Talk:Jesse Macbeth

unsigned comments

-- To the preceding writer...I've been in the Army and the Air Force and can tell you that there is NO WAY that "the Army" could get away with a lie as big as it would take for them to say MacBeth was only in the service for 40 days. If MacBeth were in as long as he said he was, there would be others stepping forward to agree/disagree with his observations who would also verify that he served in Iraq; so please dismiss your conspiracy theory. -- On a broader scale...It is a big problem in our free society that people like Jesse MacBeth can lie with so much conviction that millions of people will believe him even after he has been proven to have fabricated the entire story...kinda like John Kerry!? Anyway, his words and images made great propaganda for the enemies of our free society. They also prove the adage of Mark Twain about a lie going halfway around the world before the truth has even gotten out of bed and put its boots on. --Like the "death stick salesman" in a recent Star Wars film, people who really believe the MacBeth fantasy should go home and rethink their lives ;-) Jaydela 18:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC) -- as far as I'm concerned, the arguments on both sides are a lot of hand waving. On purely gut level, something about that video appears legit to me. Maybe it is truth intermixed with falsities? I don't know. I am just not convinced that anyone can really make something like that up 100%. The "Jesse is a fraud" side presents many claims, but those claims are equally as hard to verify as Jesse's supposed claims. I'm not going to say "conspiracy", but if the Army wanted to keep something hush-hush, would they have some leverage to discredit any soldier? I think the answer is yes, they would. Since they have the means to discredit and misinform (in fact, information warfare was one of the tactics employed in Iraq, as we all saw on CNN), it is very hard for me to believe any source. Maybe there is no conspiracy, but I hope "Jesse is a fraud" people can understand my point of view. If Jesse is indeed a fraud, what kind of evidence would be good enough? What kind of evidence would be so strong that not even Government and Army could fake it? That's something that we should answer for ourselves and then only trust that evidence.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.205.38.140 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 May 2006.

All it takes is one look at the photo he has hanging up in his own house to tell you that the guy is a liar. The mistakes in the wear of his uniform have been covered pretty thoroughly. They aren't hard to verify - AR670-1 lays out the standard pretty clearly. His DD214 is laughably wrong. The man isn't only a liar, he's a frickin' moron. If you are going to impersonate a soldier, at least do a bit of research first. There is no conspiracy by the army to supress horrific crimes. Whatever bad things might have happened over there, this guy isn't a witness to them.--Nobunaga24 07:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

-- The video was produced and distributed with little if any attempt at verification. It was widely accepted by those whose views it supported and defended by the same. Rather than accept mistakes were made, statements appear declaring conspiracies are to blame. There is no conspiracy, there's just a fraud perpetrated by an individual who hoped for some selfish gain. What’s amazing to me is that so many who were readily accepting of this video and person immediately questioned anyone who challenged the video, and any fact presented to challenge the person. What’s amazing to me is that faced with a truth that’s undesirable it’s now blamed on right-wing conspiracy.

The article should stay since it educates about a fraud widely seen and accepted in and out of the United States. It also educates that damaging accusations and the people who make them should be verified before they’re broadcasted as facts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.205.89.41 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 May 2006.

-- Useful and please keep it. While this guy's story was not reported on by the media, I was approached by someone who urged me to report on this, as it was an "important" story. An hour of checking convinved me it was a hoax. This wiki page will help make future checks on this story easier.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.238.59.158 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 May 2006.

--Useful for at least the moment, as I had no idea what the story was all about until I read this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.0.36.242 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 24 May 2006.

-- There is no reason for this article to be deleted. His tale is now part of the historical record, and as the debate about Iraq continues people will want to reference the story of Jesse Macbeth. Keep the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.241.118.198 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 24 May 2006.

this entire article should be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.246.177 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 May 2006.

-- I second the deletion notice. This might be titillating in the short term, but is of zero long-term relevance. Just a moron with a camera and a few amatures who are learning a painful lession in fact-checking.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.212.203 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 May 2006.

why should fact checking be the lesson they learn? so the next fraud the ivaw puts forth will be more convincing?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 May 2006.

No.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.99.76 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 May 2006.

well, then how about, "if you have to lie to support your opinions, you should keep them to youself"?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 May 2006.

~~MacBeth resigned from his membership with IVAW this morning, and they are launching an investigation on to whether or not he is who he said he was.

Further, peacefilms.org has removed the film due to the criticism, and proof of fradulent claims by MacBeth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.173.91 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 May 2006.

Items posted to wikipedia are supposed to vbe verifiable. If there is a statement from Macbeth or IVAW about a resignation, then it would be proper to include it. But until then, it is not verifiable. But I'll update the article to reflect that the video was removed. Bugmuncher 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Announcement about IVAW.[1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.173.91 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 May 2006.

~~Today, the Army ran a check on Mr. MacBeth's credentials. It turns out that Mr. MacBeth has NO Army service record. Anywhere. Period. This is a direct quote given to me by Army spokesman Mr. Boyce: "Initial research by the U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg shows no Soldier with the name of Jesse Macbeth having ever been assigned to the Special Forces or the Army Rangers -- which are, in fact, two separate disciplines. This appears to be some sort of hoax. No Soldier by that name at Fort Lewis to our knowledge, in the past, either. Of course, the line about "go into the Army or go to jail" is vintage TV script not heard since the 1960s. There are also numerous wear and appearance issues with the Soldier's uniform -- a mix of foreign uniforms with the sleeves rolled up like a Marine and a badly floppy tan beret worn like a pastry chef. Of course, the allegations of war crimes are vague, as are the awards the Soldier allegedly received."[2]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.173.91 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 24 May 2006.

(The Army spokesman quote says he hasn't been assigned to the Special Forces or Army Rangers - it says nothing at all about his whether he was in the army. The "no army service record" is an inference by the writer of Just Citizens. Bugmuncher 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

You are citing an alleged army spokesman quote that is not on a government or army web site, and does not contain any contact information for said army spokesman to verify it. It is not a facsimile of an email or other official army quote. As such, this quote is no more verifiable than Macbeth's statements. How did you determine that this alleged quote was credible or real? --204.96.170.186 05:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[comment on NPOV dispute moved to NPOV dispute section]

This was the comment on peacefilms.org's guestbook before the website was erased:

Terry Portinga:

The Jessie interview will be taken down as soon as possible at the request of Iraq veterans Against the War pending their further investigation.

