Talk:Swiftboating

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Historical Origins Section Added

A historical origins section has been added. When I came to the 'swiftboating' article I was trying to learn the origin of the term after having heard it numerous times in the news. I wanted to know what a swift boat was and how it came to be used as a political term. The section was added after much research to save other people the effort and make the article more meaningful.Day7s (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not always poltical

This term appears to be spreading out of the political sphere. In the September, 2006 issue of the ABA Journal, Richard Lang says, "There's no such thing as a patent troll. The term is the equivalent of swift-boating small inventors." (Richard Lang is the patent troll whose company, Burst.com, sued Microsoft and Apple.)

[edit] Parallel discussion

Some of the debate on this discussion page is also taking place on Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. For exposure to the full discussion, it would be wise to check that page. Crockspot 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition and John Kerry

If swiftboating is a word, the definition cannot involve the particular incident with John Kerry. That incident is merely the origin and should not be discussed at length in the entry. Furthermore, this should be a wiktionary entry, not a wikipedia article. If swiftboating is an appropriate article topic, why not the word "smear campaign". And if "smear campaign" is okay, why not combine the two topics? And then the article would have to cover every smear campaign or swiftboating campaign that has ever happened in history from Roman Empire to Soviet Union. And this is obviously too large a topic for an encyclopedia entry. Mere concepts do not deserve Wikipedia entries unless the nature of the concept itself is the subject of extensive debate (such as "reality" and "freedom") and the debate itself is of public interest. If swiftboating is a word, then it needs to be defined according to how it is actually used. The debate over the definition is not of public interest - it is lexicographic minutiae and does not belong in an encylopedia. --146.201.98.89 21:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Just like the word "borking" (also once a neologism describing a type of political attack) can be found in the Wikipedia entry on Robert Bork, perhaps this should best be left under the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth entry (where it already appears). Either way, I agree that any mention of the John Kerry campaign beyond establishing the origin of the word is superfluous to the definition. -- xopher, 29 November 2005

Why isn't this Category: ‪Pejorative political terms instead of Category: ‪Vocabulary and usage stubs? User: Goethean (revert vandalism and obviously spurious example) removed the addition I added for the term i.e. "Swiftboating is American political jargon for character assassination through distortion and innuendo against a beloved lefty icon, as in the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth organization's ads against Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry in the 2004 election campaign. It is also used as a dodge by Democrats and lefties when someone on the right points out inconvenient facts about a beloved lefty icon."

Senator John F. Kerry is not a "Beloved Lefty Icon" He is a cousin, both through blood and ritual, to our current President. (POW)

Can the User: Goethean cite an example when someone on the right/republician side of american politics used the term "Swiftboating" against someone on the left/democrat side of american politics? Sirfith 17:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. here. — goethean ॐ 16:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
That was me (I did not have a userid) and you deleted it as a spurious example.Sirfith 22:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "beloved lefty icon" is pretty terrible. I'm actually ok with the current wording of the article (I'm the one who added the POV tag) but I'm not sure this is encyclopedia material. Dbt 16:24 Tue Nov 29 2005 (UTC)

Per wikipedia policy, I will be removing the POV tag unless reasons for the tag are provided on the talk page immediately. — goethean ॐ 16:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I just read the policy and my understanding of it was incorrect. Tag removed. My apologies. — dbt 16:37 29 November 2005 (UTC)


"The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth organization's ads ... lied in alleging that Senator Kerry was being untruthful in his representation of his military record." This is not NPOV language, unless it has been clearly an unequivocally established that they did lie (such as through a court case). Even if it is so established it is not encyclopedic language, and if we were to forget that fact it certainly does not belong in the intro. DJ Clayworth 16:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Extensive quotes from other wiki pages (e.g., "Big Lie") should be deleted - that's why we use hyperlinks. If youve got a problem with the text, propose it here. And lets keep it civil, okay? -- S

This definition is all wrong. "Swiftboating" is having former colleagues lie about someone in order to smear them.

If the stupid reversions in this article don't stop, I will be forced to protect the article. Let's remember a few things:

  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies at all times
  2. The article is supposed to be about the word not John Kerry's career
  3. If you have problems with an article discuss them on the talk page, not by constantly changing the article.

DJ Clayworth 17:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I recommend removing or locking the article. Bamapookie 18:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Recommendation seconded (if that means anything). A link to this article was posted on the Democratic Underground, so the stupid edit war will just continue unabated. It's the same thing that happened with the "Fitzmas" article.Jinxmchue 18:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't Democratic Underground, it was Talking Points Memo. Eliot 18:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It was both, actually. Link. And from that DU thread it's obvious that at least one person on DU was responsible for some of the vandalism. As I said, the same thing happened with the "Fitzmas" article when they linked to it.Jinxmchue 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the ongoing edit war over the content of this article, I'm putting up the Controversial Topic boilerplate. We'll see how long it stays up. --Aeki 18:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected because numerous anonymous contributors insist on using the page to argue about John Kerry's war record. DJ Clayworth 18:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that the current problem stems from a lack of seperation between the definition of the word and the initial usage. Right or wrong, the term emerged because of what happened to John Kerry in 2004. This is a simple fact, not an opinon which warrents discussion. The discussion page for an article about the Swiftboat Veterans, however, might be appropriate for the current line of discussion. --Cgranade 18:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What many of the right wing media refused to point out or at best obscured is the fact the not one of the "swiftboat veterans" actually served with John Kerry. Yes they were in the same command, but they never sever on John Kerry's boat or were near him when the events in question occurred.

[edit] Searching for NPOV ways to discuss Swiftboating

I agree with Cgranade. Wikipedia already has articles on Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth, John_ Kerry_military_service_controversy, John_O'Neill_(Vietnam_veteran), Roy_Hoffmann, and even Stolen_Honor. Let's send interested readers there for background. We might also refer readers to similarly pejorative expressions that emerged in different contexts

  • "demonizing the opposition" (coined in 2003 by Paul Krugman to describe Karl Rove's methods) [1]
  • "politics of personal destruction" (frequently used during Clinton's impeachment hearings) [2]
  • 'Borking" Originated from ferocious attacks by Democrats on Robert Bork, 1987

Even more examples

Sorry I forgot to sign my earlier comment (the first part of this list) betsythedevine 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the page is protected, it gives us an opportunity to discuss what should happen, and perhaps even create a temporary copy at Talk:Swiftboating/Scratch to propose to replace the current protected copy. One thing I would like to see is what you suggest: a table of links to similar terms (aimed at both sides) as well as a table of links to articles describing the events that led to the terms being coined. Obviousally, such events would be subject to NPOV issues, but that isn't for this page to concern itself with. The term was coined in response to a percieved event, and it doesn't matter to the definition of the term whether or not the perception of the event was accurate or not. --Cgranade 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


It Seems to me that the word is not about John Kerry, but is used to describe very harsh (perhaps to the point of lying, or slander) political attacks. I think the definition should reflect that, with a quick sentance or two describing the origin. Perhaps a link to John Kerry or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Seems fair. The term originated as a reference to the (percieved or real) tactic used against Kerry, but has since become a term in its own right, just as "-gate" has become a generic suffix for any political scandal ("Memogate" anyone?). Whether or not Watergate was a "real scandal" has no bearing upon the modern usage of the "-gate" suffix, and the situation is similar here. In both the "-gate" and Swiftboating cases, a historical note is indeed in order, but the primary issue is the definition of the term. --Cgranade 22:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


PlameGate, anyone? Fitzmas, anyone? Watergate, anyone?

[edit] Incoming Raw Story link

This article has now been linked by Raw Story as well. Expect a new deluge of POV pushers. Eliot 20:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected?

Why are we protecting this article? When g-mail linked to Horn of Plenty this weekend, the article got a lot of questionable editing done to it, the worst of which was very quickly reverted. It isn't clear to me that the danger of having a vandalized article up for a few seconds is worth givng the impression that Wikipedia actually does not allow newcomers to edit articles. If all of the editing done over the period of time that this article is being mentioned on various websites is terrible, we can revert it all back to this version. What's the concern? Jkelly 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article was not 'vandalised for a few seconds', it was being vandalised every few seconds, for a very long time. Which means that anyone coming to Wikipedia for the first time because of a link to that article was getting a high probability of seeing something quite apallingly biased, inaccurate, or in some cases obscene. That's not the first impression we want them to have. The second point is that we want to discourage the idea that Wikipedia is a place to come and argue about politics, and to change article so they reflect your point of view. That's what was happening. If we stop them doing it maybe they will go and do something else instead. DJ Clayworth 22:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Kerry's medals really mean to Republicans

Neither pro-Kerry nor anti-Kerry partisans see the greater context. Perhaps Wikipedia should. The Swiftboat PAC's accusations about Kerry's medals are eseentially true. But he could only have gotten all those phony medals if he was being protected. As a member of the Yale-Bones-CIA club he certainly was. The "pro-communist" Kerry was just playing a part. His opposition to the Bones-Bush regime is every bit as phony to this day. Background. -- BigPicture 29 November.

That is a blatent lie. The people who ACTUALLY SERVED with Kerry support Kerry's right to his metals. And so do all but one of the soldiers who received medals at the same time as Kerry, the only exception being one of the Swift Boat liars, who was furthering the Bush campaign. (Now there is another suggested term of Wikipedia: Swift Boat Liars.) This incident had the stink of Karl Rove all over it.

As a matter of fact, the only SBVT member who was actually present at the action for which Kerry won the Silver Star, Larry Clayton Lee, believes Kerry earned his medal. So does EVERY single other person who was present. See more at the SBVT page. --EECEE 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of Disappointment

I am very disappointed in my fellow liberals, most particularly those of whom have decided to respond to the vandalism wrought by readers of Talking Points Memo in kind. This does nothing to encourage our cause, but only reflects upon the entirety of the liberal movement as being petty and immature. I wish to work with others on this issue to create a new version of Swiftboating that is NPOV- and yes, that excludes liberal-minded commentary as well. This is part of how Wikipedia works, and who are we to overturn that at our whim? Please, cease the vandalism and counterproductive commentary. --Cgranade 22:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Kerry's medals are every bit deserved as any. It is only the not-so-Swiftboaters who say otherwise. DuBose 14:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contention that "Swiftboating" is used by Democrats only

Can someone add an example of Swiftboating being used by Republican/Rightwinger. i.e. Mary Mapes Swiftboated George W. Bush with unauthenticated documents from the TANG. Sirfith 22:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, hello, this is a matter of dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.43.46 (talk • contribs)

There have certainly been cases of Republicans complaining about Democrats' alleged use of politically-motivated character assassination. In 2003, Conservative columnist David Brooks denounced what he saw as a hatred-based critique of President Bush, saying "The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves." [3] A more recent example would be allegations that Tom DeLay is the victim of Ronnie Earle's vendetta. But Republicans would be unlikely to use the term "swiftboating" to refer (pejoratively) to politically-motivated character assassination, because the official Republican position is that the Swift Boat veterans were nobly-motivated patriots who were telling the literal truth about John Kerry. betsythedevine 03:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the definition that "swiftboating" to refer (pejoratively) to politically-motivated character assassination. I would like for it to be stated that this defintion of the term is used by the political left much as the term Moonbat is used by the political right.Sirfith 16:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Swiftboating" began as a pejorative descriptor used as jargon by the political left, and other John Kerry supporters. The word has been commonly used as a pejorative term which suggests that some higher powers in the George W. Bush's campaign or his political party machine were behind exposing the truth about Kerry's dubious military background via his fellow Switft Boat skipper peers whom Kerry had falsely claimed were supporting his candidacy. The truth of the matter was that more than 95% of Kerry's real military "band brothers" publicly declared that he was unfit for command, which surprised and disappointed many of Kerry's supporters. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples of "swiftboating" being successfully used (in the pejorative sense) AGAINST a Republican candidate can be seen in the 2006 election "macaca" controversy, and Macacawitz. The synonym of the leftwing term, "swiftboating", to those of rightwing political persuation, would most accurately be, "macacaing". Subsequent to the 2004 presidential election use of the word "swiftboat" in the U.S. is obviously dependent upon ones politics and POV. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the use of the term. When you can find a reliable source that describes reaction to Allen's comment as "swiftboating," then post a link. --EECEE (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More to the definition

Whenever I've heard the term used it's with the connation of flipping a strength and a weakness around. Attacking an opponent in an area that's perceived as their strongest, most unassailable spot.


