Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents

1st paragraph

The first paragraph was already discussed at very great length 2 days ago yet it continues to undergo revision that makes it less concise. Any changes to it need to be discussed here. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 03:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, please review the discussion about the first paragraph in the archives. See [[1]] under the heading "Changes to Lead Paragraph". As you will discover, your proposed changes to the first paragraph are not mentioned. In fact, you did not participate in that discussion. Therefore, you have no right to claim that the reverts I make to your changes need discussion first. Clearly, it is you who needs to justify your changes in the "Talk" area. Yet, you insist on pushing your unnecessary and wordy change through without commenting in the "Talk" area.

Please do not try to get your change through until this has been discussed. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 12:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, my edits were there before yours, therefore yours are the chanegs which need to be justified and you have not done that. There is nothing wrong with my word selection. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 19:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, you are incorrect. Please see the article as it appeared on August 25th: [2]
You'll see that it has been essentially unchanged since that time. Your edit to the first paragraph is wordy and unnecessary. I will revert now. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 20:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And, as I've already pointed out, your change also came after the lengthy discussion, that you did not participate in, held on August 31st (see above). Any changes after that discussion require further discussion. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 20:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here is more evidence against you: Your proposed change first appeared late in the evening of Sept. 1 23:23 GMT: [3]. At 19:54 GMT on Sept 1, the article appeared this way: [4] So, again, any further changes to the first paragraph require discussion. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 20:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just want to make it publicly known that Rex has once again tried to push his wordy and unnecessary change through without discussing it here. I am more than willing to discuss his edit but he has refused. Because he has refused, I have once again rv his change. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 06:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, even if Rex won't talk with you, I will.  :) Although I favor a succinct introduction, I also think it should let the reader know why he or she might want to read this article. To that end, I think the group's having run TV ads -- apparently a key point that Rex wants in but you want out -- is a significant portion of why this group is notable. Other such aspects, however, are ones that Rex would probably be less keen on -- that the group's substantive claims have been vigorously disputed, and that it's been accused of maintaining illegal ties to the Bush campaign. What would you think of an intro graf that included all these points? Alternatively, perhaps they could be in the second graf, still before the first header and therefore before the T/C. JamesMLane 06:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I could live with adding a very short 2nd paragraph that gives an idea of the significance of the group. In my opinion, I think the first paragraph should remain a very succinct definition. The 2nd paragraph could give an extremely brief synopsis of its influence/impact on the presidential campaign of 2004. Basically, it would explain why SBVT merits an entry. I'd say 3 maybe 4 sentences at the most.
I can't really guess what Rex's motivation is for wanting to change the first paragraph. My version says the same thing but his is more wordy. His changes don't even mention the ads. As far as specifically mentioning the ads, I don't see any compelling reason they should have to be mentioned up front. Later in the article, it says that the ads got them a lot of publicity. But while the ads got them the initial attention, it's really been all the free press they got afterward that has helped their cause the most.Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 07:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Eyewitness accounts

Rex wrote in an edit summary, '"No SBVT members were actually on Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated". - this may be false and is in dispute and is too POV)'. Which SBVT member makes a claim of the type this sentence says doesn't exist? If there is such a member, then it might be that, for example, Gardner says he was on board for the second Purple Heart, but he doesn't support any of the attacks on Kerry about it, so SBVT doesn't quote him about it. If that's the case, sentence would need rewording. JamesMLane 05:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, there is also the issue of the Schachte guy who claims to have been on the boat with Kerry. His claim is in dispute. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 07:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Schatche is not a SBVT member Wolfman 07:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I forgot that. I would recommend something along the following lines: "No SBVT member that served on Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated has publicly stepped forward." Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 07:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gardner was present, yes? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 08:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gardner has only charged that Kerry lied about Cambodia. But Kerry never got a medal for going to Cambodia so the sentence is accurate. However, my feeling is the sentence is too full of subtle, technical truths and stretches a little too far to get a point across. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 08:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what's subtle. The very next sentence says Gardner calls Cambodia a lie. So, it's hardly trying to obscure that. The previous paragraphs states that several men on other boats are members of SBVT. So, it's not trying to imply that no one in the unit was present. Further, this paragraph is explicitly about the crew. Anonip has made a big production about how Schachte is not a SBVT member, and he's not. At any rate, Schatche is discussed in detail later, so it's not like that's buried or anything. So, I don't really see any stretch or 'technical truths' here. If there were no immediate context to the sentence, then yes I would see it. But given the preceding paragraph and the next sentence, I don't. Wolfman 02:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Purple Heart: KISS

