Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Neutrality Concerns 2 1st paragraph, accuracy please 3 I wish to delete these 3.1 First-Hand Accounts 4 Possible bifurcation of article 5 How many are still alive ? 6 Paragraph with Schachte's Account of Mission 7 NPOV Issue 8 Recent additions 9 Neutrality Problems 10 Gardner Quote 11 Compromise Offer 12 Purple Heart Criteria 12.1 Application of published criteria

Neutrality Concerns

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their allegations about John Kerry is a very controversial subject. You should know that some reviewers feel that this article may not yet have fully achieved the completeness and balance necessary to meet Wikipedia standards for neutrality. This is not the fault of the editors, who are working hard toward that goal. The present article represents their best efforts to date, and improvement is continuous. You can help by contributing any additional information or correction of errors which you may become aware of. Please be sure of the accuracy of your information, provide source references, and be careful to maintain a neutral tone. Discussion of specific concerns that have been expressed regarding the content of this article will be found elsewhere on this Talk page. Feel free to participate.

1st paragraph, accuracy please

• This is not substatiated as being accurate:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), formed in 2004, is an organization of American Swift Boat veterans of the Vietnam War chartered under Section 527 of the U.S. tax code to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential aspirations. This group is devoted to questioning his war record, particularly with regard to the merit of his medals and the veracity of his testimony about the Vietnam war.

• "Charter" is the wrong word (see Brooking Link below)

• Here is an IRS link to instructions regarding "Political Organization Notice of Section 527 Status"

• 527 watchdog group [1]
• Brookings Link: According to the IRS: "When there are no formal organizational documents, consideration is given to statements of the members of the organization at the time of its formation that they intend to operate the organization primarily to carry on exempt function activities. See generally, 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.527-2(a)(2)-(3) (organizational and operational tests for "political organization" status). A political organization does not need to be formally chartered or established as a corporation, trust, or association; a separate bank account in which political campaign funds are deposited and disbursed only for political campaign expenses can qualify as a political organization. Thus, an organization may maintain a separate bank account used solely for exempt political activities and the account itself could qualify as a Section 527 political organization".
• According to the Brookings Link (see above) the IRS rules are clear in that: "When there are no formal organizational documents, consideration is given to statements of the members of the organization at the time of its formation that they intend to operate the organization primarily to carry on exempt function activities."

I interpret this to mean that this statement from SBVT web site: "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.'', is in fact the qualifying declaration of purpose which identifies SBVT's activities.

While I am open to adjusting the text to accomodate the group, I must point out that the text which I put in earlier, is more accurate than what's in there now. My previous version:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group formed in 2004. The stated purpose of the group, according to the SBVT website 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.[2]The SBVT group is devoted to questioning Kerry's war record, particularly with regard to the merit of his medals and the veracity of his testimony about the Vietnam war. SBVT's activites are condemned by some as being a partisan effort against John Kerry's U.S. presidential campaign.

However, as a softer alternative, I am also willing to also offer this:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group formed in 2004. The stated purpose of the group, according to the SBVT website is essentially this: 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter charges John Kerry has repeatedly made, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant.' [3] The SBVT group has devoted considerable effort to adversly highlighting John Kerry's service record, particularly with regard to the merit of his medals and the veracity of his 1971 testimony about the Vietnam war. SBVT's activites are condemned by some as being a partisan effort against John Kerry's U.S. presidential campaign.

It's obviously not NPOV to assert that the group's purpose is "to accurately portray" Kerry's service. If you want to believe that that's their purpose, and that they independently and objectively investigate each witness, and decide to accept the account that they find most credible, and it's just a wild coincidence that on every single point they accept and publicize the anti-Kerry version while not spending one dime of their Republican money to publicize any facts favorable to Kerry, fine, you go right ahead and believe it. On your own time. The article shouldn't say that, any more than it should say that they're a bunch of political smear artists who are out to hurt Kerry in any way they can. JamesMLane 04:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As we have already discussed on other pages, it's not relevant what either of us believe. Rather what's relevant is what the true facts are. In this instance, it is a true fact that SBVT delcares their purpose to be such and such or so and so. It certainly not POV to report a paraphrase of SBVT's self-stated purpose - especially since I have softened the tone to avoid bias. If you oppose including this true fact, you are being inherently POV. In any case, the word "charter" is definately wrong. Read the Brookings Link (see above) Rex071404 04:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, for you to oppose the posting of SBVT's self-stated purpose simply because you believe that self-stated purpose to be a lie, would be the same as me saying that we cannot report Kerry's campaign promises because I think those are lies. Rex071404 04:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't oppose putting their self-state purpose somewhere in the article, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. As to why the first paragraph is superior, I have covered these points earlier in talk. Please refer to my arguements above. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 12:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem changing "chartered" to "organized." Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 12:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, we report their sanctimonious self-serving claims. We just don't report them in a way that implies endorsement. On a controversial point like this, we have to report both sides fairly. Your version gives much more attention to SBVT's claims. To correct that imbalance would lead to wordiness that's ill-suited to the introductory paragraph. As I thought was clear, my comment was in the context of what should be in the first graf, not what should be anywhere in the article. The introduction can't conveniently get into presenting both sides of the opinion divide and so should present objective facts. Somewhere up above I summarized what I considered proper for the intro as follows:

The key points about SBVT are: group of Viet vets, they attack Kerry re Vietnam, controversy over the substance of their charges, also controversy over their conduct vis-a-vis 527 status. The last point should be in the intro but along the lines of: "The Kerry campaign has also charged that the group has coordinated its efforts with the Bush campaign in violation of campaign finance laws."

Then later in the article there'd be ample space to expound on SBVT's self-presentation as seekers of wisdom and truth, as well as their opponents' characterization of them as sleazy smear artists. And, no, I don't mean that those exact words should be used, both phrases being hyperbole to make my point (a rhetorical technique that I've noticed isn't always understood). JamesMLane 05:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wish to delete these

This article is about SBVT, not about "First-hand accounts" by Kerry supporters. Rex071404 04:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First-Hand Accounts

• "This Is What I Saw That Day" by William Rood, Chicago Tribune, August 22, 2004
• "A Veteran for Truth" - Telluride Daily Planet Letter to the Editor by Swift Boat veteran Jim Russell

These first hand accounts directly contradict SBVT claims and thus are relevant and belong here. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. Both of these are from men who wrote explicitly because they were upset with some aspects of the SBVT charges. They surely have as much role here as Schatche.

In that spirit, you might add the Schatche & Zaladonis interviews to the section, and any others you have. I suppose the name of the section might have to be adjusted slightly to avoid implying as factually endorsed by wiki either Schatche or Zaladonis (since they differ). Keep in mind that the idea of this section is lengthy first-hand descriptions of events, not just a paragraph or two from an article or interview. In other words, let's avoid linking to every article where Thurlow says 'no fire' and Rassman replies 'yes there was'. Wolfman 05:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possible bifurcation of article

Rex wants to delete links to the eyewitness information that contradicts SBVT's charges, on the ground that the article is about SBVT. One possibility would be to follow that approach to its logical conclusion. This article would be about SBVT itself, as an organization. The article would cover (in terms of sections as I write this) the current 1. Membership, 2. Media activities, parts of 4. Controversy (4.2 Connections with Republicans, 4.3 Connections with the Bush campaign, and 4.4 FEC complaints), and some of the external links. It would have only a terse summary of the substance of SBVT's allegations and of the responses thereto, followed by a link to the sibling article, on the controversy about Kerry's service. That article would have the recounting of the he-said-this-but-they-said-that-and-the-file-says-the-other-thing kind of disputation. These two articles would link to each other, and the John Kerry article would link to both.

This arrangement would clearly be superior if SBVT were likely to be an ongoing organization that would get involved in other controversies, which might similarly be spun off. My guess, though, is that SBVT will pretty much go inactive after the election. Therefore, the issue is whether splitting the stuff up this way would help the reader when there's only one major substantive controversy. Some readers presumably don't care about what section 527 allows and want only to get all the information they can about what Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam. Others, I assume, don't see much contemporary relevance to knowing whether a particular piece of shrapnel came from the Viet Cong or from Kerry's own shot, but want to know more about an organization they'd never heard of before and which has suddenly become prominent. Both groups would be served by the division.

As long as this is the article where the evidence supporting SBVT's charges is presented, though, it must also be the article where the evidence undercutting those charges is presented. JamesMLane 04:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do we really need to discuss this at all? This is silly just on the face of it. Refutaions of SBVT claims are critical pieces of information about the organization. If every article just contained good things or claims only from the subjects of the article, then this would be a collection of press releases, not an encyclopedia. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I certainly don't mean that this article would recount, in loving detail, all of SBVT's charges against Kerry, with quotations from supporting witnesses, while ignoring the refutations. I mean that all that stuff, the support and the refutations, would be moved. This article would have the stuff that relates strictly to the organization itself, along with something along the lines of: "SBVT has charged that Kerry lied about his service in Vietnam and that some of his medals were undeserved. Kerry and his defenders have disputed these charges. For a discussion of the documents and eyewitness accounts relied on by each side, see [[John Kerry Vietnam service controversy]]." JamesMLane 05:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please make a sub-page showing your new proposed layout. If it looks right, I might be willing to accept it. I am wary though, of making an changes that amplify the pro-Kerry / anti-SBVT tone which I have already complained about. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:51, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My understanding:

You wish to make 'Allegations and Evidence' a separate article, leaving the rest essentially as is. And moving the first-hand accounts possibly with some of the other links to the 'Allegations' article.

Is that correct? That might be acceptable to me, I'd need to see a rough mock-up.

How are we to prevent detail creep about allegations and evidence from re-infecting the main article? I think we would need to agree to refer to the allegations in the main page only in very general terms. And any allegations referenced need to be consistent with what is on the allegations page. For example, no mention of 'self-inflicted wound' on the main page, just 'first PH questioned' (if anything). Wolfman 05:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I strongly oppose. I prefer that all information stay on one page and be better organized. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well then, I guess it's moot as this was intended as a compromise with Rex. Or was someone else advocating for this too? Wolfman 06:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggested it primarily as a compromise with Rex. Obviously, the primary material refuting the SBVT claims is worth reporting, and if there's to be no separate "controversy" article, then it all belongs here. Bifurcation would have some advantages, besides trying to accommodate Rex, but unless everyone else wants to do it, it's probably not worth the hours upon hours of user time it would take, in terms of Rex's reverts, complaints, tendentious edit summaries, amendments to the ArbCom counter-complaints, etc. JamesMLane 13:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How many are still alive ?

This: "Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam" is misleading. It falsely implies a) all of them were asked to sign-on, and b) all of them are still alive. More relevant is how many are still alive and how many were asked to sign-on. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How do you propose it be changed? Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 06:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note that I would assume that the reader has half a brain and, like you, would take the facts you point out into consideration. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 06:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's just no way of knowing how many are alive. How about 250 signed as one sentence. In another, to give context, note that there were 3500 who served. Otherwise, people have absolutely no idea what the relevant population is. Wolfman 06:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there are some links which keep a tally - I will look. Also, where did the 3,500 number come from? How do we know that's correct? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Cubaflag15.gif Read this]] 06:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please note that some of the signers are not SwiftVets and some of the signers are widows of SwiftVets on their behalf. If you want to dig into this detail, you need to deal with those issued. Let's get it right if we're going to fool with it. I have no idea where 3500 came from, but I would speculate that it's from the SBVT webpage.Wolfman 07:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I looked that up and that number is mentioned in a USA Today article: [4]

Someone edited in a challenge to the signatures, from which I removed some inflammatory rhetoric. The current phrasing is copied below:

Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam, the names of some 250 appear on the group's statement against Kerry. However, a number of veterans whose names appear on the letter deny ever giving permission for their names to appear and allege that SBVT has not removed their names upon request. [5]. Wolfman 18:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph with Schachte's Account of Mission

Note: I archived a bunch of stuff that is moot since anon ip has quit. However, this paricular issue is still very much on the table, so I retrieved it. Sorry for the screwups, if anyone was on here at the time. Wolfman 19:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm planning to add the following paragraph summarizing Schachte's account of the incident after the paragraph introducing Schachte. Please record you objections below.

