Talk:Tiger Force

David Hackworth

It is stated in this article and David Hackworth that he was instrumental in the creation of the Tiger Force. However in Col. Hackworth's autobiography About Face, it merely states that he recommended the antitank and recon platoons of the 1/327 be deactivated, not that they should be remade as Tiger Force [485]. Is there another source that says otherwise? --DOHC Holiday (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

isn't there any 'pushback' on this story?

When I read about the claims surrounding "Tiger Force," I find myself thinking of the similar bogus stories such as the incident in the Korean War at No Gun Ri or CNN's infamous "Tailwind" story (where they alleged the US used sarin on defectors in Laos during the Vietnam conflict). I also find myself thinking that a lot of the claims sound very similar to bogus ones put forward by some of the losers that were exposed in the book "Stolen Valor." This being said, I would be interested to know what the Army investigators' reports said and not just what the reporters pushing this story implied happened.

I think I can believe that a unit ran amok (happened at My Lai). I just find myself wondering why a bunch of its veterans would be trumpeting their involvement in atrocities 30 years after the fact

"Some reports by former members of this unit state that the soldiers wore necklaces composed of human ears."

It would be nice to have a source to cite for this. 134.114.59.41 09:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  I, Dan Clint, was a member of the Tiger Force and can assure you I had no ear necklaces, nor was this a "common" practice.  A book that purports to be "The True Story", without being reviewed and openly discussed by those surviving people, those who had actually been present at the time, could be prone to another level of sensationalism, much like an investigation of some fairly angry young men after their return from combat where they could be allowed to say whatever they wanted with an awareness that they had already been sent to Vietnam and had experienced being at death's doorstep.  Were they angry at their fellow soldiers?  Angry at their leaders? The authors, and probably the investigators, with no combat experience, and no experience with the Tiger Force, had no ability to detect, screen or reference what they were being told.  In short, no B.S. detectors.
  A reminder, Coy, from A Company, the man who initially made the allegations that started the investigation said that he had actually witnessed a Vietnamese baby being stabbed.  Upon this deeper investigation he admitted to reporting this was actually a rumor he had heard, and as I understand it, he was the only one disciplined resultant from the investigation.  It began with a fabricated story and it has been escalated with more unsubstantiantiated and fabricated stories.  I would have had greater respect for the authors had they acknowledged that some of their sources in Vietnam were admitted Viet Cong, as Joe Mahr had indicated privately to me.  These little details may have some significance. 
   Were there war crimes? Actually that question would open up a very interesting discussion that would first involve how one defines war and then crimes.  My experiences with the Tiger Force indicates that a large part of this book is fiction.  I admit that there could be things that occurred out of my viewscape and I am not the "complete authority", but that would only be expressed because, yes, I would like to see the greater truth revealed without bias, and even the truth contained in my head that I tried to advance to these authors. It is interesting how there are many sides to "truth".   Were there, though, war crimes?  I would say yes, much like there are reportage crimes.  For another example though,  I was Sergeant Haugh's RTO for quite a while and I knew him well, knew his integrity, his conscience and his heart.  He was a very good man and this reportage of a lack of integrity (that he murdered innocent people)is completely erroneous and a very obvious lie to me.

Having been killed in action, he has no opportunity to defend the claims.

   I wish the reporters could have been as conscienable in their efforts as Wikipedia has the opportunity to be, yet I am not sure if these reporters could even be aware of their own biases, their own vested interests. Certainly I work on mine.
     ---- November 11, 2008   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Clint (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 

In the "Notes" section of the book Tiger Force, Michael Sallah and Mitch Weiss provide the text of numerous sworn statements from solders and other documentation recorded by the Army investigators. This documentation provides unambiguous historical evidence for the claims that, for a period of time, team leaders and members of the Tiger Force unit routinely ordered and committed war crimes.

Sallah and Weiss also obtained a large amount of information from recent personal interviews of members of the Tiger Force unit during the time the atrocities took place, as well as their families and friends. These interviews corroborate the results of the Army investigation.

