Jump to content

Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

SBVT credibility

The SBVT is a anti-Vietnam veterans group that strives to dishonor the service of Vietnam War heroes. SBVT is against everything that America stands for. It should be made clear that these people have no credibility with any reasonable person. As far as I'm concerned slandering our soldiers is right on par with treason. Truth and fact are not POV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.22.94 (talk • contribs)

Background

  • The following entry mis-states and factually misrepresents SBVT's "assertions" and mandates revision...

SBVT asserted that Kerry was "unfit to serve" as president based on his wartime conduct and later activism in the anti-Vietnam war movement.

What the SBVT "asserts" is what they say they assert, and they are quite specific about it...

It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war. Letter to John Kerry, May 04 2004

Their assertion of unfitness is NOT based on some generalized notion of "wartime conduct" but specifically on their allegation that he "withheld and/or distorted material facts" as to his own conduct in that war.

Nor is it factually accurate that SBVT asserted Kerry was unfit because of his anti-Vietnam War "activism". Their allegation is that he "grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct" of American servicemen in that war during that period of activism.

I offer the following edit...

SBVT asserted that Kerry was "unfit to serve" as president based upon his alleged willful distortion of the conduct of American servicemen during that war and his alleged withholding and/or distortion of material facts as to his own conduct during that war JakeInJoisey 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The following entry warrants editing as it presents an opinion as to the rationale for the "tremendous" controversy" that is decidedly POV and contains numerous factual errors.

This claim caused tremendous controversy during the election, particularly because the veterans were perceived as partisans who had not been in a place to assess Kerry, while several other Vietnam veterans who served alongside Kerry or under his command disputed the criticisms and supported Kerry in his presidential aspirations.

    • First, one might easily and quite legitimately posit that the "cause" of the "tremendous controversy" was the nature and credibility of the allegations themselves. That the controversy ensued because the SBVT was "partisan" is arguable at best and decidedly POV.
    • Second, to suggest that the veterans? (should read SBVT?) were universally "perceived as partisans" is absurd on it's face .
    • Third, a suggestion that none had been in a place to "assess Kerry" is factually erroneous.

Comments please? JakeInJoisey 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The following entry mandates editing as it contains an error of fact.

In their initial letter, SBVT stated "Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels [sic] us to step forward."

The above statement was not extracted from their initial letter but from the opening page of their website. Also, the grammatical error has apparently been corrected. I will make the correction with an appropriate link. JakeInJoisey 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The following is transparently POV and mandates correction...

After the election, the group was praised by conservatives for contributing to the success of the George W. Bush campaign, while critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign.

This entry is a transparent POV attempt to lend credibility to the allegation of SBVT direct ties to George Bush in the guise of a "balance" to the insertion of the "smear" allegation.

Let's play fair here with a compromise of a sort.

After the election, the group was credited by media and praised byconservatives for contributing to the defeat of John Kerry, while critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign. JakeInJoisey 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I also included a link for the part about "conservatives" thinking SBVT helped win the election - but I think it is more accurate to say they think they helped defeat Kerry than that they helped GWB win, as JinJ points out - and a link for the view that SBVT was an example of a smear campaign. --EECEE 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks OK to me...amended JakeInJoisey 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi JinJ - Thanks for the cleanup. However, I think being "credited by the media" (with contributing to the defeat of JK), as opposed to "praised by conservatives" needs its own supporting link. The only "nonpolitical" articles I saw talked about Kerry's late response to SBVT being damaging to the campaign (for instance,: [1]), especially as the polls showed the ads had little effect on voter perception, but maybe you can find a few links out there? In addition, plenty of "media" also described it as a smear campaign, so if included maybe it should be included for both views. Your thoughts? EECEE 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested in learning how one defines a "non-political" article (or source). I suspect that there's no such entity in contemporary media and it relates more to how you perceive whose ox is being regularly gored. Nor am I surprised that you choose as your example an article from the "Globe". Pardon my cynicism, but you might as well have sourced the NYT or the LAT as your example. Can we come down to earth a bit here EECEE?
Be that as it may, you appear to be arguing a finer point than the one currently being made. Perhaps you're objecting to the word "crediting" as some derivation of "commending"? If so, I believe you are mis-interpreting the use of the word, but I have no heartburn with looking for a suitable alternative. Whatever the terminology used, SBVT's impact on the election was factual (you might argue the degree) and needs to be recognized.
As to a link , quite coincidentally, here's an AP offering from today...

Kerry had hoped his military background would be a pillar of his 2004 presidential bid. But his campaign failed to effectively counter charges by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked Kerry's war record.

I'd say that's a good example of "credited by the media" as having been a factor in Kerry's loss.
More likely, I assume, is your desire to attribute whatever "success" SBVT might have had to circumstance rather than substance (which, of course, is Kerry's position) but on that point I'm afraid we'd have to "go to the mattresses". Frankly I believe it would needlessly expand an already bloated "article" with more point/counterpoint...but I'll play if you wish.
As to some "media" refering to SBVT as a "smear", you are, of course, quite correct and I've no objection to recognizing that reality. The paragraph, quite obviously needs to be re-worked. JakeInJoisey 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the example you chose actually underscores my point, which is that most media commentary says it was the tactical error of Kerry's failure to respond to the charges rather than the charges themselves that harmed his campaign. By "nonpolitical" articles I simply meant those not authored by someone trying to make a political point, as in a commentary at a political site. A "nonpolitical" article would be a noneditorial piece through a recognized news outlet. As is the Boston Globe, although in this case it is merely paraphrasing Kerry, so that probably wasn't the best example.
So if one wants to posit that the "media" credited SBVT itself - the substance of the claims, as you say - with contributing to his loss, one should provide some noneditorial, recognized media links to back it up. As I say, the only pieces I find put the blame at the tactical error of Kerry's ineffective response, not the substance of the SBVT claims themselves.
And yes, the paragraph needs to be reworked. EECEE 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
After some thought, I suggest we simplify the sentence to reflect the important distinctions. Maybe something like this:
Some consider the group, or Kerry's slow response to the group's claims, as a factor in his defeat in the 2004 election (links), while others consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign (links).
Your thoughts? EECEE 16:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
When my time permits, I will respond to each of the points you raised above. As to your most recent suggested edit, I think we need to come to some resolution as to the issues raised above before deciding on suggested revisions. I will, hopefully, have something up this evening. JakeInJoisey 17:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You've raised several points and I'll try to be responsive to all when time permits...
  • Well, I think the example you chose actually underscores my point, which is that most media commentary says it was the tactical error of Kerry's failure to respond to the charges rather than the charges themselves that harmed his campaign.
Perhaps that's your (a?) point as well, but it addresses a different issue than the one we were initially discussing and about which, I thought, we had achieved consensus given your response of 14:55, 25 April 2006. Pardon me for saying so, but you appear to be moving the goalpost. You stated...
However, I think being "credited by the media" (with contributing to the defeat of JK), as opposed to "praised by conservatives" needs its own supporting link. The only "nonpolitical" articles I saw talked about Kerry's late response to SBVT being damaging to the campaign
I provided you a link that certainly appears to acknowledge consequence to the Kerry campaign without getting into the nature of that consequence, and that was just from yesterday. That one article alone appears to rebut your assertion.
Are you now suggesting that even an acknowledgement of SBVT consequence must be qualified by your rather vague and unsupported personal perception of what "most media commentary" stated to be the causation of that consequence? The very fact that you qualified it as "most media" implies that media opinion wasn't universal on that point and without supporting documentation would render your statement to POV supposition. Frankly, I don't know how you would legitimately quantify such an assertion.
What WAS universally held (I'll go out on a limb here) was that SBVT played a significant role in the outcome of the election and that's ALL that sentence is stating.
Nor, BTW, am I buying into your rather creative concept of the "nonpolitical" article. More on that when I can get to it. JakeInJoisey 03:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Well, let's recap. You introduced the idea that "media" drew a conclusion about the effect of the substance of the SBVT claims on Kerry's campaign. I suggested that any such statement should be supported by links to objective "media" sources. It is up to the person making the claim about media conclusions to provide the source. As I said, I have not seen anything that has suggested such a conclusion on the part of "media" (which in itself is a pretty generalized assumption, isn't it?); rather, what I have seen are discussions of the effect of Kerry's delayed, or ineffective, response to the SBVT claims.
The sentence you provide from the AP article has a subject - Kerry's campaign - and a predicate - "failed to effectively counter" -counter what? - the SBVT charges. The effect of that failure, according to the article? Kerry was hampered in capitalizing on his military background during the campaign. By whom or what? His campaign's ineffectiveness.
If one wants to claim that the media drew a direct connection between the substance of SBVT claims and Kerry's loss, one should provide a link or two that makes that direct connection.
So once again I suggest making the point a simple one, such as: Some credit SBVT with contributing to Kerry's loss (links), while others view it as an example of a successful smear campaign (link). EECEE 06:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's recap. You introduced the idea that "media" drew a conclusion about the effect of the substance of the SBVT claims on Kerry's campaign.
That's incorrect. My suggested edit contained no reference at all as to the "why" of any purported SBVT "success". It simply stated that it was acknowledged (credited?) by media as having been a factor in Kerry's loss. I felt this this was necessary to mitigate any possible misconception that whatever "success" SBVT might have had was in the eyes of "conservatives" only.
I didn't say the edit contained a "reference" to anything, simply that it introduced the idea that certain conclusions were drawn by media. EECEE 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you didn't say "certain conclusions". You stated you hadn't seen a media "conclusion" that SBVT "contributed to the defeat of JK" without also stating that it was caused by Kerry's "late response". You then asked me to "find a few links out there?" to substantiate my point. I found you one which rebutted your assertion that was less than a day old.
Well no, I don't believe my assertion has been rebutted, and I will refer you to my earlier post on that point. Your article actually said it was Kerry's ineffective response that detracted from his campaign. EECEE 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it did, and the nature of that "ineffective response" was UNSPECIFIED. Was it his alleged (and your premised) "late response"? It doesn't say. Was it his alleged inability to respond to damaging factual allegations? It doesn't say. It simply states that his campaign failed to effectively counter charges by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked Kerry's war record and, therefore, rebuts your premise and supports an assertion that media credited SBVT as having contributed to Kerry's defeat...which is ALL my "media" comment asserted. JakeInJoisey 06:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The nature of the response was specified in that it was termed not "effective." And once again, this particular medium only credits that ineffective response - not the attacks - with affecting Kerry's ability to make his military experience a pillar of his campaign, not the outcome of the election. This in turn was in the context of Kerry's views on Iraq and Vietnam. EECEE 08:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW, we could have saved a lot of time had you objected to the "media" edit in the first place. As your initial response made no mention of it and, thusly, appeared to indicate agreement, your subsequent comment had me somewhat puzzled. However, had I explained my rationale for the insertion in the first place, it would have flagged it better for comment. JakeInJoisey 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, if you are referring to my "initial response" re the backup sources for the "conservative praise" part, I was addressing what appeared in the article rather than what you had posted here - and I don't believe the "media" edit had gone into the article at that point (I could certainly be wrong). I see how that could be confusing here, and I apologize for not being more thorough in my reading.
At any rate, my initial point about the "media" edit was that it (like the "conservative praise" part) should be supported by objective sources (which in my opinion it has not been). The fact that the edit posits a conclusion about the effect of SBVT on the outcome of the election is the underlying reason for needing backup sources. I realize it led into an examination of parts of the sentence that were already posted, and I am sorry if that also caused confusion, but such is the nature of edit discussions. At any rate, all led to the more recent discussion about simply couching the entire sentence in terms of the points of view of supporters and critics. EECEE 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
However, I can live with the following...
After the election, the group was praised by supporters for contributing to the defeat of John Kerry, while critics consider the group to be an example of a successful political smear campaign.
Looks good to me, except that I think it should say: "praised by supporters as contributing". EECEE 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a degree in English, but it seems to me that it would be "as contributors" or "for contributing" or "for their contribution(s)"...or am I missing a larger point here? :-/ JakeInJoisey 23:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My thought being, again, that a view (that of the supporters)is being described, without implying a factual conclusion. In other words, supporters saw SBVT as contributing (or "as contributors") to Kerry's defeat. Different from praising the group FOR contributing to that defeat. I realize it seems a minor difference, but it is substantive, in my view. Thanks. EECEE 23:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to "imply" a factual conclusion...there IS a factual reality. SBVT supporters praised them BOTH "as contributors" and "for contributing". Are you suggesting otherwise? JakeInJoisey 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The implied conclusion is not that SBVT supporters praised the group for something. It is that something actually occurred for which the group was praised. Once again, to say supporters praised SBVT for contributing to Kerry's defeat implies a factual conclusion - that they actually contributed to his defeat - just as saying that some criticized the group "for being a smear campaign" would imply a factual conclusion. Thus, it seems more accurate - and supportable - to say that SBVT supporters praised the group as a factor in Kerry's defeat, contributors to his defeat, or contributing to his defeat. Just as it is more accurate and supportable to say that critics consider the group an example of a successful smear campaign. EECEE 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
...to say supporters praised SBVT for contributing to Kerry's defeat implies a factual conclusion - that they actually contributed to his defeat
EECEE, that's just not credible logic! Read that statement again for yourself! While SBVT supporters have most certainly drawn a conclusion, they might be WRONG!!!! And the same is true of SBVT detractors! The true or false nature of their respective beliefs is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE altogether! This isn't a declaration that the supporters of SBVT are CORRECT in assuming a degree of SBVT effectiveness, nor a declaration that critics of SBVT are CORRECT in assuming the appropriateness of a "smear" label. It's simply a statement of some of the prevalent perceptions of BOTH groups post-election.
That is the whole point. It is a perception only. It should be presented in those terms.
We are really only one word off in our views. I think substituting the word "as" in place of "for" or a like edit would serve the purpose. EECEE 08:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Jake - As you have been back to the article but haven't posted to me, I assume the edit I suggested is okay with you, and will go ahead and make it. Thanks. --EECEE 23:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Just what impact the SBVT may have had on Kerry's campaign is an unknown at this point and I'd suggest that neither of us has the wherewithal to speak authoritatively on that matter. Passion is still too high on this subject and I'd suggest there's more advocacy afoot than scholarship by a long shot. JakeInJoisey 07:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Probably true. EECEE 08:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


I assume you will find that considerably more acceptable than the following alternative...
After the election, the group was praised by conservatives for revealing the truth about John Kerry, while liberals consider the group to be an example of a successful political smear campaign.
lol JakeInJoisey 08:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Hi - I edited in a few places for accuracy, including deleting the part that states that some people thought the SBVT brought important views into public discussion (paraphrasing here), as there was no supporting evidence provided. If someone can provide some links showing that this was a perception of anyone without a political dog in the fight, I have no problem including it.--EECEE 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll reserve comment on the edit by 70.112.27.252 as it wasn't discussed here prior to edit. I posted a note on his/her talk page requesting compliance with the "controversial" template requirements. JakeInJoisey 15:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'll try to remember not to be so quick with the edit...without checking the talk page first at least. EECEE 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I think the contradictory "contemporaneous" statements were by SBVT members rather than "supporters." For example, Schachte is a supporter, but his contradictory statements were made years later. --EECEE 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your response and, in order to keep some semblance of order here, I'm proposing that we use a bullet point to frame areas of discussion? I find it very cumbersome to be responsive in an orderly fashion to single paragraphs containing multiple subjects for discussion. With your indulgence, I've "bulleted" your points for comment as interested parties see fit. I'll add some input when time permits. Please feel free to revert or edit or suggest another alternative as you see fit.JakeInJoisey 04:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, anything that helps keeps things sorted is fine with me. Thanks. EECEE 07:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


To the anonymous editor who added "Republican political activists" to the membership of SBVT:

While there are certainly activists among SBVT supporters, I thought the membership itself was confined to Swift boat vets and former POWs. Could you please elaborate? Thanks. --EECEE 06:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are some links--
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/05/14/gannon/index.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
24.136.232.72 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But Franke is a Swift Boat veteran. There are plenty of Republican ties there, but I suggest any new info re activism go in the "Ties to Republicans" (or whatever it is) segment. --EECEE 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To Justin Bacon re your edit:

Hi. Sorry if my deletion of your addition seemed preemptive, but this being such a controversial site, most of us are discussing before making significant edits.

The reference to the claims of SBVT being "inaccurate" is conclusionary on its face and doesn't really belong in an intro. If anything, such a conclusion should follow the addition of evidence in the body of the text. You will see how those questions have been handled in a more NPOV way throughout the article.

In addition, the reference to SBVT's connections with Republicans and the GWB campaign are discussed at length later in the article.

