Talk:Stolen Honor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Going Upriver and Stolen Honor

Currently, there is dialog ongoing at John Kerry regarding SH. I am interested to make this article more "wikified" along the lines of the GU article. Speficically, I intend to list the facts about run time, actors, release details, etc., such as is seen on the GU page. Please dialog here if you have questions. I will wait several says before proceeding, so as to invite comment. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 21:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carlton Sherwood, again

How exactly is personal information on Carlton Sherwood, presented in the way it is, relevant to this article? He already has his own article, and as far as I can tell, the addition of this material is nothing more than an attempt to skew the article.

Perhaps if someone particularly notable, commented on the relation ship between the two it might warrant a mention in the article, but as this is phrased now its just a transparent attempt to kill the messenger.

And just as a side commentary: GIVE IT UP, THE ELECTION IS OVER! The time for playing these bullshit games on these articles is long gone. TDC 14:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

touchy touchy. --kizzle 15:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Touchy? I aint the one still carrying the torch for a loser. TDC 16:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Your response proves my point :) --kizzle 16:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
So, did you just come here to pick a fight, or do you have anything substantive to add? TDC 16:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
No, just thought I'd remark on your "give it up" comment, just seemed like you were a little worked up, that's all. --kizzle 16:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
As documented by Frontline Sherwood previously published what he claimed was an "independent investigation" which turned out not to be so independent. That is relevant to anything else he publishes which he claims to be an independent investigation. Period. What is irrelevant is whether the election is upcoming or past; it's not as if what was true then became false once the election occurred or vice-versa. Sherwood lied to the public, telling them "Here, read my book! It's a no-holds-barred look at the Rev. Moon!" and meanwhile telling Moon "Please read this in advance and tell me what you want to be taken out before it goes to print." To claim that is not relevant to his other projects, or somehow less relevant because the election's passed, is ludicrous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry, but once again, how is that related to the article? Dozens of "documentaries" are nothing more that baseless hit pieces against their subjects, and the articles on them are not nearly as loaded as this one is. An article currently exists on Carlton Sherwood, and although his critics may deserve a line or two here, they certainly should not dominate the article. TDC 23:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
From discussions literally almost a year ago, I think it was stated that it is important to note on this page that the creator of the documentary was implicated in wrongdoings in the very last documentary he made. Also, considering the timing of the release and his partisan connections, those should be mentioned as well in this page. It's not like Sherwood is notable enough to spawn his own article besides being the creator of this movie. --kizzle 00:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
TDC, I notice that, here on the talk page, you inveigh against inclusion of "personal information on Carlton Sherwood". In your actual edit, however, you removed personal information that tended to show his bias and his journalistic failings, but you left in personal information (Vietnam vet, Pulitzer prize team) that was favorable to him. Was this perhaps an oversight on your part? JamesMLane 01:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: After I wrote the above comment, you made an edit you described as a "compromise attempt", including in part "remove strictly personal info about Sherman" -- yet, somehow, the strictly personal information that bolsters Sherwood's credibility on this subject, such as his Vietnam service and association with a Pulitzer award, stays in, while the strictly personal information that undercuts his credibility, such as his history as a bought-and-paid-for Republican flunky, gets removed. I don't see this as a compromise. By the way, although for some reason the right wing has adopted the practice of using "Democrat" as an adjective, the correct form is "Democratic". JamesMLane 19:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the information about his Pulitzer award and service are arguable more relevant to the article than allegations of him being a republican "flunky". TDC 20:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
That's a decidedly POV conclusion. Facts that many readers would take as showing his bias, and facts that many readers would take as showing his departure from journalistic ethics, are relevant to assessing a "documentary" he produced. JamesMLane 20:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I would suspect that we should keep "on topic" as much as possible and try and limit criticisms to the film and not the maker. Would you consider it appropriate to include material on Moore’s activities within Democratic circles, relevant to the farenheight 9/11 article, or should those be specifically addressed in his bio? TDC 20:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
If I caught someone trying to remove such material (assuming that it is well-documented in the first place, like the information about Sherwood) from the Fahrenheit 9/11 article, I would fight that removal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The article on Fahrenheit 9/11 quotes Moore's own statement that his film is an "op-ed piece". I think that's sufficient to establish that it addresses its subject matter from a particular point of view. If Sherwood has made a similarly honest admission about the bias of his film, then we could consider quoting that, instead of providing the reader with facts relevant to assessing the bias. JamesMLane 10:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
So, here we are again. TDC writes "rv, when did this happen" as he again removes personal information about Sherwood that shows Sherwood's bias, while leaving in personal information about Sherwood that might tend to bolster his credibility. TDC, you think the right-wing information is "arguably" relevant, but deciding to highlight the arguments of one side (your side) is clearly POV. JamesMLane 04:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laundry list

In TDC's preferred version almost the first thing presented to the reader after the intro, before any discussion of the controversy over the video, is a laundry list of the veterans interviewed in it. This list is not very informative; the only individual there who seems to be independently notable is Kenneth Cordier, whose notability is already discussed in the article body. I think it would suffice to include, in the "External Links" section, a link to the sub-page of the Stolen Honor website where the list was evidently taken from in the first place. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] recent rex edit

While the wording of what Rex is trying to put into the article may be disputed, I think its proper to include where the status is of these complaints. --kizzle 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only is the wording biased, but the scrambling of the chronological order creates a false impression -- an impression, as Gamaliel says, that the complaints went nowhere because they were frivolous. The actual order of events was: Sinclair announces plans to broadcast the film; Democrats complain that the broadcast would violate various rules; Sinclair back-pedals and claims it never contemplated any such thing; Sinclair ends up not taking the action that Democrats said would violate the rules. So, uh, yeah, there's nothing to indicate that these complaints went anywhere. They were mooted when Sinclair backed down. Given that Sinclair didn't broadcast the film, there was pretty clearly no violation. Duh!
Maybe we should rewrite the passage to put it in chrono order. Then no one would expect there to be any action on complaints about a broadcast that didn't occur. JamesMLane 20:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I think if the situation was put into chronological order it would make more sense. --kizzle 21:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
We ought not to leave this article dangling as if the "complaints" are actually active in any sense. Nor should we leave the reader with the sense that the mere making of a complaint, infers that the government body to which the complaint was sent, actually acts on complaints such as these. If I send a complaint about the quality of my McDonalds hamburger to the White House, rather than as a letter to the store manager, it doesn't make my complaint any more viable or important. Dangling inferences are not an effective way to let a novice reader of this topic become fully informed. Each trail of logic in a story needs to be moved along to it's current place in the scheme of things from time to time. This is why hard-copy encyclopedias would issue annual updates. Likewise, while it may have been enough a year ago to say 'such and such, or so and so complained about this or that'; regarding these specific complaints, it no longer is enough to leave them dangling. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 04:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Fall 2004 controversy

This article isn't about Sinclair, true; it's about the movie. That's why the article doesn't present corporate information about Sinclair. The material that Rex keeps removing concerns the possible airing of this particular movie, and the controversy attendant upon the content of this particular movie. This article is obviously the appropriate place for full detail about that subject (with only a summary in the Sinclair Broadcast Group article). This is elementary logic. It's not the sinister doings of the many-tentacled Liberal Editors Cabal; similar information about Fahrenheit 9/11 is included in that article. Furthermore, there's no reason to capitalize the word "Ticket" except that Rex was, not for the first time, blindly reverting without even paying much attention to what other editors have done. JamesMLane

Suffice it to say, JML has many times fought and prevented the inclusion of far more relevant material elsewhere, such as at John Kerry. In this instance, there is no question that a) Sinclair did not make this documentary b) Sinclair did not finance this documentary and c) the history of Sinclair is simply not relevant to an encyclopedic (as opposed to smear piece) article about Stolen Honor. There is no excuse - other than partisan bias / POV - to try to muck up this article with controversial information about Sinclair. JML, I disagree with you and am reverting you. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
By characterizing the suppressed material as "information about Sinclair", you are begging the question. The information concerns the possible airing of Stolen Honor shortly before the election. That is, manifestly, information about Stolen Honor. You don't suggest any other article where this information would be more relevant -- because, of course, you can't. If you were to succeed in censoring the information here, then it wouldn't be available anywhere on Wikipedia. I realize that the right wingers would find it convenient if this incident were to vanish down the memory hole. Such suppression would be a disservice to our readers, however, and their interests come first. JamesMLane 03:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The complaints were about Sinclair. The stock price issues were about Sinclair. The information JML insists on inserting pertains to the Sinclair Broadcast Group. While it might be ok in the Sinclair Broadcast Group article, it simple does not belong in Stolen Honor. JML's edit serves no purpose other than trying to inject tangental Election 2004 issues into this article. Stolen Honor is an encylopedia article that is supposed to be about the Stolen Honor documentary itself. This set of auxillary detail which he insists on inserting here, has the effect of turning this page into a big circus tent of tangental accusations (and defenses).

JML, need I remind you that there has already been an ArbComm finding that you "...carried the issues of the campaign into the encyclopedia article in detail" [1] last year at John Kerry? Is this is what your edit here is all about - partisan POV pushing?

JML's rationale is wanting, this particular edit of his does not belong here and is being reverted.

However, I see no problem with a much more modest pointer regarding "Singclair" and linking to the Sinclair Broadcast Group. JML would, at that page, be in the right location to insert his various and sundry facts about Sinclair. Provided of course, they are not too POV.

Now, as to JML's assertion claiming "suppressed material" - he is simply wrong [2], once again.

This time, he is making another false statement; JML is asserting that there is "suppressed material". But the truth is far from that. Rather, the issue at hand is that the material at issue here, is being edited in on the wrong page. The "material" JML claims is being "surpressed" can go where is belongs - elsewhere it the wiki.

Lastly JML, I am simply amazed that you would howl about "supressed material" at Stolen Honor. Looking at your actions against my edits at John Kerry, a reasonable person might conclude that you are the one who goes around "surpressing" information. Do you deny that? And if you do deny it, does that mean you are going to stop reverting me so much there (and at other articles?) Rex071404 216.153.214.94 04:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have made the good faith edit which I feel addresses JML's concerns. I'd be interested to hear on this page, if he is satisfied and if not, why not. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 04:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Your most recent edit does seem like a good faith effort. However, I still think all of the material you removed is directly relevant since the controversy revolved around Sinclair's proposed airing of this documentary. Gamaliel 09:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Rex, the dispute didn't arise based on whether the movie would air on Sinclair as opposed to some other network. The dispute arose over whether the movie would air at all, soon before the election. That dispute arose because of the content of the movie. Therefore it goes in the article about the movie. The dispute about the movie had an effect on Sinclair, lowering its stock price; the dispute about the movie had an effect on Ted Kennedy, causing him to file a complaint; but neither of these facts means that the narration of the dispute about the movie must be banished from the article about the movie and relegated to the articles about Sinclair or Kennedy.
The complaints were not about Stolen Honor they were about the possible actions that perhaps were going to be taken (but were not) by Sinclair Broadcast Group. Your refusal to distinguish between the two, is I feel, the major problem we are having here. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 23:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
In passing, I'm amused at your ES comment "turns out there already is a section there". If you had actually read my first comment in this thread, you would have noticed my recognition and approval of the longstanding setup: full detail in this article, summary in the Sinclair article. So, yes, "turns out" I was right.
JMl's idea is, I feel, backwards. The bulk of Sinclair text belongs on the Sinclair page. It is JML who insists on making the Stolen Honor article into a contested political football and at this point, it's not even in the news (nor was "Stolen Honor impacted Sinclair adversely" ever much of a news item to begin with). All that extra detail simply does not belong on this particular page. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 23:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Finally, with regard to your question about the ArbCom: No, you need not remind me of it, given that you have already done so more than once in the brief time since your return. In any event, I'm confident that, regardless of anything I say, you will continue to repeat that cherished theme of yours incessantly for quite some time to come. No one has ever accused you of lacking perseverance. I'm also confident that you'll continue to cite it without noting the context: I asked the ArbCom to provide one single solitary example of an edit of mine that would justify any criticism. The ArbCom, not having provided any such example, instead did not subject me to any restrictions, as had initially been considered. Compare "Enforcement" item 1.5 of the proposed decision with the "Enforcement" secction of the final decision, in which all the enforcement provisions are directed solely at you and your sockpuppet. JamesMLane 09:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with G an JML, but unable to reply today at length other than to say, if they trump me on this point, I would like to hold them on this 'editorial standard of inclusion' on some other political articles from which, they have blocked me from inserting various details. Frankly, I urge you both to reconsider. I have made an edit which speaks to your concerns, why don't the both of you trying being flexible on this point for a change? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You've made this plea before and it still doesn't make any sense. Because you perceive that you lose many editorial disputes, we should let you win one for a change? As I've said to you before, edits should be judged on a case by case basis, not compared to other articles like apples and oranges or allowed to slide because the user is due this time. Perhaps if you try to avoid controversy instead of tackling issues in a way you know will be contentious or refighting battles you lost a year ago, you would find your edits acceptable by a consensus of your fellow editors. Gamaliel 20:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
And take note that Gamaliel uses the word lose regarding the end result of past edit disagreements. The fact is, we are supposed to be aiming for win-win, not win-lose. This is more evidence supporting my contention that Gamaliel fundamentally misunderstands his duties and role regarding Consensus decision-making and Wikipedia:Negotiation. Rex071404 216.153.214.94

Regarding Gamaliel's comment, he seems to think that when I ask him to be flexible once and a while, I am asking him to "capitulate" rather than "negotiate". Which, according to Wikipedia:Negotiation, is a "cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties"'. And yet, it would appear that Gamaliel interprets a request to be "flexible" as some obtuse or alien idea.

Or, perhaps he simply cannot get out of an adversarial mindset (see Gamaliel comment above "...refighting battles you lost a year ago..."], wherein every attempt at negotiation with him, is viewed as a "battle".

Frankly, I feel that Gamaliel's utter refusal to accept anything that varies from what he (and a few like minded editors) seem to think is the apogee of perfection - as manifested in their edits - is at the crux of the problem, which as I see it that Gamaliel's idea of "consensus" is to out-vote (or ignore and revert) other editors (such as me) who posit alternative ideas.

Once again, I will point out that what I am asking for is "flexibility" in how Gamaliel's and my desired views are advanced when they conflict. It should not always have to result in me yielding.

