Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Controversy - a litltle balance, maybe?

I'm fully aware that most of the authors of this articles are pro-Kerry or at least anti-Bush, but should it be quite so obvious to the reader?

Actually, the main part of the article (while not always completely balanced)has a fair amount of give-and-take, attempting to lay out each side's statements and the other's responses. It's clear that we have some very different opinions, but we're making some good headway here.

BUT the "Controversy" section is almost entirely attacks from one side(about two dozen sentences), the long list of allegedly significant "ties", and numerous (often angry) quotes from Kerry's team and supporters (including many in the media), many of which add little or no actual information or argument for their position. On the other side we find a few brief Bush-Cheney denials, and maybe two quotes. Fine, if you're trying to sound like an LA Times editorial. But I didn't think that's what we were after here.

(And, of course, there is the insistence that certain responses to charges are not relevant, even if these are the actual responses Bush, et.al. are making. I didn't think it was our job to judge the strength of each side's argument --simply to seek to represent it fairly.)

Could we afford to shorten and limit the number of quotes that add more heat than light? And is it possible to resist the temptation to insist that every statement that might appear more favorable to Bush or Cheney (there are precious few as it is!) must immediately be countered?

I don't know. One problem is that the statements made by Bush and Cheney are easily counterable - it's not a question of whether it's favorable or not. Also, they haven't really said much aside from those denials, while there's been a wealth of material on the alleged links between SBVT and the Bush campaign/administration. If you can come up with stuff that's favorable and not counterable, I for one would like to see it. -khaosworks 02:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hogwash. A "wealth of material" may exist, but its primarily opinion. None of the alleged links are illegal. So what if there are connections to "Texas republicans?" Some of these guys come from Texas... and if you're supporting a Republican, it's quite likely that you'll know TExas republicans. Until an ILLEGAL connection is found and proven - Wikipedia should remain unpartisan. (I know thats impossible with the article writers that exist.. look at how partisan the GWB article is... but, we should at least try). The Kerry Campaign has "connections" to the groups on the other side like MoveOn.org - its not illegal in either case.
You say "none of the alleged links are illegal." That is a judgment to be decided by the FEC, not you or me. Also, the point of this section is to cover the controversy around SBVT. If you've been following the news, this is a very controvertial aspect of SBVT and most certainly should be included in the article.
Your own statement suggests that we should be presenting the list of "ties" in a way that does not imply a foregone conclusion that the ties are either legal or illegal. I submit that the way the list is presented in this article (with little explaining why people on different sides say they are OK or not) practically screams "illegal" or at least "not fair."
And sure there is a big "controversy", and it has to be covered. But let's be honest --it is specifically controversial to those who already oppose Bush. That includes the writers who write NYT front page headlines about the Ginsberg story. What is so misleading is the suggestion that the anti-Bush and anti-SBVT criticisms are from people who are unbiased. Note, I have no problem with people with a particular bias offering their opinions. The problem I have is with disingenuity -- with people not honestly declaring their biases.BruceJohnson 03:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
LA Times: "The conservative media's handling of the Swift boat dispute is a case study in bias" [1]
First, this is an article about the SBVT group and its surrounding controversy, not the intricacies of federal campaign law and why/why not the ties are illegal. Second, do you see even one sentence that says these ties are illegal? No, you don't. So why are you demanding to see statements that they AREN'T illegal in the article? Finally, the Kerry campaign has cited all of these ties and that certainly makes them significant facts. And its not just the NYT covering this story as you seem to want to pretend. Go look at any reputable CONSERVATIVE news source and they'll be mentioning these ties, too. Karl Rove and Ginsberg both appeared on Fox yesterday to defend the charges against them. It's quite clear that the ties are extremely significant to the story of SBVT and must be included in the article. To leave it out would do a grave dishonor to those looking for a complete summary of the group and its impact on the 2004 election. --Nysus 04:24, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't feel obligated to record GOP talking points the way they want them to be recorded or to record a blow by blow account of every spin point. Or job is to take the essential, relevant points and summarize them accurately and objectively. We should not have any interest in "balance" so it falls midway between Dem and GOP, nor should we be adding up quotes to make sure each side gets the same number. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 03:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't feel obligated to record GOP talking points Who asked for that?? The issue is much more that many working on this article seem bent on making sure every DEM talking point is included! As for presenting an "accurate and objective" summary, I'm afraid you are kidding yourself. Practically any charge against Bush can get in, while I have repeatedly seen responses from SBVT and Bush-Cheney removed because someone thinks they are poor arguments ("straw men", etc).