Well, that's an intersting take on it. The way I have heard it used in conversation is that it means lying and distorting the truth about an individual, ie, it's a verb that is defined as "to smear, to character assassinate." For instance, in conversations that I participated in and/or heard during the 04 election about these tactics as they were used against Senator Kerry, the attackers doing the smearing were sometimes referred to as "The SMEARBoat Veterans Against Kerry."


Both comments above are correct, but they don't get to the purpose of the tactic. The reason to swiftboat your political enemy is to put him on the defensive - wasting time and energy defending himself in areas he thought were secure. Additionally, it serves to put negative information in front of the public. Swiftboating is designed to play on the media's desire for new and different information (dirt), while at the same time planting a seed of doubt with voters. The truthfulness of the charges is almost irrelevant, and any accuser with almost any relationship to the swiftboating target can be propped up to shout them. It's about volume, not accuracy. - zeeeej

[edit] The word PROMINENCE is misspelled

UnregisteredUUser 02:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I trust that will be fixed when we unlock the page. Jkelly 03:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too mild

“Swiftboating is a newly coined political term for exaggeration and embellishment to the point of lying in a public relations assault on a political opponent.”

If anything, this definition of “swiftboating” or “swiftboated” is too mild. It should also include the acts of taking statements, and half-truths out of context and spinning them into complete lies to discredit a political candidate.DuBose 04:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ad Hominem

I'm mildly surprised that no one has mentioned that this is an ad hominem attack. Whether it is "ad hominem abusive" or some new category ... that I can't answer. It does seem appropriate to cite it (and other political pejoratives) from that section of Wikipedia.

As far as freezing the page - I think that is a reasonable thing to do. I was slightly amazed at the number of edits being made in an incredible short period of time. However, it is vandalism like this that makes me want to the consider the requirement of logging in (accountability).

Suggestion for new lead: "Swiftboating" is a newly-coined political term that describes a public relations assault which uses exaggeration and hyperbole, bordering on libel and slander, to attack personal character.

Why? Because "political opponent" suggests that this only happens in a political campaign -- whereas, it is possible to "swiftboat" a judicial or cabinet nominee, for example. Also, the fact that it is "an attack" de facto makes this something one does to "an opponent." -- Kegill 06:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely (at least under the US system) a judicial or cabinet nominee can also be a 'political opponent'. DJ Clayworth 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a classic example of liberals re-defining terms to suit their own political philosophy. Welcome to 1984! From a conservative point of view, the term "swiftboating" actually means "telling the truth". --Tim Chandler

[edit] Merge

This article should probably be merged into dirty tricks Raul654 10:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. — goethean ॐ 15:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Looking at that article suggests that a new section should be added thereto referring to and summarising this article; simply merging the whole article would swamp the current content. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

I've unprotected the page. Let's see if we can all behave like adults. DJ Clayworth 17:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect Representation of what Wiki has become

This article is the perfect representation of what Wikipedia has become- a ridiculously one-sided joke, posing as "NPOV". The whole article is an attack on a group of veterans who felt that the whole story was not being told; In effect, under the phony definition put forth on this page (the real definition of "swiftboating" is pointing out the truth about a habitual liar), you are doing what you have condemned. No doubt if someone came along to fix this article, it would be "reverted" as POV, even though it is this article that is junk. As soon as those of you on the loony left stop inserting your point of view as fair and unbiased and stop treating your ridiculous edits as God-given fact (yes,I saw the DUmp thread yesterday encouraging DUmmies to edit this post), we can actually get to the truth (yes, instead of "NPOV", as truth should always be the only concern, even if it offends some left wing ninny). Until then, Wikipedia will always be a joke.--WinOne4TheGipper 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your statement “(the real definition of "swiftboating" is pointing out the truth about a habitual liar)” is exactly what swiftboating is about. You have no proof that Kerry lied… just half-truths taken out of context and political spin. DuBose 14:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is about the term "swiftboating" itself, which incontrovertably IS used as a pejorative. If you want to point out SBVT members' motives in speaking out, there is a page devoted to the group with plenty of that sort of info. --EECEE 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear SBVT lurkers : "Still waiting for any of the eggheads to come up with a lie in the Swifties' various presentations," eh? Sure, first try the SBVT article right here at Wikipedia. Then try this website: [4] . Though I'm pretty sure you know where the lies are anyway. -- Proud USAF

[edit] Unexplained revert

I recently tried to make some improvements to the article along the lines that have been discussed, adding a generic definition of the term and cutting back on some of the repetition from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They were reverted without comment by User:131.107.0.86. Rather than start another edit war, I thought I'd ask this user and anyone else to discuss the proposed edits. Thanks. Eliot 19:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

The examples used here are politically motivated and should be removed. They include a link to a letter to the editor that call people chickenhawks, a link to discussions at the democratic underground which post an article from daily kos (both liberal blogs), and other exmaples that serve no purpose other that to push some agenda. [CS Ch.12.216.160.75]

The blog ones are a little dodgy, agreed. Jkelly 04:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I remove them? Do you want me to go one by one and explain why they should be removed? [CS Ch.12.216.160.75]

It would be much better if there was discussion by more people than you and I before anything gets removed. Why not copy some of the ones you think are the worst here to this Talk page and ask for comments? Jkelly 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Just because a word is used in an opinion piece, blog, article, or letter to the editor does not mean it needs to be cited as an example. All of the examples are there because of their political point of view. They are completely subjective and inappropriate to the page. All of them should be removed. I'll go over a couple of them.

"Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam." –Frank Rich in the August 21, 2005 New York Times[3]

This is purely about Karl Rove, and the opinion writers thoughts on Karl Rove's tactics. It offers no meaning or insight to swiftboating.

"Swiftboating Cindy Sheehan"[6] "Swiftboating the Crazies"[8] "Swiftboating again"[9] "Dean is being swiftboated."[10] "I do think the race offered one good opportunity for out-of-state Dems and Progressives, and that was to calmly write to newspapers and try to talk to receptive radio hosts about the swiftboating of the candidate."[11] "I’m glad the efforts to swiftboat Paul Hackett have been exposed for what they are."[12]

These are all blog entries which may or may not contain the word swiftboating. They serve no purpose other than to push a political agenda.

Swiftboat ('swift bOt); transitive verb: (1) To accuse a public figure of questionable conduct without the benefit of physical evidence, usually by an entity informally associated with a person or entity benefiting from the accusation. Noun: (2) An unsubstantiated charge made against a public figure or organization, usually made by a proxy entity. See also: Smear, hatchet job, character assassination. (3) An organization dedicated to swiftboating on behalf of a respectable organization. (4) archaic: a type of boat used by the United States Navy to patrol the shores of Vietnam from 1965 to 1970; see also PCF. [14]

This comes from some password protected forum. Seeing the word is defined above, I see no reason for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.160.75 (talk • contribs)

Sources such as the New York Times editorial should remain, blogs and message boards probably not so much. Eliot 05:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. What point does that quote serve? What do you get from reading it? It is simply an attack on Karl Rove that happens to use the word swiftboating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.160.75 (talk • contribs)

Frank Rich using the word in a New York Times editorial is perhaps the foundation for this neologism even having an article. Jkelly 05:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The word has been around much longer than a few months. Just because someone decided to create this article after reading his column does not make the quote anymore meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.160.75 (talk • contribs)

So is the consensus that the New York Times is always acceptable on Wikipedia, even if it is a quote from an editorial written by a partisan that has nothing to do with the Wiki article? What a sad time for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.160.75 (talk • contribs)

Given that the article is about the usage of a new word, the fact that it was used by an editorialist for the Times is a particularly good argument that the word is actually part of American political language. It is not obvious to me why the content is problematic. Because the word has connotations of maliciousness, I suspect that the vast majority of examples that we might list are going to involve one person's negative opinion of another. Your statement that the example has nothing to do with the article is confusing to me. Rich is unlikely to comment on the Wikipedia article; we have the quote in as an example of how the expression is used. Jkelly 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does it matter if some editorialist for the Times used the word? Its an editorial. I think the Fox News article should stay because it is being used in an actual news article. Who cares if it was used in editorial? Same goes for the Bill O'Reilly quote. Who cares if Bill O'Reilly said the word? Partisans use the word all the time. The biggest problem of the quote is the first sentence, which has absolutely nothing to do with swiftboating. It is solely there to push someones viewpoint. I don't know how anyone can argue differently.

"Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war.


I've added news headlines and one news quotation - all from LexisNexis (feel free to find the online links). Reordered by date - with date first. Why? So we can see progression and/or asosciation with news event (Murtha, for example).

Don't understand the angst about the Karl Rove NYT quote -- positions swiftboating in the history of political character assassination. --Kegill 11:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CBS forged memos as Swiftboating

I removed the link to RatherBiased.com in the 'examples of swiftboating' list because a search of the site doesn't show anybody using this term to describe the incident with the forged memos. I certainly encourage anybody to find a new link where someone does describe the memo incident as swiftboating, though. Eliot 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bolding

The excessive bolding is ugly and distracting and should be removed. — goethean ॐ 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

This whole article is in serious bereach of NPOV. Only arguments supporting the Kerry point of view are cited. No serious attempt is made to look at the arguments made by the Swift Boat Veterans which ended up being accepted by a large minority of the American public if not the majority. There have been a number of e-mails at the help desk about the tone and a number of incidents. I have added the NPOV tags accordingly. Capitalistroadster 03:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not meant to support or attack the points of view either of the Swift Boat vets or the Kerry campaign; those arguments should be restricted to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and John Kerry articles. This article should exclusively talk about the attack ad tactics first used by the Swift Boat vets, which I don't think requires giving a full treatment to either side of that particular dispute. It should be possible to agree on the basic set of facts, after all: that they used loosely documented but explosive charges; that they were an ostensibly independent group which nonetheless was clearly acting to aid Bush's campaign; that their effort was directed much more to publicizing their charges than to proving them; and so forth.
I encourage you to remove any of what you see as pro-Kerry bias, rather than trying to balance it with the pro-SwiftBoat angle and thus clog up the article with something that doesn't belong here. I think it is possible to neutrally assess the tactics used in this case without clinging to the POV of either camp. Eliot 15:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No serious attempt is made to look at the arguments made by the Swift Boat Veterans which ended up being accepted by a large minority of the American public if not the majority.
I love that. "People believed our lies, so they're not lies anymore!" Thanks for the laugh. — goethean ॐ 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
All of the Swiftboat charges have been debunked. -Smedley Hirkum 03:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That is utter nonsense. While some of the others have stood up better than others, none has been disproven, and some have been proven beyond dispute. 02:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Actually, that statement is incorrect on both counts. [5] However, as has been pointed out more than once here, the purpose of this article is neither to prove nor disprove SBVT's claims. If you have anything to add that would "prove" any one of SBVT's claims, the place to add it would be the SBVT article. Feel free. --EECEE 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swiftboating article still has many problems

This article still has many problems.

The definition of the word has not been separated from the underlying politics of its origin.

In my view, the members of the organization "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" believed that they were telling a true story which was not being told, and which needed to be told. Others may dispute the truth of their assertions, but I thought that they were sincere. Of course, they understood the political implications of what they were saying, but the truth was what was important, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Of course, many others believe differently about what the organization said. In many cases, I think people are unable to separate truth from its consequences. I contend that it should be possible to talk about whether what the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" said was actually true, without consideration of the political fallout. But others seem unable to do this. They seem to believe that since the consequences were negative for John Kerry, then the material presented must be false, or an "ad hominem" attack. This is not necessarily true, and in any case, what are current political campaigns today if they are not "ad hominem" attacks? Everything is about the person.

My understanding of what "swiftboating" means as a word, goes something like "presenting personal and perhaps unverifiable statements to the public about the background of a public figure to discredit his (or her) truthfulness and reputation".

