Talk:Myth of the spat-on Vietnam veteran

I have watched personal testimony on YouTube of this practice. In YT's search type "Ron van Beek Vietnam" and go to 1:48:36 in the Precious Testimonies video.

Myth?

As one of the spat-upon, I object. I might add that, several of my fellow veterans in Vietnam Veterans of America shared similar stories. One of them spent his first night stateside in a cell because he flattened someone who spit on him.

Greene's book Homecoming' contained several hundred instances of spitting and disrespect, though few by hippies.

The new myth is we were not spat upon. Of course, if I spat on people when I was younger, I wouldn't want to admit it in later years.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

These kinds of stories are discussed in the article. Please provide documentation of the arrest or the police report from the arrest, or even just the name of the fellow veteran to Jerry Lembcke. He tracks and follows up on all of these. Wikipedia articles can only cite other's work and investigation.JohnKent (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Citations are not required for posting an NPOV banner.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

As you can probably tell, this article has a NPOV problem. @JohnKent here is asking for original research, which is NOT allowed. While it sounds like you yourself also has a COI, you could recommend changes on the talk page. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

As the son of a vietnam vet, I found this entire article utterly offensive. Not only did my father get treated like dirt when he came home, he was very careful to never admit he was enlisted lest he get his car door bashed in, decades after the war was over.

And on top of it all, I'm old enough to remember guys getting spat on when they came back from the sandbox. These freaks are trying to rewrite history. Wikipedia has hit new lows. 98.97.114.233 (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Nor is it required for me to break confidentiality to supply data to a researcher inimical to my fellow combat veterans.

Essay-like?

I'm the original author of this article. It has been tagged "essay-like" and I disagree. It is an encyclopedic and historically accurate discussion of a prevalent myth with 49 footnotes. I included every book and article I could find on the subject and discussed and cited them all.JohnKent (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I just became aware of this article today (with the links you've put on other articles).....and if this article didn't have this tag....then at minimum it would need the NPOV tag. It has some serious issues. The article on Lembcke's book (while not perfect) is a bit closer to what is needed. This article has a tone that completely dismisses the alternative POV expressed by people like Greene & Lindgren. In this article (as opposed to the article on Lembcke's book) it's like the argument is between the article writer & the opposing POV instead of between people like Lembcke & Lindgren. So yes, it's got some serious issues.

Furthermore, this article & the Spitting Image article both leave out important info that has come out via RS in more recent years. In the Ken Burns 2017 Documentary on Vietnam, Nancy Biberman, a anti-war activist who knew Tom Hayden and participated in student occupation of buildings at Columbia University, admits to calling returning Veterans "baby killers" (and having other harsh words for them). This is not to mention the Vietnam Veterans who say they were mistreated by elements of the anti-war movement. This was broadcast on PBS (which is on our RS list), so it's not something that should be ignored.

So yeah, this article needs a overhaul by a neutral editor. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

how is that relevant given that the article's topic is about the spitting urban myth rather than "harsh words"? (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The topic is about more than that. The topic deals (overall) with the attitude of war protesters towards Vets and vice versa. From the first two sentences of this article (with emphasis added): "There is a persistent myth or misconception that many Vietnam veterans were spat on and vilified by antiwar protesters during the late 1960s and early 70s. These stories, which overwhelmingly surfaced many years after the war, usually involve an antiwar female spitting on a veteran, often yelling "baby killer". So the article makes it about that. If it is simply about spitting.....than a lot of stuff needs to come out. Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If its about more than the specific myth about being spat on (with a little overlap into the general sense, for context), then the article name isn't appropriate, and should be more like "Myth of vilified Vietnam veterans" (Hohum ^@) 01:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It should probably be about Vet/Non-Vet relations. (Whatever that title would be.) Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Giving it some thought further today, I think a much more neutral title would be something like Vietnam Veteran Spitting Controversy. But first it has to be decided if this thing is going to be about relations between the anti-war movement and veterans/the military or just spitting. Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that some of the article could be reworded for WP:IMPARTIAL and content that isn't about the stated topic should be removed. The spitting trope is definitely notable and should be kept as a distinct article. Public opinion /civilian views about veterans is a different topic than is covered in this article. You could start another article about public opinion on Vietnam War veterans in the United States or something like that. (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be draftified for a bit. The "article" is basically an argument and essay explaining why the myth wasn't true (in the words of its creator, "It is an encyclopedic and historically accurate discussion"). I do think the basic concept could merit an article though. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

JohnKent: Until I deleted it, this article had a "conclusion" section that wrapped up all the main ideas and drove the point home. This is typical of an essay, but it is not typical of an encyclopedia article. That was easy to remove, but the rest needs to be revamped with a fine tooth comb. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