For further information, please see: www.ivaw.net

Thank you all for your comments in the Guestbook. Freedom of speech is the foundation of all other freedoms.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.173.91 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 May 2006.

signed comments

I believe the article is relevant. I attempted to maintain NPOV as I wrote it. Any NPOV experts are welcome to comment. Also, note that the warrant for Macbeth's arrest in Washington State is not listed, because it is not germane to his comments in the video. Bugmuncher 17:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

this article should not be deleted even though it appears that the video is fraudelent, at some future point when someone makes a reference to jessie macbeth, this article will be here for those who might have missed the hubbub, removing it would be like removing an article about the Piltdown man User:Taucetiman

Two points. First, the Wiki entry states: The video was removed from the site 23 May, 2006 following questions regarding the truthfullness of the allegations and whether Macbeth had ever been an Army Ranger. yet I can find no notice or corroboration of this on either the peacefilms web site, or the peppersprayproductions web site, nor have I read anything to this effect by IVAW or anywhere else (except as allegations on right-wing blogs). Can you even substantiate this claim? An alternative explanation would be the demand for the video exceeded the bandwidth of the peacefilms web site and it was temporarily disabled, or it may have been overwhelmed due to a DoS attack. Second, the entry states: A narrator in the video says that Macbeth "...served in Iraq for 16 months before being wounded..." The war began on 20 March 2003. The Eastern Arizona Courier reported on 3 November 2003 that Jesse MacBeth had returned 2 and a half months prior - roughly in late August of 2003, after sustaining a back injury, making such a deployment about five months long[3]. There's really no discrepancy at all with these facts. The U.S. did not suddenly station 250,000 troops in Iraq on March 20th. The U.S. has had troops stationed in countries and bases around Iraq for well over a decade, enforcing the illegally imposed "no-fly" zones during Clinton/Gore, and before Bush 43s war on Iraq began. The troop buildup for the war took place over many, many months. In fact, Macbeth most likely would have been deployed to Iraq well before March 20, even as early as April or May of 2002. The U.S. also had covert operations teams operating inside Iraq well before March 20, 2003. Macbeth needs to clarify the 16 months statement, but it in no way discredits him at this time. --204.96.170.186 05:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the information about why the video was removed (that was someone else), but the maintainer of peacefilms.org was actively communicating with several bloggers about the issue. The last thing I heard was that it was removed by the peacefilms.org pending an investigation by Iraq Veterans Against the War. But you are correct, something like this should be cited. I will remove it until something verifiable develops.

Also note that the article is not about discrediting Macbeth - It is supposed to be a presentation of verifiable facts that allows readers to make their own decisions about him. You are correct that Macbeth should be given the opportunity to clarify his statements. Many people are waiting for this clarification.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bugmuncher (talk • contribs) 05:37, 24 May 2006.

"In fact, Macbeth most likely would have been deployed to Iraq well before March 20, even as early as April or May of 2002. The U.S. also had covert operations teams operating inside Iraq well before March 20, 2003. Macbeth needs to clarify the 16 months statement, but it in no way discredits him at this time."

The fact that his name isn't in AKO or DOD Buddy Finder indicates that he's a total fraud.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.247.163.222 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 May 2006.

DEFINITELY needs to stay up, for the simple reason that many people will continue to see the video as it's circulated around the internet and there needs to be a definitive source exposing it as a fake. Otherwise people will believe this propaganda.--Ossanha 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be removed. There is a huge controversy which is consuming the blogoshpere right now over this story. If he turns out to be legit, a lot of people will have egg on their face. If he's a fraud (and it's certainly looking that way), then it will still be a noteworthy story - Assuming it is a total hoax, it's one so widely discussed that it's totally relevant. User:WilliamRyan

POV check

Sommerfeld placed the article in POV check after I suggested NPOV dispute might not be as appropriate. Currently the main concern is that most of the article came from me. I am also personally concerned that I could have made more citations; if I find other things to cite, I will add them later. Bugmuncher 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Experts suggest? Come on... see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I realize that "Experts suggest" is a potentially misleading phrase, however when military members, both current and former unanimously agree that his uniform is completely wrong and not even possible for someone of his age and service dates, it's easy to establish that his uniform is a complete forgery. The photograph that's panned over in the video is typical of both a DA photo (for use in promotion boards) and to mark special occasions (specifically entering Basic Training and just prior to deployment to a combat zone). A basic trainee would not have on a beret of any type. A Ranger deploying for combat would not have his uniform so horribly incorrect and poor-looking. It's not just my opnion. It's not just the opinion of the thousands of soldiers and other veterans saying this, it's ILLEGAL for him to appear in such a manner. Research Army Regulation 670-1 if you don't believe me. While I could type all that out, it's just easier to round off that point of the article by saying that "Experts"(The entire military community) "suggest" (loudly declare).EvilCouch 06:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's a weaselly conclusion. I am saying it is a generality, which weakens the article, which is not in anyone's interest. I have already downloaded Regulation 670-1 - and I know it's huge... but I can't even use it to back up all of the things that are wrong with his uniform. (it says that both metal and cloth insignia are permissible, and doesn't say anything about Rangers and metal insignias. Also I don't know how the colloquialisms match up... "combat patch" doesn't show up anywhere in the document.

Your help in making the article as specific as possible is appreciated. Bugmuncher 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no actual regulation specifically prohibiting the general wear of pin-on rank. However, in any Airborne unit, it's very much frowned upon. I'm trying to locate the AR that refers to Airborne operations. The reason is because any hard or sharp objects have to be removed or padded prior to jumping. This includes fixed blade knives that are not in a hard metal or plastic sheath, pin-on rank, weapons (they go into a M-1950 weapons case), etc. So, while someone could technically wear pin-on rank, they would would be strongly encouraged (through pain and sweat) by their chain of command to change to sew-on rank. When I was in Battalion, Rangers were generally given about a week after a promotion to get rank sown on. Past that, they were just begging for extra physical training. If you have a question about the discrepancy between how badges are typically referred to and their official name, just ask. If I don't know, I'll probably know where to find it. In the case of "combat patch" it is in section 28-17 of AR 670-1, under "Shoulder sleeve insignia-former wartime service". With as wordy a name as that, it's no wonder most people just call it a "combat patch". Have fun. EvilCouch 12:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Bugmuncher 14:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Should the lede suggest that the video is a hoax?

Should the lede suggest that the video is a likely hoax? I am considering putting something to that effect in there. The intro gives DOB information, like he's a real person, but where did we get that information? Are we sure this is the same guy, or just someone's name that they picked for the video? If someone was getting the "executive summary" of Jesse Macbeth from this article and just read the intro paragraph, they might still think it's real. -- Yekrats 09:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The claim that is was a viral video pushed out by the right is completely unfounded, the only evidence for this is that macbeth was just a liar for his own benefit--taucetiman

NPOV dispute

Now that the neutrality flag has been added, I welcome comments on what additional information I should have included or cited. The article does not jump to conclusions about Macbeth. Bugmuncher 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Bugmuncher has done a fair job maintaining nuetrality, but I would like to see the page reviewed and edited by more authors before the neutrality flag is removed. When it was added, the entire article had been written solely by one author. Wikipedia-style neutrality will naturally develop with the input of further authors.

