Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] Parallel debate

Some of the debate on this discussion page is also taking place on Talk:Swiftboating. For exposure to the full discussion, it would be wise to check that page. Crockspot 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Should the introductory pragraph be edited to more explicitly state that the SBVT campaign was based around lies? I think it's important to make clear the difference between people who criticize a candidate for policy issues and ones who exist to commit slander. Also, should it be more explicit early on that the SBVT were organized and run by the Bush campaign?

The first paragraph failed to give credit to the valiant Republican political operatives who were neither Swift Boat Verterans nor POWs and formed the bulk of the support of this group. These valiant men deserve credit for this political operation. Extremism in the service of political ends is justified. 24.136.232.72 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the ideologues have been at play since my last visit and the opening paragraph (which had been acceptable to all for quite some time) was changed to reflect POV negative connotations. Characterizing the SBVT's initiative as an attempt to "discredit" John Kerry's military service is not only innaccurate and disputable but decidedly POV with obvious negative connotations. With thanks to James Lane for the refresher course... JakeInJoisey 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted James Lane's edit in an attempt to find some common ground as a starting point for what I can only describe as the gratuitous POV editing of (as I recall) an opening paragraph which a general consensus found to be acceptable for quite some time. I'll research more tomorrow for specifics and documentation but it seems apparent there are those not content to leave well enough alone. JakeInJoisey 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Derex 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"You are mistaken" hardly qualifies as justification for an edit by anyone's definition. Please direct me to your justification for this edit. JakeInJoisey 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It's considerably more lucid, and less obnoxious, than "Apparently the ideologues have been at play since my last visit" .... But, it was very nice of you to revert James "in an attempt to find some common ground as a starting point". You're a swell guy. Derex 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion or my opinion as to the motivation of editors is irrelevant to the process itself. Please provide justification or a link to justification for your edit or I will revert to what was a consensus opening paragraph arrived at quite some time ago. JakeInJoisey 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, we do not have a consensus for either version. Please discuss the merits of your change before further engaging in a revert war. Derex 19:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, I myself expressed no opinion whatsoever as to anyone's motivations. But you are indeed correct that your expressed opinion is wholly irrelevant. Derex 19:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Jake, my edit summary said, 'I don't care about "discrediting" but the lead needs to note that SBVT focused on Kerry's military record (as opposed to his tax policy or whatever)'. That's the justification. Derex made the same point in his ES. You've provided no explanation except your assertion that the article didn't always read that way. No, it didn't. It's been improved. The specific issue of whether the lead section should particularize SBVT's attack on Kerry hasn't been the subject of discussion, as far as I remember, so it's misleading to imply that there was a prior consensus on the point. A dozen or so people have edited the article since that description was added. We've tried to accommodate you by removing the word "discrediting" (though, to my mind, it's perfectly accurate). If you think the current text reflects a bias, please explain why. JamesMLane t c 14:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As I already stated, I have no objection to re-considering the opening paragraph, but you offer no justification other than your assertion that it "needs to note that SBVT focused on Kerry's military record" (which, I would also argue, is an inaccurate descriptive in and of itself.) Why, exactly, does the introduction "need to note" that? At what point do you draw the line as to introductory content? Isn't it more prudent for the sake of introductory conciseness to assume that a reader is, at least, somewhat familiar with the nature of this rather hi-profile controversy? I'm all-modem...please elucidate.

I am also somewhat puzzled as to why this "necessary" edit wasn't somehow addressed by you in earlier deliberations in which you were a rather vocal participant. In fact (if my research is accurate), the opening paragraph has remained essentially the same since it was edited by Derex on 17 September 2005, Revision as of 19:43. (I've not yet identified the date of it's original composition or editor). Now, you may assert that there was no consensus, but I'd offer that, in an article with this level of contention, 7 months of survival is a rather remarkable period of longevity.

As to whether I stated or implied some bias in YOUR text, please read my statement more carefully. My remarks were directed towards the edit (and the editor) containing the word "discrediting" and I appreciate your apparent concurrence as to it's NPOV? character. (On edit: Re-reading my note, I was unclear as to my POV objection. It didn't apply to your subsequent edit. I am objecting to your edit on the grounds that it is an unwarranted expansion of the introductory)

Pending further discussion, I'm reverting to the version that achieved agreement (at least between Derex and myself) on 17 Sep, 2005 and remained essentially unaltered up to the date of this most recent editing adventure.JakeInJoisey 19:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It needs to note that because this is an article intended to convey information. And that is what the Swift Vets did — they criticized Kerry's actions regarding the war. That is why they are notable, and that is why an article exists on them. Wikipedia articles should serve the reader, and you need to indicate how removal of this fundamental part of the SBVT's prominence from the lede serves the reader. Derex 20:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have my own opinion as to what this article, as currently comprised, is intended to do, but that's another matter altogether. Be that as it may, I assure you that your perception of "what the Swiftvets did" and "why they are notable" varies considerably from mine and I will do my best to see that opinion also reflected in any consensus expansion of the introductory. But that's placing the cart before the horse...
What serves the reader is logical presentation of facts, conciseness and good writing. I am at a loss to understand how such a "fundamental" element of the introductory managed to escape the purview of dedicated editors such as yourself and JML during the 7 months of its existence. I'm unconvinced by your argument that it's "fundamental" at all and any expansion of the already well-written introductory is unnecessary, unwarranted and to the detriment of the article.
edit: I noted that you reverted again. Please do me the courtesy of allowing JML (the author of the edit) and I to continue this discussion to its conclusion. I have disputed JML's edit and I expect he is more than capable of responding to my objection without your assistance. Until such time, please refrain from arbitrarily inserting your voice or your edits in a dispute between the 2 principles involved. You'll have ample opportunity for your own skirmishes down the road. Reverting JakeInJoisey 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
James is well more than able to defend his own position — honestly it's a marvel to behold, which I wouldn't say about anyone else here. Nevertheless, I've seen little enough courtesy, and asking a fellow editor to shut up is hardly a start. I'd be more than happy to agree with your edit, if you'd make a cogent case for it. You have not done so, in fact you haven't even made a weak case for it; perhaps an empty case. Derex 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Very well. I have added the "Controversial Topic" template to this talk page. Please refrain from marking anymore of your substantive reverts as "minor" for the forseeable future.JakeInJoisey 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright then. Since I trust him, and since you prefer to talk to him, I'll let you and James sort it out for now. That's so long as you do it here on Talk, rather than by attempted fiat on the article. Revert wars are frowned upon, but I have such a terribly strong aversion to bullying attempts that I am quite willing to sin. Derex 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UT

[edit] Background

  • The following entry mis-states and factually misrepresents SBVT's "assertions" and mandates revision...

SBVT asserted that Kerry was "unfit to serve" as president based on his wartime conduct and later activism in the anti-Vietnam war movement.

What the SBVT "asserts" is what they say they assert, and they are quite specific about it...