At the time of the incident, Schachte was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. As operations officer, Schachte had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. The skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. According to Schachte, Kerry accompanied him as a volunteer on his last skimmer mission. During the mission he and Kerry briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or other indication of enemy contact. According to Schachte, Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

(Please don't edit the above.) 63.224.35.238 00:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In Unfit for Command, O'Neill claims that Kerry and Schachte were on the skimmer together, using the call signs "Robin" and "Batman" respectively. I believe Schachte has said this too. But an article in the Boston Globe from June last year [6], for which Schachte was interviewed, claims that those call signs were used for the skimmer ("Batman") and its larger support craft ("Robin"). All accounts seem to say that there were just three sailors on the skimmer, and I also read some accounts that said the skimmer was crewed by Kerry, Schachte and an enlisted man. So, if Schachte is telling the truth then when they say Schachte was not there either Bill Zaladonis or Patrick Runyon or both are lying about having been on the skimmer themselves. 172.185.110.115 02:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Schachte is an Admiral for gosh sakes. Doesn't this give him any credibility with you? Rex071404 03:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not any more credibility than anybody else. -khaosworks 03:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then I guess Kerry has no more credibility than Bush, does he...? Rex071404 03:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Got it in one. Nobody starts from a privileged position. We go by the evidence from that point on. -khaosworks 03:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attn: khaosworks; On the John Kerry Talk Page, you recently said this: "Actualy, the New York Post (not the Times) is a tabloid with very plain Republican leanings, and the Washington Times (not the Post) is also right-leaning. Helen Thomas resigned from UPI after it was bought by News World Communication, who publish the WT. As an aside, News World was founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Not saying anything about this one way or another, just FYI when it comes to credibility and possible bias. --khaosworks 06:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)". How does this sqaure with your contention that the Admiral should not be afforded credibility? It seems that you do in fact input more credibility onto certain persons. so then, why do you deny now? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I never said Schacte should not be afforded credibility. I said that he should not be given any more credibility than anybody else just by virtue of his position.

As for your examples, it's apples and oranges. I impute (not input) people or institutions with more credibility when it is justified by evidence that they are deserving of it. Rank and position on their own are irrelevant. Records are. Just because a person is an Admiral doesn't make him any more credible than anybody else, all else being equal. The New York Post and the Washington Times have had a long history and reputation of biased reporting and spin, in my experience, and therefore their reporting is suspect.

Let me make it clear. As far as his credibility is concerned, his military status as a former Admiral and his former position as Acting Navy JAG per se is irrelevant. That does not place him a special position to anybody when it comes to credibility. His association with the Bush campaign as a contributor, however, does make him less credible - though not incredible - than someone who is truly above the fray. -khaosworks 03:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think S is probably confused, not a liar. But Admirals can lie: John Poindexter. Wolfman 04:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True, but lies usually occur when someone has "a dog in the fight". In this instance it's clear that Schachte does not. On the other hand, Kerry does. And that's why Kerry has his surrogates out there lying for him. Rex071404 07:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Schachte does not? He's been a contributor to the Bush campaign for 2000 and 2004. -khaosworks 07:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They're not necessarily lying. They may just be confused. It was a long time ago. They may have somehow gotten the idea they were there, and then filled in some vague memories with details from Kerry's account. (Kerry doesn't mention Schachte either, and it's hard to believe he could have forgotten.) But obviously, if Schachte is right, and he really was there, the Kerry/Zaladonis/Runyon version has a big problem. 63.224.35.238 03:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here again, we don't need to spoon-feed the reader to support an anti-Kerry position. The current version of the article reports Schachte's rank. If any particular reader thinks that's relevant to Schachte's credibility, fine, we've provided the information. Whether we think it gives Schachte any credibility is irrelevant. JamesMLane 03:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we please confine the discussion here to objections to the proposed paragraph? So far, we have none. Anyone else? 63.224.35.238 04:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. The skimmer crew always included two officers. apparently not, assumes R&Z are wrong
2. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. again assumes account, also did these cease when S left?
3. but there was no hostile return fire or other indication of enemy contact. assumes account, should be according to S

Basically, all of this needs to be clearly marked as Schatche's account. Right now, it sounds like we are endorsing this as established fact.

Also, you seem rather insistent on demanding responses in a short time. People have lives. You might just have to wait a day. Wolfman 04:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Wolfman and add the questions that I was writing while he posted his comment. First, what's the source for the stuff about Schachte's role in devising the plan? Second, and more important, what's the reason to include that information here rather than in the article on William Schachte? If, as someone stated above, Schachte isn't an SBVT member, then his role in setting Navy tactics in Vietnam doesn't seem relevant to the SBVT article. (Actually, even if he were a member, I'd have trouble seeing the relevance.) JamesMLane 04:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look. This is Schachte's account. I thought that was clear, but I guess not. And you're quite correct, it's inconsistent with the story told by Kerry et al. That's the whole point. Don't worry, I will include a paragraph giving Kerry's story for comparison. I'll be happy to add whatever qualifying language you think is needed here to make the source clear. What do you suggest? This section concerns the factual basis for the allegations by the SBVT concerning Kerry's 1st Purple Heart. Schachte is their key witness. His role in the 'swift ops' mission is very relevant to his account. I was just encouraging responses, not demanding them. You think I didn't know you'd have to object to SOMETHING? :-) 63.224.35.238 05:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the April 2003 Globe interview Schachte is said to have described the action as a "firefight" and to have said that Kerry "got hit". This needs to be mentioned, as it does not square with your phrasing in the paragraph of 'no hostile return fire'. You can give the current version, but the discrepancy needs to be somehow noted -- goes to memory (not veracity).Wolfman 05:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's try this:

At the time of the incident, Schachte was the second-in-command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. Schachte states that he went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total, with Kerry accompanying him on his last one. According to Schachte, during the mission they briefly opened fire at signs of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or indication of enemy contact. However, in an interview with the Boston Globe in April 2003, Schachte described the incident as a "firefight" and said Kerry " got hit", but not seriously. [7] Schachte now claims Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

-khaosworks 05:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Or how about this:

At the time of the incident, Schachte was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. Schachte has said that as operations officer, he had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. According to Schachte, skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte has said he himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. According to Schachte, Kerry accompanied him as a volunteer on his last skimmer mission. Schachte has said that during the mission he and Kerry briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or other indication of enemy contact. According to Schachte, Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

I think we should put the Boston Globe interview in a separate paragraph. 63.224.35.238 05:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why is Schachte's saying that he devised tactics relevant, or that Kerry followed him as a volunteer? I grant you that the "two officers" mention might be relevant, but I'd still consider it tenuous. Also, language needs work - too many "According tos" - it's just not good writing. You can use more concise language and still not sacrifice the substance. The 2003 Boston Globe interview is only directly relevant here because of his contradicting himself. Again, I must voice concern about detail creep. Stick to the essentials. -khaosworks 06:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, how about this:

Schachte has given the following account: At the time of the incident, he was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. As operations officer, Schachte had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. Skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. Kerry accompanied him on his last skimmer mission. During the mission they briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no return fire or other indication of enemy contact. Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to them.

63.224.35.238 06:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Still having that irrelevant reference to tactics, which you have not explained why is necessary to begin with. Tell me why. Who knows, I might be persuaded. Ditto Boston Globe issue. Qualifier at the top of the paragraph is usually forgotten by the time the reader wades through the detail, and it still looks like his claims are phrased as statements of fact. As per JamesMLane below, moving this discussion to his sandbox section. -khaosworks 13:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm having trouble keeping track of all these different versions. In an effort to facilitate the editing process, I've set up a sandbox at User:JamesMLane/Schachte section. People can do actual edits there, making it easier to see what change is proposed, and the discussion can proceed at User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section, so it won't get lost on this talk page as other issues come up and/or the page (now at 89kb) is archived. I notice that the earlier sandbox tried to combine proposed text and discussion on one page, which I think is a big mistake.

I've begun that sandbox talk page by explaining my first draft (the initial sandbox text). It incorporates ideas from various versions above, plus some stuff I added. JamesMLane 10:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

James, this is my proposed edit, and I'd prefer to keep the discussion here. Thanks. 63.224.35.238 14:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The point about Schachte inventing the technique is that it explains why he was familiar with its operational requirements, such as having two officers aboard the skimmer. The latter point is important because it is inconsistent with the account by Kerry et al. The Globe item will go in a paragraph following Schachte's account, which may also include reference to the witnesses indicating that Schachte told his current version of the story in 1968. I believe it will be clear in context that the entire paragraph is Schachte's account. 63.224.35.238 14:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Write up proposed drafts for both paragraphs mentioned for discussion, please. -khaosworks 15:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is my current planned addition:

Schachte has given the following account: At the time of the incident, he was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. As operations officer, Schachte had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. Skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. Kerry accompanied him on his last skimmer mission. During the mission they briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no return fire or other indication of enemy contact. Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

Discussion of subsequent paragraphs will follow in new section. Any remaining objections to this one? 63.224.35.238 15:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Khaosworks has proposed an entirely satisfactory paragraph above. It contains all the important facts, it phrases them fairly and neutrally, it is concise. I support K's proposed paragraph as it stands. Does anyone have an objection to K's version as the final draft? If so, please provide reasons. I copy his paragraph below for reference. Wolfman 15:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the time of the incident, Schachte was the second-in-command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. Schachte states that he went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total, with Kerry accompanying him on his last one. According to Schachte, during the mission they briefly opened fire at signs of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or indication of enemy contact. However, in an interview with the Boston Globe in April 2003, Schachte described the incident as a "firefight" and said Kerry " got hit", but not seriously. [8] Schachte now claims Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

My objections to your proposal:

1. does not mention Schachte's invention of skimmer ops
2. does not describe skimmer ops
3. does not mention two officers on skimmer ops
4. disrupts narrative with Globe reference
5. Implies Schachte has changed account

Please state your objections to my current version. 63.224.35.238 15:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the 'two officers' point of the S account is relevant. I fail to see how his supposed invention of the technique or the precise details of the technique have any relevance. How is it disruptive to quote what the good man has said? It implies nothing, it simply factually states what the man has said; there is no leading wording here. It's up for the reader to decide the significance of that. My objections to your version are implicit in my response here. Wolfman 16:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To clarify:

1. goes to Schachte's memory and authority re skimmer ops
2. gives reader basic idea (not precise details) of what was involved
3. agreed
4. disrupts narrative of events in 1968; will come later
5. use of "now claims" is leading, given evidence Schachte said same thing in 1968

Please state any new objections to my last version. 63.224.35.238 16:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anon, please state any objections to my last version, at User:JamesMLane/Schachte section. If for some reason you don't want to use User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section, then state your objections here. By the way, your comment above suggests that you see a degree of ownership in writing that isn't present in Wikipedia. Your attitude seems to be, "I was the one who proposed inserting more detail about Schachte, therefore all discussion of that idea must use my draft as a base, and must take place in the format and forum I prefer." If that is your attitude, you're totally mistaken. If I've misinterpreted you, then I'd be glad to hear your recognition that the concept of "my proposed edit" doesn't give you any particular rights. (One exception is that we sometimes hone two or three separate versions and then poll participants. That's used comparatively seldom, however.) The bottom line is that I have as much right to demand to hear your objections as you have to demand to hear mine.