Perhaps a POV check flag may have been more appropriate, given that nobody is disputing neutrality. No worries; i just practice NPOV every day in my real job, and I kinda wish my first attempt at an entry in a few years might not have been disputed so quickly. Bugmuncher 20:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a more reasonable template to describe the current state of the article. Given no specific POV complaints in the talk page as of a couple minutes ago, I made the change. --Sommerfeld 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Free to Camp Coalition

I've added information stating that Free to Camp Coalition is a anarchist group. Before people jump all over the statement as been NPOV, I will include two sites for people to view first. According to this site, the group is an anarachist group.[3] Also, you can view the groups own website.[4] Lokifer 04:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Free to Camp website does not mention anarchy. The Phoenix Anarchist Group having an annotated link to Free to Camp doesn't necessarily make Free to Camp an anarchist group. Do you think an anarchist group would present a 1200-signature petition to the Tempe City Council?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call them an anarchist group without knowing more. Bugmuncher 05:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

and so, bit by bit, this progressive fraud is being removed from the historical record. of course free to camp is anarchist. it seems like a petty thing to debate, but what must be understood is that progressives' violence against the truth won't be complete untill the record reflects that macbeth's alegations are at least ambiguously plausable and made independant from any established anti-war group.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 May 2006.

This is not the place to make a political stand, anonymous boldfacer. -- Yekrats 22:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous boldfacer - if you check the article's history, you'll notice that I started the article and supplied most of the citations in the first few days. I'm not at all a "progressive" who is "violent against the truth." Rather, I am interested in this article being irreproachably accurate, so that none from the left, the right, the center, etc. will detect a bias worthy of complaint.

To take your point even further, just because you have identified me as progressive doesn't make it so. Just as the Phoenix Anarchist Group identified Free to Camp as an anarchist group. That doesn't make it so. Just as IVAW for a time welcomed Jesse Macbeth as a veteran. That also didn't make it so. Bugmuncher 14:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Right Wing Blog setup

I checked the comments on the site just hours before it got shut down. I would say about over 90% of the messages were from right wing bloggers all focusing on the irregularities of the uniform. Could it be possible this was one elaborate manufactored scam to discredit the anti-war movement? Remember the Killian Documents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents

90% ? that makes it Encylcopedic? the Killian documents were a Karl Rove trick ? a Wiki cite doesn't do it for me. Killian doc source Lucy Ramirez has Initials similar to Karl Rove ..K +1 is L .. like IBM becomes HAL in 2001 Space Odyssey. Hrothgar 05:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

botomus—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.234.203.32 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 24 May 2006.

every single time a progressive is exposed as a fraud, dissembler, liar or criminal, the allegation that he or she was an agent of an omnipotent right-wing cabal is thrust forth where normal people would instead search themselves and their motivations with a sense of humility. you know the ugliest part of this cannard? the people who tell it don't actually believe it themselves, they think the other guy will believe it. unfortunately, this zeal to replace the historical record with party-approved lies is so intense that this article will be wiped or distoted before the month is out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 May 2006.

Agreed. The speed that Fox picked up the story and spun it on TV and the web(5-24-2006) with outright false and unverifiable claims could be nothing less than a set-up: "His blog was the 2nd most clicked on blog" etc... Whose blog? Jesse's? He didn't have a blog. 2nd most clicked on? Give me a break. Hardly anyone on the web watched this thing. I especially enjoyed Jesse called an ex-vet. What does that mean?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.148.169.47 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 May 2006.

Agreed. It only takes common sense to know that rightwing bloggers don't spend their time surfing for videos on stuff like this, but they came onto that site en masse in just a short period of time. It's possible just member of forum got a hold of the link and tipped off the rest of the crew but I think it's unlikely. Reading their orgasmic tones about the hoax on the wingnut sites, it looked like they already knew everything. No questions or curiosity about it like the rest of us.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1636770/posts]

Of course I can't prove any of this.

Everywhere I look though there's suspicion: the swift response response from the bloggers and FOX News even while hardly anyone from the left had seen the video, how everything that possibly COULD be wrong with his dress code is the way he poses in his photograph, and for real the supposed soldier in question seems like he's half-retarded. I can't for a second doubt that if he's not just doing this act because he needs attention, somebody with a motive against the war critics is pulling the strings.

--Lamrock 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have anything verifiable about your supposition to post, please add it to the article. Bugmuncher 05:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, ... this guy has apparently been active in the anti-war movement for quite some time. Just because it discredits the doesn't mean the right-wing is behind it. You sound like the UFO nuts that claim that anyone who tries to discredit them are part of the conspiracy.

Keebler—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.9.28.160 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 May 2006.

Don't be fooled: "Keebler" obviously refers to the "Keebler Elves" who make cookies in the magical Keebler Elf Tree. Aliens were often refered to as "Elves" in ancient myths; furthermore, cookies are used by the NSA to track all computer activity. Clearly "Keebler" is an agent of the vast crypto-fascist/Alien conspiracy. The truth is out there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.69.152 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 May 2006.

Arg! You found me out! Time to change my nick again... --Keebler71 19:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion

I nominate this article for deletion. It's not reported on the news, it's not a big deal at all. You can't make a wikipedia article for every internet hoax. You can list this under some article talking about internet hoaxes. But it does not deserve it's own internet article. Blog infighting it was not worthy of space on wikipedi--

perhaps it should be moved to be included in the article on the ivaw?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 May 2006.

Absolutely disagree. It has in fact been on the news; offhand, I saw it on Fox News (TV) today. Besides, if this isn't worthy, how is the Ben Domenech entry worthy of inclusion? (Or about a thousand others?) There's a well-documented history of people faking service records or war accounts for political purposes, and this is as valid and unbiased (NPOV) a part of that theme as any other. It just got caught by blogs faster than others have. Whether it makes the mainstream media or not is irrelevant. --(no user name); 00:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.209.191.158 (talk • contribs) .

No deletion. Expose the imposter.--Lamrock 05:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; this article does an excellent job of presenting an NPOV, and provides a source of valid factual information (without assumptions or namecalling) that can't be easily found when doing a simple google search on this person. I can't see that deletion is justified in light of this. --Grinning Fool 19:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This hoax is now a historical fact. It did occur. Just because it could be used to discredit a small segment of the anti-war movement doesn't justify sweeping it under the rug. More importantly, because it is an internet hoax it will undoubtedly resurface at some later time. The content needs to be here so that when it does resurface, the hoax has already been documented.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keebler71 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 25 May 2006.

