Talk:Swiftboating/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit objections are non-specific or non-sequitors

In your unjustified reverts, you state that the videos were not about the his military record. non-sequitor, the article mentions that his anti-war activities were criticised. The videos the swiftvets used were about the anti-war activities. If you wish it to apply only to his military record, you should support your POV that the criticism of the antiwar activities should NOT be in the article. Are you wanting to remove that? What is your excuse? --68.35.3.66 (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. Given that you are not prepared to discuss changes before making them I have amended the text, leaving the video reference in place. You amendment confused the criticism of a fact (the anti-war record) with a non-fact, the unsubstantiated accusations against his military career. This is an article about the phrase "swiftboating" so I don't think the anti-war video is relevant (it is to the Kerry article), but I'm OK to leave it as phrased as the confusion is removed.--Snowded ^TALK 07:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you supply the actual quote and context from the book which substantiates this rather conclusive statement: "The challenges to his military record were not substantiated". The wikipedia article on the subject mentions affidavits. I could see "not conclusive" or "disputed". If this is the authors conclusion, I think an attributed quote of the author should be used, rather than just a reference to a whole book, so that the statement is not laid out there as if it were a fact. It is obviously not an establishable fact, but someone's conclusion. thanx --68.35.3.66 (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look it up when I get home (I am traveling) but it was an extensive example so you may need to read the whole thing. You might want to find a reliable third party source that substitutes the claims if you want to go down that route, reading the article itself, there is no substantiation for the claims. --Snowded ^TALK 05:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It has long been an established fact that the bulk of the Swifties claims were not only unsubstantiated, but refuted, since the 2004 election season - but not soon enough to help Kerry. If they were merely criticisms or inconclusive claims, we wouldn't be describing the smears as "swiftboating" someone. I remember PBS heads commenting about it here:

In stating that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "smeared Kerry's military record" we carefully and believe accurately summarized and characterized a great deal of objective reporting by established media organizations, respected media watchdog groups, and an official Pentagon investigation, regarding whether Kerry had accurately represented his war record, and whether his service medals were justified.

We wrote our interstitial based on reporting by, amongst others, the Washington Post, the Center for Media and Democracy, the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, historian Douglas Brinkley ("Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War"), and the Navy Inspector General.

The record is clear. As a young man John Kerry did what the men in our Civil War story did, he went to war for his country, and in his case was awarded medals for his bravery. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was organized in advance of the 2004 election and funded by operatives with close ties to the political machine seeking the re-election of President George W. Bush. The media campaign by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which attacked Senator Kerry's military record was reported and judged to have been a successful political effort to undermine Kerry's deserved and honorable credentials as a decorated veteran. In this regard it can accurately and fairly be described as a smear. (At the time Senator John McCain judged the group's attacks "dishonest and dishonorable.")

It's a long read, but it contains many still-active links to some of the fact-checking that was done at the time. I'm curious about the "videos the swiftvets used were about the anti-war activities" you mentioned above. What videos were those? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That was puzzling me to, unless it was an argument that protesting against the war invalidated your war record which would be absurd. --Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Remainder of discussion, not about article improvement, moved to User talk:68.35.3.66 for continuation... Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, I doubt that the book invented the term swiftboating, so while it perhaps concluded the attacks on his record were unsubstantiated, it was his supporters that used that belief to popularize the term "swiftboating". So there is a link missing here that the book doesn't supply. Do the users of the term also believe the questioning of his statements about being in Cambodia were also unsubstantiated or his repeating of allegations of war crimes by fellow veterans was unsubstantiated?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"I doubt..." You are welcome to your doubts, of course, but for the purposes of Wikipedia articles, we need content supported by reliable sources. This article is about "Swiftboating", a term that is synonymous with a dishonest, untrue smear campaign - named after the political activities of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth against John Kerry. It appears to me that you are not arguing about the meaning of the term "swiftboating", but you are instead arguing that some claims made by SVPT were not dishonest or untrue. You should be directing those efforts toward the content in the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and John Kerry military service controversy articles. The meaning of "swiftboating", in the American lexicon, is quite clear cut. If you believe the SVPT's campaign against Kerry has been inaccurately characterized, you need to make that case in the SVPT article. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I'm not arguing about the meaning of swiftboating, although you might be surprised to find it also is used in a positive sense as a goal to be aspired to when encountering a similarly smarmy candidate, i.e., "how can we swiftboat him" is synonomous with what are his vulnerabillities and hypocrisies. But why direct me to other articles, when this article discusses whether the claims of the SVPT are unsubstantiated or not. There are references that dispute Kerry's Winter Soldier Investigation activities and claims that were highlighted by the SVPT that are as solid as the reference used to support the "unsubstantiated" claim in this article. Yet, I see that you are obstructionist in that article. Perhaps we just need to remove the unsubstantiated claim in this article. It isn't needed at all. That is a reasonable compromise.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask you to refrain from personal attacks. You are welcome to remove unsourced content, or add citations as required. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above, I think removing the sentence making judgements about the validity the SBVT claims is a good compromose. Any discussion of that should be taken to teh SBVT. Visitors need to know what swift boats were, but authors whose opinions are being cited had nothing to do with the origination of the term swiftboating or apparently in spreading its usage.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not a compromise - its your POV. There were government reports as well. Please stop editing the article until you reach agreement here. --Snowded ^TALK 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you should read the discussion, the text you restored was not disputed as to its being justified by its source, but rather whether this is the appropriate article for it. The source and the government reports you don't cite were not related to swiftboating becoming used as it is. this article is not the appropriate place to document which of the SWVT allegations were justified and which weren't. There were some of both. In any case the statement does not belong in a history or background of the term getting its meaning. If it belongs at all, it would be in some kind of post-mortem. The article in NPOV without the statement that I removed as a compromise. Since I am the only one proposing compromises here you and X are not editing in good faith. Which of my other compromises are acceptable to you, or propose some of your own. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole point about "swiftboating" is that it is a lie told to achieve a political effect. The truth or otherwise of the assertion is therefore relevant and the government and other sources clearly state that the accusations were false. Please stop making accusations against other editors who disagree with you. --Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, so in addition to the meaning of the term, this is also about the justification or not of its coming into use for that purpose. Wikipedia is not supposed to just selectively just include supporting evidence for such as use, but a more NPOV position.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't compromise when it comes to facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The line we are currently discussing is not a "fact", it is an opinion. What is a fact, is that the line represents Farhad Majoo's opinion. Perhaps we can compromise by explicitly attributing the opinion to Farhad Majoo and making it more NPOV by giving other opinons.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to impose a POV, see comment by Xeonophrenic above. --Snowded ^TALK 19:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, Snowded, you are going to have to do better than point to Xenophrenic. Even "facts" cannot be assumed, even if they are obviously true to someone with your POV. The Farhad Manjoo source does not support Xeno's fervent "unsubstantiated" opinion. Here is the quote from the book: "The veterans lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims ...". Hmmm, lack of "compelling" evidence is not "unsubstantiated", after all, Kerry also lacked compelling evidence that he was in Cambodia, or that Nixon was president in Christmas of 1968. Someone has been using this book as a source in bad faith. The book is not a formal investigative report but a prolonged essay. It is not full of quotes and footnotes. It is not trying to be particularly precise in its use of terms, so even if it did use the term "unsubstantiated", that would hardly establish it as a fact. Unless you can come up with better support for putting Manjoo's unattributed and mischaracterized opinion in the article, the best compromise is to remove that sentence. Alternatively, his opinion should be properly presented and explicitly attributed, and then we should find another opinion to balance it, so that the article remains NPOV. If you insist on putting Manjoo's opinion in the article (why is his opinion so special?) I propose this as a statement that turns his opinion into fact, because the only "fact" is that it is his opinion. "In Farhad Manjoo's opinion the veterans lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims"--68.35.3.66 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is tedious, your points have been handled elsewhere in this discussion. You do not have agreement to the change. --Snowded ^TALK 06:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't revert if you are unwilling to participate. If you can't provide the support for the "unsubstantiated" opinion in the supplied source, don't revert in somekind of faith that Xeno can just because he called this opinion a "fact". But first, you evidently didn't read "this discussion" before you mischaracterized it. I read the pertinent parts of the book and provided soupporting text for the change. Show where that had been handled previously?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Try not to make assumptions, check out the Navy Inspector General's reports if you want more data. If by "participate" you mean tedious repetition of the same points to an editor who just doesn't like it, then I'm not playing - the points have been made above, you simply don't like them. Future postings on my talk page by you which fail to follow WP:AGF will be deleted as vandalism. --Snowded ^TALK 09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, provide new wording and a cite based upon the inspector generals records. Once again you don't appear to have read the current discussion.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. The article is about swiftboating as a concept. This is not place to debate the merits of the campaign against John Kerry. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Boy are you confused. You are actually agreeing with me! Could you have mistakenly agreed with Snowded out of habit? The sentence in question, which we probably should just delete is about the merits of the campaign against John Kerry. One of the compromises I proposed was just to delete the sentence, the others are to properly cite it as the opinion of Manjoo. If you are going to participate, try to be more careful.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's well sourced, correct, NPOV, and appropriate. Keep per snowed et al. Verbal chat 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one that has checked the source? --68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No --Snowded ^TALK 20:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you did look at the source, then you didn't come up with anything but the sentence I already conveniently quoted which does not support "unsubstantiated".--68.35.3.66 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

New York Times: Mr. Kerry has stretched the truth here and there, but earned his decorations. And the Swift Boat Veterans, contradicted by official records and virtually everyone who witnessed the incidents, are engaging in one of the ugliest smears in modern U.S. politics. --Snowded ^TALK 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You forget Snowded...I check sources. You've tried to slip in another opinion piece as a source. This one was an op-ed, what next a letter to the editor? [1]--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll mark this resolved. Verbal chat 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the source cited in the article, and it doesn't support "not substantiated" any better than the source that is cited. I will leave the citation needed notice in their a couple more days before removing the statement. The statement should not even be in there, since three of us have agreed that any issue of whether the claims of the SBVT were or were not true should be taken to the SBVT page.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, If we want to discuss the merits of the SBVT here, despite 3 of us being against, I am not opposed to allowing opinion in, but it should be explicitly identified with whose opinion it is, whether Manjoo's or Kristol's or whomever. And there should be no original research mischaracterization of their opinions, using them to support statements stronger than what their own statements would justify. That is the proper way to get opinion into Wikipedia. Even on the science pages, conclusions that are the least bit controversial are attributed to persons or scientific bodies that have stated them. This issue is far from scientific with claims and unreliable memories and biased eye witness evidence on each side.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC) RESET INDENT. The latest edit puts a clearly exaggerated claim by Majoo as a fact, despite alternate sources, such as SBVT affidavits and John O'Neill and Scott Swett's books. If this article is to even approach NPOV, that statement is not appropriate, except perhaps as a quoted opinion from one source. More accurate is to say what I edited before, which is that the issue remains in dispute, with evidence from both sides, some of it contradictory. Anything else simply slips the entire controversy under the rug, asserting, in a truly "world without facts" manner, something that is not only an opinion, but an obviously incorrect one. Does anyone seriously believe that there were no facts in the SBVT attacks? Hence, I am reverting back to the more neutral wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustnado (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to Xenophrenic's reverts, the comment holds. Majoo's claim is an exaggeration. Majoo is a writer for a publication known for its POV, and this exaggeration is in line with that POV, and is clearly not a statement of fact. The more recent wording before Xenophrenic's revert is a correct characterization of the facts and the controversy. Majoo makes the claim, as the wording says. That Majoo made the claim does not give his claim the status of fact, given his POV, the single sourcing, and the clear evidence that at least some of the claims were based on obvious fact (such as the televised and recorded remarks of Kerry to the U.S. Senate). To call it "fact free" is to pretend that such evidence does not exist, inappropriately relying on one "reliable source" instead to create a fiction. I have reverted the wording to a more neutral and more correct form.Gustnado : ►Talk 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The content in the article is cited to reliable sources. Your edits have not been supported by reliable sources, and have been reverted. If you have an issue with reliability of sources used, you may raise that issue at WP:RSN (where you will get a faster response if you spell the names of sources correctly). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Majoo is a "reliable source" - it is whether a single phrase lifted from that source can be treated as a reliable fact. The statement, whether from a reliable source or not, does not belong in a dictionary. It is an exaggeration and is refuted by the many facts presented at the time, which are in the public record (including Kerry's testimony to the Senate in 1971). The "reliable source" argument is a smoke-screen and inappropriate. I am restoring the wording to that which an objective observer would clearly agree is more appropriate.Gustnado : ►Talk 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:V states:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true.

The content is published in a reliable source, and has been restored. Your argument for removal does not appear in any reliable sources, so your removal has been reverted. You can argue all you want that "an objective observer would clearly agree" the earth is flat, but it isn't going into a Wikipedia article when reliable sources say otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Manjoo's book is a reliable source

Manjoo's book is essentially an extended editorial use swiftboating as a mere anecdote to support is overall concerns in theme not directly related to swiftboating. There is no evidence that he did any research in the area, but just assumed and characterized, perhaps based upon what he thought was general knowledge. I think this section from wikipedia reliable sources is relevant:

"As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

This source is one person, not known for, or claiming expertise in this particular area, with no references or other evidence that he did any fact checking. Since his book is mere opinion, any statement derived from it, if appropriate at all, should explicitly identify it as his opinion and probably, quote him directly.

The "not substantiated" statement at issue mischaracterizes what he has said, in a single statement in the book, is not directly supported and does not explicitly identify it as his opinion. This section from the wikipedia reliable sources is relevant:

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."

There is no direct support from the source for the statement. The unwillingness of POV editors here find any quote or accept any compromise using an actual quote or more properly characterizing what Majoo actually wrote, that can serve their purposes, shows that they are violating the reliable source policy and engaged in POV editing.