In response to your question, this is some of the documentation provided by Sallah and Weiss that some members of the Tiger Force unit collected human ears and wore necklaces composed of human ears:

CARPENTER: We were nearing a hillside in the Song Ve Valley while walking on a foot trail when Ybarra fired his M16 twice. As soon as we heard the shots we took defensive positions, then Sgt. Edge and I went over to Ybarra, who was kneeling over a Vietnamese boy. The body had blood all over its head and a large portion of the head was missing as a result of being shot twice by Ybarra. As I got to Ybarra, he was holding a hunting knife in one hand and a human ear in his other hand. While I was watching, I saw Ybarra cut the remaning ear from the dead body. Ybarra put both of these ears into a ration bag that he had taken from his jacket pocket. While he opened his ration bag, I could see that there were several human ears in it also. Ybarra replaced the bag of ears into his pocket just as calmly as he removed it.

QUESTION: Why was Ybarra permitted to cut this boy's ears off?

CARPENTER: Cutting the ears off of the dead was an accepted practice within the Tiger Force. By accepted practice, I mean it was accepted by the men in the field that were actually doing the fighting.

(Sworn witness statement of Specialist William Carpenter on January 18, 1973. Reproduced by Sallah and Weiss on pages 335-336. Obtained by Sallah and Weiss from the National Archives in College Park, MD. My emphasis.)

QUESTION: Do you remember him (Ybarra) in possession of a string of human ears or gold teeth?

MILLER: I remember that quite a few of the Tiger Force members had such a collection .... Collection of ears and cutting off ears from the dead was done in Tiger Force, but I had no fascination for such things, and had no contact with anyone who did so.

(Sworn witness statement of Sergeant Forrest Miller on January 18, 1974. Reproduced by Sallah and Weiss on page 371. My emphasis.)

Investigation disclosed that between Jun.-Nov. 67 at unknown dates and locations, Ybarra on numerous occassions cut ears from dead VN bodies; posessed a set of human ears and a jar containing two ears; possessed a string with human ears which he wore on several occasions around his neck and a gag with 15-20 gold teeth, suspected to have been removed from dead bodies.

        Investigation also disclosed an undetermined number of TFRP members ... were observed in possession of human ear, scalp, and gold teeth collections ...

(The "Report of Investigation" on the Tiger Force case by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division. Reproduced by Sallah and Weiss on page 383. My emphasis.)

There was a period of time when just about everyone had a necklace of ears.

(Statement by medic Larry Cottingham to CID investigators in 1973. Quoted by Sallah and Weiss on page 335. My emphasis.)

The evidence above demonstrates that the following claims in bold below are either false, unsubstantiated, or irrelevant:

For a short time in 1967, the unit was accused, and investigated of committing various war crimes, including indiscriminate attacks, rape, mutilation, and torture. Some reports by former members of this unit state that the soldiers wore necklaces composed of human ears. These particular charges where refuted. However, as the Operation Tailwind episode [1], the disputed No Gun Ri incident of the Korean War [2], and B.G. Burkett's book Stolen Valor [3] show claims about atrocities made decades after the alleged events took place cannot be taken at face value. There where [sic] many reports saying just the opposite, from much more reliable sources within the unit. While the Army gave credence to these reports refuting some of the more outrageous claims, investigative reporters from the Toledo Blade spent a significant amount of time and effort investigating various claims of wrongs committed.

I will therefore remove these claims (in bold).

AviN1 05:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Cited before created?

First paragraph: How did they get a citation before they existed?

Formed in May of 1967 but cited in 1966? -Jeff

Too restrictive page ?

I found that page : http://www.tigerforcerecon.com/. It seems that "Tiger Force" still exists since Vietnam ? 81.67.39.165 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation not given?

I found this page http://www.answers.com/topic/tiger-force-1 that contains the EXACT same wording and pictures as this article. Neither article cites the other one.

That's because Answer.com copies everything from Wikipedia.--James Bond 07:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Rank

As commisioned officers shouldn't LTs be listed before SGTs as LTs out rank SGTsBushido Brown 06:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Links (names of unit members)

The links to William Carpenter and Charles B. Fulton points to non-related persons. Charles B. Fulton (the one linked to) would have been a very old soldier, as he would have been close to 60 years old at that point in time. Why have all the names linked, when there are no information about the individual members except for two of them? Make the names links when there is information about them. 70.244.173.235 05:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiger Force