This definition (or whatever is ultimately decided) must be separated from the issue of whether or not that is actually what happened in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.37.32.254 (talk • contribs)

But that's not how the word is used in the press. It's used as a synonym for Smear campaign. — goethean ॐ 21:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If so, then I don't think we will ever get agreement on the definition. To me, smear campaign means propagating falsehoods in order to defame. So, for those that believe that what SBVFT presented was indeed truthful (at least mostly), this meaning for "swiftboating" can not be agreed. The term becomes self-contradicting (perhaps that is what is actually intended by its use). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.37.32.254 (talk • contribs)
It's actually not that difficult to understand. John Kerry is widely seen to have been smeared by the Swiftboaters. Subsequently, the term "swiftboating" began to be used for "smearing". Then, a Wikipedia article was written documenting this usage. Your feelings about the swiftboaters are not going to change how the term "swiftboating" is currently used in the English language. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to amend the article to reflect some of this discussion, but my edit was swiftly (haha) reverted to a form that I think violates NPOV. In my real life, I'm one of the people who uses "swiftboating" pejoratively, but I think the article needs to do better on explaining the opposite POV. I've no wish to start a revert fight, but if others would check out what I wrote I'd be grateful. It would also be great to have at least one quote from a conservative commentator in the external links. betsythedevine 21:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Betsy, I was the one who reverted your edit. I believe that the article is currently agnostic about the validity of the swift-boaters' claims, which is as it should be. As such, I thought your edit was unhelpful because it added (what amounts to) defense of the claims, which invites a rebuttal, which will cause this article to balloon up with content which properly belongs on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth page.
In particular, I thought your paragraph 'Arguably, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth believed that their portrayal of John Kerry was, in fact, spontaneous and truthful. Those who share this opinion would have little motivation to use the term "swiftboating" in a pejorative way.' was adding unasked-for POV to the article. Nothing in the article states that the SBVets lied or were 'unspontaneous,' or that swiftboating must be untrue (or at least, it shouldn't do so). I also don't find that the article uses it as a pejorative -- perhaps it is only inheriting that characterization from the negative connotations of 'ad hominem' and 'mud slinging', but I certainly don't think that we need to add a specific disclaimer that some people think character assassination is awful and some people think it's called for. That's outside the scope of the article. Again, if you find value judgments in the text of the article I hope you will remove them.
It would be good to have a quote from a conservative in the links, but only if 'the shoe fits' -- we don't need a link to someone explaining why 'swiftboating' is good or why the swift boaters were telling the truth, as these are two claims that are tangential to the article. Also keep in mind that this term is new and still raw in the American political psyche -- if it does catch on, I'm sure that in 10 years you will find conservatives and liberals alike using it. And if it doesn't, this article shouldn't be here anyway. Eliot 16:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)



Hi all - I have edited to reflect what I think is a more NPOV, and also for accuracy. For example, as someone pointed out, the targets of sb'ing are not always purely political figures (as with judicial nominees), so I used the word "public" figures. Also the SBVT campaign itself was not even organized for the benefit of a political force, so I said one is "usually resulting in a benefit" to an established political force. I changed what I see as a POV term, "mudslinging," to the more neutral "attack." Finally, the term is not just being used by liberal writers. Note the outside links to Fox News, which repeats and then describes the term without judgment, and Bill O'Reilly, who has no problem seeing it equated with a smear tactic. So I just said it is being used by "some writers and commentators." --EECEE 19:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


"Swiftboating" is beginning to be used by homeless people, Vietnam and other veterans and other homeless, to describe such incidents as getting fired from a job, thrown out of a business, harrassed while panhandling, or various other situations. It describes setbacks created by lies or other social attacks, such as bad recommendations on employment. It has thus expanded and broadened beyond the rich and famous to ordinary people. I have also heard the term used about incidents concerning non-public people who are not connected to homelessness or veterans. Michael C. Emmert


Mike Emmert 18:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please give usage examples for any changes to the definition

Hi--I just reverted an edit by somebody who wanted to "correct" the POV of this article by giving the definition "Swiftboating is American political "slang" for a coordinated attempt by a group or individual to prevent a public figure from misrepresenting their record to the public and attempting to prevent that person from reaping the benefits of any distortion or dishonest portrayal." The many quotations that show the media using the verb "swiftboating" don't reflect even one case of the word used in this way. But even if a few cases of someone using the word non-pejoratively could be found, the common use of "swiftboating" (or "swiftboated") is pejorative rather than neutral. For example, here's Krugman in the NYT today: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html betsythedevine 11:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest some minor changes/clarification to the definition-

Swiftboating has become American political jargon for an ad hominem attack against a public figure, coordinated by an independent or pseudo-independent group, usually resulting in a benefit to an established political force. Specifically, this form of attack is controversial, easily repeatable, and difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections.

The name comes from the strong objections to the portrayal of Presidential candidate John Kerry's military service in Vietnam, and subsequent antiwar activities, by the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth organization. Since the charges were all from personal testimonies of the Swift Boat vets and not capable of verification by some independent authority, they were disputed vehemently by Kerry supporters. However, they were disseminated widely and had negative effects on the Kerry campaign, which led to the rapid adoption by Democrats and others of the term "swiftboating" as being a controversial but highly effective form of "smear campaign".

Swiftboating frequently refers to a campaign that uses viral marketing techniques to sell the allegations. By using credible-sounding sources to make sensational and difficult-to-disprove accusations against an opponent, the campaign leverages media tendencies to focus on a controversial story. Mostly used as a pejorative, the term has gained currency among some writers and commentators. Its appropriateness as a description of political debate has been questioned by some conservative commentators, since it assumes that the Swift Boat vets were insincere and partisan in their opposition to Mr. Kerry's candidacy, which is itself unverifiable and possibly unfair to those men.

  • Here are four that have been deemed by some to not qualify as WP:RS, [6][7][8][www.cafepress.com/buy/Anti+Kerry/-/pv_design_prod/pg_1/p_storeid.62340293/pNo_62340293/id_13055961/opt_/fpt__________________________D/c_9/hlv_t]. I can provide many more examples from posts at Conservative Underground if you like. The same rough definition has been used there for almost two years. (I'm most familiar with CU, but I believe FreeRepublic and a few other conservative websites have also been using it that way.) Crockspot 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot. I saw that quote from Bailey - I think he said elsewhere that he liked the term. So it is an example of a conservative using the term in what we assume is a nonpejorative way - unfortunately he doesn't really explain why he thinks it is not pejorative. I wonder if you or anybody else can figure out a way to present that usage without extrapolating (there's that word again) too much. --EECEE 05:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that we're going to have to wait until a reporter asks Bailey (or someone else) what exactly they mean, and then actually print it in an article. (I have a feeling the reporter asked Bailey, but did not include his answer in the article.) Then we will have something to work with that meets WP:RS. Crockspot 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, I noticed that Cafe Press T-shirts are used as a source in the Fitzmas article, and no one is getting their panties in a bunch over that. Perhaps I should drop Gamaliel a note about it. Crockspot 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here are some examples from 2005 of the term in use on Conservative Underground. Note that the last one, by Terry Boone himself, occurs after the other examples, so the term was in use by us before he "defined" it. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Crockspot 18:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC) additional comment: note that the vintage of these posts is about the same as the sources for the "official" definition quoted in the article. Crockspot 18:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this is even more neutral in tone and will be less controversial. (Except, of course, to those who despise either the Swift Boat vets or John Kerry and want the definition to reflect some level of their own bias.)


Hi. First, I think the current article is pretty neutral, and to the point.
Your suggested language looks pretty neutral overall, with a couple of points. First, I'm not sure changing the current language to say the name stems from somebody's objections to something makes it less neutral...instead, it implies a POV about the source of the name.
Second, I don't think the claims were simply "disputed by Kerry supporters" - they were in fact disputed by objective evidence. Maybe just saying they were mostly (I don't think all) based on personal testimony and not capable of independent verification is sufficient.
Also, I would leave off the last part of the last sentence, as it is pretty subjective to say what the use of the term assumes...especially as it really isn't evident in the rest of the article. Another poster at the SBVT talk page suggested a definition used by some conservatives, and that was included in the article. It wasn't included here because the intro seemed to be locked...but that might be the simplest approach.
Thanks for putting the ideas out there, though. --EECEE 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Conservatives' objection to the use of this term is information that belongs in this article

To Bestsythedevine: Hi. Saw your comment over at the SBVT talk page, and your edit here. However, the CNN opinion piece you link to doesn't really question the use of the term because it makes implications about the SB vets' honesty or sincerity - in fact the only time he really mentions the term itself he simply refers to it as a "hate term." So I think that is the most accurate way to describe the viewpoint expressed by this conservative commentator - if you have others, please put 'em in. Thanks. --EECEE 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi EECEE--Tyrrell's article makes it clear that he considers Democrats' use of "swiftboating" or "Swift Boat tactics" an "attack on the Swift Boat Veterans" and "slurs against the Swifties. You're right that he isn't explicit about why pejorative use of the term "attacks" or "slurs" Swifties and their claims--he thinks (and so do I) that his meaning is clear. The nature and strength of conservative objections to this term is made clear by the many people have already tried to add some kind of clear statement of the Swifties' POV to this article--a situation quite understated when reduced to "at least one conservative commentator has described it as a "hate term". More examples:
  • " Its appropriateness as a description of political debate has been questioned by some conservative commentators, since it assumes that the Swift Boat vets were insincere and partisan in their opposition to Mr. Kerry's candidacy, which is itself unverifiable and possibly unfair to those men." (From this talk page, a suggested change to the article that you also opposed.)
  • "This article is the perfect representation of what Wikipedia has become- a ridiculously one-sided joke, posing as "NPOV". The whole article is an attack on a group of veterans who felt that the whole story was not being told; In effect, under the phony definition put forth on this page (the real definition of "swiftboating" is pointing out the truth about a habitual liar), you are doing what you have condemned." (From this talk page)
  • ""Wikipedia" fancies itself as the modern arbiter of the meaning of words. For some time, "Swiftboating" and "Swiftboated" have been the subject of heated debate among Wiki's contributors. The current definition is pretty loaded with terms implying lies, distortions, half-truths, etc., etc." (Swiftvets.com discussion, Feb 2006, [21]
The information that conservatives strongly, strongly object to using "swiftboating" as a term of abuse belongs in this article--it shouldn't keep getting deleted or watered down. Tyrrell's article is the most encyclopedia-worthy source I've seen on this. Surely the same kind of reasonable inference that people have used here to tease out the many (negative) implications of the term "swiftboating" can also be extended to expressing the other side's POV. Surely a single clear sentence describing their objection is not excessive.betsythedevine 03:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Betsy. Thanks for posting. I agree that there is obviously plenty of sentiment out there on the conservative side. It is just hard finding an encyclopedic source that documents that sentiment. Tyrell's article says a lot of things that make you infer his own sentiment, but he mostly bashes Kerry and simply describes the term itself as a "hate term." So in my view that is the proper way to present his opinion. If people find more sources that are acceptable to Wiki, they should include them, but not extrapolate based on their own inferences. In my view. --EECEE 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I should have checked the article first. I see there have been a couple of edits along the way. I think it looks okay the way it is now, except the cite format is a little odd. Let's see if Wiki thinks it's "encyclopedic" enough. --EECEE 05:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that Tyrrell's piece is mostly Kerry-bashing, and incoherent besides. Thanks for your patience and hard work on this page.betsythedevine 12:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions. It is an interesting exercise, yes? --EECEE 06:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conservatives do not all walk in lockstep. While some conservatives may not use the term "swiftboat", I, and the conservatives I know, use the term regularly to mean "the act of exposing lies and deceit". This definition is fairly common in the conservative blogosphere, however, you will not find few non-blog sources for this. (And by the WP:RS rules, that means it doesn't exist.) For example, at Conservative Underground, we have been using that definition since the 2004 general election. Crockspot 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[b]Neutrality and Accuracy[/b] I think the key point about Swiftboating is that the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were a collection of lies and half-truths by very reliable sources that were swiftly and easily debunked shortly after they were initially made. That the lies were debunked made absolutely no difference with regard to their effectiveness, because the Swiftboaters continued to repeat the lies anyway, and the conservative media repeated them. But the real genius behind Swiftboating was that it exploited the lazy and simpleminded approach to NPOV used by the mainstream media, which tend to believe that if you mention both sides of an argument, you have your bases covered with regardto NPOV. This does not take into account the fact that one side might be completely correct and the other side completely wrong. For example, if the Republicans maintained that the sky's blue appearance is caused by sunlight being filtered through water vapor in the air, and the Democrats maintained that it was paint being sprayed onto the back side of the atmosphere by a celestial paint sprayer, the media would handle this dispute by mentioning the theories of both parties. They might run a few articles covering the merciless debunking the Democrats would get for coming up with such poppycock, but in all articles in which the dispute was a side element, they would content themselves with just mentioning the two competing theories. This would create, in the minds of those who hadn't bothered to educate themselves on the whole sky color conflict, the idea that there was a legitimate dispute about the color of the sky, rather than arrant lies offered by one side and a totally deserved debunking by the other. This false equivalence was exactly what politicoes who backed the Swiftboaters were aiming at when they trotted out their lies.The dispute over war records stopped being between a guy who had served in combat in Vietnam, with enemy soldiers shooting at him, and a guy who patrolled the skies of San Padre Island, Texas, when he wasn't out on political campaigns, and became a dispute between two guys with "suspect" service records. The media were complete tools of the Republicans in that respect. And if Wikipedia were to allow Republican/conservative posters to misconstrue the nature of the Swiftboat story, it will be a complete tool, too. --Pat Powers (patpowers1995@yahoo.com).