On the matter of counting -- I did not advocate counting up and giving each side the same number of quotes. The count was meant to point out how very biased the presentation is with its overwhelming preponderance of anti-Bush and anti-SBVT statements.
BruceJohnson 03:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Saying "other 527s are attacking Bush too" is a GOP talking point that some people want to include in this article. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 09:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right now the controversy section is primarily negative because there are lots of sources writing negatively about SBVT. It's not like we're making this stuff up here, we're reporting it. Balance is not provided by omitting negative commentary. If you want to provide some balance, go find some sources who write glowingly about these guys and what paragons of virtue, truth, and the American way they are. As to Bush et al charging the Democrats do the same thing, that's relevant to the MoveOn page etc. It's not relevant to SBVT, and it's not a rebuttal. Wolfman 17:06, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In fact, "Dems do it too" can be a proper rebuttal under certain circumstances, e.g., if their point is to illustrate that the practice is not illegal (e.g., using the same lawyers as another group).
Exactly. Including all of the "links" to Bush implies something negative. As if, those links are illegal or crooked in some way. It is worth pointing out (out of fairness) that those links are not uncommon with these kinds of groups and are not illegal. You have to remember that a lot of people reading this article are not going to automatically know that these links are ok. THe way their worded suggests that theres something wrong with them. That's why its necssary to point out that there isn't (at least so far).
Quick, somebody let Bill Clinton know that it's appropriate/legal if Dems do it. Wolfman 04:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As for just "reporting" the negative stuff. Good reporting involves some resposible selectivity; it does not mean every paper that says the same thing has to be cited.BruceJohnson 03:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I think the article is quite responsibly selective. For example, it doesn't mention Hibbard misidentifying the location of the wound he so clearly remembers. It doesn't mention at least two instances of hearsay represented as eyewitness accounts. It doesn't mention that Kerry had the common decency to condemn an attack ad against Bush's war record. It doesn't quote any of the several rather colorful opinions of non-SBVT Swift Vets about SBVT. We can always go there, but I'd rather not. Wolfman 04:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Its actually fairly well laid out. The claims of SBVT are countered quite well, and I agree with kaos that the real issue is the merits of the claims to stand on their own face value - the objector above repeats the common claim that Wikipedia should wait for a legal verdict before summarising events in a way which seems like POV. While it may seem POV to write articles in a way which respects and represents the common sense of human biengs, it would also be POV to ask us to disregard said common sense altogther. If Martha Stewart says "prison jumpsuits are pink," when photographic evidence shows that they are rather orange, we do not omit photographs of jumpsuits just to 'be fair.'-SV 22:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Its actually fairly well laid out. The claims of SBVT are countered quite well...". -- Is that the purpose of the article, to counter the allegations made by SBVT?

"If you want to provide some balance, go find some sources..." -- Isn't it the reponsibilty of all contributors to ensure a balanced presentation? - 63.224.35.238

Hey 63.224.35.238, the second comment you refer to is mine. No, this article is not my responsibility, it's a hobby. But, I've probably put 20 hours into this article, how about you? I do think the article is pretty darn fair, have you got a specific objection to raise? Wolfman 01:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Separate out allegations from counter allegations?

I was just reading over the "Allegations by SBVT" section. I feel that it's too difficult to separate out what the SBVT veterans allegations are and what the counter allegations are. It gets confusing. So, I recommend that the "Allegations" section should stick to plain old allegations and that the counter allegations be moved down to the "Controversy" section or maybe even to a new section called "Challenges to SBVT allegations".