It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war. Letter to John Kerry, May 04 2004

Their assertion of unfitness is NOT based on some generalized notion of "wartime conduct" but specifically on their allegation that he "withheld and/or distorted material facts" as to his own conduct in that war.

Nor is it factually accurate that SBVT asserted Kerry was unfit because of his anti-Vietnam War "activism". Their allegation is that he "grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct" of American servicemen in that war during that period of activism.

I offer the following edit...

SBVT asserted that Kerry was "unfit to serve" as president based upon his alleged willful distortion of the conduct of American servicemen during that war and his alleged withholding and/or distortion of material facts as to his own conduct during that war JakeInJoisey 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The following entry warrants editing as it presents an opinion as to the rationale for the "tremendous" controversy" that is decidedly POV and contains numerous factual errors.

This claim caused tremendous controversy during the election, particularly because the veterans were perceived as partisans who had not been in a place to assess Kerry, while several other Vietnam veterans who served alongside Kerry or under his command disputed the criticisms and supported Kerry in his presidential aspirations.

    • First, one might easily and quite legitimately posit that the "cause" of the "tremendous controversy" was the nature and credibility of the allegations themselves. That the controversy ensued because the SBVT was "partisan" is arguable at best and decidedly POV.
    • Second, to suggest that the veterans? (should read SBVT?) were universally "perceived as partisans" is absurd on it's face .
    • Third, a suggestion that none had been in a place to "assess Kerry" is factually erroneous.

Comments please? JakeInJoisey 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The following entry mandates editing as it contains an error of fact.

In their initial letter, SBVT stated "Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels [sic] us to step forward."

The above statement was not extracted from their initial letter but from the opening page of their website. Also, the grammatical error has apparently been corrected. I will make the correction with an appropriate link. JakeInJoisey 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The following is transparently POV and mandates correction...

After the election, the group was praised by conservatives for contributing to the success of the George W. Bush campaign, while critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign.

This entry is a transparent POV attempt to lend credibility to the allegation of SBVT direct ties to George Bush in the guise of a "balance" to the insertion of the "smear" allegation.

Let's play fair here with a compromise of a sort.

After the election, the group was credited by media and praised byconservatives for contributing to the defeat of John Kerry, while critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign. JakeInJoisey 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I also included a link for the part about "conservatives" thinking SBVT helped win the election - but I think it is more accurate to say they think they helped defeat Kerry than that they helped GWB win, as JinJ points out - and a link for the view that SBVT was an example of a smear campaign. --EECEE 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks OK to me...amended JakeInJoisey 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi JinJ - Thanks for the cleanup. However, I think being "credited by the media" (with contributing to the defeat of JK), as opposed to "praised by conservatives" needs its own supporting link. The only "nonpolitical" articles I saw talked about Kerry's late response to SBVT being damaging to the campaign (for instance,: [1]), especially as the polls showed the ads had little effect on voter perception, but maybe you can find a few links out there? In addition, plenty of "media" also described it as a smear campaign, so if included maybe it should be included for both views. Your thoughts? EECEE 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested in learning how one defines a "non-political" article (or source). I suspect that there's no such entity in contemporary media and it relates more to how you perceive whose ox is being regularly gored. Nor am I surprised that you choose as your example an article from the "Globe". Pardon my cynicism, but you might as well have sourced the NYT or the LAT as your example. Can we come down to earth a bit here EECEE?
Be that as it may, you appear to be arguing a finer point than the one currently being made. Perhaps you're objecting to the word "crediting" as some derivation of "commending"? If so, I believe you are mis-interpreting the use of the word, but I have no heartburn with looking for a suitable alternative. Whatever the terminology used, SBVT's impact on the election was factual (you might argue the degree) and needs to be recognized.
As to a link , quite coincidentally, here's an AP offering from today...

Kerry had hoped his military background would be a pillar of his 2004 presidential bid. But his campaign failed to effectively counter charges by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked Kerry's war record.