Your thoughts? --EECEE 05:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. And the purpose of the intro is to provide a high-level summary of the topic. At the moment, the intro on this article is biased and needs to be more inclusive in order to abide by NPOV. If you have an alternative proposal for making the intro abide by NPOV, please feel free to propose it for consideration. 06:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


It has nothing to do with original research. It has to do with not starting out with conclusionary or repetitive statements. In addition, I personally think the intro was not biased.
However, see my comment to Crockspot at the bottom of the page. As Gamaiel at least thinks it belongs in the intro, I am willing to defer, especially as it is a statement that is supported in the text. I don't think the reference to "extensive" links to the GOP is really supported in the text, as explained below.
I do think it is a marginal question, though, and would be interested to see what others think. --EECEE 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


I added one sentence to the "swiftboating" section, including a citation. Conservative bloggers consider the term to mean "exposing the truth". If one citation is not sufficient, let me know and I can provide multiple citations of that use of the word. Crockspot 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I went back and reworded the first sentence a little, as my change introduced confusion to the statement. It may still need some work, but it should be pointed out that liberals and conservatives view the word with near-opposite meanings. Crockspot 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot: I pretty much reverted your edit re "swiftboating," with a couple of changes. I'll explain my reasoning.
First of all, it isn't just the "liberal" media that uses the term, unless you count Fox News as liberal - see the links at the "swiftboating" page. Nor are liberals universally claimed to be the targets.
Second, as the term is used just about internchangeably with the term "smear campaign" it isn't completely accurate to say it characterizes a perceived smear campaign. That made me realize that the sentence should probably be edited to be more clear anyway, so I simply said it is an expression for a smear campaign...etc.
Third, Wikipedia articles typically do not use blogs as references - in fact I think it has been specifically discussed at this page. If you could come up with some other sources like online articles or columns (probably not too hard to find), you could support such a statement. --EECEE 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I found this article from the US Veteran Dispatch, which even quotes an earlier version of this Wikipedia article, and provides an alternate meaning.[2] The definition Sampley uses: "Swiftboating: – Exposing the lies, deceit, and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for public office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds." I found another website which echoes Sampley's definition.[3] There are also T-shirts being sold with a simplified definition, "Swiftboating: 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]Crockspot 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot. Thanks for posting. I'm not sure how many conservatives would want to be identified with the likes of Ted Sampley, but I suppose it would be accurate to say something like "Some conservatives, however, have given the phrase an alternate meaning: "Exposing lies ... etc." How does that sound to you? --EECEE 06:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be acceptable reasonable. I think the second simplified version is more in general use than the one that is more military-specific. At CU, we have been using that general meaning since the end of 2004. Crockspot 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I will defer to you to rewrite that, since you seem to have a handle on this article. Crockspot 20:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Crockspot. I actually had just reverted someone's rather POV edit and was going to insert yours, but the page got "locked up" for maintenance. I assume it's unlocked now, so will go ahead and add your edit, with the T-shirt link (I think that qualifies as "some conservatives" ;-) - but if you find more direct links to the actual quote, feel free to include.). I will also add it at the "swiftboating" article page. --EECEE 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well, it looks like the introduction to the "swiftboating" article itself is protected or otherwise unedit-able. Will try to add the sentence when it's open for editing. In the meantime, I notice that it does say the conservatives question the appropriateness of the term in political debate (or something like that).
I see that it is the "talk" page for that article - not this talk page - that has the discussion re using blogs as sources. --EECEE 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits for Accuracy etc.

I edited to remove this addition to the "SF 180" portion of the article: 

  >>> Critics allege that Kerry executed the form SF180 in a manner that kept important details of his military record from being disclosed

[4].<<<


Looking at the blog cited, that critic speculates that Kerry may have limited his SF 180 to a release of a "deleted" report of separation. However, the minute the SF 180s themselves were posted online, that speculation was laid to rest. The forms are linked in the paragraph discussing the SF 180 release.

The other "allegations" that appear in that blog and the blogs it links to mainly deal with (1) the documents the Navy didn't release under an earlier FOIA request - already addressed in this article and I believe at the JK Military Service Controversy article here at Wiki, (2) why the later citations - answered many times elsewhere on the net, and probably also at the JK Military Service Controversy article, (3) why no after action reports - they are not personnel records but command records and are available to the public through military archives, and (4) why isn't there more about his discharge - requiring the impossibility of proving a negative. None of those "allegations," BTW, have anything to do with the manner in which Kerry executed his SF 180.

The whole military records thing is really rather peripheral to the SBVT discussion anyway. If you are interested in that particular aspect I suggest you might check out the JK Military Service Controversy article. --68.164.93.157 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored this statement along with a number of citations, including one to the actual SF180 as signed by Kerry. Read the SF180 - it only covers active duty time, not reserve time. The idea that "whole military records thing is really rather peripheral to the SBVT discussion anyway" is not credible; it is central to the whole controversy. Classical liberal 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
As stated above, the exact same link to "the actual SF180 as signed by Kerry" was already posted at the paragraph discussing the SF 180 release (see link #80). And the fact that the release covered active service was already noted in that paragraph. However, I went ahead and included the link again in the new paragraph - the fact that it was posted online doesn't really need to be spelled out.
A couple of other things. First, the link that you cited isn't really "SBVT critics" at all, but a Bush blog. None of the blogs it links to are "SBVT critics" either. The only SBVT person quoted is John O'Neill, who simply argues (incorrectly, as it turns out), that there must be stuff missing because the records just came from the Navy Department, and the Navy Department "previously indicated its records did not include various materials." (First, the records also came from the St. Louis archives and second, the Navy did not "indicate its records did not include various materials" - it said it could not release certain privacy protected records requested under FOIA by organizations like Judicial Watch and the Washington Post. BIG difference.)
That brings me to the other point. Neither John O'Neill nor any of the non-SBVT critics cited say anything about the SF 180 only being for "active service" and speculating as to what that might mean with respect to Kerry's reserve records. If you are going to say that they did, you need to provide a link. So I left a couple of [citation needed] inserts for you.
To recap, if you want to edit an SBVT article to say that SBVT critics are alleging something about Kerry's records, you need to provide a link showing that SBVT critics have actually made that allegation. And let the conclusions be their conclusions, otherwise it gets into POV territory.
If you want to talk about what Michelle Malkin or anybody else thinks about Kerry's records, I suggest the "military controversy" article.
(To be fair, I don't think the stuff about the Judicial Watch FOIA request or John Kerry's private journals really belong in the SBVT article either.)
Okay, I hope you are amenable to my suggestions. If not, let's talk here. --68.164.93.157 09:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely right about "SBVT critics"; it should be "SBVT critics of Kerry". Also an the previous reference to the SF180; I saw you say it was there, I looked for it and missed it. I'm mostly satisfied with your edits and I'll spend some time tracking the citations you left hanging. In terms of citations, do you think you could be more specific on this line "In addition, Kerry had previously released reserve records" . The cite is to the general Findlaw record page; which of those actually refer to Kerry's reserve service? I also think "...and no news organization indicated that any of those reserve records were absent from the files they accessed under the SF 180 authorization" may be a little misleading; they didn't indicate the files were absent; did they indicate the files were not absent? Or did they not address the issue at all?


Hi. Well, actually I didn't even think about the "SBVT critics of Kerry" business. I was just thinking about finding documentation that this particular allegation was made by SBVT people instead of by other Kerry critics. It being an SBVT article and all.
Yes, I'll try to post links that are specific to Kerry's reserve records. I believe at least some of the reports said his dishcarge stuff was in there, which would of course include his discharge from reserves, etc., but will take a look. Generally, however, they have all said that they had everything that Kerry had already made public. Which of course would include the reserve records ... my point being that the SF 180 probably wasn't interpreted by the repositories to be limited only to active duty stuff. Maybe I can find a more artful way of phrasing it. It's all something of a puzzle-piece exercise, yes? --68.164.152.78 23:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


I pulled up links to some of the records that cover the reserve period, and there are just too many to post in the article. I'll post them here, though - there may be more but this gives an idea:
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/enlistcont.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/ord2offcand.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/offcandagr.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/rsrvoffcappnt.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/payentrybasedate.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/trnsfr2stndyrsrv.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/qlfyquest.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/hondisres.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/accptdisnavresrv.pdf
--68.164.87.138 06:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


August 3: I am moving the bit about Judicial Watch's FOIA request of Kerry's records over to the JK Military Controversy page. It isn't about SBVT. --68.164.94.126 07:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


This para has been without needed citations for more than 10 days, so am moving it here for discussion and/or work:
SBVT critics have alleged that because Kerry's signed SF 180 specified "Active Service" in the general service category [5], the authorization would not cover records for Kerry's years of reserve status [citation needed]. They argue that Kerry's reserve records might include documents relevant to antiwar activities he participated in while on inactive reserve status, including his meeting in Paris with members of the North Vietnamese delegation to the peace talks [6][citation needed]. However, the signed SF 180 also specifies that the request is for a copy of "the complete military service record and medical records of John Kerry." In addition, Kerry had previously released reserve records [7], and no news organization indicated that any of those reserve records were absent from the files they accessed under the SF 180 authorization.
If anybody can come up with some accurate citations for this premise, please add 'em in. Thanks.
I'm also going to move the controversy about Kerry's "exclusivity agreement" with Brinkley over to the "Military Controversy" page, as it's not really an SBVT issue. Hope people are okay with that. --EECEE 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing "Swiftboating" definition

The paragraph about the "conservative" interpretation of the word went in after a fair amount of discussion between Crockspot and me. Once it became apparent its removal would be controversial, it seems like it would have been helpful for people to discuss their reasoning here. Or did I miss something?

The conservative definition might not be strictly "encyclopedic," but truthfully I'm not sure that showing t-shirts for sale is any less proof that some conservatives define it that way or is any less of a "reliable source" than some of the others used at Wikipedia. Just a guess.

In addition, Cafepress wasn't really used as a "source" as much as an example of the usage of the term.

This is a made-up term anyway. I don't know how far you can go in defining it without resorting to examples of peoples' opinions. And by the way, we agreed not to use the Ted Sampley version .

Is there a compromise possible on this? That is, is there a way to express that people have alternate views without getting all unencyclopedic? Just askin'. - EECEE


The conservative POV on this term is given here: 1 June 2005. "Swiftboating has become a hate term," R. Emmett Tyrrell on CNN Politics [8]. But Swiftboating has its own article, with a very active talk page and history. Why not move this argument over there instead? betsythedevine 09:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. See my change over there and my comment at the related talk page. Let me know if you have any problems with it. Thanks Besty. --EECEE 22:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the alternate definition and source that Gamaliel had a hard time with. I left a note for him that the Fitzmas article also uses this source, and no one seems to have a problem with it there. We'll see what happens. Crockspot 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Go edit Fitzmas yourself. I'm not here to pass your tests. Gamaliel 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My first reading of this was "Go Fitzmas yourself", as in "Go Cheney yourself". I see now that I missed the word "edit", thus lending to the subsequent impression that I was being personally attacked. My error. Crockspot 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think he has a point about consistency. In addition, the Cafepress site is at least an example of usage, and is arguably as valid as some commentator using the term in his or her political column. --EECEE 03:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
No, he's trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. I'm not going to rush over to some random article to prove something to another editor when he could just edit the article himself. The fact that he hasn't is proof that he's only using the issue score a point here. Gamaliel 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that is an unfair characterization of someone who has been willing to discuss his points on talk pages and modify his contributions accordingly. The fact is that this is an article about usage of a word that has no dictionary meaning but exists entirely in the context of opinion pieces, Internet commentary, and other POV sources. I agree CafePress is not the most solid support out there, but being asked to check out its use elsewhere is not unreasonable. However, at some point a more acceptable citation will probably be found and this will be moot. --EECEE 04:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I never said he wasn't willing to discuss his points on talk pages, I just want him to do it without resorting to manipulative tricks. Gamaliel 06:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
How pleasant to be personally attacked by an admin. If I edited the Fitzmas article, I would be accepting your narrow view, and undercutting my argument here, which is that when documenting the usage of a term which predominantly appears on blogs, it is appropriate to source it with actual usage on blogs, and its appearance on T-shirts. I don't expect you to like me, but I do expect you to act like an adult. I plan on being a Wiki editor for a long long time, so get used to the idea.Crockspot 03:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I finally went over to the Fitzmas article and the source is being used quite differently from the way you wish to use it here. In that article, a link to Cafepress is being used to illustrate that someone is making T-shirts of a slogan with widespread usage and such widespread usage is substantiated with mainstream media sources. You wish to use the Cafepress link to substantiate widespread usage, hardly the same thing.
I'm sorry you didn't care for my "attack", but if you're going to be an editor here "for a long long time" then you should know that we don't care for such cheap tactics around here. You attack me by saying I should "act like an adult" - practice what you preach. Argue your case, don't resort to manipulative tricks. Gamaliel 06:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you go look at Talk:Swiftboating, in the section requesting examples of alternate usage, you'll see that I have provided nine or ten examples. I accepted the consensus of other editors on which example to use. EECEE is correct, in that eventually, there will be an acceptable RS reference (I suspect sooner rather than later), and then your position that the fact that some people are using the word in a different way is simple "bs" will be no longer tenable. Time is on my side here. I will keep "swiftboating" this issue until the truth is acceptable to the general Wikiality. Crockspot 17:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, the entire list of references that I have posted on Talk:Swiftboating are generally the same types of references used to source the Fitzmas article. My point is that WP:RS does not take into account these two cases where a predominantly blog usage of a term cannot be documented by sources acceptable to WP:RS, yet the term is indeed used that way. If an exception or adjustment to WP:RS is not in order, perhaps Wikipedia should not even allow entries that document purely blog phenomena, such as Fitzmas. Crockspot 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you come up with reliable evidence for your claims, I'm sure other editors will be more than happy to consider it. Gamaliel 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Other editors had already accepted my evidence. You are the one who had a problem with it, so convincing you is my main objective. Crockspot 19:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The conservative definition that is making the rounds is notable and should be included. Fitzmas is irrelevant except to show that there is a precedent for using Cafepress as a source of notability. Gamaliel's objection nothwithstanding, I think the consensus is to inlcude this definition as notable. --Tbeatty 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the the definition is available on conservative t-shirts. I don't think anyone can argue that cafepress is not a reliable source for what is on t-shirts. --Tbeatty 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, of course not. But the link at Fitzmas illustrates the T-shirt usage of a slogan in wide usage and such usage is substantiated with mainstream media links. Without any such evidence of wide usage, all the cafepress link here proves is nothing except the fact that one guy put it on T-shirts. And may have not even sold any! So anyone can get into an encyclopedia by making a cafepress shirt? If I make a shirt that says "You can go Fitzmas yourself!", should that be included in the article as "evidence" of an alternate usage? Gamaliel 17:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Have we coined a new usage of "Fitzmas"? I want one of those T-shirts! :) Seriously though, I did not recruit Tbeatty, but I'm glad to see him in the fray. It gets lonely here in the trenches. I did provide one RS source of someone using "swiftboating", though he does not define his meaning, it is fairly obvious he does not mean what the Wiki definition says. ("I will do my best to swiftboat John Murtha.") Crockspot 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just realized that was posted on Talk:Swiftboating, so here is the link from the LA Times. [9]. Crockspot 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can get your Fitzmas t-shirt on Cafepress or another large notable, political sloganeering site, I will gladly support including it. And they sold at least one Swiftboating tshirt (WP:OR notwithstanding). But I do think a mainstream press or other notable usage would add credibility. For now, it's just a T-shirt slogan. I am not concerned with including it in the article but I am more concerned with the size of it with regards to the other pieces. The cafepress t-shirt section should be almost negligibly small (maybe even a footnote). There are LOTS of t-shirts and I don't think we need to start adding them all to every political artcile. Also, there are stronger rebuttals than that t-shirt and it takes away from them if the t-shirt slogan is the only rebuttal included.--Tbeatty 08:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here the slogan is discussed by "founder" Terry Boone. --Tbeatty 08:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I found some more sources including an Army Times article. The group Vets for the Truth uses the "Swiftboating" definition: "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."[10][www.bootmurtha.com] --Tbeatty 09:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The message board reference for the definition was the "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth" message board and the post was by the "founder." It is a therefore considered a reliable source as this article is about them. Per WP:RS. --Tbeatty 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves....