As a matter of fact, according to Consensus decision-making the role of proper "consensus" is that "Consensus decision-making is intended to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices". How much more plainly can I say it? My individual voice is not allowed to be expressed. Rather, it is the faction (currently comprised generally of Gamaliel, Szyslak and JameMLane) which hound, block, revert and delete my edits to virtually any political page.

Suffice it to say, I am not persuaded that Gamaliel is making any good-faith effort to have a meeting of the minds with me. Indeed, he recently referred to a patient explanation of mine as a "rant" [3].

Where is Gamaliel's true good faith approach in that attitude? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 23:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I originally composed a lengthy reply to this, but then I realized that it was pointless and decided not to post it. Every argument and disagreement with Rex always becomes about Rex, about his feelings and his behavior and how he feels left out of our reindeer games. None of that matters. The point is not Rex and whether or not he gets to play, but whether or not Rex's edits improve the article. I do not feel Rex's edits improve the article. End of story. If Rex wishes to discuss alternative edits, I will participate in the discussion. We should all refrain if at all possible from continuing to discuss Rex's feelings as this is not the proper forum for that discussion. Gamaliel 00:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well then, there you have it "I do not feel Rex's edits improve the article", period. It's precisely as I've stated in prior dialogs with Gamaliel; I am convinced, based on the talk page evidence, that Gamaliel simply will not engage in true Consensus decision-making - his mind is closed regarding my edits and he will not adjust his thinking based on any of my requests, explanations or logic. For this reason, all dealings regarding content disagreements with Gamaliel end up being adversarial, for the simple reason that he insists that they end up that way. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


Above you accused me of viewing this as an adversarial "battle", but one of the things that makes discussion with you so infuriating is that you wrench quotes out of context (like "I realized that it was pointless") and wave them around triumphantly. That is pretty much the definition of adversarial. As it's pretty clear to anyone except you, "I realized that it was pointless" refers to my long reply discussing your personal feelings about your interactions on wikipedia and my refusal to further discuss that topic and my wish to restrict discussion to edits. I also clearly said "I will participate in the discussion" about edits. This is not, as your spurious edit summary claims, someone who "refuses to dialog", this is exactly the opposite. What you are doing is immature, ridiculous, and the cause of everyone's negative reactions towards you. This is not dialog. This is not discussion. This is not consensus building. This is not mature. This is not anything except you purposely being contentious and offensive and adversarial while you are trying to claim you are doing the opposite. Gamaliel 02:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
When you are done insulting me (re: "immature", "ridiculous", "the cause of everyone's negative reactions") we should try to agree on edits we will both accept, don't you think? In the meantime, I am sorry you are upset. Ps: You were the one who characterized my efforts as "refighting battles you lost" (see above). That being the case, I think it unfair that you lashed out with insults because I addressed your claims with a response (see above). Rex071404 216.153.214.94 04:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
You claim to be sorry that I was upset, and yet you repeated the exact same lie in your latest edit summary that pissed me off in the first place. I can only conclude you are being deliberately provocative to provoke a response so you can claim to be a victim. I'm sorry I fell for that tactic. Gamaliel 05:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning on this matter makes no sense to me. Indeed I am sorry that you are upset, in that I'd prefer you to not be. However, since when are your emotions the basis of what edits I agree to or not? And even if that could be a basis, you've not earned it with me, for the simple reason that you ignore basically all my well reasoned and talk page supported edit ideas. Suffice it to say, we are now at the end-game of reversions without additional dialog, because 'you quit the dialog - and not for any other reason (except perhaps that leaving talk page comments for JamesMLane here is also not fruitful). Rex071404 216.153.214.94 15:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how or why you insist on reading "I will participate in the discussion" as "you quit the dialog". Gamaliel 18:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Uh, if you don't respond to the points I've made (see above), then it's pretty clear to me, you have quit the dialog. Indeed, the fact that you left a reply (above), which is not a response (does not address the points I raised), shows that you have indeed "quit the dialog", regardles of your claims of "I will participate in the discussion". Q: If you are not making a distinction between "discussion" (your word) and "dialog" (my word), are you going to respond the points I've made above, yes or no? And if yes, when? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I will only particpate in discussion or dialog or whatever about edits to Stolen Honor. I have already stated my opinion that your edits do not improve the article and that the information you wish to remove is directly relevant to this article. I do not know what more needs to be said on this matter at this time. Gamaliel 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, as I have stated above, the finality of your position is evidence that you are not meeting your burden to engage in Consensus decision-making. By refusing to attempt a solution where my views and your views are both represented in the article, you have clearly quit the dialog. It is simply not enough to state your "opinion" that "[Rex's] edits do not improve the article" and try to leave it at that.

Again I will point out that your repeated efforts to impose your opinion and/or that of others such as JamesMLane via "out-voting" or "out-reverting" me, rather than actually incoporating my perspective as well, is in violation of the basic tenent of Consensus decision-making (see above) and for that reason, trying to conclude your participation with a final opinion pertaining to how you "feel" or don't "feel" not acceptable. I reject your conclusionary opinion (re: " I have already stated my opinion that your edits do not improve the article") as being invalid in regards to your duty to meet your burden to dialog towards the aim of reaching true consensus - and I again point out to you that regarding this edit in dispute, you have already conceded that my version was a "good-faith" edit [4]. For these reasons, the combined efforts of you and JML to impose your version on myself is nothing more than imperious opinion pushing - with you you forcing your opinion about my edit down in my face. Please, for once, have enough flexibility to put your opinions aside and try working with me towards a mutually acceptable solution. Thanks. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, you accuse Gamaliel of "refusing to attempt a solution where my views and your views are both represented in the article". You are wrong. Although one of your edit summaries links to Wikipedia:Negotiation, you ignore the key point -- that the version of this artice that Gamaliel and I favor complies with the standard that negotiation "usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article". The article reports the point of view critical of Kerry (the charge that he caused increased maltreatment of POWs). It reports Powell's POV that a broadcast of Stolen Honor wouldn't violate the FCC rule. It reports Sinclair's POV about Lieberman's firing. You haven't identified any notable view that's missing. If there is one, please add it. Please stop removing information that doesn't happen to suit your agenda. JamesMLane 04:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Not so - JML's and Gamaliel's view is that the article - sans my edits - is basically fine. Therefore, their view is represented by the totality of the article. If they are able to keep all my edits out, then 100% of the article comports with their view. Suffice it to say, I am of the view that there is too much Sinclair details in Stolen Honor - whereas, JamesMLane and Gamaliel want more in than I do. Perhaps if I was saying there should be no Sinclair material, then a case could be made that I am not hearing their view. However, even more to the point, is why JML and G want to trumpet controversial facts about Sinclair Broadcast Group in a totally distinct article (Stolen Honor)? I suggest it's because neither of them have it straight yet that the Stolen Honor article is not titled "The Stolen Honor Documentary Controversy". Now, if they want to start a page by that name, then they are welcome to dump all the excess Sinclair controversy items there. I repeat, JML and G are going off-topic with various textual insertions and that's what this edit disagreement is about. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 05:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rex’s unauthorized alteration of my comment

I began a thread under the heading "Rex's attempted suppression of accurate and relevant information". Rex unilaterally replaced that with a heading of his choice, "Sinclair Broadcast Group", interpolating his chosen heading immediately before my comment that began, "This article isn't about Sinclair...." Obviously, his heading put my comment in a false light. The next day, he noted that the real heading had no content under it (although he didn’t point out that this was because of his own finagling). He removed the heading I had written, giving the deceptive ES "refractor [sic] this page by removing ad-hominem attack section title that has no associated talk".

Rex, I'm not going to get in an edit war over something this small. Once again, your utter relentlessness in pursuing your POV, without regard for Wikipedia rules or for anyone else’s opinion, will enable you to get your way on a point. Congratulations.

For your information, an ad hominem attack "consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong . . . purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person . . . rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself." An example in this case would have been something like, "revert deletion made by known disrupter". I didn’t say that or anything close to it. I didn't criticize your deletion on the basis that it was yours. If you had actually read my edit, you would have discovered that I had addressed the specific edits I was reverting, and that I had explained why the heading I wrote was accurate. In other words, I addressed the soundness of your argument, rather than hiding behind any of the discreditable/not-authoritative things about you that I could have pointed out.

If you disagree with something I write, you have demonstrated on scores of occasions that you are perfectly capable of expressing your disagreement. Your disagreement, however, is no basis for removing or altering my comments. Do not do so again. JamesMLane 16:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

JML, in your above demand, you assert that I ought not to be "removing or altering [your] comments". Suffice it to say, if the purpose of this page is to reach consensus, via discussion, then the section titles ought to be focused on an edits based discussion, not a person based discussion - particularly if the reference to the person is loaded, as in your section title's attempt to frame the discussion with a presumption that I am attempting "surpression".
Following up on this, since you have made it clear that you accuse me of removing your "comments" it is also clear that your choice of words for that section title was not made on the basis of organizing this page for edits discussion, but rather, your choice of words was made so you could, as you state, make "comments" about me personally. The fact that you are so fixated on me and will not stay focused on the edits, is taxing. Even so, I'm am still trying to help you get back on track here.
Therefore, once again, I will point out that you are trying to transform Stolen Honor from an article about that documentary itself, to a politicized one about what you contend is a supposedly notable controversy related to what a separate and distinct article subject Sinclair Broadcast Group was maybe, at one time, going to do regarding its own broadcasting schedule. Suffice it to say, there is no evidence of a generally held public perception that complaints against Sinclair are in any way wedded to the public views about Stolen Honor. It is only your POV that makes this very strained connection. And yet, in good faith, I even made an edit that gives you a highly viable link from Stolen Honor to Sinclair Broadcast Group, which is where your anti-Sinclair material belongs (if anywhere). I am trying my best to reach consensus with you. I ask that you try your best also. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 21:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I've concluded that we'll need to go to RfC. I was going to leave in your biased section heading, but because I'll now be linking to it, for the benefit of people who haven't been following the dispute, I've reconsidered. It needs to be changed to something that doesn't convey a false impression that the disputed material concerns Sinclair. We can all agree that the disputed material concerns a controversy that arose last fall. I've retitled the section on that basis, without mentioning your name, which is what seemed to upset you the most. JamesMLane 07:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JamesMLane's repeated efforts at person-based argumentation

Based on the information from JML (see above) it appears that such titles as I have now chosen for this section are acceptable to him. So be it. As for JML and his person-based argumentation, I believe he is engaging in ad hominem attacks. He is welcome to disagree. Also, as to JML's statement above, a careful review of his pattern of constantly reverting me either by himself and/or closely on the heels of Gamaliel and/or closely in other patterns, could reasonably lead to the conclusion that his sole objection to my edits, is that I am making them. Certainly, that is an ad hominem pattern of reverts - so far as I see it. Additionally, when he goes ahead and makes the section heading about the fact that I have opposed his edit rather than what the edit is about, he is again focusing his argument on me, the implicit message being that somehow it's wrong because I did it. After all, he did characterize my edit as "attempted surpression". And, since he does not support his charge of "supression" it's clear that he derisively calls my edit "supression" as a means of making it appear faulty - simply because I made it. Yet, by his own statement (see above), JamesMLane is confirms that he is indeed engaging in ad hominem attacks and mis-focusing his argruments on me, rather than the edit under discussion. For the record, the issue at hand here is that JML wrongly insists on inserting details regarding Sinclair Broadcast Group into the article about Stolen Honor. And, he is doing so to make a point about SH, which is 'SH is bad', which he has already made clear (via the many reverts and edits he's helped with on this article since inception, various comments of his and his general edit pattern), is what he thinks. I contend that JML's insistance on putting the excess Sinclair details here does nothing but push his POV Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC re scope of this article

The subject of the article, Stolen Honor, is a film that was made during the 2004 U.S. presidential election campaign, attacking one of the candidates, John Kerry. One editor has repeatedly removed several different passages from the article. The other editors who are currently active in the article disagree with the deletions, but have not convinced the dissident editor.

This information for people responding to the RfC has been prepared by JamesMLane. I’ve tried to be fair, but be warned that I’m one of the editors most involved in the dispute.

There are two main subjects: (1) the film producer’s journalistic record, and (2) the controversy over a planned broadcast of the film (which, ultimately, didn't occur).

[edit] (1) Film producer’s journalistic record

One issue concerns information about the journalistic background of the film’s producer, Carlton Sherwood. There is no dispute that the article should mention that he was part of a Gannett News Service team that won a Pulitzer Prize. The dispute is about including this sentence:

In 1992, the PBS television series Frontline reported that Inquisition, Sherwood's "purportedly independent investigation" of the Unification Church, had been subject to prior review and revision by its subject. [5]

There has been some discussion above.

[edit] Summarized argument for inclusion

The Carlton Sherwood article has detailed information about Sherwood, but, because he produced this film, it’s reasonable for this article to note major points about him that bear on his journalistic credibility. Both the Pulitzer (positive) and the Unification Church incident (negative) are relevant. The source is the transcript of the Frontline broadcast.

[edit] Summarized argument for removal

In removing the sentence, Rex071404 has given these edit summaries:

  • “remove this information - this belonggs on sherwood's page, not here”
  • “delete this item - the only ‘reference’ is a transcript of an ‘attack ad’ - needs better source

In August, TDC removed this sentence, saying, “Is this article about the movie, or Sherwood? Considering he already has an artilce, relevent info should go there”.

[edit] Comments about Sherwood sentence

  • Modify. Responding to the RFC. Here are the key paragraphs from the transcript:
Narrator: One week after talking to Regnery, FRONTLINE obtained a copy of a letter addressed to Sun Myung Moon. The letter was written by James Gavin, a Moon aide. Gavin tells Moon he reviewed the "overall tone and factual contents" of Inquisition before publication and suggested revisions. Gavin adds that the author "Mr. Sherwood has assured me that all this will be done when the manuscript is sent to the publisher." Gavin concludes by telling Moon, "When all of our suggestions have been incorporated, the book will be complete and in my opinion will make a significant impact.... In addition to silencing our critics now, the book should be invaluable in persuading others of our legitimacy for many years to come."
Narrator: Although he refused an on-camera interview, Carlton Sherwood told Frontline that the Unification Movement exerted no editorial control over his book.