I'd say that's a good example of "credited by the media" as having been a factor in Kerry's loss.
More likely, I assume, is your desire to attribute whatever "success" SBVT might have had to circumstance rather than substance (which, of course, is Kerry's position) but on that point I'm afraid we'd have to "go to the mattresses". Frankly I believe it would needlessly expand an already bloated "article" with more point/counterpoint...but I'll play if you wish.
As to some "media" refering to SBVT as a "smear", you are, of course, quite correct and I've no objection to recognizing that reality. The paragraph, quite obviously needs to be re-worked. JakeInJoisey 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the example you chose actually underscores my point, which is that most media commentary says it was the tactical error of Kerry's failure to respond to the charges rather than the charges themselves that harmed his campaign. By "nonpolitical" articles I simply meant those not authored by someone trying to make a political point, as in a commentary at a political site. A "nonpolitical" article would be a noneditorial piece through a recognized news outlet. As is the Boston Globe, although in this case it is merely paraphrasing Kerry, so that probably wasn't the best example.
So if one wants to posit that the "media" credited SBVT itself - the substance of the claims, as you say - with contributing to his loss, one should provide some noneditorial, recognized media links to back it up. As I say, the only pieces I find put the blame at the tactical error of Kerry's ineffective response, not the substance of the SBVT claims themselves.
And yes, the paragraph needs to be reworked. EECEE 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
After some thought, I suggest we simplify the sentence to reflect the important distinctions. Maybe something like this:
Some consider the group, or Kerry's slow response to the group's claims, as a factor in his defeat in the 2004 election (links), while others consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign (links).
Your thoughts? EECEE 16:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
When my time permits, I will respond to each of the points you raised above. As to your most recent suggested edit, I think we need to come to some resolution as to the issues raised above before deciding on suggested revisions. I will, hopefully, have something up this evening. JakeInJoisey 17:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You've raised several points and I'll try to be responsive to all when time permits...
  • Well, I think the example you chose actually underscores my point, which is that most media commentary says it was the tactical error of Kerry's failure to respond to the charges rather than the charges themselves that harmed his campaign.
Perhaps that's your (a?) point as well, but it addresses a different issue than the one we were initially discussing and about which, I thought, we had achieved consensus given your response of 14:55, 25 April 2006. Pardon me for saying so, but you appear to be moving the goalpost. You stated...
However, I think being "credited by the media" (with contributing to the defeat of JK), as opposed to "praised by conservatives" needs its own supporting link. The only "nonpolitical" articles I saw talked about Kerry's late response to SBVT being damaging to the campaign
I provided you a link that certainly appears to acknowledge consequence to the Kerry campaign without getting into the nature of that consequence, and that was just from yesterday. That one article alone appears to rebut your assertion.
Are you now suggesting that even an acknowledgement of SBVT consequence must be qualified by your rather vague and unsupported personal perception of what "most media commentary" stated to be the causation of that consequence? The very fact that you qualified it as "most media" implies that media opinion wasn't universal on that point and without supporting documentation would render your statement to POV supposition. Frankly, I don't know how you would legitimately quantify such an assertion.
What WAS universally held (I'll go out on a limb here) was that SBVT played a significant role in the outcome of the election and that's ALL that sentence is stating.
Nor, BTW, am I buying into your rather creative concept of the "nonpolitical" article. More on that when I can get to it. JakeInJoisey 03:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Well, let's recap. You introduced the idea that "media" drew a conclusion about the effect of the substance of the SBVT claims on Kerry's campaign. I suggested that any such statement should be supported by links to objective "media" sources. It is up to the person making the claim about media conclusions to provide the source. As I said, I have not seen anything that has suggested such a conclusion on the part of "media" (which in itself is a pretty generalized assumption, isn't it?); rather, what I have seen are discussions of the effect of Kerry's delayed, or ineffective, response to the SBVT claims.
The sentence you provide from the AP article has a subject - Kerry's campaign - and a predicate - "failed to effectively counter" -counter what? - the SBVT charges. The effect of that failure, according to the article? Kerry was hampered in capitalizing on his military background during the campaign. By whom or what? His campaign's ineffectiveness.
If one wants to claim that the media drew a direct connection between the substance of SBVT claims and Kerry's loss, one should provide a link or two that makes that direct connection.
So once again I suggest making the point a simple one, such as: Some credit SBVT with contributing to Kerry's loss (links), while others view it as an example of a successful smear campaign (link). EECEE 06:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's recap. You introduced the idea that "media" drew a conclusion about the effect of the substance of the SBVT claims on Kerry's campaign.
That's incorrect. My suggested edit contained no reference at all as to the "why" of any purported SBVT "success". It simply stated that it was acknowledged (credited?) by media as having been a factor in Kerry's loss. I felt this this was necessary to mitigate any possible misconception that whatever "success" SBVT might have had was in the eyes of "conservatives" only.
I didn't say the edit contained a "reference" to anything, simply that it introduced the idea that certain conclusions were drawn by media. EECEE 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you didn't say "certain conclusions". You stated you hadn't seen a media "conclusion" that SBVT "contributed to the defeat of JK" without also stating that it was caused by Kerry's "late response". You then asked me to "find a few links out there?" to substantiate my point. I found you one which rebutted your assertion that was less than a day old.
Well no, I don't believe my assertion has been rebutted, and I will refer you to my earlier post on that point. Your article actually said it was Kerry's ineffective response that detracted from his campaign. EECEE 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it did, and the nature of that "ineffective response" was UNSPECIFIED. Was it his alleged (and your premised) "late response"? It doesn't say. Was it his alleged inability to respond to damaging factual allegations? It doesn't say. It simply states that his campaign failed to effectively counter charges by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked Kerry's war record and, therefore, rebuts your premise and supports an assertion that media credited SBVT as having contributed to Kerry's defeat...which is ALL my "media" comment asserted. JakeInJoisey 06:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The nature of the response was specified in that it was termed not "effective." And once again, this particular medium only credits that ineffective response - not the attacks - with affecting Kerry's ability to make his military experience a pillar of his campaign, not the outcome of the election. This in turn was in the context of Kerry's views on Iraq and Vietnam. EECEE 08:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW, we could have saved a lot of time had you objected to the "media" edit in the first place. As your initial response made no mention of it and, thusly, appeared to indicate agreement, your subsequent comment had me somewhat puzzled. However, had I explained my rationale for the insertion in the first place, it would have flagged it better for comment. JakeInJoisey 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, if you are referring to my "initial response" re the backup sources for the "conservative praise" part, I was addressing what appeared in the article rather than what you had posted here - and I don't believe the "media" edit had gone into the article at that point (I could certainly be wrong). I see how that could be confusing here, and I apologize for not being more thorough in my reading.
At any rate, my initial point about the "media" edit was that it (like the "conservative praise" part) should be supported by objective sources (which in my opinion it has not been). The fact that the edit posits a conclusion about the effect of SBVT on the outcome of the election is the underlying reason for needing backup sources. I realize it led into an examination of parts of the sentence that were already posted, and I am sorry if that also caused confusion, but such is the nature of edit discussions. At any rate, all led to the more recent discussion about simply couching the entire sentence in terms of the points of view of supporters and critics. EECEE 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
However, I can live with the following...
After the election, the group was praised by supporters for contributing to the defeat of John Kerry, while critics consider the group to be an example of a successful political smear campaign.
Looks good to me, except that I think it should say: "praised by supporters as contributing". EECEE 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a degree in English, but it seems to me that it would be "as contributors" or "for contributing" or "for their contribution(s)"...or am I missing a larger point here? :-/ JakeInJoisey 23:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My thought being, again, that a view (that of the supporters)is being described, without implying a factual conclusion. In other words, supporters saw SBVT as contributing (or "as contributors") to Kerry's defeat. Different from praising the group FOR contributing to that defeat. I realize it seems a minor difference, but it is substantive, in my view. Thanks. EECEE 23:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to "imply" a factual conclusion...there IS a factual reality. SBVT supporters praised them BOTH "as contributors" and "for contributing". Are you suggesting otherwise? JakeInJoisey 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The implied conclusion is not that SBVT supporters praised the group for something. It is that something actually occurred for which the group was praised. Once again, to say supporters praised SBVT for contributing to Kerry's defeat implies a factual conclusion - that they actually contributed to his defeat - just as saying that some criticized the group "for being a smear campaign" would imply a factual conclusion. Thus, it seems more accurate - and supportable - to say that SBVT supporters praised the group as a factor in Kerry's defeat, contributors to his defeat, or contributing to his defeat. Just as it is more accurate and supportable to say that critics consider the group an example of a successful smear campaign. EECEE 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
...to say supporters praised SBVT for contributing to Kerry's defeat implies a factual conclusion - that they actually contributed to his defeat
EECEE, that's just not credible logic! Read that statement again for yourself! While SBVT supporters have most certainly drawn a conclusion, they might be WRONG!!!! And the same is true of SBVT detractors! The true or false nature of their respective beliefs is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE altogether! This isn't a declaration that the supporters of SBVT are CORRECT in assuming a degree of SBVT effectiveness, nor a declaration that critics of SBVT are CORRECT in assuming the appropriateness of a "smear" label. It's simply a statement of some of the prevalent perceptions of BOTH groups post-election.
That is the whole point. It is a perception only. It should be presented in those terms.
We are really only one word off in our views. I think substituting the word "as" in place of "for" or a like edit would serve the purpose. EECEE 08:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Jake - As you have been back to the article but haven't posted to me, I assume the edit I suggested is okay with you, and will go ahead and make it. Thanks. --EECEE 23:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Just what impact the SBVT may have had on Kerry's campaign is an unknown at this point and I'd suggest that neither of us has the wherewithal to speak authoritatively on that matter. Passion is still too high on this subject and I'd suggest there's more advocacy afoot than scholarship by a long shot. JakeInJoisey 07:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Probably true. EECEE 08:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