A note on a message board isn't a "self-published source" about SBVT and Terry Boone is not to my knowledge one of the official "founders" of the group. In addition, the note isn't even a description of SBVT in the way the group's homepage is. It's one guy's wish that the t-shirts sell. --EECEE 06:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking the whole part about the "conservative definition" is becoming too long and involved. The "liberal definition" is described in nowhere the same amount of detail. I suggest just shortening it to something like "various conservatives have described the term as a 'hate term' and also defined it as 'exposing lies, etc." and then add the links. --EECEE 06:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I had just removed it. T-shirt adds have no place here. Nor does hype by a group that has nothing to do with the swift vets. Cite me a source from the mainstream press demonstrating it notability, and I'll agree that's it notable. Derex 06:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I had just put it back. As I said, I think the thing is bloated too, but you can see that people are giving a lot of thought to how an alternative view is to be presented. Please don't just rip everything out...let people discuss a little. --EECEE 06:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I discussed it two minutes after deleting. It violates two key tenets of Wikipedia. Notability. Verifiability (that its conservative use is common.) [http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&q=%22swift%20boating%22&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn

Here], go have a look at what google news turns up, just today, on the term. It's just nonsense to cite some 3rd rate non-notable group, without even any article. That and a t-shirt vendor, and say it belongs here. Compare the two. The conservative use is not. The liberal use is. Or, prove me wrong with a real citation. Sorry, I'm blunt. No offense intended to you EECEE. Derex 06:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to prove it one way or the other. I am pointing out that there has been quite a bit of activity and quite a bit of discussion - including listening - on all sides of the question. I encourage you to scroll through this talk page and the talk page at the "swiftboating" article if you want to get a sense of it. --EECEE 07:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Edits that do not meet the most basic standards of Wikipedia do not merit lengthy, nor little, discussion. I'm not asking you to prove it. Whoever added it should prove it. Nontheless, you have earned my trust in the past, so I'll let it be. Derex 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Derex. Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. I just know that people have a lot invested in this discussion, so it would be helpful to at least have the explanation for the editing here. --EECEE 03:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. This is a "little" discussion? Derex 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If you mean the page, no it's not little. But it will be a discussion when some of the others have a chance to weigh in.--EECEE 07:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The "Army Times" covered the definition of "Vets for Truth". --Tbeatty 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Army times said there was a definition at the group's website...which turned out to be from an opinion piece by Ted Sampley. --EECEE 04:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sampley used the definition as well. It's not clear that he is the originator. It appears in his opinion piece and it is on their website and that's the only place on the website that I've seen it. --Tbeatty 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited that para, and am editing at the Swiftboating page too. The Army Times article says:
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.”

That isn't to say I don't still think the whole para in this article and the Swiftboating article needs paring. It's way too bloated. --EECEE 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken, T. It's not to be seen much of anywhere. Googling the phrase confirms that. In contrast, see the Google news link I posted above, and keep in mind that Google news only cover a few days at a time. One guy using a phrase, or one guy + a non-notable website by non-notable group doesn't cut it for wikipedia. If it's not in reasonably common use in that way, then cut it. The default here is not that anyone gets to throw in any old crap they feel like, without justification, and everyone else wastes time debating it. The default is you make good. justified, well-referenced edits, or out they go. Derex 02:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Luckily this is a justified, well referenced edit. Look around and you will find plenty of less referenced, less justified material. This is not a paper encyclopedia and we can represent viewpoints that are a minority. This was covered in Army Times and that is significant enough to justify a few sentences. --Tbeatty 03:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty, it's stretching it to say the definition was "covered" in the Army Times. The article mentioned that the phrase was posted at the group's website. Period. That is a marginal source at best. --EECEE 03:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If there are other worse than this, then they should certainly go as well. Spare me the "it's not paper" routine; why do we have afd then? Notability matters, consciseness matters. Otherwise you end up with a pile of uninformative drivel that the reader must wade through. Bottom line: that phrase googles to 19 hits, almost all of which are to wikipedia and derivatives. Yet, that usage currently has more space devoted to it than the mainstream one, which has been used thousands of times, and is easy to document in the current news.
Do you really believe that meets the standard? If so, I've got some editing to do myself. Derex 03:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It astounds me that some editors still believe that an alternate definition of "swiftboating" simply does not exist. On Conservative Underground, as well as other con blogs, we have used the word to generally mean "exposing the truth" for well over a year and a half. It is simply the truth. I have linked at least nine references on Talk:Swiftboating, and I could come up with dozens of examples of the use on blogs, but I would be wasting my time, because blogs are not RS. Arguing the merits of sources is one thing, but refusing to even believe in the existence of something is mind boggling. I will keep swiftboating these two discussions until reality and wikiality are in agreement. Crockspot 17:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added seven more examples of the term in use on Conservative Underground to Talk:Swiftboating, all from 2005, the last one being posted by Terry Boone, defining the term after we had already been using it. I believe there were examples as far back as the election of 2004, but we had a database crash in 2005, and lost all archives. Crockspot 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Obviously it "exists"; some fellow named Ted Sampley used it. The question is whether it's of any significance. A few people fulminating and foaming on a blog, which has been afd'd for lack of notability itself, does not make a phrase notable. Also I note the "we have used the word" in your defense; sounds to me like you might have a wee bit inflated sense of self importance. How about you show me some well-known politician or news organization making use of the "conservative definition"? I can run over to any group blog right now, and use the word "swift boating" to mean "buggering monkeys with a banana", and then add links showing its existence that are just as valid as yours. Derex 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I see you already beat me to it. Well, you just prove my point then. Derex 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Amazing that you would so quickly find a quote of "mine" on a website that I have never even visited until I clicked your link, which quotes something you posted here a half hour previous. Your little impersonation trick just destroyed what little credibility you had. And by "we", I meant members of Conservative Underground. I'm not ashamed of the sites I post on. What is your DU name? Crockspot 05:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What, are you and the famous "Terry Boone" in cahoots? Or, am I being super-clever tricksy again? I was just sure you'd fall for it. Btw, no DU for me. I've damn sure got better things to do than fulminate and foam on some collectively masturbatory political blog myself. Well, maybe just a little spittle here on SBVT every now and then. That, plus I live in Australia, mate. But, whatever floats your boat Crackster. Now, I return you to your regularly scheduled voice of reason, EECEE. Who needs to thump all the idiots here, me especially, upside the head with a clue stick. Derex 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So happy to see everyone "discussing"! Hee hee.--EECEE 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You can stop moving your lips now, because you have given up the courtesy of being listened to seriously. Your willingness to forge a post by me, and then lie about it here just to "prove" a point, is clear evidence of your lack of good faith. Your continued yammerings (see below) violate WP:Civil. Do yourself a favor and go edit Dingo. Crockspot 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just effing with you, dude. I'm really PatriotGame from CU. Lighten up, we're all conservatives here. Did a pretty good DemoRat impression though, didn't I? Dingo — heh, you got me back there though, zing!Derex 07:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Army Times is a notable news outlet. They covered the definition and quoted it so it was notable enough for them. It meets all the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 05:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, as I said above and over at the Swiftboating page, Army Times didn't "cover" the definition. They covered the group. They mentioned that the group's website has a defintion of the term. That is the only accurate way to include this information, if at all. --EECEE 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh please, get over yourself. A one-off use, that's not even their use, but quoting a blog doesn't cut it. Tbeatty, I almost thought I had figured you wrong after your sensibility about Jesus crapping on Bush yesterday. I guess not. Derex 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Get over yourself. Newspapers are secondary sources so they always reference another's use. This particular use is from Vets for Truth. As for "swiftboating", it HAS IT'S OWN ARTICLE. Please don't complain that the small blip here is too large to overcome the entire article devoted to the Kerry definition.--Tbeatty 05:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok fine. Media uses don't count per se. Then I suppose they ought to be quoting someone notable for the use to be notable, oughtn't they? So, it still don't count. I bite my thumb at thee sir. And personally, I think the whole section should be a one sentence, see other. Derex 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
They quote Vets for Truth and the fact that they devoted an entire article on them meets the notability criteria. I don't particularly care how many sentences it is as long as it covers the defition in NPOV and complete way. --Tbeatty 06:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that they devoted an entire article to the group means the group is "notable;" it doesn't mean a definition posted at the group's website is especially notable. It is one definition posted at a website by one group (and which doesn't even make sense in terms of the group's purpose), as opposed to another defintion that is used by many groups, commentators, and "notable" sources. The one-time use by a single, tiny group does not merit an entire paragraph containing more detail than the primary meaning. --EECEE 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think the whole thing should be pared down to one sentence or so and cross referenced to the Swiftboating page. --EECEE 20:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged "debunking" of SBVT assertions

I posted the following on the Swiftboating discussion page, and thought it should also be posted here. This is regarding the assertion that the SBVT claims have all been "debunked".

  • 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 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot. As posted at the "Swiftboating" page, SBVT claims have been disproven far beyond the "minute detail" stage. For example, see:
http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/truth.html
But I see the intro now says the group has been criticized for its "factual inaccuracies" and its ties to the GOP have been scrutinized. I think the first part of that statement is somewhat conclusionary, but not so much as in some of the prior versions. If a summary contained in the intro can be supported by the text, my view is that it is supportable as an intro. The text does point out the many inaccuracies of the SBVT claims, as well as the criticism made on that basis; the ties to the GOP are discussed, but it is pretty clear they are through the donors and consultants, not so much the membership or organizers. So I removed the reference to "extensive" ties to the GOP.
Personally, I would not have either statement in the intro, but I think as is they are probably supportable. Would be interested to hear what others think - and hoping to avoid an edit war. --EECEE 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Edits to release of documents info etc.

To the anonymous editor who keeps trying to edit the info re Kerry's SF 180 (and other paragraphs):

I suggest you look at the information and links that are already posted in the article. If you had, you would notice that the link to Kerry's actual filled-out SF 180s is included: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/010795.php

Following that link, you would notice that Kerry did indeed fill out the parts of the form specifying that his "complete military service records" were to be released. And the fact that they were obtained from the military records center is de facto proof that he mailed them in, wouldn't you say? In addition, the Navy spokesman specifically said the "whole record" was released, and included documents from the central records depository in St. Louis as well as the Navy Personnel Center. [11]

And finally, relying on someone's 2005 post on an SBVT message board as proof of anything? Criminey! I'm sorry for the critical tone of this note, but really, check out the information that's already in the article before editing. --EECEE 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I have gone through and edited out several of your additions which if not pure POV, are either contradicted by or redundant of information presented elsewhere in the article. Please read the article before you start editing !!!!!! --EECEE 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Book section

I have a problem with the book section, where it says that parts of the book are nearly identical to posts that Corsi made, citing the posts as primary sources, and comparing them to book cites. This comparison of sources, and drawing the conclusion that they are "nearly identical" is clearly WP:OR. Secondary reliable sources making such a comparison must be cited, or this part needs to come out. Crockspot 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Crockspot. Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The WP:OR page clearly says:
Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
I am citing the materials themselves, which on their face are nearly identical. I am not citing to an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation,'" as described at the "no original research" page.
In fact, I don't even draw a conclusion as to what this means about Corsi's contributions, but let the reader see the materials and draw his or her own conclusion. And I am no more postulating some "novel interpretation" than is someone who posts that two cited articles contain similar materials. --EECEE 23:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Concur. The OR line some advance that you cannot cite external primary sources, simply because secondary sources are preferred, is a canard. Derex 07:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you completely. Any synthesis of primary sources, including a conclusion that they are "nearly identical", (which is itself an unverifiable and unattributed statement - nearly how? to what degree? according to who?), is clearly original research, unless it cites a secondary reliable source saying so. I have had brief discussion with Mr. Wales recently about original research and primary sourcing, and I believe my interpretation is correct. - Crockspot 15:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot, of course it is verifiable on its face. One has simply to look at the materials to see that they are nearly identical. I am not drawing a conclusion about what the materials say in order to put out my own theories. It isn't "synthesizing" any more than is someone who posts that so- and- so served on a Swiftboat for a certain period of time and then cites to the online crew directory.
I'm pretty sure "synthesizing" refers to the sorts of arguments that say, for example, that the government planned the 9/11 attacks and then cites to someone's YouTube video making that argument based on news pictures. --EECEE 21:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I went and edited the sentence to avoid any appearance of drawing personal conclusions. It now says " ... portions of the book contain material also found in articles Corsi posted at an anti-Kerry website." --EECEE 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Crockspot, it would be more helpful to provide a transcript of your conversation with Jimbo than to simply state it supports you. Derex 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Crockspot, I see that you went ahead and took out something I thought we had agreed upon months ago: "...portions of the book contain material also found in articles Corsi posted at an anti-Kerry website" (see above). Fixing a dead link is one thing. Taking out the entire sentence and calling it original research is another. So far no one has agreed with what your take on original research is in this context. I think it was unfair to unilaterally take it out.--EECEE 08:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Attribution#Unpublished synthesis of published material. Surely there must be a reliable source that made this same observation. If one can be cited, I have no problem with the passage going back in. But what I removed appeared to be OR, because it was unattributed. WP:ATT has been clarified a lot recently, so there are a lot of things that I would have thought were fine in the past (and have even put in articles myself), that I now see are not in compliance with policy. - Crockspot 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC) By the way, I'm just rereading above, forgot that we already had this conversation. But I see that I remained unconvinced, and the new wording of ATT seems to support my view. - Crockspot 12:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Crockspot, this is no a synthesis of published material. It is a statement that two pieces of published material are similar, and links to that material. It is not a synthesis. Derex agrees. I'm putting it back in, and if you wish to have this point arbitrated, I am perfectly willing...I just don't know how to request it.--EECEE 17:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see Derex reply, and since I am now quoting newly written policy, I think that we should hear from Derex directly before you speak for him. I disagree vehemently that this is OR. Did you read the entire section that I linked above? It clearly states that if it advances a position, it is OR. This passage is advancing a position (that Corsi apparently authored the book which his name appears as the author of.) Which brings me to another issue: I don't understand the importance of this paragraph, since the book is still in print, and it still lists Corsi as co-author. Why is it even notable enough to mention? We can do an RfC on this if you like, but I strongly suspect it will be a waste of a lot of people's time, because I'm right. - Crockspot 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did read the section that you linked. Specifically: "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." The fact that Corsi is evidently the coauthor of the book is important enough to mention because it was important enough for John O'Neill to deny. --EECEE 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Something else - Did you happen to notice the dates on those postings at WinterSoldier? One is two months before the book release, one is one month before the release, and one is two months AFTER the book's release. Since O'Neill claims that Corsi edited the book, he would have had access to the text long before publication. So these postings really don't prove anything at all. As for RfC, I will wait until I have finised formatting all the sources, and get a chance to examine all the sources, because I am sure this is not the only issue I am going to have. - Crockspot 18:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the link to the single article that was UPDATED after the publication of the book. The point is that this material was published before under Corsi's name. Thus, he authored the material. He would only be "simply an editor" if he was editing someone else's material. --EECEE 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see the relevance. If he was an editor, he would have had the manuscript during this time period. It doesn't tell us anything, especially since the publisher still lists him as a co-author. If there was a real controversy worthy of encyclopedic mention, a reliable third party would have pointed this out as well. Are you absolutely sure that no one in the some eighty reliable sources already cited in this article had made this observation? Franky, I don't really care about the meat and potatoes of this issue, I just want a reliably sourced statement, and not apparent original research. - Crockspot 18:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)more We haven't even touched the subject of the verifiability of those actually being posted by Corsi. Does he own or control that site? And technically, even if we do verify it is him, those links violate BLP against John Kerry, because they are self-published sources which attack a third party. Maybe now you see why I didn't hesitate to just blow away that sentence, rather than bother spending the time reformatting the sources. There are just too many problems, and too many angles to attack the reliability of the sources. - Crockspot 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The relevance is that, after one of the putative authors made some embarrassing comments, the other putative author denied that his partner was anything but "simply an editor." This is demonstrably false because text that this man authored appears in the book. Again, an editor does not contribute his own material to the book, he or she merely edits other people's material...get it? The article does not draw a conclusion, it simply points out that portions of the book contain material published elsewhere by the putative coauthor...which is demonstrably true. --EECEE 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And on my also point? - Crockspot 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh for cryin' out loud. We don't know that Corsi actually put his name on the book either, or that all the articles where he says he did are really quoting him and not an imposter. Do you want me to go find all the places where Corsi brags about writing for Swett's website? As to them being "self-published sources which attack a third party"...well, half the links are to articles that attack John Kerry. And how many links are to the "self-published" SBVT website? These links to the Swett website are not being offered for proof of the veracity of anybody's claim against Kerry but simply to show that this material has been published under this man's name elsewhere. And website publications certainly are acceptable for that. And sorry, you might not hesitate to "blow away" plenty, but it is not your unilateral call. It is an important point about the putative authorship of the book.--EECEE 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I still have a problem with it, because the point being asserted seems to be: either O'Neill is a liar, or Corsi is a plagarist. When I get around to putting this up for an RfC, I think you'll see that I am not the only one who would see it that way. And yes, there is a difference between a reliable publisher putting his name on on a book or article they publish, and a website posting with someone's name on it. But enough for now. Putting this one on the back burner. - Crockspot 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(to Crockspot) Yes, I'm sure you're not the only one who will claim to see it that way. In fact, I already know many who will agree with you regardless of the merits of the dispute. I'll even write down a list right now, and we'll see later how many I guess right. ... Will review the various arguments and comment this weekend. But I can already say that it's an extremely weak claim that we can't link to it under BLP because it attacks Kerry, since the entire article is about exactly such attacks on Kerry. Derex 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It didn't stop him from linking to "self-published sources which attack a third party" site in order to show how some people "swiftboating." This is just getting silly. I will, and have, edited this sentence numerous times to achieve consensus, but I think it is impossible to meet these ever-narrowing criteria that only seem to apply to entries he doesn't agree with. --EECEE 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
How long ago did I make that edit? The rule has been clarified since then, and I have admitted that many of my past edits will need to be changed, as will many edits by others. One day at a time. BTW, I have actually found a new reliable source for the Swiftboating alternate definition, and have posted it to Talk:Swiftboating. I haven't had time to edit it into the article yet, and remove the dubious sources, because I am being distracted here. So please stop dragging out irrelevant crap that I am actually documented as being in the process of correcting. It could be considered a FAAFAesque attack. - Crockspot 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
WTF is that supposed to mean? I asked for your opinion about the now very clearly worded policy on OR, and her you are expressing a lack of good faith on my part, verging on a personal attack? And now I am not even "allowed" to put a simple OR tag on the sentence, while a POV term is injected BACK into the sentence? I'm not sure who you and EECEE think you are, but you do not WP:OWN this article. Why don't the two of you lend a hand formatting the many unformatted references, instead of picking apart my every edit. I have replaced the or tag, and will continue to replace it if removed, because I believe it is a clear violation of the OR polisy. Crockspot 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the POV term, please? I have removed the tag and asked you to wait until an administrator has spoken on this. This is the proper place to resolve the dispute, not through an edit war. You are right that no one owns an article, and that includes you. You aren't entitled to inject your pronouncements wherever you choose. And cut it out with the phony victimhood...if you made edits that weren't questionable, nobody would be "picking them apart." --EECEE 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, Corsi as plagiarist, huh? Another one of your novel interpretations, I take it. I have edited the sentence to simply say that the material appears under his name. I'm sure you'll find something to argue with about that. If only you were equally demanding regarding the entries with which you agree. --EECEE 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