Here's a rough draft of how I think the PH section should read minus links to outside sources. I'm not saying we use this exact wording, I'm just suggesting we use it as a template for how to write the PH section. Also, I didn't bother tracking down citations because I'm not going to spend a lot of time on something that may not even get into the article. As you'll see, my method just avoids a lot of detail and cuts to the chase. In my opinion, that's what an encycolpedia article should do. We're not writing a book here and we're not trying the SBVT or Kerry in court. If we try to do that, we will never make progress. Here goes:

"SBVT has challenged the validity of Kerry's first Purple Heart, acquired by Kerry as a result of an incident that occurred on Dec. 2, 1968. They have collected testimony from swift boat veterans that say that because the the wound was too small and because it was self-inflicted, Kerry did not deserve the medal. However, opponents to SBVT say that the size of the wound or the fact that it may or may not have been self-inflicted does not disqualify Kerry for the award. And other swift boat veterans have come forward to say that Kerry's medal was justified."

P.S. If people want to find out all the gory details about who said what and when, they can click on the links and look up the citations we provide.

Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 14:51, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about this, as a start:

SBVT alleges that Kerry has lied about the circumstances of his first Purple Heart, awarded based on a minor injury he sustained on Dec. 2, 1968, when he was a swift boat trainee at Cam Ranh Bay. SBVT has produced testimony from several persons claiming to be eyewitnesses to support these allegations. Retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, then a lieutenant, who claims he was the officer in charge on the small boat Kerry was on at the time of his injury, says that Kerry himself caused the small nick from schrapnel by firing a grenade launcher too close to the boat, and that no enemy action was involved, as would be required to qualify for a Purple Heart. Dr. Lewis Letson, the medical officer at Cam Rahn Bay, who says Kerry came to him for treatment of the wound, says it was so minor that it needed only a tweezer, bactine and a band-aid, and did not require treatment by a medical officer, as would be required to qualify for a Purple Heart. Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer at the time, says that when Kerry asked for a Purple Heart he refused to make the award, having determined that the wound did not qualify because it did not require treatment by a medical officer and was not the result of enemy action, as the regulations required.