--68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Majoo's is a respected journalist who has written a book about how we live in a post-fact society. He makes extensive use of the swift boat saga to show how accusations with no basis in fact can influence an election. Given that this article is about swiftboating (the word) not about Kerry it is a highly appropriate source to use. --Snowded ^TALK 20:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You, IP68.35.3.66, have completely mischaracterized the source. The cited source is several hundred pages of scholarly analysis of how and why we can accept belief over fact - something you have, ironically, been demonstrating. Not only is there a chapter on swiftboating, but there are more than 40 references to it throughout the book. This is a work published by 200 year old Wiley (most famous for its peer-reviewed academic and scholastic works), in which there are extensive notations and citations to journals, newsprint, books, articles, etc., and nothing to indicate this is a personal editorial or opinion piece. You appear to be looking at the wrong book. The content of this Wikipedia article cited to this source does accurately convey what this source says. If you have concerns about the reliability of cited sources, you should raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The author didn't do any investigation of his own and didn't come to the conclusion in the statement, and he works for Slate magazine, not a news magazine. Since when does weaving his argument with anecdotes, unrelated to the specifics of the SBVT evidence, count as "scholarly analysis" of the issue at hand. If it did you should be able provide several quotes of relevant analysis, and if it was particulary scholarly, there should be references in the source supporting that analysis. And you should be inviting others to review the source like I have. Try harder.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As you have been asked, take it to WP:RSN if you are dissatisfied. Verbal chat 16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Widely reviewed book from a well-established publisher written by a professional journalist? Exactly the kind of source WP articles should be using. Gamaliel (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you document how it is a source for the statement of interest? --68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(Passing through, this just cropped up on my watchlist) Performing the obvious search, it describes the Swiftboating campaign as 'fact-free' on page 14. I presume one of the editors can provide more context but the phrase you requested the cite for is there. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VdDykSc7sbcC&dq=%22True+Enough:+learning+to+live+in+a+post-fact+society%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=Af6MS4CdFIW6jAe15fDGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22fact%20free%22&f=false Bazzargh (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that --Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there clearly were facts in the SBVT campaign, and not all have them have been disputed, the use of the phrase from Majoo is polemical. If anything, the phrase itself should disqualify Majoo's source, since it is clearly wrong (References previously cited including the O'Neill Book, which containts facts, some of which were disputed, and the affidavits from SBVT members, which contained sworn facts. To use such a loaded and incorrect phrase, found in exactly one book, is editing in bad faith.Gustnado : ►Talk —Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

I see a reliable source cited for the content. I do not see a reliable source from you supporting the removal of that content. I have returned the content. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

While it is original research to assume that the perception by liberals (and Manjoo) that the campaign was "fact free" gave rise to the term "swiftboating", that seems a reasonable inference to me. The text I entered, properly attributes the "fact free" conclusion to Manjoo. The source cited is certainly reliable for Manjoo's opinion, although obviously not for the fact of the matter. The use of the winter soldier videos with John Kerry speaking, obviously establishes certain facts, such as he actually said the words that were coming out of his mouth.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the SBVT's campaign was based on distortion and falsification is not an assumption, not WP:OR, is not something that needs to be "inferred", and is substantiated by reliable sources. Attempts to portray the fact as merely an "opinion of Manjoo's", or trying to conceal the fact with weasel worded statements like "presumably others shared this view" aren't supported by the cited source. I've returned wording that is supported by the cited source. The changes you made were not supported by the cited sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comments in the other section on this. Xenophrenic's comment here is not responsive to the issue. In dispute is wording about whether the campaign was "fact free." It clearly was not, as it made use of facts in the public record. "Fact free" is an incorrect characterization by Majoo, and cannot be used in an unqualified manner. As stated below, the article is reverted to the more appropriate language inserted by 68.35.3.66 .Gustnado : ►Talk 06:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The "fact free" and "lacked any compelling evidence" wording is not in dispute. See this page in the cited source for proof (click on the "Page 14" link to expand the page for context). No dispute. The words are there in black and white. If you feel the source isn't reliable, take it up at WP:RSN - not here. If you feel the source is reliable, but mistaken or not neutrally conveyed, take it up at WP:NPOVN - not here. Making edits while claiming that something is "clearly" this or that, without providing reliable sourcing to back it up, will only end up with your edits being reverted. You may also wish to familiarize yourself with the very first sentence of WP:V. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(Inappropriate personal attacks and soapboxing moved to editor's talk page here.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try and remember that this is an article about the word swiftboating rather than Kerry himself. We have a reliable authority who uses the words "fact free" explicitly. The fact that the Veterans said he was in Vietnam is I suppose a fact but at that point we are getting into the absurd. --Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There were of course, other facts in the campain. Specifically referenced in this article was that the campaign included video from the Winter Soldier investigation. Although, the words coming out of Kerry's mouth were not facts, it is factual that the words came out of his mouth. I assume you removed the video reference, for consistency, since it obviously contradicted the "fact free" statement. Would you care to contact Manjoo, to see if he concurs with the way his opinion is being used? You can ask him if he specifically reviewed all the material to see if it was fact free, or if this was a less rigorous characterization?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, my compromise statement is better supported by the source, since it properly attributes the opinion to the source, an attributed quoatation is the wikipedia way of turning hyperbolic opinion into fact.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not encourage multiple qualifications to statements. This is just another attempt to try and push a political point of view. We use the language of the reliable source, thats the way it works. Deriving conclusions indirectly from your interpretation of a video is called original research. Continued edit waring on your part here is going nowhere, if you are unhappy then use the normal processes in WIkipedai. --Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you can explain how my current compromise pushes a POV. Please don't make any characterizations in the hopes that others won't even look at the text.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See above comment, you are still seeking to qualify a clearly cited statement --Snowded ^TALK 11:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as I thought, there was no way you could portray it as pushing a political POV. BTW, in what way is attributing the opinion to Manjoo a "multiple qualification", hmmm? I think wikipedia standards, would prefer my compromise, which is true and supported by the source, to yours, which is false and hyperbolic and supported by the source, IF one assumes that Manjoo was stating it for the truth of the matter rather than just his opinion. Arguing against the latter, there is no evidence that Manjoo did the detailed review required to reach a "fact free" conclusion. His book is essentially just a prolonged editorial.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you several times Manjoo is writing a book about phenomena such as swift boating and is authoritative in this respect. --Snowded ^TALK 11:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct it is about swiftboating, and more specifically why it and unrelated truthy campaigns "worked", it is not about whether there were actual facts in the SBVT campaign. It assumes there weren't, but doesn't investigate the truth of the matter and should not be a source on the matter. It is a proper source for Manjoo's attributed opinion, although even there, from the context of the surrounding paragraphs, Manjoo does not intend the "fact free" statement the way it is being used here. He would intend it specifically in regards to aspirsions on Kerry's heroism. There is no indication he considers portions of the campaign relating to his anti-war activities including the Winter Soldier testimony to be fact free, yet you are taking his opinion out of context and mis-representing it by leaving the impression that it was in respect to the whole campaign. I am sorry the source doesn't work for your purposes as well as you might hope.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are repeating the same points time and time again, although interesting we now have Winter Soldier brought into play. The meaning in the reference is very clear and supports the current text. That is consensus. You know the remedies if you are unhappy. --Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, there doesn't appear to be a consensus anymore since you went to the extreme "fact free", just you and that xeno... dude.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. There is no consensus. It appears that using a "reliable source" (which itself has a strong POV), trumps any attempt at accuracy. I have pointed out facts that were used in the attacks, and those facts that are widely available (such as government records of Kerry's statements in 1971), but no matter. Since the facts don't say that the SwiftBoat attacks were NOT fact free, the extreme and clearly wrong language "fact-free" is imagined to be the correct language. And yet, in "Unfit for Command", part of the SBVT campaign, Kerry's exact words are quoted (chapter 6), and it is an indisputable, widely published (and televised) fact that Kerry spoke those words. Hence we have clear evidence of at last one fact in the SBVT attack, which is sufficient to refute the absurd "fact-free" language, and to refute the reliability of the so-called reliable source - at least on that issue. No consensus, reverting.Gustnado : ►Talk 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct that using a verifiably reliable source does trump your personal opinion of accuracy. See the first sentence of Wikipedia's core policy: WP:V. Your edits are not supported by equally reliable sources, and have been reverted. You can call it absurd until you are blue in the face, but that is also trumped by WP:V. Your edit warring without the support of reliable sources is disruptive. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno... you are lying again, how can attributing the "fact free" to Manjoo using EXACTLY THE SAME SOURCE, not be an "equally reliable source". I sense a logic or intellectual honesty deficit somewhere. I hope it is just temporary.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be necessary to attribute an opinion when that opinion is given incidentally: we do not imagine that every statement in a daily column has been fully researched, and such a statement may well be attributed. However, it is common practice that when a reliable source has researched a situation, their conclusion is simply presented with an appropriate reference. If there is a similarly reliable source that contradicts the statement, it would be appropriate to include information regarding the differing views. However, the whole point of the term "swiftboating" is that the attack is fact-free; if most of the claims were known to be correct, the attack would not be "swiftboating". Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You apparently imagine an extremely high standard for the use of the term "swiftboating", one that even the SBVT campaign itself is unable to meet. Ironically, the campaign that inspired the term is not itself an example of swiftboating, under this high "fact free" standard. History is full of ironies like this. It still does not justify the inclusion of hyperbolic opinion without attribution as if for the truth of the matter. Do you have any evidence that Majoo has researched "fact free" as used here? Does he discuss whether Kerry traveled to Paris or threw away his ribbons as alleged in ads used in the SBVT campaign (they are available on youtube). BTW, John Kerry's campaign acknowledged these "facts".--68.35.3.66 (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not try to debate the Kerry issue here since this is not a forum. We discuss the application of Wikipedia's content policies: see WP:VERIFY. What you call hyperbolic opinion is a verified statement in a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To whom are you writing, I'm only debating the wikistandards for one statement that is in this article? If it shouldn't be in this article suggest a well reasoned compromise.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well put, I've been trying to make the same point. --Snowded ^TALK 04:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this NPOV?

I just stumbled accross this article and have to say, the sentence "The completely fact-free campaign against Kerry by the SVPT lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims" is in no way shape or form NPOV. I do not care if there is a reference, the wording here is in doubt. If you want to have something along those lines, then you have to cite a specific person who makes said claim---especially on something as poltiically charged as this subject.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Neutrality is the bedrock of the encyclopedia, and while it's fine to include commentary from a reliable source, using charged language to display a particular POV in the article itself is wrong. Balloonman's modification of the text properly enforced our neutrality policy without losing any of the substance of the information. Future inclusions of controversial information should follow that example. -- Atama頭 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is politically charged. That is where my agreement with Balloonman's assessment ends. The sentence,

In the book, True Enough: learning to live in a post-fact society, Farhad Manjoo argues that campaign against Kerry by the SVPT was "fact free" and lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims.

...is a misrepresentation of the source. Manjoo didn't argue that the campaign was fact free any more than he argues that Kerry ran for president. Neither fact is an opinion belonging to Manjoo, and attempting to portray basic facts as his opinion is extremely POV. If it is Balloonman's opinion that the wording is in doubt, then he should provide reliable sources to support that doubt. There is certainly no doubt expressed in the cited reference, so I can only assume the doubt Balloonman is trying to interject is expressed elsewhere. Can you provide a reliable source, please, to that doubt?

As for Atama's observation that the "fact-free" and "lacked any compelling evidence" wording is "charged language", I do agree - but it is there because another editor objected to the equally accurate and supported "unsubstantiated charges" milder wording, and didn't like the paraphrase. The wording isn't there to "display a particular" POV, as Atama incorrectly assumed, but to convey a fact. That fact is: the charges of the campaign were unsubstantiated. It is not the opinion of Manjoo's book that the SBVT has leveled unsubstantiated attacks on Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record in a book and on the air, or that the Navy Inspector General refuted the SBVT claims and concluded there was no justification for looking further into the decisions to award the medals or the anti-war activities. No, the wording is not "in doubt", unless reliable sources are provided that convey that doubt, and I haven't seen any. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You can never factually state that nobody was ever compelled by the evidence. That's a logical fallacy. You can only state that someone wasn't compelled by the evidence, and in this case that "someone" would either be Manjoo, or whatever persons Manjoo might refer to in the source. This is like factually declaring that something is "unbelievable"; odds are that some kook somewhere believes it. If nothing else, the term "fact-free" is just terrible writing. "Unsubstantiated" would be a term without charged rhetoric, and far better. It would be like the difference between stating that a person made unfortunate choices because they led to a life of poverty, or saying that a person is stupid. -- Atama頭 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, Atama has nailed it, when he write, "you can never state that nobody was ever compelled by the evidence." The fact that Manjoo found the evidence uncompelling or the Navy Inspector General found it so, does not make it so. The sentence, as I originally saw it, was one of the most POV sentences I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time.

IMO, it would be a lot stronger of a statement, if you could attribute it to a neutral authority (like the Navy Inspector General) that was made after the fact. Eg I would avoid relying upon sources from 2004 unless quoting something---sources written at the time suffer the fate that they might be politically charged. A single book by a journalist (who works for a very liberal leaning online magazine) may not be seen as compelling as a pentagon study or some such. The fact that the book was published by Wiley, does speak to the quality of the book (Wiley is a MAJOR publisher.) That doesn't, however, mean that the author himself might not be politically biased.

Here's the rub, when dealing with a political statements, we need to take into consideration the fact that people are going to come to the article and read and say "Says who?" or "Where did that come from?" Or "that's POV." Or "that's not true, I read the book the Swift Boaters put out." Making a statement that says "unsubstantiated charges" needs to be tied to the most credible source we can find---preferably one that even the most die hard dittohead couldn't reject. Heck, if given the choice, I'd prefer a conservative leaning source that said the exact same thing, because the people who are most likely to challenge the statement are going to be conservatives!