BTW, I added an {{or}} tag so that my dropping this arguement is not misinterpreted as aquiescence. - Crockspot 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, an article isn't the place to express a personal opinion of someone's contribution. I'm happy to talk it out here, or even have RfT or whatever it's called, but I'm removing what amounts to personal editorializing from the article itself.--EECEE 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That is incorrect. That is a standard template used to express possible Original Research and is used to alert the community so they may comment on it. It puts the article in a category that can be accessed by everyone. Your objection notwithstanding, it is the proper thing to do in order to achieve consensus. --Tbeatty 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It is NOT the proper thing to do when it is a disputed opinion and actively being discussed on the talk page. It is a pissy, footstamping statement that "I haven't acquiesed" in the argument. --EECEE 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
For Derex' benefit, I would like to point out that I did not ask Tbeatty to weigh in here. The only editor I have contacted about this dispute is User:Gamaliel. - Crockspot 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I see where you did that. I think this says it all about your proprietary take on this article: "I am willing to simply flag things I think are problematic, rather than remove them." I suggest you come back to real life, your highness. These articles are consensus based efforts. --EECEE 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Incident report filed here. Sir, I think you completely misunderstand the purpose of the or tag. It is to categorize the article so that others can see that there is an OR dispute here, something that even you admit. Yes, in the interest of improving the cites in this article, I am willing to only flag items, so that I can continue the improvement work I am doing, rather than launch a new content dispute every few days. Your actions actually supress the ability of others to see that there is an OR dispute here. Exactly why would you want to limit the consensus here? Unless you are willing to do all this work I am doing yourself, I suggest you let me get on with it, and then we can discuss whatever I have flagged. Otherwise, your actions go against the interests of the project, and I ask you to stop it now. - Crockspot 17:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a "sir." I also have requested that any administrator who wishes to comment to do so; I just didn't abuse the system to do it. And once again, Crock, you do not OWN this article. --EECEE 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected, ma'am. But it is you who is acting like the owner here. All I want is a tag that says "Original Research?". The tag is asking the question, Is this original research?. It is not a pronouncement, it is a request for opinions. Again I ask you, what good reason do you have for not allowing visibility on this question? It is a step below an RfC, as it categorized the article so that those interested in OR disputes will find the article easier. Does that visibility threaten you in some way? - Crockspot 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing the tags you put next to your own entries. As to the rest, I will leave it to an administrator to address your behavior. --EECEE 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Snarkiness is not necessary. I have already admitted that some edits that I have made in the past are now, with the clarification of the rules, not proper. I have already documented one on Swiftboating that I intend to change as soon as I free up some time. My concerns here are not political, they are WP-policy related. So please stop taking these little shots at me. That is behavior that is more likely to be looked down upon by admins than my good faith attempts to add a consensus-widening tool (in the form of the OR tag). I can tell that you think I am here at the behest of the Hand of Rove, but I'm really not, so check the attitude please. Editors who have publicly questioned my integrity in the past have almost always ended up eating their own words, or are no longer here. - Crockspot 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Pomposity is not necessary. You may also notice that I have defended you a LOT on this board, so you can also skip the assumptions about what I think of your motivations. Again, I am willing to let the administrators decide. I think we should just cool it for now. --EECEE 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine, let's call it a cease-fire then. But I would like the tag to stay for now, since myself and at least one other editor support its inclusion at this time. I would also like your cooperation re: the last section of this page. I really don't want to spend the hours it is going to take if you are going to follow along behind and remove any flags I insert. I promise not to change content in the process, or delete sources. I think that is a good compromise we can both live with for now. Deal? - Crockspot 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
RE:The tag; this is a content dispute. There really is nothing here for an admin to weigh in on. I could tell you "personally I don't think this is WP:OR", but that is just my opinion as an editor. What you two want, if you can't come to some agreement here, is a WP:RFC narrowly defined on this particular question, or one of the other WP:DR paths. Unless one of you start breaking WP:3RR with reversions, there is really nothing here at all that requires an admin attention.--Isotope23 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Isotope23. --EECEE 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys might want to ask for a third opinion -- please give a concise overview (grin) of the dispute. /Blaxthos 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Blaxthos. I would rather wait and see who weighs in here. I'm not keen on complaining about other editors by name on official Wiki pages, but I guess a WP:30 may be an option at some point. --EECEE 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, you've got to pick your battles. You have a very weak case, and is this really the issue you want to fight over? Whether Corsi, a credited author, wasn't actually an author? The day it becomes impossible to give a straightforward reference and description of a primary source, such as this, is the day I leave Wikipedia. That's not what the original research clause was ever meant to encompass, no matter how warped some people's views of the issue are today. Some of the people trying to re-write policy around here need a good smack upside the head with a clue stick (referring to the wiki-policy wonks and bureaucracy-pushers, not anyone on this page). Derex 08:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't brought an RfC on this issue yet, because the battle I am fighting right now is to get the references all formatted properly. It is a collaborative project that I seem to be the only one actually working on up to this point. I will keep my own notes and present the problems I see when the project is complete, and I have had a chance to review the entire article, and all of the sources. - Crockspot 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding WP:30, [[USER:EECEE|EECEE], I would simply reference the TalkPage#Header and give a brief overview of the dispute and the positions (comment on content, not editors). However, this seems to have moved past that stage. For what it's worth, I do not believe that the content constitutes original research -- there is no synthesis of new thought or analysis of information; it is simply descriptive. /Blaxthos 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

To JonMoseley - As with the "military service controversy" article, I removed your edits which were POV and which inserted extraneous material. In addition, there are some inaccuracies, including, for example:

•John O'Neill did not take over Kerry's boat "as soon as Kerry left Vietnam," but more than five months later, as verified by documents linked at the article; he did not and could not claim "first-hand knowledge that Kerry fabricated accusations of U.S. atrocities" on that basis. He did not command the same crew as Kerry, nor did he operate in the same area at the same time; in fact he wasn't even in VN until after Kerry left. And that was the point of the sentence - he didn't know Kerry in VN.
• SBVT's letter said some of the signers had served during Kerry's four months in VN, but did not criticize him as serving "four months out of a 1 year tour."

As you can see from this discussion page, a lot of work has been put into the material that appears in the article. It is overlong as it is, and editors generally have a tacit understanding to only add material that serves to clarify the article, and to do it as concisely as possible. --EECEE 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

FEC Filings

fyi http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002141.php

I have taken the liberty of renaming this talk section to match the current article section. Given the recent ruling by the FEC which finds no merit and renders moot the preponderance of allegations currently incorporated in the section, and several references to allegations of Bush/Cheney - Swiftvet collusion at various points in the article, this entire section and each instance of those allegations require both re-consideration and editing for content. I will do so when time permits.
In the interim I would be interested in hearing comments as to the legitimacy of repeating now-dismissed allegations in this treatment of FEC petitions.RedMagicMarker 16:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have posted a major re-write of this section and await your comments.RedMagicMarker 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The SBVT was specific as to the "charity" that would be beneficiary of its remaining funds. While I'm of the opinion that this entry is unneeded, if it is to be included then the specifity of the agreement as a quote should be included as well. Text amended RedMagicMarker 17:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
HiRedMagicMarker. I included the entry because I think it's important to say that they no longer intend to operate as a 527 organization. Fine with me to include the type of charity they've specified, as long as it is in quotation marks. The "charity" is the Roy Hoffmann Foundation, which is described in the same article, and that foundation hasn't limited itself to only supporting wounded vets. In addition, SBVT has helped subsidize harrassment suits against Kerry and his supporters through another smear group (VVLF). So their stated "intention" only means ...well, they've stated an intention. --EECEE 19:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

Anyone want to convert this article to use actual citation templates instead of simple external URL calls? The article would be a lot easier to read / verify. I'll help if someone wants to step up to the plate. /Blaxthos 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one of my specialties, so I guess I'll do it. Either later today or tomorrow I'll start. One of us should start at the end, and the other at the beginning, meeting in the middle. Wanna flip for it? Also, we should decide whether we want to use all "cite web" or all "cite news". The both display slightly differently. I like the "cite news" display, but it's not a big deal to change them once they are done. The templates are pretty much identical except for a "pages" parameter, and the actual name of the template. - Crockspot 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like I'm starting at the top. Mostly done with the "background" section, though there are a couple of inline linked words that should be changed. I'll come back later. - Crockspot 20:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll start at the bottom then, but I won't have time to do it this evening. Give me a few days to work my way up. /Blaxthos 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubious source

The Eric Rasmussen source (last one cited in the "3rd TV Ad" section) needs to be replaced with a reliable secondary source, if possible. This is a self-published source, which means it is only usable as a source for info about Eric Rasmussen, not any third parties. If his analysis is notable or important, there should be other reliable sources who have referenced it. (see WP:ATT) - Crockspot 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we also preening sources for reliability? I have no problem doing so (and think it's wise for us to do so), however I want to make sure that we agree on what constitutes a source to ask for review (or removal completely) -- self published blogs, pundit commentary, etc. Thoughts? /Blaxthos 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Usually when I do this, I make a pass through and get them all formatted first, so that you can see what they are in the footnotes, then start evaluating them for reliability, but this one stuck out, so I thought I would bring it up now. - Crockspot 21:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I did a little cleanup and added some direct cites. See if this works. --EECEE 07:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
ABC News's The Note opined, "the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry's medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false."[47] Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial[48] stated, "Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false." The editorial argued this position on the basis that "Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation."
This is all well and good, but it doesn't lend much credibility to the argument against the swift boat vets. If this section is about the credibility of the charges leveled by SBVFT, then it would be best to use something other than an editorial or opinion piece as an example of dissenting opinion. Right now, it's just suggesting that one group's political bias (the editorial writers) is better than anothers (the vets). --08:11, 7 March 2007
It's not endorsing the op-ed views. It's reporting the views. The public and editorial perception of the group's credibility is relevant in and of itself, whether the views are well-founded or not. Derex 07:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My work on the citation upgrades

Since my work here has drawn so much ire from the "consensus of two", here's my offer: We really need to upgrade the inline hyperlinks to citations, so that ALL of the sources are listed with as much info as possible in the footnotes, so that we can then start evaluating the sources for reliability, appropriateness, etc. It takes me several minutes and quite a bit of clicking and typing to do each one. When I see something that I am pretty sure is not going to survive anyway, I don't really want to spend the time on it. Up until yesterday, I was just removing them. In the interest of keeping the content disputes at a minimum, and to prevent my head from exploding when I see something I feel is completely inappropriate, I will go ahead and convert the citation, but I will flag it to be revisited later. If I think it is OR, I will use the OR tag. If it is a self-published source (such as Rasmussen's home page), I will put "self published" into the "publisher" parameter of the template, and so forth, so that it is either indicated in the text of the article, or in the citation itself, that there is a potential problem. People can either come in behind me and correct them, (such as providing a better source), or we can wait and go over them all later. If this is not acceptable to the regular editors of this article, please say so now, because I am not in the habit of wasting my efforts where they are not appreciated. There are a lot of other articles that need their footnotes improved, and where editors welcome my efforts. - Crockspot 18:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with technical corrections, including the addition of "self published" in the template. I do have a problem with your addition of other tags as they seem to hinge only on your personal interpreation of Wiki rules, with which no one has agreed yet. I suggest questions as to content be posted at the discussion page only, until there is some conclusion on the application of the rules. --EECEE 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I take no position on the meat of this disagreement, however I would like it noted that I asked for clarification regarding preening of sources and adding tags before we started doing so (to come to some sort of agreement on the mission and standards used first). At this point I object to anything more than formatting the tags with citation templates. Let's agree on criteria and action before we start acting unilaterally. /Blaxthos 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi User:Blaxthos. Thanks for your work on formatting the article. As I understood it, you were asking about templates and tags regarding sources, not article content. Specifically with respect to things like self-published sources, punditry, etc. So I agree with your suggestion about sticking with nonsubstantive citation templates, if I'm understanding it right. --EECEE 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I originally decided to try and verify the claims in this article. I quickly realized that the lack of inline {{cite}} templates would make it more difficult task. I came by the talk page to look for a partner to simply work with me to standardize the citations within the article. Crockspot graciously jumped in with gusto, and within a few edits he had done some actual work regarding the content of one of the sources. I stopped and that point and asked for clarification -- if we were doing that as well (which is a task that needs to be done), and if so I said I believed we need to agree on some ground rules and criteria for evaluating the sources. I still believe this is the best course of action. /Blaxthos 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say just jump in and do what you feel comfortable doing. At this point, to maintain harmony, I'm just going to keep notes for myself on problem sources, and deal with it later. My main concern is that when you look at the footnote, that the author, title, publisher, date info is all visible. So I am not so concerned with the refs that have all that info properly formatted, but without using the template. The problem cites are the simple inline urls. If they turn up as a bad url, there is usually not enough information there for me to go and find a good url, or write a proper cite. (A newspaper citation does not even require a url, as long as the publishing info is there, and it could conceicably be looked up at a library, but if that info isn't there, all I can do is slap a {{failed verification}} tag on it and move on. On the newspaper citations that did have the publishing info, but a bad url, I was able to go find a good url. But even if a good url cannot be found, a good news cite doesn't really require it. Another issue, how should we handle multiple cites of books, where each cite references particular pages of the book? Should we just use one common refnamed book cite, and add the page numbers parenthetically in the text of the article after the cite? Is there a better way to handle that? Because I think that Tour of Duty and the Globe bio are going to be cited a number of times, but referencing different page numbers. - Crockspot 21:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC) MORE Also, I have a first edition copy of Unfit for Command, so maybe we can consolidate or add to some of the webified excerpt cites with actual book cites.- Crockspot 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing (just call me Columbo), keep an eye out for duplicates. There are going to be over 100 footnotes, and some of them are sure to be dupes. I've been giving my cites ref names, so we can slap a shorter tag on any dupes. Crockspot 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Formatting of all citations is complete. I made no attempt to verify the claims that the citations support. There were only three (I think) that I could not, in the end, locate. I made a couple of substitutions where there was a dead link to an unreliable source, and I could find a reliable source appearing to support the same claim. (Google news archives are very useful.) I also added a couple of secondary news sources where there was only a primary source supporting a claim. (Again, Google news rocks.) Blaxthos, if you want to start verifying the claims, I think it is ready. = Crockspot 04:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good Crock. --EECEE 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dead notes in references section

I just noticed about a half dozen commented out "dead notes" in the references section. Does anyone know what's up with them? It looks like some of them are actually citations from the book. I hope they weren't removed from the article because of a dead url... A proper citation, especially for a book, does not require a url, it's merely a convenience. As long as there is enough info for someone to locate the source at a library, it's proper. - Crockspot 03:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