I disagree that this article doesn't have a neutral point of view. I have researched carefully and cited every significant source I could find on this topic. I have cited them all and presented the disagreements and consensus conclusions of academics and researchers fairly. Please provide evidence of a non-neutral tilt, and more, provide citable research that disagrees with the fact that this a verified myth.JohnKent (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As previously stated, the Ken Burns 2017 documentary presents the myth as fact. Beyond that, the article itself seems to be arguing rather than informing. All sources that claim the myth as true are dismissed by the article. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The article addresses the fact that several sources have presented the myth as fact, almost all based on anecdotal evidence. The sources that used the historical record were also discussed. Any time a source was disagreed with it was based on several cited researchers who had investigated and found flaws in the arguments. Please show any examples of unaddressed evidence that the myth is real. As for the Ken Burns doc, it has been critiqued exactly for ignoring the GI resistance to the war and extensive participation in the antiwar movement. I will look for his claim and add it to the article.JohnKent (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I found several references to the Ken Burns doc spitting incident you referred to. There is an interview in the documentary with Karl Marlantes where he claims he was spat on in the airport when he returned from Vietnam. He told the same story in his 2011 book "What It Is Like To Go To War." This fits into the anecdotal portion of the article - a story with no corroborating evidence or proof told many years after the war - and is already dealt with sufficiently in my opinion.JohnKent (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

'What It Is Like To Go To War' isn't mentioned....and it probably should be since it was RS. But I mentioned the Ken Burns docu because a number of Vets (aside from Marlantes) say they were treated badly by the anti-war movement. (Not to mention there is a confession on the "baby killer" part from a fairly notable member of the anti-war movement.) Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added the section on Karl Marlantes to deal with the anecdotal story told by him in the Ken Burns doc.JohnKent (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

you sure did. And handwaved it because it didn't match your WP:POV. Quite frankly, I'd rather you stop editing this article. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You've loaded the dice. Sorry you aren't observing NPOV. For starters, your introductory paragraph says this: "Since Vietnam veterans were often marching and leading antiwar marches, it makes little logical sense that non-veterans would be spitting on their fellow demonstrators. Even if one, or a few, of the dubious spitting incidents uncovered were true, they were demonstrably isolated, unusual and not at all representative of the overall relationship between antiwar forces and Vietnam GIs and veterans. In other words, they wouldn't represent an accurate image of the true dynamic. They would be isolated incidents portraying the exact opposite of the larger historical truth." This is sourced to Lebcke's book without a page number. At minimum, it should be stated that is what Lembcke is stating or it should be a direct quote. The headings of various sections aren't NPOV either. Stuff like "Anecdotal Stories" is a attempt to undermine the credibility of reliably published stories. We can't throw them out because of your personal opinion. I could go on, but this whole article is like this. Note what you tried to do with James Lindgren. [1] This whole article needs a big time overhaul. Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact remains that so far, none of these anecdotal stories have been validated by corroboration—contemporary news reports, arrest records, etc. despite the efforts of multiple researchers to substantiate the claims. A documentary is generally a RS for the fact that a person said something but not for it being true. Anecdotal evidence, uncorroborated claims does not receive the same weight as scholarly sources. The article does need edits for tone but WP:YWAB applies in my view. (t · c) buidhe 10:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

First off, it is not required that a spitting story be "validated" by "contemporary news reports, arrest records, etc". (This is criteria one of the researchers on this (i.e. Lembcke) has asked for. This is not a rule here.) The question is: do these accounts appear in RS.....and they do. Secondly, even this article points out there are such "contemporary news reports"....which this article hand waves away. Pointing out the lack of spitting stories at the time is a POV we certainly can and should include.....but so are stories that appear in RS. Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe With all due respect, I don't think a highly controversial claim with evidence for both sides is exactly comparable to letting people bleed out in order to cure illnesses. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not say it was exactly equivalent, only that a source reporting that X said something is only an RS for X saying something not for it being true. Wikipedia articles like this one should be based on coverage in scholarly sources. If there are good sources for the "other side" I have not seen them. (t · c) buidhe 17:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Well as it has been pointed out: there IS good RS for some of these stories. But all this is pointless until someone makes the call as to what this article is actually about. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to what an anecdotal story is vs a researched historical fact. Anecdotal stories are one person's memory of an event and are not considered good historical evidence unless there is corroborating evidence like other witnesses, documentation, etc.JohnKent (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement here that stories be excluded because they are "anecdotal". The question is: do these accounts appear in RS.....and they do. The anecdotal nature of said stories can be noted by criticism from other RS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