The current version is closer to being NPOV and accurate, but it still reads like a blog and sounds like somebody on Wikipedia is advocating a stance. I have no doubt that Kerry got screwed and that the facts were embellished/fabricated/what have you. The problem is that we need to have it beyond reproach at first glance, we don't want to force the reader to goto the footnotes to find out who said it. We don't want people to have the initial reaction, "That's POV" or "That's wrong" which is what people will say if we can't tie the statement to somebody/something beyond reproach.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add, just to make myself clear, I do not at all refute the reliability of any of the sources being used, nor do I doubt the accuracy of the statement, if correctly attributed. I'm definitely not out to whitewash the article in any way or remove criticism of the SBVT. -- Atama頭 04:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I approve of the recent changes. Good work. :) -- Atama頭 07:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

getting there

The article is in a much better shape than it was when I stumbled upon it 2 weeks ago, that being said, I've removed the word "unsubstantiated." The word is a politically charged one that has a lot of connotations/meaning, and without impeccable sources should not be used in an encyclopedic in this manner. There are 3 sources provided. The word comes from a NYTimes article written at the time. The NYTimes is known to be a liberal paper and the fact that the Swift Vets were publishing books raises questions as to whether or not the claims were unsubstantiated or whether the NYTimes simply chose to ignore the facts. But the biggest problem with the article, is that it was written during the campaign. During the campaign both sides were casting dispersions on each other and opinions often got mixed in with facts--even by the media. Thus, even though the NY Times article uses the word "unsubstantiated" it is probably not the best source (nor would any source written during the campaign.) The book written by a Salon writer might be a step in the right direction. Again, this offline source appears to be credible (based upon who published it) but it was written by a liberal writer. But even putting that aside, we don't know if he actually wrote that the allegations were unsubstantiated. Even the column by the PBS Ombudsman did not make that claim. If Wikipedia is going to state that the allegations by the Swift Vets were unsubstantiated, then we need a reliable source that says that. What we would really need to use that word is something showing that the Swift Vets position was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated after the campaign was complete. The problem with including it is that the claim is SO powerful and has so many connotations. It implies that not only did the group deceive the public but did so deliberately and knowingly. That there were no facts to support their position and that anybody who accepted their facts were idiots. That word is so loaded that (even if true) without a clear unassailable source, I couldn't support including it in this article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See extensive discussion above --Snowded ^TALK 14:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New compromise statement should do the trick

Here is the new statement I just inserted:

Unsubstantiated attacks on Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record by the SBVT gave rise to the term 'swiftboating' to describe political tactics that are essentially synonymous with a 'smear campaign'.

I don't believe the Washington Post article from which the language I used is taken is enough to substantiate this statement, but in combination with the sites referenced in the PBS ombudsmen article, I think the case is strong that this is a reasonable summary. Some of the attacks were ultimately "unsubstantiated" and that fact is probably responsible for "swiftboating" becoming the term that it is. I kept the last two references, but deleted the Manjoo reference, since its "fact free" statement is not relevant to this compromise text and since the other references contradict it, even with respect to Kerry's military record, must less the whole SBVT campaign. Central to this compromise is the focus on just the attacks Kerry's Vietnam War record. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see any substantial difference in that wording form the previous one which reads better. Also there was no reason to remove an important reference --Snowded ^TALK 11:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you don't read the discussion.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I did, and I think the earlier variation was better and there was no validity in deleting the reference --Snowded ^TALK 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So you vandalize again. Why don't you go back and proofread what you did. The PBS ombudsman link was provided by Xeno... . It is quite good. I restored it because I accidently deleted it. Why don't you ask him to justify it? I guess you haven't been following the discussion, just showing up to do what you THINK is your clique duty. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You deleted a key reference and the original wording was better. As one was on top of another I reverted. You need to stop making accusations (clique, vandalism) when I and others are just trying to get you to discuss changes. --Snowded ^TALK 14:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted again. I could have left the article in Snowded's state, but that would have hurt wikipedia to make WP:POINT. That is not my style. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism does not mean "edits you don't like". Vandalism is defined in the WP:VAN policy, and excludes any good faith edit. You aren't seriously suggesting that Snowded is deliberately trying to damage Wikipedia, do you? -- Atama頭 16:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he was the first time, but when he kept restoring the version that you just restored, without checking it. I think he was purposely not assuming good faith on my part. Evidently you haven't read the discussion, where I asked him to proofread.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And when did you say there was a broken ref tag? Never. You're obviously not here to make improvements, any shred of good faith I had for you before has evaporated. Remember that I was defending your edits when I initially got involved with this dispute, but you've successfully reversed that position for me. Congratulations. -- Atama頭 19:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

excuse me, I'm not a tag expert. I just cut and paste and then look at the preview to see if it worked. Snowded gave my thoughtfully proposed compromise about as much thought as he did his edit, which evidently was putting in a duplicate source without proof reading or realizing it. I doubt he had read Xeno...s new text or the sources Xeno... proposed. I read those sources AND the sources those source cited. I've never asked for support without merit. If yours comes based upon something else I don't want it, and wikipedia shouldn't want it either. So, you now think "fact free" was being proposed as NPOV in good faith? --68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have no problem with the Manjoo reference being part of the compromise I proposed. I just thought it was extraneous clutter since we are no longer going after the "fact free" language. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally, the more references the better, if the references used back up the text. They give more weight to the verifiability of whatever text is using them as a reference. Basically, we're saying that not only do the New York Times and PBS reach that conclusion, but so does this published author. For potentially controversial pieces of text it is even more helpful to have multiple sources. I do know what you mean about "clutter", but in this case it's only adding a tiny ^[4] to the body of the article, and one more entry in a list of 34. (In comparison, iPhone, an article I've spent much time editing, has 196 references, now that is clutter.) -- Atama頭 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You really need to cool down the personal attacks and learn to use the talk page you know. You changed a few words (not a thoughtfully worded compromise that was done b Xeno the day before and removed a long standing reference. Also the matter is still under discussion, we have some new editors involved which has and will help. A polite note that you thought I had made a mistake would have been simple really. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, my compromise was thoughtful. Please assume good faith. If you expect that assumption in return.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note, that just before I proposed my compromise and put it into the article, Xeno... had just made this change [2]. So, I wasn't working off of or disputing some new consensus, I actually appreciated the new sources, adopted and adopted Xeno's language and proposed a compromise qualification that I thought we all could agree to agree on.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Further note, my compromise qualification was based upon the text from the actual NY times source:

" The national counsel for President Bush's re-election campaign resigned on Wednesday, less than 24 hours after he acknowledged that he had provided legal advice to a veterans group that has leveled unsubstantiated attacks on Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record in a book and on the air."

Note the part beginning with unsubstantiated. Since I didn't think this article was enough to establish the truth of the matter, but was a good source for the language, I reviewed the PBS source and the good sources it referenced. I found support there for some of the SVBT attacks on Kerry's military record being unsubstantiated, and some were substantiated, the most detailed source found errors on each side. But I found this to be enough to go with the NY Times language. I didn't see a need to also note that some of the SBVT attacks were also substantiated, since I didn't think that contributed to why swiftboating became used as it was. I think the compromise text I proposed is factually correct and of the propere scope.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it is easy to miss the meat of the PBS Ombudsman reference. You have to go down after the comments to "The Producers Respond". I found this washington post reference there to be particularly helpful in resolving the issues here [3] and easing my mind that the NY Times language could be supported. Without further support, all the NY Times reference offered was a characterization of the reason a lawyer gave for resigning.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoot, I now see that in my original proposal of the compromise that I switched the references. It was the NY Times that was the source of the language, and the Washington Post article referenced by the PBS reference that convinced me that NY Times language could be supported as a compromise. Apologies for the confusion.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

poll is the abrevication SVPT or SBVT?

Xenophrenic thinks the abreviation for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is SVPT and I think it is SBVT. So far the votes are 1 for each.--24.242.102.204 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not decide with votes here on Wikipedia. Additionally, each abbreviation seems to be referring to a separate term. I have edited the article to include definitions for both, so that it is clear to the reader what the abbreviations are referring to. SVPT seems to be referring to "Swiftboat Veterens and PoWs for Truth" (SVPT), whilst SBVT is referring to "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (SBVT). Similar, but different terms. --Taelus (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So which abbreviation should be used in which location? Most of the unsubstantiated attacks on Kerry's vietnam war record were made before September 29, 2004 by the SBVT. The later focus was on his anti-war activities and admitted meetings with the enemy.--24.242.102.204 (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The cited NY times source is dated August 24, which is before the SVPT existed: "CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 25— The national counsel for President Bush's re-election campaign resigned on Wednesday, less than 24 hours after he acknowledged that he had provided legal advice to a veterans group that has leveled unsubstantiated attacks on Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record in a book and on the air." It looks like SBVT is the organization supported by the provided sources.--24.242.102.204 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They are the same organization. We use the most current name (and abbreviation) when refering to that organization. Hope that clears up the misunderstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Support using most current version --Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Why haven't you changed the other instances then? Are you sure you don't just like edit warring? --24.242.102.204 (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend not to take single purpose recently created IPs very seriously I'm afraid. --Snowded ^TALK 14:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Or consistency or sources for that matter, right? Do you read before you edit? --24.242.102.204 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm on an anti-cruft crusade

Does anyone want to pick the 2 or 3 most important examples, or should I just delete the whole list? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I went there. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

November 29 edits

re: incorrect edit summary stating "(rv mass revert of numerous summarized edits)"
I didn't revert. You'll note that I left valid edits (your use of words such as "emanates" instead of "comes from", or "its" instead of "the group's"...), while selectively changing edits that contradict cited sources by attempting to hide the fact that that charges were "discredited", charges were "unsubstantiated", and that the attack was a "smear campaign". It's like Déjà vu all over again. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What I did note were numerous and excessive unsummarized reverts under the guise of a single WP:BOLD edit. Perhaps that's your conception of an orderly approach to article editing. It does not jell with mine. As to...

...attempting to hide the fact that that charges were "discredited", charges were "unsubstantiated", and that the attack was a "smear campaign".

I believe that should read charges "allegedly" discredited, charges "allegedly" unsubstantiated and that the "campaign" was an "alleged" smear campaign...all requiring attribution (not "Wikipedia's voice") and NPOV rebuttal citations (which I will soon provide). I'll see you in the rhetorical trenches...hopefully sooner than later. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, saw that JakeInJoisey eliminated the term "smear campaign" as a neutral description of swiftboating. I know that multiple reliable sources consider swiftboating to be a smear compaign and I found one top level scholarly source affirming this definition. To me it appeared that the article was receiving a whitewash, and I responded to reestablish appropriately strong wording.

We cannot equate scholarly sources with popular ones that accept swiftboating at face value. Our highest quality sources must determine the tone of the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard

FYI for all interested editors, I have posted a solicitation for editorial consideration within the NPOV Noticeboard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool, now would you occupy yourself with finding some authority that supports your position. Newspaper reports when the controversy arose will be ambitious, but all reliable sources I can see support the statement that it was a deliberate smear. If you can't find a source to back up your opinion then its not a POV dispute and the tag can be replaced with a tidy up one, something on which we are all agreed. The need for you to provide sources was made clear at ANI and in some of your discussions on admin talk pages so this request should not be a shock to you. --Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

...some authority that supports your position.

As you've already been advised, WP:NPOV...specifically WP:YESPOV...more specifically "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Repetition of partisan-inspired "opinion" in sourcing (see the various sourcing already presented suggesting the partisan genesis of the appellation "smear"), no matter the extent of that repetition, does not transform an "opinion" into a "fact"...to be so regarded in a WP:NPOV consideration as to presentation of such an assertion. Wikipedia editors are, IMHO, more than capable of recognizing this assertion as a partisan-inspired "opinion"...but that remains yet to be demonstrated. I anticipate that an RfC in that regard will produce both some interesting perspectives and a credible consensus, one way or the other. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea who has advised me of that particular misinterpretation unless you mean yourself. That aside, I gather from your statement here that you do not intend to present any reliable sources which support your perspective? --Snowded ^TALK 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, I will present sourcing when and as needed (and I did so above to lay the predicate for my position - see the AP citation above). IMHO, the first NPOV presentation determination that must be made is independent of sourcing and based, instead, upon WP editorial judgement as to whether the characterization "smear", as used to describe the SVPT campaign, is an expression of "opinion" or an expression of "fact". Should "fact" be the consensus determination (which I honestly can't imagine any credible, unbiased consideration could possibly countenance), the next step would be an NPOV consideration as to whether that purported "fact" is, again per WP:YESPOV, "uncontested and uncontroversial". For that consideration, I would present abundant rebuttal sourcing.

Failing to satisfy either of those 2 NPOV considerations, the current language, "...political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry..." would clearly be in violation of WP:NPOV policy. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Jake, a fuller reading of "those 2 NPOV considerations", that whole section of WP:NPOV, in fact, indicates that you may be operating under a misunderstanding. The reliable sources being cited to support the phrasing to which you object are not "opinion" sources; and "uncontested and uncontroversial" has nothing to do with contesting by Wikipedia editors or other non-reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources being cited to support the phrasing to which you object are not "opinion" sources...

Thank you for that...it may save us some time. Quite frankly (and, of course, IMHO), the arguments thus far presented can't even pass a smell test for proceeding beyond NPOV first base (We shall see). However, you are offering (and please correct me if I'm wrong) an "appeal to authority" argument, already suggested by proponents of the existing language (I don't remember by whom initially...Johnuniq perhaps) but not yet argued. My instinct tells me fallacy...but I'm a bit of a WP neophyte in the "appeal to authority" venue so I'll look forward to the learning experience. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing is needed now, if you can't or are unwilling to provide it then you have no NPOV case and the tags go. --Snowded ^TALK 06:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That I "have no NPOV case" appears to be contradicted by the active editing now in progress on the specific content which is the subject of my NPOV objection. As my attempt to resolve this issue via normal discussion with a simple, suggested NPOV edit was rejected and I've had to raise it to a formal "POV Dispute" level, my confidence that consensus attained stability will be established by a spate of BRD editing (and not to discount the future impact of, IMHO, a fatally biased RfC) is next to nil. We've commenced a process to arrive at a consensus-based resolution and it should be continued to fruition, whatever that resolution might be. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll say this once more. NPOV requires us to be balanced over what the sources say. At the moment the ones we have call it a smear. You have said you can supply many sources, but you have failed to do so. Was this just a hollow boast or is there any substance to your claim? --Snowded ^TALK 15:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Response at NPOV Noticeboard JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No sources cited by Jake. He posted only repeated arguments. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a lot of bluster about having them. The RfC responses also support the prior position. If there is no surge of RfC response and no sources are provided in say the next 24 hours then I think we remove the POV tags --Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard, Part II

I collapsed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view to keep the thoughts together, and because that page is only for discussing changes to the NPOV policy, not applications of it. NPOVN is for applications. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur...and, in fact, will remove my response. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view entirely (or I can remove it myself if that is OK). I missed the bit about it not being for applications of NPOV policy. Thanks for the clarification. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just delete it...no harm, no foul...and I can't imagine anyone objecting. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No harm in keeping it there as a pointer to discussion here. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Swiftboating as personal attack?