Any thoughts on this? --Nysus 06:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looking over the article, I see what you mean (although I don't think it's that confusing). However, to split up the two would require a lot of reorganization and rewriting - not just shifting sections around - to make it readable. Perhaps you could do up a draft and we can play around with it before we put it as an actual edit. -khaosworks 05:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I guess instead of "confusing," "overwhelming" might be a better adjective to use.
I may be able to do something with it but not for a few days, at least. And I'd rather do it incrementally in a sandbox with someone else to make the task more manageable because as you point out it is a rather big one. --Nysus 06:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am extremely skeptical. It would be a tremendous amount of work to so drastically re-write an article this contentious. I feel it would be much simpler to simply work on slightly re-phrasing any parts that are confusing. Also, I believe the present structure is very helpful to the reader. It allows one to see the evidence for and against each allegation in one whole, rather than broken into disjoint sections. What specific examples do you have of parts that are confusing? Let's work on fixing those in place. Wolfman 06:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict with you, and so didn't see the change from 'confusing' to 'overwhelming', sorry. But my instinct is the same. I'd be happy to look at a proposed re-write with an open mind. But I'm not convinced that even a well-written restructured article would be better. And keep in mind that virtually every sentence of this article has been disputed and compromised over. Again, specific examples of difficulties would be helpful. Wolfman 06:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think trying to turn this into a he said/she said type article would be a mistake. It is tempting to go for "balance" and make it SBVT claims vs. Dem claims. However, we shouldn't strive to document a ping pong match, we should strive to evaluate the claims factually. If a SBVT claim is contradicted by reports or eyewitnesses, then that should be noted and not presented as a "counterclaim" but a statement of objective fact. I think we've done a good job of letting the facts speak for themselves and leaving as much of the ping pong nature of this out as possible. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 09:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's probably too much work than it's worth.
I just changed the heading of that section to reflect that the section isn't just about SBVT's allegations, but the whole debate around Kerry's war record started by SBVT's accusations. That's what was ultimately bothering me, I discovered.
I think I understand what you are trying to do with the new heading 'SBVT sparks debate about Kerry's War Record'. My take is your interest is indicating that it is not just allegations but associated evidence and analysis for and against the allegations. I agree that a change in that spirit is useful. However, I don't entirely agree with your precise choice of words. They didn't really 'spark a debate' about the 'war record' so much as about the 'SBVT evidence'. For example, a MMFA Lexis/Nexis survey of 'major newspapers' found that only one out of the more than 20 editorial boards gave any credence to SBVT's claims (because of the flimsy evidence). It may sound like a nit-picky objection, but to me the implication is an important one. I would prefer something more along the lines of 'SBVT Allegations - Evidence and Analysis'. Just my 2 cents. Wolfman 15:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm open to changing it according to your reasoning but I think "Evidence and Analysis" is a bit too weighty. To me, that wording suggests that the section in question will thoroughly analyze and present the evidence of SBVT rather than provide highlights of some of its charges and some arguments against that counter those charges, which I think the intent of the section is. Maybe it could be something like "Critics challenge truth of SBVT assertions," though that may be a little loaded. Or how about something along the lines of "SBVT assertions cause Kerry's war record to be scrutinized"? --Nysus 16:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Here's another suggestion: "SBVT's claims scrutinized" --Nysus 16:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
One more: "SBVT's allegations get scrutinized and challenged" --Nysus 16:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

None of the headings (yours or mine) strike me as quite right. I don't know quite how to get the idea across simply, elegantly, & NPOV. I guess that's why I just left it at 'allegations' before; the one-word heading finesses the situation precisely because it is ambiguous. Let's just leave it as you have it until some of the other editors have a chance to weigh in. Wolfman 18:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about "Allegations and analysis"? -khaosworks 21:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Allegations and evidence"? Wolfman 22:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

related "truth"

I read an article on a Chinese newspaper published on August 27 concerning an advertisement published August 26, regarding someone looking for info on a Swift Boat mission. Jim Rassmann, the person who countered SBVT charges, is personally involved with this. (It was not mentioned whether who else is involved.)

I posted a summary of the article under a new section. Also, since it is a Chinese newspaper in North America (so the article is in Chinese) and there is no online version of the article (I read it in paper). It may not be vertifiable in google. SYSS Mouse 03:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unless there is a concrete link to SBVT, I don't think this has any relevance - just because Rassman is involved, doesn't mean SBVT is. This should go in, if anywhere, in a Rassman entry. -khaosworks 05:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
agree. btw that's the date of the Bronze Star incident Wolfman 05:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SBVT ads and the Bush campaign

In the last week, calls for President Bush to denounce the ads have stirred up more controversy over SBVT's ads. I'm wondering if something like this deserves its own subheading in the controversy section since because one could consider it to be a new dimension to the controversy. Or, should this idea be injected somewhere else like the "Connection wiht the Bush Campaign" section.