No offence intended, but your statement is itself so full of lies and half truths that I can't take seriously any comments you have on NPOV. It is common to say that the SBVT claims were all "debunked", but I have seen no proof of it. Have you read "Unfit for Command"? Crockspot 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel compelled to add further comment. I lost a family member in a helicopter crash in Vietnam in 1970, near FSB Ripcord. I've spent the last five years researching the crash, gathering accounts from about twenty different men who had either direct or second hand knowledge of the event. I also had access to official records. What I found was that, in the minute details of their accounts, not one man's story jived completely with any others, or with the official records. But I did find that the general essence of their stories matched, even with the official record. When you ask a man to remember an event that occurred 35 years ago, and that event occurred in a war zone, where one's sense of time is distorted even at the time, you are going to get minor discrepancies in the details. In my own researh, after discovering other events that occurred in the various units around the same time, I was able to account for these discrepancies as details being confused with other events, and just bad recollection. While they all told slightly different tales, the important story was all the same. About 250 highly decorated Vietnam Vets participated with the SBVT, and I am not surprised that some of the details of their accounts turned out to be wrong. "Debunkers" have found these discrepancies, and use them to discredit the entire SBVT story. However, I have seen no "debunking" that does not fall into this "minute detail" category. The main assertions of "Unfit for Command" have not been disproven. Crockspot 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot--You should notice that the edit above, signed by Pat Powers, was made by an anonymous IP whose only contribution to Wikipedia, ever, was that particular comment. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.219.84.174 ) So please don't judge this article, or Wikipedia in general, based on that comment! An "encyclopedia-quality" source for people's using Swiftboating in a positive way wouldn't have to be, say, a politician or commentator using it that way. It could just be a newspaper article mentioning that others are using it that way. I feel confident, given the heat of this disagreement, that we will soon be able to find such a source and include it with this article. When we do, this article will be better and more informative. The truth or falsehood of any or all claims by or about the Swifties has absolutely zip to do with this article--that stuff belongs over in the SBVT article.betsythedevine 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
When were the charges debunked? If they were, I missed it. Could someone please direct me to the debunking? Thanks. Valtam 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent question! As a Wiki admin said just two days ago in a SBVT edit summary, "You don't need sources for the obvious." BTW, Bush lied, and is a war criminal too. Crockspot 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Crockspot, I'll direct you to Eric Rassmussen's most excellent online review of UFC: http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/truth.html --EECEE 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble keeping up with all the comments, so this is the first time I am seeing your link to this article. I'm in the process of reading it now, but something I just read really bothers me: "For all other incidents discussed in Unfit for Command, we have Navy records and Kerry's journal to use for documentation in a rebuttal. In this case, however, the Navy records have not yet been found (all we have is a brief entry in Kerry's medical records) and Tour of Duty does not tell us what the journal says about this, if anything." Big problem here, Kerry's journal and his complete military records have never been released to anyone except Brinkley, whos neutrality is in question. Like I said, I am only just reading this piece, but so far, I am unimpressed. I can't wait to see how he defends Kerry's treasonous activities after his return to CONUS. From my own personal contacts with Swifties and other unassociated Vietnam Vets, it was Kerry's activities with VVAW, and his meetings with North Vietnamese officials DURING official negotiations, his outright false speech to the Congress, and VVAW's fabrication of stories from phony vets that really turned them against him. Crockspot 18:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot. I went back to the site to see what that quote is referring to, and it is the firs PH incident. It is true that no after action reports or other records describing the mission have been discovered as yet, but those types of records are public records that are part of the command history and not personnel records, and can be obtained by anybody searching the military archives. It isn't up to Kerry to "release" them if they exist, and it's hardly his fault that he doesn't have them to release.
Of course Kerry's complete military and medical military records have been released to three separate news organizations in addition to Brinkley; all three have said there is little in those records that is different from what Kerry has already made public.
If SBVT had confined itself to only criticizing Kerry's antiwar activities, it would be a matter of opinion fairly expressed in the public discourse. However, they chose to attack his military record as well, and so are rightly open to criticism for their many false claims. --EECEE 18:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have more or less finished the article (skimmed through some of part I), and I am still not impressed. Part I is all still debatable until Kerry releases his journal, and all his own records. Part II does not even address the points made in Unfit For Command. Have you even read Unfit? All the article does is say that those things did happen in Vietnam. No one disputes that in at least isolated incidents, those things occurred. None of the allegations made by Unfit For Command are even addressed in Part II, NONE. And as I said before, Part II is the real meat of the bone that SBVT has to pick with John Kerry. As for the three news organizations, I'm sorry, but I can't take their word for it. Dan Rather, and recently Reuters, have been exposed as not being above pushing false information. I want to see the records. If you have not read Unfit For Command, it is fairly pointless to continue this debate until you do. Crockspot 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello Crockspot. First of all, I had forgotten to point out that Kerry's journal has evidently been made available to the Boston Globe, as excerpts have been printed in various articles as well as their biography of Kerry. As to his records being made available to the general public, the privacy protected records such as his fitness reports and medical records are not at issue (except that a doctor whose signature does not appear on the sickbay report claims to have treated him for a wound). The records that would shed the most light on SBVT's claims are obtainable either through FOIA (for instance, medal citations and recommendations) or by a search of the appropriate military archuive for public declassified documents (such as after action reports, personnel casualty reports, transmission reports, unit summaries, etc.). Go to it.
You see in the introduction to ER's review he says he focuses mainly on the military service questions, with "a few comments" about the antiwar activities. The antiwar activities might in your view be "the real meat of the bone to pick with John Kerry," but the fact is that most of the TV ads, newspaper, radio, and TV interviews, and pronouncements by SBVT, as well as the first half of UFC make claims about his military service. That is a fact.
Yes, I have read UFC. It is full of lies, distortions, and just plain bad information. And despite John O'Neill's claim that Jerome Corsi was NOT the coauthor of the book, but "simply acted as an editor," the fact is that entire passages from the second half of the book are lifted almost word for word from Corsi's screeds at wintersoldier.com . Of course aside from being bareley readable they are full of bad information, but that is another topic.
Finally, while Dan Rather and Reuters may or may not be guilty of "pushing false information," the fact is that THREE different, competing news organizations were given full access to the records. They were perfectly willing to tell us the news about Kerry's unflattering college transcripts. They also mentioned the additional records that were included, like the first page of the Streuhli fitness report. But as I say, if you really want to see the records, submit a FOIA request and go on down and search the military archives. --EECEE 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
But how do we know how thorough the THREE different news organizations were, when they looked at the records? And how do we know they were given full, and not partial, access? As far as I know, a FOIA request won't allow the release of the records, unless Kerry signs a Form 180. This has been a controversial issue for years - if the records would quickly and easily clear up any questions, then why has Kerry never made them public? Or are there things in the records he doesn't want to reveal? Valtam 15:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You will never know how "thorough" anyone has ever been about anything, including SBVT, Wikipedia, or the Pope, without eyeballing the original sources yourself. The fact is that these three organizations are in competition with one another and each has everything to gain by being more thorough than the other. We know that they were given full access because the actual signed SF 180s granting that access have been published online. See the link at the article.


A FOIA request will "allow" release of everything except military personnel records, such as fitness reports, and those are not in controversy. Almost everything else that is in controversy, including medal citations and recommendations, assignments, after action reports, personnel casualty reports, command histories, unit summaries, transmissions, etc., can be obtained either through a FOIA request or just going down and looking through the archives. Try it and then ask questions.
Kerry has made his records public, including his privacy protected records that cannot be obtained through a FOIA request. Try looking at them at the Findlaw site linked through the article.
This is "controversial" because partisan hacks have nothing else to put out there. They count on the general lack of curiosity of the public in considering what the actual facts might be. --EECEE 18:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Well, I was going to reply to your comment, Crockspot, but when the Wikipedia database was locked just now, I read up on a lot of the comments here and on the SBVT page. I skimmed the supposed debunking linked to in the SBVT comments, and focused on the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. It doesn't look like those charges were debunked... Since you follow this stuff, Crockspot, do you know if Kerry ever cleared up the questions about his military record, either by releasing all his records, or something similar? Thanks. Valtam 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean about SBVT's "Christmas in Cambodia" claims. If you're talking about what John O'Neill wrote in "Unfit for Command," that account is pretty much a rehash of bits from Boston Globe articles and interviews, and the BG Kerry biography. The only direct Kerry quote is an excerpt from his 1986 floor speech, taken out of context and misreprsented. More on that below. Then O'Neill goes on to mangle the account from Kerry's journal to insist that Kerry claimed he was somehow sent into Cambodia on Christmas Eve when in fact he was more than 50 miles away in Sa Dec.
If O'Neill had bothered to read the actual lengthy journal entry included in "Tour of Duty," he would know that Kerry never claimed to have been ordered into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. He didn't claim it later, either, not even in his 1986 floor speech. Rather, he was on a patrol out of Sa Dec going toward the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve, and was in fact patrolling with two PBRs along or close to the border - this is confirmed by at least two of his crewmen. The boat was ambushed at some point - the Christmas truce ambush is confirmed in the fitness report written by George Elliott. Kerry believed at the time that he had inadvertantly crossed over into Cambodia. Then he returned to Sa Dec. According to his biographer, Douglas Brinkley, he didn't go on missions to Cambodia until the following January and February - in fact if you read the Feb. 12-13 spot report, you will see that his boat and another boat were inserting SEALs right at the border.--EECEE 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


In a word, no. He never authorized a COMPLETE release of his records, just the ones he wanted to release. His misrecollection of who was the President when he was in Cambodia that Christmas is a common memory problem when people are trying to recollect something that happened so long ago. There's a comment of mine somewhere on this page that illustrates that. All the "debunking" seems to fall into a similar category, ie., people getting some of the minor details wrong, because it happened so long ago. Crockspot 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


I think you mean Kerry never authorized complete public access to his records. He actually did allow Brinkley and three news organizations complete unrestricted access to his records. The news organizations said there was almost nothing different from what he had already posted at his website in 2004. I agree with you that he probably telescoped a few things in his recollection when he recounted things in later years, and that that is a pretty common thing. --EECEE 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Except that when he described the event in 1986, he said "I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me." Seared!!1!, I tell you. At that point, 18 years after the fact, he emphatically claimed to be in Cambodia on Christmas 1968. (And of course, he made the same claim in the 1979 Boston Herald article - only a decade after the fact...) So it wasn't a "memory problem" in the 70s or 80s... The "debunking" article says that he could have been in Cambodia at the time, not that he was. So that charge seems to stand. Valtam 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well first of all, let's consider what he actually said was "seared" into his memory (from the John Kerry Military Service Controversy article):
For example, on March 27, 1986, in arguing against United States aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, Kerry made a speech to the Senate that, among other things, touched on the Vietnam war:
Mr. President, how quickly do we forget? How quickly do we forget? No one wanted to widen the war in Vietnam, We heard that, Let me remind you of what we said during that period of time.
[Kerry then set forth more than a dozen statements of American leaders with respect to the Vietnam war. He concluded the summary with the following:]
Finally, President Nixon, 1970. "In cooperation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clear out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border."
Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.
I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict. Mr. President, good intentions are not enough to keep us out of harm's way.
Quite different, isn't it? Do you actually think a memory of being in Cambodia when he wasn't supposed to be is a memory that tells him that before we send more kids into harm's way we should go the last step, to make the best effort possible to avoid "that kind of conflict"?
Kerry started out by saying we had forgotten how quickly the war in VN widened, and went on to quote more than a dozen claims that the war wasn't being widened, when it was. Then he ends with Nixon's statement that troops were first being sent into Cambodia in 1970, when he remembers sitting in a gunboat in Cambodia in 1968. It was the last example in a long list of examples of a war that widened in increments.
Finally, whether a "debunking" article says he "could" have been in Cambodia or not does not change the fact that in 1968 he believed he had inadvertantly crossed the border, and he still believed it in 1986. It is a fact that he was patrolling at or near the border at the time ... thus, the only objectively provable fact is that under the circumstances he certainly "could" have crossed over.
The "Christmas in Cambodia" question is discussed at length at the "military service controversy" page. I suggest you check it out if you have an interest. --EECEE 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Edits

I have reverted the last few edits back to an earlier version of the article.