I see that sufficient confusion has been created such that the lead now claims swiftboating is a "severe political attack of a personal nature". That misstates the case because everyone who has read anything about it knows that swiftboating involves making or supporting known-false claims (aka lies—see here where McCain called the ad "dishonest and dishonorable"). I totally agree that the article should not unduly labor the point with smear smear smear, but some subtle tweak of the definition is required. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No confusion, just the summarizing of reliable sources. Smith et al say that swiftboating is "a harsh attack made by a political opponent. It doesn't seem to matter if the attack is personal in nature or deals with a candidate's policy issue." Ken Konecnik says "The 'Swift-Boating' personal attack ads..." Rosemarie Ostler says "In 2004 swift boat replaced Willie Hortonize as a synonym for a vicious personal attack on a candidate." James Calvin Davis says "In fact, the distortion of an opponent's personal record for political gain now has a name—“swiftboating”" Jon R. Bond and Kevin B. Smith say "The attacks on Kerry were so effective and damaging that “swiftboating” has become a generic term for a political attack considered personal and unfair." To my eye, the words "severe political attack of a personal nature" are a faithful representation of the literature. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll ponder all that later, but there is no "literature" on a neologism like this (I would love a proper secondary source with an analysis, but that's unlikely). All we have is commentary from observers (and your first link includes a variety of ideas as well as the quoted words, but is focused on campaign financing issues and is not an authority on the meaning of "swiftboating"). Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you had any "literature" sources we would not be discussing the problem. As far as what we have to work with Smith et al are a fine bunch of political science and media scholars, the best sources provided so far. Characterizing them as "not an authority" is nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Smith et al are a fine bunch of political science and media scholars, the best sources provided so far.

Interested observers will please note that, when WP:V challenged for verification of this "Smith et al" citation, User:Binksternet was either unable or unwilling to respond and the citation was removed. In point of fact, what "Smith et al" DID say was the following...

The word "liar" was attributed to both sides of the battle, but who was telling the truth?
Smith, Melissa M.; Williams, Glenda C.; Powell, Larry; Copeland, Gary A. (2010). Campaign Finance Reform: The Political Shell Game. Lexington Books. p. 72. ISBN 0739145665. Retrieved February 17, 2012.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note the missing part of that quote that you were unable or unwilling to let us see, where the "both sides of the battle" is defined as between MoveOn.org ads and SBVT ads, not Kerry vs SBVT -- and the missing part of your quote DOES confirm that all the ads from SBVT contained "twisted or falsified messages". If you would like to similarly criticize MoveOn.org, I'm sure you can find a suitable article in which to do so, but as for the SBVT ... Smith et al confirms the nature of the SBVT attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"...who was telling the truth?", in specifically referencing the SBVT ads, is a clear statement by the authors of non-determination as to the veracity of the SBVT ads, the purpose for which I offered the quote. It also echoes their same lack of determination or assertion that the Swiftvet campaign was, in fact, a "smear campaign". JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they ask "who was telling the truth?" and then they go on to answer it. Both MoveOn.org and SBVT were guilty of distorting the truth and twisting the facts, and they were both fined for it. It's only "non-determination as to the veracity" if you stop reading when they ask their set-up question, and refuse to continue reading their determination that immediately follows.

Both MoveOn.org and SBVT were guilty of distorting the truth and twisting the facts, and they were both fined for it.

Your observations are becoming less and less reality based. The fines leveled upon both MoveOn.org and SBVT by the FEC had nothing to do with their respective political assertions and/or allegations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

An important point to remember with regards to 527 ads is that their purpose is to focus on the issues, not to attack or defend a specific candidate. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group and the group MoveOn were both fined by the Federal Election Commission in 2004 for specifically attacking the candidates and failing to focus on the issues. At least I see you are no longer pushing the silly assertion that Smith, et al, made no determination. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

At least I see you are no longer pushing the silly assertion that Smith, et al, made no determination.

As I made no such assertion, it is your observation that is "silly". Smith et al made no determination as to the veracity of the SBVT ads, the purpose for which I provided the quote. Nor did the FEC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"is a clear statement by the authors of non-determination as to the veracity of the SBVT ads"

Oh, my bad. I thought that silly assertion was yours. Perhaps another editor made it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're quite free to mentally ellipse the clear qualification I made...and I guess we're done here...at least I am. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; or "par for the course", to borrow an expression. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one more inre the FEC. An excerpt from a Chris Matthews/Bradley Smith (Chairman of the Federal Election Commission) exchange illustrating another difference of "opinion" as to the veracity of the SBVT campaign allegations and the "political" arena in which these "opinions" are expressed...

SMITH: Let‘s put it this way. You‘ve got 200 -- you‘ve got—John Kerry has said, my war record is a vital part of my background...
MATTHEWS: Right.
SMITH: ...why I should be president. You‘ve got 260 veterans who are making charges. I don‘t know about the president. I don‘t know about his people. I have no idea whether these charges are true.
MATTHEWS: Right.
SMITH: I know it‘s unusual for me, from the vets I know, to imagine 260 of them telling falsehoods.
MATTHEWS: Right.
SMITH: My guess is it‘s a confusing story and there‘s, you know, different memories, and so on. But I‘m not sure that I would want to go out on either side and say these are great ads—I‘m not sure how some of these people who weren‘t there, either, are going around saying these ads are false. But I‘m not a political commentator.[4]

JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, that is a recorded conversation at the time of the election. The phrase "my guess" is important. It records properly that many people found it difficult to believe that the vets would lie and that the ads on both sides were problematic etc. etc. etc. We all know that and its relevant for the article on the campaign itself. However the reliable sources that studied the matter after the election are pretty unanimous that it was a lie, and this article, which is about the term as a neoligism reflects that. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

...the reliable sources that studied the matter after the election are pretty unanimous that it was a lie,...

"Pretty unanimous"? That you would even concede "pretty unanimous" (which is an arguable opinion in and of itself but not requiring resolution for the purposes of this POV dispute) as opposed to "universally held" is prima facie evidence for the POV violation I've asserted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

British idiom I'm afraid with a touch of irony. Apologies will be more direct in future. Have you got any reliable third party source which state it was not a lie?----Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

PoV Tags

So fear as I can see no sources have been provided that would require any change in the current wording on "smear". Some quotes have been provided that say the subject is controversial, and also groups on different parts of the political spectrum use the word indifferent ways. Neither of which point is really contentious and could be reflected in the article. The RfC responses back the current wording on the one RfC which has had any response. No support has been given to the two editors who added the tag at the NPOV notice board. Given all of that its time to remove the tags, unless we get some sourced material. --Snowded ^TALK 06:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Add the differences of opinion to the article first then. A past RfC has no strong compulsion in favor of removing a tag which you state people still disagree on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So fear as I can see no sources have been provided that would require any change in the current wording on "smear".

That imprecisely misrepresents the substance of my POV objection...that the currently incorporated language...

Since the political smear campaign[3][4] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry...

...is a POV statement of "fact", in "Wikipedia's voice", that the SVPT campaign is/was a "political smear campaign". More specifically in dispute is the contention that this "smear campaign" characterization can be, for consideration under WP:NPOV, legitimately represented as something more than an assertion of "opinion". Per WP:YESPOV, this is the initial determination that must be made in any editorial assessment for NPOV presentation of this assertion and for which I established the RfC and about which have been provided relevant supporting citations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect - I think there may be a case for adding some commentary on continued disagreement, although this article is about the word, not about the political campaign so its not black and white. Whatever the addition or not of that material has no effect on the PoV question which revolves around the statement that is was a smear campaign. I am also referencing the current RfC not a past one.

JakeinJoisey - You are attempting to argue a case not based on what the sources say and which we need to represent. Your opinion as expressed above has not gained community support either here or at the NPOV notice board. Unless there is a change to this, either by participation of other editors, or by you supplying sources then the matter is surely over. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You are attempting to argue a case not based on what the sources say and which we need to represent.

That is not an accurate representation of my POV objection. I am objecting to the presentation of an assertion of "opinion" as an assertion of "fact" in "Wikipedia's voice" and contrary to the policy guidance as expressed in WP:NPOV...

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Whether a "smear" assertion is a statement of "opinion" or a statement of "fact" is a determination to be made by Wikipedia editors and will dictate the appropriate NPOV presentation of that assertion. In the RfC, I have provided both argument and citations supporting what should be, IMHO, an obvious determination that a "smear" assertion is an "opinion" and must be so treated in its presentation in this article.

Your opinion as expressed above has not gained community support either here or at the NPOV notice board.

While that's not quite accurate, I'll not quibble over your observation as this process has only just commenced. I'll remain hopeful that both reason and respect for the integrity of this WP project will motivate concerned editors enough to arrive at a credible and appropriate resolution.

Unless there is a change to this, either by participation of other editors, or by you supplying sources then the matter is surely over.

It's not an either/or, it's both. The first will hopefully occur. The second already has. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provided a single source relevant to the issue and you are the only contributor to your RfC. All you have done is to show that people who were supportive of the SwiftBoating campaign continue to have the same opinion. You have not shown a single third party reliable source which says it was not a smear. The RfC opened earlier has participation and a clear conclusion. --Snowded ^TALK 21:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He has demonstrated that calling it a "smear" is not universally accepted, which is all he needs to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no logic to that because of course people who make a smear will say it is not a smear—by that logic an encyclopedia could never report that anything was a smear. There have been a lot of opinions above, but no sources other than things like this which is a blog with a title that equates "swiftboating" to "Telling the truth about Democrats"—a clear fail at WP:RS. The NYT states '"Swift boat" has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears'—what wording in the article should be used to reflect the many reliable sources like that? Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Or for that matter, that logic applied to any article would mean that we have to be balanced across all fringe opinions however sourced, which is in direct contradiction of WP:NPOV. Collect, if the article says at some point that there remain advocates of the "truth" of the accusations, which is true. Say a sentence would that allow us to move forward or are you taking a more extreme position? --Snowded ^TALK 05:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq: The NYT states '"Swift boat" has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears'—what wording in the article should be used to reflect the many reliable sources like that?

Perhaps?...

The NYT states "Swift boat" has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears.

That's called an "attribution", which is certainly NPOV, as opposed to a declaration of "fact" in "Wikipedia's" voice...

"Since the political smear campaign[3][4] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth..."

...which is decidedly POV. That you would offer such a question suggests, at least to me, a failure to come to terms with the substance of the POV objection I've raised whose validity, rather ironically, is also supported by your own prior observations in this space (emphasis mine)...

"No one is suggesting the SBVT invented the term 'swiftboating'— obviously that term was used by opponents of the SBVT..."

and...

"Everyone knows it's a smear, and the only contrary 'opnions' (sic) come from those who reject what multiple reliable sources have stated."

JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I dispute that this is in any way an "extreme" position, and would note further that saying "no posts in 24 hours" is not based on any Wikipedia policy at all - many times an RfC remains open for a full 30 days - even if more than 24 hours passes between posts thereon. Asserting that a day without a post = end of a discussion is not based on any Wikipedia practices, guidelines, or policies, and, in fact, runs directly contrary to the Wikipedia practices on RfCs and other discussions. Collect (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement that its not an extreme position would be more credible if there was any third party source which even suggested that there was any truth in the accusations. If someone comes up with one that might change things. RfCs often stay open for a month, but they generally also have participants. This one looks pretty dead. --Snowded ^TALK 14:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No counter sources on the smear name, no new contributions to RfC or notice board for over 24 hours --Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think should be the POV tag removal date if no sources are provided to demonstrate an actionable dispute? Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Same time tomorrow? I'm inclined to add a sentence to the effect that it remains controversial as a term, per my note to Collect above. --Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)--Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. There's only smoke here, no fire. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. As is being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, several editors think this has nothing to do with whether the claim is sourced or unsourced, but rather whether it is a fact or an opinion. Because of this, it would be inappropriate to remove the tag based upon sourcing arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the only way you can determine if something is a fact or an opinion is based on what the sources say, unless there has been a radical change in wikipedia policy. If there is an active discussion then OK, but its gone stale here. I still don't see any valid reason for editors to hold back on sharing the sources they say they have. --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Gone stale? Last comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Swiftboating was a few hours ago.

Re: "I still don't see any valid reason for editors to hold back on sharing the sources they say they have", I never claimed to have a source. Quite the opposite; I claimed that sources are irrelevant when determining if something is a fact or an opinion.

Re: "Well the only way you can determine if something is a fact or an opinion is based on what the sources say". Nonsense. If I say Laura Kaeppeler was born in 1988, I can say it in Wikipedia's voice, because it is a factual claim. And of course if someone disputes it, we would go to the sources. If I say Laura Kaeppeler is pretty, that's an opinion and should not be put in Wikipedia's voice. I don't need any sources to establish that it is an opinion. If you tried to say that Laura Kaeppeler is pretty in Wikipedia's voice, I would revert it no matter how many sources you came up with that say she is pretty. And there would no doubt be a lot of sources that say that, seeing as she recently won the Miss America pageant. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No counter sources on the smear name...

I have provided more than adequate "sources" to support what should be an obvious determination...that the characterization "smear", in reference to the SVPT campaign, is a partisan-inspired, partisan-employed subjective "opinion" not universally held...which is the question posed by the RfC.