As for my objections to your proposal:

• I still don't consider Schachte's claim to have invented the technique to be relevant.
• Although it begins with an intro identifying it as Schachte's claim, and so is technically correct, I think it would be confusing to many readers. By the time you get to the end of the paragraph, a lot of people would have lost track of that point. They'd think they were reading established fact, not recognizing that the introductory attributory sentence was intended to pick up everything thereafter. My version and that by khaosworks are clearer on this point.
• Omission of the Globe reference. One of your stated objections to khaosworks's version is "Implies Schachte has changed account", but based on the Globe story, I think he has changed his account. Now, someone else may argue that he used the term "firefight" loosely in 2003. For that reason, it wouldn't be NPOV for the article to state that he had changed his account. The correct NPOV approach is to provide the facts, in this instance the key quotations from what he told the Globe. I'm not aware of any contemporaneous claim by Schachte (i.e. at the time of the publication of the Globe story) that he was misquoted.
• Your version says there was "movement thought to be guerillas". There's no need to use the passive voice here. Schachte's story is that he himself was in command, that he thought there were enemies moving on shore, that he fired a flare to confirm, that what he saw with the aid of the flare confirmed his impression, that he as the commanding officer thereupon opened fire, and that Kerry joined in after he began firing. I don't think we need that much detail but we don't need to leave open the possibility that Schachte was coolly and level-headedly conducting the mission and then a panicky Kerry suddenly started blasting away at a bird or something. Given that the presence or absence of enemies is one of the major points in dispute, the article should report Schachte's position, which is that he thought there were enemies there. (What he says is that he saw movement and that anyone moving in that area had to be an enemy. He doesn't expressly say it was a designated free-fire zone but that's my guess.)
• Omission of Schachte's record of financial contributions to Bush.
• Omission of clarification re Gardner, as I explained on User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section.
• One big objection I have to your version, khaosworks's and my own is the failure to give a good explanation of how this bickering about the particulars of one minor incident relates to the substance of SBVT's attack on Kerry. I'm leaning toward agreeing with khaosworks that a reorganization is necessary. JamesMLane 18:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

James, I created this Talk section to allow people to record their objections to my proposed addition. If people wish to proposed there own versions elsewhere, that's fine. Some of your complaints seem to be about omissions which I suspect I'll find reasonable, but should go in separate paragraphs. This Talk section is reviewing my proposed paragraph summarizing the first part of Schachte's account. There will be additional paragraphs to complete the account. There was a previous paragraph to introduce Schachte, which is discussed in another Talk section, above. The points you raise will go in subsequent paragraphs, that we will get to. (At least, I thought we would, eventually. Now I don't know.) Please limit your comments here to specific objections to the paragraph I've proposed. Also, don't worry about minor things like passive voice. Those minor corrections can just be edited in place. I don't assert any right of ownership. Why do you think I'm putting my proposal here and asking for comments rather than just editing it in? I'm trying to get a consensus here. 63.224.35.238 19:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

In response to 63.224.35.238: You, understandably, go to pains to say 'according to Schachte' in the last two sentences. However, earlier in the section, in the sentences Wolfman objected to, you don't. This has the effect of making Schachte's claims about there always being two officers, and about he himself always going (that has to be false, unless there were only nine such missions) appear to be the undisputed truth. And we should definitely present Schachte's two versions of the event in the same paragraph. The mention of the Globe interview [9] doesn't need to be long, it just needs to note that Schachte has previously said things that appear to contradict his current statement, and certainly contradict SBVT's claims. I also think the other Globe article [10] is important or at the least that it should be mentioned that according to that account and other accounts there was a support boat and the call signs that SBVT assign to Kerry and Schachte were assigned to the skimmer and the support boat. Schachte and the details about the mission are all being used to support SBVT's claims, but Schachte's previous description of events contradicts those claims, as do other details about the mission. 172.189.188.120 20:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Issue

This is to announce my plan to add an NPOV tag at the beginning of the SBVT article. It should not be construed as a criticism of the intentions or efforts of the current editors. It simply indicates the fact that some reviewers believe the article has not yet achieved an acceptable NPOV. This will alert readers to the concern, and hopefully encourage other editors to join the collaboration to help correct the problem.

I believe the lack of NPOV in the article will be evident to an informed editor. The general problem is a lack of balance due to omission of relevant information. My immediate concern is that the discussion of the SBVT allegations and evidence with regard to John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart is inadequate. For details, review my repeated unsuccessful attempts to correct this problem as documented in the Talk archives.

If anyone objects to my adding the NPOV tag, please so state. Anonip 20:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please state below, as required by policy, the specific missing information or other concern with the article itself (and not the process) that leads to your use of the NPOV tag. Wolfman 20:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have stated my concerns, immediately above. Anonip 20:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I object, based on not knowing what relevant information is allegedly being omitted. Under this user name you have no "repeated unsuccessful attempts" to do anything. Are you the artist formerly known as 63.224.35.238? If so, please bear in mind that most people don't object to including things like Schachte's claim that there were always two officers in the skimer, contrary to what Zaladonis and Runyon say. It would help if you could distill the voluminous discussion to list the specific factual points that you think are "relevant information" and that no one else will agree to include. JamesMLane 20:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, I'm sorry. I should have indicated that the specific details I'm referring to were discussed by me previously using the anonymous ip id 63.224.35.238. Anonip 20:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'd guessed that. The bigger problem is that all those comments are scattered across many kb of talk, much of which is now archived. Even if your prior comments were all as a logged-in user, you wouldn't really be providing proper support for your proposed NPOV tag just by pointing generally in that direction. Offhand I can think of two specific pieces of information that you wanted to include: Schachte's claim to have invented the technique, and his statement that there were always two officers. I thought we were in the process of discussing those points, along with the concern about information that some of us consider relevant but that isn't in your draft, such as the Globe report and Schachte's donations to Bush. If we were to adopt the version at User:JamesMLane/Schachte section, would you insert the NPOV tag? If so, can you provide a numbered or bulleted list of the specific items that support your charge of "omission of relevant information" and that aren't in that version? JamesMLane 21:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, The NPOV tag does not indicate that the article is not NPOV. It simply indicates that the question of whether the article is or is not NPOV is the subject of a non-frivolous dispute. I believe that is clearly the case here. Unless my concerns are completely frivolous, including the NPOV tag is justified. Is it necessary to devote more time to the tag question, or can we move on to the substantive issues? Anonip 21:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

AnonIP, you wish to move on to "substantive issues", are your (unspecified) complaints leading to the NPOV tag not substantive? If they are substantive, please enumerate them. Pointing in the direction of an incredibly lengthy discussion is not very specific. Wolfman 22:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I support the addition of the NPOV tag [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 22:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, on what specific grounds. Of the 6 grounds you previously specified, I believe that all have been rectified. Am I mistaken? What further specific objections do you have? Wolfman 22:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me try to explain again: This article, as it now stands, offends my sense of proportion and balcance. It does not read well, it does not feel right. It's too harsh, it's too riddled with points and counter-points. And for an article about SBVT, it has too much anti-SBVT mixed in - the anti-stuff should all be listed at the end, point by point. As currently comprised, with a counter-point after each SBVT point, it sounds like pro-Kerry talking point training guide. I am very displeased with the tone and tone is the hardest thing to nail down. It is patently unfair for you to insist that I "justify" my request for the NPOV notice. I have been trying that for days. And yet, the article still lacks the NPOV notice. Having said that, I am now going to turn it around: I insist that the notice objecters demonstrate that the mere presence of the notice so affects the article as to make it unsustainable. If you can't show that, your objections to the NPOV notice is without merit. I am re-inserting the notice. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 23:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you can insist on anything you please, and your insistence will be taken seriously by all the editors who consider you a serious contributor. I note that, in adding the tag, you've given an edit summary stating that you were doing so "per talk dialog". Of course, if the change at issue (the addition of the tag) were one you opposed, you'd be promptly reverting it with some such comment as "Leave it be until the dialog is complete, please!" JamesMLane 00:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, the immediate question is whether there is any objection to me adding the NPOV tag while we work to resolve my concerns. Anonip 23:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When you first asked that question, I responded: "I object, based on not knowing what relevant information is allegedly being omitted." I was referring to your statement, "The general problem is a lack of balance due to omission of relevant information." Your response to my request for elaboration of that statement has not satisfied me, for the reasons I've already explained. My objection stands. JamesMLane 23:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said. Me too :)Wolfman 23:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Me three. That being said, I'm going to go quiet for a while because I'll be away for the weekend in Boston for Worldcon. Have fun, play nice, and hopefully this place is still standing when I come back Monday. -khaosworks 03:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman and James, First let me share with you some of my thoughts concerning the NPOV tag:

1. The main concern of all editors should be the quality of the article, including NPOV
2. The NPOV tag does not indicate that an article is not NPOV. It simply indicates that the question of whether the article is or is not NPOV is the subject of a non-frivolous dispute.
3. If an article is not NPOV and lacks the NPOV tag, there is significant harm because the reader is not warned of the problem and editors are not encouraged to correct it. However, if the article is NPOV and still includes the NPOV tag, the harm is comparatively small because the NPOV warning is merely cautionary. Therefore, the general rule should be: when in doubt, leave it in.
4. All editors have an obligation to respect other editors' good-faith NPOV concerns, especially those of other editors who do not share their personal POV. Therefore objections to including the NPOV tag should be expected only in cases of clear abuse.
5. For articles on controversial contemporary subjects, good-faith NPOV concerns are likely to be common because of the frequent addition of new material. For such articles, including the NPOV tag for extended periods can be expected be the norm.
6. In such cases, extended debate about including the NPOV tag is counterproductive, and should be avoided.

In my statement above I indicated that I have extensive NPOV concerns about the article as a whole and about the discussion of the 1st Purple Heart issue in particular. I made reference to the first several of my specific concerns, which I have already raised on the Talk page, and which are already under discussion, but have not been resolved. My experience here indicates that the process of resolution may be lengthy. As indicated, I also have additional concerns for which I will provide the specifics in due course. While these issues are being resolved, a dispute as to the NPOV of the article clearly exists, and I believe that including the NPOV tag is appropriate. I will therefore respectfully ask you to withdraw your objections.