Specifically, I removed the new(er) paragraph attributing the term to "Kerry supporters" and explaining how "such people" define the term. First, I don't think Bill O'Reilly is a Kerry supporter, but as seen in the links, he has used the term. As have plenty of others who are not necessarily to be considered "such people." In addition, the term is no longer used simply in the context of Kerry's candidacy in the last election, so it makes little difference who the person using the term supports or doesn't support.

Also, to say the term isn't used by those who think the SBVTers were right is like saying that the term "McCarthyism" isn't used by those who think McCarthy was right. It not only goes without saying, it once again casts the term in the context of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the event or element that gave rise to the term. Swiftboating is a tactic, period.

I put back the earlier paragraph describing the source of the term during the 2004 election, which seems to me sufficient and accurate. I also put back the more neutral language that simply says many commentators use the term as a pejorative, and at least one conservative commentator has described its frequent negative use as a hate term.

Okay, if anyone has any thoughts on my edits, let's discuss. Thanks. --EECEE 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the following alternate definition and source to both this and the SBVT articles: "Some conservatives, however, have defined the term to mean: "Exposing lies, deceit, fraud or deceitful/fraudulent person(s)." [www.cafepress.com/buy/Anti+Kerry/-/pv_design_prod/pg_1/p_storeid.62340293/pNo_62340293/id_13055961/opt_/fpt__________________________D/c_9/hlv_t]" I also left a note for Gamaliel that this same source is used to source the Fitzmas article. We'll see what happens. Crockspot 21:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debunkings

Let me help you out. Here's a nice debunking from the Washington Post

It establishes that Kerry served in Vietnam, in a swift boat, was fired upon by Vietcong and got some shrapnel wounds from a grenade explosion, and that he rescued a crewmember who had fallen in the river due to a mine explosion. The Swiftboaters claim he was not under fire at the time,but the guy he rescued and a lieutenant on the boat nearest Kerry both concur that there was enemy fire, along with the official record.

Here's another: A link to Eric Rasmussen's very long, very well researched, very detailed debunking of the Swiftboater's claims.

Now, unless you can come up with some equally specific, well-researched rebuttals, you really have nothing to argue with. The people who were members of SBVT were lying, it is as simple as that. And the essence of Swiftboating is that the media thinks that reporting on both sides of a controversy equals balance, even if one side has been vey thoroughly debunked. Well, it doesn't, ESPECIALLY in the case of Wikipedia. If I were to go to the Wikipedia listing on "hippopotamus" and insist that it was a desert-dwelling lizard with a duck bill, six legs and a long fluffy tail, I would get my head slapped around, rhetorically speaking, and deservedly so. But I suppose if I were to get a few dozen friends to post in support of my position, it would be a controvery, and Wikipedia must report it as such, including a balanced presentation of the duck-billed lizard theory of hippos. This is what conservatives are doing to Wikipedia with regard to "swiftboating." It is not good for Wikipedia's reputation. Pat Powers 05:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I commented above, I find that, in the absence of full disclosure of Kerry's journal, and the full release of his records, Part I is still all debatable. Part II does not even address a single point made by Unfit For Command, which I am assuming that you have not even read. Part II is really what sunk Kerry, in the eyes of most veterans. Crockspot 18:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I will add here the points made by Unfit For Command that I think are the real things that sunk Kerry's swiftboat, and have yet to be addressed, let alone "debunked":
          • That Kerry committed treason by meeting with NV negotiators in Paris, while official negotiations were in progress, and then advocated the NV positions with the US govt., ie., withdrawal with no assurance of the the release of our POWs.
          • That the VVAW suborned fraudulant testiomy, and Kerry knew this.
          • That Kerry's testimony, based upon these fraudulant statements, left America with the impression that all soldiers in Vietnam were committing these atrocities.Crockspot 18:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Crockspot. I have responded to some of these questions over at the SBVT discussion page. I would add though, why would the release of Kerry's journal in itself disprove anything that SBVT claims? Aside from the fact that they've already accused him of making stuff up in his journal, it would still only express his point of view. On the other hand, William Schachte's and Jack Chenowith's journals could certainly shed some light on things (Chenowith for instance claiming he wrote about the March 13 incident), but they have refused to release them.
As to your bullet points, I suggest you look up the definition of "treason" in the federal statutes and its treatment in caselaw, and use some other source besides Jerry Corsi's screeds to determine what Kerry did or didn't do in Paris. As to VVAW "suborning" fraudulent testimony, I assume you are referring to the Winter Soldier investigation. I'll refer you to the WSI article [22] for more information on that; suffice it to say that not a single claim presented by those testifying has been disproven. As to what "impression" was left by Kerry's testimony, that is a matter of perception and opinion - a point that SBVT was unwilling to stick to. --EECEE 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
(I added a note to the top of this and the SBVT page with a link to the other page. I'm having trouble keeping track, and the casual observer certainly will.) Giving aid and comfort to the enemy, undermining official negotiations, and then advocating the enemy's position certainly qualify. Kerry does not deny that he made the trip and the meeting, and his advocacy of their positions is public record. I believe the only reason he was never charged it that America wanted to be done with Vietnam by that time. I don't know how old you are, but everyone had a pretty bad taste left in their mouth, and they wanted to be done with it. There is also a question about his discharge. It's been a while since I read on it, but I believe he had his discharge "redone" during the Carter admin, and there is speculation that his original discharge was less than "honorable". The background on that has not been disclosed either.Crockspot 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, I suggest you research the actual requirements under federal statute and caselaw. And do original research on what was going on in Paris and about Kerry's visit. You can believe all you want about why he was never charged with treason, but to be blunt that seems like a copout for not doing your own research. I am old enough to remember the war as my brother served two tours while I was a teenager.
The "question about his discharge" is a bunch of hooey made up by Kerry-haters who simply couldn't come up with anything else and who depended on the ignorance of their readers when it came to the regulations applicable to reserve commissions. And do you think for a minute if Kerry had actually been threatened with an other than honorable discharge because of his political activities he would have remained silent about it, much less hidden it? It would have been an outrage, deserving of public exposure. And not a single other VVAW member has suggested that they were threatened with, much less received, other than honorable discharges for their activities.
Please Crockspot, do your own research. Don't just take SBVT garbage at face value. --EECEE 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Original research would be easier to do if the records were still available. [23]. Do you know of another archive of these documents? All references I can find point back to dead links on Kerry's website. But here are two articles from the NYSun. [24] [25] Also a blog discussion which is well quoted. [26] Is the NYSun on the Swift Boat payroll? Crockspot 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot, the records are available here: [27] This link is also included at in the various SBVT/Kerry articles.
Of course there are plenty of SBVT-friendly blog pieces out there, but Beldar, aside from being highly partisan, is not the most accurate analyst. And Thomas Lipscomb, besides having misrepresented himself as a Pulitzer "nominee," consistently takes things out of context, cherry picks his "facts" and quotes, and generally distorts things to suit whatever point he wishes to make. These two articles are -typically - full of bad information. The fact is that in 1972, Kerry was transferred routinely to the Standby Reserve; this would be for an indefinite period unless he specified. Sometime in 1978, Kerry may have requested that he be discharged from the Standby Reserve, or there was an administrative reduction in force (several posters at blogs have stated that that was the case, and they share the exact same discharge date with Kerry). And as far as Lipscomb being shocked that a "board" was convened for Kerry's 1978 discharge, he should have dones some basic research. It is a well-known fact that no board is convened, the language is standard boilerplate - the Navy periodically reviews members of the Standby Reserve to see if they are still needed. A board or other official review is only conducted if an officer objects to discharge. You can look all of this up yourself, or call the Navy and ask them. But really, it would be more appropriate to discuss any of these problems at length in a Wiki article. This is a discussion board about an article defining "swiftboating."
So again, I encourage you to do your own research rather than relying on second and third hand speculation by partisan hacks. --EECEE 21:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Good links - I agree that ER's site is especially well researched. But remember, if you are writing an article about a term that is still being defined in popular culture, it is perfectly reasonable to include all the different ways that people define it. As long as you can back it up with real examples. In my opinion, anyway. --EECEE 08:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edits to "conservative definition"

Personally, I think the last couple of paragraphs have gotten way too long and involved for this article. The article doesn't discuss how various liberal groups describe the term, nor how many coffee mugs are sold with a liberal definition. I think it would be sufficient to simply say various conservatives have described the term as a "hate term" and defined it as " exposing lies, etc." and add the links. --EECEE 06:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the number of sentences is quite small for the "Vets for Truth" and SBVT definition. I don't think they need to be in separate paragraphs necessarily. The liberal definition is getting top billing with lots of external links. I don't think it's out of order to give a few sentences to the documented groups that use a different definition. --Tbeatty 09:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The primary, common use of the word is what appears first. It is a comparatively short summary of the usage, and rather than describing each source, simply links to examples of that usage. If the alternate description of the "conservative" use of that wordwere to conform to the overall style of the article, it would do the same. It doesn't. --EECEE 17:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty, re your last edit. The Army Times doesn't say it is the group's definition. It says it is a definition posted at its website:
But he’s clearly borrowed from its playbook. The Web site’s lead image is an artist’s rendering of Murtha, with Kerry, long-haired and wearing his combat fatigues in full post-Vietnam protest mode, drawn right behind him. Down the page, there’s a definition of “swiftboating” — “exposing the lies, deceit and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds.”
Of course the website actually posts an article with that definition, so the sentence was actually correct before you edited it. See my comments at the SBVT talk page as well. --EECEE 02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It is notable enough of a defintion to be covered by Army Times and I believe that Web Site usage would qualifiy it as a primary source for a groups views. Sampley does not claim to be it's originator so it is merely covered in his article. --Tbeatty 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The definition wasn't "covered" by the Army Times, the group was. The article noted that the group posted a definition of a term on its website. That is the accurate way to present it here, in my view. --EECEE 20:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Spectator article that was used to reference a part that EECEE removed speaks to the conservative definition that we have been waiting for a reliable source on. I have added the article to the list us "use of" articles, so that we do not lose that source in the shuffle. - Crockspot 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Crockspot. Actually, the Spectator excerpt was a columnist's opinion on what the word "should" mean, and it was pretty general. I removed it from the primary definition, but don't see a problem with linking to the article elsewhere. As there seem to be more and more variations on the "conservative" take on the term, maybe editors should start thinking in terms of summarizing the alternate view - in the same sort of way the primary definition is a summary. Just a thought. --EECEE 17:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The summary I have put forward several times, and is what I and the people I know who use it mean, is "speaking the truth", which is more or less the common denominator in all of the con definitions. The Spectator piece is not enough for me, but as I said before, in time, we will get more reliable sources for the alternat def. Especially as we head into the next two election cycles. I am patient. - Crockspot 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of term "misleading"

Hi Crockspot. I had originally edited a sentence stating as a fact that many of the charges were unverifiable and misleading. I thought the latter term was conclusionary and not objectively proveable, as opposed to the fact that many charges were unverifiable. However, it looks like this person subsequently included it later in the paragraph, where it merely talks about the reputation of swiftboating. Personally, I think that is acceptable, because it is objectively proveable that swiftboating does have such a reputation. --EECEE 18:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It gets back to the question of "according to who?". There should be an attribution. - Crockspot 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] DEC. 21 edit

Iceberg, I removed your recent edits to the article. First, I don't think it's correct to simply say s'boating is a form of astroturfing, given the Wiki definition of the term. Second, there was some unnecessary back and forth arguing that didn't help the article. For instance, questioning whether the term is a hate term or not, which wasn't the point -it was an example showing that conservatives have criticized the term s'boating, period. Or elaborating on the SBVT membership, which really isn't the point of the article.