...no new contributions to RfC or noticeboard for over 24 hours...

The noticeboard has yet to offer a resolution of this POV section dispute (it may yet), legitimately represented by the placement of an appropriate tag, the associated talk section and the recently commenced RfC...an RfC to which neither you or any proponent of your position has yet to offer a response to the question posed. I am fully prepared to accept whatever finding might be made by an uninvolved administrator closure, a closure that will consider both whatever argument is offered and will also weigh (or certainly SHOULD weigh) the degree of POV dispute-resolution participation (or non-participation for that matter) by involved parties. Any removal of the legitimate POV section tag will be disruptive to this dispute resolution process. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't and the one RfC which has had any contribution agrees with the current text (but you said the RfC was biased). Administrators do not determine content that is done by the community. They do deal with conduct however. All that you have shown is that the term is controversial and I will add a sentence into that effect to reflect that material. You have not provided one single authoritative third party source which says that the campaign was anything other than a smear. So unless something changes the tag goes and you can take it to ANI again if you are unhappy --Snowded ^TALK 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't...

That is a determination to be made in the RfC closure and I've no intent to further rebut your personal expressions of opinion in that regard.

...the one RfC which has had any contribution agrees with the current text (but you said the RfC was biased).

Biased, yes, but more importantly, it presumes the legitimacy of the question it poses. If a closure of the RfC I presented finds that "smear", as a characterization applied to the Swiftvet campaign, is an assertion of "opinion", whatever the result of the RfC you reference will be rendered illegitimate as contrary to WP:NPOV policy. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The question posed is perfectly legit—plainspoken and to the point. The RfC based on that question will bring some closure to the question. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And critically that RfC secured participation. --Snowded ^TALK 06:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just passing through. "Smear" is a pejorative, subjective term. And characterization of the Kerry items as such is a controversy with views on both sides. Per wp:npov you can't state the views of one side as fact and/or in the voice of Wikipedia, even if a majority prefers it. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Smear campaign is not a subjective term; it is an objective description with defined parameters -- parameters that are either met or not met based upon fact, not opinion. The attack campaign waged by SBVT does meet the defining parameters of a smear campaign, and is recognized as such in numerous reliable sources of assertion of fact. Per WP:NPOV you can't state a fact as if it were opinion, even if a minority would prefer it. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"smear campaign"

I see I've run into a resident political claque. Previous experience indicates that persuasion and logic will be unavailing, so I will pretty soon pass on, I'm sure. I will summarize my points first, however, for the record.

(1) Whether the partisan SBVT attacks on Kerry were a "smear campaign" is inherently not a fact, like whether the world is flat. It is a partisan POV characterization of which the NYT (which endorsed Kerry) and others of a similar bent (including book authors) are guilty. It is and is intended to be a derogatory term, not neutral.

(2) The NYT can't turn crap into gold by excreting it. A derogatory characterization of the SBVT campaign is still opinion even if not on the Opinion page, and there is no NPOV source for opinion, just attribution.

(3) I'm at a loss to comprehend the confusion which would result in such a statement as " FactCheck does not say anything about the SBVT campaign" (read the title of the piece, read the first sentence!) or the resultant text "The word swiftboating is an American neologism used pejoratively to describe an unfair or untrue political attack" (nb: no "allegedly"). Not if I AGF, anyway.

(4) The Factcheck summary sentence ("At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.") is dispositive. Coming from a source friendly to the allegation that Kerry was wronged and one linked to approvingly by the partisan NYT it's admission that it is unable to "resolve" the truth as between the two partisan versions of events means that declaring in Wikipedia's voice that the SBVT sources lied in their affidavits (a "smear campaign", by definition, must be knowingly false) is impermissable.

(5) It's also unnecessary for the definition. Andyvphil (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The FactCheck.org summation at the bottom of the page does not erase the lengthy discussion of the smear campaign against Kerry. The page is not white or black in its conclusion, it provides various arguments and it supports the fact that Kerry was smeared by politically motivated people who falsely targeted his credentials as a war hero. On the other hand, Kerry's actions in Vietnam and his commendations were assessed as a little shaky by some observers. The SBVT side indeed engaged in a smear campaign; that much is established. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that it is so is not a response to any of my points. Andyvphil (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to your points, as you have numbered them:

(1) You appear (to me) to be saying two different things here. Your first sentence appears to say the SBVT attacks didn't constitute a smear campaign. Fine, we can debate that if you'd like - I would look forward to it. However, in your following sentence, you appear to say smear campaign is a "partisan POV characterization". I've looked up the definition of the term, and (correct me if I am wrong) it appears that anyone can wage a smear campaign, regardless of party affiliation. The definitions also say nothing about "points of view" or opinions being involved in whether something is or is not a smear campaign. It is a negative term, absolutely, but I do not see the use of "pejorative" in any of the dozen definition sources I've reviewed. Could I ask you to clarify what you are saying after your assertion that the efforts of SBVT do not meet the definition of a "smear campaign"?

(2) I have no clue as to what you are referring here. Yes, opinions are opinions regardless of where they are located, just as assertions of fact are assertions of fact regardless of where they are located. Did you have particular sources of fact or sources of opinion that you'd like to discuss?

(3) You left an edit summary stating (The FactCheck.org quote says the facts are in dispute. With RS undecided, -Wikipedia- calling the SBV campaign a smear is not NPOV.), and I responded in my edit summary that (FactCheck does not say anything about the SBVT campaign). The FactCheck.org source to which you referred reported on only a single SBVT ad (out of half a dozen), and said nothing about the whole smear campaign. The wording you substituted, which I reverted, was not supported by the cited sources.

(4) "The Factcheck summary sentence" you cite ... isn't. The summary sentences are actually near the top of that source article, under the heading: SUMMARY. The sentence you quoted could indicate an inability to conclusively resolve any number of things in that one single ad, or in McCain's comment which immediately precedes it, or in the "from memory only" assertions reviewed in that report ... but it certainly doesn't apply to the SBVT smear campaign as a whole. I see you've also resorted to characterizing cited sources as "partisan", "friendly to", "of a similar bent" -- that doesn't bode well for your argument. Attacking the messenger because you can't make an argument against the facts in the message, that is the first sign -- and you just got here.

(5) Everything is "unnecessary". It is, however, also an informative improvement.

Xenophrenic (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

reset indent. FYI: "smear campaign: noun [...] Definition[:] a planned attempt to harm the reputation of a person or company by telling lies about them... [5]

The relevant question is therefor whether it is a statement of uncontroversial fact that the SBVT planned to, and did, lie about Kerry.

The Factcheck article is, as I said dispositive. It's conclusion ..."summary" was, as you note, misleading, given the division of the article into two, "Summary" [of facts], and "Analysis" sections -- it is the conclusion of the article, not even a summary of conclusions, but the only conclusionary sentence; mea culpa... is, again: "At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth." And, X, contra what you say, what that means is not in doubt. The immediately preceding McCain section contains no "version of reality" to which the sentence might refer. But if you look further up the page you will see two transcripts, one in green, the other in red, one of the first SBVT ad, the other of Kerry's response ad. Each contains a "version of reality" as regards Kerry's Vietnam performance. And Factcheck's conclusion is that it sees no way to decide that either is a lie, or true.

If it's not known to be a lie, it's not known to be a smear. And if it's not known to be a smear then Wikipedia can't call it one. QED. Andyvphil (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

...so I will pretty soon pass on, I'm sure.
If you do, you will not be the first in the sorry history of this article to do so. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Andyphil, that is an interesting interpretation, but you still fail to acknowledge the two big points here: 1) That FactCheck.org report examines a single televised ad, not the SBVT smear campaign that consisted of a half-dozen such ads making numerous allegations, in addition to print ads, televised appearances and interviews, a book and a movie. 2) That FactCheck.org report isn't cited in this Wikipedia article as a source about the SBVT smear campaign. It was only cited because a Wikipedia editor wanted to insert FactCheck.org's remark that certain specific unsubstantiated allegation about 35-yr old events couldn't be conclusively resolved by them. Here you are saying, "Look, look! A single report about just a single fraction of the allegations made during the smear campaign is deemed unresolvable by FactCheck because it's based only on unexaminable hearsay about 35-yr old events in a different country ... therefore, everything SBVT alleges must be true!" Seriously? What more would you expect FactCheck, or anyone investigating that single advertisement, to say? Conclusion: "This group says Kerry lied ... BUT ... this comes during a political campaign from a group that is Republican funded and managed ... AND ... the allegations are contradicted by witnesses who were actually there ... AND ... the allegations are contradicted by official Navy reports and documentation ... and beyond that, we can't examine the matter further because all that remains is 35-yr old innuendo that can neither be proven nor disproven." And you read that as vindication? Heh ... made my morning :) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care why "some editor" inserted the citation. It's there, has apparently been accepted as being from a RS, appears to be true (and, tellingly, quite contra to the bias of the source) and it points to a necessary conclusion. Which is not, " ... therefore, everything SBVT alleges [a half-dozen such ads making numerous allegations, in addition to print ads, televised appearances and interviews, a book and a movie] must be true!" Seriously, what have I written that could possibly be misunderstood as making such a wild assertion? And how could you possibly so misunderstand my argument as to think it relies on such immaculate truthfulness on the part of a political attack group? The ONLY question, AGAIN, is whether it is encylopedic to declare as a WP:FACT that SBVT planned and executed a campaign of known lies about Kerry. That is not supported by what can be said about their first and most important ad buy, and I have seen no evidence that it has been proven against any other component. Factcheck doesn't know whether SBVT lied or planned to lie, and neither do you. You have an opinion which you are determined to have Wikipedia endorse as a fact. And the way Wikipedia works (or doesn't work) you may well succeed. But you should be ashamed of yourself. Andyvphil (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have an opinion? No. Haven't formed one yet. Just recounting what reliable sources convey... so your beef is with them, not me. As stated above, the FactCheck article you keep citing says nothing about the SBVT campaign -- it focuses on just a single ad in that campaign; it was written immediately after that ad aired, and long before most of what we know about that campaign yet existed. You do realize, don't you, that the FactCheck source isn't being cited in support of the "smear campaign" description, right? And it certainly doesn't refute the description. As for the one sentence you keep describing as a "conclusion", it is just a statement that FactCheck.org can't resolve it any further because it is unverifiable rumor, half-truths and hearsay. (Oh look - characteristics of a smear campaign.) That you "have seen no evidence" discrediting other parts of the SBVT smear campaign isn't my fault. Should I interpret that to mean you are saying 100% of the allegations made by SBVT are factual? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

SBVT could meet the definition of pejorative, neutral or laudatory words characterizing it, and sources can be found using pejorative, neutral or laudatory words for it. None of those establish that the article should use a particular one of those. Choosing the pejorative one, stating it as fact in the voice of Wikipedia, and leaving out the neutral or laudatory characterizations is a triple violation of wp:NPOV. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"sources can be found" -- awesome! I look forward to seeing the results of your efforts. Until then, we are left with only the previously mentioned reliable sources for assertion of fact that use the factual description: "smear campaign". The word "choice" was made for us by reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You keep trying to maneuver things so that folks that want neutral wording (or anything else that opposes your viewpoint) are supposed to spend more time than they have in order on research projects in order to merely ask for neutral wording. That is not legitimate. That is dictated by wp:npov as well as good writing. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Short response: You will not be providing the requested reliable sources. "Par for the course". Oh, and please don't confuse "wording intended to present fact as opinion" with "neutral wording", per wp:npov. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

On you first sentence, correct, per previous post. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

...sources can be found using pejorative, neutral or laudatory words for it.

...as well as articles decrying the partisan, specious nature of the "Swiftboating" pejorative itself. Here's another...

Tyrrell: Swiftboating has become a hate term, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., CNN Politics, June 1, 2006

JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We're still looking for a reliable source of factual information to support your contention, Jake. That opinion piece by Emmett Tyrrell that you just noted (already cited in the article, BTW), just like the other expressions of opinion you've been citing above from Michelle Malkin, Mike Rosen, etc., convey the identical sentiment that they are disgruntled that "Swiftboating" has become a common political verb used to describe the tactics used by the SBVT. Tactics that have been described by numerous reliable sources -- conveying fact, not opinion commentary -- as a smear campaign. You obviously disagree with the discription, but when pressed for reliably sourced substantiation, you have either balked at the request or tossed up more opinion pieces from the echo chamber. We get it; there are still plenty of folks in denial, even the PBS ombudsman quoted above acknowledges that while agreeing that it was a smear campaign. There was even an orchestrated effort by disillusioned FREEPers to redefine urban dictionary definitions. "Swiftboating", as it relates to the political tactics used by SBVT, is a smear campaign. Sources of fact say so; sources of fact saying otherwise still have not been produced. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Swiftboating", as it relates to the political tactics used by SBVT, is a smear campaign.

While you would apparently have it otherwise in your rather transparent strawman argument, how "swiftboating" might be defined in the contemporary political lexicon is irrelevant to the POV objection raised. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

reset indent. I can't say the misuse of the revert button by the claque, or their edit comments, are unusually shameless. Par for the course, actually. As far as I can see it is uncontradicted, not to mention supported by the sources (BBC Glossary, Casey, etc.), that "swiftboating" is usually used by Democrats to refer to attacks on Democrats. None of them has offered any response to my observation above that the "versions of reality" mentioned in the Factcheck article clearly refers to to ads quoted therein, and the the current lack of explanation of that phrase has demonstably been confusing (nor do I see why this, or the previous, contradicts their thesis). As I pointed out, irrespective of the merits of the accusations against SBVT, it cannot be accurate to say, as the current lede does, that the term is only used to attack untruths.

The article, as written, sucks in ways quite different than the POV violation of asserting that it is a fact, for which the claque has no reliable source, that SBVT planned to lie about Kerry. Attempts to fix some of its problems are met with bare unexplained reverts ("per Talk" doesn't count if there is no response on the Talk page) for no other reason, apparently, than that I am not a member of the claque. Even capitalization and grammar corrections are met by checking the revert box.