Should not be up for deletion. A good and well documented account of a hoax that is part of the pro and anti war propaganda battle one of the more interesting aspects of the Iraq War.----Rsloch

No deletion. Macbeth has been mentioned in media from the Washington Times to Al Jazeera. Virgil61 02:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an important type of story. The "anti-war" movement has created some pretty desperate people Matt Sanchez 05:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In the News

Im not sure if this counts as a notable news report or anything, but this article has been linked to from [The Religion of Peace.com. Now I don't know if that warrents one of those "In the News" banners or not since its hardly a mainstream source of news, but I just thought i'd mention. Homestarmy 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This story was on Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson today (24 May 2006). --(no user name; 24 May 2006, 00:35 (UTC)

"Video is a hoax to vilify the antiwar movement..."

I readded this to the lede: "The video was spread by viral marketing through many Republican news-distribution channels, however now it seems to be an elaborate hoax created to vilify the antiwar movement." The video purports to be from a leftist organization trying to be antiwar, but very few in Left-ville had heard of Jesse Macbeth, Pepperspray Productions, or "peacefilms.org" before he started getting discussed on the Republican blogs. I am not denying that this "Macbeth" is a fake, but I don't believe that the video came from the antiwar movement. If someone wishes to put that in the article, please provide proof. -- Yekrats 14:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

yekrat doesn't believe a word of what he's written here. he doesn't believe that pepperspray, the media collective for seattle indymedia is a right-wing false flag operation, nor does he believe that indymedia or its various media collectives are obscure. in any case, this would be easily refuted by checking with the local cable access stations to see how long pepperspray has been submitting material to them and of what character. any allegation that peacefilms is a similarly fraudulent organization must follow through to expose its key figures, but yekrat has no intention of going any further than suggesting that the organization in the abstract is a right-wing front. demonstrate that terry portinga is a rightwing agent provacateur. make the accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs)

Yekrats, if you have an intuition that the video is part of an elaborate hoax, I think the best way to explore that would be to track down some verifiable sourcing for what peacefilms.org and Pepperspray Productions are, and maybe start pages for each of those organizations. Just remember to follow WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. As it is, the article doesn't say whether the video was part of a larger leftwing movement or a rightwing movement, just that it was published by Pepperspray and peacefilms and that there are inconsistencies that suggest it may be false. Thanks,TheronJ 15:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK... thanks. I'm looking into it. -- Yekrats 15:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

shameless... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs)

Clearly the "bold-face anonymous contributor" hasn't read below. -- Yekrats 19:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on, 66. Not only should you assume good faith, it looks to me like Yekrats has come as close as you can in this imperfect world to proving good faith. Let's work together to see if there's a way to get everyone's point across in a wike-pediable fashion. TheronJ 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"i am going to lie, lie boldly, lie knowingly in order to advance my agenda" is not a point of view which should be respected. sorry. how am i supposed to assume good faith of such a person?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs)

66, again, I'm just a guy with an opinion, but IMHO, it's a good one. Assume good faith is cheesy, but it works. I deleted the stuff from the main page about the right wing plot, but put a note here saying that the stuff could go up if it was verifiable via reliable sources. Yekrats looked at the sources and came back with his concern -- that he feels the article as written is misleading. We're working together on whether there are reliable, NOR ways of addressing that concern. If there are, it will improve the article to include the info. If there aren't, the info won't come in.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether Yekrats has good faith. I happen to think he does, but whether or not he does, we'll either come up with verifiable info to include or we won't. What WP:AGF lets us do is work together while we do it. So all I ask is give it a try - remember that we're writing an encyclopedia, and do your best to work with Yekrats to add all of the info, left and right, that meets wiki standards. (Listen to me, I sound like a Wikipedia zombie.) Thanks,TheronJ 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

i think it does matter, and i can already see where this is headed. i'd like you to consider a wiki article about the enron scandal in which the actuall crimes committed by enron are eclipsed and back-shuffled in favor of "verifiable" "NPOV" content about how ken lay isn't the entire business community, or even enron in its totality; that he's meely a single, obscure employee of the energy industry and really the only people who want to make a big deal of his conviction are politically motivated (coordinated?) bloggers who seek to use ken lay to paint all capitalism with a broad negative brush. something tells me you'd be able to identify that as a dishonest whitewash.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 May 2006.

Informationclearinghouse Theory

I don't know whether the video is a right wing plot, left wingers falling for a fake veteran, or something else. I deleted the intro sentence on informationclearinghouse.info primarily because it didn't meet WP:V or WP:RS - it didn't identify which writers suggested that the video was a right wing plot, so I couldn't establish the reliability of the source or verify the claim. (I tried looking at the site, but the source wasn't apparent). I'm not trying to censor anyone - if you think you have info that meets wiki standards, let's put it in. Here are my suggestions, which you can take for what they're worth.

• Start a section in the body, not the introduction. Once that section is nailed down, you can consider whether it needs to be summarized in the introduction.
• Cite with links to the specific sources on which you're relying. Before you use them, take a look at WP:V and WP:RS to see if your sources meet wiki standards.
• If the upshot is that you think peacefilms and Pepperpot are some kind of right wing front groups, consider starting pages on those organizations to collect the verifiable information about them. How long have they been in operation? What else have they published? What other info about them is available from reliable sources?
• Thanks for your work on the encyclopedia, TheronJ 15:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit of reasearch. I don't think that the original video was a right wing plot. The best that I can tell is it was produced by Terry Portinga who is known for producing tinfoil-hat anti-Bush public access movies in Vancouver. (Oops, sorry, trying to stay NPOV here... ;-) Peacefilms is registered in his name, and has only been up for a month. Is this his first "film"? I have no idea, and it wasn't up long enough for Archive.org to have archived it. The problem I see, however, is the right blogosphere is painting the antiwar movement with a broad brush, and Wikipedia is being used as a tool to verify that meme.

i was the one who posted the blurb informationclearinghouse.info,(ICH) i followed this story from the onset, it did hit info and a couple of left sites first (morn of 22) but ICH and other sites do have rightwing trollers and they flashed to their buddies by the evening of the 22nd. by the morn of 23rd the debate raged and as it became clear that it was a fake the invention of a rightwing setup was conjectured by several writers. I have been in numerous leftwing political groups and sadly their are always the nutcases who get attracted to such groups and out of be nice they don't get called on it. i think macbeth was such a guy, no conspiracy needed just a poser who was saying things that certain ant-war folks were all too primed to believe, and put him center stage at several anti-war rallies--taucetiman