Pardon me if I seem to be pulling rank, but I've been involved with Wikipedia longer than you have, and my experience doesn't support your view about what's the norm. Most people don't regard the tag as casually as you seem to. Beyond that, I really don't understand your approach. You asked if there were any objections. We explained why we thought the addition of the tag had not been justified. Without addressing our objections, you now ask us to withdraw them. It's my belief that the addition of the tag, on the current state of the discussion, would be bad faith, but I'm not likely to start an ArbCom proceeding over it or anything. Instead of spending a lot of time debating whether the tag is justified, I would rather spend the time working on specific proposed edits that are offered to improve the article's neutrality. JamesMLane 00:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, Thanks for your willingness to withdraw your objection to including the NPOV tag. If Wolfman will withdraw his objection also, and if there are no other objections, we can procede. The understanding will be that the NPOV tag will remain in place until there is general agreement that an acceptable NPOV has been achieved. Anonip 02:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did JML withdraw his objection? Perhaps I am not reading closely enough, but it does not seem so. Regardless, I object to the NPOV tag as well. The article seems fair and balanced to me. I see no substantive objections other than Rex's nebulous claim about "tone" and his demand that the SBVT side of the case be presented without the pesky interjection of conflicting facts until the end of the article. Rex cries "bias" about every ten minutes anyway, so I'm more interested in what your specific, substantive objections are beyond pointing back to archived talk. I second JML's call for a list. This I think would be more valuable to the present discussion than your thoughts on the NPOV tag. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 02:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your last statement. You said, "Instead of spending a lot of time debating whether the tag is justified, I would rather spend the time working on specific proposed edits that are offered to improve the article's neutrality." I understood this to mean that you were willing to withdraw your objection. Can you please indicate whether you are indeed willing to do so? Anonip 02:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I, in turn, apologize for not being clear. I'm not withdrawing my objection. My point was that, instead of having the kind of conversation that we're now having, a more useful approach to your charge of omissions would be for you to identify the omissions that lead you to favor the tag. You could do so with reference to the current article, or with reference to the version I put in a sandbox (User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section), or with reference to one of the other versions set forth in the foregoing talk. JamesMLane 03:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, Wolfman and Gamaliel: I believe that Rex and I have provided more that sufficient evidence to establish that there is in fact a bona fide NPOV dispute concerning the SBVT article, and that including the NPOV tag is therefore justified, and that your continued objection to including the NPOV tag is without a reasonable basis. I know that Rex has already included the NPOV tag, and I appreciate the fact that you have thus far refrained from reverting it. However, I believe it is important that we resolve this issue now, with your agreement, so that we can put it behind us and move on to deal with the substantive issues. I therefore ask you to please reconsider my respectful request to withdraw your objections to including the NPOV tag. Anonip 03:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the tag on the basis that no justification has been provided in accordance with wiki policy. Please provide specific examples of POV as requested by multiple editors. Failure to justify an NPOV tag with a single specific example of alleged POV after repeated requests to do so by multiple editors is clearly bad faith.Wolfman 05:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, please cite the specific wiki policy upon which you rely in taking this action. I would remind you that I have clearly indicated that I have extensive NPOV concerns about the article as a whole and about the discussion of the 1st Purple Heart issue in particular, and I have referred you to the first several of my specific concerns, which I have already raised on the Talk page, and which are already under discussion, but have not yet been resolved, and of which you personally are well aware. I have advised you that I have additional concerns as well for which I will provide further specifics in due course. There is clearly no reasonable basis for denying that a NPOV dispute exists regarding this article, which fully justifies including the NPOV tag. Please explain your reasons for not accepting my NPOV concerns in good faith. Anonip 06:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Please explain your reasons for not accepting my NPOV concerns in good faith." Well, for starters, you haven't stated what the precise concern is. Please give at least one concrete example of POV in the article. That way, perhaps we can just rectify it without slapping on a tag, just as we fixed Rex's specific concerns. NPOV is not some toy to be tossed around lightly, its presence impugns the reputation of wikipedia. You have a responsibility to in good faith point out specific instances before slapping on that tag. "I will provide further specifics in due course" doesn't cut it, especially when you haven't provided any specifics yet.

Please, just list below one single specific instance of POV in the article as it now stands. Is that really too much to ask? Wolfman 06:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, here is your answer: The continued meddling and modification by you and JML of bascially each and every edit by me and AnonIP. That and the overall tone - as has been explained several times, but which keeps disapearing due to archiving. I could supply other reasons, but you asked for just one. Even so, I gave you two. PS: the NPOV tag as been restored. Now you must justify why you say the article is already wonderfully NPOV, or else you are not showing good faith yourself. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 08:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, Please review the points I enumerated above concerning the NPOV tag. I believe that the absence of a NPOV tag in an article which many readers will instantly recognize as lacking NPOV will do far more damage to the reputation of wikipedia than including the tag unneccesarily in an article that has a satisfactory NPOV. Next please reread my previous message. You should not require any additional information in order to accept that a NPOV dispute exists and agree to adding the NPOV tag. If it helps you, James mentioned one of my specific issues in his first message on this topic. I am sure you will recognize it. But I can assure you that there is simply no possibility that the extensive NPOV problems with this article can be fixed one by one in a timely manner. The evident difficulty in getting your agreement to something as simple and obviously justified as including the NPOV tag suggests that the resolution of my substantive NPOV concerns will be a very lengthy process. If you continue to act in an unreasonable manner, it will likely be impossible. There is simply no reason for any further delay in adding the NPOV tag. You are mistaken if you believe that having me specify one particular concern, that you then quickly fix, will allow you to prolong the debate about the NPOV tag. We have wasted far too much time on this matter already. If you really believe that some technicality of wiki policy justifies your refusal to agree to adding the NPOV tag, please cite it specifically, now. It is time to move on. And again I respectfully ask you to withdraw your objection so we can do so. Anonip 08:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is another one POV issue: Wolfman "snipped" my Gardner quote and left this edit summary: "snip Gardner down to relevant part, symmetric with other quotes, that's fair as we do not give full quotes or details of other men, plus move exception to mid-sentence - not central". Frankly, I do not agree that he should be unilaterally deciding how long a quote I insert can be. And, I never asked him to use such abbreviated quotes yourself and I don't agree that simply because he inserts short quotes, so must I. Also, it was only after this method of Wolfman's/JML's against my Gardner quote failed that they went to the other (back-up?) method of saying "duplicate" without even allowing me to address that - which in fact, I have done nicely. I am operating in good faith here - look at the fine 1st paragraph I came up with that none now seem to have a problem with. I think we can do this on other parts too, but I need Wolfman and JML to stop "snipping" my edits so abruptly and with so little discussion with me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 08:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Gardner quote, stated in the third ad, belongs in the section entitled "Third Advertisement." It makes more logical sense for it to be there. If people want full text of quotes, they can easily read transcript or watch video. The point is to be concise without taking the quote out of context. This is an encyclopedia article. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 13:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman and others, I believe I have made every reasonable effort to obtain your cooperation in this matter. Your continued refusal to withdraw your unreasonable objections compels me to proceed without your agreement, which I regret. But I am unwilling to allow your obstinacy to obstruct progress any longer. I intend to move forward to begin addressing the many specific concerns I have with the content of this article. I must advise you that if you subsequently remove the NPOV tag without first giving a reasonable justification and seeking general consent, I will regard it an act of bad faith and react accordingly.

I have added a section at the top of the Talk page explaining briefly why the NPOV tag is here, and another section with a very incomplete list of needed improvements. Going forward I hope that it will be possible for us to collaborate productively in improving the quality of this article. I must tell you that your persistent unwillingness to cooperate in such a simple matter as agreeing to include the NPOV tag, when clearly justified, greatly reduces my confidence in your ability to act responsibly in resolving my substantive concerns. But I sincerely hope that my doubts in this regard will prove unfounded. Let's all try to cooperate more effectively as we move on. I do believe that acting as a team we can produce an article with a NPOV acceptable to all. Anonip 12:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recent additions

There are 2 recent additions to the page that I question.

1. Paragraph on Regnery. Most of this detail should go in a wikilink to Regnery. How is Regnery's appalling record of publishing white supremacist screeds relevant?
2. Schachte in ties to Republicans. Schachte is not a member of SBVT. It is true he is an important witness. If his ties to Republicans are deemed of potential interest to the reader, they should be mentioned near his testimony. Otherwise, they should go in the wikilink. Personally, I don't find them terribly relevant. A couple thousand buck donation is just chump-change to a guy like Schachte. I think all it shows is that he generally supports Bush, and to me that's not enough to really impeach his credibility. Others may differ though. Wolfman 23:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I differ on the contributions. Schachte's contributions to Bush should be reported, preferably in the section presenting his statements, not in a separate section about SBVT ties to the campaign or to the Republican Party. It doesn't, by itself, impeach his credibility, but it shows one possible motivation. That one of his clients got a contract from the Bush Administration is too remote, though; I would delete that, and also the stuff about Regnery.

While we're cleaning up recent additions, the Gardner quote about Cambodia doesn't deserve to be presented twice, and the statement that he served longer under Kerry than anyone else is, AFAIK, solely his claim. Given that (not surprisingly) people have different recollections of the events of 35 years ago, we shouldn't repeat his unattributed claim as fact unless it's substantiated. The last graf of the "Membership" section should read:

Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner is an SBVT member. All other living members of Kerry's crew support his presidential bid, and some frequently campaign with him. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "pure fabrication" (Jim Rassman), "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky). [11] [12] [13] [14] On the SBVT side, Gardner, who says he served on Kerry's boat longer than any of the others, appeared in one SBVT advertisement in support of the group's charge concerning Cambodia (see below).

So, is this an acceptable package of NPOV improvements -- no Regnery, no federal contract, Gardner quoted only once? JamesMLane 00:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the details of Regnery don't belong here, but they should at least be mentioned and wikilinked. Everything else seems a reasonable compromise. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 01:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If "conservative" is in the firm's self-description, then I agree with you about including that much here. Because you already handled the Regnery part, I've done the rest, deleting the duplicate Gardner quote and the information about the $40 million federal grant to one of Schachte's clients. In addition, it wasn't accurate to say, "The men who served on Kerry's boat, excepting Gardner, have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations...." because it implied that all except Gardner have disputed those accusations; at least one of them is dead. (I don't think the phrase "other living members" from the previous sentence can be assumed to carry over.) I thought it was simpler just to say "Kerry crewmembers", which I think avoids any implication of all Kerry crewmembers.

Neutrality Problems

Here is a partial list of improvements I believe necessary to achieve acceptable NPOV.

• allegations and evidence

• allegations re 1st purple heart

• medal and reassignment intro
• allegation summary
• Schachte acccount

• explanation of skimmer ops
• schacte invention of skimmer ops
• always two officers on board
• Hibbard debriefing
• objection to PH request

• Kerry acccount
• general veracity - Kerry lied about circumstances
• medal qualifications - Kerry not qualified for medal

• enemy action

• self-inflicted - plus Schacthe "got hit"? W.

• heat of battle? - plus Schacthe "firefight"? W.

• medical treatment

• Letson statement - plus "you'll just have to take my word for it"? W.
• Hibbard statement - plus repeated misidentifaction of wound location? W.

• medal aquisition - Kerry lied to obtain medal

• allegations re 3rd PH

• medal qualifications - Kerry not qualified for medal

• enemy action
• medical treatment - not required

• allegations re Thrice Wounded Reassignment

• medal qualifications - Kerry not qualifiy for medals

• allegations re Sampan incident
• allegations re war crimes claims — is this not covered in 2nd ad? or you want more? W.
• allegations re discarding medals -Already mentioned in article under 4th advertisement

This is of course only a start. There are other problems which must also be addressed, and they will be added in due course. Please feel free to add to the list, but do not delete any items. We will strike items out as we reach agreement that they have been addressed. All editors are encouraged to begin addressing any of these items with edits, insofar as they are willing and able to do so. Anonip 12:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

To be fair to everyone, you shouldn't just say "This is of course only a start. There are other problems which must also be addressed." Please state them up front. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 12:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One other thing, if you fail to list them up front, I will also rv the NPOV tag. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 13:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, Your position is competely untenable. The identification of even a single serious NPOV issue justifies including the NPOV tag. There is no reasonable basis for insisting on a complete list (which is impractical in this case). The existence of a bona fide NPOV dispute with respect to this article has already been established. Please refer to the NPOV Issue section above. Continued debate of the NPOV tag is counterproductive. I must advise you that if you remove the NPOV tag without first giving a reasonable justification and seeking general consent, it will be regarded as an act of bad faith. Anonip 13:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC).