I'm not required to go out of my way to retain your POV violation while making unrelated change to the paragraphs. If you reinsert them and I revert that's one revert against me. But no one gave you a monopoly on edits, and I'm not required to retain existing text.

Btw, got a claque post of a 3RR warning on my talk page, nevermind that X did three reverts in 24 hours (I had done one in that period). Being a claque member gets you immunity, apparently. I call that chutzpah. Andyvphil (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not respecting WP:BRD gets you the warning. You are required to discuss disputed text and I see nothing in your post above which references how your edits fit the sources. I reviewed them and the qualifications you inserted do not appear to be supported. Please stop the silly accusations and outline your proposed changes, with reference to sources here. Thank you. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't spam my talk page.

• BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

If you want BRD you're going to have to D. Simply announcing without specifics that you don't agree with the changes doesn't qualify as a reason based on policy, guidelines or common sense. Which of my qualifications do you disagree with, and why? Be specific. Andyvphil (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

it cannot be accurate to say, as the current lede does, that the term is only used to attack untruths.

It doesn't say that. It says it is used "to describe an unfair or untrue political attack." Accurate. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know why you're having difficulty understanding what "is" means. That stated confusion was most famously used to defend a lie, but I'm supposed to AGF here... So, do you really think that when John Gibson wrote "How the Left Swiftboated America" that he was describing an unfair or untrue political attack, or one he (my qualification) alleged to be unfair and untrue, but which was not? Andyvphil (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"do you really think that when John Gibson wrote..."

I am unfamiliar with the writing to which you refer, so I have no thoughts about it. Is there a reliable secondary source about it that I can read that will convey to me whatever point it is that you are making?

"If you want BRD you're going to have to D."

As will you. And you shouldn't be trying to edit-war in your preferred edits in the meantime while those discussions are ongoing and consensus has not yet been reached. That is disruptive. As to your recent edits:

You added text that implies the term is used "usually by Democrats", something not stated in the cited sources (which convey only that Democrats do use the term -- which they do). Also not conveyed in the reliable sources is that the term is used as an "attack, particularly one on a Democrat or Democrats". Application of the term is not partisan-particular, nor does the cited source claim it is. The term is used to refer to an unfair or untrue attack, and that is supported by reliable sources -- but you have altered the text to convey that it is used (also?) against "allegedly unfair or untrue political attacks", which is not supported by any reliable sources. (It is also a nonsensical statement; an "alleged untrue attack" would be "alleged swiftboating".) You removed a citation, based on your "humble opinion", to the History Detectives producer's clarification regarding the smear campaign; inappropriate. You inserted inaccurate content referring to a "response ad" that isn't (in fact, it predates what you claim it responds to), and a "but concluded" statement implying refutation ('but') when there is none, and a "conclusion" when the quote is instead simply a statement of fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) If you need a reliable secondary source to form an opinion on whether the Left has swiftboated America then you need to get out sometime. You're spending too much time on Wikipedia and are letting it affect you unduly. And you don't need to [admit to] understand[ing] my point to answer my question. The qualification is made necessary by your misleading general conflation of accusation with fact, and is a matter of emphasis, not algebra.

(2) Partisan-particular is exactly what the source [[6]] says: "Swift-boating The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths." If you don't like my qualification that it's usually by Dems I'm prepared to put it in just the way the source puts it, and let the reader supply the obvious qualification that once in a very long while man bites dog. I have found only one case of a Repub accusing a Dem of swiftboating him (some obscure Florida pol) and it seems it was noted only because it was such an obvious man-bites-dog event. NB: Despite Media Matters typically brain-dead take on event (that Gingrich had acknowledged the truth of the Dem smear), Gingrich actually created "Romney-boating" in the process of denying that it was appropriate to say that what had happened to him was "swiftboating".

(3) The History Detectives source is an RS for what? It's a blog entry about the appropriateness of commentary which is't quoted, much less attributed, here.

(4) Thanks for the clarification that the Kerry ad preceeded the SBVT one. "But" is well within editorial perogative, however, and there's no doubt that the sentence is a conclusion. Andyvphil (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(1)Lost me. If there is a question, could you please ask it plainly? (2) No, BBC 'glossary' doesn't convey a partisan requirement for the use of "swiftboating". Thanks for the Newt tip. Got more detailed info on the "Florida pol"? (3) That source is a summary of what was concluded by the investigating team of the History Detectives. Should we ask WP:RSN if a History Detectives program can be cited as a reliable source, because the transcript is available? (4) You're welcome; no, it isn't, and yes there is doubt. Incredulity would be more accurate. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Source Verification Required

The following source...

Smith, Melissa M.; Williams, Glenda C.; Powell, Larry; Copeland, Gary A. (2010). Campaign Finance Reform: The Political Shell Game. Lexington Books. pp. 72, 83. ISBN 0739145665.

...is currently cited to ostensibly support the following content...

Since the political smear campaign conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry...

I have reviewed the content of both cited pages 72 & 83 and neither, IMHO, contains a specific assertion by the authors that the Swiftvet campaign is, in fact, a "political smear campaign". In fact, on page 72, the authors cite FactCheck.org's "in depth analysis" as characterizing the Swiftvet ads as merely "dubious", that MoveOn.org ads contained "distorted claims" and also noting "neither group presented a clear, non-partisan position".

It is incumbent upon the editor who offered this purported source (User:Binksternet) to provide a specific quote from both of the cited pages that demonstrate, per WP:V, the legitimacy of this citation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Egad, I should have included a quote in the cite while I still had the book. It's in the local university library and I do not have the time right now to go back and check again. My real life work assignments are not allowing me that privilege. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have provided a link to Page 72. Please quote the text from that page which you purport supports the content it references. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Pending further response, I am tagging this citation for either verification or removal. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As Binksternet has not responded, I am deleting his/her submitted citation as having failed verification. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Smear" is a pejorative, subjective term. And characterization of the Kerry items as such is a controversy with views on both sides, and sources on both sides. Per wp:npov you can't state the views of one side as fact and/or in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Smear campaign is not a subjective term; it is an objective description with defined parameters -- parameters that are either met or not met based upon fact, not opinion. The attack campaign waged by SBVT does meet the defining parameters of a smear campaign, and is recognized as such in numerous reliable sources of assertion of fact. Per WP:NPOV you can't state a fact as if it were opinion, even if a minority would prefer it. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it's an opinion and also a choice of using a pejorative term for something that can be also described by a neutral term or a positive / laudatory term. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What, specifically, are you talking about? I just re-read Smear campaign, and see no connection to what you just said. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

For example, the effort to publicize and characterize Romney having carried his dog in a cage on the roof of his car s smear campaign (it certainly meets the definition in that article) or an expose. The choice of a negative term or a positive term is POV and promoting a POV from one side or the other. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for making me feel like I'm out of the loop, North ... I haven't heard that dog on roof story yet. But based on the limited information you've provided about your example story, and if a "campaign" effort were built around it, it would indeed appear to meet at least a couple of the parameters in the definition: "effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character" and "differs from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues" -- just as the SBVT campaign did. You haven't provided enough information for me to comment on whether the dog on roof thing is an exposé. Are you claiming that you have reliable sources for factual assertions that the SBVT campaign was an "exposé"? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that being a wp:reliable source is little or no indication of expertise or objectivity on the topic. And so certainly there are wp:rs's which would call it both the pejorative "smear " plus a range of laudatory words like espose or words akin to it.North8000 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course meeting Wikipedia's WP:Reliable Source requirements is an "indication" of expertise or objectivity. Perhaps you meant "guarantee", in which case I would technically agree with you, but while meeting all of the requirements described there won't guarantee that a source is perfect, it is the best we have with which to work. So, acknowledging the nature of our good but imperfect sourcing requirements, please allow me to share in your certainty ... please provide some of those laudatory (reliable sources of assertion of fact) for review. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

On your first point, there is nothing in the rs criteria about objectivity or expertise with respect to the topic at hand. And most relevantly, extremely biased sources routinely and easily meet wp:rs criteria. On your latter point, you missed my point. Assigning pejorative or laudatory words to it is not an assertion of fact, it is a choice of a biased term. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: No, you will not be providing the requested reliable sources. An all-too-familiar response in these discussions on this topic (although, if you really want to fit in, you'll accompany that response with an exclamation that you refuse to respond further to this thread and you're taking it off your watchlist, and then walk off in a huff...). Long form response: I disagree with your statement about WP:RS; it certainly does speak to relying on sources with expertise in certain subjects, if such experts can be found, etc. And as for your statement that biased sources meet WP:RS criteria, sure, "opinion pieces" get cited as reliable sources for that opinion in Wikipedia all the time, proving your point. Also, a source having a bias does not necessarily negate the qualification of that source as citable for the assertion of fact, as long as they don't run afoul of WP:NOTRELIABLE. But that point is not "most relevant" here, and avoids the actual issue.

The issue: is the "smear campaign" description a subjective description, or an objective description? It is certainly a negative, or pejorative, description, but that isn't at issue here either. Using the equally pejorative "serial killer" to describe a convicted serial killer is negative, too -- but gosh darn it, there just aren't a lot of reliable sources that describe him as "a repeating, forceful extinguisher of life essences without expressed consent". Setting aside the specific SBVT issues for the moment, and just focusing on the definition of "smear campaign", it is clearly a description that is either true or false, not in-between -- and not subject to the variances of personal interpretation. A "smear campaign" has either met the empirical requirements, or it has not and is therefore not a "smear campaign". Every reference and dictionary definition I have checked confirms this. Can you provide convincing information to the contrary? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a non-applicable straw-man example. "Serial killer" is noun that is well accepted as a description and an objective description and you "a repeating, forceful extinguisher of life essences without expressed consent" is never used, and a silly sounding failed attempted parody of what said, a rude gesture. And anything meets the "requirements" of a pejorative subjective term of the people who want to apply it to that, so "meeting the requirements" doesn't really say anything. OBama would meet the requirements of both "radical, far-left politician" and "forward looking person with the right vision for America" by the sources who want to use those terms. That doesn't justify stating either as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

is noun that is well accepted -- yes indeed, Smear campaign and Serial killer both are. Your two descriptions of Obama, which employ adjectives, are indeed subjective and open to variance and interpretation, so your examples should therefore not be presented in Wikipedia's voice - which actually makes my point. Ask 10 people to define "right vision for America" or "far left" and you'll get 10 different answers. Ask those same 10 people to define "false" or "discredit", and you will get a high degree of similarity in the answers. There is no wiggle-room for personal opinion in the definition of smear campaign, like there is in your examples. It's simply a campaign to discredit a public figure or entity by making unsubstantiated or false accusations, or through the use of innuendo or vilification. (Oxford, Webster, Cambridge, Random House and American Heritage all concur.) You can try to argue that the efforts of the SBVT don't fit the definition of a "smear campaign" (and I'm sure we'll eventually get to that down the road), but your present argument that the definition of the term "smear campaign" includes the component of expression of opinion instead of being simply a verifiable description -- that is not only incorrect, it is nonsensical. That also explains why you keep dancing around every request to cite some substantiation for your argument. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's simply a campaign...making unsubstantiated or false accusations,...

Which, in the opinion of many and as evidenced in the sourcing provided, is a partisan-inspired and false characterization of the SBVT campaign. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Checked your link; no evidence of false characterizations there. Perhaps you could recheck and provide actual evidence? I'd be interested in seeing it. Saw your Michelle Malkin, Mike Rosen, et al, "sources" there to support your assertion that some hold that opinion, but then some also hold the opinion that Obama is a manchurian candidate secret Muslim born in Kenya, who only came to Mericka to take our guns away. Wait a minute, I see an overlap... can we go back to reliable sources and actual facts now? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Characterize the characterization of SVBT as a smear campaign. :-) North8000 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Characterize the characterization of SVBT as a smear campaign. :-)

That is also an opinion necessarily left to the judgement of any prospective reader...but it should be an informed one. An NPOV presentation of WP:V, WP:RS content on the Swiftvet campaign will do just that...assuming fundamental NPOV WP:POLICY holds sway. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

POV - Section DISPUTE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In an attempt to correct what I consider to be blatant examples of POV composition, I made several attempts to introduce more NPOV-compliant language into this article...all of which were quickly reverted or partially reverted. I'm therefore soliciting consideration/comment from interested editors as to whether the following specific content and the general tenor of this article as currently comprised rises to satisfy consideration under WP:NPOV. I'll commence with what I perceive to be the most egregious example of POV composition.

The current article reads as follows...

Since the political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

This is, IMHO, a declaration of FACT, in '"Wikipedia's Voice"', that the Swiftvet campaign is/was a "political smear campaign". In an attempt to make this more NPOV-compliant, I twice offered the following edit...

Described by critics as a political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

This suggested edit was twice reverted with the following edit summaries...

1. not just 'critics' describe smear campaign as such and...

