|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jessica Lynch article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Allegations of fraud
To avoid an edit war over the latest changes, I propose we keep the line "Jessica recently accused the military of lying and inventing stories about her heroic acts for their own benefit" in the intro. Change the later edits to "Some major media outlets..." And then remove the "illegal" description of the war. Yes, I know Anan said it was illegal, but so are nearly all wars, and we don't tag them as illegal as well. To do it here is POV-pushing. Thanks! --Dchall1 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To touch on this, I may not edit articles much, but this article is sourced based upon opinionated news outlets. Not upon facts, Lynch never stated that the US had been running a propaganda machine, or anything like that. All she said was that she never fired a shot afterward, they were trying to make her into a little girl Rambo, and she didn't understand why. So why does this article almost quote from the BBC article? I recommend that the article is changed to fact, not opinion. No POV pushing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why is there no inclusion of the allegations that this event was staged for propaganda? If the BBC alleged this, then there's your mainstream media source. Add it on.184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing the reference to the M16 as a gun that is notorious for jamming. There's no evidence from the sources I've reviewed that jamming was a big problem for the M16 after 1968, when a number of changes were made in the ammunition and design of the rifle. RFabian 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the reference should go back in. In the mid-1970's the M16A1 rifles (post change) we had in the Marines jammed in dirty, dusty or sandy conditions. We just chalked it up at the time to the fact that all military weapons, after design, are produced by the cheapest possible bidder.Lowellt 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the malfunctions; the article says that all weapon systems in her unit jammed. Am I to understand that every single rifle and top cover gun in that unit jammed, or is the article simply referring to the main guns? (Top cover guns) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
remove criticism heading
This article cyberbullies Jessica Lynch in several ways. Let's start with the criticism title. Jessica always told the truth, and the criticism is at the media, and govt officials who planted mistruth. A 9th grader could write a better bio than what is on this Wikipedia article, and there would probably be way less mean spirited bullying. No wonder schools do not allow citations and references from Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia supposed to be an accurate account of a topic or a mean spirited tool to bully people? Shame on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense. (Well, not the 9th grader part. Be nice, please.) The criticism isn't criticism of her as such, but of the original story of her capture. Given that, what would you suggest the section be retitled? --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- No one is bullying Jessica Lynch. Why don't you make a suggestion to improve the article instead of ambiguous accusations. Maybe we should re-title the section as "Controversy". The section title doesn't have to explain all the details and controversy is fairly neutral. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The title of criticism is clearly biased and cyberbullying Jessica Lynch. It is clearly trying to convey something negative. How about media and government misinformation or a similar title. A title that does not cyberbully Jessica Lynch and actually has some historic truth, unlike the current slandering cyberbullying title. Seriously why is there so much cyberbullying of Jessica Lynch on this article? Shame on your biased, bullying and mean spiritedness. Jessica didn't do anything wrong yet this article inaccurately conveys negative content in several places. And saying a 9th grader could write a better article is the truth... how does it feel when the negative thoughts are directed at you??? That's how Jessica Lynch feels from the slandering cyberbullying in this article. Shame in Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- As you can see above, I am willing to argue against including things that I think are unfair to Lynch. That said, ranting and repeating the word "cyberbully" over and over doesn't make you sound credible, serious or even rational. Drop the hyperbole, be specific and use policies and guidelines to support your position. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Oah, I see. This article can cyberbully Jessica for years via slander and cyberbullying, but when someone points it out you make a federal case of it??? Seriously, it shouldn't take a nuclear physicist to write a fair article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? "Federal case"? Do you even know what the expression means? (That's rhetorical because you obviously don't) If you bothered to look on this very page, you'd see I fought to exclude material that really didn't belong in her bio. Regardless, you've demonstrated that there is no reason to discuss anything further and vandalism on this page will be treated as such. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Please, be constructive. We're people just like you, trying to do our best. And yes, some of us are ninth graders, and others really are nuclear physicists - but that's not too useful for this article. We're not perfect; as you can see, we can get our feelings hurt, and that can distract us from making things better. Let's try to make it better. You brought up a good point that the title of the Criticism section could be better. What's your suggestion on how to change it? Do you like Metal Lunchbox's suggestion "Controversy"? To me that seems better, but maybe we can do better still. What are your ideas? --GRuban (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- In case anyone missed it Niteshift36 changed the section heading to "Controversy regarding coverage" and I think that's a pretty good solution. Unless anyone has any particular objections maybe we can move on. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's a good section title. On a related note, it is likely that User:188.8.131.52 and User:184.108.40.206 are related in some way. They both like to toss about the 'cyberbullying' term without giving specific examples, and they also seem to have a bizarre foot fetish when it comes to Lynch. Steamroller Assault (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The convoy was meant to avoid Nasiriyeh entire;y. So the statement that "Maps of the area lack the detail required to properly navigate through tight city streets. Apparently, the convoy took more than one wrong turn" isn't really the point. They were lost when they reached Nasiriyeh, and ought to have avoided the city, rather than driving into it.220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
First POW rescue since Vietnam, or first since WWII?
The Iraq invasion article mentions that the successful rescue of Lynch was the first since WWII by US forces
"Task Force 20 carried out the first successful US POW rescue mission since World War II."
Meanwhile this article claims, (without any source apparently), that her rescue was the first since Vietnam.
"...was the first successful rescue of an American prisoner of war since Vietnam and the first ever of a woman."
Obviously both statements can not be true, so one needs to be changed to agree with the other.