In addition, the example about Mike Hatch was unsourced...and a single example of someone being goaded into saying something doesn't make an overall goal of s'boating itself. --EECEE 08:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] use of "Although"

In general, it's a form of argument that attempts to discredit the argument before it's made and as such it's a word to avoid. it's one of the debate styles and wordings that should be avoided. Simply stating it as fact eliminates this. This is a style issue. The sentence I replaced it with says the same thing without the poor argument style that broadly discredits what follows. Please see WP:AWW and WP:WTA. A similiar example is usually used with people to discredit them before their argument is presented. "Although widely regarded as being wrong in lots of areas, John Smith says he is an expert. " If the "Although" statement can't be removed, then the claim isn't true and should be removed. If it can be removed, then it should and the poor argument style removed. Example 'John Smith is an expert' or 'John Smith was wrong.' but the 'Although' statement should be avoided. --Tbeatty 04:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tbeatty, thanks for posting this. I guess my problem is that the statement now seems much more conclusionary than is appropriate for this type of article. Before it simply said that "many" of the charges were unverifiable or subsequently disporven; I think the sentence now implies that all the charges were unverifiable or subsequently disproven. In other words, prior to the edit the sentence indicated that some charges were widely disseminated despite the fact that they were unverifiable or subsequently disproven. I don't think it carries the same sense now. I'd like to see it reworked if possible. --EECEE 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's less limiting as it relates only to the dissemination of false charges without making a statement about how many were true or false. True charges would not be an issue. Feel free to limit the category even further if it's ambiguous, but I would stay away from the broad, dismissive "although." --Tbeatty 06:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks. I just would like to see something that seems less conclusionary. So let me think about it. If anyone else has good ideas, go for it. --EECEE 21:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finally, a reliable source for "alternate" definitions

[28]. I believe this same author is cited eleswhere in this article. Don't have time to work it in right now, will catch it later if somebody else doesn't beat me to it. - Crockspot 16:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the other article, I guess it isn't cited in this article, but both of them should be worked in. Here are the cites:

Crockspot 02:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs more of a balanced viewpoint

This article seems skewed with a democratic slant on the term "Swiftboating". I agree that there are other uses but the ultimate use of "vets for the truth" is still very much under dispute. It would be wise to present both sides of the definition of this term more clearly (i.e. Swiftboating as a positive, swiftboating as a negative). Just a thought.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.2.253 (talk • contribs)

I agree wholeheartedly, and am happy that I am not the only one here expressing this opinion until I am blue in the face. Crockspot 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Unsigned User: First, the term "swiftboating" is not a use of "vets for the truth." It's a term that has come into its own meaning. Second, there is a meaning that is in broad usage, and there is a meaning that is in usage only by a comparative few. There is no reason to represent it as otherwise. --EECEE 02:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is the broad meaning? Can you prove it? KeithCu 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
How about checking some of the links if you want to know the extent of the usage. --EECEE 08:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because you find lots of people with the same POV doesn't make it the only POV.KeithCu 09:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Broad meaning, KeithCu, broad meaning. And alternative definitions actually have been included here, disproportionate to the extent of their usage, as a matter of fact. --EECEE 15:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
PS, speaking of "balance" - I see that there are exactly two and a half paragraphs of the article describing the more usual, pejorative use of the term, and exactly two and a half paragraphs describing the other view. As a matter of fact, a single interpretation - that given at the anti-Murtha site - is given a disproportionate amount of space. --EECEE 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It is linked to from an anti-murtha site, but that is not the only possible link to that definition. KeithCu 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No, but if you have been following the history, you know that links to sites that sell t-shirts and coffee mugs with slogans are not considered Wiki sources. Feel free to add links to reputable sources if you find any. --EECEE 08:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to follow any history to know that t-shirts are not reliable sources. If I did find other sources, would you change the definition away from being a "smear campaign" or are you too set in that POV?KeithCu 09:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said below, KeithCu, if you had read my posts here, you would know that I have actually advocated the inclusion of other definitions, when they merit inclusion. How about we agree to avoid the personal accusations and focus on what the article needs? --EECEE 15:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to re-write

I have spent an hour or more reading several pages of discussion and history, and have attempted to re-write in a more concise, NPOV way.

The old version immediately got into the controversy, so I moved up the sentences describing what it means first. It seems better to describe something before criticizing something! The old version had 3 different sentences saying that the arguments were disproved, etc. and I combined them into one sentence to streamline it.

The old version had an additional paragraph talking about it as a pejorative term, but that very much depends on your perspective and whether you think the SBVT allegations were itself true. I tried to capture that.

For those who think the SBVT allegations were true, then swiftboating will have one meaning. For those who think it is false, it will have another meaning. We should work hard to try to represent both sides!

I believed I have improved it, and have created something that is more acceptable to both sides.KeithCu 09:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. - Crockspot 12:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To KeithCu: I realize you spent some time on this, but knowing how much discussion and work has gone into this article, it would have been more helpful to discuss such massive editing before making it.

I also disagree that the article as it was was POV. It accurately reflects the way the term came into usage. On the other hand, I think the changes you made are really pretty POV. For instance, the description of Kerry's "own portrayal of himself as a war hero" is pure opinion. Second, the idea that swiftboating is a technique that can "convey allegations that the media does not report, as John Kerry's war service and later anti-war activities were hardly discussed in the media until the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth started their campaign" is simply not true. Both his military service and antiwar activities were not only the subject of numerous articles, including a series in the Boston Globe nearly a year before SBVT even existed, they were also the subject of at least one book published before the group even existed.

Furthermore, to say "the veracity of the claims of Swift Vets and POWs for Truth are highly disputed, so the meaning of "swiftboating" is therefore itself up for debate" is a nonsequitur. The meaning of the term is a separate issue from the veracity of the claims.

The fact is that the overwhelming bulk of the usage of the term is as a synonym for a smear campaign. It is not a matter of "representing both sides" as though there were different meanings that were in equal usage, when they are not. --EECEE 08:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


To EECEE: What you reverted to is currently bad for a large number of reasons, but it is not just my encyclopedia and if you spent all the time here, you can make it say whatever you want. For the record, I think the article is terrible, so I'll list my issues with it:

1. What does "established political force" mean? Sounds like a scary republican evil concept. Why not just "political?" FWIW, the swift boat guys claimed to be apolitical. They just felt a duty to tell the rest of the world what they knew about John Kerry given that he was running for something much greater than senator. They also said they would have done the same thing even if Kerry was a republican. I think John O'Neill voted for Gore in 2000, etc. It was not really about an established political force, but about a person trying to become commander in chief.

I didn't come up with the term "established political force" and I personally don't have a problem with that part of the sentence being reworked if others agree. However, as noted elsewhere on this page, while the sorts of attacks described in the article have indeed resulted in a benefit to one political cause or another - not to say it is launched by a political group - the attack is not always political or against a political personage - so to say it is a "political attack" wouldn't really be correct.
As to your take on SBVT's motives, that is something to be addressed at the SBVT article - and it has been.
I find lots of flaws in that article as well, but I hope I don't have to resolve them before we resolve this one.
Last time...this article is not the place to "resolve" them.
That statement was the first time I had criticized the SBVT article over here. I see them as inextricably linked right now, but you do not.

2. Not all the charges are unverifiable, or disproven. Anyway, that is one opinion, and there are other opinions of the situation that are not represented here. John O'Neill spent weeks responding to allegations, and debunked many of those trying to debunk him.

The article doesn't say "all the charges are unverifiable, or disproven." It says "Unverifiable or disproven charges were disseminated widely," which is true; and that is what led to "swiftboating's reputation as a controversial but effective form of 'smear campaign,'" which is also true.
This article is about a term that has entered into American usage and how it did so. It is not a rehash of the SBVT article.
Of course they are related. It is only those with the POV that the swifties were lying/inaccurate that would consider swiftboating to be a smear.
Should I just retype my response? This is about a term that has entered into widespread American usage. When you find evidence of other widespread usage, you should present it.
But all of this article's statements: "smear campaign," "credible-sounding," "difficult to disprove" hint at the SBVT situation. That these tenets came from some different "swiftboating" situation is simply false.

3. The idea that it was a smear campaign is just an opinion. I'm sure its widely held amongst liberals, but it is just an opinion. The swifties believed they were telling the truth, and millions of americans believed they were telling the truth, especially because John Kerry didn't respond to many of the allegations, and the number of vets supporting him were much fewer than those opposing him, etc. Kerry was convicted in the "court of public opinion." Today, lefties are attempting to convert the word into a smear campaign, but that is just one perspective, which is currently being greatly overvalued in this article.

Again, this is about a term that is in wide usage. Period. If you can find examples of the term used as other than a pejorative in equally wide or wider usage, you should post those examples.
Multiple examples of other definitions have already been posted. In fact, the article is a mess because it doesn't make clear that there are multiple POVs, even though the article implicitly acknowledges that.
There are multiple examples of other opinions about the shape of the earth, and they probably get mentioned in Wikipedia articles. That doesn't mean they are given equal weight with the generally accepted view. As a matter of fact, this article gives almost equal space to a definition that is in use by only a few scattered sources.
You again use the "flat earth" analogy, which demonstrates that you are not giving the other POV serious consideration.
The entire point is that this article is about WIDEPSREAD USAGE,period. What about that concept is so hard for you to grasp? --EECEE 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What you are not understanding is that it is just your opinion of widespread usage, and that millions of people do not think the swifties were lying and do not think of swiftboating as a smear campaign. You might think you've got footnotes to back up your side, but the article should at least seriously recognize this POV.

4. The accusations weren't difficult to disprove because it was a trick by evil Republicans. It had to do with the fact that much of Kerry's papers were not publicly available, and that many of the details happened decades ago. The article as it currently reads makes it sound like a conspiracy by picking things hard to disprove. Furthermore, this is irrelevant, who is to decide whether something is hard to disprove, and who cares? And if it was so hard to disprove, why is the SBVT article full of debunkings of the swifties claims? Must not have been that hard!!

And AGAIN, this is not an article about SBVT.
If that is the case, then you shouldn't take a POV from one article and put it into another.
And yet AGAIN, this is an article about how the term came into usage.

John Kerry portrayed himself as a war hero, and mentioned Vietnam in nearly every campaign stop. I could cite a source but the sentence is gone. Also, it is important to understand that if John Kerry never mentioned vietnam, the swift boat people have said they might not have gone after him. You are missing this important context. It is because John Kerry portrayed himself as a war hero, and was running for prez, that they went after him.

Aside from the demonstrable fallibility of your argument, you are missing the point of this article. It isn't about your idea of what John Kerry did or didn't do.
I'm trying to explain that the swifties said what they said not because the arguments were "difficult to disprove" but because the nature of the allegations happened to be that way. You are subtly putting motives into the accusers which do not belong.
What part of "this is about USAGE" is not clear ?
Put another way, find other cases where swiftboating used "difficult to disprove" allegations. This so clearly points to SBVT.
Hello, the word is "swiftboating."
Let's get full quote from the article, by the way. It says this form of attack is "difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections." Some examples? How about Frank Rich's example of the swiftboating of Cindy Sheehan that included rumors and innuendos about her divorce, her family, and even her relationship with her son? How about the examples of anti-Murtha swiftboating, which included unproven allegations about his own military awards, based in large part on the unfounded recollection of a political opponent of a single conversation years before? Should I continue?
That is one of the 3 usages of difficult to disprove in this article--a lot for such a short entry! You are quoting from the wrong one. I'm talking about the "credible-sounding sources to make sensational and difficult-to-disprove accusations." This statement has a bias that the person doing the swiftboating is lying and sneaky. In the cindy sheehan case, check out the Bill O'Reilly article. He was accused of swiftboating her but he insists he was telling the truth about her "radical politics and radical pals." Where does that usage fit into your worldview? As for the Murtha one, those guys believed they were telling the truth as well.
But AGAIN, this is about the usage of the term, not whether you think it is a fair perception. How many times does this simple point have to be repeated? --EECEE 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I know there were a few newspaper articles about John Kerry, and the Brinkley book, etc., but the point is that in general, it did not reach the the level of national dialog that Bush's national guard service did, etc. till the SBVT ads came out. They did viral marketing because the media were ignoring them. This is more important context you are missing. You don't explain why it is viral marketing, just that it is. That is confusing.

Aside from the demonstrable fallibility of THAT argument...do I have to say it again?...this is NOT a rehash of the SBVT article.
I'm just trying to explain to you what their motives were, other than picking arguments "hard to disprove."
See above. And by the way, the article says nothing about their motives now.
When someone picks "difficult to disprove" allegations, it is because they are being sneaky, lying bastards. No one unintentionally "picks" difficult to disprove allegations. The bias might not be explicit, but it is there.
Again, see above. --EECEE 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think that if you believed that the SBVT told the truth, then swiftboating would not have become defined as a smear campaign, as it is currently defined. You say that the mean of the term is separate from the veracity of the claims, yet the article as it current stands doesn't separate them. I think smear campaign is only one possible definition, by those who though the swifties were lying. I see you have extensive references to that perspective, but it is only one perspective.