I just edited to add a direct link to the Larry Clayton Lee interview in the Courier Journal. Sorry I couldn't figure out how to format the reference line correctly. --EECEE 10:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Great, I wasn't able to locate that article myself. I formatted it, and also removed the mahablog reference. I was iffy about that one, and the original interview makes it unnecessary. - Crockspot 19:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I hadn't seen a live link to the article in ages either. Came across this one purely by happenstance, hope it stays live for awhile. I also agree about taking out the unnecessary Mahablog cite. And thanks for fixing up the reference line link. Looks good. --EECEE 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Connections to Bush Campaign

This series of edits (combined for diff) was made today. I have two big problems with it. One, there is not a single source cited. Two, it has very little relevance to this article, certainly not enough to justify the real estate it occupies. I'm putting a fact tag on it for now, but a source only addresses half of my concern. If it isn't sourced and pared down soon, I'll remove it. I will leave a note on the contributor's talk page too. Crockspot 15:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If I might interject a word here, this "article" has been under a "controversial" banner for some time now, yet it appears to me that substantive edits are being made and tolerated with little regard for the flag. As I understand wiki policy, the simple fact that the massive entry was made with zero discussion in "talk" is grounds enough for deletion.
While, in my personal opinion, this entire article warrants challenging if just for flagrant lack of balance alone, let's not confuse apparent disinterest with a license to run editorially amok. JakeInJoisey 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot. I didn't see your note here - we might have been working at the same time - but went ahead and edited this entry. I agree that it doesn't belong in the article, for the reasons you state and the ones I cited in the history note. I felt confident enough that it was misplaced to go ahead an remove it. The editor can take it up with me, I guess. I also expanded the Fox discussion a little bit in the "connections with Republicans" section, to clarify the controversy. --EECEE 22:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, looks good. You wouldn't happen to know where to find the missing (flagged) pdf file in the Roy Hoffman section, would you? I couldn't find it, and that whole section pretty much hinges on that document. (The rest of the sources are blogs, excepting one from Huffington, which is blogesque.). - Crockspot 22:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find. --EECEE 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the link for the foundation filing doesn't work because it's a search function of the VA state site. So I used a secondary source referencing the filing. I ended up repeating twice in the same paragraph, not sure how that should work. Also don't seem to have the hang of giving the citations names. Will work on it. --EECEE 06:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I found a better secondary source for the T Boone Pickens ref. I'll take care of that double cited one too. - Crockspot 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Crockspot. I'd seen the news article, but unlike the press release or whatever it was, it doesn't say it was donated in 2006; the press release also suggests it may have been a direct contribution rather than through his own foundation. But if the Dallas News link doesn't die out, I think it is fine. --EECEE 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Even with a dead url it's a complete citation. Remember, web accessibility is only a convenience. As long as there is enough information, there are other ways to get hands on a news article than over the internet. You can stick the PR back in as a primary if you want. I'll format it later, or if you want to give it a whirl, there's a press release template on my user page you can use. Just put in a refname between the quotes, like pickenspressrelease. I think the other one is pickenscharity or something like that. - Crockspot 19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm fine with the cite the way it is as long as folks feel like it supports the entry. --EECEE 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Crockspot, the letter from Jeb Bush, and its text, is referenced in this NY Times article. [12] I'll let you add it if you like, as I don't know the correct formatting. --EECEE 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Got it. That source was already named earlier in the article, so I used a short tag. It's funny how the more "reliable" source mischaracterizes the intent of the letter as a thank you letter to the Swifties, when it's actually a thank you letter to Bud Day for his personal support of the President. The Swifties part isn't the primary reason for the letter, and they even misquote that. (to instead of against). In light of the Times' stellar reporting, I have no problem leaving the JPEG link there too. Crockspot 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the letter speaks for itself. The Times piece merely "verifies" its existence. If I could find a link to a more neutral source for the JPEG, I'd be happy to use it. --EECEE 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, I went back and looked at the article, and can't figure out where it misquotes the letter. Also, it's pretty neutral about who the letter was sent to: "The president's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, sent a letter thanking the "Swifties" for 'their willingness to stand up to John Kerry.' " He did ask Bud to convey his sentiments.
Interestingly, I don't see where Bud Day publicly endorsed GWB as a private citizen. He doesn't come up on any database searches for reportable contributions to the 2004 campaign. Which begs the question: what was the "personal support of my brother in his re-election" Jeb was thanking him for?--EECEE 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not causing a dispute, I was just amused at the Times' treatment of it. The misquote was minor (to instead of against), but still, you would think that the Times would not make a mistake like that. Bud Day is the most decorated veteran alive, so there could have been any number of opportunities for him to express support (maybe in private) without it being reported. Someone of Day's stature would have opportunities to meet Presidents, and even if he just shook his hand and said "I support you", it would have reasonably generated a thank you letter. Or maybe it was for his appearance in the ad. We don't know without sources. - Crockspot 04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand, sorry if I implied a dispute. I see that I actually misquoted the letter as well...using "to" instead of "against." Heh. Will fix it.
Maybe someone will check in and explain what that "unwavering support" was. --EECEE 18:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)(UTC)
Unless that person checking in brings a reliable secondary source along with them, it's fairly irrelevant. - Crockspot 12:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest otherwise. --EECEE 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Point of View Problems

As a newcomer to this page, I would like to provide some feedback for discussion rather than jump on in with the editor's pen.

To a first-time reading, this article has a definite point of view problem. It reads like national democratic party copy, to be honest; everything the veterans did or said is wrong or questionable. There is, of course, two sides to everything, and an encyclopedia entry should present both sides of a controversy equally, with equally weighed references.

I encourage long-time editors of this page to take a pass at editing some of the lengthy criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.112.82 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're a newcomer to wikipedia as well as a newcomer to this article, visit NPOV dispute for some information pertaining to your observations which, I can assure you, are hardly unique. This "article" is a travesty in terms of NPOV. Also read up on the concept of "forking" with particular attention to "article spinout" from which I quote...(highlights mine)

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Major portions of this "article", to include most material that might substantiate Swiftvet allegations against John Kerry, have been shunted to "see here" status with nothing more than a cursory reference and link...in complete disregard for the requisite "NPOV summary of that material"...a "clear act of POV forking". That alone warrants the application of Template:POVJakeInJoisey 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you give some examples, please? Thanks. --EECEE 04:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe your question is more rightfully directed towards the originator of this discussion as well as myself and I've taken the liberty of re-formatting your question to reflect that supposition (feel free, of course, to re-edit if I'm incorrect)
Actually, my question was about your assertion of POV "forking," so I returned the question to its prior position. --EECEE 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
My contention is that John Kerry military service controversy and John Kerry VVAW controversy address issues that are fundamental to and inseparable from an unbiased encyclopedic treatment of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". Both are "forks" ostensibly created due to article length but effectively serving to isolate content that "might be considered" supportive of the SBVT position. I say "might be considered" as I'm unprepared at this time to even comment on the current content of both sub-articles save for an observation that they both appear to be heavily weighted towards impeachment of the SVBT position as is this main article.
But let's see if we can reach some agreement first. That these sub-articles are, by Wikipedia definition, "forks" is, to my mind, self-evident. Do you concur? -- JakeInJoisey 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. As to your last question, I don't think I agree with your contention that the two sub-articles you mention are "forks" within the Wikipedia defintion, which says, for example:
"POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus."
I don't think either sub-article amounts to "another version" of the SBVT article or even another article on the "same subject," but instead expound on issues touched on by the SBVT article but which qualify for separate treatment. For example, both include information that isn't directly relevant to the main SBVT claims, such as the Judicial Watch letters, etc. In addition, those articles would not be complete without the information they contain, but to fold them into the SBVT article would be to make the latter completely unwieldy (that word again).
Moreover, you said that the sub-articles contain information that could bolster the SBVT claims but at the same time think they're "heavily weighted" against the SBVT article. Not sure it follows. --EECEE 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


My response above was supportive in nature, just as one would second a motion. I'm not prepared, at least at this time, to make and defend a case for the general application of a POV objection and will, instead, attempt to improve this presentation incrementally (at my discretion and leisure). On that basis, I'll respectfully decline your request for "examples" which I will invariably be obliged to defend in this space and limit myself here to more general observations on what I perceive to be (that should preclude at least several lines of comment) the glaring POV deficiencies of this article as noted by the OP.
This "article" is so profoundly biased in its lack of balance and perspective as to relegate it to encyclopedic parody status. It reads like an overtly compiled hit-piece on an all-too-identifiable villain.
You ask for an example? Let's try a different approach. Here's the opening paragraph of the section (Background) immediately following the introductory already under discussion below...let's see if it can survive your own application of Wikipedia standards as you understand them...
SBVT asserted that Kerry was "unfit to serve" as President based upon his alleged "willful distortion of the conduct" of American servicemen during that war, and his alleged "withholding and/or distortion of material facts" as to his own conduct during that war.[1] This claim caused tremendous controversy during the election, particularly because some perceived the veterans as partisans who had not been in a place to assess Kerry,[2] while several other Vietnam veterans who served alongside Kerry or under his command disputed the criticisms and supported Kerry in his presidential aspirations.[3][4]
One thing is evident, there is something inherently amiss in the machinations of process that can produce such an abysmally one-sided product...and this general weakness in the Wikipedia medium (particularly in politically contentious offerings such as this) is becoming well-noted and well-established. --JakeInJoisey 15:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, my request was for examples of POV "forking," but as to examples of POV in general, just about every sentence that goes into the article gets a thorough vetting in the talk page. I agree that the finished product can be unwieldy (sp?), but again, my impression is that it is because of the number of chefs stirring the soup. I have no objection to cleaning up for clarity and succinctness.
By the way, thank you for cleaning up the links. Much needed. --EECEE 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Jake, but you're just soapboxing at this point. The article may reflect poorly on the group, but that's because they flat out lied and distorted facts -- something that has been documented and reliably sourced. Don't confuse a neutral point of view with a requirement to present all subjects in a positive light. /Blaxthos 15:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you're soapboxing a little too Blax. To categorize them as "flat out liars" is certainly POV. As someone who has interviewed and compiled statements of Vietnam combat vets, it is a given that there will be discrepancies in people's individual memories of specific events. People get their chronolgies and events mixed up, but the overall collective memory is usually accurate. One could pick apart the entire history of the Vietnam war by focusing on discrepancies. But one would be missing the big picture if they did that. 250 highly decorated veterans (including a MOH) can't all be classified as liars. Crockspot 20:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a point, Crock. Very few of those 250 veterans had anything whatsoever to say about John Kerry's military service in Vietnam. Most of them never even crossed paths with the guy, but simply signed the letter that Roy Hoffmann sent out. And that MOH winner most certainly had nothing to say about Kerry's military service, as he signed on later as one of the POW members. --EECEE 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but a perponderance of the evidence leads one to the conclusion that the accusations made were: (1) factually inaccurate, (2) calculated, and (3) politically motivated. Moreover, I believe that the collective memory (AND specific accounts) of combat veterans whom served with Kerry are a little more credible than the relatively small number of sailors/soldiers with a political agenda (who never actually served with the man). Subsequent facts (which are documented within the article) also serve to discredit the statements made by the Swift Boat organization. To be completely honest, I thought that (a few lone zealots aside) the vast majority of people now believe that the SBVT ads (and accusations) were less about truth and more about politik. Should we document both sides of the issue? Of course. However, that doesn't mean it must be presented as an "undecided" issue, especially given the subsequent information we now have. /Blaxthos 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the "vast majority" of people don't give a damn. But I know quite a few people who respect the SBVT. And not just my own band of "lone zealots", but people in real life. Military, veterans, law enforcement, distant relatives, and just plain people. Assuming that the "vast majority" of people come down on a particular "side" of any controversial left/right topic is usually wishful thinking. Aside from the in-country claims, Kerry's activities against the war, and his interference in the negotiations left a pretty bad taste in the mouths of a lot of Vietnam vets, their families, and the families of those KIA. SBVT exploited that, and I think rightly so. I don't understand why he was never prosecuted back in the 70's. Actually I do understand why, but that's a whole other discussion. - Crockspot 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As an exercise in displaying graphically the "POV" nature of this article as currently comprised, I am engaged in the process of "highlighting" it in its entirety on my talk page. When my highlighting is complete, it is my intent to add my own commentary on its deficiencies as I see them...entry by entry. This effort will, undoubtedly, take a considerable amount of time, but I thought editors might be interested in viewing the progress thus far. IMHO, the depth and breadth of the bias in this article is both stark and stunning.--JakeInJoisey 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many who have commented on this "article" (see above for one), this article is decidedly "POV", non-"encyclopedic" and in desperate need of revision for proportionality and balance.

Introductory

The "Introductory", as it stands now, is "POV" in that it presents negative views of the Swiftvet campaign without noting proportionally the positive opinion(s) of its supporters. As a suggested starting point and, in compliance with the "controversial topic" wiki practice, I propose the following edit...

Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, formerly known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), is a political group (527 group) of American Swift boat veterans and former prisoners of war of the Vietnam War, formed during the 2004 presidential election campaign for the purpose of opposing John Kerry's candidacy for the presidency. The group criticized Kerry's actions during and shortly after his military service.
Reaction to the campaign became quickly polarized, those critical decrying it as a distortion of Kerry's military record tantamount to a smear while proponents applauded the group for their substantive revelations.
Jake, I think to say the group is applauded "for their substantive revelations" is itself POV. I think it is better couched in the same terms as the prior phrase, "decrying it as a distortion." --EECEE 04:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
My POV objection to the introductory as it stands is a lack of balance in the presentation of opposing views (not to discount my overall impression of badly written composition BTW). As you appear to be open to considering an amendment, may I suggest that we defer discussion of content for a short period to allow other interested editors to comment? JakeInJoisey 14:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. I also have another suggestion. In my view, a good introduction gives a brief summary or leads the reader in some way to what unfolds in the rest of the article. A description of the various viewpoints, of which there are likely more than two, probably does little to serve that purpose. Possibly it would be a more functional introduction if the last sentence were left out entirely...or replaced with a brief comment along the lines of the group being the subject of controversy during the 2004 campaign. The rest of the article tells the various sides of the story. Just a thought. --EECEE 22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to your suggested approach and have previously (see talk above) commented that the following, earlier introduction was near perfect and had attained a respectable level of consensus (at least between Derex and myself) for several months without amendment...
'Swift Vets and POWs for Truth', formerly known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), is an organization of American Swift boat veterans and former prisoners of war of the Vietnam War, formed during the 2004 presidential election campaign for the purpose of opposing John Kerry's bid for the presidency.
Perhaps you might suggest an edit that you would find appropriate and we can take it from there?JakeInJoisey 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That looks good to me, and nice job on the linking, by the way. I hereby officially "suggest" that edit. Maybe if no one objects in the near future, we could just go ahead with it...anybody? --EECEE 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate your effort to reach some consensus here, several editors have expressed a view that the previous introductory which I quoted above (just a copy/paste mind you...no great "linking" done on my part) requires some expansion. You also stated that "a good introduction gives a brief summary or leads the reader in some way to what unfolds in the rest of the article." I'm unsure if you feel that my edit satisfies that criteria but, if not, I have no problem with an expansion of the introductory within those perameters...as long as it's balanced and NPOV. Perhaps it might be better if an attempt to satisfy all concerned is made with a brief NPOV addition (with cites) to the introductory?JakeInJoisey 16:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
True, I guess the idea of a "brief summary" means including more of a summation, but on the other hand, I think a brief intro that tells the one or two incontrovertable facts about a topic like this is just peachy. --EECEE 18:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I also have a question, for anyone who knows. Is it accurate to still say the group "is" a 527 group? I see in the FEC section it says the group told the FEC it "intends" to cease functioning as a 527 group. Does that mean they've dissolved and reorganized as something else or that they just don't file as a 527 group anymore? Or ... ? Thanks. --EECEE 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the past tense is more appropriate as they apparently no longer lay claim to 527 status. As to "reorganized as something else", since Admiral Hoffman's communique on the FEC finding, I've seen nothing suggesting they are still actively functioning as a political organization, officially or otherwise...have you? It appears that individuals such as John O'Neill, Dr. Jerome Corsi and Col. "Bud" Day remain politically active but they are careful to note or quite obvious that their activity is personal or in behalf of a different organization. I'm curious, though, as to the thrust of your inquiry?--JakeInJoisey 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am adding a "POV" section objection to this opening statement as it now stands and reserve the right to present additional "POV" objections pending resolution of this particular dispute.JakeInJoisey 16:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - although I would like to applaud you for actually discussing changes rather than making them unilaterally. Bravo! There has been considerable work done on the presentation of this article (please read through the archives), and I don't see the violations of WP:NPOV you speak of... can you give some references as to the "proportionally" and "positive opinions of its supporters"? I am unaware of any at all, save the group itself. Otherwise, the group has been denounced by both sides of the aisle in the same manner as the recent MoveOn.org ad has been. /Blaxthos 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll address each of your points in order...
"I would like to applaud you for actually discussing changes rather than making them unilaterally. Bravo!"
I appreciate your comment and will only note that, since my addition of the "controversial subject" banner on 21 April 2006, significant edits unsupported by prior discussion are not uncommon here...perhaps, arguably, even the rule rather than the exception. As I understand the wiki guidelines, each of those edits might be reverted on that basis alone, an option which I will hold in reserve as my interest and endurance with this process permit.
"There has been considerable work done on the presentation of this article (please read through the archives), and I don't see the violations of WP:NPOV you speak of..."
I believe it's self-evident that "considerable work" having been done (certainly not arguable in this case) is no barrier to the evolutionary production of a biased or "POV" article. However, as I'm disinclined (at this point) to make and defend a case for the general application of a "POV" objection, I'll refrain from the temptation to invite you to "please read through the archives" for similar expressions of general "POV" bias. My "POV-section" objection should suffice in the near term and for the specific purpose of disputing this introductory section alone. If and when I elect to broaden the scope of my POV objection, I would certainly be obliged to entertain your observation in depth. Until such a time and in the interest of focus, please try to restrict your comments to the matter at hand, the "Introductory".
I recently commenced an editing process on my "Talk Page" which will serve to graphically illustrate and support a contention of systemic POV bias in this article. Please refer to my most recent comment posted in the "Point Of View Problems" talk section.--JakeInJoisey 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"...can you give some references as to the "proportionally" and "positive opinions of its supporters"? I am unaware of any at all, save the group itself."
Sure...here's a good example...
Total expenditures on behalf of Senator Kerry by 527s easily outstripped those of President Bush. This was exemplified by Peter Lewis and George Soros, the moguls who pledged $10 million apiece to the “America Coming Together” to register more voters to eject the incumbent. We disagree with them profoundly, but they enriched this campaign and called forth a magnificent response from the Republican side, particularly the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.
NY Sun Editorial, Nov. 4 2004
"...Otherwise, the group has been denounced by both sides of the aisle in the same manner as the recent MoveOn.org ad has been."
A bit of a non-sequitur, but a motion to "denounce" the SVPT campaign failed to materialize, did it not? Nor do I find the posturing of politicians when a political hot potato presents to be particularly absorbing anyway. JakeInJoisey 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The rest I will address at a later time, should you require, but the meat of the issue is that (singular) source you quoted (which, by the way, is simply an editorial) does not support the contention that there are proportionally equal numbers of supporters for SVT. /Blaxthos 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You're rebutting a contention that was not made. My contention is that support for the Swiftvet's campaign is/was significant enough (citeable and verifiable) to warrant inclusion in an introductory as a counterbalance to the 2 negative views now presented. JakeInJoisey 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you please cite the "significant support" of the Swiftvet campaign using third party reliable sources? I see plenty of sources regarding opposition and debunking the factual errors presented by the group, but I have thus far only seen one editorial that mentions the campaign, and doesn't really give any information on "significant support." Thanks. /Blaxthos 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
In terms of direct financial support, as I recall (I'm still looking for some documentation) the Swiftvet campaign generated somewhere in the neighborhood of 155,000 individual contributions with an average contribution of $75. Assuming I can document those numbers (and I'm fairly confident they're out there somewhere), I believe that can be fairly characterized as "significant" enough, by wikipedia standards, to warrant standing and inclusion in the introductory.
I will be glad to provide additional sources for what I consider to be "significant support" but, in an attempt to preclude limitless debate, let's come to some mutually agreed upon understanding of the term first. I believe Wikipedia has some guidance in this regard but it's late and I'll reserve further comment until I've had an opportunity to review that material. Feel free to go first if you'd like.JakeInJoisey 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In re-considering this discussion, perhaps it would be worthwhile to take a step even further back and see if there is some agreement, at least, on my premise...that the introductory, as written, is decidedly negative in tone and composition inre the Swiftvets and their campaign. Do you agree, or not? Anyone else care to comment?JakeInJoisey 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Jake, I don't see the introduction as particularly POV. However, if it were to be changed to reflect how various factions see it, I think it should be described in terms of their perspectives, not as objective fact. See my comment above re your proposed intro. --EECEE 05:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a continuation of the same discussion we had above which, in my opinion, remains unresolved (see "Introduction" talk above). I will address your thoughts in this talk section above.--JakeInJoisey 14:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Support for same positions among vets. I know they had (and still have) a lot of support among conservatives. I'll look around and see if I can find something more direct. - Crockspot 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Affidavits signed by Swift Boat Veterans" source is a link to a self-published website that provides, self-admittedly, incomplete data in that it fails to provide a link to the affidavit of Alfred French. As it is my intent to offer edits in the article relating to Mr. French's affidavit, I would suggest that the following link is more appropriate and will make the change shortly, barring any objections...

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/tonysnow_vetaffadavit.pdf JakeInJoisey 16:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for anyone who might care to comment. Under the guidelines of Wikipedia "Controversial Topic", is it necessary to pre-post in "Talk" links to "News Articles about SBVT"? The current article list, IMHO, appears to be surprisingly short given the enormous media attention that was focused on the controversy. I know of many salient articles that directly address the subject and wish to include them as references.

On another matter, what is the accepted policy on dead links if an alternative source cannot be located? --JakeInJoisey 17:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jake. As far as I know, there doesn't seem to be much of an issue around adding news links, etc. as long as they are actual news links and not blog comments, etc. As to dead links, I think I've seen them changed to a simple reference to the title, source, and date of the article in question, and maybe a brief summary. I wonder if there is a way to link to these articles through archived sources like Lexis or Newsbank? --EECEE 18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough...but your response raises several other questions that I'm unclear on.
Are "self-published" web presentations such as Truth and Unfit for Command legitimate entries in the "Other" section?
Also, as "Media Matters" and "Huffington Post" offerings are currently afforded standing in "Editorial and Opinion", does the same hold true for entities such as "Frontpage", "Newsbusters" or the "Media Research Center"?
As to the "Dead Links", I think they should, at least, be identified as such if only for reader convenience. Just how that is best effected is worth some discussion I would think. I've started another talk section to arrive at some methodology. As others are more experienced in Wikipedia practices, perhaps someone might offer an example that might be applied to all "Dead Link" entries? --JakeInJoisey 15:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's more of a best practice... when dealing with controversial subjects we should all probably discuss changes first unless they're either minor or not expected to cause conflict. As far as I know, however, there is no guideline or policy requiring one to take it to talk first. /Blaxthos 18:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. And news article links aren't usually very controversial. --EECEE 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the contentious history of this article, "...not expected to cause conflict" is an assumption I'm ill prepared to make...on ANY edit. My question seeks a consensus on the listing of legitimate and germane media articles without pre-posting in talk. As I read your responses, you both appear to concur that such listings are in keeping with or do not violate the spirit of the Wikipedia "Controversial Topic" guidelines. I'll reserve the option, therefore, to post articles as reference material without prior "talk". Objections can, of course, be raised and I am open to reversion supported by dialogue here.--JakeInJoisey 14:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You get a yes here. --EECEE 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As the discussion has expanded to encompass "External Links" in general, I have taken the liberty of renaming this "Talk" section to reflect that fact. Should anyone prefer sub-categories of "External Links" for discussion purposes, that would be fine with me as well.--JakeInJoisey 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a wide disparity in the presentation of "Firsthand accounts". I have attempted to re-format several of the links for conformity to an apparent standard but I'm not confident that a consensus has been established in that regard. Any thoughts out there as to a consistent format? Also, to use the word "account" in the link descriptive when the section is entitled "Firsthand Accounts" seems, on its face, to be redundant.--JakeInJoisey 18:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I also have a question. There is a new book out about the various Vietnam vet organizations that opposed Kerry, mostly focusing on SBVT. It contains a wealth of information. One author is Scott Swett, who was the webmaster for several of the groups including the SBVT, and was a deep insider This book has a web site [13]. Shouldn't there be a link to the web site in references, and/or shouldn't this long, encyclopedic book be mentioned in this encyclopedia article about the event? At this time it is by far the most definitive reference to the whole movement and the reaction to it. Should I make these edits? --John Moore 0258, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a link in the references portion should be sufficient. --EECEE (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Notating "Dead Links"

Here is the first "Dead Link" in the article, specifically footnote 15...

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=29302

How should this be presented/addressed?--JakeInJoisey 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there another viable source for the same info out there? If not, I guess SOP is to just summarize and name, rather than link to, the source. The others probably know more on this stuff.--EECEE 05:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me disagree slightly. The article text itself should serve adequately as the "summary" of a footnote and would be redundant and unecessary in a link.--JakeInJoisey 14:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I guess I was thinking of a brief description, but of course it would depend on what's in the article. Anyhoo, thanks for taking this on. --EECEE 19:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a replacement link.[14] All I did was copy the old url, go to web.archive.org, paste the url into the box, push button, pick a version. - Crockspot 13:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright...bad example then. I am under the assumption (perhaps false) that not ALL links are retrievable. I'll use your process on any "dead links" I come upon and, perhaps, discover one to use as a better example. P.S. I assume you intend to incorporate this change into the article?--JakeInJoisey 14:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Kinda busy, so feel free. Yes, there will be some links that will not be in the web.archive, but I think that most of the ones for this article (like the files that were on Kerry's website but are gone now) should be findable on web.archive . - Crockspot 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You are quite correct Crockspot. So far every page from Kerry's website that I've checked is archived to include PDF source documents. Thanks for the tip. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pickens "challenge"

JakeInJoisey, I see that you removed someone's addition re the recent T. Boone Pickens "challenge," describing it as noncompliant and Wiki controversial (sorry, something like that). Is it because of the way it was presented? As opposed to saying something like "It was reported that T. Boone Pickens offered $1 million" etc. and then including the cites? And then including JK's response and TBP's counter response?

Seems like this is timely and relevant information for this article. Can you suggest a better way of including it? Thanks. --EECEE (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As rare as it might be, I find myself agreeing with EECEE: the information removed seemed to be both sourced and relevant. I'd go a step further and say it was pretty neutrally presented. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"Rare"? Sad face goes here. --EECEE (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The "Controversial Topic" guidance states as follows...
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
It seems to be rather clear on Wikipedia protocol for "controversial topics". Perhaps Mr. Kendricks might wish to consider discussion in talk as per that protocol before making any further major edits. As to whether it is relevant or appropriate for inclusion in this article, I believe it is, at best, tangential and almost anecdotal. I am mildly amused that an article stripped of what I consider to be relevant facts supporting the Swiftvet position due to "article length" can find editorial room for this. In fact, the Swiftvets aren't even directly involved for heaven's sake. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, I added a "see also" section, and wikilinked to Swift Boat challenge. It is relevant, but not directly, so maybe this will satisfy everyone. Personally, I am very interested in seeing how this plays out, and suspect this will finally put the "debunked" myth to rest once and for all. One question I have, if Kerry proves one claim to be false, are all the rest true? Or will he attempt to disprove them all? I can't see how he can possibly do that without providing the things that Pickens is asking for. - Crockspot (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is directly relevant and presented neutrally. It is clearly proper for inclusion in the article. JamesMLane t c 07:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this an encyclopedic treatment or a blog? Perhaps Mr. Lane would care to explain in a bit more depth the "direct" relevancy of an event in which the principles don't even play a part. In the interim, and until some consensus is reached here, I believe Crockspot's edit to be a fair, if temporary, compromise, though I'm not sure that even IT should have been incorporated without discussion. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Convention for "Links" to source material

Editor Rasmussen has changed links to several referenced articles, at least one of which ( Hartford Courant ) (which I reverted) contained a still-active link to original source material...this raises several questions which I've formatted to facilitate responses...

  • I'm wondering about the propriety of linking to self-published websites hosting source material when original source material is still available either at its origin or in web archives.
  • When source material is retrieved from web archives, is there an accepted norm for noting the source/date of retrieval or even the fact that it is from web archives? I see several entries noting "retrieved on..." and would appreciate information as to some consensus in treating this reference material.
  • When source material is hosted on self-published websites, is "reposted" or "self-published" the accepted norm for notating such an entry?

Let me use this opportunity to reiterate (and slightly expand upon) 2 questions I posted above which have yet to receive any response...

  • Are "self-published" web presentations such as Truth and Unfit for Command legitimate entries in the "Other" section, or ANY section for that matter? From Wikipedia help...

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Shortcut

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

  • As "Media Matters" and "Huffington Post" offerings are currently afforded standing in "Editorial and Opinion", does the same hold true for entities such as "Frontpage", "Newsbusters" or the "Media Research Center"?

Comments please? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Good points. As to your comments below, I have no problem with your editing of the description of the Rassmussen website. Also, possibly a good idea to have a sub-category just for documents.
I'm not a Wiki expert but I wouldn't regard Rassmussen's reposting of scanned documents, articles, etc. as "self-published." Sometimes those sorts of links are the only ones available - for example, I believe the only known links to Kerry's signed SF 180s are through Powerline.
On the other hand, a re-formatted article may raise a few questions. Not sure it amounts to "self-publishing," but still, it's not quite the original. Maybe it would be treated like a transcript of sorts, especially if accompanied by a link to what was once available...in some cases via paid archives.
I don't know. We want authenticity and appropriate sourcing, yet we want to try to provide information that is reasonably accessible.
By the way, it looks like the problem with the Upton article is that the original doesn't continue beyond the first page.
Ah...you are correct and I missed that...I'll restore the original link unless/until original sourcing is found. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you handled it just right. A link to the transcript and a link to the original, so people can at least see that it exists. --EECEE (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And also by the way, thanks for all your cleanup work here.
PS on the blog question, I don't know what to say. Those lists could go on forever. --EECEE (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Amended Text

I have edited Mr. Rassmussen's text describing his entry, "After Action Reports", as "all other known". That is conclusionary, not factually supported and an opinion based upon "original research". Comments?

Nor do I believe it appropriate that the text of a link described as "After Action Reports" instead links to a self-published web page listing multiple unassociated documents where direct links to specific "After Action Reports" are available. In fact, I'm not at all persuaded that "After Action Reports" is an appropriate entry in a sub-section entitled "First Person Accounts" but, instead, might be more appropriate for another existing sub-section or, perhaps, even a new sub-section "Documents" where specific links to specific documents might be made available.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Cont'd

In an attempt to resolve the sectional NPOV dispute which remains unresolved since September, I am offering this suggested edit to the "Introductory". Interested editors are, again, invited to comment and to suggest amended text...

'Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, formerly known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), is an organization of American Swift boat veterans and former prisoners of war of the Vietnam War, formed during the 2004 presidential election campaign for the purpose of opposing John Kerry's bid for the presidency.
Reaction to the campaign became quickly polarized, those critical decrying it as a distortion of Kerry's record while supporters lauded the group for stepping forward with their allegations.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's probably a pretty thankless task, but thanks for taking it on.
However, a couple of points. If criticism of the group is going to go in the introduction, I think the criticism of the partisan backing of the group should stay in, as it was a central issue. I am also wondering if there isn't another way to present the other viewpoint, because after all every groups' supporters "laud" their efforts. --EECEE (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If criticism of the group is going to go in the introduction, I think the criticism of the partisan backing of the group should stay in, as it was a central issue.
I remain unconvinced that the expansion of the introduction (as I argued above) was warranted at all and, barring further input from interested editors (which has been decidedly scant), my preference would be for a revert to the original introductory which stood for some 7 months unedited. As you appeared to be open to that resolution, perhaps that would be the simplest resolution. We could revert and then deal with the fallout...if any. However, if you wish to pursue a further addition, perhaps you'll find this more acceptable...
Reaction to the campaign became quickly polarized, those critical decrying it as a partisan distortion of Kerry's record while supporters lauded the group for stepping forward with their allegations.
I am also wondering if there isn't another way to present the other viewpoint, because after all every groups' supporters "laud" their efforts.
The purpose of this NPOV objection is to balance the NPOV tone of the additions to the introductory as currently comprised. A simple acknowledgement that SVPT support existed AT ALL corrects that imbalance which is all that my edit attempts to correct. If you find that expression to be deficient or too simplistic, please suggest an edit that you might find more appropriate in satisfying your observations.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Truthfully, I think the "original" version is so far back I don't think I have the energy to look for it. I do think a simple introduction would be preferable, as the controversial aspects of the campaign become clear in the article itself. Maybe the last sentence of the intro paragraph should just come out.--EECEE (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the original text which, as discussed above, reached a consensus and remained essentially intact for some 7 months. In an effort to resolve this dispute and with your concurrence, I suggest that the following be re-instated...

Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, formerly known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), is a political group (527 group) of American Swift boat veterans and former prisoners of war of the Vietnam War, formed during the 2004 presidential election campaign for the purpose of opposing John Kerry's candidacy for the presidency.