I assume you will find that considerably more acceptable than the following alternative...
After the election, the group was praised by conservatives for revealing the truth about John Kerry, while liberals consider the group to be an example of a successful political smear campaign.
lol JakeInJoisey 08:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Hi - I edited in a few places for accuracy, including deleting the part that states that some people thought the SBVT brought important views into public discussion (paraphrasing here), as there was no supporting evidence provided. If someone can provide some links showing that this was a perception of anyone without a political dog in the fight, I have no problem including it.--EECEE 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll reserve comment on the edit by 70.112.27.252 as it wasn't discussed here prior to edit. I posted a note on his/her talk page requesting compliance with the "controversial" template requirements. JakeInJoisey 15:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'll try to remember not to be so quick with the edit...without checking the talk page first at least. EECEE 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, am wondering if this whole paragraph really belongs in the FEC complaint section.--EECEE 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Other edits: I don't think The Note actually "proclaimed" as much as stated what in fact appears to be a news summary.--EECEE 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I think the contradictory "contemporaneous" statements were by SBVT members rather than "supporters." For example, Schachte is a supporter, but his contradictory statements were made years later. --EECEE 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your response and, in order to keep some semblance of order here, I'm proposing that we use a bullet point to frame areas of discussion? I find it very cumbersome to be responsive in an orderly fashion to single paragraphs containing multiple subjects for discussion. With your indulgence, I've "bulleted" your points for comment as interested parties see fit. I'll add some input when time permits. Please feel free to revert or edit or suggest another alternative as you see fit.JakeInJoisey 04:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, anything that helps keeps things sorted is fine with me. Thanks. EECEE 07:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


To the anonymous editor who added "Republican political activists" to the membership of SBVT:

While there are certainly activists among SBVT supporters, I thought the membership itself was confined to Swift boat vets and former POWs. Could you please elaborate? Thanks. --EECEE 06:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are some links--
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/05/14/gannon/index.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
24.136.232.72 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But Franke is a Swift Boat veteran. There are plenty of Republican ties there, but I suggest any new info re activism go in the "Ties to Republicans" (or whatever it is) segment. --EECEE 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To Justin Bacon re your edit:

Hi. Sorry if my deletion of your addition seemed preemptive, but this being such a controversial site, most of us are discussing before making significant edits.

The reference to the claims of SBVT being "inaccurate" is conclusionary on its face and doesn't really belong in an intro. If anything, such a conclusion should follow the addition of evidence in the body of the text. You will see how those questions have been handled in a more NPOV way throughout the article.

In addition, the reference to SBVT's connections with Republicans and the GWB campaign are discussed at length later in the article.

Your thoughts? --EECEE 05:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. And the purpose of the intro is to provide a high-level summary of the topic. At the moment, the intro on this article is biased and needs to be more inclusive in order to abide by NPOV. If you have an alternative proposal for making the intro abide by NPOV, please feel free to propose it for consideration. 06:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


It has nothing to do with original research. It has to do with not starting out with conclusionary or repetitive statements. In addition, I personally think the intro was not biased.
However, see my comment to Crockspot at the bottom of the page. As Gamaiel at least thinks it belongs in the intro, I am willing to defer, especially as it is a statement that is supported in the text. I don't think the reference to "extensive" links to the GOP is really supported in the text, as explained below.
I do think it is a marginal question, though, and would be interested to see what others think. --EECEE 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


I added one sentence to the "swiftboating" section, including a citation. Conservative bloggers consider the term to mean "exposing the truth". If one citation is not sufficient, let me know and I can provide multiple citations of that use of the word. Crockspot 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I went back and reworded the first sentence a little, as my change introduced confusion to the statement. It may still need some work, but it should be pointed out that liberals and conservatives view the word with near-opposite meanings. Crockspot 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot: I pretty much reverted your edit re "swiftboating," with a couple of changes. I'll explain my reasoning.
First of all, it isn't just the "liberal" media that uses the term, unless you count Fox News as liberal - see the links at the "swiftboating" page. Nor are liberals universally claimed to be the targets.
Second, as the term is used just about internchangeably with the term "smear campaign" it isn't completely accurate to say it characterizes a perceived smear campaign. That made me realize that the sentence should probably be edited to be more clear anyway, so I simply said it is an expression for a smear campaign...etc.
Third, Wikipedia articles typically do not use blogs as references - in fact I think it has been specifically discussed at this page. If you could come up with some other sources like online articles or columns (probably not too hard to find), you could support such a statement. --EECEE 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I found this article from the US Veteran Dispatch, which even quotes an earlier version of this Wikipedia article, and provides an alternate meaning.[2] The definition Sampley uses: "Swiftboating: – Exposing the lies, deceit, and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for public office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds." I found another website which echoes Sampley's definition.[3] There are also T-shirts being sold with a simplified definition, "Swiftboating: Exposing lies, deceit, fraud or deceitful/fraudulent person(s)". [4]Crockspot 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot. Thanks for posting. I'm not sure how many conservatives would want to be identified with the likes of Ted Sampley, but I suppose it would be accurate to say something like "Some conservatives, however, have given the phrase an alternate meaning: "Exposing lies ... etc." How does that sound to you? --EECEE 06:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be acceptable reasonable. I think the second simplified version is more in general use than the one that is more military-specific. At CU, we have been using that general meaning since the end of 2004. Crockspot 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I will defer to you to rewrite that, since you seem to have a handle on this article. Crockspot 20:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Crockspot. I actually had just reverted someone's rather POV edit and was going to insert yours, but the page got "locked up" for maintenance. I assume it's unlocked now, so will go ahead and add your edit, with the T-shirt link (I think that qualifies as "some conservatives" ;-) - but if you find more direct links to the actual quote, feel free to include.). I will also add it at the "swiftboating" article page. --EECEE 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well, it looks like the introduction to the "swiftboating" article itself is protected or otherwise unedit-able. Will try to add the sentence when it's open for editing. In the meantime, I notice that it does say the conservatives question the appropriateness of the term in political debate (or something like that).
I see that it is the "talk" page for that article - not this talk page - that has the discussion re using blogs as sources. --EECEE 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits for Accuracy etc.

I edited to remove this addition to the "SF 180" portion of the article:

  >>> Critics allege that Kerry executed the form SF180 in a manner that kept important details of his military record from being disclosed

[5].<<<


Looking at the blog cited, that critic speculates that Kerry may have limited his SF 180 to a release of a "deleted" report of separation. However, the minute the SF 180s themselves were posted online, that speculation was laid to rest. The forms are linked in the paragraph discussing the SF 180 release.

The other "allegations" that appear in that blog and the blogs it links to mainly deal with (1) the documents the Navy didn't release under an earlier FOIA request - already addressed in this article and I believe at the JK Military Service Controversy article here at Wiki, (2) why the later citations - answered many times elsewhere on the net, and probably also at the JK Military Service Controversy article, (3) why no after action reports - they are not personnel records but command records and are available to the public through military archives, and (4) why isn't there more about his discharge - requiring the impossibility of proving a negative. None of those "allegations," BTW, have anything to do with the manner in which Kerry executed his SF 180.