It seems to me, then, that what Frontline did was report finding a memo in which one of Moon's employees claimed to have reviewed the book, but that Sherwood denied it. If you're going to use this incident for insight into Sherwood, his denial should be included, imho. Brandon39 12:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Include with denial. It's as relevant as the Pulitzer, but if there are two sides to the Frontline story, both should be included. -- FRCP11 12:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Exclude - The "Moonie" allegation does nothing but attempt to bring ill-reput to Mr. Sherwood, and by association, Stolen Honor. As for the Pulitzer, it's part of his accomplishments, part of his resume and reasonably makes sense, but the "Moonie" allegation is not part of his resume, but rather, is a poorly sourced (the link I deleted went to a partisan web page - which did no more than post the transcript from a paid political attack ad) 3rd person, POV, personal attack against the Stolen Honor producer for prior work (13 years ago!) which had nothing to do with the topic of Stolen Honor and is too old - 13 years - to be relevant. This is especially true due to the poorly sourced and partisan nature of the link. Also, this Rfc is an attempted end-run around Wikipedia:Negotiation because the notifying party JamesMLane has not addresed these points by justifying them on the Stolen Honor talk page. Now, JML may want to argue that Stolen Honor was at one point castigated as possibly going to have an effect along the lines of a paid political attack ad, but even so, I am absolutely certain - based on my many dealings with him, that he would oppose me quoting the transcript of Stolen Honor at say John Kerry and yet, this is the precise equivalent of what he is trying to force into Stolen Honor. JamesMLane is proposing that as a source, we use a paid poltical attack ad. James is once again, attempting to utilize a procedure which essentially boils down to him trying to "out-vote" me, rather than try for a bona-fide meeting of the minds on the proper associated talk page. Regardless of the outcome of this Rfc, if true Wikipedia:Negotiation were occuring at Stolen Honor James would not have resorted to this Rfc. Sufice it to say, if the "Moonie" allegation goes anywhere, it ought to go on Sherwood's personal page - but only if its better sourced. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 14:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Include. Let's see, the creator of a politicially charged documentary which is accused of bias previously made a politically charged documentary which was accused of bias. I don't see how this isn't clearly and directly relevant. It is certainly a lot more relevant than Sherwood's work with the WVC3 Group and Homeland Security. Efforts to remove only Sherwood info perceived as negative and not this irrelevant personal information smacks of partisan bias.
Excuse me for interjecting, Gamaliel, but you make a darn good point here! You've linked politically charged with accused of bias in a way which is interesting and relevant. Let's not sweep this bit of dirt under the rug. (Yes, I know what I've posted at talk:Carlton Sherwood - but that was prior to stumbling over this. Good catch! Uncle Ed 18:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Arguments about the link are a straw man. The allegation is perfectly well sourced by referencing Frontline, a respected documentary series.
This has all been discussed over a year ago. Now that his ArbCom ban has expired, Rex is bringing up the same issues that had been settled way back then, with no new information or arguments. Gamaliel 17:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Include with denial as per FRCP11. --kizzle 19:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto (Kizzle/FRCP11Nattering Nabob 19:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to criticism section The credibility of the movie is not necessarily affected by the Director's previous doings, nor it is necessarily affected by the inclusion of the paragraph. However, as it is unrelated to the content of the movie, inclusion suggests it is and some people will interpret it as an ad hominem. It obviously suggests that the credibility of the movie is in question as a result. This the same reason I think maybe that removing the last bit of the following line on the Fahrenheit 9/11 page might be appropriate too: "One of his primary sources for these claims is the book House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger, which Moore also advertises on his website." This is a very similar addition to the article, almost identical. Both suggest that "something" might possibly be afoot. It places their motives in question. So, if this sentence is excluded, you should ask those people who want to take it out to go to the F9/11 page and ask for the "which Moore also advertises on his website" to be taken out too. It doesn't matter to me that the sentence on F9/11 is in there too much, but I think it should be in the criticism section, not in the main section. By that, this bit about Sherwood should be in the criticism section too.--Ben 08:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (2) Controversy about planned broadcast

During the 2004 campaign, the Sinclair Broadcast Group announced plans to air the film shortly before the election. This occasioned a controversy about whether, in light of the film’s anti-Kerry content, such a broadcast would violate Federal Communications Commission rules or would otherwise be illegal or unfair. Rex071404 made multiple reverts to remove a passage discussing various aspects of the controversy about the possible broadcast of the film. ([6], [7], etc.) Other editors restored the passage.

In Rex071404’s most recent edits, he has reworded the passage. There is no agreement on his new wording, which has not yet been discussed. His version still omits any form of these sentences, which other editors had restored:

More than 100 advertisers pulled out their ads. The public controversy caused Sinclair stock to drop considerably.

There has been some discussion above.

[edit] Summarized argument for inclusion

The planned broadcast of this film was one incident in the history of Sinclair. The appropriate way to present the information about the controversy is with a detailed account in the article about the film and a brief summary in Sinclair Broadcast Group.

[edit] Summarized argument for removal

Rex071404 wrote in edit summary: “rv - Remove excess text specific to Sinclair- this article is about the documnetary itself. Excess Sincliar details belong on a Sinclair page”. In a later ES, he reiterated: “rv - restore my previous edt - as stated, this article is not about Sinclair”. On this talk page, he added, “I even made an edit that gives you a highly viable link from Stolen Honor to Sinclair Broadcast Group, which is where your anti-Sinclair material belongs (if anywhere).”

[edit] Comments about 2004 controversy

  • Include. This article is the proper place for the full exposition of the controversy occasioned by the plan to broadcast the film, including the effects of that controversy on Sinclair. The disputed sentences merit inclusion. Furthermore, even if Rex071404 goes back to trying to remove the other information, it should also be included. JamesMLane 11:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Modify. I'd say the information about advertisers pulling their spots is relevant. The fact that their stock dropped at the same time causes one to suspect that this was also related to the controversy, but the passage as worded seems more conclusive than is warranted. On the whole, I'd suggest rewording it so that it is less conclusive, or providing evidence of a direct link between the controversy and the stock decline. Brandon39 12:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Modify. Unless a large-scale investor said they were pulling out of the stock over the controversy, the cause of the stock drop is speculative. (It's not even clear to me that a meaningful stock drop occurred--anyone investing in SBGI when they announced the documentary was coming out and selling in late December 2004 would've made a substantial short-term profit.[8]) The only reason the documentary is notable is because of the controversy, so the advertisers pulling their spots is relevant and should be included. -- FRCP11 12:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Modify The cause of the stock price drop was added by myself a few months ago [9] (look towards the end), it along with other information was continually reverted. Re-add this and any other information, in this version, not currently in the present article ‘’ Large Democrat union pension funds sold off shares in Sinclair broadcasting causing Sinclair stock to drop nearly 25% in three weeks, and over 100 advertisers pulled out their ads [10]. In response, Sinclair announced that it had never intended to air Stolen Honor in the hour slot in the first place, indicating that they might instead show clips of the video in a discussion panel format. TDC 14:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The stock price drop was then politically motivated. That Democratic union pension funds would violate their fiduciary duty to pension-holders to make a political point is interesting, but if the stock drop is to be included, that context should be included, as well as the fact that the stock more than rebounded by December. -- FRCP11 15:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Exclude excess details about Sinclair Broadcast Group from Stolen Honor. I contend that JamesMLane is trying to stuff excess amounts of controversial details about Sinclair, into the Stolen Honor article so as to push a POV, that being: Aha!, those who complained about Stolen Honor were "right" - look at the bad things which happened to Sinclair for even thinking about going near it - Stolen Honor must be junk. All of James's legitimate editorial goals about the Sinclair details, can be met by includng those details at Sinclair Broadcast Group and linking to that page - as I did (and which was rightly described by another editor as a good faith edit). Now however, James seeks to overule my good faith edit, so he can resume inserting harsh material about Sinclair Broadcast Group into Stolen Honor. I ask, other than try to make the merits of Stolen Honor as a documentary seem less worthwhile, what editorial goal of informing the readers is so much better met by including this Sinclair stuff at Stolen Honor? I say nothing but "guilt by association" is accomplished and that's POV and JamesMLane is pushing it here. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 14:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Include. Once again, I don't see how this isn't clearly and directly relevant. The Sinclair controversy didn't involve the movie, it was about the movie, and to omit this information is to leave out perhaps the most important chapter in the history of the movie, and is information that the reader will expect to see here. It seems from the above comments that Rex is motivated by fear that JML is supposedly trying to "stuff excess amounts of controversial details" in the article, but this is not a sound reason to exclude directly relevant information. Gamaliel 17:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Modify I'd say remove the comments about the stock dropping. They are irrelevant. That is really about economics of Sinclair Group, not about the movie.
Now I want to say another thing. For those who want to include that info, please take a deep breath before you read the following. First consider what I said above. Keep calm because you will get angry. Remember this is my opinion: I believe a possible motivation why it is included is to appeal to a sense of "power of the people," these people, being Democrats, thus appealing that people are generally Democrats, and that Democrats are powerful (though the 2004 vote sadly says different). "Democrats are powerful enough to cause a drop in stock price." Inclusion is really irrelevant to the movie, so why include it at all? For that reason, people who want to remove that particular part might see that as the motivation. Check your biases and make sure that isn't really your motivation or at least part of your motivation. --Ben 08:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other views

I do agree with the crux of Rex’s argument that the article is about the film, not about Sherwood. The article seems to me like more of a smear piece from Disinfopedia than an encyclopedia entry. There should be plenty of room allotted to discussing and documenting the controversies that came about from this film, but anything not directly related to the film, “Sherwood is a Moonie hack and the like”, should be given a disproportionate amount of attention. TDC 14:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying include "moonie" or exclude it? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, exclude Moonie. Sherwood article currently contains information, only purpose here is to interject POV.

Please sign your post - it's a vote Rex071404 216.153.214.94 15:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Extremely long comments, and responses, and replies, and rejoinders, etc., would make the primary "Comments" sections hard to follow. Because this talk page doesn't have a talk page, I'll use this space for any of my responses that have to be long.
1. The references to "Moonie" by Rex and TDC are utterly out of place. No one is saying Sherwood is a "Moonie hack", no one is trying to use the term "Moonie" in the article, and no one is trying to smear Sherwood by saying that he wrote a book about a controversial church. The issue, rather, is what kind of journalist has produced this so-called "documentary" film. Part of the answer is that the film's producer is someone who allegedly departed from journalistic standards by failing to maintain proper independence from the subject of one of his earlier works. That the subject of that work happened to be a controversial church is beside the point. It could just as easily have been the Girl Scouts. The crux of the dispute is the prior review.
2. It's clear that the article is about the film, but that doesn't mean it's barred from touching on other subjects. The film doesn't come from a major filmmaker. Therefore, the reader could legitimately want to know something about who's responsible for the film. TDC continues to be inconsistent -- the article isn't about Sherwood when there's information undermining his credibility, but the article suddenly is about Sherwood when his Vietnam service and his Pulitzer Prize are at issue.
3. Rex is misrepresenting the facts about Inquisition. Rex argues that Sherwood's Pulitzer is part of his resume but that the 13-year-old dispute about Inquisition is "too old to be relevant". This attempts to convey the impression that the Pulitzer is more recent. If the 1992 dispute about the 1991 book is too old to be relevant, then so is the 1980 Pulitzer, as well as the even earlier Vietnam service. As for the source, Rex keeps talking about "a paid political attack ad". Say what? Our article on Frontline notes that it's a public-affairs program produced at WGBH, the public television station in Boston, Massachusetts, and distributed through PBS. The material cited here is on the second page of the transcript. If you look at the first page, you'll see that it's presented with permission from WGBH. I see no evidence that this transcript was ever used in a "paid political attack ada", but even if it was, is there any basis for questioning the accuracy of the transcript as supplied by WGBH? (I mean accurate in the sense that it reflects what the program said. If the program certainly said something but the truth of what it said isn't certain, then the remedy is to NPOV the text of our article, not to delete the subject entirely.)
4. Rex makes his usual charge that there are no negotiations occurring. When I restored the information he'd deleted, my edit summary cited no fewer than five threads on this talk page in which this and related issues had been discussed at great length. In those threads, I said what I had to say. Unlike Rex, I see no virtue in saying the same things over and over and over, so I simply referenced them. It was disingenuous for Rex to revert me with an edit summary reading "rv - restore edit as per request for genuine Wikipedia:Negotiation", acting as if those lengthy prior discussions had never happened.
5. Rex adds another of his favorite themes, that I am "trying to 'out-vote'" him. This charge is ridiculous. Rex is already outvoted. In the recent editing of this article, no one else has agreed with him. I didn't call for votes, I called for comments -- that's what the C in RfC means. This is not a vote. The attempts of other editors to convey their ideas to Rex were meeting with their usual success (none whatsoever), so I hoped that getting fresh input would be more productive than for the rest of us to just keep reverting Rex.
6. Rex purports to read my mind and discover that I'm thinking, "look at the bad things which happened to Sinclair for even thinking about going near it - Stolen Honor must be junk". This charge imputes to me motives that I don't have and that don't make sense. I'm not saying that advertisers' decisions or the Sinclair stock price movements prove that the content of the film is erroneous. That would be a complete non sequitur. (Almost no one had even seen the film at that time.) Rather, the point is that the article is about the film, and one notable fact about the film is that the controversy about it affected a publicly traded company's stock. Not every film does that. That a film had that effect is worth reporting in the article about the film, even though it doesn't shed any light on whether people should have voted for Kerry or for Bush, which seems to be the prism through which Rex views everything. I'm not trying to refight the 2004 election; I'm trying to give the reader of this article interesting and useful information about the film that's the subject of the article. JamesMLane 19:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I think James has done an excellent job summarizing the issues and makes a good case for why the info is relevant and should be included. I have some side questions, is this "film" still an issue nowadays, is there an on going FCC or other investigation, and what have Sinclair et al been up to recently? zen master T 21:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Who is the "el al" you refer to when you say "Sinclair et al". Seems to me, there is none. Unless of course, you are contending that Sherwood was co-ordinating his efforts in a co-plan with Sinclair or something like that. Indeed, such insinuations are the basis for trying to excessively link SH with Sinclair and vice versa. That said, I reject the notion that they are linked. They are only linked in the mind of a few partisans who edit here, nowhere else.Rex071404 216.153.214.94 02:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I simply do not agree. James is shifting his basis for what's acceptable in an article. Literally dozens of times, him and Gamaliel etc, have reverted me at articles over far more relevant details. Likewise, I have been reverted by James and his ilk over far better sourced, more current material. The page he wants to link to is called "moontranscript.shtml", so this is certainly a "moonie" link.

