus on what is being left out, not what is already in the article

message: The article is presently tagged as Disputed.  Could someone elaborate here on which parts are disputed, and why? 165.247.202.59 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, you of anyone should not ask such a question.  Where is the info on Lewy? I won't be more critical than that, althought I want to be.Travb 02:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven years after the hearings, writer Guenter Lewy claimed that a Naval Investigative Service report stated that some who testified had falsified their identities or weren't even in Detroit. Government officials today cannot verify the report's existence, and no other historian has seen it. Lewy later said that he could not recall if he had actually seen the alleged report or simply been told of its contents.   
  
What else is disputed? 165.247.202.59 03:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Content

message: TDC, you may want to investigate this: I think the anon may be User:EECEE 
Look at his user contributions, they all involve the same topic: vietnam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EECEE
Just as anon's interest seems only to be Vietnam. 
See how passionatly EECEE talks just like anon about winter soilder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2&diff=prev&oldid=20571712 
This is only spectulation, but the way to know is to find similar but unique spelling mistakes between anon and User:EECEE.   I wonder if User:EECEE has such a "Colorful" history on wikipedia as you do User:TDC?  I figure if anyone can find the identity of the anon, its you, since you are good at investigating copyright violations on google. Travb 23:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Curses, foiled again...   165.247.214.161 10:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless an admin were to look into EECEE's IP adress, we can never be certain. TDC 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, much less who this "anon" is.    I only post or edit under my own screen name. I'm not a "he," I'm a "she."    Who would bother to "message" me with this nonsense, anyway? --EECEE 05:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a hunch who would, but if I told you, she would no longer be Anon. 165.247.204.80 06:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As someone is obviously interested enough to trace through my past postings, I'll save you the trouble and just tell you that I just edited out the part of my prior paragraph where I called you guys "a little nutty."  I'll try to keep this civil, as you are obviously concerned about some sort of trolling going on here.  But it isn't me. And again quite honestly ... the idea of people checking out your identity is more than a little creepy, not to mention offensive.  And possibly against the rules. --EECEE 05:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is more than a little creepy.  To me, this is offensive. 209.86.4.114 08:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eccchhhhhhh.  --EECEE 00:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I may know who the anon is 

message: TDC, I wonder if you can now admit, or you will ever admit that the copyright violation ploy to get this article erased was a mistake, and unfair.  I find it so entertaining that anon wasted hours with you old edits "outing" your own hypocricy.
:I am really getting tired of engaging you in these pointless merry go round shit throwing events, but for the last time, this was never about getting the article erased, it was about exactly the opposite, a point I had brought up in February of 2005 . TDC 14:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TDC

message: Unless you can show that the process described in the article did not take place, there was a verification process.  It wasn't "purported" at all.
If you can provide evidence that participants lied, feel free to include it.  You may notice that Lewy et al's claims in that regard are already discussed in the article. --EECEE 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Anon Poster re "Purported Verification"