The whole military records thing is really rather peripheral to the SBVT discussion anyway. If you are interested in that particular aspect I suggest you might check out the JK Military Service Controversy article. --68.164.93.157 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored this statement along with a number of citations, including one to the actual SF180 as signed by Kerry. Read the SF180 - it only covers active duty time, not reserve time. The idea that "whole military records thing is really rather peripheral to the SBVT discussion anyway" is not credible; it is central to the whole controversy. Classical liberal 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
As stated above, the exact same link to "the actual SF180 as signed by Kerry" was already posted at the paragraph discussing the SF 180 release (see link #80). And the fact that the release covered active service was already noted in that paragraph. However, I went ahead and included the link again in the new paragraph - the fact that it was posted online doesn't really need to be spelled out.
A couple of other things. First, the link that you cited isn't really "SBVT critics" at all, but a Bush blog. None of the blogs it links to are "SBVT critics" either. The only SBVT person quoted is John O'Neill, who simply argues (incorrectly, as it turns out), that there must be stuff missing because the records just came from the Navy Department, and the Navy Department "previously indicated its records did not include various materials." (First, the records also came from the St. Louis archives and second, the Navy did not "indicate its records did not include various materials" - it said it could not release certain privacy protected records requested under FOIA by organizations like Judicial Watch and the Washington Post. BIG difference.)
That brings me to the other point. Neither John O'Neill nor any of the non-SBVT critics cited say anything about the SF 180 only being for "active service" and speculating as to what that might mean with respect to Kerry's reserve records. If you are going to say that they did, you need to provide a link. So I left a couple of [citation needed] inserts for you.
To recap, if you want to edit an SBVT article to say that SBVT critics are alleging something about Kerry's records, you need to provide a link showing that SBVT critics have actually made that allegation. And let the conclusions be their conclusions, otherwise it gets into POV territory.
If you want to talk about what Michelle Malkin or anybody else thinks about Kerry's records, I suggest the "military controversy" article.
(To be fair, I don't think the stuff about the Judicial Watch FOIA request or John Kerry's private journals really belong in the SBVT article either.)
Okay, I hope you are amenable to my suggestions. If not, let's talk here. --68.164.93.157 09:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely right about "SBVT critics"; it should be "SBVT critics of Kerry". Also an the previous reference to the SF180; I saw you say it was there, I looked for it and missed it. I'm mostly satisfied with your edits and I'll spend some time tracking the citations you left hanging. In terms of citations, do you think you could be more specific on this line "In addition, Kerry had previously released reserve records" . The cite is to the general Findlaw record page; which of those actually refer to Kerry's reserve service? I also think "...and no news organization indicated that any of those reserve records were absent from the files they accessed under the SF 180 authorization" may be a little misleading; they didn't indicate the files were absent; did they indicate the files were not absent? Or did they not address the issue at all?


Hi. Well, actually I didn't even think about the "SBVT critics of Kerry" business. I was just thinking about finding documentation that this particular allegation was made by SBVT people instead of by other Kerry critics. It being an SBVT article and all.
Yes, I'll try to post links that are specific to Kerry's reserve records. I believe at least some of the reports said his dishcarge stuff was in there, which would of course include his discharge from reserves, etc., but will take a look. Generally, however, they have all said that they had everything that Kerry had already made public. Which of course would include the reserve records ... my point being that the SF 180 probably wasn't interpreted by the repositories to be limited only to active duty stuff. Maybe I can find a more artful way of phrasing it. It's all something of a puzzle-piece exercise, yes? --68.164.152.78 23:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


I pulled up links to some of the records that cover the reserve period, and there are just too many to post in the article. I'll post them here, though - there may be more but this gives an idea:
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/enlistcont.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/ord2offcand.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/offcandagr.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/rsrvoffcappnt.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/payentrybasedate.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/trnsfr2stndyrsrv.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/qlfyquest.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/hondisres.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/accptdisnavresrv.pdf
--68.164.87.138 06:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


August 3: I am moving the bit about Judicial Watch's FOIA request of Kerry's records over to the JK Military Controversy page. It isn't about SBVT. --68.164.94.126 07:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


This para has been without needed citations for more than 10 days, so am moving it here for discussion and/or work:
SBVT critics have alleged that because Kerry's signed SF 180 specified "Active Service" in the general service category [6], the authorization would not cover records for Kerry's years of reserve status [citation needed]. They argue that Kerry's reserve records might include documents relevant to antiwar activities he participated in while on inactive reserve status, including his meeting in Paris with members of the North Vietnamese delegation to the peace talks [7][citation needed]. However, the signed SF 180 also specifies that the request is for a copy of "the complete military service record and medical records of John Kerry." In addition, Kerry had previously released reserve records [8], and no news organization indicated that any of those reserve records were absent from the files they accessed under the SF 180 authorization.
If anybody can come up with some accurate citations for this premise, please add 'em in. Thanks.
I'm also going to move the controversy about Kerry's "exclusivity agreement" with Brinkley over to the "Military Controversy" page, as it's not really an SBVT issue. Hope people are okay with that. --EECEE 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing "Swiftboating" definition

The paragraph about the "conservative" interpretation of the word went in after a fair amount of discussion between Crockspot and me. Once it became apparent its removal would be controversial, it seems like it would have been helpful for people to discuss their reasoning here. Or did I miss something?

The conservative definition might not be strictly "encyclopedic," but truthfully I'm not sure that showing t-shirts for sale is any less proof that some conservatives define it that way or is any less of a "reliable source" than some of the others used at Wikipedia. Just a guess.

In addition, Cafepress wasn't really used as a "source" as much as an example of the usage of the term.

This is a made-up term anyway. I don't know how far you can go in defining it without resorting to examples of peoples' opinions. And by the way, we agreed not to use the Ted Sampley version .