Currently, the only ad controversy reference is the McCain thing under 'Truthfulness'. It doesn't really belong there. Nor does it really merit its own section. I'd suggest putting it under 'Connections', as Kerry is basically implying this is a Bush plot (he calls them a "front group"). My only concern is that we not imply it is an proven connection by putting it there. It's just the most logical section to put it in. Wolfman 17:34, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

perhaps real editing may begin on Nov. 5

Presumably, this article will become easier to edit after the 2004 presidential election when, (regardless of outcome), the POV contributors who are simply trying to influence a political contest will stop caring. AdmN 19:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's a wonderfully snarky comment coming from someone who has not yet even attempted a single edit on the page. If you've got a problem with the page, try fixing it at least once before taking a cheapshot at the rest of us who are actually working on it. Wolfman 19:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Woops..., um, OK. You are correct. I was being snarky. I was not actually attempting to take a cheapshot at anyone who is currently working on the page. Rather, I was (inappropriately) commenting on a contributor who (I have now learned) has been restricted from contributing at all because of his clear POV. Regardless, it wasn't my place to comment at all. (To some extent, I was actually trying to provide encouragement to those who are removing POV, but obviously, I should have been more explicit about this). My humble apologies. AdmN 20:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I clearly took it the wrong way. It has been contentious around here, and I'm a bit on edge. My apologies. Wolfman 20:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Silver Star citation(s)

There are three. (1) by Adm. Zumwalt at time of award. (2) slightly different wording by Adm. Hyland CINCPAC, a few months later for official records (3) by Lehman SecNavy under Reagan essentially same wording as CINCPAC citation. Lehman was asked recently if he remembers this 3rd one, he thinks it was signed by one of his staff with an autopen. Some anon ip has repeatedly tried to insert a paragraph on this today. Unless there is actually some specific allegation of impropriety or other relevance to the story, this has no place in the SBVT article.

This exact citation is used on Kerry's website as "evidence" to refute the claims of the group. It seems relevant to show that there is some question as to where this citation came from.
There is also a story questioning why there were multiple citations issued at all. This is apparenty extremely unusual and usually only done if there is an error in an earlier citation.
All 3 citations are present on the page. You show me where some SBVT official representative makes an issue of this, and I'll agree to it. Though, I can't imagine how this would make them look anything but desperate. And if it were an error correction, where is the difference between the CINCPAC & SecNavy citations?Wolfman 22:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I never said that a SBVT official has made an issue out of anything. The press is digging this stuff up. How about responding to what I wrote? Kerry's campaign uses this citation as "evidence." Isn't it relevant to mention that there is a question about where this citation came from? As I said, there is also a mystery revolving around why there were multiple citations issued at all. A couple of days ago, I saw a statement from the Navy saying that this is not normally something they would issue a Silver Star for. All of this is important info. Although, I guess only info countering the SBVT is allowed in the article?
Where is the error in the original citation? Good question. I don't know the answer. According to the Navy, multiple citations are not issued unless there is an error. So why was there three issued in this case?
  1. It's an article about SBVT; if it's not something they make an issue of, it has no place.
  2. Go read the possibly archived discussion on the John Kerry page if you want to get up to speed on the citations. There's no mysterious conspiracy here.
  3. Apparently you are mistaken about what the Navy does. They did in fact issue a copy of the citation, and it has no essential difference. My guess is that if a United States Senator asks for a copy of his Silver Star citation to frame for his wall, they probably don't just toss him a photocopy. Wolfman 22:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


More adverse details, Kerry Medals Re: NY Post 08.29.04, "Former Navy Secretary John Lehman..."

"Former Navy Secretary John Lehman denied at week's end having written the Silver Star citation that appears on John Kerry's campaign Web site over Lehman's signature, dealing the Democrat's presidential campaign another stunning blow." [2]
Rex071404 17:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Your link doesn't work. I searched the archives of Post and it comes up with nothing. I did a google search on: "john lehman" kerry signature "silver star". It yielded nothing reputable. --Nysus 18:35, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops! My bad - link has been corrected above - here it is here also

According to [[3]] (this source)]]"He suggested his signature had been placed on the document by an autopen." Some aide signed it. And who signed his citation doesn't have much to do with SBVT.