I think a little more is needed here, as well as the response from the Kerry campaign, of course. But I think this is might be close to being a reasonably concise summary of the SBVT allegations and evidence. Anonip 17:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it has a lot of unnecessary detail that can be filled in by links and citations. I say ditch the details. Why? Because it's just going to snowball into another editing war over ridiculous he said/she said details that we have little chance of coming to any agreement on here. My vote is to just state the bare essence of the dispute and let readers look up the gory details for themselves with the links and citations we provide. If the issue is so controversial, we should let the reader be the judge and not try to be the judge for the reader. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and you have not responsed to my suggestion for the paragraph above. Do you find that to be NPOV? Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:10, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One more thing, if people want more details, why don't we start off with a very simple paragraph about the 1st PH that everyone can agree is NPOV and build from there? Are you open to this suggesion, anonip? Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, I guess what you see as "unnecessary detail" I see as "the essential facts". I think to be fair to SBVT, we have to provide a concise summary of what they are actually alleging, and what evidence they offer to support their allegations. To me, what I've written above seems close to a minimum. I think we should also mention the missing after-action report and casualty card. My complaint about your paragraph above is that it is incomplete and lacks specificity. It doesn't give the reader enough of an idea of what's actually at issue. I think it's reasonable to include at least as much detail about the actual SBVT allegations and evidence as we do about their alleged partisan motivations, for example. Otherwise I think the NPOV will be questionable. But if you want to suggest something different to start from, please go ahead. Anonip 19:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the idea is to be fair to SBVT, as you state, but to be fair to both sides of the argument. If we don't explicitly mention SBVT allegations, we can also avoid haveing to explicitly mention opponent's allegations. Seems fair to me. Does that seem fair to you? If not, can you explain why not? Also, as I already pointed out, we are not omitting any facts if we link and cite articles that contain them.
As I stated before, this is going to be an endless edit war if both sides insist on getting in all of their little details. What one person thinks is bullshit another person will think is important. We've already witnessed it. I think you would agree with this, yes? My suggestion is that we leave out the detail in the article and leave it to the reader to judge through the links. Don't you think it's a good idea to let the reader judge? Can you make an argument as to why these details should be spoonfed to the reader instead, especially considering the fact that when we try to include these details we just end up in an endless edit war? Like me, I can only assume that you sincerely wish to end the endless edit war. So wouldn't you agree it's best to leave these details out if all it does is lead to an endless edit war? And I will repeat my comment that I made above to you in the last thread: 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.
Again my suggestion is start with a very basic and simple NPOV paragraph (something like my example above) that both parties can live with and put it up on the page. From there, we can build upon it. Maybe we will find a way to agree to inject more detail directly into the article. Then again, maybe we won't. And if we can't, the reader can go look it up for themselves. Most importantly, we will have something everyone can agree upon, and I think that's something we both want, right?
So, you essentially have one of three responses:
  1. Make a an argument that a simple paragraph is NPOV because it somehow isn't fair to SBVT because it doesn't state specifics despite the fact that we link to articles that contain the specifics. (Note that I'm going to have a very hard time believing that you could make this argument and still be sincere about your intentions to find common ground.)
  2. State that our current course, an endless edit war, is the best course for us to take.
  3. Agree that it's best to start from a simple point of agreement and try to build from there.
So, please tell me, which option would you prefer to choose? Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 19:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, As I have stated above, I believe the paragraph I suggested contains only essential facts, not unnecessary details. I believe that a concise summary of what SBVT actually alleges, and what evidence they offer in support of their allegations, is necessary. Links to additional details are fine, but a summary of the basic facts is needed. Otherwise what is the point of the article? Of course, we must be fair to both sides. I simply started with the SBVT allegations because they are the subject of the article. A summary of the response of the Kerry campaign and other SBVT critics should also be included, obviously. I can draft one myself if necessary, but in fairness I would prefer to let someone sharing that POV take the first cut. I think it should be possible for us to agree on a fair summary of the basic issues, including both sides. Why not try drafting a brief summary of the response to these SBVT allegations by Kerry and other critics so we can discuss it? This is not an edit war; we are working here in good faith to resolve the issue. It will not become an edit war, because I will not participate in such. If you really think we're at an impasse here, please let me know so we can seek mediation from the Wikipedia communty. Anonip 21:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't wish to sidetrack a productive discussion, but how does SBVT explain (if at all) how Kerry got a ph over the supposed objections of Hibbard and Letson? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I found this from an article with a rather slanted point of view:
Shortly thereafter, Kerry was transferred to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi. Apparently, Kerry petitioned to have his Purple Heart request reconsidered. Hibbard remembers getting correspondence from Kerry's new division, asking for his approval. In the hurried process of moving to a new command himself, Hibbard thinks he might have signed off on the award. If so, "it was to my chagrin," Hibbard remembers. Kerry's second commander, Lt.Cmdr. G.M. Elliott, says he has no recollection of such an event ever occurring.
There are no written records of Kerry's magical first Purple Heart on file at the Naval Historical Center in Washington, the nation's primary repository for such documentation. A Purple Heart normally is not requested but is awarded de facto for a wound inflicted by the enemy - a wound serious enough to require medical attention. The Naval Historical Center keeps all documents connected to such awards to U.S. Navy and Marine personnel. These typewritten "casualty cards" list the date, location and prognosis of the wound for which the Purple Heart is given, and they are produced by the medical facility that provides treatment for the combat wound at the hands of the enemy. There are two such cards for Kerry - for his slight wounds on Feb. 20 and March 13, 1969, but none for his December 1968 claim. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
MSNBC also cover this question but gives a different explanation. Scroll about 3/4 of the way down the page. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, as always, I agree with a low detail account. I thought our version a few days ago was pretty close to that. Do you want to start a sandbox on your proposed approach?
Wolfman, As I suggested to Nysus, why not try drafting a brief summary of the response to the SBVT allegations by Kerry and other critics so we can discuss it? Anonip 06:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Again, I don't wish to sidetrack either. But I asked last night what Kerry's "lie" was. I understood that he was alleged to have lied in order to get the PH. This is distinct from alleged lies later that Anonip mentioned. Is the SBVT allegation that Kerry lied before the PH award in order to get it? If so, what exactly is the alleged lie? Or, is it the case that SBVT has alleged no fraud by Kerry in getting the medal initially, but does allege later embellishment of the story?Wolfman 01:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wolfman, I believe SBVT alleges both fraud by Kerry in initially obtaining the award and that he subsequently falsely portrayed the circumstances for self-aggrandizement. Letson says Kerry told him he was wounded by hostile fire, which Letson concluded to be untrue based on the statement from a crewman with Kerry that "there was no hostile fire" and that Kerry "inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade", which was consistent with Letson's examination of the shrapnel fragment. The broader SBVT allegation that Kerry obtained the award by fraud is based on inference (reasoning from factual evidence). As the officer in charge (Schachte), medical officer (Letson), and commanding officer (Hibbard) had agreed that Kerry did not qualify for the award, and declined his request for it, it was not awarded by the usual procedure (hence the absence of the casualty card from the medical facility that treated the wound). Kerry must have misrepresented these facts, SBVT infers, to later obtain the award through other channels. The SBVT allegation about self-aggrandizement is based on the discrepancies in the account given to Douglas Brinkley, as recounted in Tour of Duty. It was the factual misrepresentations in that book which prompted the organization of the SBVT. Anonip 06:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response to AnonIp proposed PH paragraph

