Talk:Jessica Lynch

Allegations of fraud

To avoid an edit war over the latest changes, I propose we keep the line "Jessica recently accused the military of lying and inventing stories about her heroic acts for their own benefit" in the intro. Change the later edits to "Some major media outlets..." And then remove the "illegal" description of the war. Yes, I know Anan said it was illegal, but so are nearly all wars, and we don't tag them as illegal as well. To do it here is POV-pushing. Thanks! --Dchall1 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The BBC alleges that the Jessica Lynch story is a fraud/propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=preg9uNOcu0 Bofors7715 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To touch on this, I may not edit articles much, but this article is sourced based upon opinionated news outlets. Not upon facts, Lynch never stated that the US had been running a propaganda machine, or anything like that. All she said was that she never fired a shot afterward, they were trying to make her into a little girl Rambo, and she didn't understand why. So why does this article almost quote from the BBC article? I recommend that the article is changed to fact, not opinion. No POV pushing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.130.70 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no inclusion of the allegations that this event was staged for propaganda? If the BBC alleged this, then there's your mainstream media source. Add it on.72.224.189.211 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is a bio about Lynch. There is a section about the controversy surrounding the coverage. Going much further into it should only happen if Lynch was personally involved in the planning etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

M16

I'm removing the reference to the M16 as a gun that is notorious for jamming. There's no evidence from the sources I've reviewed that jamming was a big problem for the M16 after 1968, when a number of changes were made in the ammunition and design of the rifle. RFabian 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the reference should go back in. In the mid-1970's the M16A1 rifles (post change) we had in the Marines jammed in dirty, dusty or sandy conditions. We just chalked it up at the time to the fact that all military weapons, after design, are produced by the cheapest possible bidder.Lowellt 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the malfunctions; the article says that all weapon systems in her unit jammed. Am I to understand that every single rifle and top cover gun in that unit jammed, or is the article simply referring to the main guns? (Top cover guns) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.90.218 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fix't. Earthpig (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

remove criticism heading

This article cyberbullies Jessica Lynch in several ways. Let's start with the criticism title. Jessica always told the truth, and the criticism is at the media, and govt officials who planted mistruth. A 9th grader could write a better bio than what is on this Wikipedia article, and there would probably be way less mean spirited bullying. No wonder schools do not allow citations and references from Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia supposed to be an accurate account of a topic or a mean spirited tool to bully people? Shame on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.11.165 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. (Well, not the 9th grader part. Be nice, please.) The criticism isn't criticism of her as such, but of the original story of her capture. Given that, what would you suggest the section be retitled? --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is bullying Jessica Lynch. Why don't you make a suggestion to improve the article instead of ambiguous accusations. Maybe we should re-title the section as "Controversy". The section title doesn't have to explain all the details and controversy is fairly neutral. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The title of criticism is clearly biased and cyberbullying Jessica Lynch. It is clearly trying to convey something negative. How about media and government misinformation or a similar title. A title that does not cyberbully Jessica Lynch and actually has some historic truth, unlike the current slandering cyberbullying title. Seriously why is there so much cyberbullying of Jessica Lynch on this article? Shame on your biased, bullying and mean spiritedness. Jessica didn't do anything wrong yet this article inaccurately conveys negative content in several places. And saying a 9th grader could write a better article is the truth... how does it feel when the negative thoughts are directed at you??? That's how Jessica Lynch feels from the slandering cyberbullying in this article. Shame in Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.109.243 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• As you can see above, I am willing to argue against including things that I think are unfair to Lynch. That said, ranting and repeating the word "cyberbully" over and over doesn't make you sound credible, serious or even rational. Drop the hyperbole, be specific and use policies and guidelines to support your position. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oah, I see. This article can cyberbully Jessica for years via slander and cyberbullying, but when someone points it out you make a federal case of it??? Seriously, it shouldn't take a nuclear physicist to write a fair article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.109.243 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? "Federal case"? Do you even know what the expression means? (That's rhetorical because you obviously don't) If you bothered to look on this very page, you'd see I fought to exclude material that really didn't belong in her bio. Regardless, you've demonstrated that there is no reason to discuss anything further and vandalism on this page will be treated as such. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, be constructive. We're people just like you, trying to do our best. And yes, some of us are ninth graders, and others really are nuclear physicists - but that's not too useful for this article. We're not perfect; as you can see, we can get our feelings hurt, and that can distract us from making things better. Let's try to make it better. You brought up a good point that the title of the Criticism section could be better. What's your suggestion on how to change it? Do you like Metal Lunchbox's suggestion "Controversy"? To me that seems better, but maybe we can do better still. What are your ideas? --GRuban (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it Niteshift36 changed the section heading to "Controversy regarding coverage" and I think that's a pretty good solution. Unless anyone has any particular objections maybe we can move on. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good section title. On a related note, it is likely that User:70.220.109.243 and User:72.97.72.162 are related in some way. They both like to toss about the 'cyberbullying' term without giving specific examples,[1][2] and they also seem to have a bizarre foot fetish when it comes to Lynch.[3][4] Steamroller Assault (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Navigation

The convoy was meant to avoid Nasiriyeh entire;y. So the statement that "Maps of the area lack the detail required to properly navigate through tight city streets. Apparently, the convoy took more than one wrong turn" isn't really the point. They were lost when they reached Nasiriyeh, and ought to have avoided the city, rather than driving into it.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

First POW rescue since Vietnam, or first since WWII?