Media Bias

Please note from this link from March 15th, 2004 even though the June 16th 1971 tapes with Nixon are excerpted, the is no mention of "Cambodia". Why is that you ask? It's because at the time the media was still following the pro-Kerry script of portraying Kerry a super hero who helped route the evil Nixon. Cambodia did not become an issue until Kerry quotes about "seared" into his memory were looked at. Ps: My Kerry ban does not extend to this article. Even so, I may not edit to any degree, but instead post here. Rex071404 22:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Since you bring up bias, I found this interesting. LA Times: "The conservative media's handling of the Swift boat dispute is a case study in bias" [4] Also, see what the Columbia Journalism Review has to say.
But, I'm not sure I follow your specific media bias point regarding Cambodia. I'm not giving you a hard time here; I really don't understand the point. Why should the media have been talking about Cambodia in March? What has Nixon's tape got to do with Kerry being in Cambodia or not?Wolfman 22:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Christmas in Cambodia

What are we doing to address the uncontested allegations against Kerry on this? See this link

Rex071404 17:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The issue is discussed here. Is there some important fact you think is missing from the present write-up? Here is the companion article to your link. Wolfman 17:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV notice added

I have added an NPOV notice to the article. There is too much of an anti-SBVT tone and too much of a prove-Kerry-right tone to the article. These will have to be substantially improved in order for me to drop my objection in this regards. Rex071404 01:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is not a sufficient explanation. It gives no basis for responding. Please point out specific objections in accodance with Wiki NPOV policy. Removing tag for now. The NPOV tag is for specific objections, not some nebulous 'tone'. Wolfman 01:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have restored the NPOV notice. Wolfman, DON'T YOU DARE remove that again (until we agree that it can come down)! HOW DARE YOU tell me that I am not allowed to "dispute the neutrality" of this article! In fact, by deleting the NPOV notice, you confirm that you are being POV! Rex071404 01:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV notice upgraded to "Long NPOV" Rex071404 01:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I note that in the last 2 sections, I have asked you to specify your objections. You have not responded, rather you choose to slap on a NPOV tag. That is not acting in good faith. If you wish to dialogue in good faith, I welcome that. Otherwise, I will ask for the injunction against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 to be extended to include SBVT.
You are trying to bully me and you are threatening me. The simple addition of an "NPOV" statement does not in anyway rise to a level which would warrant a ban. Frankly, I think you are trying to provoke trouble so as to have an excuse to complain. I will not rise to your bait. I have done nothing more than add the NPOV statement and am in process of trying to dialog. Stop your bullying - I am more than happy to discuss the entire article with you line by line or section by section, however you prefer. Rex071404 01:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, really? Then why when I responded twice above to your complaints did you ignore me? You blatantly refused to discuss your concerns, then slapped on an NPOV tag. Who's the bully? Note, Rex removed the previous comment of mine in this edit. I am restoring it. That is absolutely outrageous.Wolfman 01:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to actually dispute the neutrality. Policy dictates how this should be done. Go read it. I would not dream of telling you that you can't disptute neutrality. However, I do dare to remove the tag until you explain yourself in a fashion we can respond to. Wolfman 01:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The "NPOV" notice goes up when one or more editors take objection to an alleged POV problem with an article, not AFTER it's resolved! I have stated my main objection, it's not my problem if you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge the validity of my concerns. Rex071404 01:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To simply say that "there is too much of an anti-SBVT tone and too much of a prove-Kerry-right tone to the article," is too vague. Be specific in your examples, and suggest what could be written to push it towards a more NPOV. NPOV is not a weapon to be levelled lightly just because you disagree with a "tone" (which is very subjective). Please show evidence. -khaosworks 01:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rex. Have you read the freaking policy? You are supposed to supply an actual reason. A reason we can respond to. A reason we can address. I don't like the tone of this article is not a reason. You are more than welcome to actually dispute the neutrality. Please do so. I note that twice before I invited you to specify objections. You did not. I am removing this tag once more. If you restore it without providing a basis for us to work on resolving the objection, I will ask that your ban for disruptive editing on the various John Kerry pages be extended to SBVT (as it obviously should have been in the first place). Wolfman 01:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see my response above - providing details in the fashion you will accept takes time and I am in process of doing it. While that is underway, I am entitled to post that NPOV notice. Those who deny me the right to post that notice are acting in bad faith.