It doesn't matter what I believe. It is what ninety-nine percent of the people who use the term in public media believe and convey with the use of the term. It is "only one perspective" to say the earth is round, but that doesn't mean the flat-earth theory gets equal play in a Wikipedia article.
Now we get to the meat: your POV that "everyone" thinks the swift boat veterans were lying/untrue, and therefore swiftboating is a smear. If one thought they were telling the truth, they could never think it was a smear. This is just your POV and I'm trying to get you to understand that there are other POV. By comparing this POV to "flat earth" theories shows that you do not give it the serious consideration it deserves.
The "meat" is the fact that this article is about the widespread usage of a term. Period.
I guess what I'm saying is that this is that your statement above is just a POV, and that millions of people would disagree with it.
Sorry, it is verifiable fact. Go run a Google search and see how many times it's used in anything but a pejorative manner by any reputable source. --EECEE 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
We could do our competing Google searches: you linking to huffington post and me linking to my sources, but if you do not accept the fact that millions of people think the SBVT were telling the truth, an extremely fundamental and crucial fact of the 2004 campaign, then I'm not sure that this work is appropriate yet. Because all of those people would never accept the proposition this article is selling, that swiftboating is a smear.

This is why I made some of the changes I made. EECEE, I have a suggestion: read the article, but keep in the back of your mind the idea that the SBVT were telling the truth and were not debunked at all. I believe you will find this intellectual exercise useful. KeithCu 03:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have read the article. Many times. Maybe you will re-read it with the idea in the back of your mind that it is NOT about the SBVT claims but about a term that is in widespread usage. --EECEE 06:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you read it with the different POV I suggested? You did not answer my question. I think if you take this alternate POV, the flaws in the article will pop into your head. If you are unable to take a NPOV, your might not be the right person to "control" the editing to this entry.
I try to edit with a view toward neutrality. Although people are perfectly free to discuss opinions on a talk page of course.
If you had read at my entries here and at the SBVT article, you would know that I have advocated the inclusion of differing analyses and different usages when they merit inclusion.
But if you argue that yours is the only widespread view, then you are giving other POVs a short shrift.
Oh crimeney, surely you see the lack of logic in that post? --EECEE 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is that if yours is the ONLY widespread view, the others don't really matter. We're just the flat-earthers.
Let's try to avoid impugning one another's motives here, okay?
It has nothing to do with your motives! It just has to do with perhaps that you are fixated on one POV. Asking you a question, which you still have not answered, is simply an intellectual exercise. Furthermore I'm not saying you aren't open to different analyses in general, just here.
I have answered your insulting question more than once. Yes, I have read and re-read the article many more times than you have, while considering other points of view than my own. That, in case you do not realize, is the point of having a discussion board. --EECEE 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not see an answer before. Re-reading it is good, but if you have the same perspective every time, it is just less useful. Given this POV, did you find that the article had any problems? For example, the fact that the article hints at multiple POVs but explicitly mentions only one? Or that it uses "disproven" 3 times?
As a hitherto uninvolved bystander, I find EECEE's arguments compelling--this is an article about the *term* "swiftboating", rather than the conduct or motives of the organization known as SBVT. The entirety of this article must be approached from that perspective; the preponderance of usage (in my experience) indicates that the term is generally used to describe a smear campaign designed to discredit the core strength/platform of the target by presenting plausible seeming evidence which is mostly unverifiable--that seems to agree well enough with the description in the article.
Traumerei 06:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is that it is only the left, (which has a very big megaphone) which considers swiftboating a smear campaign, and one's POV of the veracity of the SBVT claims is inextricably linked. It isn't helpful that wikipedia's megaphone is also "pushing" this POV.
KeithCu 09:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Look KeithCu, it has been pointed out to you numerous times that there is a widespread usage out there. You cannot deny that there is widespread usage that falls within a certain definition. Your complaint is that the usage is out there, not that Wikipedia is acknowledging that it is out there. When you find another, nonpejorative, usage out there in anywhere near equal usage, present it. --EECEE 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My complaint is that lefties are attempting to re-define it, after the election. The millions of people who believed the SBVT do not believe it means to smear. Those people believe it means to tell the truth. (Is telling the truth about Kerry or others pejorative?) Perhaps within the pages of huffington post it has a different meaning, but I think you overestimating your data for "widespread usage." Even within the clearly biased Huffington Post article, it leaves open the possibility that accusers could think they are telling the truth by swiftboating. Same with the Bill O'Reilly transcript. Put another way, the people who are themselves claiming to "swiftboat" murtha and cindy sheehan could also very well also believe they are telling the truth and don't look at it in a negative way. In other words, the links used as a basis for "widespread usage" aren't that strong. I personally think you are taking a minority view and turning it into the "widespread" view, but I think "close to equal respect for both sides" is a reasonable start. KeithCu 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Go back and look at the many times on this page where it has been pointed out that the term has NOTHING to do with the motives of the people doing the swiftboating, or whether or not they think they're telling the truth. --EECEE 23:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article contains "smear campaign", which means someone is not telling the truth. It also suggests bad motives.
One other little point: I think there are many Kerry supporters who might have voted for him, but still believed the SBVT; during the campaign, Kerry didn't really respond to their allegations. In other words, I think most republicans, and many democrats do not think of swiftboating as smearing. This is why I think you are turning the minority view into the widespread view. KeithCu 19:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I see I'm wasting my energy trying to reason with you. You're welcome to your opinion, but you're not entitled to interject it into the article. Good bye. --EECEE 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that you think your opinion is the worldview and you will not consider giving what millions of other people think, who thought that the SBVTs were honorable and were telling the truth and that swiftboating is therefore telling the truth. Again, I believe that THIS is the majority view and that your opinion is actually the minority view, but I feel that at least both sides should be fairly represented. KeithCu 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
KeithCu, do you have any citations to support your statement that the "majority view" is favorable to the SBVT's claims? I recall a poll that stated that only a third (or perhaps it was a quarter) of those who heard the SBVT ads thought that there was any truth to them.
Traumerei 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I found a poll that showed that as many thought favorably as unfavorably about them and they had better ratings than any other 527: http://www.fabmac.com/FMA-2004-11-04-527-Effects.pdf.
I found an article which showed a dramatic change in the polls in a short period of time, and that the author credits SBVT for this. http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200408301535.asp.
This doesn't demonstrate majority view, but it does demonstrate they weren't discredited. The aluminum tubes/WMD issue is widely discredited, but the SBVT never reached that level during the campaign. These are just my ideas as a political observer. I'm not hear to hash it out, but to point out that both sides should be given serious consideration. KeithCu 22:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Both sides should be given serious consideration" about the credibility of those claims over at the SBVT article, not here. The National Review is strongly right-wing--and that poll you cite is a PR release by a GOP polling group--not exactly what Wikipedia considers an "encyclopedia-quality" source, and neither is evidence for your repeated claim here that the "majority view" favors SBVT. The much-more-respectable Annenberg poll cited in this article shows that even in 2004, the percentage who found SBVT's claims "believable" was 46% vs 49% unbelievable. Next question, did Kerry earn his medals or not? 59% overall said yes, 21% said no. Even among Republicans, those most likely to agree with the SBVT, 39% thought Kerry earned his medals and 38% thought he didn't. betsythedevine 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you accept the proposition that millions of people think the SBVT were honest (it looks like you do not, and it looks like this could be clouding your thinking) then you could understand how they would never think of swiftboating as lefties are redefining it.
I was not proposing to put my links on the front page of the article, but I presume the standards are lower on this talk page. Anyway, do you have any more criticism other than they are GOP funded? (Would you suggest removing huffingtonpost references because they are Dem funded?) The reason why is that we need more polls. The Annenberg poll you cite is too early. Did you notice the dates for the questions? Compare it to when the swiftvets released most of their ads. It looks like the poll should be removed from this article for lack of relevance. Dates are very important things for polls! KeithCu 13:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding POV warning

I've decided to add a POV warning to this page. Those that think "swiftboating" is a "smear campaign" think this because they also believe that the swiftboaters were lying/inaccurate. Those who with the POV that the swifties were telling the truth would never use this definition. This article does link to multiple references to it as a smear campaign, but it is all amongst people with the same POV.

Furthermore, the entry hints at other POVs, but it is not explicit about it. Therefore, this entry is "pushing" a POV. Also, it uses "disproven" 3 times, which is another way it pushes a POV.