2. pretending that a known smear was merely "Characterized by critics" fails NPOV

While my familiarity with the details of the SVPT/Kerry controversy positively bridles at the highly arguable accuracy of #1 and the subsequent circular logic of #2, I'll defer further comment so as not to prejudice consideration by other editors. Your thoughts/comments are solicited. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you think both sides of the Swift Boat divide are equally credible and should be given equal footing. That is not the case; scholars commenting on the campaign nearly universally say that it was a smear campaign and that the Swift Boaters were making it up. Scholars are our top level authority... if other people say the Swift Boaters were right but scholars say they were wrong then Wikipedia says in Wikipedia's voice that they were wrong. Following that, we name other people who say they were right but we say that they are the minor position. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur, and we have been here before (sigh) --Snowded ^TALK 16:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is part of a political argument. As such it is difficult to obtain a neutral point of view. Thus citing expert scholars, referring to news sources like the New York Times or attempting to establish a consensus of accepted opinion based on the neutral observation of fact is difficult. Whomever one looks to for a source is likely to look at the question from a certain political perspective. JakeInJoisey is not throwing firebombs or attempting to vandalize the article.Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your description of what the problem is. This article is about a word; a neologism in the U.S. political lexicon -- not about the "political argument" Jake is attempting to wage in this article that the Swifties campaign wasn't a "political smear campaign" or that charges made by the Swifties were not "discredited" or refuted. That debate should be taken up (yet again?) in an article about the political campaign against Kerry - not here. Reliable sources do convey that the word "Swiftboating" is indeed widely (almost 'universally', to use Jake's word) used to indicate a political smear campaign. Just because something is "difficult" for some folks to accept, it is certainly not difficult to cite and convey accurate information from reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The word “swiftboating” is not a part of a political argument? Reviewing the talk section of this article, what is the recurring question? A number of editors have tried to adjust the wording. IP editors can be seen above attempting to engage in a discussion regarding the wording (yet again, curiously enough). Their opinion is pushed aside and given no credence. And yet I am expected to believe that how the word is described and defined here is not a reflection of a political view? Let us put it to the test: If someone from the Kerry campaign were to review this article, what part of it would they find troubling?Gunbirddriver (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not a relevant question. The issue here is not to be neutral between two political perspectives, but to accurately describe what the word means based on reliable sources. --Snowded ^TALK 09:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The article fails to do that.Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It does it fairly well, but of course it can always be improved. However it does not have to reflect the views of those who initiated the historical act which created the word. The word means what it means and that is what the article is about. Its not about if that word should mean something else. --Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As you say, the article should be about the word. It should not reflect the political views of those involved. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article should be about the word and about all the aspects of it including its origin. Explaining the origin involves explaining the smear campaign against Kerry. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The article should explain the origin of the word. The article does not do that. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The origin is adequately explained already, this is not the place to go into the campaign against Kerry in detail --Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

By that reasoning, it should neither by the place to speak at length about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how the language noted above can survive any credible consideration under the following criteria as expressed in WP:NPOV (emphasis mine)...

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Perhaps this rather clear WP:POLICY language should be kept foremost in mind in the ensuing discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

However, swiftboating was (and judging by activity here, still is) a smear campaign, as attested by all reliable sources that have commented on the subject. If anyone (outside Wikipedia) really believes it is not a smear campaign, they hold a fringe belief, and Wikipedia should not present a fringe belief as being on the same level as the views presented by reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Not only was the initial Swift Boat smear a political campaign, funded by the super-rich, the term itself has supplanted "smear" to mean the same thing. Speciate (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if nothing more is to be said it is time to consider how the article might be improved. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have considerably more to say. I've yet to read a comment addressing the WP:NPOV issue I raised and am hopeful that someone might yet address it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been addressed. We are not required to be neutral between the Kerry campaign and those who funded the swift boat veterans. We have to say how the word came about and how it is used. --Snowded ^TALK 20:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we want a good article, so we definitely want to be neutral. That does not mean that we take the side of the Kerry campaign or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, either one.Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the above discussions which show clearly that NPOV requires a neutral statement of what reliable sources say—articles never are "neutral" between advocates for a fringe view and mainstream sources. Editing any article requires some basic knowledge of Wikipedia's procedures, and that applies particularly when editing contentious articles where advocates push a fringe view. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The so called Borking of Supreme court nominee Robert Bork is a similar event. Here is how it is handled in the section: Bork as a verb

It was a highly partisan event, with a great deal of animus on both sides of the political spectrum, yet the piece is fairly clean. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving on then, one change we could consider would be to clarify the origination of the term as coming from the left as a pejorative term to describe the actions of the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”.

It is somewhat difficult to determine first mention of the term. Several sources can be offered to support its derivation as a pejorative term used from the left. In a Nov 17, 2007 column from the LA Times, James Rainey wrote a piece titled "Kerry Takes on $1-Million "Swift Boat" challenge"

"Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating.""

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/17/nation/na-kerry17

First mention may very well be in a Aug 21, 2005 Frank Rich New York Times column in which he excoriates President Bush:

"When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21rich.html?pagewanted=all

Paul Krugman of the New York Times used the term in a May 5, 2006 Op-Ed he titled "Swift Boating the Planet" where in he was critical of people challenging the global warming science of James Hansen. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html

Something to consider. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be conflating "Use of the term" with "origination of the term as coming from the left as a pejorative"; establishment of the latter appearing to be your real goal here. I'm sure you can find many sources showing "use" of the term by "the left", like the ones you just listed above. We can also find sources showing "righties" using the term (or derivatives of it), but that doesn't mean conservatives "originated" it, either.

The term was coined in 2004; named after the group that conducted the negative attack campaign, and is now in popular use to describe the employment of similar tactics -- tactics that are non-partisan, can be used by anyone, and have nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. Go right ahead and research early uses of the term -- such information could be an interesting addition to the article, but if you plan on pushing the meme that the term is purely a liberal concoction created to disparage the SBVT, you'll need some rigorously reliable sourcing for that. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I can accept your suggestion that the term was coined in 2004, and that it was named after the group you suggest. Who do you suggest coined the term? You seem to be suggesting the SBVT coined the term. What sources do you have to back that up? If you do not know who coined the term, how do you suggest that be reflected in the article? Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to editors to research when a term was first introduced, or by whom. Our job is to find suitable secondary sources with an analysis. No one is suggesting the SBVT invented the term "swiftboating"—obviously that term was used by opponents of the SBVT, and equally obviously the term is currently understood by people from all sides of politics to refer to the generic act of smearing an opponent using made-up material. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If that were true than I suppose you would want the section "Historical origins" removed. Or if not removed, than you would feel compelled to address the sentence: The unsubstantiated charges against Kerry by the SVPT gave rise to the term 'swiftboating' to describe political tactics that are essentially synonymous with a 'smear campaign'

Is that the case? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The origin of the word must stay in the article. All the reliable sources agree the term arose in 2004. None pin the word on the SBVT who did not seek to coin a word but simply to smear Kerry. William Safire discusses three conflicting versions of how the military Swift boat vessel was named, and he defines its political meaning as understood from 2004 on. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The article implies that it was the SBVT themselves that created the term, and I believe we all accept that that is not the case. There is a principle of first mention that is of some importance, particularly when speaking of neologisms, which is the reason for the various citations offered above, all of which show a person from the left using the term to describe the SBVTs criticism of Presidential candidate John Kerry, and one of which is suggested as a possible first mention. In addition, you have the LA Times article by James Rainey, where in he states unequivocally:

"Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating.""

I do believe the LA Times is a source that would meet Wikipedia’s standards. In addition, we have Johnuniq conceding that it is broadly known. In fact, he states it is obvious. I agree, this is in fact the case, though we apparently are shy of mentioning it here. Should we be? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please be specific—mention what? It would not be satisfactory to put a slant into the article to imply that Democrats think the term is a smear (with the suggestion that, well, they would wouldn't they, so the original claims may well be true). Mutiple reliable sources show that swiftboating is making up lies to discredit an opponent—it is not just one of the standard Dem/Rep disagreements. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree. The term is broadly understood to mean a smear, and the article should not suggest an equivalence.

I would state that originally it was a term created by the left as a means to respond to and undermine the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and then go on to say the term entered the general public vernacular and came to mean any smear campaign or campaign intended to undermine a candidate. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable third party source which says that? --Snowded ^TALK 06:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is the one you have already listed on the page as the 9th reference for the article:

Swift-boating: The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths.

BBC Glossary: US elections BBC News, US & Canada url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15730790

Specifically that it was a term used to respond to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the best I could find thus far was this from Mark Whittington:

"Instead of learning of the folly of running a liberal war veteran whose account of his service was, to put it charitably, dubious, they decided to rewrite history. John Kerry was not called out on a series of lies and hypocricies. No, instead it was he who was slimed by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, by a bunch of "chicken hawks" (i.e. people who dare to support the War on Terror who did not themselves serve in combat.) He was "swift boated." The term has become useful for the left." Mark Whittington "The Evolution of a Political Slogan: Swift Boating the Truth" Yahoo Network October 8, 2007

I don't know much about Mark Whittington or the Yahoo News Service.

I will keep looking, but I still believe we have enough to consider some change in the wording for the reasons stated above.Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Another related cite...

...even if it is impossible to determine what exactly happened on those muddy riverbanks over 30 years ago, the Swift Boat Veterans’ accusations were credible and exhaustively documented. Those who use the term “swift boating” seem to have collective amnesia: They have forgotten that the Kerry campaign was forced to admit that statements the candidate had made about his war record were inaccurate, such as his claim that he crossed into Cambodia in Christmas of 1968.

Mark Hemingway, National Review, February 22, 2008

JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting advertizement source for that book by the webmaster of the SBVT website, and the author's in-law. But in matters political, I guess opinions are a dime a dozen.

And yet another related cite...

"Swift-boat is shorthand for the brilliant, despicable Republican campaign strategy in 2004 that turned John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a negative factor in his campaign. The phrase has become more broadly the term for a particular category of campaign tactics and has even become a verb. To "swift-boat" somebody is to use these tactics against him or her. ... We might more usefully argue about the definition of swift-boating. There have, of course, been dirty politics and outrageous infamies since the beginning of the Republic. Swift-boating is not about that. Nor is it merely negative campaigning. There's nothing wrong with criticizing your opponent if the criticism is accurate and important. Swift-boating's essence is a particular kind of dishonesty, or rather a particular combination of shadowy dishonesties. It usually involves a complex web of facts, many of which may even be true. It exploits its own complexity and the reluctance of the media to adjudicate factual disputes. No matter how thoroughly a charge may be discredited, enough taint remains to support an argument. The fundamental dishonesty is the suggestion that the issue, whatever it is, really matters. This is how swift-boating differs from its cousin McCarthyism, which deals in totally baseless charges that would be deeply serious if true. Swift-boating is McCarthyism lite. There is usually a little something to the accusation but not enough to make it legitimately matter.

Xenophrenic (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why bless his heart...

...the reluctance of the media to adjudicate factual disputes.

With the exception, of course, when there's a prospect for conservative blood in the water. Yet there is, at least, one notable exception to that "adjudication" vacuum where some actual investigative reporting was conducted...Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post...but I digress. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dobbs describes blood in the water in Vietnam; the blood of young guys who are not yet politicized. Dobbs' investigation turns up nothing that disproves the Kerry camp's version of events: "Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode". Dobbs hints broadly that the SBVTs were motivated not by Truth but by Anger over the prominent anti-war stance that Kerry took upon returning stateside. Jake, I get the impression that your takeaway of the Dobbs article is not quite what Dobbs intended. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression that your takeaway of the Dobbs article is not quite what Dobbs intended.

What Dobbs "intended" is known only to Dobbs himself. While it might make for an interesting divergence, his "intention" can, in the final analysis, only rise as high as informed speculation and I see no purpose in such an exercise here. My sole point inre Dobbs is that in an atmosphere of "reluctant" media "adjudication" (per Kinsley), Michael Dobbs' short week of stunning investigative journalism was a notable (if not sole) exception. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The term was not coined to undercut SBVT's efforts. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

While the BBC source notes that the Democrats did use the phrase, it does not support your assertion that "originally it was a term created by the left as a means to respond to and undermine the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." As for your Whittington source: certainly not a reliable source for the assertion of fact, and doesn't appear to have the required reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. From that same "source", reading "Senator Kerry had a problem in the fact that he came from Massachusetts. This meant that he had taken a far left political tact that would be considered obnoxious and even dangerous for most of the rest of the country. So clearly he could not run on his record. Neither could John Kerry run on his personality. John Kerry was and is a cold, arrogant person who has a sense of entitlement and self absorption that is so great that a Bourbon prince would have been shocked to witness it." ... tells me all I need to know about citing it for legitimate, factual information. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds more like an editorial. There is another from Dennis Byrne of The Chicago Tribune that says similar things in an editorial.

All right then, here is where the wikipedia rubber meets the road. Multiple valid sources are cited stating the derivation of the term comes from the left, the reason is not nailed down and I suppose we are left to ponder why. The article as it stands says the term emanates from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, and we are left to decide what is to be done, if anything. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We should be careful to not confuse "derivation of" with "use of", and we should be clear on what "multiple valid sources" we are referring to ... I see the BBC Glossary one noted above. The article as it stands says the term emanates from the group and its campaign. If your concern is, as you stated before, that "The article implies that it was the SBVT themselves that created the term", perhaps we can make it clearer by replacing "emanates from" with "is derived from" or "refers to"? What do others think? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

... tells me all I need to know about citing it for legitimate, factual information.

Amusing...as this is, quite obviously, an expression of opinion. Was "Whittington" revealed to be a pseudonym for John O'Neill himself, that, in itself, wouldn't be legitimate WP grounds upon which to preclude its use. Surely you're not suggesting that "facts about opinions" cannot be WP:RS when emanating from biased sources? I didn't think so. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hiya, Jake ... was there something there that needed a response from me? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh no. You mean I was hastily presumptive? Say it ain't so. Must be a vestige of the "Conspiracy Theory" kerfuffle. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen, it’s been demonstrated the article has an issue that should be addressed, and the question is what, if anything, is to be done about it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you had said that you want be a balance between the Kerry Campaign and the SBV supporters. But that is not what the article is about. Its fine as it is --Snowded ^TALK 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I said the word was part of a political argument, and as such it was difficult to obtain a neutral point of view. I did not argue the article should equally represent each camp. In suggesting that no one from the Kerry camp would have anything but agreement with the article I was suggesting that a bias may have inadvertently crept into the article. I argued that attempting to bring a neutral point of view to the article is something that should be strived for. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

While this content is not the content about which I established this section, the content at issue could easily be made more compliant with NPOV by an edit such as...

...emanated from sources opposed to the SVPT campaign...