I don't think many on the left had ever heard of these guys.

nobody on the left had heard of ivaw or indymedia? liar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs)

I'd challenge anyone to find out any information about this guy from some site that's not a Republican blog. I haven't found anyone on the left standing up and defending it,

you were, ten minutes ago, trying to spin it as a rightwing false flag operation. the video was produced by the seattle indymedia (one of the major, original imcs). information clearinghouse still petends there's some doubt, and their first 100 comments are very credulous. same for peacefilms.org, whos hundreds of comments have needlessly been erased by the site owner. considering that the video appeared to be online for less than two days, i think its a red herring to say that it it wasn't posted to kos' front page. progressives who saw it believed it, cross-linked it and promoted its "truthfullness". jesse macbeths activism with ivaw was recorded approvingly on washington state pogressive blogs.

the meme that jesse macbeth is a contrivance or construction of the right is a lie, regardless of how it is constructed. the people who debunked macbeth (who were not primarily "the rightwing" but actual vets and rangers) stanched the further distribution of a contrivance of the ivaw and indymedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs)

but that's the way the right bloggers are portraying it. (see the vitriolic propoganda film about the propoganda film.) Liberal blog Dailykos has an article "Anatomy of an Anti-Liberal Viral Video" which tries to dissect the Macbeth meme. The fact that it's a Republican meme (and virtually unknown and untalked-about in the liberal blogs) seems to be significant. -- Yekrats 18:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your work, Yekrats. As I understand your point, this is a small-time movie, published by a small-time outfit, and therefore not worth the amount of attention it's getting from the right-wing bloggers. Here are my suggestions:

1. First, a caveat. I'm not an admin or anything, I'm just a guy. So take my opinions for what they are worth.
2. My first take would be that the blogosphere stuff will blow over. As long as the article doesn't claim that this event blows the lid off the anti-war movement, it is what it is -- a small time scandal that the blogosphere had a good time with. (See, e.g., Jeff Gannon, a stringer for a website no one had ever heard of). Assuming Wikipedia records the facts and ignores the blogosphere, we should get a pretty neutral article on a subject that few people will remember 2 months from now.
3. If you think that it's important that the article show that it's not that big a deal, I think the following are popular Wikipolicy friendly ways to go about it.
   1. Assuming that you can come up with WP:V and WP:RS sources, put together a section in the body explaining what Peacefilms and Pepperpot are. You don't need to say that they're small-time - the facts will speak for themselves.
   2. I think it's fair to say that the film had only limited publicity before the blogosphere realized that it was likely to be fake, but sourcing the statement will be tricky. Maybe keep your eyes out for a published newspaper article about the phenomenon.
   3. Whoops, one more. In the interests of full disclosure, you could request that the whole page be deleted as not notable. IMHO, though, it is notable -- the phenomenon of false veterans is a fascinating one and it's an issue that people are going to want to know about, at least while it's hot.
4. Thanks, and again, I appreciate working with you on this -- you've been great in response to my kibbutzing.TheronJ 19:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

---

(sigh) I don't want to get in to a "left said, right said" flamewar with the anonymous boldfacer. I am also not an adequate spokesman for the "left": I am a registered independent, and regularly vote for who I think would be best (which includes -gasp- Republicans.) I read both RedState and DailyKos, but probably DK more. Although I've heard of Indymedia, I've never read it. And I hadn't even heard of IVAW until this morning. I find it strange that this much article space is devoted to a short indie film available for a couple of weeks, and it annoys me that Wikipedia is being used as a tool for propoganda, be it left or right.

Regardless, is it necessary to debunk every point of the video? That's not the job of wikipedia. Let's hit the highlights. I'm thinking the top five would be adequate, ones that are easily verifiable, from the best sources possible. Then provide links to websites to get more debunking information. That being said, I don't think I should do the actual pruning. Any volunteers? -- Yekrats 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll volunteer for it. I contributed most of the citations back when pointing out inconsistencies was more important. Now that the real DD-214 has been published, most of the debunking is unnecessary. I'm almost done with my golf tourney assignment. If I don't get to it tonight, then perhaps it will be a good Memorial Day activity. Bugmuncher 15:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous boldface, please stop mixing your comments in the middle of mine, or I will remove them into a separate section like I did below. Learn to use a colon key. -- Yekrats 23:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

and so now, with an affected sigh (no, really! he actually types it out!) he attempts to portray himself as a disinterested contributor, just trying to explore all of the angles. this conciet is belied by the fact that the angle he's rushed here to explore is a desperate conspiracy theory designed to deflect scrutiny from the hoax's perpetrators onto it's detractors. he is so middle of the road, he even occasionally votes republican himself, just like jeb eddy [[5]]. he doesn't care for it when wikipedia is used for propaganda, be it left or right," but we can discern from his contributions here where he's likely to draw the line between what he considers "propagada" and what he considers "encyclopedic content".

maybe, why subtract? sez who? no. lets be thorough. agreed why do you presume there is agreement that there's something to voluntteer for?

You seem to like putting words into my mouth. I am not disinterested, but my agenda is for neutrality, verification, and the truth. You seem to want a frothed up article, with little verification, because the more people that you can get annoyed about this puffed up nothing of an article, the better. Anything for the cause, right boldface? You also seem like you do not want it listed that this is primarily a phenomena of the conservative blogs.

I have been working on Wikipedia for years, with more edits than I can count. You are a troll who has been banned in the past who has demonstrated an agenda of rightwing vitriol. Well, that's how the world works, I guess. -- Yekrats 23:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Service timeline for MacBeth

For all of you defending MacBeth, a quick note on his service timeline... If he is all he says he is then he served in Iraq for 16 months prior to Aug. 2003, and had earned a Ranger patch (completed Ranger training) and was a Green Beret, i.e. a member of Special Forces, before he deployed. This means he had to have finished his Special Forces training prior to his deployment to Iraq in (at latest) Mar. 2002. This SF training, depending on specialty(s) can take between 8 and 18 months. Ranger training and Airborne training, both required to be allowed into Special Forces, can take at least another 6 months (usually longer, depending on class schedules). Army basic training and Advanced Infantry Training (AIT), both required prior to selection for Ranger school, are another 7 months. Add it all up (21-31 months) and he would have had to have entered the Army at age 15 (He was born in 1984). Somehow I doubt it. Oh, and prior to 9-11, to get into Special Forces you had to be a Sgt or Spec 5 already, and that usually took 3 years, making MacBeth 14 at enlistment. Think about it.Jimchape 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's defending him. We're all trying to get a clean article that will be useful to the encyclopedia, and I think if we work together, we can do that. Thanks, TheronJ 19:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

just three screen inches north of here, you were conspiring with the guy who was trying to introduce the assertion that the video was made by rightwingers on how to minimise the video's ivaw and indymedia origins. can't anyone here be honest? this is why nobody uses wiki as a source for anything but dr. who and world of warcraft.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs)