Is there a compromise possible on this? That is, is there a way to express that people have alternate views without getting all unencyclopedic? Just askin'. - EECEE


The conservative POV on this term is given here: 1 June 2005. "Swiftboating has become a hate term," R. Emmett Tyrrell on CNN Politics [9]. But Swiftboating has its own article, with a very active talk page and history. Why not move this argument over there instead? betsythedevine 09:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. See my change over there and my comment at the related talk page. Let me know if you have any problems with it. Thanks Besty. --EECEE 22:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the alternate definition and source that Gamaliel had a hard time with. I left a note for him that the Fitzmas article also uses this source, and no one seems to have a problem with it there. We'll see what happens. Crockspot 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Go edit Fitzmas yourself. I'm not here to pass your tests. Gamaliel 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My first reading of this was "Go Fitzmas yourself", as in "Go Cheney yourself". I see now that I missed the word "edit", thus lending to the subsequent impression that I was being personally attacked. My error. Crockspot 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that's cleared up. You know, that is a pretty cool sounding insult. I'll try to work it into everyday conversation. :) Gamaliel 17:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think he has a point about consistency. In addition, the Cafepress site is at least an example of usage, and is arguably as valid as some commentator using the term in his or her political column. --EECEE 03:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
No, he's trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. I'm not going to rush over to some random article to prove something to another editor when he could just edit the article himself. The fact that he hasn't is proof that he's only using the issue score a point here. Gamaliel 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that is an unfair characterization of someone who has been willing to discuss his points on talk pages and modify his contributions accordingly. The fact is that this is an article about usage of a word that has no dictionary meaning but exists entirely in the context of opinion pieces, Internet commentary, and other POV sources. I agree CafePress is not the most solid support out there, but being asked to check out its use elsewhere is not unreasonable. However, at some point a more acceptable citation will probably be found and this will be moot. --EECEE 04:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I never said he wasn't willing to discuss his points on talk pages, I just want him to do it without resorting to manipulative tricks. Gamaliel 06:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
How pleasant to be personally attacked by an admin. If I edited the Fitzmas article, I would be accepting your narrow view, and undercutting my argument here, which is that when documenting the usage of a term which predominantly appears on blogs, it is appropriate to source it with actual usage on blogs, and its appearance on T-shirts. I don't expect you to like me, but I do expect you to act like an adult. I plan on being a Wiki editor for a long long time, so get used to the idea.Crockspot 03:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I finally went over to the Fitzmas article and the source is being used quite differently from the way you wish to use it here. In that article, a link to Cafepress is being used to illustrate that someone is making T-shirts of a slogan with widespread usage and such widespread usage is substantiated with mainstream media sources. You wish to use the Cafepress link to substantiate widespread usage, hardly the same thing.
I'm sorry you didn't care for my "attack", but if you're going to be an editor here "for a long long time" then you should know that we don't care for such cheap tactics around here. You attack me by saying I should "act like an adult" - practice what you preach. Argue your case, don't resort to manipulative tricks. Gamaliel 06:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you go look at Talk:Swiftboating, in the section requesting examples of alternate usage, you'll see that I have provided nine or ten examples. I accepted the consensus of other editors on which example to use. EECEE is correct, in that eventually, there will be an acceptable RS reference (I suspect sooner rather than later), and then your position that the fact that some people are using the word in a different way is simple "bs" will be no longer tenable. Time is on my side here. I will keep "swiftboating" this issue until the truth is acceptable to the general Wikiality. Crockspot 17:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, the entire list of references that I have posted on Talk:Swiftboating are generally the same types of references used to source the Fitzmas article. My point is that WP:RS does not take into account these two cases where a predominantly blog usage of a term cannot be documented by sources acceptable to WP:RS, yet the term is indeed used that way. If an exception or adjustment to WP:RS is not in order, perhaps Wikipedia should not even allow entries that document purely blog phenomena, such as Fitzmas. Crockspot 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you come up with reliable evidence for your claims, I'm sure other editors will be more than happy to consider it. Gamaliel 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Other editors had already accepted my evidence. You are the one who had a problem with it, so convincing you is my main objective. Crockspot 19:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The conservative definition that is making the rounds is notable and should be included. Fitzmas is irrelevant except to show that there is a precedent for using Cafepress as a source of notability. Gamaliel's objection nothwithstanding, I think the consensus is to inlcude this definition as notable. --Tbeatty 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the the definition is available on conservative t-shirts. I don't think anyone can argue that cafepress is not a reliable source for what is on t-shirts. --Tbeatty 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, of course not. But the link at Fitzmas illustrates the T-shirt usage of a slogan in wide usage and such usage is substantiated with mainstream media links. Without any such evidence of wide usage, all the cafepress link here proves is nothing except the fact that one guy put it on T-shirts. And may have not even sold any! So anyone can get into an encyclopedia by making a cafepress shirt? If I make a shirt that says "You can go Fitzmas yourself!", should that be included in the article as "evidence" of an alternate usage? Gamaliel 17:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Have we coined a new usage of "Fitzmas"? I want one of those T-shirts! :) Seriously though, I did not recruit Tbeatty, but I'm glad to see him in the fray. It gets lonely here in the trenches. I did provide one RS source of someone using "swiftboating", though he does not define his meaning, it is fairly obvious he does not mean what the Wiki definition says. ("I will do my best to swiftboat John Murtha.") Crockspot 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just realized that was posted on Talk:Swiftboating, so here is the link from the LA Times. [10]. Crockspot 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can get your Fitzmas t-shirt on Cafepress or another large notable, political sloganeering site, I will gladly support including it. And they sold at least one Swiftboating tshirt (WP:OR notwithstanding). But I do think a mainstream press or other notable usage would add credibility. For now, it's just a T-shirt slogan. I am not concerned with including it in the article but I am more concerned with the size of it with regards to the other pieces. The cafepress t-shirt section should be almost negligibly small (maybe even a footnote). There are LOTS of t-shirts and I don't think we need to start adding them all to every political artcile. Also, there are stronger rebuttals than that t-shirt and it takes away from them if the t-shirt slogan is the only rebuttal included.--Tbeatty 08:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here the slogan is discussed by "founder" Terry Boone. --Tbeatty 08:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I found some more sources including an Army Times article. The group Vets for the Truth uses the "Swiftboating" definition: "exposing the lies, deceit and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds."[11][www.bootmurtha.com] --Tbeatty 09:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The message board reference for the definition was the "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth" message board and the post was by the "founder." It is a therefore considered a reliable source as this article is about them. Per WP:RS. --Tbeatty 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves....

A note on a message board isn't a "self-published source" about SBVT and Terry Boone is not to my knowledge one of the official "founders" of the group. In addition, the note isn't even a description of SBVT in the way the group's homepage is. It's one guy's wish that the t-shirts sell. --EECEE 06:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking the whole part about the "conservative definition" is becoming too long and involved. The "liberal definition" is described in nowhere the same amount of detail. I suggest just shortening it to something like "various conservatives have described the term as a 'hate term' and also defined it as 'exposing lies, etc." and then add the links. --EECEE 06:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I had just removed it. T-shirt adds have no place here. Nor does hype by a group that has nothing to do with the swift vets. Cite me a source from the mainstream press demonstrating it notability, and I'll agree that's it notable. Derex 06:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I had just put it back. As I said, I think the thing is bloated too, but you can see that people are giving a lot of thought to how an alternative view is to be presented. Please don't just rip everything out...let people discuss a little. --EECEE 06:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I discussed it two minutes after deleting. It violates two key tenets of Wikipedia. Notability. Verifiability (that its conservative use is common.) [http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&q=%22swift%20boating%22&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn

Here], go have a look at what google news turns up, just today, on the term. It's just nonsense to cite some 3rd rate non-notable group, without even any article. That and a t-shirt vendor, and say it belongs here. Compare the two. The conservative use is not. The liberal use is. Or, prove me wrong with a real citation. Sorry, I'm blunt. No offense intended to you EECEE. Derex 06:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to prove it one way or the other. I am pointing out that there has been quite a bit of activity and quite a bit of discussion - including listening - on all sides of the question. I encourage you to scroll through this talk page and the talk page at the "swiftboating" article if you want to get a sense of it. --EECEE 07:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Edits that do not meet the most basic standards of Wikipedia do not merit lengthy, nor little, discussion. I'm not asking you to prove it. Whoever added it should prove it. Nontheless, you have earned my trust in the past, so I'll let it be. Derex 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Derex. Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. I just know that people have a lot invested in this discussion, so it would be helpful to at least have the explanation for the editing here. --EECEE 03:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. This is a "little" discussion? Derex 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If you mean the page, no it's not little. But it will be a discussion when some of the others have a chance to weigh in.--EECEE 07:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The "Army Times" covered the definition of "Vets for Truth". --Tbeatty 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Army times said there was a definition at the group's website...which turned out to be from an opinion piece by Ted Sampley. --EECEE 04:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sampley used the definition as well. It's not clear that he is the originator. It appears in his opinion piece and it is on their website and that's the only place on the website that I've seen it. --Tbeatty 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited that para, and am editing at the Swiftboating page too. The Army Times article says:
But he’s clearly borrowed from its playbook. The Web site’s lead image is an artist’s rendering of Murtha, with Kerry, long-haired and wearing his combat fatigues in full post-Vietnam protest mode, drawn right behind him. Down the page, there’s a definition of “swiftboating” — “exposing the lies, deceit and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds.”
That isn't to say I don't still think the whole para in this article and the Swiftboating article needs paring. It's way too bloated. --EECEE 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken, T. It's not to be seen much of anywhere. Googling the phrase confirms that. In contrast, see the Google news link I posted above, and keep in mind that Google news only cover a few days at a time. One guy using a phrase, or one guy + a non-notable website by non-notable group doesn't cut it for wikipedia. If it's not in reasonably common use in that way, then cut it. The default here is not that anyone gets to throw in any old crap they feel like, without justification, and everyone else wastes time debating it. The default is you make good. justified, well-referenced edits, or out they go. Derex 02:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Luckily this is a justified, well referenced edit. Look around and you will find plenty of less referenced, less justified material. This is not a paper encyclopedia and we can represent viewpoints that are a minority. This was covered in Army Times and that is significant enough to justify a few sentences. --Tbeatty 03:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty, it's stretching it to say the definition was "covered" in the Army Times. The article mentioned that the phrase was posted at the group's website. Period. That is a marginal source at best. --EECEE 03:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If there are other worse than this, then they should certainly go as well. Spare me the "it's not paper" routine; why do we have afd then? Notability matters, consciseness matters. Otherwise you end up with a pile of uninformative drivel that the reader must wade through. Bottom line: that phrase googles to 19 hits, almost all of which are to wikipedia and derivatives. Yet, that usage currently has more space devoted to it than the mainstream one, which has been used thousands of times, and is easy to document in the current news.
Do you really believe that meets the standard? If so, I've got some editing to do myself. Derex 03:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It astounds me that some editors still believe that an alternate definition of "swiftboating" simply does not exist. On Conservative Underground, as well as other con blogs, we have used the word to generally mean "exposing the truth" for well over a year and a half. It is simply the truth. I have linked at least nine references on Talk:Swiftboating, and I could come up with dozens of examples of the use on blogs, but I would be wasting my time, because blogs are not RS. Arguing the merits of sources is one thing, but refusing to even believe in the existence of something is mind boggling. I will keep swiftboating these two discussions until reality and wikiality are in agreement. Crockspot 17:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added seven more examples of the term in use on Conservative Underground to Talk:Swiftboating, all from 2005, the last one being posted by Terry Boone, defining the term after we had already been using it. I believe there were examples as far back as the election of 2004, but we had a database crash in 2005, and lost all archives. Crockspot 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Obviously it "exists"; some fellow named Ted Sampley used it. The question is whether it's of any significance. A few people fulminating and foaming on a blog, which has been afd'd for lack of notability itself, does not make a phrase notable. Also I note the "we have used the word" in your defense; sounds to me like you might have a wee bit inflated sense of self importance. How about you show me some well-known politician or news organization making use of the "conservative definition"? I can run over to any group blog right now, and use the word "swift boating" to mean "buggering monkeys with a banana", and then add links showing its existence that are just as valid as yours. Derex 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I see you already beat me to it. Well, you just prove my point then. Derex 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Amazing that you would so quickly find a quote of "mine" on a website that I have never even visited until I clicked your link, which quotes something you posted here a half hour previous. Your little impersonation trick just destroyed what little credibility you had. And by "we", I meant members of Conservative Underground. I'm not ashamed of the sites I post on. What is your DU name? Crockspot 05:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What, are you and the famous "Terry Boone" in cahoots? Or, am I being super-clever tricksy again? I was just sure you'd fall for it. Btw, no DU for me. I've damn sure got better things to do than fulminate and foam on some collectively masturbatory political blog myself. Well, maybe just a little spittle here on SBVT every now and then. That, plus I live in Australia, mate. But, whatever floats your boat Crackster. Now, I return you to your regularly scheduled voice of reason, EECEE. Who needs to thump all the idiots here, me especially, upside the head with a clue stick. Derex 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So happy to see everyone "discussing"! Hee hee.--EECEE 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You can stop moving your lips now, because you have given up the courtesy of being listened to seriously. Your willingness to forge a post by me, and then lie about it here just to "prove" a point, is clear evidence of your lack of good faith. Your continued yammerings (see below) violate WP:Civil. Do yourself a favor and go edit Dingo. Crockspot 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just effing with you, dude. I'm really PatriotGame from CU. Lighten up, we're all conservatives here. Did a pretty good DemoRat impression though, didn't I? Dingo — heh, you got me back there though, zing!Derex 07:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Army Times is a notable news outlet. They covered the definition and quoted it so it was notable enough for them. It meets all the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 05:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, as I said above and over at the Swiftboating page, Army Times didn't "cover" the definition. They covered the group. They mentioned that the group's website has a defintion of the term. That is the only accurate way to include this information, if at all. --EECEE 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh please, get over yourself. A one-off use, that's not even their use, but quoting a blog doesn't cut it. Tbeatty, I almost thought I had figured you wrong after your sensibility about Jesus crapping on Bush yesterday. I guess not. Derex 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Get over yourself. Newspapers are secondary sources so they always reference another's use. This particular use is from Vets for Truth. As for "swiftboating", it HAS IT'S OWN ARTICLE. Please don't complain that the small blip here is too large to overcome the entire article devoted to the Kerry definition.--Tbeatty 05:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok fine. Media uses don't count per se. Then I suppose they ought to be quoting someone notable for the use to be notable, oughtn't they? So, it still don't count. I bite my thumb at thee sir. And personally, I think the whole section should be a one sentence, see other. Derex 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
They quote Vets for Truth and the fact that they devoted an entire article on them meets the notability criteria. I don't particularly care how many sentences it is as long as it covers the defition in NPOV and complete way. --Tbeatty 06:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that they devoted an entire article to the group means the group is "notable;" it doesn't mean a definition posted at the group's website is especially notable. It is one definition posted at a website by one group (and which doesn't even make sense in terms of the group's purpose), as opposed to another defintion that is used by many groups, commentators, and "notable" sources. The one-time use by a single, tiny group does not merit an entire paragraph containing more detail than the primary meaning. --EECEE 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think the whole thing should be pared down to one sentence or so and cross referenced to the Swiftboating page. --EECEE 20:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged "debunking" of SBVT assertions

I posted the following on the Swiftboating discussion page, and thought it should also be posted here. This is regarding the assertion that the SBVT claims have all been "debunked".