Anonip proposes the following paragraph:

SBVT alleges that Kerry has lied about the circumstances of his first Purple Heart, awarded based on a minor injury he sustained on Dec. 2, 1968, when he was a swift boat trainee at Cam Ranh Bay. SBVT has produced testimony from several persons claiming to be eyewitnesses to support these allegations. Retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, then a lieutenant, who claims he was the officer in charge on the small boat Kerry was on at the time of his injury, says that Kerry himself caused the small nick from schrapnel by firing a grenade launcher too close to the boat, and that no enemy action was involved, as would be required to qualify for a Purple Heart. Dr. Lewis Letson, the medical officer at Cam Rahn Bay, who says Kerry came to him for treatment of the wound, says it was so minor that it needed only a tweezer, bactine and a band-aid, and did not require treatment by a medical officer, as would be required to qualify for a Purple Heart. Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer at the time, says that when Kerry asked for a Purple Heart he refused to make the award, having determined that the wound did not qualify because it did not require treatment by a medical officer and was not the result of enemy action, as the regulations required.

My response:

First, I would change "SBVT alleges that Kerry has lied" to "...alleges Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Heart." Why? Because there is nothing in the paragraph that suggests Kerry lied. Second, I would change the language "small nick" to "small wound" which is more NPOV. Third your statement that "no enemy action was involved, as would be required to qualify for the Purple Heart" is simply wrong. The regs clearly state that Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment. Finally, your statement that Hibbard refused to make the award contradicts Hibbard's own recent statements that he apparently "gave in" and signed off on the award.