I am working with "the guy" to (1) identify if any of his concerns relate to verifiable information, and (2) if so, figure out how to include them in the article. All I ask is that you give it a day or two before you pass judgment. Also, Wikipedia is pretty good for broad-brush medical, scientific, and historical backgrounders, as well as Dr. Who.  ;-P TheronJ 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending Macbeth. However, I do think the right blogosphere is 1. blowing this out of proportion as a tool for propaganda and 2. using Wikipedia to further that. I couldn't care less about #1. #2 bothers me a bit. -- Yekrats 20:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your overly critical focus on "the right blogosphere" hardly contributes to the appearance of bias-free "reporting" on Wikipedia. Blowing this out of proportion? Are you serious? The allegations made in the video DEMAND a thorough vetting. The fact that the "left blogosphere" didn't only means that either they didn't care, or they preferred to believe the story in the film. As it stands, plenty of left-wingers did challenge its veracity (although sadly, too few). The fact is, those who were the most diligent in debunking this story are milbloggers--IOW, "experts" with a personal stake in the matter. You say people blew it out of proportion as a tool of propaganda, but fail to note that the whole story (the film) is a tool for propaganda. The "right blogosphere" and milblogs don't need to use this as propaganda; it's simply a matter of proving this piece of propaganda to be FALSE. -- (no user name) 22:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.209.191.158 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not arguing that they don't demand a thorough vetting. I think that the story deserves debunking. Please don't get me wrong. However, I don't think Wikipedia needs to debunk every stupid little point about this guys life. Do we really need to have detailed links to every Myspace blog entry the guy's made? The guy is an idiot, and deserves to be punished, but not here; the purpose of Wikipedia is not to punish the stupid or mentally ill. Let's use Wikipedia to provide a summary of encyclopedic facts. As it stands now, the quality of writing is pretty poor, and it's mostly because it's puffed up and some of the references are weak, in my opinion.

I am not saying delete (or suppress) the story. But let's tighten it up so it's a better article. Have you guys actually read this article? There's some lines in there that are real howlers. One example in there is, "Looks like someone claiming to be MacBeth's sister is appearing now with a story..." Who is writing this stuff? Sorry, folks. It reads like sub-college-level writing. If we want to write a laughable article with poor grammar, based on unverified hearsay, then leave it as-is. -- Yekrats 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is that the "Amy story" holds a bit more weight. If you actually read more indepth into it, people are inclinded to believe it is true. Unlike everyone, you think it's a HUGE MASSIVE RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY designed to discredit the anti-war leftist movement without any PROOF at all. There is no proof that MacBeth served in the Rangers at all, nor was he Special Force. So why are you trying to discredit the "Amy story" in order to help MacBeth? Sorry but you have a hard time hiding your bias. ViriiK 03:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the "Amy story"? I have no idea what you are talking about. How can I discredit something or be biased about something I have no idea about? -- Yekrats 11:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhh Amy Campbell, Jessie MacBeth's sister. Looks like you don't read enough about this whole thing. You're the one trying to discredit the story without any burden of proof especially claiming this is a vast right wing conspiracy designed to discredit the anti-war leftist which we all know you associate yourself with. ViriiK 23:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, very good. If you have some information from a verifiable source by a reputable publisher, then please include it. -- Yekrats 00:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this. Are you saying that IVAW is a reputable publisher but not those milblogs and people who have worked hard to debunk MacBeth's claim? ViriiK 00:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but let's take a look at what each claims. IVAW says that Jesse was a member and has since been proven a liar, and now is no longer a member. They released a statement. I don't think any of those facts are disputable. I haven't seen much evidence about his sister yet, except for someone posing as his sister, at least in the information below. It could be his sister, and it might not. Personally, I'd like a little more evidence than a semi-anonymous posting on the Internet. -- Yekrats 01:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As the creator of this article, I concur that it should be shortened somewhat, if we can agree that Macbeth's DD-214 as posted is "verifiable." When I made the article, and added all of the references, it was because the only way to address the inconsistencies in Macbeth's stories was to establish several years' worth of verifiable evidence to the contrary. None of that would have been necessary if Macbeth's DD-214 were available.

I haven't been paying much attention to this article over the last four days, because I have been reporting on an LPGA event for my day job. But when I get some free time, I may just shorten it. Many paragraphs discussing a mountain of evidence are unnecessary now that there's a DD-214 available. Most of the references can be kept, and cited at the end of a single paragraph instead of in many paragraphs.

So, the DD-214 trumps all the other investigative work everyone's done, but that doesn't change the truth, and it doesn't suppress it either. Anyone who wants to repost copies of all the inconsistencies in other forums is welcome to. The DD-214 has made most mentions of inconsistencies obsolete for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Bugmuncher 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the DD-214 is good stuff, because it's hard evidence. Excellent. -- Yekrats 10:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean the one at qando.net [6] of course, not the one already posted here that has the f-word written all over it. Bugmuncher 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

IVAW Jettisons MacBeth and Forged DD-214

Questions have been raised about Jesse MacBeth and his claims of service in Iraq. MacBeth came to Iraq Veterans Against the War in January 2006 asking for help, and the organization and its members extended itself to help him in various ways. Assisting veterans is one of the founding principles of IVAW and it is a mission that we take seriously. After looking into his recent claims, we have learned that Jesse is not what he represented himself to be. Accordingly, IVAW does not in any way endorse Jesse MacBeth or any of his accounts involving military service. He -- and he alone -- is responsible for them. IVAW was not aware of the creation of the video program featuring MacBeth, and did not authorize use of our logo in the program. [7]

Further, MacBeth posts his DD-214 on his Myspace account [8], and it's been forged. What is accurate about the form is that MacBeth washedout in Boot Camp.[9]

Also, MacBeth purportedly claimed to be a Navy SEAL in 2004 on a poetry website [10]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.173.91 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 27 May 2006.

Looks like someone claiming to be MacBeth's sister is appearing now with a story:

"Jesse is my half brother. I really feel the need to speak out on this since it has been a long time coming. Let me tell you...I am finally glad someone has finally discovered he is a fraud.

My brother went to army boot camp but got kicked out after only four weeks for an inability to adapt to military life and was sent to a mental hospital in Georgia. I still have his military file.

We grew up in the Arizona foster care system. Our mother is schizophrenic, a drug addict, and very abusive. Jesse spent the majority of his childhood in mental hospitals.