I am a Tiger force veteran. I know many of the men who served during that time. I run the Tiger Force web site. Much of what was reported in the Blade articles was writen with en eye to sensationalism. the authors virtually wrote a novel. for instance, in the book, there is a description ofwhat was supposed to be going on in one soldier's mind. The man died a long time before the authors even heard about Tiger Force, and never discussed any of his feelings with anyone. that sort of writing is nolonger a report, itis a novel. It is fiction. the book and article did only the most venial and mean spirited of harm to the history, reputation and honor of a unit that behaved in the most couragious and honorable manner. It is a fact that Tiger Force is the ONLY platoon sized element in the entire US armed forces to have been awarded two Medals of Honor. Several of the highest leaders in the military came from Tiger Force, a unit that lived up to it's original founding concept, to be the best amongst those who excell. One final observation: I have had to endure hundreds of hate letters, and foul language entries on our old guest book. All of those posts where done by childish people who never served in any military force. They have no real experience with how ugly things can get. They have no idea what our men and women of the armed forces are enduring NOW.

Many of us from that era went on to become productive members of a country that little respected or appreciated our sacrifices. I practiced Emergency Medicine until I retired, several are scientists, many are business owners. At least two that I know personally are PHD's in either literature or history. Yet for some reason, the only guys interviewed were men who are broken, severly sticken with PTSD, and who's stories when not documented, where questionable. Hank. Medic, Tiger Force, 1968/69 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hankpac (talk • contribs) 09:38, October 25, 2006.

Like Hank, I joined Tiger Force after the supposed incidents. I hope that several of the more eloquent vets who were with the Tigers during the period of supposed atrocities sign in and comment. To distill both my views and some of the comments I've heard from reliable vets who were there: --I believe there were some form of atrocities commited by individual members of Tiger Force during that limited period. BUT I believe the book exaggerates the nature and extent of these atrocities and descends into psychobabble trying to explain these isolated episodes and then creates an exagerated description of them--both due to pre-set agendas of the writers as well as questiuonable first hand accounts. --Harold Trout--accused in the book of murder, rape etc was an outstanding soldier in my experience during a period after the supposed war crimes. A professional. I would never have thought him capable of the actions described. I saw him interact with civilians during the Tet offensive--he was never less than professional. --Jimmy Haugh in the book sounds like an amateur soldier. In fact, he was among the best I ever served with, up to his death in '68 in a firefight. Based on accounts I had heard before the publishing of the book, his supposed wanton murder of a civilian--described as a close quarters killing in the book--was in fact an 800 meter sniper shot in which a farmer carrying a tool looked like he was carrying a weapon. Jimmy did ultimately kill that farmer, but it was an honest mistake that cost him severely mentally. --The book makes the farmers in the Valley that were the targets of Tiger Force sound like innocent people whose ancestral love of the land kept them in the Valley despite the VN government's edicts that they move (a mission assigned to Tiger Force and other 1/327 units to carry out). In fact, at least one veteren of the period reports that stay behind recon units saw many civilians mingling with and assisting the North Vietnamese Army and one of the reporters who went to Vietnam to interview Vietnamese "victims" reportedly admitted that a number of the people conceded to being VC. Neither of these facts are related in the story. These "civilians" were not necessarily innocents. --The book fails to depict Tiger Force as an efficient combat unit and only focuses on atrocities and depicts an out-of-control bunch of guys with guns. In fact, there were a number of impressive individual combat operations conducted during that period, including a spectacular one in which a small Tiger Force element infiltrated NVA rear units and killed senior North Viet army personnel. None of these positive examples are described in the book--only the negatives are related.

While many of we 101st veterans concede some bad things appear to have happenend in that valley, the specifics and the causes are not nearly as clear cut as the book would suggest.

I would further point out that soldiers are prone to exaggeration when talking to non-vets (I barely believe myself), so some of the more sensational first-hand accounts should be viewed with healthy skepticism.

The Tiger Force described in the book is nothing like the one I saw, despite many of the same personnel being involved.

Ron Christian Tiger Force '68Rchristian101327 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your feelings. See, we have a this problem that we must stick to verifiable sources. Naturally we can use your official site among our sources. To show your POV better it would be useful if you quoted the released Army material on your site for example so any critical reader can himself see through the subject on his own.

It is often hard to believe claims of attrocities commited by people you know or from institutions you have been part of. In Germany we had in recent times very frequent and unfortunately true reports about our soldiers like extreme humilitation (Abu Ghureib style as "counter torture training") of simple recruits by NCOs in Germany or soldiers abusing skulls (also sexually) in Afghanistan. I was in this club for some months like many others and actually it was hard to believe for us. A former classmate and some acquaintances (none of them charged) were even down there. Somehow it was really hard to believe these reports to be true first.