James's inability to distinquish between a resume and a "rap sheet" is basically why he is confusing criticisms of one of Sherwood's past endeveavors with a factual recitation of of an element of his CV. Typically, one puts their accomplishments on their resume, not 3rd party person's criticisms.

To me it is simply laughable how Gamaliel and James vehemently insist that all controversial stuff relating to their icon John Kerry go on subsidiary pages there. But here, they insist on inserting tons of controversial material at Stolen Honor which rightly has a better home at Carlton Sherwood and Sinclair Broadcast Group. And even with links (in SH) pointing to those pages, which make clear there is "controversy" that can be read about there, this group is simply not satisfied. Basically, with them, the controversies must be in an article when they want them to be (rather than linked to on another page) and they must not be included when they don't want them to be.

Suffice it to say, I've tried my best with them again and again, but it's plain to see that the confederation of Kizzle, Gamaliel and JamesMLane simply do not care to allow my views to be incorporated in or help shape any political article we jointly edit.

Perhaps we are speaking diferent dialects or something, but when I read Wikipedia:Negotiation, it says to me "Objective criteria such as accuracy, reliability, and fair representation of all significant points of view can be used as participants in a dispute to work toward solutions".

I don't see that happening here and frankly, "outvoting" is in the forefront of JML's mind (he basically said so above) and also, check his edit history - he ran around leaving messages for his cohorts Gamaliel and Kizzle to do just that - out vote.

When my edits continually get blocked by these editors acting in concert/harmony as they do, there simply is no fair representation of all significant points of view, period.

Rex071404 216.153.214.94 23:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I voted for George Bush, and I don't regret it. That said, it seems to me that allegations of misconduct on other, unrelated articles are irrelevant to discussion of this article. If Rex has issues with edits made by these users on other articles, he should follow JML's example, and create a fair, balanced RfC addressing those issues. If he feels there is an ongong personal conflict between himself and JML (and/or others), he should create an RfC directed at those particular users. He should not clutter up discussion of how to improve this article by references to edits made to other, unrelated article; that does not in any way go to the merits of the case at hand. Brandon39 23:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Part and parcel of the stumbling block here is that JML et al, use one argument on one talk page and then contradict themselves on another. They do, I feel, shift their editing guidlines to suit themsleves. I also feel that they are doing that here now and that it's part of the problem on this page now. That's what it's "relevant". Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Rex, if you feel that way, by all means file an RfC concerning their behavior, and let your fellow editors evaluate the larger issue. But the thing we should be focussing on here is the quality of this particular article. Brandon39 03:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The various administraive preocedures tend to be ineffective against anyhting that's not explicit and obvious. And since the actions by JML and G tend towards the subtle (though still insidious, I feel), I've found it's most effective to keep the spotlight on whatever they are up to, by making notes and observations, as needed. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 06:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when you forego the officially available remedies for the situation as you perceive it to be, you risk giving the appearance of being unreasonable and uncooperative. Wikipedia is not a place to debate and "win" arguments; it's a place where people are supposed to act in good will to produce the best articles we can. Brandon39 06:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Uh, who said anything about "forego"? In no way have I sworn off official remedies. If and/or when circumstances present themselves that 3rr complaints or Arbitration can be invoked to reign in certain self-centric, non-negotiating editors who revert too much and in round-robin, team oriented fashion, well of course I'd be interested in looking at that. However, my current assesment is that I am dealing with well practiced behind-the-scenes, up the sleeve types, who are not about to easily expose themselves to any official sanctions. No, the only viable path here now, is to keep talking till I'm blue in the face - explaining each and every point that needs be - and maybe some of it will finally sink in. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 08:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's my response to Zen-master's questions:
Rex removed language I wrote that would have answered your first question:
In response [to the complaints], Sinclair announced that it had never intended to air Stolen Honor in the hour slot in the first place, indicating that it might instead show clips of the video in a discussion panel format. It did not broadcast any such show before the election, however, so the Democrats' complaints about the proposed airing became moot.
If we want to get into all the details, Sinclair didn't show the film as such, but used a few parts of it in another program, a use that the Federal Elections Commission ruled wasn't illegal. Nothing is ongoing. AFAIK the film is still available online.
As to your second question, Sinclair Broadcast Group had been accused of misusing its media power to aid right-wing causes even before the Stolen Honor incident, and there've been other such incidents since then. Note that Sinclair didn't produce this film; it merely planned to air the film on all its member stations just before the election. JamesMLane 23:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
And my responses to the later comments: Brandon, thanks for pitching in to try to keep Rex focused. Perhaps, as an unrepentant Bush voter, you can get him to pay attention to your good advice; he seems to tune the rest of us out. As for Rex's comment above, I wholeheartedly agree with his suggestion that anyone concerned about my conduct should check out my edit history. I did indeed leave messages about this RfC for Gamaliel and kizzle. I also left one for TDC, with whom, as best I can remember offhand, I've never agreed on anything (and who, as I noted in my presentation of the RfC, had previously deleted some of the material that I think should stay). In fact, I notified Rex himself and TDC before I notified Gamaliel and kizzle. I simply tried to notify everyone who'd edited this talk page in the past year or so. If I missed anyone, it was because I'd already spent far too much time on the RfC and I was getting bleary. Rex's insinuation that I deliberately tried to stack the discussion is false, and can be seen to be false by anyone who actually looks at the source that Rex himself recommends (my edit history). JamesMLane 00:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Right here, "Sinclair Broadcast Group had been accused of misusing its media power to aid right-wing causes even before the Stolen Honor incident, and there've been other such incidents since then. Note that Sinclair didn't produce this film; it merely planned to air the film on all its member stations just before the election", James admits: 1) he sees his edit as highlighting an accusation against Sinclair itself (not SH) and 2) the accusation concerns Sinclair's plans, not Sherwood's and not the SH production company's plans.

This material plain and simply, belongs on the Sinclair page only. Period. If JML keeps up this kind of argumentation, I am going to go back and find his talk page comments to me from last year where is absolutely insisted on not having the same information show up twice in two somewhat related/linked articles.

Note that James is not saying the Sinclair information should not be in the Sinclair page at all - rather he is saying that it ought to be redundantly edited into both Sinclair and SH. This contravenes various times he's insisted to me in the past that a link from one article to another must suffice.

As it stands now, James is trying to put more anti-Sinclair material into SH than actually is even in Sinclair - where it's more relevant.

Is JML actually saying that Sinclair related material - complaints about Sinclair itself - is less relevant on the Sinclair specific page than at SH? He's a lawyer, he knows the best evidence rule. To me there is a corollary to that here - the best location rule - but JML appears to be telling us that we must accept only his/his pals rationales regarding placement here.

JML; are you contending that the end result (if you get your way here) is that the article will then be at the apogee of perfection, never being able to get any better than it is?

And final note; by sweeping SH into a very broad "been accused.....before" allegation about Sinclair, JML lumps Stolen Honor into a group of "right-wing causes", it's quite clear that JML simply is unable to grasp that Conservatives (Sherwood - Stolen Honor) as well as Liberals (Samuels, et al - Going Upriver) are able to make a genuine documentary.

It is simply amazing to me that the pro-Kerry hagiographic documentary article (Going Upriver) is so nice and polite, with not one adverse tidbit about any of the persons listed on that page, but here at Stolen Honor, if Sherwood was accused of doing so much as pinching a Snickers bar in the 3rd grade, we are going to here about it. If the other editors won't concede that there is disparate treatment to articles (relating to politics) that have like subject matter, then I think I don't know what else to tell them. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In the foregoing comment, Rex has misrepresented my views. No one who wants to know what I think should rely on Rex for a report. JamesMLane 00:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ad hominem insults by JamesMLane

Read the edit summary [11] by JML for the above "foregoing" comment "not going to be baited by Rex, he's wasted enough of my time today". It's yet another personal attack by JML. When someone does not agree with him and shows his rationales to be wanting, he sometimes attacks them. This is one of those times. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 02:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not really a personal attack. It's more like an expression of frustration - which Wikipedia policy DOES allow.
But if I were to write you always waste my time, you brainless jerk that would be out of bounds. The judge would crack the gavel and make opposing counsel mollify you. (I saw a picture of a guy getting mollifed once . . . ;-) Uncle Ed 18:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WVC3 info

Should this info be on James' list for reinclusion too, why was it removed? I think it's highly relevant. [12]

Sherwood is Executive Vice President and Director of Communications of the WVC3 Group, Inc., a security and defense corporation headquartered in Reston, Virginia. Sherwood previously worked for Republican Tom Ridge when he was governor of Pennsylvania. Some time later, with Ridge serving as Secretary of Homeland Security for George W. Bush's administration, that agency awarded Sherwood a federal contract to create a government anti-terrorism website.

zen master T 23:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is some evidence of a quid pro quo for having made this film, or at least an allegation of such from a notable person or organization, I don't think it's relevant to this article. It might be appropriate on the Sherwood article. You have to draw the line somewhere. Brandon39 23:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Something doesn't have to be an allegation to be relevant and worthy of inclusion, background info and a pattern of behavior of the people involved is highly relevant on its own. A synopsis of the info should be here and more detail should be put in the Sherwood article. It's not an encyclopedia's fault the apparent quid pro quo is implicit after connecting the dots. zen master T 23:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

More of the the same: Misplaced here. Place in other article and link if you must, but keep it out of this article. Rex071404 216.153.214.94

I agree with Zen-master, except that I don't think there needs to be a quid pro quo, express or implied. The paragraph is informative as to the circles Sherwood moves in and which side thinks highly of him. By analogy, you'll notice that, when there's an important decision from a U.S. federal court, the media will often report which President appointed the judge(s). There's no implication that Carter or Reagan was seeking to influence a particular case twenty years down the road, but the identity of the appointing President is thought to give the reader some information about where this judge is coming from.
Brandon, if you think we have to draw the line somewhere, though, one alternative would be to draw it at the wikilink. This article would identify the producer as Carlton Sherwood and say nothing more about him -- no Republican appointments, no Vietnam service, no Moonie book, no Pulitzer, just leave it all to his article. I'm against that solution because it would withhold good information from many readers (the ones who didn't click through). That approach, though, would be better than leaving in only the praise of Sherwood. JamesMLane 00:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
JML, how about a compromise? I'm not one to leave out important information, but I've seen how an article can get larded up with ever-increasing charges, counter-charges and qualifiers as everyone seems to feel a need to stick his oar in the water. How about something like:
Although Carlton Sherwood won a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, some critics have charged that his later work has been tainted by conservative political bias. Details on these controversies can be found here.
Does that float anyone's boat? Brandon39 03:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
That version gives the reader one of the facts that tends to support the credibility of Stolen Honor, then notes that there are opinions the other way. It makes it sound like the critics are motivated solely by partisanship. We could do it the other way: "The film was produced by Carlton Sherwood, who earlier received a federal contract from the Bush administration. His supporters have argued that he is nevertheless a credible journalist. Details on these controversies can be found here." I'm not advocating that language; it would be as unfair as yours, although in the other direction. That's why I said that, if you wanted to get the charges and counter-charges out, the only way to do it would be to stop at the wikilink. JamesMLane 10:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, here's another try. I'm mostly trying for brevity here:
Carlton Sherwood is himself a controversial figure. Supporters point to the Pulitzer Prize he won early in his career, while critics focus on allegations that he allowed a Unification Church leader to review and edit a book Sherwood wrote about the church, which was then marketed as being independent and unbiased. Further details on these controversies can be found here.
Any better? Brandon39 10:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Brevity doesn't seem to me to be a huge concern; the article is fairly short. The trouble with trying to pick one fact from each side is that it may not be a stable compromise -- next month someone will come along and restore some of the other stuff that supports his or her POV. If we were to do one fact, though, I'd note Sherwood's partisan ties to Republicans, rather than his journalistic failings. Also, he was part of a team that won the Pulitzer, so we shouldn't give the impression that he bagged it single-handed. JamesMLane 23:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Notice how James wants to keep Sherwood bio information out of an article about Sherwood's work, but wants to include even less closely related commentary about a 3rd party company - Sinclair. The fact they he would even consider offsetting one for the other, shows that this entire dialog is in his mind polarized into two camps - those things which make Sherwood/SH look "good" and those that make Sherwood/SH look "bad". Yet, if the relevance of the material were analogized to geographic distance, Sherwood's BIO and SH are next door neighbors, but the Sinclair stuff is from the next town over - too far removed to belong here regardless of whether it makes Sherwood/SH look good or bad.
JML did after all characterize the non-critical/laudatory Sherwood/SH facts as "good" and he did juxtapose that "goodness" against the other items which he wants in. So it's clear that what he wants in is, in his mind, "bad" about Sherwood/SH.
Suffice it to say, that's is not how POV is reached - driving across town to get trash to dump on Sherwood/SH's lawn simply because his yard looks too "good" to you and there's no locally available trash. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Credentials of Carlton Sherwood

If you disagree with Sherwood's premises in Stolen Honor, the most effective way to demolish his credibility is NOT to rebut his documentary point by point - that would take too long, and it might fail because people would have to watch the video to find out whether you were right or wrong. It's better to trash his reputation by linking him with someone who is already despised by the public.

The WP article on Carlton Sherwood insinuates that he changed his book to make its object look good - which of course casts suspicion on the whole rest of book. If you disagree with Sherwood's conclusions in Inquisition (book), the last thing you want is anyone actually reading the book. They might learn something you hope to keep hidden. So you trash his reputation in the hopes that people WON'T read the book.

How should Wikipedia handle this? Merely by reporting accurately that Sherwood's critics have cast suspicion on (or expressed doubts about) his credibility. Go into as much detail as you like, about WHY they think he's not credible. But also allow the same article to have balancing detail by Sherwood fans, explaining why they do regard him as credible.