He convinced me back in 2002 that he was sick from Hep C and in need of surgery. I took him in. When I discovered that he was faking and stealing from me, I asked him to leave. I drove him all they way back to Arizona (I was going to school in California) and by the time I got back the next morning he had managed to empty my bank account, my roommates bank account, and max out my credit card. I weas almost evicted from my apartment because of all of this.

He somehow convinced people in Pima, Arizona that we got shot in the back in Iraq and his story just took off from there.

My brother is mentally ill. I don't know where my cute little baby brother went or how he got replaced by this scary monster. I don't know how to help him, so I had to stop contact with him all together.

At least now, maybe he'll be forced to get some help and get back on his medication.

I am very afraid of him. I pray that he'll get some help now before he hurts himself or someone else."[11]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.173.91 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 27 May 2006.

Jesse MacBeth's real DD-214 has been discovered by a blog called Qando.net, which shows that he indeed was a bootcamp washout.[12][13]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.173.91 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 May 2006.

"Boot camp washout"

What is the official army term for "boot camp washout"? We should use that term. -- Yekrats 00:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The official term are in Block 19 "Service Member has not completed first full term of service", Block 24, "Uncharacterized" and Block 28 "Entry level performance and conduct". Another point in the DD-214 is that in Block 25 says "he was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200 Chapter 11. That means he was found to be unfit to remain in the Army and was dicharged for the good of the service." Which you can find it here http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/regulation27.pdf ViriiK 01:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally knew Macbeth and served with him in infantry training at Fort Benning. The DD214 which has him under the 2/47th INF is the correct one. Perhaps he may have a legitimate axe to grind with the US Army if he had told the truth. Macbeth was often subjected to ridicule because of his Muslim beliefs. This is the link to a comment posted on a blog. http://www.topix.com/forum/radio/rush-limbaugh/T8OVFR25B1MLHR5U2

In late 2004 and early 2005 we was an employee of McDonald's restaurant in Tucson, Arizona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.161.255 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

POV problem

I am reattaching the {{POV}} label, because I think there are still POV problems with this article. Please note that I am not advocating the article be deleted or suppressed, but it does need polished. Here are the big issues, as I see them, that is causing this to have POV problems.

• Verifiability Some of the sources are "weak," mostly indirect links from blogs. I can't believe that we have about a quarter of the article devoted to his Myspace page. Surely there's some mainstream references to this guy, right? Let's use those.
• "Weasely language" This article is still chock-full of weasel words. Example: Calling Jesse a "washout" instead of using the military term; "unsubstantiated allegations about his alleged service"; "many people have questioned"...etc. Let's clean these up.

If we clean up these things, then I think we can remove the POV tag. I'm working on trying to get good sources and clean up some of the language, but any help would be appreciated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yekrats (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 May 2006.

He is a washout. Do you have any facts to prove that he is not a washout? Fine, in AR 635-200, he'll be declared "unsuitable". But he's still a washout.

It's pretty obvious you're fighting hard to defend this guy from the "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY" that you are claiming. There is no vast right wing conspiracy. There is this jackass that has lied to the American People and slandered all those in the uniform for his own gain.

Another thing. You have zero knowledge of military knowledge. There are these that have served and proven facts to why he is not a veteran of the United States Army, a Ranger, or Special Forces. So these "Weasly" terms are acceptable because MacBeth has zero knowledge of the military. You however have not disproven these facts about MacBeth's uniform which goes under the "many people have questioned" and guess what. They're right whereas you have nothing to disprove them.

Also about the Mainstream media. They DO NOT CARE about MacBeth. Michelle Malkin (Unless you declare her unacceptable) has reported this in several editorals with MSM organizations. However you are trying to stop contributors because you think MSM is the only acceptable materials. But here's the problem. The only people that are caring about this issue is the entire military community and it's supporters. These people at these "blogs" you're against have proven their facts. Whereas there are detractors like you claiming "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY" just like those people at Informationclearinghouse. ViriiK 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just changed "boot camp washout" to "Entry Level Seperation". That's the official term. Don't expect anyone to have any mainstream references on this guy, because no one in the mainstream cares. The guy is a blatant liar. Even I had not served as a Ranger, I would easily be able to see this guy as being a scumbag. What would you like to see the mainstream news carry? "Ranger wannabe with poorly forged credentials claims war attrocities and is revealed to be a liar, more on this non-story at 11." Even on a slow news day, this story is not news. I'd rather see them do a useless human interest report on how a local bakery is making fantastic cookies than give this loser any public recognition. EvilCouch 09:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, thank you guys for your work. I think we're making real progress. I'm not here to defend Macbeth. Please read this: I think he's a jerk and deserves to be punished, but Wikipedia is not a tool for punishment. Wikipedia is a place for a verifiable article about him.
Please don't get me wrong. I DON'T THINK every blog entry should go. I was ready to dismiss the Hotair link until I actually read it. It probably had the best comparison of the badges on Military.com, before and after. That is hard, indisputable evidence. That's the sort of thing the article should feature.
Here is an article from Stars & Stripes which is fairly mainstream. Let's replace some of the "experts say..." quotes with direct citations from the official house organ of the US Military.
Sure, let's quote Michelle Malkin! She has a lot of doozies in that Hotair video. Let's use one! Or maybe she has said something (in print) outside of the video. Either way, if we attribute it to SOMEONE, rather than the vague "Critics suggest..." we are avoiding weasel words, and we can let the reader decide if she is weasely or not. Please see Improving weasel words. -- Yekrats 10:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. The article reads very well. Quite factually-based rather than emotional. Kitabparast 03:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I shortened the article and made it a bit easier to read. And I made the citations match better. I am of the opinion that most of the debunking information (pointing out chronological and uniform inconsistencies, etc.) is no longer necessary because the DD-214 proves he was not a veteran. Devoting screens full of information to his uniform, etc. is a waste of space when now a sentence or two will do.

I also realize that a week ago, I was asking EvilCouch for help to make the article longer with verifiable facts about things like the uniform. I think this was the right idea at the time, as no DD-214 was available.

Links to uniform and chronological debunking information should still be added to "External Links" because, while they are outside the scope of the article now that a DD-214 is available, they may be interesting links for readers to see and learn about Jesse's lies. Bugmuncher 08:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

purported DD-214

At the end of the article, I use "purport" for both instances of the form DD-214 posted online. I have a very strong feeling that if I FOIA Macbeth's DD-214, I will receive something identical to what qando.net has. But since I can't actually link to a government post of the DD-214, "purport" is the best I can do.