A different case was a very popular teacher at my school (whom I and my others greatly admired). He was convicted guilty for raping his minor daughter for several years.

Collecting human ears is an old military tradition. It shouldn't be carried on in modern times. On the other hand would you piss off an comrade in arms who saves your back if he wants to collect?Wandalstouring 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A snapshot

If one was to view your life and worth from a single snapshot of your worst and most regretable moment rather than a video of your entire life experience, what would you say? I served as CO and XO of the Tiger Force from June 66 to Feb.67, and to the day I die will cherish the memories of the honorable men with whom I served, the victories God gave us over our ruthless enemy, AND the manner in which we dealt with the innocent South Vietnamese. Whatever happened later in 1967 will surely never be known. Somewhere between what the novelists described and outraged vets profess lies the truth. Wherever it falls, it is not good and a blemish on the record of the Tiger Force established by the blood, sweat, toil and tears of many good and decent men. I say what you would say. Judge the Tiger Force from its inception in 1965 through this very moment in Iraq, and pay some deserved respect to those who had nothing to do with its only blemish. We, even more than you, find whatever happened reprehensible. John Carey Phuhu1 03:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ron Christian here. I am responding to Wandalstouring's comments made years ago. He compares my extremely positive recollections of Harold Trout and Jimmy Haugh, both denigrated in the book, to his teachers child abuse--done behind closed doors. I was with those soldiers in the "bedroom", I saw them interact professionally with civilians and behave as truely splendid soldiers a few months after the reported incidents. Thye turned from savages or incompetents to superb soldiers in that span? Not likely. That is hardly comparable to your teacher abusing his daughter behind closed doors. I do not operate the Tiger Force web site--HankPac does that most admirably and it is not run in defense of Tiger Force but more for Tiger Force veterans to gather and share memories good and bad. Wandalstouring's comments about abuses by American soldiers in Afganistan is also packed with unsubstantiated comments. Abu Grab (sp?) largely amounts to college pranks commited by idiots. As to other comments about Tiger Force not being the most highly decorated comparably sized unit, I have little historical knowledge except to say that the counter argumets presented about the North Dakota unit in the Phillipines and the further comment about SOG winning more medals was right on. The Phillipines personnel were awaded wholesale Medals of Honor during a period when the Medal of Honor was the ONLY medal for bravery. Hardly comparable. And SOG (Special Operations Group) was a significantly sized aggregation of among the best soldiers in the military, comprised of Special Force, Seals and many other elite soldiers. They were certainly WAY beyond the size of Tiger Force. They deservedly won many medals, and certainly not as many as they deserved. Neither, however, is an apples to apples comparison with Tiger Force by any stretch. Ron Christian71.225.110.194 (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Substantial changes to discussion of war crimes, and reorganization of Notes, Works Cited, and External links sections

I have made a large number of changes to the Tiger Force article:

• I merged the "Allegations of war crimes" section with the "Investigation" section. The "Allegations" section did not clarify who made the allegations, when the allegations were made, and when the alleged war crimes took place. The section did not cite any sources either. I therefore consider it to be unsalvagable.

• I haven't found evidence that the reporters "received a tip about unreleased U.S. Army records of an investigation into war crimes." Rather, Sallah and Weiss report that they were given access to the unreleased records of Henry Tufts, and that these records led them to request documents produced by the Coy Allegation held at the National Archives. This is subtly different. I modified the article accordingly, and included citations to support my claims.

• The article listed the alleged war crimes only once, without citations, in the "Allegations" section. This list is vague. I therefore created a more detailed list of war crimes, citing the sworn witness statements of Tiger Force veterans produced during the Army's investigation.

• The statement that "The Army's investigation was shelved during Donald Rumsfeld's first month as U.S. Secretary of Defense" is true, but it is only relevant if Donald Rumsfeld was the one who decided to close the case. As far as I am aware, Sallah and Weiss do not make this claim, and I am unaware of any evidence to support this claim. I therefore removed the statement from the article.

• The following claim is uncited, and I do not believe it is correct: "Blade investigators seemed to be interested only in the most sensational stories, and ignored soldiers who where present, but who told a different story than that ultimately written." I therefore removed it.