OK, how about this:
John Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart based on a minor injury he sustained on Dec. 2, 1968, when he was a swift boat trainee at Cam Ranh Bay. SBVT alleges that Kerry has lied about the circumstances of this injury, and that it should not have qualified for the award. SBVT has produced testimony from several persons claiming to be eyewitnesses to support these allegations. Retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, then a lieutenant, who claims he was the officer in charge on the small boat Kerry was on at the time of his injury, says that Kerry himself caused the minor wound from schrapnel by firing a grenade launcher too close to the boat, and that no enemy action was involved. Dr. Lewis Letson, the medical officer at Cam Rahn Bay, who says Kerry came to him for treatment of the wound, says it was so minor that it needed only a tweezer, bactine and a band-aid, and did not require treatment by a medical officer. Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer at the time, says that when Kerry asked him for a Purple Heart he refused to make the award, having determined that the wound did not qualify because it did not require treatment by a medical officer and was not the result of enemy action, as he believed the regulations required.
Your point about Hibbard saying that he may have later in haste improperly sign-off on an award request can go in a rebuttal paragraph. Also, the technicalities of the PH critertia can go in another paragraph if needed. Anonip 21:25, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Your second revision also has problems. First, the lead sentence "when he was a swift boat trainee at Cam Ranh Bay." This makes it sound like he was in something like boot camp when the injury occurred. Nowhere does your paragraph acknowledge that they were firing upon the enemy when he sustained his injury. A reader could easily be left with the impression that he incurred his injury as the result of some kind of training exercise. Second, as Wolfman points out and I have already pointed out, you say that SBVT alleges Kerry lied but your paragraph does not say what, specifically, he lied about. Until you include this information in the paragraph, you should keep it more vague and state that SBVT believes Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Heart. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 14:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, If you think more detail is needed, I'll be happy to add it. I agree that more is needed about the mission on which the injury occurred. The fact that SBVT claims Kerry has "lied" about the circumstances of the injury is clear. There is no need to make it "vague". Whether they have proved this claim is another matter, and ultimately for the reader to judge. Anonip 17:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is this better? Anonip 17:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
John Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart based on a minor injury he sustained on Dec. 2, 1968, during a hazardous "skimmer ops" mission he volunteered for while he was a swift boat trainee at Cam Ranh Bay. Kerry was one of three men on a small boat called a "skimmer", used to flush out enemy forces for attack by a larger swift boat or support aircraft waiting nearby. SBVT alleges that Kerry has lied about the circumstances of this injury, and that it did not qualify for the Purple Heart award. They have produced testimony from several persons claiming to be eyewitnesses to support these allegations.
Retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, then a lieutenant, who claims he was the officer in charge on the skimmer, says that no enemy action was involved in the incident. He says they opened fire at apparent movement, but there was no return fire or other indication of enemy presence. He says that after their guns jammed, Kerry fired a grenade launcher too close to the boat, thus causing his minor shrapnel wound himself. ...
I like that better. But I don't think we need the detail about what the purpose of a skimmer op mission is. I think we just need to make clear that they believe, either correctly or incorrectly, that there were enemy forces on the beach and they weren't just shooting practice rounds. My only real complaint is the blurb about "indication of enemy presence." There were beached sampans, owned by smugglers, that they blew up. That is an indication of an enemy presence. Do you know if Schachte is claiming there were no beached sampans there? Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As far as the lie claim goes, if you provide a citation to an article where they say he lied about this incident, that's fine by me. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think my brief description of "skimmer ops" is useful in giving the reader a basic idea of what was involved. Schachte [5] says nothing about beached sampans, smugglers running "like gazelles", blowing things up, etc. Those colorful details are all from Kerry's story. Anonip 19:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can you make the description of "skimmer ops" more concise then? I think it takes up too much space for something that is not central to the argument. Sorry to be a pain.
In the link you provided, Schachte says the following: "Sometime during the early morning hours, I thought I detected some movement inland. At the time we were so close to land that we could hear water lapping on the shoreline. I fired a hand-held flare, and upon it bursting and illuminating the surrounding area, I thought I saw movement." So, interestingly, Schachte's own statement it makes it clear that they thought they were shooting at the enemy and therefore they fired with full intent of inflicting damage to the enemy. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif
I don't think I can make the description of "skimmer ops" more concise. And as far as I know, no one has disputed that Schachte and Kerry thought they were firing at the enemy. Anonip 22:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It would be nice to provide some background detail in a book, but I think in an encycopedia article, we can spare the reader facts not central to the issue at hand. I don't know if it's worth arguing over, however. So, instead, I suggest the following compromise language which I think integrates your "nice-to-know" facts into the article better:
John Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart based on a minor injury he sustained while flushing out enemy forces along the coast onboard a vessel known as a "skimmer" on Dec. 2, 1968. SBVT alleges that Kerry has lied about the circumstances of this injury while on this "skimmer op", and that it did not qualify for the Purple Heart award. They have produced testimony from several persons claiming to be eyewitnesses to support these allegations.