I'm trying to state this in general terms that all can accept, but I realize some of you will cast doubt on my objectivity since I am a long-time and devoted follower of Sun Myung Moon, the object of Sherwood's lengthy Inquisition. Uncle Ed 02:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

First, Ed, I don't see that you're any less objective than the rest of us. Opinions on specifics about this article tend to correlate with opinions about the 2004 election. We're all human (FSVOH, as a recently deceased friend of mine would have said). As to the specifics here, I can't prove to you that I'd feel exactly the same way if Sherwood's book had been about the Girl Scouts, but I assure you I would. I addressed this point on September 29 -- that's September 29, 2004, to give you an idea of how long we've been discussing a subject about which Rex accuses us of failing to negotiate. I wrote: "I think we should specify that the issue was the prior review. The point isn't to pound away at any Moonie connection. It just seems unbearably coy to try to report that the subject had access to the text without mentioning who the subject was." In fact, I'd think that to omit the name could be considered offensive to the Unification Church, as if it would be unfair to poor Sherwood to cite any connection with so disreputable a subject. JamesMLane 08:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Media Matters quotation

Media Matters for America wrote:

One week after talking to Regnery, FRONTLINE obtained a copy of a letter addressed to Sun Myung Moon. The letter was written by James Gavin, a Moon aide. Gavin tells Moon he reviewed the "overall tone and factual contents" of Inquisition before publication and suggested revisions. Gavin adds that the author "Mr. Sherwood has assured me that all this will be done when the manuscript is sent to the publisher." Gavin concludes by telling Moon, "When all of our suggestions have been incorporated, the book will be complete and in my opinion will make a significant impact. ... In addition to silencing our critics now, the book should be invaluable in persuading others of our legitimacy for many years to come."
Although he refused an on-camera interview, Carlton Sherwood told FRONTLINE that the Unification Movement exerted no editorial control over his book. [13]

The Carlton Sherwood article hacks up this quote to make Wikipedia lend credence to it. I'm not complaining that it's a copyvio, because that's easily fixed. Uncle Ed 02:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gamaliel's alleged bad faith revert

(copied from User_talk:Gamaliel#Bad_faith_revert) 09:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[Gamaliel], I contend that this revert of yours [14], due to the (12) discrete edits of mine it wiped out at once (and your lack of notation regarding them at Talk:Stolen Honor) has the appearance of bad faith editing on your part.

Q: Have you quit the dialog at Stolen Honor? If not, please state for the record and individually, at Talk:Stolen Honor what your problem was with each of my (12) edits which you macro reverted in one swoop. I thank you in advance.

Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. My problem is that you have heavily altered or eliminated my recent edits (which were an attempt to compromise and satisfy all parties involved) without any discussion or dialog, while expecting others to do so for before changing your edits and acting like no one else is attempting to dialog or compromise. I suggest you follow your own advice and dialog before making these changes or our dispute will most likely continue. Gamaliel

That's a hoot - I have been dialogging, it's you who swooped in and wiped out my edits with a revert. And it was edits which you reverted, not a revert. I never agreed that an article goes to a posture of stasis after each time you edit it. I've made clear my views - it's up to you to justify your revert - I have justified my edits. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have made a good faith effort to compromise, which you have ignored while you continue to act as if you are the only one dialoging and attempting to compromise. I will continue to revert if you do not engage in dialog regarding these edits. Gamaliel 09:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that I am meeting my burden to communicate and I am waiting to hear from you about this article (see below). Rex071404 216.153.214.94 17:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blanket reversions not helpful

I came here as a result of JML's RFC, and while I have an opinion about Stolen Honor, I don't have much emotional attachment to the article. Tonight I watched as two editors engaged in a reversion war, and it's not a pretty sight. The most recent action (as I write this) was a blanket reversion by Gamaliel, which swept away not only some of the controverted material, but also a number of changes that were (or should have been) completely uncontroversial, such as breaking up a run-on sentence.

Folks, if you're going to work on this article, may I gently suggest that you at least take the time to do surgery, rather than hacking away at the entire product of the person you disagree with? This is not directed strictly at Gamaliel; there seems to be plenty of bad feeling amongst all concerned. Maybe it would help if you all stepped back and left the article alone for, say, two or three days, and then approached it with fresh minds and hearts? Brandon39 09:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no bad feelings and am trying my best to make some improvements to the article. At the same time, as you observed, my edits do get swept aside (sometimes in toto) by certain others. It's one of the points I've been raising and it is, I feel, evidence that Gamaliel simply will not engage me in true Wikipedia:Negotiation. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, do you mean "controverted" material, "contested" or "controversial"? I am interested to understand you more precisely. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have made a number of good faith edits to this article in an attempt to compromise and satisfy all parties. Rex has ignored these edits and significantly altered or eliminated them all the while loudly accusing everyone else of bias and failure to dialog and negotiate. I merely ask of Rex what he loudly demands of everyone else - that he dialog in good faith about these edits. Gamaliel 09:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
As an aside, I got an edit conflict while posting this. Rex, will you please finally start using the show preview button instead of making half a dozen small edits in a row? Gamaliel 09:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, regarding the article as it exists now [15], what problems do you have with it? Please quote problem sections below, with your preferred changes. I have created a new section title for that purpose. Thanks. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 17:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point. I wish you to state what problems you have with my compromise edits and why you keep eliminating them. Gamaliel 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I hear you. However, it's you who are reverting my edits, so clearly it's you who has a problem with the page as I last left it. Also, I see nothing constructive in your deletion of the section title which I added below. I added it because I expect you to meet your duty and list your concerns. If you have none, please state that. Pending your response, I have re-inserted the section title which you deleted. Please don't delete it again. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 17:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't try to make this about me. I've repeatedly asked you to dialog about my compromise edits, which you have refused to do. Are you now quitting the dialog? Gamaliel 17:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fact #1 - Gamaliel is making this about himself - as exampled by his totally outrageous behaviour in repeatedly deleting my edits from this talk page. [16], [17]

Fact #2 - Gamaliel states this is about his "compromise edits", when in fact, I have moved far beyond that and made many edits that he simply sweeps aside en masse. [18]

Fact #3 - Gamaliel was recently chastised by another editor on this page for his behavior regarding "blanket reversion[s]". [19]

Fact #4 - If Gamaliel is now complaining that this is "about [himself]" it's his own fault. Gamaliel's objectionable behaviour has put him on the spot.

Once again, I am asking Gamaliel nicely to please list, section by section, those parts of Stolen Honor which he has problems with as of when I last edited that page.

He is welcome to list any additions, deletions and changes that he's desires. I have created a section title below this edit labled "Gamaliel's 10.26.05 desired changes" for that purpose. Gamaliel has deleted that section title twice already today. Frankly, I am appalled that Gamaliel, an Admin, ("I am an administrator here so feel free to contact me if you need assistance with anything.") would stoop to such underhanded tactics. Gamaliel, please do not delete that section again. Clearly, it's in use and I expect you to respond there.

Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gamaliel's 10.26.05 desired changes

So far, rather than respond here as requested (see above) Gamaliel has deleted this talk page section twice. I have asked hm to not delete this again (see above). Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex has posted a lot of text here but none of it is about the content of Stolen Honor. Instead of genuine dialog regarding Stolen Honor, he resorts to insults and bizarre accusations ("underhanded tactics", etc.) I only wish Rex to dialog about my compromise edits, which he has repeatedly refused to do and instead has chosen to attack me. I can only conclude that Rex has quit the dialog and is not interested in genuine negotiation incorporating all points of view. Gamaliel 18:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, yes or no, do you deny that you twice deleted edits of my to this very talk page in the last day? And if you do not deny it, are you saying you claim such behavior is not "underhanded"? Unless and until you answer these two points, I will not find any of your comments here to be sincere. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not consider the deletion of an unused (at the time) talk page header to be an "underhanded tactic". This is just an attempt to distract from your refusal to negotiate and dialog regarding my compromise edits. Gamaliel 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I do consider your repeated deletion of my edits to this talk page, "underhanded". The 1st deletion could be said to be non-confrontational, but the second (after I asked you to stop) was sheer provocation and trouble making. And I do consider that kind of behavior "underhanded". Rex071404 216.153.214.94 15:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I've been away for a while so it'll be a bit before I figure out what the hell is going on on this page with a continuous edit war. One thing though, Rex, I'm not sure why you consistently mention how many discrete edits there are when someone reverts you, its not like the more discrete edits there are, the less right someone has to revert you. I generally use the compare feature so that I'm looking at your changes as one edit. Secondly, the dispute here does not benefit from characterizing as lacking attempts at negotiation, there is a mountain of text already since you have returned with your concerns to this talk page, as James pointed out in his edit summary and many other subsequent talk posts, that deals with addressing the points you bring up. While we do want to avoid the tyranny of the majority at all costs, this does not mean one person who clearly does not have the support of his co-editors can come in and demand that his point of view be included, simply because he is the minority. If it were a citable fact that this dispute was concerned with, than no matter how many editors disagreed with you, you would probably get your inclusion into the article. However, it seems to me that the current dispute rests over what information to include in this article and what to offshoot to Sinclair or Carlton Sherwood, which is a purely editorial subjective decision. In this case, we have to come to some sort of agreement knowing fully well that not all parties are going to agree. I believe that a look at the talk page above shows many attempts to try and reason with you, and I'm not even sure who is right in this case, but simply put, your opinion is outvoted. Of course we would want to treat each individual's opinion fairly here if possible and avoid voting unless absolutely necessary, but it is clear that neither side is going to agree to the other's, thus we need to gather where the popular concensus lies and move on to another topic, lest we rehash this again come next October. --kizzle 18:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle's statement of "your opinion is outvoted", shows that he fundamentally misunderstands both Wikipedia:Negotiation and Consensus decision-making as they apply to dialoging towards agreement regarding disputed article content/layout. Hence, I feel, Kizzle's statment confirms for me my contention that "out-voting" minor position editors in indeed both the stated method and the ultimate goal of a loose confederation of editors (ie; Gamaliel, Kizzle and JamesMLane). Rex071404 216.153.214.94 21:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Can we talk about edits and not your conspiracy theories please? Gamaliel 21:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it a "theory" or a fact that Kizzle stated above "your opinion is outvoted"? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 23:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Of course we would want to treat each individual's opinion fairly here if possible and avoid voting unless absolutely necessary, but it is clear that neither side is going to agree to the other's, thus we need to gather where the popular concensus lies and move on to another topic, lest we rehash this again come next October.
We are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this matter. We have attempted several times to come to an understanding and have failed every time. What do you propose then to move on, simply acquiese to your position though it falls within the minority? --kizzle 23:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle, have you even read Wikipedia:Negotiation, Consensus decision-making and my suggestions on this page? Do you grasp that it's not "understanding" I want, but rather it's true "negotiation". Do you also grasp that I contend you are not engaging in true negotiation? I am asking you to help work towards a uniform set of princples, which is what we need here to hold each other accountable and thereby eliminate disagreements. You need to elucidate some editing principles that you will agree to be bound by. If you do that (as I have done) and we then harmonize and combine to one agreed upon set of editing standards, we will indeed be able to resolve our differences. Are you saying you don't comprehend this point, or are you saying you are not willing to try? And again I will point out to you, unless one is dealing with "crackpot" allegations or "invented" facts which cannot be substantiated, it is simply not valid for the "majority" to out-vote a "minority" on either structure or content. Articles do not go into a posture of stasis simply because a "majority" wants them to (via blocking and reverted those who disagree with the "majority"). Kizzle, everytime you say something like "avoid voting unless absolutely necessary", is convinces me that you never do truly engage in problem-solving negotiation - because you always have in your mind, the loaded gun of "out-voting", ready to use if you don't get your way. It simply is not a negotiation of equally empowered peers if one side runs over the other side by "out-voting" them - that's "mob-rule" and it's why I've used that term in the past.Rex071404 216.153.214.94 15:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discrete edit example

Kizzle, the reason for the "discrete" edits is to afford the other editors opportunity to address my edits individually, on each edit's merit. Perhaps if you would lay off the "compare feature", you would see this more readily.

Now, since both Gamaliel and Kizzle seem to have problems with the idea of "discrete" edits, I ask that both of them review this particular discrete edit of mine: [20]

Paragraph as is was:

At one time in the past (1992), Sherwood was criticised for allegedly not being an impartial journalist. These complaints were in regards to Inquisition, Sherwood's "purportedly independent investigation" of the Unification Church, allegedly having been subject to prior review and revision by its subject. [21]. Additionally, there have been complaints alleging that Sherwood is a partisan, his political inclinations being evidenced by his appointments to several positions by Republican politicians.

Paragraph after my edit:

At one time in the past (1992), Sherwood was criticised for allegedly not being an impartial journalist. These complaints were in regards to Inquisition, Sherwood's controversial investigative report regarding the Unification Church, allegedly having been subject to prior review and revision by its subject. [22]. Additionally, there have been complaints alleging that Sherwood is a partisan, his political inclinations being evidenced by his appointments to several positions by Republican politicians.
-- please note that my edit summary for the above edit was: (the word "purportedly" is loaded here. You can't quote an anonymous narrator - that person is likely a paid actor, acting a directed role - using such a quote is absurd) (typo corrections made this ES)

In my view, my edit summary fully supported this particular edit with enough information to understand the basis for it. For this reason (and because he is complaining) I'd be interested to hear what precisely it is about this particlaur example edit, that Gamaliel is complaining about. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 21:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, I don't know if Sherwood "submitted to prior review" or not. If someone could prove that CNN submitted their reports on Iraq to Saddam for prior review, they'd be calling for someone's resignation. Oops, that already happened, didn't it? Or maybe the Eason Jordan resignation about something else. Uncle Ed 21:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


Actually, this is the prior version of that paragraph:

Sherwood was criticised as a partisan because of his appointments to several positions by Republican politicians and for allegedly not being an impartial journalist because Inquisition, Sherwood's "purportedly independent investigation" of the Unification Church, had been subject to prior review and revision by its subject. [23]

Among the problems with your changes:

  • "At one time in the past (1992)" - note that the controversy is quite current as critics also content that SH is not independent and impartial and cite this as evidence of past non-impartiality. Also, it's poor writing.
  • "Puportedly independent investigation" is superior to "controverial investigative report" both because it is an exact quote from the story and because it specifies the exact nature of the controversy. controversial" is vague and adds nothing.