I also noted that falsification of a DD-214 is a violation of federal law at the end of the section. Readers can draw their own conclusions (as the chance of both being fake are practically nil)

Thanks

Everyone, I hope this is OK. I just removed the {{POV}} tag. The article is MUCH better.

I do have this caveat: I think the sections about socialistalternative.org and Eastern Arizona Courier are really weak, but their refering articles do not exist any more. They also do not exist in http://archive.org (they both blocked the archive.org robot.) I'm not sure what to do about this. Did a blog grab "before and after" pictures of this? If so, we can compare them. Otherwise, maybe we can lump these sections together, because what we are saying here is, "Look at the evidence in this link which does not exist any more!"

Also, a writer put in "footnotey" stuff in the main body of the article. Usually the "this guy said this at this time in this publication and then again on this date" might be tucked away in the footnotes, IMO. I've cleaned up a couple of those, to tighten up the piece.

Finally, I'd like to thank everyone for working with me on this, and I apologize for coming on so strongly at the beginning. In the end, though, I think we came up with a much better article. Thanks for setting aside your annoyance of me to work constructively on the article! :-) -- Yekrats 10:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help, too. The EA Courier story should still be available - it just costs $5 to check the story (hence, subscription required is noted in the ciatation). A copy of the EA courier article is appended at the end of the Arizona Indymedia article from April 2004, so you can read it there. A copy of the SocialistAlternative.org interview is appended in its entirety to the May 27 DailyKos post by Sharon Jumper, linked from "external links." Bugmuncher 17:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Macbeth's Uniform

When I did my massive rewrite, I removed much of the well-thought (but now redundant) criticisms of Macbeth's uniform. Here's the most recent copy of that section, attached below. Bugmuncher 17:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, many people have questioned the authenticity of Macbeth's uniform:

• Macbeth wears his beret with the flash over his right eye, with the excess material draped over his left ear, whereas Army Regulation 670-1 clearly states "The beret is worn so that the headband (edge binding) is straight across the forehead, 1 inch above the eyebrows. The flash is positioned over the left eye, and the excess material is draped over to the right ear, extending to at least the top of the ear, and no lower than the middle of the ear.";
• Macbeth claims that he served with 3d Ranger Battalion, but wears a Special Forces Combat Patch;
• Macbeth wears both the Special Forces and Airborne tabs on his right shoulder. Special skill tabs are only authorized on the left shoulder. The Airborne tab is deemed a part of the unit patch and is authorized, however the Special Forces tab is not;
• Macbeth wears Corporal rank. According to Regimental policy, combat arms soldiers are not permitted past the rank of Specialist without having graduated Ranger school. Macbeth does not wear the Ranger tab, which denotes that he did not graduate;
• Macbeth does not wear a Parachutist badge, worn by Rangers because they are airborne troops ;
• Macbeth's rank is not sewn onto his uniform. This is highly irregular for a Ranger, as pin-on rank poses a hazard during Airborne operations and is highly discouraged;
• Macbeth rolls his sleeves with the inside of the sleeve pointing outwards in the manner of a Marine, however the correct way for a Soldier to roll his sleeves would be to roll them without any of the inside material showing;
• Macbeth wears the flash of the 1st Special Forces Group [14] on his tan Ranger beret rather than the 3/75th Ranger flash [15], and no regimental crest attached;
• Macbeth is wearing a black undershirt, which is not authorized for any Soldier while in a garrison environment;
• Macbeth's uniform appears very wrinkled and disheveled, which is against Regimental policy while wearing a "spits and starch" uniform, the only uniform in which a Ranger is authorized to wear his beret.
• Army spokesman Paul Boyce stated "There are also numerous wear and appearance issues with the soldier's uniform – a mix of foreign uniforms with the sleeves rolled up like a Marine and a badly floppy tan beret worn like a pastry chef," and also stated that the beret with the insignia was worn over the wrong eye.

Critics of Macbeth suggest that because, in the photo his uniform and beret is not correct, it is extremely doubtful that he was a soldier of any kind, let alone a Ranger.

Defrauding the VA System

It has come to light recently by the State Service Director for AMVETS, Steve Oatney, that Jesse Macbeth has been defrauding the VA. The VA is trying to obtain a federal warrant for Jesse MacBeth on fraud charges, as it is belived he has left Washington.[16]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.173.91 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2006.

GA Failure

• Automatic failure of requirement #5 of WP:WIAGA due to the {{currentevent}} tag.
• Also, "This file is in the public domain, because PepperSpray Productions did not protect its work with copyright." is NOT a valid reason. All work are automatically copywriten under U.S. law even if the person doesn't not specificially state so. Unless you can get a quote that he's released the images into public domain, those images are unfree.--SeizureDog 14:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. The video says "copy Left 3/06" at the end of it... would that be a suitable release into public domain? Also, just because the information "could" change rapidy, as the {{currentevent}} tag indicates, doesn't mean it does change rapidy. There haven't been major changes to the article for about a week... Bugmuncher 04:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have no idea exactly what "copy Left" would mean. Since the "Left" is capitalized, it might mean that it's saying that it's copyrighed to someone name Left or a group that calls themselves Left. I've know I've never seen anyone use the term in any sense such as releasing copyrights though. --SeizureDog 05:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Negative. Copyleft is a copyright liscense that provides the content liscensed as public domain, so long as any work derived from it is also released under the Copyleft liscense. It is very similar to the GPL, except that it can apply to anything, not just source code. I'm going to update the pertinent images used in the article. EvilCouch 09:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• "A week" isn't a long enough period of time. The point of the stable requirement is to make sure that in say, a year's time you can come back to the article and it would be as relatively complete as it was before. If you feel that the article no longer is a current event that is rapidly changing, then you should remove the tag. As long as you feel like next week he could do another dumbass thing that warrents updating the article though, then wait a while before nominating for GA. I suggest waiting a month from the last time you see his name mentioned.--SeizureDog 05:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is myspace important at all

should anyone realy mention myspace on wikipedia for any real reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.61.81 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum Entries versus other online activity

Information on new statements by Macbeth was recently deleted because such statements were made in an online forum. I can't help noting that pretty much everything Macbeth has done has been online.

Furthermore, the administration of the site in question has given public confirmation that both the registration email of the user's account and his IP information are consistent with his claimed identity. This is considerably better identity verification than has been offered for the Myspace and Military.com accounts where Macbeth is alleged to have made claims.

I have no quarrel with whatever standard we choose to follow, but consistency in those standards would seem to be in our best interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.214.76 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jesse Macbeth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524171113/http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article13.php?id=261 to http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article13.php?id=261
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813110951/http://qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3957 to http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3957
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524171113/http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article13.php?id=261 to http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article13.php?id=261

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)