An appropriate response (citations still needed) to the above paragraph should look something like this:

Critics of SBVT and other swift boat crewmembers have challenged the accusations of Schachte, Letson, and Hibbard and say they lack any documented evidence that Kerry did not honorably receive the Purple Heart that, according to official Navy records, he legitimately acquired. William Zaladonis and Pat Runyon, who both served on Kerry's boat on the night in question, state that despite Schachte claims, he was never on the boat that night. They also say the wound was not self-inflicted, that Kerry never fired a grenade launcher, and have doubts about whether the boat had a grenade launcher on board. Both men say they open fired on the enemy that night and assume there was hostile fire but say they can't be sure. But observers point out that according to the criteria for receiving the Purple Heart, even a slight wound received from friendly fire would not have precluded John Kerry from honorably receiving the Purple Heart so long as the wound was received from friendly fire that was released "with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment." Medical records dated December 3, 1968 show that Kerry received medical treatment for a shrapnel wound above his right elbow, but there is no clear indication that Dr. Letson was the medical officer who treated Kerry. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:42, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a few detailed comments, but have to defer for now or my wife will kill me. Let me quickly say that I think that these versions are starting to converge, and I am optimistic a consensus can be achieved. Anonip, could you please give links to the sources you are using. I know you have previously expressed frustration with that request. I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page & looking at the same sources as you, so we can avoid confusion amongst ourselves. Also, when you say "Kerry lied" in your version, you need to be specific about the relevant allegation of lie. I am still confused about the plan for the remainder of the section, or is the idea to just insert this paragraph and leave the structure of the remainder unchanged? Wolfman 00:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1st hand account / interview dates

Wolfman's edit summary said: "First-hand accounts - cut date for symmetric style with others. or would it be better to add dates to all?". I say it's much better to add the dates. All links should be dated and chronologically listed whenever possible. These links, in series, help readers follow the flow of the story. Notice how this story started with lesser known web news sites and moved into the mainstream as well. This can be seen when the links are dated and kept in order. This is interesting and informative to the readers [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 18:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok then, I have no objection to you adding dates to all the First Hand accounts. Just please do all six or none to keep a uniform style. Wolfman 00:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proliferation of links to news articles