Please dialog on these matters before changing this paragraph again. Gamaliel 21:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Gamaliel just made a straw dog argument, in that this [24] is the diff that I referred to and asked his comments on, but he is discussing and complaining about an entirely different diff altogether (which he conveniently does not supply the link to). Also note that he completely ignores my edit summary which points out that the source of purportedly "quote" is a transcript of a paid political attack ad - part which contains the word "purportedly" being spoken by what clearly is a professional actor. Nothing in the transcript indicates that the word "purportedly" is being spoken in any manner other than the sheer opinion of whoever script-wrote the attack ad. No referrence to an actual quote by an actual person is made. This is scurrilous POV of the worst type. Frankly, that Gamaliel would even try to include that so-called "quote" demeans this dialogue and is highly insulting.
Also, I will point out that Gamaliel seems to think that unles he makes the edit, an article is frozen in stasis, unable to be changed without his permission.
Suffice it to say, each article is open for edits at all times and it's only when reverts occur, that there is a disagreement that by rights, should be dialogged in advance - that's because when Gamaliel reverts me (as he often does) he is declaring that he disagrees with my edit so severly, that none of it should be allowed to stay in.
This, to me, makes clear that Gamaliel ought to make an effort to pre-empt disagreement with advance dialog, but he does not.
Frankly, Gamaliel turns the entire Wikipedia:Negotiation process on it's head: It's axiomatic that no negotiation is required when there is no dispute and yet, though reverts are defacto disputes, Gamaliel is utterly cavalier about doing them again and again and again.
Where is the last actual edit Gamaliel made here which was not a revert? I don't see any. In the main, when we are on the same article, Gamaliel's edits consist mostly of reverts against me - even though I am making numbers of new edits. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

How is an episode of Frontline a paid political attack ad? Please explain. By the way, my last original (non-revert) edit was yesterday and here is a link so you can't complain again about how I didn't save you the effort of two or three mouse clicks. This is the edit that I want you to discuss, which you so far have refused to do despite your frequent calls for dialog and negotiation. Also, this would go a lot quicker if you limited your comments to edits regarding Stolen Honor and lay off the ranting. Thank you. Gamaliel 00:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As I read the text on the page which you've previously linked to and which appears to be a "Frontline" transcript, it appears that during the "Frontline" show, a *political attack ad* was played and it was the narrator of that ad (an anonymous, paid actor) who used the word "purportedly". For Gamaliel to try to insert that so-called quote into this article is ourageous because a) it's anonymous and b) it's was said by an actor playing a role. It's not even 1st, 2nd or 3rd person [25], because there is no indentifiable person involved. The only way that "quote" could ever be valid to use in an encyclopedia would be like this, "Joe Jones, professional actor, once had a speaking role which required him to say it's purportedly more fun to each cheese than poop" or something like that. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 20:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Jeez Louise, can you 2 guys quit squabbling? I can't hear what you're saying, because the way you're saying it speaks louder than ... oh, never mind. Uncle Ed 15:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frontline (arbitrary section break)

Rex, what on earth is the basis for your interpretation of the Frontline transcript as embodying a "paid political attack ad"? Notice, on that very page, how the narrator carefully identifies any outside source being used. Near the top it says: "In March 1985, Oliver North wrote this top secret memo proposing the formation of a private foundation called the Nicaraguan Freedom Fund." We don't have the video but I assume the memo is onscreen at this point. In the next paragraphs, references are made to a Washington Times front-page editorial and to a statement by Times editor Arnaud de Borchgrave. A little later, the Frontline program uses a clip from a pro-Star Wars video, and introduces the clip by saying that the video was "paid for and distributed by the AFC [American Freedom Coalition]". This pattern continues through the rest of the transcript. Nevertheless, you want to assume that, completely without any textual clues of any kind, a passage in the middle of the transcript, attributed to "Narrator", is suddenly not the Frontline narrator, but is from an outside source, not identified in any way in the transcript, but which you somehow deduce to be a paid political attack ad. Your making this assertion half a dozen times over the last few days doesn't substitute for evidence. I believe that it was Frontline, not somebody writing a paid ad, that considered the use of the word "purportedly" to be appropriate. JamesMLane 23:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As James points out, he wants to extrapolate a mish-mosh of snippets heaped together by "Frontline" and imply somehow that it was an actual guest on Frontline that used the word "purportedly" or an actual Frontline person saying that word. The fact that James cannot indentify the speaker of the word by name, makes clear that the "quote" is anonymous and un-attributed. Not only that, but I do believe that the context switched from one narrator to another and I do not trust the veracity of the transcipt James wants to link to. If he gets better proof, I'll yield. If not, I think the way I phrased it is fine and I did allow the word "purportedly" in, albeit in a carefully constructed sentence which avoids POV. I do contend that the prior version of this text in the article was POV, but the version I offered is closer to NPOV. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"As James points out" -- when coming from Rex, this phrase is generally the prelude to something that James has not said, and quite often (as here) doesn't agree with. The linked passage is not an anonymous and unattributed quotation. It's not a quotation at all. It's what Frontline said. The names of the Frontline staffers involved are on the first page of the transcript, if for some reason anyone actually cares. Neither Rex nor anyone else has presented any evidence of a good-faith dispute as to the veracity of the transcript. In the absence of such evidence, we can't give any weight to a bare assertion like "I do not trust the veracity of the transcript . . . ." apparently supported by nothing other than the transcript's reporting of politically inconvenient facts. JamesMLane 06:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Issue: JamesMLane and Rex017404, disagree about the veracity and/or validity of a particular page being linked to as a source and a particular word being used from that source.

Rule: We are supposed to be editing on a consensus driven basis.

  • Fact #1: There is nothing on that linked page to indicate who is speaking the word "purportedly".
  • Fact #2: Without definate certainty as to who is speaking the word in what context, the word as printed on that page, can be reasonably be read as an unattributable quoted extract from an attack ad.
  • Fact #3: MediaChannel.org, on its masthead, intendifies itself at "the global network for democratic media".
  • Fact #4: The MediaChannel.org web site, gives every appearance of being an agenda drive, partisan site.
  • Fact #5: No proof that this supposed "transcript" exists anywhere else hase been offered.
  • Fact #6: I have already accomodated James to a degree on this issue - the link is there and the word "purportedly" is there, just not verbatim as it was previously.

Conclusion: It is not unreasonable to distrust "trust the veracity of the transcript", nor is it unreasonable to conclude that the manner in which I accommodated James is fair and consensus building. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 07:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think in this case the "purportedly" is attributable to MediaChannel.org? Rex, you need citations for counter criticism of MediaChannel.org, otherwise that is original research on your part. Also, you need to have evidence that MediaChannel.org's transcript is untrustworthy other than your (apparently mistaken) gut reaction. zen master T 07:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Where does this word "puportedly" appear exactly? Is it possible that even a partisan website can accurately present a transcript of a tv show, this is an easy thing to verify, right? zen master T 07:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen, please read the page(s) in question, there clearly appears to be two broken segues in the narrative on page 2 of that linked article. To me, the broken segues are indentified by the word "(Soundtrack)" which appears twice and seems to indicate the playing of a snippet of a TV ad. I contend that at these points, there is in fact a context shift and the "narrator" on the page at those points is not the Frontline "narrator", but the snippet narrator. Without attribution regarding the "snippet(s)", the speaker of the word "purportedly" remains unknown. It is not at all clear that this 2nd narrator on page 2 is anything other than a voice from an extract of a political attack ad. Also, I do not believe that I am making "counter criticism of MediaChannel.org" here on this talk page. And, I absolutely am not commenting about MediaChannel.org in the article. For these reasons, I am unclear why you say there is "original research" at issue here. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 07:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't find "puportedly" in the transcript. But anyway isn't Sherwood the one claiming or puporting that his investigation was "independent" yet this controversy exists because there is evidence that his claim may not be true, right? zen master T 07:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen, my point here is that the source page in question does appear to be using extracts from attack ads. The lack of deliniation on the page, combined with who is publishing it, reduces its veracity by making it a suspect read. Even so, the two sentences in question (verbatim) are:

"In June,1991, Inquisition, a new, purportedly independent investigation of Moon's 1982 tax fraud prosecution, was released by a Washington publisher, Regnery-Gateway. Its author, Carlton Sherwood, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter who once worked for the Washington Times."

If you read the talk page history of this article, you will note that the same editors who want to pull and use three words "purportedly independent investigation" in sequence from the middle this quote are the same editors who refuse to call Sherwood a "Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter". Frankly, I find it taxing and distressing that so much dialog must go into preventing "cherry picking" of quotes. I have dealt with this "purportedly" word fairly and no one has raised any per se complaints about the end result of my last edit regarding that. So why James is even pursuing this line of argument puzzles me. Also, the word you seek is on page 2 - see this link. Lastly, this disagreement is not about Sherwood's views or lack thereof about "purportedly". Please stay focused on the points we are now discussing - that being, this particular link and this particular word as used on this particular page being discussed. If you still want to touch on the Sherwood tangent to this, we can come back to that later. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 07:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Both should be included. Sherwood himself is the one puporting that his investigation was independent right, so how is there any dispute over whether that fact should be included? I still don't see "pupoterdly" in either page of the transcript URL but that may not matter. zen master T 08:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I think "puportedly" is necessary given the fact there is evidence his investigation wasn't impartial, so he is the one that is puporting it was unbiased but that is disputed by others. "Puportedly" signifies the his impartiality in the matter is disputed. zen master T 08:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you teasing me about a typo regarding "purportedly"? If not, please search with your browser on the page specified for the word "purportedly". Now, regarding that word, it's in the article as of my last edit and if one of the others does not try to revert that particular edit back to the older version in some manner, I am not inclined to pick bones about the description of Pulitzer award either, as that issue is -in the context of the current state of the article- semi-resolved enough to leave it be. And I don't think Sherwood has ever said "I purport my investigation to be independant". Rather, it's the anonymous critic at the "Frontline" who characterizes it that way. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 08:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Frontline itself/as a group can be a critic too. If there is evidence an investigation wasn't impartial then it would be fair for anyone to use "puportedly" or otherwise signify the issue is disputed, right? zen master T 08:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I looked up the library catalog record of this documentary. The narrator is actor Will Lyman, frequent Frontline narrator. (He shouldn't be confused with William Bogert, the voice I most associate with Frontline and the guy who appeared on The Dave Chappelle Show.) Most likely he was reading a script and the words should be attributed to producer Rory O'Connor. The catalog record does not show any second narrator.

No one else appears to interpret the transcript the way you do and you haven't presented any compelling reason to doubt this transcript. Unfortunately this video is not available in a library anywhere near me. I suggest that you view the video yourself. I believe you are in Massachussets, and this video is available in the Central Mass library system, at Northeastern University, and at the Babson Library at Springfield College. Hopefully, your viewing can definatively settle this matter. Gamaliel 08:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It was the use of the word as part of a three word quote extract by editors who barred me from using facts supported by the very page they wanted to quote from, that was at issue. As it stands, the word "purportedly" is in the article in a modified form of the sentence which I took objection to. Is either Zen or Gamaliel objecting to my edit [26] as it currently stands? If not, then I think we are done on this topic. The word "purportedly" is in the article. Zen's point of inquiry about the abstract potential for the application of that word in this article is mooted by the fact that it's already in use. And Gamaliel's suggestion of viewing a video certainly sounds like "original research", so I see no point in debating it. Also, I think all my comments about the use of the word "purportedly", along with my edits and edit summaries have made my views clear enough to follow - certainly clear enough to help Gamaliel understand that the "attack ad" objection is not essential to my position, which is: the 3 word quote, as embedded in the sentence I edited, for a variety of reasons, was unacceptable to me in the form it was used. For that reason, I made an edit which, by leaving the word "purportedly" in, speaks to the concerns of the other editors, while at the same time resolving my objections regarding that sentence. Are you others now saying you have un-resolved objections regarding this edt? If so, please state them, here now. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's redundant to say "some have alleged that [his] investigation to be merely 'purportedly independent'", if you think the word "puportedly" carries too strong a connotation that his investigation wasn't independent then we should search for a more neutral word that clearly but simply signifies the matter is disputed (also the word "merely" increases the conveyance of non independence). Though, if the word puportedly is citable to a transcript/quotation then I think it's ok, but we have to be careful how we quote it perhaps (or choose not to). I suppose the problem is journalistic integrity is lost/tainted at even the smallest appearance of impropriety, with is perhaps as it should be. zen master T 08:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the sentence in question to reflect Zen's point about redundancy. However, while I was at it, I took notice that the "prior review" contention of that sentence needed to be excised due to lack of source link. I have removed the offending text. Please do not reinsert it without a source link. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even going to pretend to understand the logic of removing the most important and specific part of Frontline's report. My edit will speak for itself. Gamaliel 09:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, you have totally misread the transcript. The notation "Soundtrack" is used on a few occasions when, as the context makes clear, a specific identified recording is being played. The last one before the reference to Sherwood's book is in the segment of the show dealing with the attempts to get Reagan to pardon Moon:

(Soundtrack) Off-Camera Female Reporter: "Any last thoughts for us, President and Mrs. Reagan, on your way out.?"

Narrator: Ronald Reagan never pardoned Sun Myung Moon. Moon's pardon application is still pending before the Bush Administration. Max Hugel, Paul Laxalt, and Paul Perito all refused to comment. Ronald Reagan also declined to comment.