Your stated methodology of using the NPOV will create a perpetual NPOV tag. It's quite clear that the you will not accept the article until it is written to your specifications. That is not in good faith. You can't keep trying a man in court until you get a charge that finally sticks. If the above issues about the Purple Heart are resolved, and then you slap another NPOV tag on the article, I will remove it. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 13:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we have at least something to work with, though I do generally agree with the Nysus comment above. But, since you have at least stated a specific basis, I withdraw my objection. Typically, good form behavior would be to spend some time in discussion over the specific complaints to see if resolution is possible before moving to the tag.

This list is quite interesting.

• In particular, needs allegation summary. As you well know, your exact wording was conditionally agreed to (at least by me). This is the primary place you have declined to provide the supporting documentation. Why? Because you have "no obligation to educate" me. That's just not good faith.

• Two officers — I don't think there was serious resistance, I at least agreed.

• As to the points from Hibbard debriefing on down, I don't recall seeing you suggest wording before. Could you elaborate? You should do so before NPOV so that we can try to accomodate them.

That leaves two objections as the reasonable specific basis for NPOV (at this point): needs explanation of skimmer ops & needs schacte invention of skimmer ops. I can't see how either of those is remotely relevant to the article. But I'm happy to listen to your explanation. At any rate, are these 2 remaining really so important as to slap on a pre-emptive NPOV tag? Wolfman 14:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, Thanks for withdrawing your objection. As you know, we have already spent quite a bit of time discussing some of these concerns without resolving them. And as I've tried to make clear, this list is not complete. There is no way we will be able to deal with all the issues as quickly as you seem to want. The process will be much less expeditious if we continue to be distracted by unproductive debate over the NPOV tag. My use of the NPOV tag is not pre-emptive. It accurately reflects the existence of a NPOV dispute with respect to the current text of the article. Readers need to be aware that the NPOV of the article, as it currently reads, has been questioned. Until the necessary edits have been made to resolve the NPOV concerns, the inclusion of the NPOV tag is appropriate. As I have explained, when a reader sees an article which clearly lacks NPOV with no indication that Wikipedia is aware that there is a problem, the damage to Wikipedia's reputation is significant. Expectations that concerns will eventually be resolved, expressions of general willingness to accept certain changes, even tentative agreement on wording, will not eliminate the need for the NPOV tag until the edits are actually made. Continuing debate on the tag issue is counterproductive. It is the main reason there has been such little progress on adding needed items on the list, proposing edit text for the items on the list, and reaching general agreement. I would respectfully suggest that you accept the fact that it's going to take some time, days at least, to work through these issues. And repeatedly raising the tag issue is just going to slow things down. That's why I've been so insistent on resolving the tag issue at the start. May we please move on now? Anonip 15:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All any of asked in regards to this was a real explanation. Though I don't agree with your reasons, at least you have provided a couple now. When they are resolved, you can keep the tag upon provision of more specific reasons. I'm personally not too hung up on the NPOV tag itself. What I don't like is refusal to back up claims, and I think that has been the source of some of our difficulties. As you can see, I am not intransigent when a good faith effort to do so is made. So yes, let's move on. Wolfman 15:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Wolfman. I was a little bothered by your phrase "pre-emptive NPOV tag". I hope I haven't created the impression that I'm using it as an attack on either the article or the other editors. If so, I'm sorry about that. I don't intend it that way at all. No need for you to repond on this point, I just wanted to clear the air.

Unfortunately there will be other demands on my time for the next several days, so no one should expect an immediate response from me. I will try very hard to catch up on things here at least once a day. Anonip 16:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your current gentle words aside, you have in the past created just such an impression. But I appreciate your clarification. And your apology. Wolfman 19:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gardner Quote

Rex has requested a quote from Gardner in the 'crew' section of membership. I find this not unreasonable, so long as it is consistent in style and detail with the other quotes. At one point, I had edited it to this version In contrast, Gardner called one claim of Kerry's "categorically a lie". It is true that this quote is mentioned later. However, this section of membership is just briefly mentioning attitudes about SBVT claims, not really getting into context for the quote. The place for detail is, of course, in the later relevant sectins. We could also insert the full quotes from the other crewman later if they are helpful.

The line has now gone through various incarnations, and is (at the moment) entirely gone. I'd like to again suggest my wording above as a reasonable compromise. Thoughts? Wolfman 15:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've got nothing against using a short quote from Gardner. I just object to taking the quote from the 3rd advertisement and then placing it there. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 15:37, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Is the "categorically a lie" quote from the 3rd ad? Or are you referring to some previous version of the line? In short, do you object to this: In contrast, Gardner called one claim of Kerry's "categorically a lie"? Wolfman 15:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's been so many changes and reverts, it has been hard to follow. All I know is that at one point, Rex took the Garnder quote form the 3rd ad about never being in Cambodia, lengthened it substantially and placed it up in the "Membership" section. Clearly, the quote belongs in the paragraph about the ad. To answer your question, the "categorically a lie" is not from the ad and no I don't object. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 15:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, for the moment I'm going to stick it back in since it seems like a fairly minor issue. I don't object to a revert if anyone disagrees. Wolfman 16:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did not "take" that quote from this article and "move" it. The quote I am using (and the preamble about length of time with Kerry) are both from the web and are both factual. I resolved the "Cambodia" section duplication by editing that. Please stop tag-team pressuing me. I have addressed and satisfied the "duplication" issue. Now it is incumbent upon you to justify why you feel entitled to "snip" the length of my quote - I don't agree to that. Also, honest dialog means wait for the answer of the person you want to be "snipping" not just each other, ok? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 16:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes quotations need to be snipped, but I don't remember having any objection along those lines to the quotation from Gardner. It shouldn't be duplicated but should appear in only one place. Rex made multiple reverts in which he tried to get the quotation in twice. If he's now finally willing to agree to the basic point that it should go in only once (which most Wikipedians, even the most ardently anti-Kerry, would have seen from the beginning), then the next question is which place is the one place. The quotation relates to the Cambodia issue, so that's the obvious place for it. There should be a reference in the "Membership" section to Gardner's stance, and in fact my version notes that he appeared in an SBVT ad. Rex's version is further defective in that, as I pointed out above, the statement that Gardner was the longest-serving member is, at this point, only his claim. It should not be stated as a fact unless it's verified. Until then, I have no objection to including it, but it has to be reported as Gardner's claim. I mentioned this above, and Rex has never bothered to respond, while, as is his wont, using edit summaries to give lectures about dialog to anyone who disagrees with him. (As a minor point, I find the phrase "contrasting this" to be a very awkward way of introducing the reference to Gardner. The article is about SBVT, so I think it's most informative to say "On the SBVT side...." to make clear that we're now referring to a member. Not everyone on the anti-Kerry side is a member, after all, but Gardner is.) I have to sign off very soon, but later today, unless someone can explain a good reason for putting the Cambodia quote someplace other than the Cambodia section, I'll straighten it out. JamesMLane 17:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If JML doesn't believe the length of service assertion by Gardner, he is free to find a link which rebuts or disproves it. As it stands, Gardner's assertions are equally valid as anyone else's. If you strike his assertion without proof, I will take that as license to strike each and every assertion, referrence to, or link to any assertion that is not supported along the same lines of your reasoning - unless of course I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that ONLY the Gardner assertion's self-validating nature is suspect and not anyone else's? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 19:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The current Gardner sentence is: Contrasting this, Gardner, who served on Kerry's boat longer than any of the others, recently said "John Kerry claims that he spent Christmas in 1968 in Cambodia and that is categorically a lie. Not in December, not in January. We were never in Cambodia on a secret mission, ever." This is, in my view, simply absurd to put in the Membership section. There is a section on Cambodia. That's where his full position on Cambodia should go. This is Membership, all we should be trying to do here is indicate general positions. The other guys have very short quotes, Rex asked for symmetry, so a similar short quote by Gardner was included. We do not go on at length here about who served where for what amount of time. As far as I know, we don't even that information documented. And I don't see the relevance of that anyway. Rex, what exactly do you find unfair or POV about my short quote, symmetric to the others in style, scope, and length?Wolfman 17:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolf is mistaken - I never used the word "symmetry". Please do not put owrds in my mouth. And by that standard, Gardner's qoute must stand - he served with Kerry longer - so the details he offered are more germane. Also, one of those Kerry supporters was only with Kerry for one week. I am going to look up that name and include the limited time frame of his service - if I am forced to. Once again, ASK me why I think my edits count - don't TELL me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 19:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good lord man, did I put it in quotes? I simply assumed you were asking for evenhanded treatment. I suppose I should have said Rex has requested that those on the SBVT be treated as more credible and important than anyone else. Would you have objected to that phrasing too? Wolfman 19:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Compromise Offer

My thinking boils down to the gross POV nature of the preceding quotes which I am trying to follow with the Gardner quote. Placing those so high up in the articles sets a POv tone. If those quotes were lower on the page or better yet, if their views were mentioned but not quoted, I would no longer think than Gardner's quote must be there. I am prepared to yield some on this. Are you? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 19:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The crew quotes aren't POV, they're factual. And Gardner is given exactly as much importance under my scheme as everyone else. Yes, they are harsh quotes -- all of them including Gardner's. But this is a harsh dispute; that's how these guys feel. It's not our job to pretend it's not harsh, but to accurately present the situation. I agreed with you that Gardner should be given the same say as others. What I don't agree is that he should be given more emphasis than others. How can you justify that as an evenhanded approach?

I in all sincerity cannot understand the objection. I get that it looks kind of bad for SBVT, but that's just reality. There are lots of things in this article that I wish weren't there. But that's just how it is, both sides have some evidence or points in their favor.

One possibility that occured to me is moving those lines to the Truthfulness section. I had almost done that last week. The reason I didn't is because we would then need to establish in the various 'Allegations' sections how the crew feels about the charges. And that would require longer quotes of this sort in several places. Things like "Odell is full of crap" (Sandusky). I thought it best just to get on record early what the general crew attitude has been, to spare us having to detail it in multiple places (which would probably add more, not less emphasis). Wolfman 19:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, elsewhere here you say: "But there's no need to have a dispute over the paraphrased wording at this point, when the exact wording is available." I agree, that's why, unless all those quotes move to a less prominent place in the article, I want you to stop "snipping" Gardners quote. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 00:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The difference is that AnonIP selectively paraphrased the regs in such a way as to build support for later spin in the discussion. That's not the case in the Camobidia quote. That gets a full and fair discussion later, and no argument is built upon it. That section of 'Membership' is simply intended to stake out broad positions, not to debate the details. You will note that the quotes of each of the other crewman are similarly snipped. But, if you would prefer, I would be happy to insert full quotes of those crewman in all their glorious Kerry-worshipping detail, it's actually kind of embarassing how much they fawn over him. Wolfman 02:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Purple Heart Criteria

I thought we had a nice, accurate, no-spin summary of the regs. AnonIP has extended this by providing an enumerated list of regs. However, the regs were paraphrased in such a way that I could spot the spin coming a mile away. So, I have replaced the paraphrased regs item by item with verbatim quotes. That can't be spun either way. While that's incredibly unwieldy, and out of place given the wikilink, it seemed like the best thing to do at this juncture. Later, if desired, we can work on condensing these down to shorter phrases in a neutral way. Or, we can revert to the old simple synopsis with a link to the more detailed article. But there's no need to have a dispute over the paraphrased wording at this point, when the exact wording is available. Wolfman 00:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I honestly don't know what you're objecting to here, but I'm happy to discuss it. I believe my summary was concise but accurate, and included items based on pertinence. The things I left out are not being disputed. I quoted exact language where it seemed appropriate. I included a link to the details. Where is the spin? I agree that your verbatim quote is unwieldy. It also has a dangling reference ("conditions listed above"). How is this an improvement? Anonip 00:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What we had was a concise & accurate synopsis. What you put in was an enumerated list with slightly condensed phrasing. I felt that some of the phrasing you condensed out was important. However, the full quotes are only slightly longer, so why not just include them? I have included exactly the same items you did. Which words of the regulations do you find superfluous?