SBVT is in the news, as of course its organizers hoped. Is our section of external links going to list every news story about SBVT? We already have a large number. Rex's latest edits added more. If we keep adding links to news stories as they appear, this section will continue to mushroom. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. We could consider trying to prune the current list and doing a little gatekeeping about new entries. Of course, if that will provoke yet more time-consuming conflict, then we probably just have to grit our teeth and accept a neutral policy of letting in any link that anyone wants to include. JamesMLane 19:00, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh my, recently I was told, in regards to "parody" on another page (by some of these very same editors), the more links the better. In fact, at Ann Coulter, Gamaliel wants MORE, when it comes to quotes. Now all of a sudden, we suffer from "proliferation"? Oh my! (not!) Also, JML, which of my links are you opposed to?[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 19:42, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex, your total misrepresentation of what everybody said on Axis of evil makes it clear that, as I should have known, any kind of collaborative work to try to make this article more valuable to the reader will involve about ten times as much effort as it ought to. Nothing like what I suggested can usefully be undertaken in any article in which Rex is involved. I've stricken out my suggestion, and I apologize to the other editors for my foolish utopianism. JamesMLane 20:00, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To quote JML from previous postings of his: "Personal Attack!" Also, JML just now says this:"as it ought to". To me, this is the crux of the matter. Some editors (here and on other pages) do think that those who are dissenting "ought to" simply cave in and yield when outnumbered. On the other hand, ganging up on dissenters is not "collaboration" so it's no surprise to me that JML is disappointed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 20:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James has stricken the point (apparently from frustration), but I raise it again for myself. I've been noticing the same thing. At the time the news stories were first added, there were very few. And I don't think we foresaw what a major story this would become. I think we should simply cut an external links section to news articles. After all, we have dozens of links within the story. Why repeat this below? One reason would be if we could choose a few really important stories that would be especially helpful to the reader. However, this clearly is not going to work. Because we will never be able to agree on a list.
Since the important stories are linked in the article, there is no need to have an External Links subsection for news stories. I move that it be cut. I also move that editorial & opinion be cut. Again, relevant editorials should be referenced in the text. Wolfman 20:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely not! I will absolutely revert (without pause) any attempts to disembowl this article by deleting the links section - you guys only complain now that I have added some links which support SBVT - there were no complaints from you when it was all pro-Kerry. FYI: This type of editing which you are trying to get away with now is PRECISELY the kind of behavior which I have been referring to as "pro-Kerry bias". The number of links is not unmanageably and if we need a finite limit, a number of say 40, split 20/20 SBVT/Kerry would do it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 20:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My god man, how is it pro-kerry bias to cut a section which clearly has more strong links in favor of kerry. You want to see pro-kerry bias, fine I'll play your little game. There are hundreds of editorials in mainstream newspapers denouncing SBVT. I can play POV hardball just as well as anyone else. Game on, Rex. Wolfman 20:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, you are way off base here. As currently comprised, the links in total are over 60% Kerry and only 40% SBVT. Precisely what are you complaining about? Has anybody even asked me if I think ths current mix is ok? Frankly, the (minimally) greater number of pro-Kerry links at this point is not a big issue to me. So now I ask; Why are the SBVT supportive links I added today such a big deal to the rest of you? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 20:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, it's axiomatic that nobody likes an "I told you so"... but... I told you so. JamesMLane 20:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tsk Tsk, JML has time to post snide commentary, but no time to actually respond to a question, which was: "Why are the SBVT supportive links I added today such a big deal to the rest of you?" [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 20:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If wolf and James want to cut the entire section (which I agree with), and you yourself admit the section is "pro-kerry", why in the world are you objecting to it? Lyellin 20:38, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
We must maintain consistant editorial standards across this Wiki and there is no pressing need to delete the links section. If you delete the "links" section, I will have to review the contribution list of and every editor who supports that so as to be sure I find all the other appropriate articles from which the "links" section must then be deleted in order to maintain consistant editorial standards - under no condition will I sit by and allow the links here to be deleted on an exception basis, particularly when there is no pressing need, either space wise or POV wise. As an olive-branch to your complaints though, I will support the removal of the "other" subsection from the "links" section. Provided of course, that only those links which are in this sub-section now, are removed - no others "shunted" into it so as to get rid of them. Bear in mind though, that the SBVT home page link itself, must be kept as a link, as it is very germane.[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 20:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree that we must keep a consistant standard. One of those standards that you yourself have tried to keep going is to not have information that we don't need. Excess links to articles, especially when we have them within our article, is not needed. The extreme nature of these links makes it so that I really am questioning needing 5 SECTIONS of links. Lyellin 20:52, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I especially like the Satire / Parody section of links. Ask Gamaliel about that - he's a big fan of "parody". 00:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, may I just comment that half the problems you have MUST come from your attitude. Should I bow in thanks that you have extended such an olive branch? Cheer in joy that I have been honored to be able to have an option to agree with you? Of course the SVBT is germane. I actually agree with that, and would object to removing that link. I DO object to 40 links on a page. That's excessive. Lyellin