And I HAVE READ THE POLICY, which is found here. I am in compliance with that. In fact, I am far ahead of the baseline requirement " If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article."

Rex071404 01:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A "prove-Kerry-right tone" or "anti-SBVT tone" is hardly a description of unacceptability. There's nothing there to describe anything. -khaosworks 02:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What do Vets say?

Most vets have heard of SBVT - see link Rex071404 01:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 lists his objections

In this section, per the request of other editors, I am listing my objections which I feel make the article too POV. Please comment below. Do not interporlate into my list as itt will mess up my attempts to stay readable. Rex071404 02:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As these objections are resolved - I will strike them. Rex071404 02:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  1. I object to "Media Tactics" as a section title. Since there are no SBVT members editing here, any contention that SBVT "tactics" are known by us is conjecture.
  2. I object to these Kerry crew quotes "The men who served on Kerry's boat dispute SBVT's various allegations: "pure fabrication" (Jim Rassman), "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky)." being placed at the close of the 1st section with no balancing quotes by those who oppose Kerry such as Gardner.
  3. I object to this sentence "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group formed in 2004 to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential campaign". A simpe check with the SBVT home page informs us of their purpose which is "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant.". [5] It is plain and simple POV to put a "spin" on the self-stated purpose of the SBVT people.
  4. I object to this sentence: "SBVT maintains that Kerry still has not fully disclosed his records". This is a mischaracterization of the facts. The simple fact is that Kerry has not released all his military records. By saying "SBVT maintains" it misinforms the readers in a way that they might think Kerry has released everything.
  5. I object to the fact that the "Book" section does not inform the readers that the SBVT books is a #1 bestseller.
  6. I object to Wolfman's snide, non-collegial Edit Summary "Wolfman (Media Tactics - tactics --> activities: give Rex a thrill) [6]
  7. The facts of how Kerry was injured the 1st time are in dispute, therefore it is POV to say "John Kerry obtained his first Purple Heart in recognition of an injury he received...". It would be more accurate to say "sustained". If Kerry injured himself, he did not "receive" an injury, he "sustained" one.
  8. I object to Wolfman characterizing my objections as "absolutely trivial".

Due to Wolfman removing my NPOV tag from this article 4 times tonight, I have added an aditional charge against him at the open Arb case here. Wolfman's refusal to abide by the 3-revert rule and his hostile comments and edit summaries are upsetting to me and are non-collegial. For this reason, I am ceasing for this evening any further additions to my list of objections. I will resume additions to it tommorrow. In the meantime, please keep your comments segregated below so as to not disrupt my list. Rex071404 02:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As requested above by me, please keep your comments below this line so as to avoid messing up my list. Thank you! Rex071404 02:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  1. So what would you consider an acceptable heading? SBVT advertisements? SBVT activity in the media?
  2. Stephen Gardner is already mentioned in the exact same paragraph as being part of SBVT and by implication collectively accepting SBVT's allegations. Do you have a specific quote in mind by Gardner that you wish to "balance" it out?
  3. But surely SBVT would not deny that their purpose is to oppose Kerry's election as president? Wolfman -- in fact I can give several quotes where they explicitly state that, including some from FEC complaints
  4. There is already a mention lower down in the article that the Kerry campaign has withheld or refused to release documents - as have SBVT.
  5. How well a book sells has no bearing on the veracity or validity of the allegations.
  6. Irrelevant. Stick to the NPOV claims against the substance of the article.
  7. Semantics. It is clear what SBVT is claiming - and equally clear that even if the injury was self-inflicted, a Purple Heart can still be earned if certain conditions are met.
  8. Again, irrelevant. Stick to the NPOV claims against the substance of the article.
-khaosworks 02:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think this article was almost if anything, controversial when it was posted..due to the fact the subject is quite controversial. I don't think much POV is into it, except that of expressing the POV of the subject. Do I agree with SBVT? No. But I see no POV in this article. 68.205.198.0 02:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(1) and (4) are fixed; I would have happily done either on simply being asked. That's the usual procedure, you know, for absolutely trivial objections that no one would dream of opposing. Wolfman 02:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(6) well didn't it give you a thrill? not part of the article though, so irrelevant as to tag. Wolfman 02:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(7) is fixed. but I assume this will spawn at least 2 more objections. because (a) this is another absolutely trivial edit you could have had for the asking. why on earth do you imagine we might care? (b) my edit summary wonders why the heck you have me running around like your servant boy making absolutely trivial edits instead of you doing them yourself. I guess the answer is (c) so Rex can have a thrill. (Oh that's actually 3 more objections coming) Wolfman 02:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(5) I agree with khaos, but I'll throw you a bone and mention it anyway -- as soon as I can verify and source this (check into it later tonight). as to (8) I'm entitled to my opinions, and it's got nothing to do with the article. That leaves (2) I'll dig up some quote from Gardner -- what you think in a whole freaking article about the SwiftVets their views have been left unclear? And (3), I will put a dozen verbatim quotes in of them stating this is their purpose if that makes you happy. By my count that's all (8) objections agreed to or handled in about half an hour. Perhaps you might have tried asking first? Wolfman 02:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman's comment which was moved from my list: Wolfman: Fine, I'll use another word. All you had to do was ask. My god, could you find a more trivial objection to have a snit about? Consider this done.