  • I lost a family member in a helicopter crash in Vietnam in 1970, near FSB Ripcord. I've spent the last five years researching the crash, gathering accounts from about twenty different men who had either direct or second hand knowledge of the event. I also had access to official records. What I found was that, in the minute details of their accounts, not one man's story jived completely with any others, or with the official records. But I did find that the general essence of their stories matched, even with the official record. When you ask a man to remember an event that occurred 35 years ago, and that event occurred in a war zone, where one's sense of time is distorted even at the time, you are going to get minor discrepancies in the details. In my own researh, after discovering other events that occurred in the various units around the same time, I was able to account for these discrepancies as details being confused with other events, and just bad recollection. While they all told slightly different tales, the important story was all the same. About 250 highly decorated Vietnam Vets participated with the SBVT, and I am not surprised that some of the details of their accounts turned out to be wrong. "Debunkers" have found these discrepancies, and use them to discredit the entire SBVT story. However, I have seen no "debunking" that does not fall into this "minute detail" category. The main assertions of "Unfit for Command" have not been disproven. Crockspot 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot. As posted at the "Swiftboating" page, SBVT claims have been disproven far beyond the "minute detail" stage. For example, see:
http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/truth.html
But I see the intro now says the group has been criticized for its "factual inaccuracies" and its ties to the GOP have been scrutinized. I think the first part of that statement is somewhat conclusionary, but not so much as in some of the prior versions. If a summary contained in the intro can be supported by the text, my view is that it is supportable as an intro. The text does point out the many inaccuracies of the SBVT claims, as well as the criticism made on that basis; the ties to the GOP are discussed, but it is pretty clear they are through the donors and consultants, not so much the membership or organizers. So I removed the reference to "extensive" ties to the GOP.
Personally, I would not have either statement in the intro, but I think as is they are probably supportable. Would be interested to hear what others think - and hoping to avoid an edit war. --EECEE 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edits to release of documents info etc.

To the anonymous editor who keeps trying to edit the info re Kerry's SF 180 (and other paragraphs):

I suggest you look at the information and links that are already posted in the article. If you had, you would notice that the link to Kerry's actual filled-out SF 180s is included: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/010795.php

Following that link, you would notice that Kerry did indeed fill out the parts of the form specifying that his "complete military service records" were to be released. And the fact that they were obtained from the military records center is de facto proof that he mailed them in, wouldn't you say? In addition, the Navy spokesman specifically said the "whole record" was released, and included documents from the central records depository in St. Louis as well as the Navy Personnel Center. [12]

And finally, relying on someone's 2005 post on an SBVT message board as proof of anything? Criminey! I'm sorry for the critical tone of this note, but really, check out the information that's already in the article before editing. --EECEE 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I have gone through and edited out several of your additions which if not pure POV, are either contradicted by or redundant of information presented elsewhere in the article. Please read the article before you start editing !!!!!! --EECEE 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book section

I have a problem with the book section, where it says that parts of the book are nearly identical to posts that Corsi made, citing the posts as primary sources, and comparing them to book cites. This comparison of sources, and drawing the conclusion that they are "nearly identical" is clearly WP:OR. Secondary reliable sources making such a comparison must be cited, or this part needs to come out. Crockspot 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Crockspot. Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The WP:OR page clearly says:
Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
I am citing the materials themselves, which on their face are nearly identical. I am not citing to an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation,'" as described at the "no original research" page.
In fact, I don't even draw a conclusion as to what this means about Corsi's contributions, but let the reader see the materials and draw his or her own conclusion. And I am no more postulating some "novel interpretation" than is someone who posts that two cited articles contain similar materials. --EECEE 23:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Concur. The OR line some advance that you cannot cite external primary sources, simply because secondary sources are preferred, is a canard. Derex 07:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you completely. Any synthesis of primary sources, including a conclusion that they are "nearly identical", (which is itself an unverifiable and unattributed statement - nearly how? to what degree? according to who?), is clearly original research, unless it cites a secondary reliable source saying so. I have had brief discussion with Mr. Wales recently about original research and primary sourcing, and I believe my interpretation is correct. - Crockspot 15:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot, of course it is verifiable on its face. One has simply to look at the materials to see that they are nearly identical. I am not drawing a conclusion about what the materials say in order to put out my own theories. It isn't "synthesizing" any more than is someone who posts that so- and- so served on a Swiftboat for a certain period of time and then cites to the online crew directory.
I'm pretty sure "synthesizing" refers to the sorts of arguments that say, for example, that the government planned the 9/11 attacks and then cites to someone's YouTube video making that argument based on news pictures. --EECEE 21:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I went and edited the sentence to avoid any appearance of drawing personal conclusions. It now says " ... portions of the book contain material also found in articles Corsi posted at an anti-Kerry website." --EECEE 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Crockspot, it would be more helpful to provide a transcript of your conversation with Jimbo than to simply state it supports you. Derex 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recent Edits

To JonMoseley - As with the "military service controversy" article, I removed your edits which were POV and which inserted extraneous material. In addition, there are some inaccuracies, including, for example:

•John O'Neill did not take over Kerry's boat "as soon as Kerry left Vietnam," but more than five months later, as verified by documents linked at the article; he did not and could not claim "first-hand knowledge that Kerry fabricated accusations of U.S. atrocities" on that basis. He did not command the same crew as Kerry, nor did he operate in the same area at the same time; in fact he wasn't even in VN until after Kerry left. And that was the point of the sentence - he didn't know Kerry in VN.
• SBVT's letter said some of the signers had served during Kerry's four months in VN, but did not criticize him as serving "four months out of a 1 year tour."

As you can see from this discussion page, a lot of work has been put into the material that appears in the article. It is overlong as it is, and editors generally have a tacit understanding to only add material that serves to clarify the article, and to do it as concisely as possible. --EECEE 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEC fine $300,000

fyi http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002141.php

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/w/i/Talk%7ESwift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth_c346.html"