As noted in the article, there are over 200 anecdotal stories. These could not all be included and they are not considered as historically accurate as researched academic sources. That is why I put that section third in the article after studies and press reports. The fact that they all began emerging years after the war causes historians and scholars to look at them skeptically.JohnKent (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting putting in over 200 stories. But if they appear in RS (and they do) we should note that. Scholarly treatment of these stories should be noted as well. If you want a guide as to how everything should be treated (as far as WEIGHT and so on), the article on Lembcke's book is much closer to being neutral than this is. Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Please give some examples of it not being neutral.JohnKent (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You've been given examples (including my first post in this section). You've got three other editors telling you there are issues with this article as well as far as balance goes and so on. Continuing to ignore the issues we've asked you to address isn't helping things. And (for about the third time): you need to make a decision what this article is about. Fixing this starts with that. Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

But if so many stories are anecdotal and so few are direct accounts, it brings the narrative that this was widespread into disrepute. 2A0A:EF40:1296:6B01:38BC:8FFC:5D6C:DB8E (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That's OR unless it appears in RS. There is RS for both sides of this argument. Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This point has been refuted numerous times, but apparently needs to be said again. There very few, if any, reliable sources (RS) for the myth that vets were spat on by antiwar forces (see article). This issue has been examined by scholars who have found no evidence of "I was spit on" storied during the war or shortly after. Others have searched extensively for contemporaneous press reports, with a very few very debatable examples surfacing. And last, there are anecdotal stories, almost all of which appeared many years after the war. Only one or two of these have been even partially substantiated or corroborated and all are subject to the vagaries of memory (again, see article.) In short, it is just not true to state that there is "RS for both sides of this argument."JohnKent (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And as has been told to you before (numerous times): the standard of "contemporaneous press reports" is not a requirement here. That's a criticism leveled by people like Lembcke. What is required is that the stories appear in RS......and they do. What you consider refutation of these (including the issues raised about the timing of such reports in such RS) certainly should be included....but not the way you are doing it here. The article should begin by noting is a popular belief, then note the RS sources that say it (i.e. 'Homecoming...' and so on), then bring in Lembcke, et al who say it is a myth/not widespread and so on. Probably wouldn't hurt to throw in Lindgren's investigation as well.

Of course, the issue still stands that this article goes well beyond simply spitting. That part hasn't been addressed yet either. Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotal stories are borderline reliable sources for an encyclopedic historical article. Press reports, which you seem to dismiss offhand, are substantially more reliable for this purpose. And scholarly articles and studies are the most reliable for this purpose. You keep elevating the least reliable sources much beyond their usefulness for historical inquiries like this one.JohnKent (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

RS includes major publishers (which published these "anecdotal stories"). PBS is specifically mentioned on our RS list. And no one (including me) is saying we should ignore the scholars. But you have misrepresented what they have said. For example, in one of your first statements on this point you say: "So, not only has no evidence been uncovered by scholars of "I was spit on" stories, during the war period, or shortly after, but "there is no evidence that anyone at the time thought they were occurring", or felt it needed to be investigated." Your source for that (rather sweeping statement) is p.75 of Lembcke's book ('The Spitting Image'). There is no statement on that page of any scholarly study of spitting incidents....other than Lembcke himself. Just another case (and this article is packed with them) of you loading the dice. Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources include major publishers of anecdotal stories, but they are still anecdotal stories, and the "Homecoming" book you seem to be referring to was published almost two decades after the war ended (a book, which even the author admitted contained letters he couldn't even be sure were "real"). And your quoting one of the article's sentences and it's footnote obscures the fact that it is the summary sentence for a paragraph full of corroborating footnotes including a Harris poll, a Senate study, a scholarly article on the subject, plus Lembke's book. Please don't be so one sided.JohnKent (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Harris poll, Senate study, and so on you refer to (on p.75 of Lembcke's book) say nothing about any attempt to ascertain the accuracy of any spitting incident. They were general studies of Veterans reception upon returning among the public, family, freinds, etc. (I.e. was it "friendly", "not at all friendly" and so on.) Nothing about such specific incidents. It's interesting you call me one-sided when you misrepresent what the sources say.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point, which you seem to be missing, there was no discussion in any of those sources of spitting incidents because it wasn't on the radar and was not happening in any significant degree or it would have been in those studies and polls. How can they include something that wasn't happening?JohnKent (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is OR to go from "friendly"/"not at all friendly" reception (or the question not being asked) to "no spitting happened" or any other conclusion. We should stick strictly to what the sources say. Limbcke's point that the question was not being asked is a valid one from a secondary source.....but he is not scholars (plural).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Scholars or newspapers or polls don't have to say something isn't happening for it not to be happing. The fact that it wasn't being investigated, talked about or polled or reported was because it wasn't happening to any noticeable degree. If it was happening to the degree some think it was, it would have been all over the news, asked about in polls and visible in the scholarly studies of the period. I am a Vietnam vet myself, and friends with many other Vietnam vets and GIs, and can vouch personally for the fact that none of us even heard of a spitting incident until years later.JohnKent (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Your personal experiences are OR. If we went by that, anyone could come in here and claim anything. (Including people who say the opposite.) Again: if you want to make that point, go with the RS saying it.....but don't misrepresent it as multiple scholars when you just cite one. Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Footnote added. JohnKent (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