As Mr. Lane did not respond to my objection to the insertion of additional text (which I still contend is unnecessary and detrimental to an already well-written introduction), I suggest that it also be omitted pending further discussion.
I have also reverted the edit by user Raul654 in which he removed my NPOV dispute template without discussion. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think the simplest introduction is best. --EECEE (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I will subsitute the above text and remove my NPOV objection. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that Raul654 (a Wiki admin as I understand) has reverted our consensus edit without discussion in talk. Perhaps he could apprise me of how that unilateral edit complies with the Wikipedia policy on controversial topics? If Raul654 again reverts without discussion, I will re-instate my NPOV objection. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty odd. I see that you specifically mentioned the discussion page in your edit history. I wonder why he didn't weigh in. Maybe he will now. --EECEE (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't several( a few ) of the Swift Boat crowd end up getting medals in the same small nonexistant battle that Kerry got his in? If there was no battle then how did they get their medals - political appointments? Looks like an alignment of rich boys in Vietnam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Parody

There's now a parody on Youtube called "Political Liars for Truth" that focuses on the 2008 election. 75.1.4.181 (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think SwiftKids is funnier--Work permit (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Now attacking McCain?

I heard some guy from the group on the radio recently saying they are now going after McCain due to his 'snitching' when a POW, anyone know anymore about that? Hahahahahaoh (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the organization is still in existence, but if so this sort of thing would require a reliable source before we could consider including it. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First Person Accounts

Unless there is some objection raised, it is my intent to incorporate links to various Swift Boat Vets' affidavits (as well as repositioning the general link from Fox News) commencing with this entry from FactCheck.org...

This is an article about the organization, not a place to list points or promote positions regarding the organization's (or members') claims. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Nor to list points or promote positions that impeach the organization's or member's claims?
I didn't create the sub-topic and am ambivalent about it's necessity or relevancy. Be that as it may, I can think of nothing more relevant to "First Person Accounts" than the sworn testimony of direct witnesses to events which are an integral part of the controversy. That FactCheck chooses to archive these affidavits itself speaks, I think, to the salient nature of these testimonies. -- JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, few would describe Al French's affidavit as the testimony of a "direct witness to events" (snark alert). In any case, I think it's completely appropriate to include affidavits in a reference section, and helpful to researchers. After all, there are plenty of other "accounts" given in interviews that are linked there. --EECEE (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear on your comment, it appears that you agree that the affidavits can be legitimately placed in the "First Hand Accounts" section? If so, I will delay any further editing in this regard until Blaxthos (or anyone else) has had an opportunity to comment.
Yes, I think that's an appropriate place for the affidavits. --EECEE (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
While I'm not convinced that this section itself warrants inclusion, I haven't researched the rationale behind its appearance here and will table that for another day unless someone might wish to comment further.
As to the French affidavit, I don't want to go into a long tangent on this (snark alert duly noted), but allow me this observation...
Though certainly not an unimpeachable source, Swiftboats.net (already referenced, I believe, in this article) indicates that Al French served with John Kerry during his (Kerry's) entire tenure with Coastal 11, late January to mid-March 1969. While you can make a valid argument that elements of Al French's affidavit (see exhibit 2) are based upon the testimony of others, he also states the following and was in a position to speak authoritatively on alleged "atrocities" and, most certainly, on any alleged "mutiny" among his peer officers...

Most important to me, Kerry has lied about our record in Vietnam, claiming on a 1971 Meet The Press show that our unit was engaged in "atrocities". This is not true. On the Dick Cavett Show on (sic) 1971 (cf. Kranish at 92), he claimed that crews at An Thoi were involved in a mutiny. This was likewise a lie.

-- JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Observation duly noted, with this response...
It isn't just that "elements" of French's affidavit are based on other people's stories, the fact is he swore that "all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct." And that included second and third-hand gossip about Kerry's military record in Vietnam. This guy is an officer of the court; I find it hard to believe he didn't know what he was doing.
As to his claim about Kerry lying on MTP in 1971 about his unit being engaged in "atrocities," let's consider what Kerry actually said:

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals. [15]

Those sorts of things took place, and were documented as taking place - and in fact were mostly SOP. Even SBVT member William Garlow found Hoffmann's tactics distasteful [16]. French is not being truthful; he is is at best being disingenuous if he simply doesn't think these things should be referred to as "atrocities," a term that Kerry was quite clear in qualifying. (A term Kerry also described as "inappropriate" months before Al French swore out his affidavit, by the way.)
And compare French's description of Kerry's "mutiny" remark with what he actually said:

The fact of the matter is that the members of Coastal Division 11 and Coastal Division 13 when I was in Vietnam were fighting the policy very, very hard, to the point that many of the members were refusing to carry out orders on some of their missions; to the point where the crews started to in fact mutiny, say, "I would not go back on the rivers again" ... [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186437/posts]

A little different from claiming that he said "crews at An Thoi were involved in a mutiny," isn't it? We know for a fact that there was plenty of disgruntlement over SEALORDS policies (read Brinkley, for instance), and officers did refuse to carry out some of Hoffmann's orders [17]. Is Al French prepared to say no crewmembers ever refused to go back up certain rivers or on particularly foolhardy missions? We know for a fact the lack of air support was so bad that RF/PF forces refused to go on patrols without helicopter support. [18] French is knocking down his own strawman.
I think there's plenty to question in the other affidavits, especially Elliott's and Letson's, but again, I have no problem including them alongside all the other interviews and accountings in the reference section. --EECEE (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of keeping this topical, I'll defer further comment to another time, another place and yield to you the first and last words. ;-) --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I realize I was turning it into a discussion board (which happens here from time to time)...will try to stay more topical myself. --EECEE (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am raising an objection to its inclusion for several reasons. First and foremost, I don't believe Wikipedia is the place to regurgitate or otherwise promote the group's (or members') claims; this article should discuss the group and their impact on the world, but shouldn't deteriorate into a he-said/she-said. Beyond that, the affidavits are primary sources, which becomes dangerously close to original research and synthesis... what's the point in simply regurgitating the affidavit without any commentary/impact/analysis (which is the job of secondary sources, which is what Wikipedia requires). Finally, I think there are some obvious problems with the WP:NPOV nature of the claims made by the members, especially given that much of what they claimed has either been refuted or were attempts at misconstruing the truth. Put all that together, and I really don't see where there is any value of inclusion. If the inclusionists feel that strongly about it, I suggest calling an request for comment from the community. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, the contents of the affidavits are not being "regurgitated" at all. Jake is proposing including links to the affidavits in the reference section ("Fist Person Accounts"). The reference section already includes links to interviews, press releases, editorial pieces, etc., so I hardly see how this introduces some sort of inappropriate personal viewpoint or makes any sort of argument one way or the other. In addition, I think the fact that they are primary sources makes them valuable for the researcher; the mere inclusion of a link without any sort of discussion is not "original research" at all.
I just don't see how it's any different from any other reference that is included at the end of an article. Really, this seems like a tempest in a teapot, if you'll forgive me. --EECEE (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Tempest comment notwithstanding ;-), I think I understand the source of our miscommunication. I believe what you mean to say is that you think that the account should be linked in the external links section of the article. You said (a few times) that you believed it should go in the article references, which necessarily means sources of attribution for content in the article. Now that I more clearly understand what you're trying to do, I think that it's no more or less appropriate than the dozens of other EL's already in place (though I reserve opinion on the appropriateness of the entire collection). That being the case, add away... :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh oh, my duh. Sorry for stirring up the ol' teapot ! Thanks for being nice about it. --EECEE (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries, just a misunderstanding (both ways).  :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this resolution and am quite convinced it is the correct one given the current structure of this article. However, I believe Blaxthos has raised an interesting and, perhaps, relevant observation about synthesis, a wikipedia concept that was new to me.

In researching the insertion of this sub-section "First Person Accounts", it appears that editor (Wolfman) may have used it to give weight to the Rood/Russel testimonies as they were the only "First Person Accounts" which he saw fit to include...at least initially (I haven't yet researched additions to the list, but I'd wager that my personal edits were the first to make note of ANY SBVT "First Person Accounts"). From the "talk" archives, it appears that this expansion of "external links" remained undiscussed.

Hmm, you added the Schachte, Elliott, Gardner, O'Dell, and Wright links? It's hard to search back that far, but it wouldn't surprise me either. I'd also wager that people tend to add the stuff that supports their own view...hence the balance of many editors. Well, we hope it's balance and not slugfests, right? --EECEE (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is arguable that IF "synthesis" was motivational, the incorporation of more balanced and quite relevant "testimonies" negates that purpose and calls into question the rationale for this sub-section's existence...period. On that point, as I previously stated, I am currently ambivalent and am persuaded by conflicting notions of completeness for research purposes (as noted by EECEE) and Wikipedia's preference for cites in the article body itself which would obviously necessitate a further expansion of the article. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following you. Synthesis is really a problem in the discussion part of an article, so just having a separate section of links would negate that issue. But I'm not sure why it would call the subsection's rationale into question, so I guess I'm not understanding you. Do you think the links should go elsewhere? Under another heading? I do think they should be included somewhere.
I have re-read the Wiki entry on "synthesis" and agree that it does appear to reference edits within the article itself, though I do believe that the principle behind the guideline might also apply to the use of selective and exclusionary "external links". However, as we appear to agree on what constitutes "First Person Accounts", I also believe the point is moot relative to this article. Perhaps Blaxthos might care to comment further.
As to the sub-section itself, my concern was that there was no discussion (that I could find) as to the appropriateness of its establishment in this article and its inception here may have been motivated by POV considerations. However, I am satisfied that it is a legitimate and, perhaps, helpful sub-section of "external links". --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's weird, by the way, to include the after action reports under this heading, but don't see any place where they'd easily fit. --EECEE (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur, and this particular entry was on my "to do" list of items to address. It would appear that "Other" is the only sub-category available unless consideration is given to the establishment of another sub-category such as "Documents". However, I don't think this entry alone would warrant that and "Other" seems to be the logical residence for this entry. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all the effort you're putting into this. --EECEE (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
...and to you as well. If there is no further objection, I will move it to "other".
One further point if I might...the list is unordered and I thought alphabetizing with last name first might be appropriate? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. --EECEE (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As I began to compile edits in an attempt to order this list, I noted that there was also a wide range in formats (especially in providing dates and content for the various references). Unless there is some objection raised, I will re-format the list and data and present them in chronological order as appears to be a more useful and accepted format in the external links section. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I had wondered about that too, but as there didn't seem to be any dates included in the descriptions, I didn't think more about it. If you're willing to do the work - whew! - that would be excellent. Thank you again. --EECEE (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles Horne

EECEE, I have reverted your "Charles Horne" edit (why didn't you discuss before editing btw?) and would appreciate discussion as to his inclusion in "Kerry's chain of command". Assuming his status as CO, Coastal Squadron 3 (sic - 1?), would he have been in Kerry's "chain of command"? I'll have to plead ignorance of the command structure and need to research this further. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, spoze I should have (discussed it here, that is); just didn't see it as anything controversial, merely a fact to be included in an already-existing point. Charles Horne shows up on the Coastal Squadron 1 "CosRon 3" portion of the SBSA command list (though it also says "ComCosRon 1" next to his name), and his dates of command coincide with Kerry's time in Vietnam [19]. He endorsed Kerry's Bronze Star recommendation as "Commander Coastal Squadron ONE" [sic] [20] and also approved his request for transfer after he'd gotten his third Purple Heart, also as "COMCOSRON ONE" [21][22]. And he was alive in 2004.
So I feel confident he would qualify as being in Kerry's "chain of command" though I confess I find the squadron number thing sort of confusing.
I fretted over adding a third name to a "neither/nor" sentence, and probably made it less readable in my attempt to stay within the rules of grammar.--EECEE (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not confident that your feeling of confidence can justify this inclusion as a fact. As I understand it, the concept of "chain of command" is probably best represented as who is one's immediate superior and so on up the chain. That superior individual would also be responsible for determining a particular officer's performance of duty and would be tasked with composing required fitness reports on that individual. Of course officer's can and often did "attach" to support elements or might be dependent upon other units for the provision of administrative support (which might be the case here with the Purple Heart and transfer out of Vietnam), but that doesn't impinge upon the "chain of command".
LCDR Streuli is a notable example. Kerry was temporarily "detached" to Coastal 13 under LCDR Streuli and by that detachment LCDR Streuli became tasked with rating Kerry...but not INDEPENDENT of LCDR Elliot who retained ultimate responsiblity for that fitness report and was required to review and co-sign it (that, I have come to understand, is known as a concurrent fitness report). Streuli was, in fact, TEMPORARILY in Kerry's "chain of command" and, on that basis alone, it can be legitimately argued that the Swiftvet contention of "all members of Kerry's chain of command" is erroneous.
CDR Horne presents a different scenario as I see it. Kerry's "chain of command" is, I think, well-established...Hibbard/Elliot(Streuli)-Hoffmann-Zumwalt and I think the inclusion of CMDR Horne is a distortion that concept. However, I'm fully prepared to yield the point to some authoritative documentation. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The basic definition of "chain of command" is:
The succession of commanding officers from a superior to a subordinate through which command is exercised. Also called command channel. [23]
That seems certainly to be the way that SBVT meant the term to be understood the many times they used it. They never simply said "Kerry's superior officers who had responsibility for his fitness reports." Hoffmann certainly didn't, nor did Lonsdale. In fact, on at least one occasion John O'Neill included Zumwalt, and rather ingeneously claimed his son represented him re SBVT: "... the entire chain of command all the way up to Admiral Zumwalt who is dead but whose son has signed our letter all condemn John Kerry as unfit." [24] In addition, they specifically included Streuli in Kerry's "chain of command" when it suited their purpose, with reference to the UFC discussion of Cambodian border crossings.
For that matter, SBVT member Charles Plumly is also described as part of Kerry's "chain of command," yet he is listed not under "command" but under "staff" as a Chief of Staff of CTF 115 at SBSA [25]. In addition, he only claims (in UFC) to have had any sort of direct oversight over Kerry on an operation that allegedly took place on March 5-7, 1969. Of course Kerry was in Saigon on March 5, flying back to An Thoi on the morning of the 6th, and getting a Silver Star pinned on him on that afternoon. So Kerry took part in that operation for only one day, if at all.
Charles Horne, on the other hand, was in the direct succession of officers through which command was exercised the entire time Kerry was there - the "well-established" chain of command was actually Hibbard/Elliot(Streuli)-Horne-Hoffmann-Zumwalt. Horne in fact had several personal interactions with Kerry as a commanding officer (see "Tour of Duty," for instance), not to mention that he exercised a commander's discretion in reviewing the circumstances surrounding and approving at least two of Kerry's combat medals, as well as his thrice-wounded transfer.
Put another way: do you think if Charles Horne had signed the SBVT letter they wouldn't describe him as part of Kerry's "chain of command"?--EECEE (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not been able to completely follow the discussion here, mostly due to time constraints. I have no direct understanding, I have not consulted the citations given, and I do not know which "side" is which.  ;-) I only want to say that it seems like there is a lot of analysis of primary sources, which can lead dangerously close to original research. Perhaps if you could find some secondary or tertiary sources that analyze the data (as opposed to the primary sources upon which the discussion now seems based) it would probably be productive. If my comments are wrong or unwarranted please disregard.  :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, despite the lengthy discussion here, I think the article edit would meet the Wikipedia criteria: "[A]ll material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. ... Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." [26]
I don't think anything that would be added to the existing statement about Kerry's chain of command in the way I suggested would be a new analysis or synthesis trying to advance anything that isn't in the sources. At most there would be a single link to the command list for Kerry's squadron, or even to an article mentioning him as Kerry's commander, which amounts to providing a "reliable, published source." --EECEE (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me start with your opening comment and your closing comment and do a little "synthesis" of my own...
"...I feel confident he would qualify as being in Kerry's "chain of command"..."
"...do you think if Charles Horne had signed the SBVT letter they'd have any problem describing him as part of Kerry's "chain of command"?"
Both statements, I think, reflect your own insecurity and lack of foundation for this entry and, to my mind, indicate that you are probably transgressing the Wikipedia guidelines on "original research" and/or "reliable sources". However, I'm still struggling with that "OR/RS" concept and would like to solicit comment from others more versed in their application. I believe there is assistance available from Wikipedia to help respolve such issues and that might be an avenue of approach?
In the interim, I believe your premise that CDR Horne would be in Kerry's "Chain of Command" (as it is commonly understood within the military and would have been understood by O'Neill) requires significantly more "sourcing". Of particular help would be cites from those familiar enough with the command structure of the "Brown Water Navy" in Vietnam (about which both you and I are, apparently, woefully ignorant) that might legitimize your premise. Nor do I understand your apparent zeal in making this entry anyway. Your point is made with the "Streuli" observation and you appear to be reaching for overkill.
I am fighting Uncle Sam for my tax dollars today and will probably have further comments on your discussion when I can make the time. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You evidently were adding your comment as I was editing mine. To make it short, it is absolutely clear that Horne was in Kerry's chain of command as anyone would commonly understand that term. Let's see, command list w/history, narratives of command relationship to, and command interactions with, Kerry, signatures on Kerry's documents as commander. Right, more sourcing needed. I have to say I don't understand YOUR zeal to keep this edit out of the article.
If you want even more "Brown Water Navy" background and command structure, there's always this: [27], or this: [28], or this:[29]
(starting at p. 149). To summarize, Coastal Divisions 11, 13, etc. were subordinate to Coastal Squadron 1, which "reported to the operational control" of CTF 115, and all were under the command of the Commander Naval Forces Vietnam. Not that complicated.
Of course it's not an OR/RS problem. The fact that you have argued every dot on every "i" and I have had to bring in outside information in convincing you of the matter on the talk page does not mean the entry itself would "transgress" any Wikipedia policy any more than providing a reliable source for any entry would.
By the way, I wouldn't be too quick to rely on some imputed definition based on how the term "would have been understood by O'Neill." After all, he included the long-dead Zumwalt by virtue of his son's signature. But I do find it interesting that on one hand, you seem to think his/their broad, loose, all-encompassing definition is the "commonly understood" one, yet on the other you argue for the narrowest possible interpretation in this case. Of course Horne would be included in either case. --EECEE (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to concede the point, but I am going to retract my reversion. The inclusion or exclusion of Horne is just not something I can get excited enough about to warrant going to the rhetorical mattresses with you on it. I'll leave that to anyone else who might be versed enough in both the command structure of COMNAVFORV and the concept of "chain of command" to comment.
Likewise the elements of "OR/RS" that you appear to be dancing around with in this edit. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I admit to being taken by surprise by the discussion in the first place, as it seemed so straightforward and noncontroversial in my view. But I guess these uhm, "exchanges" do make one consider one's positions pretty thoroughly.
I also corrected the reference to the squadron number. --EECEE (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with the Wiki Policy WP:BLP, I have removed the following link...