The Iraq invasion article mentions that the successful rescue of Lynch was the first since WWII by US forces

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Jessica_Lynch_rescue

"Task Force 20 carried out the first successful US POW rescue mission since World War II.[191]"

Meanwhile this article claims, (without any source apparently), that her rescue was the first since Vietnam.

"...was the first successful rescue of an American prisoner of war since Vietnam and the first ever of a woman."

Obviously both statements can not be true, so one needs to be changed to agree with the other.

Looneybunny (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The statement in the Jessica Lynch story was incorrect. There were two POW rescue missions that I could identify during the Vietnam war, Operation Thunderhead and Operation Ivory Coast, both of them unsuccessful. Lynch's was the first POW rescue mission since the Vietnam war. It was the first successful POW rescue mission since WWII. I adjusted the text in the article accordingly.

n.b., I haven't found a specific cit source anywhere specifically stating this. There was no cite for the incorrect text, either.

/Bruce/ [aka Slasher] (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Medals

GWOT Expeditionary Medal, but no GWOT Service Medal? 12.129.118.174 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jessica Lynch. 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/20070810090705/http://www.sftt.us/PDF/article07102003a.pdf to http://www.sftt.us/PDF/article07102003a.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Medical examination - Landstuhl base, Germany & supposed rescue

- In her statement before the House Oversight & Govt. Reform Committee, Lynch stated that "the doctors at Landstuhl, Germany found in a physical exam that I had been sexually assaulted." While Lynch has stated in interviews that she has no recollections of these events (as she had lost consciousness for 3 hrs - moments after the capture), this could be added to the POW section, especially since her testimony explicitly contradicts the statements of the Iraqi doctors in Nasiriyah (which remain unchallenged in the hospital paragraph) which may have been triggered by fears of US repercussions, actually.
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jessicalynchopeningstatement.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXmWY3lI0ZY
- Hospital paragraph: The Iraqi doctors applied first measures, ie. by removing her shattered femur and by replacing the bone with a 1940s rod etc., but - technically - they didn't rescue her: She was dropped off at the hospital by a Fedayeen group, along with the bodies of her fellow comrades, the doctors then did what they could with the limited resources at hand, obviously. In her book, Lynch also stated that she was treated well by the hospital's doctors and staff, given the circumstances. GeeGee (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Crucial details missing

It has been more than 17 years since the start of the Iraq War and the events that made Jessica Lynch a public figure.

It is now known that Lynch’s dramatic rescue from the hospital, and many of the key details surrounding her capture, were fabricated out of whole cloth or embellished by the U.S. Military, which turned her ordeal into a propaganda story that was then disseminated to the media.

Kind of an important detail, no? Unfortunately you won’t learn about it in this article.

So...yet another Wikipedia entry that promotes a highly misleading version of events by omitting crucially relevant details.

It’s almost like Wikipedia’s policies are designed so that it inevitably ends up serving as an amplifier of pro-American/pro-Western establishment points of view. User2346 (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Really? I see material in the article where Lynch contradicts the story given to the public. So either you're not reading the whole article or you want to convert this to some coatrack about the "propaganda". This is a bio of Lynch, not the media coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong unit mentioned in rescue!

This article states that it was the 2nd battalion 1st Marines that were involved in her rescue..that is false. It was in fact the “1st Battalion 2nd Marines” which were part of Task Force Tarawa. I should know because I was there. It was 1st Battalion 2nd marines and on the FAR side of the City of An Nasiriyah it was 3Bn 2nd Mar as well as 2nd Bn 8th Mar. 2600:8802:3200:6500:8D1F:4B07:67AC:209C (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrongly formatted first paragraphs

Hello all,

Apologies if this message is wrongly structured, I am new and this is my first “talk page” post.

I would like to bring to your attention the formatting of the first few paragraphs that doesn't seem to be correct. It looks like someone tried to edit the page but left it all jumbled up with things like:

" United States | death_date = | death_place = | plcaeofburial = | allegiance = United States | branch = United States Army | serviceyears = 2001–2022 | rank = Private First Class | servicenumber = | unit = 507th Maintenance Company | battles = Iraq War"

written in plain text.

I do not know how to deal with this, but thought I should let you know to get someone to fix it.

Thank you! PaulCBS (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have reverted the edits which broke the article formatting. CodeTalker (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

May change is to was.

I was watching fox news one time, and it said she waa killed. 2600:1700:7D5C:5800:FD24:FEA0:49F5:96D (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)