Can anyone present an argument in favor of having an External Links to news & editorial, taking into account the dozens of references in the article? I don't see it, but others may. To me, this section is redundant, and simply invites useless link wars. At the moment, this section is clearly in Kerry's favor, as it is somewhat reflective of the media coverage (which is in Kerry's favor). So, I can't imagine anyone arguing seriously that it is pro-Kerry bias to cut it. To me, cutting the section seems a very pragmatic way to avoid conflict without really sacrificing any usefulness to the reader. While I disagree with the section, I fully intend to contribute with the same eagerness as Rex so long as it stays. My current intent is to request a poll on this matter.Wolfman 23:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I already have done that (see above). [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 00:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1971 testimony

Please take note, unless I am mistaken, John Kerry has only given "testimony" about Vietnam only once. That was in 1971, in front of a US Senate committee. Information written in a book is not "testimony". The term testimony, when used to describe John Kerry talking in front of Congress refers to the fact that Kerry was under oath when he spoke. If he ws under oath in 1986, we can add that date too. However, let's not get confused on our word usage here, ok? And Nysus, let's not be "admittedly nitpicky and minor" either, ok? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]]

The problem is that SBVT isn't just going after his testimony in 1971, they are going after just about everything he ever did and said about Vietnam. That includes his book, his formal testimony, and other statements he has made. You could change the last sentence to the "veracity of 1971 testimony and his beliefs about the Vietnam war." I could live with that.
P.S. Please stop making changes to the article that are challenged by me and others. Appropriate etiquette is to take them to talk, work out a deal, and then make the changes. Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:42, 5 Sep 2004 14:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, you suggested we write "his beliefs" - SBVT does not claim to be mind readers - they are addressing only Kerry's history and his statements. This is getting redundant - I keep answering you and answering you, but you don't even reply to a simply yes or no question. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 17:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I again am required to publicly call attention to Rex's disruptive editing techniques. He has repeatedly made edits to stable sections of the article mutually agreed upon and previously discussed (particularly the first paragraph). This alone is not a problem. But when such changes are challenged, he continues to make the same change before meting out the differences in the talk area. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:42, 5 Sep 2004 14:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, I am required to publicly call attention to Rex's disruptive editing techniques. I'm considering ways to get this behavior sanctioned by the rest of the community and stopped. Does anyone else agree this needs to be done? Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:42, 5 Sep 2004 14:58, 6 Sep 2004 15:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, you can make all the accusations and insults that you like against me, and the group together can try to boss me into giving in, but that does not change the fact that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, themselves, on their web site, (as I have already pointed out several times, describe their purposes thusly: "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. We speak from personal experience -- our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.". Frankly, I have already yielded too much on the 1st praragraph. The 1st paragaph should, on a verbatim basis, include that exact quote (or at least a subset of it). But since you and the others got in such a snit about that several days ago, I worked towards consensus. However, I will not yield on the inclusion of the 1971 date. The sentence, as I am writing it, makes it clear that the PARTICULAR focus of SBVT is the service/medals and the 1971 testimony. Notice that it does not say "exclusive". Your editorial objection is groundless. I am restoring that edit until YOU can demonstrate that the verbiage I am using does not say what is plainly does say - which of course is impossible - so stop reverting me until you have a better suggestion than what you keep reverting me to. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 16:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that before you erroneously accuse me of insulting you, you scroll up a few paragraphs and read my response to you and my suggestion for a compromise. I have shown repeatedly that I am willing to work with you. You have not shown the same courtesy. That is why I am suggesting action be taken against you. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No article that wishes to remain neutral would ever place a direct quote from SBVT about their purpose into the lead paragraph. It's clearly POV. Therefore, it would have to be offset by a similar verbatim quote from the Kerry campaign. Obviously, this kind of stuff doesn't belong in the article, never mind the first paragraph. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex, despite your claim above that you worked toward consensue, the record shows otherwise. You have repeatedly avoided discussing your changes in the talk area. Instead, you have insisted on reintroducing you controversial changes back into the article without discussion. I feel this is poor etiquette and these kind of techniques are disruptive to the editing process. I think the rest of the community would agree. Nysus Gulf War I Vet Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif Image:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.