Wolfman I asked you nicely, please keep your comments out of my objection list. Rex071404 02:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dude, you asked after it was already there, or at least before I saw it. I haven't added any comments since. Wolfman 02:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex. I've bent over backwards to quickly address your concerns. Again, I note that twice before you refused to specify them when I asked. The few I haven't actually entered into text yet, I'll get to tonight or in the morning. In the future, do your own editing. I'm not your errand boy. Wolfman 03:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I don't have time to go over all of your points. I got to number 3, though, and felt compelled to respond. Answer just one question for me: If SBVT doesn't exist to counter John Kerry's campaign, then why on earth are they taking out ads in the 3 of the most hotly contested states in the election? Clearly they are out to deliver maximum damage to John Kerry and his presidential bid. It is clearly not POV to say that they exist to oppose John Kerry's presidential campaign. There are also quotes in the first ad that say he is "unfit to be commander in chief". The evidence is quite obvious. Your argument is specious. --Nysus 04:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you neglected to take this quote from the front page of the SBVT site: "Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence." I don't think anything more need to be said on this point. The lead sentence is accurate and should stand.

Rex, one more thing: Why don't you just go ahead and make some edits? If you don't like what you see, it's your obligation to correct it directly. --Nysus 04:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman has reverted SBVT 5 times this evening

Including this revert against Nysus, Wolfman has more than violated the "3-revert rule".

Part of what he deleted against Nysus is this:

"SBVT's claims about the incident are primarily based on the account of retired Rear Admiral William Schachte [7], formerly Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Schachte is not a member of the SBVT, but has said he admires them as "men that are willing to stand up and put up with what they've been putting up with just to tell the truth – of what they know to be the truth." He originally declined to be interviewed for the SBVT book, but after the controversy erupted he said that he realized he had a duty to "step up and be heard" as a matter of personal honor. He did not appear in a SBVT ad, but told his story in a television interview with Lisa Myers of NBC News [8] and a print interview with Robert Novak. [9] Shachte has said his only motive was "to tell the truth". However, critics have noted that he was a contributor to the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, and also donated to Bush as a primary candidate in 2000."

Rex071404 04:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the record, Nysus didn't write that. It was an anonymous IP, 63.224.35.238, Besides, shouldn't that person be the one who should be complaining instead of you? -khaosworks 04:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mine was a fairly minor edit. I removed the word "only." --Nysus 04:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I reverted your NPOV tag 4 times. The first 3 times were for good cause, you had not specified a complaint. The last time was for a different good cause, we had handled or addressed all your specific complaints. And, the 3 revert rule applies to each dispute separately. And might I add, it's so charming to have such a delightful person as you back in my life. Wolfman 05:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.