Then the program leaves the area of the pardon and moves on to the book. The soundtrack is that of the reporter's question to Reagan. There is no indication of any such soundtrack in the section about Sherwood, let alone the idea that there was a soundtrack of an unspecified "paid political attack ad" (paid for by whom? attacking whom?) that somehow thought it useful for attack purposes to mention Sherwood's Pulitzer Prize. Your hypothesis is completely untenable.
As to why I'm pursuing this, I'm doing what you claim to call for. Dialog. Negotiation. Understanding your point of view. You said that this quotation came from a "paid political attack ad". I couldn't see that at all, so I've been trying to ascertain the basis of your statement. In hindsight, I see that I've spent a fair amount of time chasing moonbeams, because there was no basis for your statement.
Incidentally, you refer above to 'editors who refuse to call Sherwood a "Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter"'. Might I trouble you to name the editors you're chastising? I took a quick tour through the page history, certainly without reading every edit, but I didn't find any edits that removed the mention of the Pulitzer. I alluded above to a possible solution of removing that mention and removing all mention of criticism of Sherwood, including quotations from or reference to the Frontline piece. Please note that I discussed that approach but I didn't endorse it. Even if I had endorsed it, it certainly wouldn't support your charge that someone is trying to engage in "cherry-picking" quotations. So, what does support your charge about the attempted removal of the Pulitzer information? JamesMLane 09:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Addendum: Of the many terms I could have used to describe the latest waste of my time occasioned by Rex, I happened to choose "chasing moonbeams". This is an idiom. It occurs in the song "Galway Bay", a favorite of my late father's, so I learned it as a child before ever hearing of any prominent person named "Moon". In this instance, my use of the term refers to my attempts to understand Rex's statement about a supposed "paid political attack ad". The phrase has no connection with the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the Unification Church, or any surviving pagans who worship Diana. Respect all religions, believe in none, that's my motto. JamesMLane 10:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Credibility in general

The credibility issue is the connective tissue linking several articles:

After 28 years in a church which has neglibile to zero credibility, I'm sensitive to "credibility issues". Uncle Ed 18:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In terms of the credibility of Stolen Honor, I think Sherwood's history of Republican connections is more important than his journalistic lapses concerning his book about the Unification Church. Note that, further down in the article, where it reports that more than 100 members of Congress called for the FCC to investigate, the article takes care to note that they were all Democrats. I don't object to including that fact; their credibility, as critics, is arguably affected by their partisan affiliation. JamesMLane 22:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Surely then all of us in this discussion can agree that a man with Republican connections who produces a documentary video slamming the character of a Democratic presidential candidate deserves ... oops - got caught in syntax problems here, maybe you can guess where I'm going with this Uncle Ed 15:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sections?

I'm thinking of dividing the article into:

  1. a brief section about what's in the video, how it was made, sources, etc.
  2. attempts by opponents of the video's POV to discredit the video: attacks on the producer's credibility, etc.

I daresay the second section will dwarf the first. Uncle Ed 19:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the elephant in the room

The elephant is the room here, as I see it, is that we have been unable to agree on any base princples regarding a) the outline of various articles (this included), b) when to link to a subsidiary article and c) what's an editorially sound ratio between facts & history directly relating to an articles subject (in this case, the subject is Stolen Honor which is a documentary film) and controversy that various editors contend relate to the subject of the article. If each of use continue to try to assert, on an ad-hoc basis, our views about these points one article at a time, we will always argue. Personally, I feel that I would have less disagreement with JamesMLane, Kizzle and Gamaliel, if they would articulate a small list of editing guidelines that they would agree to abide by. I ask that they do this, because there is three of them and they seem to share a similar perspective. After they do this, I could help them hone those guidelines into a wokable model that we can all accept. For example, I would say these are some general principles that would work for me:

[edit] Wiki editors 10 point plan

  • 1) New, good faith text edits are automatically deemed to be viable.
  • 2) Viable edits should be discussed and can be modified (or even superceded), but should not be simply reverted. If you can't think of or don't agree to a viable way to move something forward and instead want to go back (via revert) please dialog about it 1st.
  • 3) Reverting should be a last resort, not a first resort.
  • 4) At any given time, the "base line" version of an article is the one immediately preceding the most recent revert. The exception to this is a revert for obvious vandalism such as page blanking or such.
  • 5) In the aggregate, all "controversial" material relating to a subject, should not of itself, exceed approximately 35% of an article's word count. When it does, a subsidiary article ought to be spun off and named "the X controversy". This page should be linked back via a sensible seque sentence such as "In the fall of 2004 a controversy regarding X developed". In an especially large controversy, as much as a few sentences or para could be used to segue. The key here is to watch the 35%. Articles that have "controversy" in the title are exempt from this 35% spin-off requirement as they are the per se destinations for controveries.
  • 6) The "base line" version is not owned by anyone. All editors are allowed to move the base line forward.
  • 7) "Outvoting" an editor or editors so as to keep the base-line frozen/in stasis is not advisable except in rare instances. An example of this would be an article about the Periodic table. Absent new science or discoveries, this table is basically stable, hence an attampt should be made to keep the article reasonably stable. Even so, this is not a mandate for stasis.
  • 8) Admit that political related articles tend to have editors whose opinions about the subject matter vary widely. Great care should be given to incorporate the views of both the minority and majority view points regarding both the content and structure of an article.
  • 9) Editors should hold themselves to the same editing standards between articles.
  • 10) Each editor is expected to help hone this list of princples in concert with others and each is expected to abide by it. "Outvoting" in the honing of the principles list will not be allowed.

What do you guys think about these suggestions? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 23:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence of #8. I agree with #9 as I interpret it but probably not as you interpret it. I do not agree with any of the other entries. JamesMLane 00:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you willing to suggest any guidelines yourself which we can then discuss and try to agree on as a consensus building method of editing? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has extensive policies and guidelines already in effect. You'll find several of them cited in the ArbCom decisions concerning you. To my mind, compliance with existing rules is a higher priority than the drafting of new ones. JamesMLane 04:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think taking a look at standard Wikipedia policies would be a good start, however, revisiting guidelines is not going to solve anything. We clearly disagree about a subjective editorial decision, of which there is no "true" answer. We have dialogued extensively about this matter, take a look at James's 6 points above for an eloquent summary of position. It is clear that neither opinion is going to give way. What is your answer then, just to repeat ourselves ad nauseum? --kizzle 04:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So the answer that the both of you are giving is that neither of you will commit to try to develop and use a framework of elucidated editing principles that we can rely on to reach methodical solutions to our editing disagreements?

Even so, it's also still true that we often clearly disagree about sigificant points when we jointly edit at the same article. Thist being the case, I ask you: What solution do either of you propose whereby "a consensus decision-making process involv[ing] identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives" can be jointly used by us towards resolving our disagreements? (see Consensus decision-making)

Also, according to Wikipedia:Negotiation "Selecting, Refining, and Crafting an Agreement: It is a step in which both parties present the starting proposal. They should listen for new ideas, think creatively to handle conflict and gain power and create cooperative environment." is something that at some point, must occur or there is no negotiation under way.

Are JamesMLane and Kizzle both of saying that they are refusing to negotiate towards a resolution of our editing differences?

As I see it, I have 1) indentified concerns, 2) generated new alternatives and 3) presented a starting proposal, but neither James nor Kizzle seem to offer anything a other than vague hand waving...

James and Kizzle, is that your only response? Are you, yes or no, willing to work towards us jointly developing (or listing, if pre-existing) guidelines that we jointly commmit to be bound by, towards the aim of using those guidelines as a framework of resolving our editing disputes?

If the answer is no, and you also will not offer anything more than the vague hand waves and finger points that you offer, I am at a loss, and can suggest nothing else.

Co-operation requires both sides to try and I can't force you to try. So, where that leaves us is, if you change your minds, let me know.

Until then, am I to take it that you both are now refusing to co-operate and have declared yourselves to be rogue editors?

However, just in case I am mistaken, James, please list for me which "extensive policies and guidelines already in effect" you assert that your editing practices and consensus building efforts are in compliance with.

And Kizzle, please point me to whichever extant Wiki pages there are, that list these "policies" which you refer to. In particular, please point me (via working links to offical Wiki pages) to the Wiki "policies" which you claim to follow towards resolving editor's disagreements and also those which you claim to follow towards consensus building among disagreeing editors.

Rex071404 216.153.214.94 05:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've always agreed with #3, but I'd really like to talk about #5. And I appreciate your efforts to address the issue of "how we are dealing with each other" in such a head-on, yet polite and systematic fashion.
I have had success with a seemingly intractable edit war over Chile - specifically Augusto Pinochet who came to power in the 1973 Chile coup. Over the protests of some, I excised the most controversial part of the Pinochet article, creating what I called a "sidebar". Months of bickering were eased, and editors got to work on the sidebar issue.
The bonus was that other people who were "lurking" finally got involved after the dust settled, and turned the Chile series into an above-average group of articles. There's even a taxobox.
I don't think there should be a rule about 35%. I've found that adding another rule, to a situation where people are already disregarding the rules, doesn't help much. I'm only interested in whether a sidebar would help here and now. Uncle Ed 16:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "rule of thumb". And there does need to be a target %, because the varying qty of "controversy" in each article is the major element which skews POV. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine, rule of thumb. Are you saying it applies in some way to Stolen Honor? Uncle Ed 18:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Everything above the section title "October 2004 media controversy" is more or less about SH and/or Sherwood. Everything below it is about "contoversy" / "complaints". At some point, we as editors make the tail wag the dog - if we don't watch out for too extreme of a mixture of controversy/complaints to other content. Stolen Honor is not a "controversy" article, per se. Rather, it is an encyclopedia entry that ought to more resemble the encyclopedia entry for Going Upriver, another documentary. If we reward complaint amplifiers and controversy stokers with extra ink in every article they want to add it to, we are allowing various articles to be stuffed with controversy/complaints on an ad hoc basis. Either we stuff all articles with C/C or we agree on a reasonable ratio as a rule of thumb. Personally, I feel 35%, in aggregate, for complaints/controversies is about the maximum that fits, without needing a "spin off" article. Of course, if JML and Kizzle don't agree, I happy to oblige them by applying the "no limit to controversy" rule to various other articles, such as John Kerry. I am wondering, since they oppose my suggested 10 point plan, is that what they want - more controversy/complaints in every article? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I think trying to discuss revisiting guidelines is a waste of time. To respond specifically to your rationales about information included on this page, I don't think a 35% limit on criticism or controversy is appropriate. Daughter articles should be split off when there is an excessive amount of text, generally speaking. This article isn't really that large, thus limiting such controversy would not be reflective of the criticism present. The criticism on any article should mirror the level of criticism in real life, not some arbitrary number we choose, unless the article is hitting size constraints already. But that's just my subjective opinion. --kizzle 19:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Per se controversy articles

I make this suggestion so as to help us better manage how we can avoid turning every article that's politically charged or related into a "Per se" controversy article. And yes Kizzle, there are such articles on the wiki; John Kerry military service controversy is an example of what I would call a "Per se" controversy article. As for 35%, I think it's a good Rule of thumb because 10% is too low, 25% might not be enough, but 50% or more starts to "wag the dog" and converts the article to being primarily composed of controversy, which is, I feel exactly what a Per se controversy article is. Certainly you would agree that say, 100% controversy content in a non-Per se controversy article would be too much, yes? So then what about 95% or 90% or even 75%.
Also, when Kizzle says that controversy levels in an article ought to "mirror the level of criticism in real life" and when he says, "simply put, your opinion is outvoted", he is basically saying, 'I [Kizzle], prefer to agree to no guidelines or rules of thumb. In this manner, I, along with like-minded editors such as Gamaliel and JamesMLane, can continue trump all your edits with votes - regardless of where or when we choose to transform articles into politicized controversy recitals.' Rex071404 216.153.214.94 20:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth if you clearly can't comprehend what I'm saying. I personally dislike when it comes to trying to gain where popular concensus lies through voting but clearly we are not going to agree in this matter. This is going to be like an abortion debate, no side is going to see the other's point of view (and I draw this conclusion from extensive discussion as per above, not some trigger-happy call to vote), so what do you propose Rex? Repeat each other indefinetely? Scrap the entire article? Or take the minority opinion simply because they are the minority? As for guidelines or rules, I just prefer to use the ones we have, as in the extensive policy/guideline section already present here, rather than make up new arbitrarily chosen criteria, as in some finite "percentage" of criticism each article should have. We should decide the amount of criticism case-by-case. --kizzle 20:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
As I have asked you before, please supply me a link to the "extensive policy/guideline section already present" which you claim that you "prefer to use". If you are indeed using guidelines, show me a link to them, I want to read them. I've asked you nicely several times. Why do you refuse? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Here would be a good start. --kizzle 20:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I see very little at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which outlines a viable method for ironing out disagreements regarding the aggregating of disparate and/or collaborative edits from editors with polarized views. And it's that the Polarization of our views that makes them not often of the same state or wavelength. And it's for that reason I suggest we Attenuate (#5 and #8) our views via the method of using delinated and agreed upon guidelines. Frankly, when Kizzle says "no side is going to see the other's point of view", I think he misses the point. We probably will not often agree upon the merits of any particular content - but we can agree on a viable procedure whereby it can be determined by guidelines, rather than votes, when an edit is in order or out of order. This is, I feel, a procedural issue (guidelines), not a debate about facts (content). Rex071404 216.153.214.94 21:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

One policy and guideline that doesn't exist is the one that says that, if Rex tosses out a series of questions, other volunteers are required to drop whatever else they might be doing toward building an encyclopedia, and instead go over the same things with Rex yet again. Rex, I'm just not going to go through your post and respond point-by-point. I know you'll claim this means I'm refusing to dialog or conceding some outlandish conclusion or whatever. I'm not, but I can't stop you from insisting on your strange interpretations of my views. I'll respond on just one point: In referring to policies and guidelines, I wrote, "You'll find several of them cited in the ArbCom decisions concerning you." Your response is to ask me to list applicable policies. No, I won't. I've already told you where you should look. Since you arrived at Wikipedia about 15 months ago, you've spent more than a year of that time under some sort of restriction -- the ArbCom's six-month ban on reverts (beginning at the same time as the four-month ban on political editing), the ArbCom's six-month complete ban, and several short-term bans by admins. Obviously, what you're doing isn't working. You should be rereading those ArbCom cases even without my prompting you. JamesMLane 00:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the 2nd time that James has falsely implied that I am currently "doing" the same as what got me in trouble with ArbComm in the past. He knows this is not true, yet he says it anyway. Suffice it to say, I feel that James in commenting here not towards consensus, but to pollute the opinions of others who may read here "Since you arrived at Wikipedia about 15 months ago, you've spent more than a year of that time under some sort of restriction...". What he fails to mention is that he was involved very deeply in those past revert wars and did in fact, have an ArbComm finding against himself for his actions. That said, let's not get sidetracked by James's shenanigans here. Simply put, James refuses to answer my basic question: "what policies and guidelines do you claim to be abiding by when you edit" (and also when you are trying to build consensus on talk pages). He won't answer this question, I feel, for the simple reason that he wants to be unaccountable and argue every disagreement de novo, with no binding precedents or rules which could give minority voices a chance to be heard. As I see it, James's MO is to argue from whatever perspective suits him, on an ad-hoc basis, varying as he pleases from article to article, with his only constants being: a) refuse to answer questions and b) try to out-vote those you disagree with. I feel any plain review of this talk page, makes clear that I am really trying here. I am not sure the same can be said of James. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you're calling James a liar, which would be a personal attack. Take it back, or consider yourself on warning. I don't care if you're on the same side of the political spectrum as me or not. We don't make personal attacks here. I'm an admin, and I'll get your account blocked if you don't knock it off. I've been pretty mild, but enough is enough: this is your first (and official) warning. Uncle Ed 03:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to oblige Uncle Ed and I apologize as follows: For each and every verbatim quote of mine, that Ed wants me to apologize for, I apologize; I ask only that Ed please cut & paste below, each of my comments he objects to, with his brief statement under it, explaining why he (Ed) asserts that particular edit of mine to be a "personal attack". This is important, so I am familiar with where Ed draws the line.