• The following claim is uncited: "In an on-line network of former Tiger Force soldiers, many have expressed outrage and feelings of betrayal, at the way they where either ignored, or had their stories twisted." I therefore removed it. To be fair, however, I did add a "Charges disputed" section that summarizes statements made by Hank and Ron Christian on this Talk page. The content of this new section is verifiable.

• The following claim is uncited: "The Blade used a copywrited image from the Tiger Force web site, to use in the series. They offered no compensation, nor did they ask permission." I also question whether it is important enough to be included in the article, given that it has no relevance to the validity of the reporters' findings. For these reasons, I removed the claim from the article.

• I removed the claim that the book "did not perform well with critics or a wider audience and received various criticisms, and sales of the book have languished." This claim is uncited, and I am relatively certain that it is mostly false.

• The description of the recent Army Tiger Force probe was an almost word for word reproduction of text in Joe Mahr's article "Tiger Force answers still elusive." The article was also uncited. I rewrote the description and cited the article.

• I removed the References section (which was not being used much) and created separate Works Cited and Notes sections. This allowed me to refer to numerous pages in the Tiger Force book without reproducing the full citation in the notes section each time.

• I rewrote the awards paragraph, which was unorganized, lacked some citations, and contained some errors.

• I fixed the External links section and added a link to NPR's interview with Michael Sallah. I also moved the link to the Pulitzer Prize website to the section of the article describing the receipt of the award.

AviN1 03:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Wandalstouring 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your contribution #6. Wikipedia talk pages are definitely not sources. We have no way of knowing if they are authentic soldiers in the Tiger Force or just some college kids making up stories. Aran|heru|nar 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Aranherunar,

I added the "Charges disputed" section in an effort to maintain a neutral point of view. The intent was to present all significant viewpoints, and allow readers to judge the relevance of each view point and to review the evidence (or lack of evidence) for each viewpoint.

I stand by my statement that "The content of this new section is verifiable." I was careful to write "a number of individuals who said they served in Tiger Force ... " and wrote that each of these individuals identified themselves as Tiger Force veterans, and not that these individuals are indeed Tiger Force veterans. (I have little doubt that these individuals are indeed Tiger Force veterans, but I agree that this has not been verified.)

Upon further review of Wikipedia's policies, however, I believe that such a section probably does not belong on Wikipedia. The section appears to violate the no original research policy which states that "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." A Wikipedia Talk page probably cannot be classified as a reliable publication.

I therefore agree that removing this section was appropriate.

A second change that you made is that you restored the following statements about Kenneth Green and James Barnett:

• Spc. Kenneth Green raped a young teenager with Sam Ybarra, and the pair then killed her.

• James Robert Barnett reportedly shot a mother and her child, later testified that Sgt. Trout ordered him to.

These statements include no citations, however, and I question the accuracy of both of them. I also believe it is unfair to identify only a small fraction of the soldiers investigated for war crimes, when these soldiers are not necessarily the most notable alleged war criminals. For these reasons, I will remove these statements.

AviN1 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Factual Error

The article claims that

They are the only platoon sized element (approximately 30 men, below the "Company" in organizational standing), who's members have been awarded two Medals Of Honor (Lt. James Gardner, and SSG John Gertsch)

.

It sounds nice, ignoring the grammatical error, BUT Young's Scouts, 1st North Dakota Volunteer Regiment, Philippine-American war had no less than thirteen MOH's awarded between 16 and 19 May 1899. Among those were Captain William E. Birkhimer (who later became a Brigadier) and Corporal Frank L. Anders . I am working on articles for ALL of these winners. Cheers V. Joe 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Since people are often hesitant to WP:Be Bold when removing information from a lengthy article, even when it's demonstrably false, I've gone ahead and done it for you. Thanks for alerting us! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

While I have no doubt as to the bravery of Young's Scouts in the Philippine-American War, particularly during the engagements after which fifteen Scouts were recommended for the Medal of Honor (May 13th and 16th, 1899, in addition to April 12th 1899), the above contention of a "factual error" needs to be put into more proper context.