Bottom line: let's move on to substantive issues. If desired, we can work on a neutral paraphrase later or return to a synopsis (my preference). Wolfman 01:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What you "had" left out what I feel are pertinent points. Also, I believe the enumeration is helpful for clarity. Specifically what phrasing did I leave out that you thought was important? As an example of non-pertinence:

Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows: ... Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action. Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.

First example pertinent here, enemy shrapnel merits medal (R&Z account). Second example pertinent to Bronze Star Purple Heart, he was wounded my the concussion of the mine. Might as well not re-enumerate the list for that. -W

Again, this is a factual issue, not an issue re the qualifications.

The SBVT does not dispute that if Kerry's injury had been cause in this way, it would have qualified for a PH. Their claim that it was not caused in this way is a factual issue about the event, not an issue about the PH qualifications. We can move on and discuss later if you'll restore my edit. Otherwise, you need to justify your change. Anonip 01:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You just changed another one of my edits, claiming to make it more accurate. Please justify. Anonip 01:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clarified the lack of enemy contact. Assault on an empty beach. Wolfman 01:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What you added is unnecessary detail and argumentative. A Discussion of Schachte's account follows. I don't object to your including this argument, but I do object to inserting it in the summary of the SBVT claim. Anonip 01:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I found it illuminating detail. Wolfman 01:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, I don't mind including your argument. I do mind the obfuscation. SBVT is entitled to have their case fairly stated. I gotta tell you, if you keep this up, the NPOV tag will never come out. Anonip 01:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't imagine that it ever will anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by obfuscation anyway. It's very helpful to the reader to specify that Letson treated the wound that required no treatment, else they might assume that the shrapnel "managed to keep embedded in his arm" actually required treatment. Particularly so, since the treated wound which required no treatment was actually treated by someone else. See how confusing all that can be to the reader without any clarification. Wolfman 02:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, Your latest counter-edits are so blatantly lacking NPOV that I have to believe you're joking. Please tell me that's the case. Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that you either do not understand or do not accept the Wikipedia NPOV concepts and policies. That would seriously undermine my confidence in your ability to participate constructively in editing this article. Anonip 02:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand. I thought my edits were helpful in illustrating the SBVT case. How is explicitly stating the SBVT case POV? What's the complaint?

I don't know, do you think it might be helpful if we sandboxed this thing and came to some sort of consensus before making radical changes? You seem not to think my edits are fair. So, I'd be willing to sandbox and work it out in good faith together with you and the others. Just a thought. I'll go ahead and undo the last few changes, including my clarifying edits, so we can collaboratively work this out. Wolfman 02:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I mean no disrespect, but if you really don't understand, I think you need to review the [NPOV concepts] and related resources. Whatever the explanation for your actions, I believe they are seriously detrimental to the editing process on this article. I strongly urge you to reconsider, and revert your latest counter-edits. Please do so now. Anonip 02:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing boss. I just reverted back to before all the drastic changes. How about we all go to the sandbox, so that no one feels like anyone else is making unfair POV edits. Sure seems to work better that way, when we all pitch in and collaborate towards neutral and mutually acceptable major changes. Say, I've got an idea. James set up a sandbox already; we could just use that. Wolfman 02:38, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, You have provided no reasonable justification for reverting my edits. I believe you are obligated to do so. I respectfully request that you either provide an explanation, or restore my edits. Please do so, now. Anonip 02:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand. You made edits, I made edits. You weren't happy with the final product. So, you asked me to put things back the way they were. I did that, put the whole thing back. Then I suggested we go to a sandbox to resolve our differences. Am I missing something here? Or did you just think that you were the only one here allowed to make edits? Wolfman 03:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I must repreat my previous request. Either provide a reasonable justification for reverting my edits, or restore them. Do so promptly. Anonip 03:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can restore all the edits, both yours and mine. I only undid them because that's what I thought you wanted. Should I restore it all? Please advise. Wolfman 03:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't yet had the time to get into the details of the differences you two are discussing. (I'm spending huge amounts of time just dealing with basic points that would be obvious to anyone but Rex -- not for the first time.) I offer two comments that are more general:

1. One value of a sandbox is in isolating a specific contested passage, so that a draft can be edited and discussed separate from whatever controversies are ongoing concerning the rest of the article. To that end, I called the sandbox I set up "User:JamesMLane/Schachte section". I don't think it includes either version of the passages being discussed in this section of the talk (e.g. Letson). You're welcome to use it if it will do you any good, but I suspect you'd be better off setting up a separate sandbox on one of your user pages. Post a link here, of course, so that we can all participate.
2. Anonip, you give me the impression of being awfully quick to expound on Wikipedia policy considering your limited experience here. An example that I mentioned above is your mini-essay on the NPOV tag in general. One of your conclusions was: "For articles on controversial contemporary subjects, ... including the NPOV tag for extended periods can be expected be the norm." My guess is that most Wikipedians would not accept that interpretation. You've now turned your attention to the NPOV policy, citing a dead link. (Correct link is: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.) Your latest comments to Wolfman reinforce my impression that your understanding of how Wikipedia works isn't quite so accurate as you perhaps think. If you believe that most of the people editing this article are hopelessly biased and wouldn't recognize NPOV if they saw it, you might try establishing contact with other users, ones not active on any of the John Kerry articles. You might gain valuable perspective from discussing some of these issues with people not directly involved in the fray. JamesMLane 03:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, Thanks for pointing out the correct link to the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Can you please tell me whether you believe Wolfman's recent counter-edits are acceptable NPOV, in your opinion? Anonip 03:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I have asked you to either provide a reasonable justification for reverting my edits, or restore them. If you believe you can defend your counter-edits as NPOV, you are of course free to do so. Anonip 03:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to talk out these edits. But, you know, one of the problems I had was not just with your specific words (though some of the phrasing was certainly problematic). It was with the change in the overall structure and layout of the section in a way that seemed to me promoting POV. Why don't we go work this out in a sandbox. I've heard that's usually the way major changes to a contentious article are worked out. How about this one: /PH_Sandbox Wolfman 03:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I have repeatedly asked you to provide your justification for reverting my edits. You have refused to do so. I intend to reinsert them. If you revert them again without first providing a reasonable justification, I must regard it as an act of bad faith and react accordingly. Anonip 04:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me you were pretty dramatically revising the structure of this section, rather than just inserting a clarifying or supplementary paragraph. That seems like a mighty big change to be making in such a disputed article without any advisory or discussion. What's your plan? How about taking it to the /PH_Sandbox for further discussion?Wolfman 04:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, To clarify, here are the recent counter-edits by Wolfman to which I referred above:

The SBVT claims Kerry was not entitled to the award. This claim is based on the account of Adm. Schachte discussed below. SBVT contends that his injury does not satisfy the regulations because he was not wounded by a projectile "released with the full intent of inflicting damage" on the enemy. SBVT maintains there was no enemy contact, rather Schacte ordered Kerry to fire at an empty beach. SBVT contends that Kerry was wounded by shrapnel from this assault on an empty beach. SBVT points out that no after-action report was filed , as none is required for an assault on an empty beach . This SBVT claim is disputed by accounts from Kerry and two enlisted men.

The SBVT further claims Kerry was not entitled to the award because his injury did not require treatment by a medical officer, as it was so minor. They allege that he "managed to keep a piece of shapnel in his arm" overnight in order to con the Navy into granting him a Purple Heart. This is based on the account of Dr. Lewis Letson who claims to have treated the wound which really required no treatment .When asked for documentation of the claim of treating the wound which need no treatment, Dr Letson stated "you'll just have to take my word for it". No personnel casualty report is known to exist.

Again, would you please tell me whether you believe these are acceptable NPOV, in your opinion? Anonip 04:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's rhetoric to make a point. You know that perfectly well, and so does everybody else. The point is you are making a major restructure to the section. I would appreciate you laying out your plan for discussion. Where are you going? What's the outline? Let's see a draft. That would be good faith. Wolfman 04:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, The obvious lack of NPOV in your recent counter-edits has convinced me that you either do not understand, or do not accept, the Wikipedia NPOV policy. This being the case, I feel that there is no basis for agreement between us on these matters, and that further discussion would be fruitless, and a waste of my time.

My recent edits were an attempt to begin to provide a fair statement of the argument and evidence for and against the SBVT allegations, which is an express purpose of this section. The current lack of same is an obvious, serious problem with the existing content. Your explanation for reverting these edits, that they require your pre-approval because they would be "a major restructure to the section", is simply unreasonable. If you cannot provide a specific objection to my edits, I intend to reinsert them. Anonip 04:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know anonip, you rolled in here with the attitude that you have some sort of ownership of this article. that you were going to do it your way and that your draft was the baseline. further, you started slinging bias accusations before any dialogue got underway. when people asked for some simple documentation, you refused and then started slinging insults. not just to me, to everyone. then you left in a huff, coming back to say goodbye three times. maybe we are all drinking the kool-aid and working for the kerry campaign as you said on rex's page. but you have not impressed me with your initial attitude. you have not impressed me with your willingness to compromise and work with others. and your blandishments above do not impress me. the point of my edits above is that you have to learn to work with others. you can put in whatever edits you want. but if i don't agree, i can hit that edit button just as quick as you. you want a major restructure? how about trying to persuade people. i'll tell you what. i'll stay out of it. you convince a majority of the other editors of your proposed restructure. that will be good enough for me. i won't say a peep about it. otherwise, i'm going to have a real itchy edit finger. Wolfman 05:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I don't think my recent edits constitute a "major restructure", just a first step toward addressing what I see as glaring deficiencies in the existing content. You are perfectly entitled to revert or modify any edit I make, provided only that you offer a reasonable justification for doing so. By that I mean, if you can explain why the version of the article after your revert or counter-edit is an improvement over the article with my edit intact, then by all means do it. I may actually agree with you. I will certainly be happy to discuss it with you and the other editors. But if you revert or counter-edit and cannot explain how your action improves the article, you are just obstructing progress. Hit the edit button as quickly and frequently as you want. But be prepared to justify your action. That's all I ask. I don't think it's appropriate to use reverts and counter-edits to try to teach another editor how to "work with others". And to deliberately introduce blatantly NPOV content into a Wikipedia article in order to teach another editor a lesson is clearly irresponsible. It is also inappropriate to threaten edit wars, as you constantly do. I'm not going to take the bait. But I do intend to reinsert my recent edits, unless you'll give me a reason not to. If you have a specific objection, please state it. Otherwise please let me get on with improving the article. Okay? Anonip 06:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I guess we understand each other then. I will proceed my edits as well, including edits of your material that I believe to be appropriate — and that includes the possibility of reverting to superior versions. And I will discuss them and justify them with the class to the same extent you do for yours. You probably will (wrongly) see what I do as POV. But, you already slapped on an NPOV tag and basically stated it will be on there infinitely. So, I guess the reader is warned.