KeithCu 09:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an inappropropriate label for reasons that have been explained numerous times. I think it is especially inappropriate that you put it there unilaterally without discussing it here. You don't get to slap a POV label on every article you disagree with. However, I will see what others think before asking that it be removed. --EECEE 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I did not get opinions first, but I was following Wikipedia's motto of being bold. In addition, many other people pointing out POV issues in other parts of this discussion page. Warnings aren't a big deal; Wikipedia is littered with warnings on places to improve. KeithCu 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia doesn't encourage people to be bold in throwing up templates, in fact quite the opposite. As to people pointing out issues on the discussion page...that's what it's for. And neutrality warnings are a "big deal" - following the discussion when one is thrown up will tell you that. --EECEE 18:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)--EECEE 18:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If any label were to be added to this article, it is that one. Being bold is not waiting for 100% agreement that the article is not NPOV. KeithCu 19:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that's called being unilateral, and it is bad form. Give me a break. --EECEE 22:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Unilateral would be doing something that only I want. But there are many others who have lodged complaints. In fact the reason why the discussion doesn't go away is because I think this article has had NPOV issues for at least 1.5 years, as far back as I looked. KeithCu 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Delusional would be doing something that only you want and claiming to be speaking for anyone who ever had anything to say about POV. Rarely have I seen such willful ignorance. --68.164.91.87 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Funny! However, the delusional thing here would be to look at the article, and the discussion page, and not conclude that the article has POV issues, and that a number of people think this. Have you read the complaints? How about this one: "This article is the perfect representation of what Wikipedia has become- a ridiculously one-sided joke, posing as "NPOV". The whole article is an attack on a group of veterans who felt that the whole story was not being told;" KeithCu 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The complaint you quote relates to a long-ago version of this article, which was indeed the subject of a similar dispute, one I analyzed in detail for a talk I gave at Wikimania 2006. My impression is that EECEE has worked long and hard to get the article into a neutral stance. For example, all the information about conservative pushback against a pejorative use of the term, including the contention that it's used as "hate speech," was added after that particular comment was made. A neutral article on "Swiftboating" means that it must accurately reflect the fact that Swiftboating is used as a strong insult by people who don't like the SBVT. betsythedevine 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, Betsy. I mostly agree, except I think the negative usage of the term has less and less to do with "not liking the SBVT" as time goes by and the term takes on a meaning of its own. That is, like terms such as "McCarthyism," its use will simply reflect the primary understood meaning of the term rather than the source of the term.
So I am okay with saying for now that the use of the term "generally reflects its users' disapproval of" the SBVT tactics, but with time I think that will be a nonfactor...just as we would not currently say, for instance, that the use of the term "McCarthyism" generally reflects one's disapproval of Joe McCarthy's tactics. Does that make sense? --EECEE 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the word "McCarthyism" gets used by people who have heard other people using it, but themselves have no idea of its origins--and that over time the same thing will happen to swiftboating. Pushback continues, however--Ann Coulter objects to the pejorative use of "McCarthyism", e.g. "The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis." Hey, I call Godwin's Law! betsythedevine 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
And a good call it is, Miss Betsy. Heh. --EECEE 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "unverified or disproven charges were diseminated widely" part. The source cited supports the disemination, but not the characerizations preceeding it. This article is about the term, not the group, and any judgments, particularly unsourced ones, about the group or their claims should be reserved for the SBVT article. And just as an aside, there was a recent interesting development in the blogosphere last week. A phony vet was outed, and his defenders claimed that he was being "swiftboated" (smeared), whereas his attackers also claimed to be "swiftboating" him (outing him for the phony that he turned out to be.) - Crockspot 13:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Betsy, 2 thoughts:
1. What does swiftboating mean for the millions of people who like the SBVT and thought they were telling the truth? Swiftboating needs to address this. I think that the smear is a redefine of what the natural definition of swiftboating meant.
2. Even if you assume that swiftboating was a term made by people who felt Kerry unfairly got hurt by them, it doesn't mean that this article should say things like "unverifiable charges were disseminated widely." It seems like this sentence doesn't really belong here, unless it makes clear that this statement says nothing about the SBVT situation. Lots of people who think the SBVT are true will think that many aspects of this article are smearing those folks. There is a caveat at the end, but I think it should be moved to the beginning. I believe this article should at least be neutral to the question of the truth of the allegations. Someone can claim they are being smeared, and it may or may not be true. KeithCu 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
KeithCU, I appreciate that "the millions of people who like the SBVT and thought they were telling the truth" don't like the fact that the term "swiftboating" gets used like an insult. But that's how it is used.
Betsy, it isn't that I don't like it. It is that these millions of people would intuitively have a different meaning of swiftboating. [said KeithCU]
Er, ok, so you claim. And when that "intuitively..different meaning" shows up in encyclopedia-quality sources, we can cite some of those quotes in Wikipedia. In fact, we already do cite some. But also in fact, if you look at, for example, Bill O'Reilly in 2005, his objection to the use of "swiftboating" wasn't "Using the term this way maligns some great patriots" it was "It's misleading to say we're swiftboating because we're not engaging in character assassination."betsythedevine 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You say, "Even if you assume that swiftboating was a term made by people who felt Kerry unfairly got hurt by them.." I don't assume that. I know that. You know it too. Look at the quotes, the URLs, citation after citation of people who use "swiftboating" for attacks they think were unfair.
One could make a case that it is the NYT and huffingtonpost and several other lefties who are attempting to re-define it. I believe this goes against what a majority of Americans might believe. If all of your quotes are from lefties, I think that this important caveat is relevant. [said KeithCU]
You say "lefties" are attempting to "re-define" the term. That implies people who like SBVT were the first to use the verb "swiftboat" --and if you know of even one such example in an encyclopedia-quality and dated source, please cite it in this article. My impression is that "lefties" were the first to use "swiftboat" as a verb. Please, add URLs of data that backs up whatever it is you are claiming. betsythedevine 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I've worked hard to make this article "neutral to the question of the truth of the allegations." You object to my description of the activity inspiring the word "swiftboating" as "unverifiable charges were disseminated widely." Is your claim that the charges were verifiable? Is your claim that the charges were not disseminated widely? To say that the charges were unverifiable (and most if not all remain in dispute three years later) is not to allege that they were false.
We would have to talk about what their charges were. I just watched the first ad again. They say John Kerry accused them of being war criminals. Also, that they kept their metals. Those are not unverifiable. This whole issue is so complicated I'm not sure if it belongs. [said KeithCU]
Betsy, this is a good point. You might notice that on March 13 Tbeatty and I had a discussion about his edit of the phrase "although many of the charges were unverifiable or disproven" to simply read something like "unverifiable or disproven charges were disseminated widely" (sorry, I don't have it in front of me). His point being that it was "less limiting as it relates only to the dissemination of false charges without making a statement about how many." After going back over it, I began to see his point ... and I think you are correct in keeping the substance of the phrase. --EECEE 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the way things are--not the way people wish things were. The main point of this article is, and has to be, the way the term is actually used in practice. The fact that some people object to the way it's used is secondary--it merits inclusion, it doesn't merit an equal amount of material given over to it. It doesn't merit what you ask for, being "moved to the beginning." For example, Wikipedia has long articles for several different words used as obscene insults for women--each is given over almost exclusively to examples of the words' actual usage, with brief down-the-page citations of feminist feedback. Wikipedia has a long article for heroin--only a small fraction of that article describes objections to heroin. That doesn't mean that people who object to heroin are mistaken or otherwise unimportant.
I was suggesting it because if we found that a majority of Americans thought the SBVT were telling the truth, it puts the "lefties redefining" in context. [said KeithCU]
Yes, and if we found that Bush's approval rating now stands at 29%, its lowest ever, as reported by the WSJ ("lefties") we might wonder how many Americans still idolize SBVT or are happy about any of the many deceptive tactics used by Bush's supporters in 2004. betsythedevine 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Bush's approval rating would not cause Americans to change their perspective of the swiftvets! His rating has to do with Iraq, immigration, Katrina, etc. Your use of the word idolize shows that you do not take the perspective of SBVT supporters seriously. KeithCu 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite a few people who disagree with your point of view have nevertheless worked hard to respond to your complaints. You are not satisfied. You point out, quite accurately I'm sure, that people who support SBVT would like to see this article transformed into a compendium of their objections to the way swiftboating is used, with a few barbs at John Kerry thrown in for good measure. Let me point out that people who dislike SBVT would like to see this article transformed into a compendium of barbs against the honesty and sincerity of SBVT. Neutrality will satisfy neither set of extremists. But that has to be our goal for Wikipedia. betsythedevine 01:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, its mostly EECEE which dominates here. I think there are lots of people who think the way I do out there, but maybe they aren't as patient and persistent. (I think the SBVT article is hopelessly biased, for example. That further discourages me from jumping in.) I never suggested adding barbs against John Kerry. (I did want to add that part of the reason that SBVT did their thing is because John Kerry tried to paint himself as a war hero, never apologized, etc. I consider that context relevant, not barbs.) KeithCu 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Betsy, I'm not sure I agree with the current revision stating that the term was given currency by those who had a negative view of SBVT. It was used plenty of times even in 2004 by commentators who didn't say one thing or the other about SBVT. I think the closest we should come to implying a viewpoint is to say that the disapproval is reflected in its usage - as per your prior version. In addition, I think the repeated notes that SBVT supporters object to the usage is ...well, repetitive, and its prominence in the article also implies that the disagreement is much more high profile than it is. The fact is, media-wise it's limited to a couple of political commentators.
Consider this: if we are going to spend a couple of paragraphs talking about SBVT supporters thinking the term is an unfair slur on SBVT, why are we not expending equal space talking about those who thought the SBVT was a pack of liars? Saying that those who use the term think that is first, not correct, and second, not correlative to the "we're offended by the slur" POV. In my view, anyway.
The actual description of the term Swiftboating is now less than two paragraphs, which don't now describe the basic characteristics - viral campaign, etc. - with half the narrative space given over to the "objections" to the use. Again, I think this gives in an inaccurate impression. --EECEE 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
EECEE, my apologies--I had to leave my computer for a whole day, and didn't finish the work I had started of adding example after example after example of the way the term is actually used. I'll get back on it, feel free to add examples of your own to that section, betsythedevine 01:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As a right-leaner who uses the term in the right-leaning way, it's my opinion that the primary use of the term is in the left-leaning way. There is a significant enough secondary meaning that it deserves mention in the article, but it is in less common use, so the weight given it should be appropriate. If I were asked to quantify the weight, I would say 70% left "political smear", and 30% right "exposing hypocricy" would probably be about right. - Crockspot 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, I so appreciate your input. I hope you find my edits to this article reflect a neutral stance that you and I and others can agree on. Or if not, please add your own citations. betsythedevine 05:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, that is because the most common usage of it is by NYT, huffington post, etc: lefties who would love to redefine swiftboating to be a smear and who didn't believe the SBVT. Now, any time a republican attacks a democrat, they can just throw a counter-charge of swiftboating. This article has multiple references to the same POV, and that is not the same as multiple references to multiple POVs. Also, there is no conservative NYT, so don't be surprised that there are more leftie references out there in general. KeithCu 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the term was first used in a political sense by the left. If you have a citation disproving that, I would certainly like to see it, as that would please me to no end. Unfortunately, I don't believe such a source exists. Trust me, I've looked for such a source myself quite thoroughly. If Republicans who get accused of "swiftboating" by the NYTimes would have the balls to tell the reporter "Damn right I swiftboated him, I exposed him for the liar that he is", then we would have some sources. But chances are, the Times would cut the quote after the comma. - Crockspot 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
And any time a Democrat accuses a Republican of swiftboating, the Republican can respond that the Democrat is an Osama-loving babykiller who doesn't support our troops. But the existence of stupid politics has no bearing on this article, nor does the claim that all news is leftwing. (FoxNews? Wall Street Journal? ClearChannel? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? etc.) As for your "redefinition" claim, see below. betsythedevine 15:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, KeithCu... your arguments are full of inconsistencies and smell of your own, individual POV. When you first slapped the NPOV tag on it without consensus you said you were being "bold". But then, when pushed, you digged deep into the wiki archives to extract another lone dissenter from some time ago to show your "consensus". When than didn't work, you claimed "millions" of SBVT supporters would disagree with this article's NPOV, which, of course, has absolutely no bearing on wiki standards whatsoever... and, therefore, your ridiculous NPOV is now removed. IF you can get some TRUE consensus that the term "swiftboating" should be sugar coated to a different meaning, then PROVE IT here. Surely with millions behind you, you can at least get true consensus here, right? In the meantime, let's use some common sense and realize that "swiftboating" is a derogative term and this article is merely the definition and explanation of the term. Fudging with it isn't encyclopedic; it's backwards and reeks of agenda. Cowicide (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The claim that "lefties .. would love to redefine" swiftboating and what it should mean for this article

I have yet to see any media report of a positive use of "swiftboating" that doesn't make it clear that the term is more commonly used as an insult, and that those who want to see it used in positive ways are pushing back against its much more common usage.

This article has multiple examples of the term swiftboating in actual use--including one citation in FoxNews, and here's another. Both citations show FoxNews (they're not "lefties") in 2005 quoting without comment its use as a pejorative.

As for the Bill O'Reilly TPM reference, he is just quoting lefties who say that he swiftboated Cindy Sheehan. He doesn't say whether he thinks it means anything pejorative. I believe he thought the SBVT were telling the truth (I watched several episodes of his show during the campaign), so it is unlikely that he would endorse it as a smear. KeithCu 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that Bill O'Reilly probably liked what SBVT did. BTW could you please stop dismissing the views of people who disagree with you by referring to them as "lefties"? There are also rude and dismissive terms to describe the people who agree with you--using them doesn't add value to a discussion that is trying to remain civil and productive. betsythedevine 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if O'Reilly ever liked the SBVT he's certainly backtracking now. He recently insisted that he was "one of the big critics of the Swift Boats" [29]. He did say the ads were "tawdry and distasteful" when they first came out, and said he believed Jim Rassman, but he also hosted a couple of the SBVTers on his show. --EECEE 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence suggests that all of a sudden in 2006 somebody decided it was time for a pushback, though that little bandwagon has been slow to get rolling because most people on the right have more important stuff to worry about than whether Ted Kennedy is saying something that might hurt the feelings of SBVT.

So the "encyclopedia-quality" media citations reflect people who don't like SBVT using "swiftboating" as a kind of insult in 2005, with people who do like SBVT trying to get that pejorative usage changed in 2006. Who is trying to "redefine" something here?

The earliest use of swiftboating -- the most common use of swiftboating -- the most widely understood use of swiftboating -- is as a pejorative term for an unfair attack.

If flattering uses of the verb "swiftboat" became common, surely somebody would be able to bring some citations in from FoxNews, NRO, the Wall Street Journal, etc. betsythedevine 15:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, it was not until 2006 that we had Reliable Sources to document a pushback. In the conservative blogosphere, such as FreeRepublic and Conservative Underground, we started "pushing back" immediately, during the 2004 election cycle when the term first started being used. But blogs are not RS, hence the lack of documentation going back that far. - Crockspot 15:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, thanks for the correction and clarification. I appreciate your constructive tone throughout this discussion. I think the article looks pretty good now after your and KeithCu's recent changes except that the Bill O'Reilly/Fox citation now has a bit of a repeat of the same information. I'll wait for you to fix that or else edit it down later. betsythedevine 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove POV, don't add more

I agree that some POV had crept into the article. IMO, the remedy is not to add anti-Kerry POV but to try to remove the anti-SBVT POV from the article and to make explicit the anti-SBVT POV of the people who use swiftboating as an insult. So I tried a minor rewrite on that principle. Crockspot, is there a reference we could cite for that incident? I've also heard "swiftboating" used for non-political attacks, e.g. "His landlord swiftboated him." I'll be looking for a good citation for that kind of usage though. Fools rush in, &etc. betsythedevine 13:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Betsythedevine, I think you have done a nice job revising the article. I have minor questions about a couple of things (for instance, use of the term "pushback"), but they are, as I say, minor and I am happy to leave as is. Always happy to see productive discussion here - thanks for checking in!
PS, how come the warning is still up? --EECEE 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing that meets RS. Just partisan blogs, like DU, DKos, and CU. But I'm always on the lookout too. - Crockspot 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)