The fact is that, until WWI, there was only one medal awarded for bravery within the U.S. military: the Medal of Honor (MOH). The Badge of Military Merit, the antecedent to the Purple Heart, fell into disuse after the Revolutionary War and was not reincarnated as the Purple Heart until 1932. Prior to WWI, the MOH was often awarded for deeds that were later deemed not to merit that distinction. As other medals were created for bravery, a recall was requested for 910 MOH's that had been previously issued, but were for actions no longer considered exceptional enough to warrant the MOH. The Silver Star, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross were created in 1918, 1918, and 1919 respectively for recognition of gallantry or extreme gallantry in combat. (As an aside, Colonel David Hackworth, the Tiger Force's "founder", is the record holder for most Silver Stars awarded to a single person. He earned ten Silver Stars for service in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, in addition to two Distinguished Service Crosses.) Many of the MOH's awarded prior to 1918 that were not later reclassified are still considered dubious according to today's standards based upon the development of the criteria. This is a commonly held belief and widely advanced contention.

Several changes in the evolution of the criteria for the MOH stand out as most salient. Prior to World War II, the MOH could be awarded for actions not involving direct combat with the enemy; 193 men earned the medal in this way. According to the Army's Code of Regulations, the MOH is now currently bestowed on individuals who distinguish themselves through "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States." In addition, due to the nature of its rigorous criteria, it is now most often awarded posthumously. Again, not to impugn the accomplishments of Young's Scouts, but not one of the MOH's awarded to the Scouts were done so posthumously. In fact, of the eighty-six men awarded the MOH during the Philippine-American War, only four were posthumous. Compare that ratio (87:4) with more modern conflicts and it is clear that a drastic change occurred to the standards by which MOH's were bestowed: WWII: 464 total, 266 posthumous. Korea: 135 total, 97 posthumous. Vietnam: 246 total, 154 posthumous.

To compare the respective eras with an aim at minimizing the accomplishments of Tiger Force, as the above respondent attempted to do, without mention of the award's very important criteria evolution and growth is at the very least misleading, incomplete and foolish. Let there be no doubt that Tiger Force is at the pinnacle of elite medal recognition amongst platoon-sized units in the history of U.S. modern warfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.33.16 (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh...you're forgetting SOG, which was never very large and was certainly more decorated. And that only counts the medals that WERE awarded.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh... I'm not forgetting SOG. Never very large? MACV-SOG was a brigade-sized unit. At its peak, it had nearly 2,000 members and 8,000 indigenous or third-country mercenaries, leading to a total of over 10,000 military personnel and civilians either assigned to or working for MACSOG. An estimated 7,800 U.S. military personnel served in SOG over its eight-year existence. Tiger Force was a platoon of 45 paratroopers. I am in no way attempting to diminish the accomplishments of SOG, which was truly elite and which counts many of the toughest, most courageous soldiers the U.S. military has ever seen among its alumni. I'm simply trying to compare units of similar troop strength.

Vandalism, reliable sources, and the focus on war crimes

Hankpac,

I am removing your comments from my user page, and will reproduce it below:

I made a major contribution to the Tiger Force article, and my entire work was replaced with the garbage that now appears. Don't accuse me of vandalism, when the two dirt bags who posted their advertisement for their book of trash have complete control of the page, and do whatever they want. Weiss and Salah are marketers of the worst type of journalism, one that makes money out of other people's misery. The current entry is nothing more than an ad for their book, which book is failing to find an audience. Don't hold yourseves up as fair and neutral. The post as it lies (an appropriate word) focuses only on the short period of 1967, but makes the entire team and it's entire history seem to be involved in that single period. gone are the entire years of honor and courage, and selfless sacrifice that typifies Tiger Force's many ears in the jungles of Viet Nam. gone are the reports of savage torture perpetrated by NVA soldiers on Tiger Force prisioners, tortured until death, and left horribly chopped up for other Tigers to find them. Gone are the entries of the two men who earned Medals of Honor, the only platoon sized element to recieve such awards. Gone also are references to the high ranking achievments of leaders who became Generals. Weiss and Salah only want to destroy the honorable history of Tiger force, and by focussing on only those few months have effectively hatched the honorble history of some of the finest men in the entire Armed Forces of the United States. Restore my original work.

First, as far as I can tell, you have not cited sources for any of the claims you have made that have been subsequently removed. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy requires that "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article," and that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Second, if you believe that one or more aspects of the Tiger Force article violates the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy or any other Wikipedia policy, then please explain how the policy is being violated, and how you recommend we correct that violation.