And it still has issues as far as VOICE, attribution and so on. Methinks you (either) don't know how to edit here.....or are just deliberately ignoring the rules. And the whole article is still like that and in need of a overhaul. Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Tbh I think we should just WP:TNT or draftify it. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The article also often inappropriately speaks with Wikipedias voice, stating various hypotheses as if they were facts, instead of making clear they are the opinions of particular people. (Hohum ^@) 23:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Some copyediting and trimming is needed to address WP:VOICE issues. There is also some content that is mostly peripheral to the subject that could be removed. The 'GIs, veterans and the antiwar movement' section doesn't really have anything to do with spitting. Also, changing the article title might help NPOV, as 'myth' might be too strong, especially given that it is disputed. Something like Allegations of spitting on Vietnam veterans might work. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Strange logic?

The article currently asserts that because half a million service members deserted during the Vietnam war, and because there were veterans among the anti war protesters, that it would make no sense for civilian protestors to spit on fellow (veteran) protestors. Ok, I agree with that last very narrow hypothesis... protestors aren't likely to spit on fellow protestors. But:

About 9 million Americans were in active service through the period. This makes a half a million deserters a little over 5.5 percent of veterans. The narrow hypothesis above doesn't address what people with anti-war sentiments thought of the other 94.5% of serving personnel and veterans.

A thousand veterans throwing their medals away a the US capital, likewise, does nothing to suggest what those with anti-war sentiments thought of serving personnel and veterans.

It just seems like handwaving to me. (Hohum ^@) 18:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This article has several issues being discussed right now, such as it's lack of neutrality. As you also said, what the article is about in the first place is also being debated on. Feel free to contribute to the discussion above, we need as much help as we can get. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I could go into this a bit more....(including (for example) a VA poll where Lembcke cherry picks his results: he includes what protesters thought of Vets....but conveniently enough, leaves out what Vets thought of them, and this is the tip of a rather deep iceberg).....BUT we need to try to stay on track here. As a poster above mentioned, we really haven't decided what this thing is about yet. It's the equivalent of building a 2nd floor when you haven't poured the foundation yet. However (at the risk of blowing my own advice): that is some pretty preposterous logic (as you noted). The notion that the anti-war movement was being led by Vets (and they were somehow a big part) is a little ridiculous. VVAW managed to attract a grand total of 25,000 Vets at their peak (out of the 2.7 million who did a tour there IIRC). RS also shows that while the VVAW opposed later actions like the first Gulf War, most Vietnam Vets favored our involvement. And last (but certainly not least) this whole notion is also specious because it ignores the fact there was a element of the anti-war movement that got pretty radical. That's important context. To put it in another way: if someone can bomb the Pentagon or burn down ROTC buildings (all well documented incidents)....this obviously isn't that difficult to believe. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You are not looking at the main evidence that the spat-on Vietnam veteran is a myth - there is scant contemporary historical evidence for it, and the few controversial examples that have surfaced after much digging by historian and others is ambiguous at best. What there is tons of evidence for is that vets joined the antiwar movement by the thousands and often led antiwar marches, a point very relevant to the discussion.JohnKent (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You are talking past the arguments made. It is not constructive. (Hohum ^@) 22:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

While your logic is questionable....this leads into the point I was making on your talk page: what is this article about? If we are talking about more than spitting, then some material (on the other side of the argument) needs to come in.....if not, then a lot of stuff needs to come out.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

So, instead of addressing our concerns, a new section about anti-war veterans and GIs has been added which doubles down on those issues. AGF is wearing thin for me. (Hohum ^@) 00:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

To me, it kind of answers the question as to what this article is about......ergo, I think a discussion about re-naming it is probably in order. (Not to mention a overhaul for neutrality and so on.) Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I addressed the point about content in the summary section not be addressed in the body of the article. Now it is.JohnKent (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hardly. The movie and comic entries in the lead are more detailed than the passing mentions in the article body, for a start. This is the exact opposite of how it should be. (Hohum ^@) 23:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"I WAS SPAT UPON"

That is what Colonel (ret.) W. Patrick Lang said happened to him. https://turcopolier.com/httpswwwnytimescom20171013opinionmyth-spitting-vietnam-protesterhtmlrrefcollection2fsection/ How can his first-person account be denied? For all of what he wrote, see below.

