Talk:Sam Fox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
damn, the wikipedos were really on the ball with this one. good job, guys! 208.152.32.185 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This article makes reference to the Swift Boat Veterans having been 'discredited', citing Media Matters -- which isn't quite what you'd call a neutral source. This also is in conflict with most of Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth, except for language added recently by 12.41.40.20 (who also added the 'discredited' bit here). Tinotopia 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that Media Matters is not itself a neutral source. However, the specific article linked to at Media Matters provides an extensive listing of other sources, such as Navy records and mainstream newspaper articles and statements by witnesses. I disagree with your statement that the Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth article conflicts with the "discredited" appellation; it seems that for every allegation made against Kerry, that article includes the rebuttal, and many of those are dated before mid October 2004. I would presume that a claim "A" by a person who was not present at an event, that is refuted by an official record of the event or by witnesses who were there, would be considered "discredited"; and that on the whole, if an organization made a dozen or so such claims and only one or two that were not themselves individually fully discredited, that the lot as a whole would still be considered discredited. All that said, perhaps it would be better to update the references with numerous cites of the articles Kerry mentioned in the hearing plus any others provided by the Media Matters listing, that came out by at least mid-October 2004?
[edit] Is the Transcript Necessary?
is the transcript from his senate hearing really necessary? it seems a bit superfluous. mass147 2:53 PM, 06 April 2007
- Do you mean the partial transcript from the Limbaugh show? The Senate hearing transcript is not provided, just a brief summary of a key statement with a link to the actual video of the entire hearing. I think providing that summary and hearing link is important - the statements made (or not made) at the hearing is the focal point of the controversy.--MoxRox 14:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- That said, I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor, so I didn't want to outright delete the Limbaugh transcript portion without a little more time for discussion. I think if that kind of material is included, the article needs to be organized and the material needs to be cited (it was added without any citation), so I made some edits to organize the page better (I hope it's better), and add the "citation needed" tag. We can still remove the section later if no one comes along making a good argument for keeping it.
- Generally speaking, rather than include such a lengthy item as the Limbaugh transcript, a concise summary of the various statements on both sides of the controversy might be valuable, with proper cites of course. --MoxRox 14:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- sounds good. it looks a lot clearner and wiki'fied now. mass147 8:03 PM, 08 April 2007.