Third, I am sympathetic to your concern that the article only focuses on the period of time of the alleged war crimes, and does not give much coverage to other periods. Perhaps we can try one of the following approaches to help resolve this problem:

• We can add more information about Tiger Force from other periods. The problem with this approach is that I am not aware of any sources that provide a significant amount of information about Tiger Force which meet the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy, other than the sources that focus on the alleged war crimes. If you can find such a source, we can certainly consider adding information from that source to the article.

• We can rename the Tiger Force article with a name such as "Tiger Force war crimes," "Tiger Force alleged war crimes," or "Investigations of Tiger Force war crimes." This will demonstrate that the article is an article about the alleged war crimes committed by some Tiger Force members for a period of time, and not about Tiger Force in general.

I am also open to any other recommendations you or any other editors have on how to resolve this problem.

AviN1 03:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read all of your remarks on this subject carefull. I do not see any citation ( to refer to your requirment) that you are of sufficiant authority or have the knowledge of the subject to fix, change or otherwise edit the input of veterans of the unit in question. I personally know severl of the others who herein namethemselves as Tiger Force vets. If you want an authoritative site, peruse the original Tiger Force Recon web site, that I own. <www.tigerforcerecon.com> It has photos of most of the men mentioned. A referal to that site would at least be courteous. As mentioned by myself, and others, a heading that covers the entire history of the unit will be more inline with an encyclopeadic work. As to citations, come on, bro. I and other s ARE the authority, we ARE the citation. I say something happened be cause I SAW it or DID it. I was there for every single instance I say I was. Although ostensibly made up of 30, even 45 men, tigers often was sorely depleted by enemy action, rotations, and other attriting factors. I stand by my statement that no other unit this size in the US military has two Medals of Honor. Certainly, no other platoon unit in Viet Nam has two. Finally, you should know of the unconsionable harm being done to many veteraans who served and sacrificed so much, by allowing Weiss and Sallah such a free hand to use this medium as a promotional site for their book. You are not ever going to have anyone who was there submit their DD214 (ever heard of that, even?) to prove to you they were there. Run their name past me, and I will tell you if they are legit. After all, just because someone cites something, on a page, in a book or a report doesn't mean that the citation wasn't a lie to begin with. Many cases turned out to be just that. ..."If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it..." thisis a statement at the bottom of this page. You make me live by it, but don't seem to hold Sallah and Weiss to it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankpac (talk • contribs)

Hankpac,

There is no policy that editors on Wikipedia must be an authority or an expert on the subject of an article they edit.

Further, I have no problem with the suggestion that the article should cover more Tiger Force history. The problem is that none of the historical statements you have added to the articles are verifiable. You might claim that a statement is true, but without any kind of historical documentation, a reader cannot determine whether it is true.

In contrast, almost all the historical statements I have added to the article are verifiably true. For instance, it is verifiably true that "The statements, from both individuals who allegedly participated in the war crimes and those that did not, described war crimes ..." because Sallah and Weiss reproduce U.S. Army records containing transcripts of those statements. Similarly, the statement that "The investigators concluded that many of the war crimes indeed took place" is verifiably true, because Sallah and Weiss reproduce the U.S. Army's "Report of Investigation" on the case.

Finally, I am not aware of any evidence that either Sallah or Weiss have used Wikipedia to promote their book. In fact, I am not aware of any evidence that Sallah or Weiss have edited (or even read) the Tiger Force article on Wikipedia at all. If you have any such evidence, please present it.

AviN1 00:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My Lai photos

It is not appropriate to include photos of My Lai in this article about Tiger Force. Tiger Force was not responsible for, nor did it have any role in, My Lai. Including such images - and labeling them as "Tiger Force" is blatantly "bad data". Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim Raysor

This guy was my boss, and claimed to be tiger force. He has posted on various Tiger Force sites and whatnot, such as this one: http://327infantry.com/first/jim_raysor , but if someone could find out for sure if he was actually in Tiger Force, it would be helpful.209.159.249.72 (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, some googling turned up [4], [5]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Am reading this book ATM. And Sorry with all those soldiers knowing about it and nothing come about it.???

There is this part: Sgt. Eric Walker[21] (Implicated in leading nearly all controversial events) missing in action. why cant i find any info on this soldier in the MAI data base?or any Google info??or is this not his name?? Cavedog71 (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"corporal officer"

The article mentions some entity called a "corporal officer". It's not clear what rank or function this is supposed to be. There is no such entity in the Army (that I've ever heard of). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.106.217.125 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)