  • "Peck Arrest" March 26, 2004, USDOJ press release re Tedd Peck arrest for tax violations

It is my understanding that that these charges were either dropped or adjudicated in favor of Mr. Peck, though I have been unable to locate an online cite to use as a source. Please note that the link above does not link to the US Attorney's Office in California (where it is no longer available) but, instead, to an internet archive.

If this link is to be included (in fairness to Mr. Peck), it is incumbent upon the editor (IAW WP:BLP) to also include a final determination for this charge. If that determination cannot be ascertained, this link violates (IMHO) WP:BLP. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no online source for any resolution of the case. Possibly also in the archives?
It is possible, I guess, that records may have been expunged if there were no conviction or if the charges had been dropped. At any rate, any resolution of this indictment exceeds my search capability and raises the question of the appropriateness of this entry under WP:BLP --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I see your point about completeness, fairness, etc. On the other hand, I'm not sure how far we go in this vein, as there are plenty of cites to sources with claims about a living person (Kerry) that were subsequently disproven. Are we bound to post links showing they were disproven or else remove them? Just asking is all. --EECEE (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, "subsequently disproven" is a conclusion on your part and quite, quite debatable...(I'll go no further into that particular Pandora's Box TYVM). --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll just posit it in the hypothetical with regard to any article about any living person. I guess there's no easy answer in any case. --EECEE (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of BLP policy is this supposed to violate? It states he was arrested, and it provides a reliable source. Nothing further is stated or implied. 150.203.23.148 (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted by Jim, by not including the vindication of Mr. Peck it implies guilt, which is clearly not in the spirit of WP:NPOV and certainly violates WP:BLP. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User 68.164.84.64 Revert

I have reverted an edit by user 68.164.84.64 as NICW Wikipedia "Controversial Topics". While I believe the edit might have some merit, the edit is, IMHO, substantive and should be discussed here in "Talk" prior to posting. I invite User 68.164.84.64 to do so. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User 98.223.158.174 Revert

I have reverted an edit by user 98.223.158.174 as NICW Wikipedia "Controversial Topics". While I agree that this edit correctly identifies POV use under WP:WTA (and is on my own to-do list to address), Wikipedia "Controversial Topic" policy discourages substantive editing without discussion and I invite 98.223.158.174 to comment here for an attempt at consensus. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User SteveSims Revert

I have reverted an edit by user SteveSims as NICW Wikipedia "Controversial Topics". The inclusion of "Astroturfing" as a "see also" link is, in my opinion, flagrantly POV on its face. Comments? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it would qualify as NPOV if it was accurate. From what I understand of the term [30], it's not. --EECEE (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User EECEE Revert

I have reverted an edit by user EECEE as non-compliant with Wikipedia "Controversial Topic" guidelines. I believe the edit, while substantive, does not belong in the introductory and am somewhat surprised this edit was made without prior discussion.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To clue in the others: the edit referenced the announcement that the group was disbanding and ceasing operations.--EECEE (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
sorry...perhaps I should have presented it here (although it is archived)...the text is fine with me...
"On June 1, 2008, the group announced that it had "officially disbanded and ceased all operations as of May 31, 2008."--JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, sorry if I'm misunderstanding the "controversial topic" guidelines. I didn't see it as something that would lead to circular editing or becoming the focus of an edit war, so went ahead and included the info.--EECEE (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The next sentence...

"This page is conceived as a location for articles that regularly become biased and need to be fixed, or articles that were once the subject of an NPOV dispute and are likely to suffer future disputes."

I have an extensive list of NPOV objections (please see my talk page) that I intend to raise when I can muster the motivation to do so. Given the historical track record of NPOV disputes in the composition of this article, I see no reason to assume future edits will be any less contentious.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
But in the interest of full discussion, I'll just say I think it's relevant and hope the article is updated accordingly. I thought it appropriate to put it right upfront, but have no objection to other appropriate placement.--EECEE (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
My initial reaction was that it stuck out like a sore thumb and seemed highly gratuitous and out of place. I don't see any significant problem finding it a home, but, IMHO, it's a minor factoid that's barely footnote-worthy...but it's late and I'll suggest something tomorrow if you (or anyone else) haven't beat me to the punch.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I don't see this article listed at the "controversial topic" page. Is it supposed to be? --EECEE (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It's here.
BTW, I took the liberty of appending your sig to the various portions of your comments. I don't know how else to keep this discussion coherent.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
All sounds good to me. I think changing a couple of sentences to past tense wouldn't be out of order, but again, whatever people agree to is fine with me.--EECEE (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A problem I have in utilizing the "past tense" is that it can, if not artfully composed, sometimes present a negative connotation, perhaps suggesting that the dissolution of an entity as an active organization was for "cause" rather than "circumstance" or "choice". However, while I want to look into this a bit more as to how issues of this nature are reflected in encyclopedic tradition, and reserving the right to suggest a further edit in that regard, I can live with "was" as opposed to "is"...at least for the interim. Assuming no further objections, feel free to make the change.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
And yes, reformatting makes discussion easier to read. --EECEE (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that Blaxthos has now edited the introductory...again...without prior discussion. I have reverted as NICW Wikipedia "Controversial Topic" guidelines. His justification for the non-discussed edit, "nothing controversial about noting that the group has ceased operations"...is unresponsive to the objection that I raised above and which I would have reiterated had he discussed the edit here first.

I'd also suggest that changing "is" to "was" (see above) further argues against the addition of the proposed text to the "introductory" as it would then border on redundancy as well as "introductory" inappropriateness.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt at consensus, I'd suggest that the following be added as the last entry in the "Background" section...

On June 1, 2008, the group announced that it had "officially disbanded and ceased all operations as of May 31, 2008." [31]

--JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That the group does not currently exist is a significant fact that belongs in the introductory section, as is its self-announced official date of disbanding. I tried to think of other entities that no longer exist to see how Wikipedia handles them. Here are the first three that came to my mind:
  • Federalist Party (United States): "The Federalist Party (or Federal Party) was an American political party in the period 1792 to 1816, with remnants lasting into the 1820s."
  • Czechoslovakia: "Czechoslovakia (Czech and Slovak: Československo; after 1990: Česko-Slovensko) was a sovereign state in Central Europe that existed from October 1918 (upon declaring its independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire) until 1992 (with a government-in-exile during the World War II period). On January 1, 1993, Czechoslovakia peacefully split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia."
  • United Fruit Company: "After a period of financial decline, United Fruit was merged with Eli M. Black's AMK in 1970 to become the United Brands Company. In 1984 Carl Lindner, Jr. transformed United Brands into the present-day Chiquita Brands International."
All three quotations are from the introductory section of the article. In fact, each of the first two is from the very beginning of the article.
I agree with Blaxthos's comment. What is unresponsive? If your concern is that noting, in the introductory section, an article subject's current nonexistence gives that fact undue weight, I answer that it's clearly important enough, and that such treatment is our usual style. If your concern is that the undeniable fact of the group's having ceased operations may lower some people's opinion of it, I answer that that's not a valid objection. If you mean something else, please elaborate. JamesMLane t c 11:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That the group does not currently exist is a significant fact that belongs in the introductory section,...as is its self-announced official date of disbanding.
A change from "is" to "was" should adequately resolve your apparent concern without the undue expansion of an already well-composed, concise introductory via a redundant and inconsequential factoid.
  • I tried to think of other entities that no longer exist to see how Wikipedia handles them.
Your examples might be "apples and oranges". I'd suggest that ad hoc entities such as SBVT, borne of political circumstance, have, inherently and commonly understood, shelf-lives limited by the same political circumstance. What is the introductory import of a redundant factoid that, as far as I'm aware, wasn't even glanced at by media or news organizations?
  • I agree with Blaxthos's comment. What is unresponsive?
Isn't that rather obvious? We are discussing it now. If you want the quote..."I believe the edit, while substantive, does not belong in the introductory...". I believe my comment was quite clear, and ignored by Blaxthos in his undiscussed edit.
  • If your concern is that noting, in the introductory section, an article subject's current nonexistence gives that fact undue weight,...
As already stated, "was" as opposed to "is" stipulates "current nonexistence" and requires no additional factoids of a "footnote" nature to bring the point home.
  • ...I answer that it's clearly important enough,...
That sounds very much like an opinion...just like mine...only "clearly" to the contrary, assuming a change of "is" to "was"
  • ...and that such treatment is our usual style.
I'll respectfully decline to engage what might be considered a rather self-serving, pseudo-objective assertion of "our usual style". I'd suggest that such a determination is the bailiwick of an intermediary...not that of a participant in a discussion attempting to reach consensus. I'll assume that "our usual style" will be reflected in the product of this deliberation.
  • If your concern is that the undeniable fact of the group's having ceased operations may lower some people's opinion of it, I answer that that's not a valid objection.
Nope. My concern is the unnecessary addition of a minor and redundant factoid to an already well-composed, concise introductory.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, just so everybody's weighed in: I think using "was " in the intro is a good idea. I have no problem with placement of the "ceasing operations" info elsewhere in the article, including at the end. Sorry for whatever kerfuffle I've gotten rolling here. --EECEE (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above, I believe that to be a reasonable edit adequately addressing and reflecting the concerns expressed in this discussion. However, Blaxthos has seen fit to edit the article reflecting his own viewpoint, unresponsive to my clearly stated concern above and despite this ongoing discussion towards consensus while, at the same time, accusing me on this page and on my talk page of bad faith editing, "disruptive" behavior and "ownership" violations of Wiki policy. This raises issues more important, IMHO, than this relatively benign edit and I will respond to his comments and demeanor in due course...after the dust settles a bit.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User Java7837 Revert

I have reverted an edit by user Java7837 as NICW Wikipedia "Controversial Topic" guidelines. While I may be mis-reading this edit, it apparently involves editing the URL's for 2 citations as currently written. While this edit may, indeed, be benign, IMHO it is incumbent upon every editor to discuss such edits in "talk" so that all editors may be advised of the substantive nature of a proposed edit. It is one thing to discern a change in text, quite another proposition to comprehend a change in cites.

I invite Java7837 to do so here.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User 99.141.242.202 revert

I have reverted an edit by user 99.141.242.202 as NICW Wikipedia "Controversial Topic" guidelines. Suggested text edits are, IMHO, substantive and user 99.141.242.202 is invited to discuss them here.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User 68.73.192.144 Revert

I have reverted 2 edits in the "Swiftboating" section by user 68.73.192.144 as NICW Wikipedia "Controversial Topic" guidelines. He is invited to discuss those suggested edits here.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing controversial about "past tense". Continued nitpicking of quite verifiable details is disruptive behavior and indicative of bad faith. I'm changing the intro to reflect the fact that the group no longer exists. If someone believes that doing so has a negative connotation then I expect clear links to Wikipedia policy, explicit explanation of how the policy applies, and some sort of precedent that establishes that there is some sort of POV problem with referring to a defunct organization as having ceased operations. Wikipedia is not a battleground. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Kerry is a BLP

John Kerry is a WP:BLP. All claims must come from WP:RS, anything not supported is to be removed. Thus, this edit removing sources, such as Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Seattle Times, New York Times, and Factcheck.org is not acceptable. We66er (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this article is not a biography of a living person, but is about a political group. The biographical information about Kerry is secondary, and is not even really included in the discussion of the book. It is the book that made claims about Kerry, and the previous version of the article discussed those claims and the response to those claims in an NPOV fashion after much discussion among editors at the talk page. It was accurate and supported by cited material. (I have added even more cites.)
Those provisions were stripped out of the article without any discussion of their appropriateness by the editor, and were replaced with original research, personal conclusions, and argumentation. It contained extraneous material that was tangential to the article and to the book section of the article - for example, the response of the Kerry crewmates to T. Boone Pickens, which belongs, and is addressed in, the Swiftboat Challenge article. In fact it even argued about the ads, which are discussed in an entirely different part of the article. In addition, there certainly was inaccurate information, as they claimed that Corsi was a veteran when he is not.
I am going to revert your reversion until these proposed changes can be discussed here at the talk page, in keeping with the controversial topic process. Please do not start a revert war over this. (Crossposted at EECEE user talk page) --EECEE (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page" [emphases in original]. It does not matter what the article topic is about. What matters is what is said about a living person and the source.
What matters is that it was a discussion about assertions made in a book, and was not "biographical material" with no context. --EECEE (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the sources and claims, I see what you mean and will not revert you. However, the section does need improvement and I think it deserves its own page. It is highly notable for a variety of reasons, including an author suing the publisher over it. We66er (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User 68.39.46.119 revert

I have reverted an edit by user 68.39.46.119. Not only is the edit factually incorrect...

...although none of the members actually served on the same boat with Kerry.

...it is non-compliant with the Wikipedia "Controversial Article" guidelines. User 68.39.46.119 is invited to discuss the edit here.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have, again, reverted an undiscussed edit asserting erroneous information as "fact" by user 68.39.46.119. Leaving aside the contextual appropriateness of this edit, editors even VAGUELY familiar with the FACTS of this issue are more than aware of Steven Gardener's membership in the SVPT, and that reality is already reflected at another point in the article.
I left the following note on user 68.39.46.119's talk page...
Inre your two recent "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" article edits, you are mistaken in your asserted "fact"...


...although none of the members actually served on the same boat with Kerry.


Steven Gardener served as a crew member on John Kerry's PCF44 and the fact is not in dispute. Please see the cited reference to Mr. Gardener's service in the article itself.
Further undiscussed insertion of this erroneous factual information is bordering on vandalism, and I will regard it as such.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This is weird. Maybe you should call for a third-person look or whatever it's called? --EECEE (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You're a "third person"...so look. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I was thinking of the official "third party" thing where you actually put out a request for others to look and comment. But yes, the edits were weird.
BTW, I am leaving a note on your personal page about some really weird editing going on over at the "Swiftboating" article. --EECEE (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
EECEE, "weird" strikes me as being a rather understated descriptive for an edit that we both know to be factually bogus. Why on earth would some third-party intervention be needed to deal with this? I don't get it.
As to your note, see my reply on my talk page.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I know it was helpful in a dispute before, though I can't remember the details. I guess it's just the idea that the more who weigh in the better. But I see your point, especially as in this case it is a matter of just looking at the cites included in the article already. Also, saw your reply at your talk page ... thanks. --EECEE (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User 68.185.103.191 revert

I have reverted an undiscussed deletion by user 68.185.103.191 (talk) and have invited him/her to discuss this edit here as per Wikipedia "Controversial Topic" guidelines. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Unfit for Command.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Letters to John Kerry". Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. 2004. Retrieved 2007-03-28.
  2. ^ "Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record". FactCheck.org. 2004-08-22. Retrieved 2007-03-28.
  3. ^ Dobbs, Michael (2004-08-22). "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete". Washington Post. pp. A01. Retrieved 2007-03-28.
  4. ^ VandeHei, Jim (2004-07-29). "Kerry returns home with 'band of brothers'". Lawrence Journal-World. Retrieved 2007-03-28.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth/Archive_8&oldid=934649337"