I am quite serious about this and will hold any dialogue with JamesMLane in abeyance until Ed makes clear which of my comments here he (Ed) - as an Admin - objects to. This way I'll be certain to satisfy Ed's requirement, which is: "I'll get your account blocked if you don't knock it off" Rex071404 216.153.214.94 05:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Rex071404's comments at Talk:Stolen Honor that Uncle Ed has instructed Rex to apologize to JamesMLane for

(Begin list here):

I think I expressed myself too forcefully! Would you please let me back pedal a bit here? I only wanted to draw your attention to the issue of Wikipedia:Civility and to urge you to avoid personal remarks.
I'm not in a position to impose conditions, but I take your remarks here and on my user talk page as a sign of your sincere intention to discuss the present article in a more friendly and cooperative way.
Why don't we just start fresh from this point, and if I see any "personal remarks" that could give rise to offense or otherwise distract us from collaborating, I'll just mark them up like this, with HTML strikeout formats? Uncle Ed 14:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that so far, you have not seen me edit onto this page any clear-cut personal attacks against JML during this discussion. That said, I appreciate that you have shown interest in being involved here and I will re-double my efforts to present my thoughts in a friendly way. As for "cooperative"; by definition, this requires the effort of both sides and part of my contention here is that I have yet to secure viable cooperation from JML. I do feel that the record on this page supports this view, though I'll try to stay tactful in how I express my position regarding that. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 15:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I do NOT "acknowledging that so far, [I] have not seen [you] edit onto this page any clear-cut personal attacks against JML during this discussion". I simply prefer not to level any accusations. I'm not trying to build a case; I'm not a lawyer. "Non-profit layers do it for free", as the famous tee-shirt motto goes.
Harsh words have been exchanged. I'd like to see some peace. That is all. Now have a good weekend everybody, and try to be nice to each other. And, oh yes, see if you can come up with some constructive suggestion for improving the Stolen Honor article. Uncle Ed 15:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The tail wags the dog

I saw a movie called Wag the Dog. Twice. It was to me, very sad, actually. The only character I liked in it, or had any respect for, was the Wille Nelson character. And he wasn't even a hero.

The idea that dishonest politicians can get away with murder is very disturbing.

But what do you propose to do about it? Sure, I smell elephant shit. I feel the floor tremble everytime the elephant shifts his weight. I'm not pretending that everything's fine.

I'm not saying that you should "relax, take it slowly" as in Cat Stevens's song Father and Son either!

I do not counsel anarchy or rebellion OR selling out. We need restoration, and if we help each other we can do it. Uncle Ed 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Then there was another snip...

Sounds like you're calling James a liar, which would be a personal attack. Take it back, or consider yourself on warning. I don't care if you're on the same side of the political spectrum as me or not. We don't make personal attacks here. I'm an admin, and I'll get your account blocked if you don't knock it off. I've been pretty mild, but enough is enough: this is your first (and official) warning. Uncle Ed 03:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to oblige Uncle Ed and I apologize as follows: For each and every verbatim quote of mine, that Ed wants me to apologize for, I apologize; I ask only that Ed please cut & paste below, each of my comments he objects to, with his brief statement under it, explaining why he (Ed) asserts that particular edit of mine to be a "personal attack". This is important, so I am familiar with where Ed draws the line.

I am quite serious about this and will hold any dialogue with JamesMLane in abeyance until Ed makes clear which of my comments here he (Ed) - as an Admin - objects to. This way I'll be certain to satisfy Ed's requirement, which is: "I'll get your account blocked if you don't knock it off" Rex071404 216.153.214.94 05:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Rex071404's comments at Talk:Stolen Honor that Uncle Ed has instructed Rex to apologize to JamesMLane for

(Begin list here):

I think I expressed myself too forcefully! Would you please let me back pedal a bit here? I only wanted to draw your attention to the issue of Wikipedia:Civility and to urge you to avoid personal remarks.
I'm not in a position to impose conditions, but I take your remarks here and on my user talk page as a sign of your sincere intention to discuss the present article in a more friendly and cooperative way.
Why don't we just start fresh from this point, and if I see any "personal remarks" that could give rise to offense or otherwise distract us from collaborating, I'll just mark them up like this, with HTML strikeout formats? Uncle Ed 14:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Thank you for acknowledging that so far, you have not seen me edit onto this page any clear-cut personal attacks against JML during this discussion. That said, I appreciate that you have shown interest in being involved here and I will re-double my efforts to present my thoughts in a friendly way. As for "cooperative"; by definition, this requires the effort of both sides and part of my contention here is that I have yet to secure viable cooperation from JML. I do feel that the record on this page supports this view, though I'll try to stay tactful in how I express my position regarding that. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 15:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I do NOT "acknowledging that so far, [I] have not seen [you] edit onto this page any clear-cut personal attacks against JML during this discussion". I simply prefer not to level any accusations. I'm not trying to build a case; I'm not a lawyer. "Non-profit layers do it for free", as the famous tee-shirt motto goes.
Harsh words have been exchanged. I'd like to see some peace. That is all. Now have a good weekend everybody, and try to be nice to each other. And, oh yes, see if you can come up with some constructive suggestion for improving the Stolen Honor article. Uncle Ed 15:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal remarks

This cuts both ways, so (in alphabetical order):

  1. I have yet to secure viable cooperation from him
  2. you have not seen me edit onto this page any clear-cut personal attack
  3. you're calling him a liar

Let's ALL try to Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks like the above. Uncle Ed 16:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


  • At no time did I use the word "liar"
  • Ed has not complied with my request that he quote me
  • Sentences #1 and #2 were said to Ed, not James and are only a partial qoutes, spoken AFTER Ed's request for apology was made - hence his request could not be based on them.

Rex071404 216.153.214.94 16:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Many points are open. I suggest re-opening one at a time, courteously. This will be me last revert. After that, do as you wish. I'm off till Monday. Ta! Uncle Ed 16:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I have re-restored this talk page. Please stop archiving this over my objections. I have invested much time here trying with many edits. Please only archive a couple of the oldest points fform the top of the page - thes other issues are still being discussed. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 16:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kizzle's tag-team revert ?

Kizzle's tag-team revert just now [27] has the appearance of bad faith, to me. By his own admission he stated that only 80% bothered him, but he reverted 100%. That and the way he conveniently RV'd after Gamaliel max'd out for today is not mertious, in my view. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 21:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where I have three reverts today, but that's besides the point. If Kizzle disagrees with your edits and agrees with mine, why should he not revert you? Gamaliel 21:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sherwood's credentials

Cut from article:

Carlton Sherwood, the producer of Stolen Honor is an acclaimed journalist and Vietnam War veteran. He is currently a private military corporation executive. In 1980, Mr Sherwood was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his contributions as part of the Gannett News Service team.

This should be in the Sherwood article. Does not need repetition here. Uncle Ed 20:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, yes it does. The fact that he shared in a Pulitzer Prize for his journalistic activities is relevant to any ventures he engages in thereafter which are or which purport to be journalistic, just as the fact that he conducted what purported to be an independent investigation while he was actually giving the subject access to and influence in it is relevant to any other purported "independent investigations".
I'm sure you have only the good of Wikipedia in mind, Ed, but some people are not so honorable. They wouldn't see that you're merely trying to keep the article free of clutter by cutting out what you see as redundant elaboration of Sherwood's credentials -- which are, as credentials suggests, part of the reason people might give credence to Sherwood's claims. Instead, they would simply see it as a free license to rip out any reference to the reasons why someone might be skeptical of Sherwood's claims. I'm sure you agree that it isn't NPOV -- not furthering the goal of representing all sides fairly -- to let one side say "Well, if my side elects not to present any reasoning why we believe Sherwood is telling the complete and whole truth, that means we get to remove anything the other side says about why they believe his work must be approached with caution." So I'm sure you'll understand why I'm restoring the information about Sherwood's credentials to the article; we don't want to put temptation in anyone's way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, but merely repeating information is not the best way to do this. We should explain in the article that people question Sherwood's objectivity. We might also point out that the people questioning his objectivity disagree with his conclusions - with opens up the possibility that they are (A) "attacking him" because of his conclusions - as opposed to (B) questioning his conclusion because they *gasp* suddenly discovered something fishy about his credentials.
It's the old chicken and egg problem. Which came first?
Also, I have yet to verify that Frontline's claim is a fact, let alone that the claim if true proves their point.
Is it a general principle that when investigating one's former employer, a journalist NEVER communicates with them in a non-hostile mode? I mean, is Sherwood some kind of idiot who would spend a year or more researching something, only to throw away the scoop of the century by violating journalistic ethics by tipping his hand to "the enemy"?
Remember, we're talking about high-stakes politics here. This was the same campaign where CBS tried to pull on October surprise to discredit Kerry's opponent - a bit of advocacy journalism.
Anyway, the question you and I are discussing is not "Is Sherwood's anti-Kerry video accurate" but "How can we represent the controversy over its accuracy, in an unbiased way?" Uncle Ed 15:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
"Repeating information is not the best way to do this" -- I disagree. Placing information where it is relevant and gives context is a good thing and as we have seen, it is relevant here. What seems irrelevant here is speculation on the possibility that 100% of people who doubt Sherwood's claims did so before they found out anything about his credentials. Most people who give any thought to the chicken-and-egg problem aren't trying to argue that eggs should be mentioned only in the chicken article and not in any other chicken-related article.
What is also irrelevant is the speculation that Frontline's investigation was flawed -- since it's submitted with absolutely no evidence that this was the case, only with an argument that if Frontline's investigation was flawed, then it would support the conclusion that some people would prefer to believe. The way you phrase your rhetorical question, Ed, makes one wonder whether you've looked into Frontline's report at all, let alone looked into it enough to have any basis for suggesting that they got it wrong.
You ask "Is it a general principle that when investigating one's former employer, a journalist NEVER communicates with them in a non-hostile mode?" Well, that's a straw man. No one ever said "Oh! We caught Sherwood communicating with the subject of his review in a non-hostile manner! His investigation is proven non-independent!" What they did turn up is written evidence that Sherwood sent the manuscript to the subject of his investigation and they said "we want this changed and this changed." If Sherwood's response had been "I'll investigate whether those 'corrections' are in fact correct and publish them if my research corroborates," there'd be much less controversy. It's the fact that Sherwood said "okay, I'll make the changes you told me to make" which led to so many questions about whether the investigation fulfilled Sherwood's claims for it as fully independent.
Yes, the question is "How can we represent the controversy over Stolen Honor's accuracy, in an unbiased way?" Jumping to the conclusion that Sherwood is a journalist beyond reproach who would never violate journalistic ethics and that only partisan opponents could possibly believe otherwise is not the answer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed: Wikipedia should not draw that conclusion. Let's try to nail down what the various parties have said about Sherwood. Oh, and while we are at it, let's try to nail down what various parties have said about Kerry. This looks like an intricate example of two sides calling each other liars. Uncle Ed 22:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TDC's edits

re: stopping the article dead for a big laundry list of every single individual interviewed in the movie so as to drive away the maximum number of readers before disclosing that one of those individuals happened to be Kenneth Cordier -- already discussed. Nunh-uh. The official website will do a much better job than we can of going into that exhaustive level of detail; after all, that's where the list is copied from. As for changing the language to imply that the only ones whose actions put pressure on Sinclair were "Large Democrat union pension funds", that is not supported by either the old article or the new one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't need every individual in the movie. Also agree that one wasn't causal to another, both the advertisers and democrat union funds withdrew independently as far to my knowledge. --kizzle 03:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this strait, you are both arguing that factual information about people who were in the movie deserves less space than partisan bullshit? Secondly, the information about union pension funds is documented, un;ess you have another source. DTC 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
No, but we know that Staples pulled out because of customer complaints, not because of the Democratic-leaning pension funds. --kizzle 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with AF and kizzle. I'm not adamantly opposed to the list, but if we do include it, a chunk of raw data like that belongs in its own section towards the end, not dropped in the middle of a section near the beginning. Gamaliel 05:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the list of names -- it's not lead section material. As for the "information" about union pension funds, what's "documented" according to TDC's citation is that one anonymous source has asserted that "[b]ig institutions, including some unions and pension funds, pressured their fund managers to dump Sinclair's stock ...." Even if we take the anonymous source as totally reliable, he or she says only that there was pressure to sell. It appears that the pressure was not exclusively from union pension funds. Whether the pressure resulted in any actual sales is not stated. Finally, there is no such thing as a "Democrat union". As a minor item of usage, I pointed out to TDC last August that the use of "Democrat" as an adjective is a right-wing solecism. (See more extensive discussion here.) Beyond that, the description would have to be much more nuanced (are these unions allegedly affiliated with the Democratic Party, or simply more likely to conclude that Democratic candidates are the ones who'll best further the interests of the under-$100,000-per-year crowd?) Also, the very next sentence in the Newsweek article reports similar financial concerns among many other Wall Street types, who tend to be Republicans. Picking and choosing some facts to convey an impression of a vast left-wing conspiracy is not NPOV. JamesMLane 08:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Including a list of people in the film is valid for a documentary. 70.85.195.229 05:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This article does not meet any meaningful scholastic standards

This article is really little more than a political debate between two sides of the political spectrum using standard web debating tactics, while failing any basic test for scholastic merit. As it is now, much of the article resembles an ad hominem attack on Sherwood---suggesting the possibility of a bias and calling into question his journalistic skills, while exploring nothing from the movie that was relevant. Details of Sherwood's life not relevant to this article, really belong in the Wiki entry on Sherwood, and are largely irrelevant to the stated topic of this article.

I believe that the main thrust of the article should have been a review of the contents of the movie, and an examination of which aspects are one-sided or inaccurate. -- clt510 16:44, 10 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/o/Talk%7EStolen_Honor_b95a.html"