I WAS SPAT UPON in March, 1968 while transiting San Francisco International Airport en route to Travis AFB to board the trans-Pacific airlift en route to Vietnam. I was in uniform and waiting for the bus when a woman got out of her car and walked across the parking lot. She chose to spit on my chest rather than on a sergeant standing next to me so perhaps she had a thing for officers. I asked if the people at her house had a roster to schedule spitting on soldiers. She said they did. Perhaps they sent only women to do this.

I wrote to the NY Times yesterday to tell this story in comment on their article. They did not publish my comment. There are 217 comments on the article.

IMO the left is engaged in editing the narrative of that time so as to absolve itself of the ugliness of its own actions.

KHarbaugh (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC) KHarbaugh (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ain't it a bitch being mythical? As I said above, "if I spat on people when I was younger, I wouldn't want to admit it in later years." So reliable sourcing is ignored and political correctness trumps truth.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

If it was so widespread, why are there no contemporary reports? Out of thousands of returning veterans, surely some who were spat on would have reacted violently. But there are no contemporary news articles of veterans fighting with protestors. The FBI monitored the peace movement very closely and, if it happened so frequently, they would have known about it. But none of their reports mention it. Why? Surely the government would have utilised any evidence of misbehaviour by activists to discredit them. Why did these stories not emerge until years later? It makes no sense. 2A0A:EF40:1296:6B01:38BC:8FFC:5D6C:DB8E (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We are drifting into FORUM here....but I have to say: expecting FBI reports on spitting when they were monitoring the anti-war movement mainly for foreign influence and illegal activities (i.e. bombings, arson, etc) is quite amusing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

They were indeed monitoring it primarily for foreign influence. But that doesn't mean that they report NOTHING else. If they had, the FBI reports would have been very sparse, since foreign influence in the peace movement was minimal. It was present, yes, but far from a vast conspiracy of foreign subversion. Organisations like the KGB didn't need to, since American activists were doing plenty without need of Ivan's help.

If spitting was so widespread, at least one FBI agent on surveillance duty would make a note of it and it would be referred to in typed-up reports. Sure, entire reports wouldn't be dedicated to it, but it likely would have been referred to in passing, especially if it were widespread. However, it isn't mentioned anywhere in the reports, nor in any other contemporary sources of the time such as newspapers or TV news reports. Pro-war factions of the time didn't mention it and they would almost certainly have made political capital out of it. Spitting incidents possibly happened at least once or twice, but if it were a very common occurrence then there would have been at least some evidence for it from the time. Why is there such a lack of evidence for something that was supposedly so common. There are too many holes in the story to give it much credibility. 2A0A:EF40:12F0:C01:7111:A466:573A:993C (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well we are really getting into FORUM (and probably OR) here.....BUT.....I do have to say it is pretty strange to expect a FBI report on this. I mean, if I am a FBI agent in this period, I am wondering (relative to the anti-war movement) where Katherine Ann Power is, who bombed the Pentagon, who burned down quite a few ROTC buildings, who Tom Hayden met with in Czechoslovakia, etc, etc. This (I would think) would be last on their list. I mean, how many FBI reports mention them (for example) waving VC flags at these protests? (Something (thankfully) we have photos of.) Seems pretty trivial to report. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Another testimony

I have watched personal testimony on YouTube of this practice. In YT's search type "Ron van Beek Vietnam" and go to 1:48:36 in the Precious Testimonies video. 82.21.209.32 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The conclusion that this is a myth is logically invalid.

The proponents of this page claim that, because they have not found scientific evidence that veterans were spat on and called baby killers, that those things never happened. They arrived at that conclusion in spite of a significant amount of anecdotal testimony from veterans that experienced those assaults personally. You can add me to that list, as I was both spat on and called a baby killer. I also know several veterans who say the same happened to them. Using logic and critical thinking, the evidence shows that this behavior did occur. The proponents of this page clearly do not have any evidence of any effort to create and perpetuate a myth. At the very best, they could claim that the behavior did not happen as much as some seem to think. The title of this page clearly needs to be changed because the logic and evidence tells us it is not a myth. Louie Sam (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What you are saying is WP:OR. While this article has a lot of issues (as noted in other sections), we can't fix OR with more OR.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)