I'm surprised, and a little relieved, you didn't accept my hasty offer to stop editing this section entirely if you could reach some consensus with others. Wolfman 14:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Wolfman. And, look. I don't doubt you're well-intentioned. Just a little quick on the edit finger, perhaps. But I know that's only my perception, which is probably no closer (or further) from the truth than your perception of me. I'm sorry that you feel I've displayed a bad attitude. I'll try to be more sensitive to that. Looking back over the dialog I can see how you may have taken some things the wrong way. I'll accept my share of the responsibility for that. And also I'm sure I've taken some things the wrong way too. I've meant no disrespect. I may have expressed my frustration with our lack of progress too forcefully, for which I apologize. At least it has allowed us to clear the air somewhat. But in retrospect I realize it might have been better to try to resolve the problem first on your Talk page. I'll try to do it that way in future.

You've pointed out what I see as another benefit of the NPOV tag, by the way. It makes editors feel less compelled to immediately respond to edits they think are not sufficiently NPOV. They can feel comfortable taking some time to think carefully about their objections, and perhaps even take the time to discuss them with the other contributor, giving them a chance to withdraw or modify their edit voluntarily to meet the objections. It's hard for someone not to feel an immediate revert of their edit is an unreasonable response, because of the evident lack of time for thoughtful consideration. A sandbox accomplishes the same thing, allowing more deliberate consideration of changes, but it also makes it difficult to get needed improvements in quickly, compared to incremental editing. Obviously if every edit is felt to demand a counter-edit, progress will be slow in any case. Perhaps that's unavoidable with a controversial subject. Something that might help is for editors to agree to grant other editors some deference in making the case for their POV. If you disagree with a point another editor made, try editing in your counterpoint (without disrupting the coherence of the other viewpoint) instead of counter-editing what they've written. Again, that's just something to consider.

So, we understand each other then. (At least a little better than we did before.) Full speed ahead. Anonip 15:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alright then. I think you'll see that I am not unreasonable when I believe the other party is also being reasonable. That's both the frustration and the beauty of wikipedia. You can't steamroll anyone else, you have to persuade them.

You feel sensitive about my editing your work. Keep in mind that a large fraction of this article, at least half, is originally my work. So, whatever feelings you have about seeing your work edited in a way you disagree with, I've got the same.

Now, you clearly intend to add quite a bit of new material to the article. Could you at least provide a brief outline of the intended changes. If you can't submit a proposed draft, at least sketch the general direction. A sentence or two for each paragraph. That seems to me a pretty reasonable request, and would go some distance towards restoring my belief in your reasonableness. Wolfman 16:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I do not think I feel sensitive about you (or anyone else) editing my work. In fact, once I hit "Save" it's no longer my work, it's our work, as far as I'm concerned. What I disagree with is reverts or counter-edits when a reasonable explanation is not given as to how they improve the article. Even then, if I think it's a harmless change, I usually won't object, because I consider that a waste of time. It's only if there's a change that I consider harmful, and no reasonable justification is provided, that I'll object. I appreciate the fact that you've put a lot of effort into this article, and I understand that you're sensitive about someone editing your work. But you'll note that virtually all of the edits I've attempted so far (which you've reverted) have been attempts to add additional material, not mess with your stuff. Time to move on. Anonip 19:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Application of published criteria

I haven't gotten into this aspect of the article as much as some people have, so maybe someone can enlighten me about how the Purple Heart criteria would be applied in specific cases. I'd be grateful to be pointed to an official Navy statement, or to SBVT's contentions, or to what some general-interest veterans' group has said, or anything illuminating. Suppose an officer named Murphy fires a grenade launcher on a dark night and is injured by the ricochet from his own shot. Does he get a PH under these circumstances:

1. Murphy fired at a beach where there actually were enemy soldiers, but none of them fired back at any time.
2. Murphy fired at a beach where he thought there were enemy soldiers, but actually there weren't.
3. Murphy fired at a beach where his commanding officer thought there were enemy soldiers, but actually there weren't.
   1. Murphy also thought there were enemies there.
   2. Murphy didn't agree with the CO but followed orders.
4. Murphy fired at a beach where his commanding officer thought there were enemy soldiers. Indeed, there were enemy soldiers, but none of them fired back at any time.
5. Murphy was himself the CO. He thought there probably weren't any enemy soldiers on the beach but he wasn't sure. He figured that ammo is cheap, it's better to be safe than sorry, and his duty to protect his crew required him to fire just in case.

I could certainly see a strong argument for saying that each of these injuries deserves a Purple Heart, because in each case the shot "was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment." I'd like to know more about how the regs are interpreted or how SBVT and its critics argue that the regs should be interpreted.

In this context, I'll mention that AnonIp's Wolfman's language that Schachte "ordered Kerry to fire at an empty beach" is unacceptably ambiguous. This could mean that Schachte knows the beach is empty, also knows that the Viet Cong are watching from an inland hilltop that the Americans' weapons can't reach, and he wants to intimidate them with a show of firepower so that they'll stay off the beach while the skimmer is there. To that end, he orders Kerry to fire at an empty beach. That doesn't sound like an attempt to damage or destroy troops or equipment. It also, of course, doesn't sound in the slightest like what even Schachte claims. Schachte's claim seems to be closest to my #3 and #4, with Schachte as the CO and the real-life "Murphy" being Kerry, and Schachte never committing himself as between the two alternatives (the beach was empty versus there were Viet Cong there but they were hunkered down and not firing). If so, a key point is whether an injury of the type #3 or #4 merits a Purple Heart. I'd think the burden is on SBVT to show that it doesn't. JamesMLane 16:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel.

This seems to me to build in some flexibility and discretion. The pertinent question, then, would seem to be precedent. You also omitted a pertinent example for which there is known precedent for the award:

• Murphy fires at known enemy soldiers who are firing back, but is actually wounded by his own mishandling of the grenade he launched at the enemy. (Bob Dole, 1st purple heart). Wolfman 17:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, the PH award criteria state:

When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury.

If no enemy were actually present, I think it's hard to argue, in any reasonable way, that the enemy caused the injury. I doubt that this question has ever been officially addressed, however. Anonip 18:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a further point, the section Wolfman cited (in part) indicates there's a requirement that the injury be caused "by direct result of hostile action", but states that this need not be interpreted strictly. It goes on to give the following example:

In case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made.

Here hostile action is not the immediate cause of the injury, but is still the ultimate cause. This example appears intended to contrast with the case where a paratrooper merely sustains a jump injury during an attack on enemy forces, which would not qualify for an award. Also, given the insignificance of the wound, it seems hard to argue that the rule intending not to preclude making the award to "deserving personnel" would apply. The idea that this phrase is intended to mean anyone who simply appears to have met the award criteria conflicts with the immediately following statement that "Commanders must also take into consideration, the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria.", which Wolfman left out of his quote. Again, if the enemy is not actually present, I think it's hard to argue the injury was the "direct result" of hostile action by any reasonable interpretation. Anonip 19:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, thanks for the clarification about the phrase. Anonip, your comment raises two points. First, even with no enemy present on that beach at that moment, part of the reason that Schachte (in his account) decides to open fire is that the enemy is known to operate in this area. But for that factor, Kerry wouldn't have been injured. (Incidentally, as far as I've seen, Schachte doesn't assert that no enemy was present. He claims only that there was no fire. As to enemy presence, his statement is that he saw movement, that he shot off a flare, that what he saw by the light of the flare induced him to open fire, and that anyone moving on shore at that time and place was an enemy. I don't consider this scenario at all impossible: A few Viet Cong were moving along the shore, unaware of the skimmer (which, again according to Schachte, would normally be drifting silently with its engine cut). Suddenly a flare explodes near them, immediately followed by a hail of bullets from Schachte's machine gun and Kerry's M-16. They don't know how many U.S. boats there are. They do know that they're outgunned and exposed. What do they do? They drop to the ground and take cover. In other words, their failure to return fire doesn't mean they weren't there.) Second, your invoke your belief as to the "insignificance" of the wound. My understanding from reading the regs is that paragraph 2 defines what a wound is. If it's a wound, then you go on to determining whether it qualifies. I see no justification in the regs for your implication that the magnitude of the wound is a factor to be considered in the exercise of the commander's discretion.

More important is that all of this still seems to me be pretty hazy. John Kerry can't have been the only guy in Vietnam who was wounded while firing at enemy soldiers who might or might not have been there. With the SBVT guys having so many ties to the military, you'd think they'd be able to cite a regulation or prior ruling if the established rules on either of these questions supported their attack on Kerry. JamesMLane 20:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, The criteria says there's a requirement that the injury be caused "by direct result of hostile action". I don't think "taking cover" is the kind of hostile action they have in mind. The criteria also says the "key" issue is "the degree" to which the enemy "caused" the injury. I think they mean by this that the degree should be substantial. Just showing some exceedingly remote connection to the enemy isn't enough. The criteria state that "participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award". This seems to make it clear that the degree of causation you're indicating doesn't qualify. Moreover, Kerry's commander, taking into consideration "the circumstances surrounding" the injury, as the criteria direct, determined that it did not qualify for an award. It can hardly be seriously argued that this was an abuse of discretion. Just how Kerry eventually managed to get this Purple Heart remains uncertain, but it pretty clearly did not comply with the directives of the criteria. Regarding the magnitude of the wound, the criteria state that it must have "required treatment by a medical officer". (Keep in mind that "received" is not the same as "required".) Hibbard and Letson did not believe Kerry's injury met this criteria. This would disqualify it for the award, even if it had been determined to be the direct result of hostile action. Anonip 21:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

AnonIp, Here is Dole's description of his 1st purple heart (from his book): “As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire and I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn‘t a very good pitch. (Remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them.) In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg, the sort of injury the Army patched up with mercurochrome and a Purple Heart.” Now, how did the enemy "cause" this wound? And why is this wound severe enough for a Purple Heart? By the way, I mean no disrespect for Dole, whatsoever. He is a great man, and I honor his sacrifices for this country, as I do Kerry's. It just seems a little odd to me that people spend so much time trying to impugn the honor of this particular Vietnam veteran for political purposes. Is anyone complaining about Dole's award? Of course not. That would be scurrilous and dishonorable and absolutely shameful and the lowest sort of gutter slime, but so it goes. Wolfman 21:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, Whether Bob Dole, or any others, or many others, may have been awarded Purple Hearts for which they did not qualify under the award criteria has absolutely no relevance whatsoever as to the factual question of whether John Kerry did in fact qualify for his first Purple Heart. Beyond that, it is not unlikely that Dole was playing down the significance of this injury in his account. Real heroes generally don't brag about their heroism. And Dole knows what real wounds are. Moreover, the fact that Dole was responding directly to actual hostile action when he was injured is clear, so a comparison to the Kerry case in this regard is simply not apt. And attempting to equate John Kerry's sacrifice to that of Bob Dole is inconceivable to me. I believe that Kerry's service in Vietnam was generally honorable, and admirable, but comparable to that of most other Vietnam veterans, including the members of SBVT. But I also believe that John Kerry has repeatedly lied about his Vietnam experiences to advance his political career, while the SBVT are simply telling the truth. Anonip 21:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anonip, I have several responses. In fairness to you, I left your original comment untouched above. However, I have repeated it below, with my responses interleaved. -Wolfman

Wolfman, Whether Bob Dole, or any others, or many others, may have been awarded Purple Hearts for which they did not qualify under the award criteria has absolutely no relevance whatsoever as to the factual question of whether John Kerry did in fact qualify for his first Purple Heart.

Certainly it's relevant. The regs clearly leave room for flexibility & discretion. Therefore, precedent is absolutely relevant as to whether Kerry's PH is outside the norm.

Beyond that, it is not unlikely that Dole was playing down the significance of this injury in his account. Real heroes generally don't brag about their heroism. And Dole knows what real wounds are.

I rather trust him to accurately describe his wound, why don't you?

Moreover, the fact that Dole was responding directly to actual hostile action when he was injured is clear, so a comparison to the Kerry case in this regard is simply not apt.

Absolutely apt. You have ignored the questions. (1) How did the enemy "cause" his wound. (2) How is such a minor wound suitable for a Purple Heart. Are not those the essential questions we ask of Kerry, and does is not precedent relevant given the flexibility in the regs?

And attempting to equate John Kerry's sacrifice to that of Bob Dole is inconceivable to me. I believe that Kerry's service in Vietnam was generally honorable, and admirable, but comparable to that of most other Vietnam veterans, including the members of SBVT.

Oh, I didn't equate it. Both were heros in different ways. Both risked their lives numerous times. And both showed great courage. But clearly their specific actions were different. And clearly, Dole was badly wounded later on, as Kerry was not since the shrapnel thankfully hit his arm and not his eye. I imagine that if he had unfortunately suffered more permanent wounds, he would have been extended the same honor that all true patriots afford to heros such as Bob Dole and Max Cleland.

But I also believe that John Kerry has repeatedly lied about his Vietnam experiences to advance his political career, while the SBVT are simply telling the truth. Anonip 21:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well thanks for getting that on record. I wasn't entirely sure of your POV yet. :)Wolfman 22:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

This whole Purple Heart debate can be summed up in about two paragraphs yet it goes on and on and becomes totally unreadable for someone who just wants a basic outline of the argument. Here's the outline:

1. John Kerry got minor wound. Describe the wound. Give some testimony from corspman, Leston and someone who challenges him.
2. There is some debate whether the minor wound he received merits a Purple Heart (leave that discussion for Purple Heart article)
3. Fog of war leaves differing accounts of how he actually got injured. What actually happened certainly isn't going to be settled by us so we shouldn't pretend that we're going to. Some say how he got injured merits PH and some say it doesn't. Give an example of arguments from each.

Really, that's about it. We can look for the "truth" all we want, but the fact is, which side you are going to believe all depends how you feel about Kerry. It's a waste of time to go into any detail. So just tell the basics and move on. It isn't that hard. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 00:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. Am I missing something, or does that not exactly describe the article as it stood yesterday morning? Wolfman 01:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, I agree that a lot of the stuff we're getting into on this Talk page doesn't belong in the article. Where there are complexities, we don't necessarily have to delve into every one of them -- but it would be misleading for us to word the article in a way that implied there were no complexities. I also agree about the fog of war, and add in the 35-year gap.

As for the complexities of the Purple Heart standards, Anonip evidently believes that Schachte is telling the truth and that Kerry, Zaladonis and Runyon are all lying. Anonip further asserts that, if Schachte's account is correct, then Kerry's wound "pretty clearly did not comply with the directives of the criteria." For my part, I think it's pretty clear that nothing is pretty clear. Here's another example, since Anonip now seems to contend that the award was unjustified even if there really were enemy soldiers there: Athos and Porthos are on the skimmer. They see Viet Cong on shore, so both fire with machine guns. The Viet Cong hunker down and hope for the best. Athos's gun jams so he fires a grenade launcher, but is hit by a ricochet. The Viet Cong decide that the next grenade will finish them off so they'd better try to kill the Americans; they open fire. Porthos now fires his grenade launcher and is also hit by his own ricochet. Everybody on both sides then flees the scene. It seems that, as Anonip interprets the regs, Porthos gets a Purple Heart but Athos doesn't, even though each was injured because he fired a grenade launcher at a nearby bunch of armed enemies. Or does the belated return fire from the VC retroactively qualify Athos for a Purple Heart that he didn't merit at the time he received the wound? My point is not that we need to edit the articles on Athos and Porthos but rather that these regs leave room for interpretation. We can sit here and say how we'd interpret them but I have no confidence in the correctness of my interpretations, let alone anyone else's, so I don't want the article to leave the impression that if Schachte is correct, then the award was "clearly" unjustified. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with Wolfman that we may be unable to do it without extensive quotation from the regs. JamesMLane 01:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Nysus, Not hard at all. My summary for 1st PH would go something like this:

1. Schachte says he was there; Kerry says he wasn't. One of them is lying.
2. Schachte says there was no hostile action (required for PH); Kerry says there was. One of them is lying.
3. Letson says Kerry told him he was wounded by enemy fire; if Letson/Schachte are truthful Kerry was lying.
4. Letson says wound did not require treatment by medical officer (required for PH).
5. Hibbard says per Schachte/Letson he determined Kerry not qualified for PH; Kerry later somehow got one; if Hibbard/Letson/Schachte are truthful Kerry probably lied to do so.

Are Hibbard/Letson/Schachte and Kerry equally credible? Not even remotely close. In this case, there is virtually no doubt that Kerry has lied about the incident. "Fog of war" is BS. And this isn't POV, it's QED. (I suppose we should include the Kerry Campaign counterarguments to provide comic relief NPOV. That won't change the obvious conclusion.) So Kerry clearly lied re 1st PH. Who cares? So he only deserved 2 PH -- how many does Bush have? Besides, we know Clinton lied, and he made a pretty good president, didn't he? Definitely time to move on. Anonip 01:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is not remotely true that there is "no doubt" that these events occured the way you and SBVT claim they did. For one, you are completely ignoring the testimony of Kerry's crewmates, and for another, this scenario does not explain how Kerry supposedly manipulated the system to get his PH. I can't believe the military is so slipshod that a Lt. jg got a medal over the objections of his commanding and medical officers. There is conflicting testimony, yes, and we should report that, but to make the leap from conflicting testimony to proof of fraud is nonsense. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 02:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. Let me rephrase: "Are Hibbard/Letson/Schachte and Kerry/Runyon/Zaladonis equally credible? Not even remotely close." Also, I said "virtually no doubt", I probably should have said "no serious doubt". And I did say "probably" about the PH award because there's no direct evidence. But clearly either Schachte is lying, or Kerry is, about the circumstances of the injury. (Sorry if my humor at the end there offended anyone.) Anonip 02:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why assume anyone is lying? I doubt it. If anyone is, the pretty clear guess would be Schachte. Runyon, Zaladonis, & Kerry have all independently given similar accounts of the night. In each case, they intercepted sampans & ordered them to stop; the sampans made for shore and the occupants ran. In the Schachte account there are no sampans, only movement on the shore. These simply sound like different missions, and I suspect Schatche just assumes he's thinking of the right one. If someone is lying, you've got 3 witnesses on one side with the same story; and one guy on the other. If I'm a juror, I'll go with the three. But, there's no need to assume that anyone is lying.

As to Letson, the only documentary evidence available is that he did not treat the wound. And I am also curious why he would remember putting a bandaid on a boo-boo 35 years later. As to Hibbard, he has twice stated the wound was a scratch on the forearm. It was not; it was above the elbow. And the medical report indicates it had shrapnel embedded. In neither case, do I see any reason to assume the accounts are true. And how exactly, did Kerry get the PH? It requires the forms be approved by a superior officer. Which officer did that and why? Wolfman 02:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dang it, Wolfman, I wrote a comment, got an edit conflict message, and found you'd said something pretty much along the lines of what I intended to say. I wish you'd stop doing that. Trimming the parts of my comment that you've now so rudely pre-empted, I'll add that Schachte was on several of these missions 35 years ago. I've heard witnesses testify about much more recent events, where eyewitnesses couldn't agree on something, even on things where neither one had any advantage to lying. People generally underestimate the fallibility of memory. That's one reason I think it's foolish for people to get all worked up over trivia like who was in a skimmer in 1968, as opposed to the invasion of Iraq, the economy, and all that other stuff that the media look for any excuse to be distracted away from having to deal with. JamesMLane 03:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Schachte clearly remembers the mission he describes as being the PH mission because of the contemporaneous controversy provoked by Kerry's ludicrous (as Schachte perceived it) Purple Heart request. How could he remember opposing Kerry's Purple Heart request because of what he saw during the mission if he wasn't on the PH mission? Also, he says that two officers were always aboard and at least one experienced officer was always aboard. The Kerry/Runyon/Zaladonis account is not consistent with these facts. What is your basis for the statement that the Kerry/Runyon/Zaladonis accounts are independent? I'm skeptical. Their accounts seem a litte too similar, actually. I'm not saying Runyon/Zaladonis are deliberately lying, they may just be filling in vague recollections with facts from Kerry. I doubt they'd last 2 minutes under cross-examination. Don't be so sure what you'd do as a juror after you'd seen them on the stand. Hibbard doesn't remember exactly where the wound was (after 35 years) but does remember how insignificant it was. That stuck in his memory, just as the clinic visit stuck in Letson's memory, because of how ludicrous Kerry's request for PH/treatment seemed to them at the time. Letson, by the way, has a very detailed recollection of treating the wound. The clinic document lacking his signature wouldn't carry much weight against Letson's credible eyewitness testimony. As to how exactly Kerry got the PH, I'd like to know that too. I wonder if there's something in the papers Kerry won't release? Doubtful, but you never know. Whoever awarded it probably just accepted Kerry's medical clinic visit record as sufficient documention. Anonip 03:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok Anonip, I'm sold. I agree that the evidence Kerry lied in incontrovertible. Any other explanation is clearly ludicrous on its face. Now, what exactly is the lie anyway? Wolfman 03:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For starters, he's lying by saying Schachte wasn't on the skimmer. A simple explanation for this is that he wanted to make the story of his first combat and PH a little more exciting. Call it literary license, rather than lying, if you want. And the sampans, men running like gazelles, etc. were also little details he added to make things more dramatic. Years later Runyon and Zaladonis think they were there and fill in their vague recollections with facts from Kerry. Probably a lot of old war stories are enriched in this fashion. No big crime. But it does easily explain why the Kerry/Runyon/Zaladonis account differs from Schachte's. Anonip 04:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First, your "simple explanation" is nothing but speculation. Second, there is some very reasonable doubt about Schachte's truthfulness:

1. As a law partner of they man who organized the Republican convention, Schachte has close ties to the Republican party. His past donation record clearly shows he is a Bush supporter. He's got the connections and motivation to get his story out there. This isn't the "political independent" Bob Novak tried to describe him as.
2. In a Boston Globe article that appeared in April 2003, Schachte describe the incident as a "firefight." he said John Kerry "got hit." Why has his story changed? [15]
3. SBVT original website contradicts Schachte. [16]

I'm not saying any of this should be in the article. I am saying that this is nothing but a silly "He's not lying, he's lying" argument. Unfortunately, you seem to be quite convinced that probably your side is right and probably Kerry's side is wrong. But it's not a good editorial decision to take the article into a meandering, tedious direction just so you can try to explain your speculation and gut feeling about who is lying and who isn't. Let me repeat this sentence because it is important: It's not a good editorial decision to take the article into a meandering, tedious direction just so you can try to explain your speculation and gut feeling about who is lying and who isn't.

Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 06:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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.