...assuming, of course, NPOV is a goal here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded is just one editor. One of many. It would appear he is fine not considering what appears to me and others as a problem. Yes, neutral point of view is the goal, and an article can be biased in many forms. I'd still like to hear from some of the others before I would suggest a course of action. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My suggested course of action is to follow consensus which is that no one has shown any problem with the article, let alone an NPOV problem. Continuing to debate the issue is merely providing oxygen to those who would misuse Wikipedia to suggest that there just might be some truth behind the swift boat smears. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that correct? No one has shown any problem with the article. There is no bias to the views of anyone who has been writing and monitoring this article, and keeping it locked in to its present form? Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a discussion, not a debate. And it's politics, and politics is partisan. This article is written about a word, a slur, attached to an historical event, highly partisan, and the word was formed in a political context. You would have me believe that the piece has been written and maintained in a neutral manner. You are not open to the possibility that your judgment is influenced by your own political viewpoint. If that were the case I would say I am impressed. But we all know the truth. You cannot have one political viewpoint dominate the editing and still believe you are looking at a neutral article. I believe that is worth addressing. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite regrettably, the rhetoric employed throughout this talk page by those opposed to an NPOV re-consideration of this article content is replete with transgressions of WP:AGF, some overt, most not so overt but ad hominem nonetheless. It reflects, IMHO, an abysmal failure to adhere to both the letter and spirit behind WP:NPOV principles. It's high time for the solicitation of a more broad editorial perspective as to these NPOV issues and that will be my intent. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no response.

These articles in wikipedia are of some importance to me. Wikipedia intends to be an encyclopedia, and as such its editors must guard themselves against presenting information in a biased manner. This article fails that test, and we have been unable to even make the most modest of changes on a piece of information relevant to the article and which a number of editors here note as being an obvious point. I am going to go ahead and tag the article as being in dispute. I am happy to try and help resolve the problems the article has. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reiterating what has been said above, most recently by Johnuniq, the NPOV concern(s) haven't been defined here. We can't fix a problem that no one here is willing to legitimately describe, so tagging the article is premature. Placement of tags requires that their justification be clearly presented here on the talk page, so that concerns may be properly addressed. I'll be removing the tag until the related, actionable concern is defined here. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Gunbirddriver, if you do not have a specific suggestion for improvement then your complaints are not actionable. Such vague complaints do not merit a couple of tags on the top of the article.

What I think it comes down to is that you and Jake have been arguing for a balance between two political views while Xeno, Snowded, Johnuniq and I have been arguing that such a balance cannot be entertained if the scholarly sources are completely lopsided, which they are. The scholarly sources are skewed in the direction of the swiftboating term being a false smear and a fabrication against Kerry. Past discussions around this argument have included Atama, Bazzargh, Gamaliel and Verbal making the same determination against a parade of IP editors and Gustnado. The hard-won consensus is that scholarly sources about the facts of the case trump the notional balance of political views. This matter has been settled over and over again. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that some do not think there is an issue is a part of the issue. I have discussed this at length already and there is no response. The origin of the term is important, as you yourself have said Binkesternet. Multiple citations state that it originated from the left, two of those (The LA Times piece and the BBC) unquestionable meet criteria as reputable sources. Both have thus far been ignored. The BBC citation in particular is already presently used in the article but its content have been partially ignored. The reason why is at question, and speaks to an effort to slant the piece. This apparently is new ground for you. The tag does not require your agreement, rather its presence indicates disagreement. Please leave the tag up until resolved. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Propose some text using the cites you favor, or remove the tags. Vague disagreement is not actionable. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

...and while you are crafting your proposed text, you should know in advance that neither the LATimes article, nor the BBC Glossary source, support your "it originated from the left" verbiage. Neither source says where it "originated"; both sources only say that Democrats give that name to (or label) smear tactics as such -- which they do (but so do non-Democrats). Please don't confuse usage with origins. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy Break - Elevate to POV Section Dispute

Reclaiming this topic, I am elevating the issue I initially raised to section dispute status and will tag the article accordingly. The issue is clearly delineated in my opening remarks (please read them again) and has not yet been addressed by any respondee save for tangential and irrelevant diversions from the issue. Hopefully this will stimulate an infusion of editorial perspectives as is the purpose of an article tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

To hopefully facilitate discussion/resolution, I will briefly re-state the basis of my POV objection. The current article reads as follows...

Since the political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

This is, IMHO, a declaration of FACT, in '"Wikipedia's Voice"', that the Swiftvet campaign is/was a "political smear campaign". Per the guidance offered in WP:NPOV, I re-offer the following edit for consideration...

Described by critics as a political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

I would be interested in hearing comments as to why the following guidance from WP:NPOV...

...an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.'

is NOT clearly controlling here. Replacing the example text...

...an article should not state that 'swiftboating is a smear campaign', but it may state that 'swiftboating has been described by critics as a smear campaign.'

...should demonstrate, IMHO, that this is a WP:NPOV no-brainer. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Tagging an article requires you to raise an argument here supported by reliable sources. Neither of you have done that, until you do its not valid to tag the article. --Snowded ^TALK 15:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your rationale is specious. If you remove this tag again, your action will be brought to ANI for consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you are trying to take a political position which is not supported by the sources. NPOV policy requires us to balance sources not political views and those sources basically say that it was a smear campaign, which is how the name came about. Threats are always entertaining. Please try and address the content issue and that does not mean making statements as you have above, it means making proposals supported by reliable sources --Snowded ^TALK 16:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of arguments at Wikipedia, but it is rare to find one as misguided as the above claims (without evidence) that there is an NPOV problem. The article uses Wikipedia's voice to say that swiftboating is a smear because that is what reliable sources say. Everyone knows it's a smear, and the only contrary opnions come from those who reject what multiple reliable sources have stated. There is no NPOV problem in this article, just as there is no NPOV problem at Evolution, despite the fact that there is no mention of intelligent design in that article. There is no evidence that intelligent design is "true", and there is no evidence that swiftboating is anything other than a smear. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Binkersnet: Text has been proposed, as I said above:

I would state that originally it was a term created by the left as a means to respond to and undermine the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and then go on to say the term entered the general public vernacular and came to mean any smear campaign or campaign intended to undermine a candidate.

As said previously, we could remove the section asserting that it was created to undermine the SBVT and simply not comment on why such a term would have been created by the left. We could confine ourselves to state that it was a term that was created by the left which has subsequently entered the general public vernacular. Citations offered:

"Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating."" http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/17/nation/na-kerry17

Swift-boating: The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths. BBC Glossary: US elections BBC News, US & Canada url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15730790

@xenophrenic: The term ‘given by’ confers origination. That is to say the source is stating the Democrats are the party that generated the creation of the word.

@Johnuniq: I agreed that the word means smear campaign, as you can easily see above.

No, I agree. The term is broadly understood to mean a smear, and the article should not suggest an equivalence.

The question of whether or not the word means a smear campaign is not the point of contention.

@Snowded: I have said repeatedly that my goal is to have a neutral viewpoint in a wikipedia article. I believe you also have that same goal. I have not said I seek a balance between the Kerry Campaign and the SBV supporters. You would have to willfully misconstrue what I have said to arrive at that conclusion, as I was very clear on the point. It strikes me as curious that you keep making this claim. Regardless, the allegation itself does nothing to address the point presented. Thus your statement:

"Tagging an article when you are not providing any properly sourced proposals on the talk page is disruptive editing."

I am going to ignore, unless you need me to again take you through the proposed change in wording and the sources that support that change. This article was tagged as a means to move toward resolution. Removing the tag and claiming there is “no issue” and “no citations offered” after scores of citations and a lengthy commentary underscores the problem this article may have faced for some time. The tags are temporary and are a means by which we seek to resolve issues. I am going to return the tags for now, and I will remove them soon when the issue comes to a conclusion.

Gentlemen, if you believe that the term did not come from the left than please present your supporting evidence.

Lacking that then you need to change the article to reflect the origination of the term as citations have suggested. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Gunbirddriver, we have a small problem here that we need to clear up. I established this section to address a specific instance of compositional bias in a specific section that I have now elevated to dispute status (a tag for which was removed and is now in ANI for a consideration/determination). In the interim, you have raised an objection in this same section on different content which you have now elevated, by tagging, to a "POV Article" dispute. Two observations if I might...

1. It would probably be best for an orderly resolution if the 2 individual issues were housed in separate "Dispute" sections in talk...(and, perhaps, labeled so as to differentiate). May I suggest that you establish another section to do so? In that way, interested editors could be linked directly to the relevant discussion.

2. I'm not aware of your level of familiarity with dispute tagging, but it appears that yours, specifically, is a "POV Section Dispute" as opposed to a "POV Article Dispute". I thought you might want to reconsider your choice of tags. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of you are doing the community the courtesy of providing any sources that support your perspective. The statement that scores of citations have been provided is simply not true. If I have that wrong then I will apologise, but I can't see any. Maybe you can help us all by listing them here? --Snowded ^TALK 09:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of you are doing the community the courtesy of providing any sources that support your perspective.

I will not presume to speak for Gunbirddriver's perspective, only my own. I am fully prepared to offer citations voluminous enough to satisfy WP:V, WP:RS foundational support for my positions, but there is another consideration bearing on this issue as yet unaddressed (at least that I can see) that is, IMHO, considerably more fundamental and which needs to be considered and discussed. That issue is the proposition that an appellation of "smear" is something that can be objectively and empirically established "in fact" as opposed to a subjectively determined "opinion" fraught with all of the obvious considerations that "opinions" bring to bear upon a WP:NPOV presentation of content. I believe resolution of that fundamental question must be achieved as a prerequisite to any further progress towards resolution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Then lets see some of those citations, until you let us take a look you are going to get no where. --Snowded ^TALK 20:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you've misconstrued my comment. The question I raised, "is 'smear' an objectively discernible "fact" or a subjectively determined "opinion", is generic and not specific this article. I have no specific cites to provide but am seeking editorial opinion on that question. Do you have one? Even better, do you have cites that would lend themselves to an informed resolution to this question? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are ample reliable sources that convey the campaign was a smear campaign. No reliable sources have yet been produced to refute that fact (definitely some opinion commentary to that effect, though). Either you are "fully prepared to offer citations" or you "have no specific cites to provide" ... we should nail that down now, so that we can advance and conclude this discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are ample reliable sources that convey the campaign was a smear campaign.

Be it "convey", "state", "declare"...all are assertions. However, per WP:NPOV guidance, in order make an editorial determination as to an appropriate NPOV presentation of this assertion, editors must make an assessment as to whether this "smear" assertion, as applied to the SVPT campaign, is an expression of "opinion" or a statement of legitimate, empirically establishable "fact". Furthermore, even IF, by editorial consensus, an SVPT "smear" assertion COULD be WP:V treated as a legitimate "fact", a question would then ensue, per the same WP:NPOV considerations...is that purported factual assertion "uncontested and uncontroversial"? (a characterization against which I will provide ample supporting citations...if and as necessary).

Sooooooo....first things first. Can the existing text, "Since the political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth..." survive the first NPOV hurdle? Is it an assertion of "opinion" or is it an assertion of an established "fact". IMHO, it is a partisan-inspired expression of opinion offered as an expression of fact (as are likely MOST "smear" assertions offered by the target of an attack). Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Or, as I should probably hasten to add, we can forego this entire exercise by utilizing the following more NPOV suggested language...

Described by critics as a political smear campaign...

JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Some "source" food for thought (emphasis mine)...

“You can’t lead America by misleading the American people,” said Kerry, who has been struggling in recent days against charges — denounced by Democrats as smear tactics — that he lied about his actions in Vietnam that won five military medals.

In N.Y., Kerry asks GOP to halt 'fear and smear', Associated Press, Aug. 24, 2004

The Associated Press understood that the "smear" appellation, as directed at the Swiftvet campaign, was hardly objective fact. So should any prospective reader of this article per WP:NPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The AP article is during the campaign. Have you any reliable sources that, post campaign, following consideration of the facts give any credence to "smear" being anything other than a smear? --Snowded ^TALK 06:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Lost me. The wording in the article is supported by reliable sources of factual assertion (not opinion). Your refutation of that present wording is not. Please remedy that. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

re: @xenophrenic: The term ‘given by’ confers origination. That is to say the source is stating the Democrats are the party that generated the creation of the word. -- Gunbirddriver

No, it certainly does not. It does not indicate origination. In addition, it does not indicate any relevance between party affiliation and the coining of the word. The word was coined as a shorthand term to represent the tactics used by a political group during a presidential campaign. The political affiliation of the very first person to use the term "swiftboating" as a verb to describe "smear campaigning" is irrelevant, and given the roughly equal split between lefties and righties in the U.S. political environment, it is equally likely to have been first used by either faction. Holding the "I personally still don't think the campaign was a smear campaign" opinion ≠ basis for NPOV dispute over the meaning of "swiftboating". Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC - NPOV and "Smear"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was result of the discussion is that it is a fact that it is a smear. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

---

WP:NPOV, "Explanation of the neutral point of view", offers the following guidance...

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Is the characterization "smear", as applied to the Swift Boat Veteran for Truth campaign, a statement of "opinion" or is it a statement of "fact"? Comments on what criteria you have used and/or editors should consider in making such a determination would be helpful.

Opinion or Fact? 17:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Responses

• Opinion - While I suppose it is plausible that a particular allegation or political attack might rise to such a level of universally acclaimed abject mendacity so as to establish it as a virtual "smear" in "fact", this is surely not the case with the Swiftvet campaign. As the assertion clearly emanates from predominantly partisan sources,[7][8][9] it must be considered an assertion of "opinion" under any WP:NPOV consideration for NPOV presentation of that content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To further illustrate the diversity of "assertions" as to the characterization of the Swiftvet campaign, the following from Michael Getler as ombudsman for PBS (emphasis mine)...

There are undoubtedly large numbers of people who would agree with the characterization of the Swift Boat campaign as a smear on Kerry — who was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and Silver Star while serving in Vietnam — while many others see it differently.[10]

Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman, July 13, 2007

Are those "many others" making an assertion of "fact" as well? JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And the following, from "many other" Michelle Malkin...an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact"?...

“Swift-Boating” does not equal smearing. Swift-Boating means exposing hard truths about corrupt Democrats.[11]

Michelle Malkin, "'Swiftboating' (V) Telling the truth about Democrats", February 21, 2008

JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, are you calling that a reliable source? --Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, are you calling that a reliable source?

Are you calling that an "opinion"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Cue crickets? JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And from another "many other" who finds an alternative "swiftboating" perception to be worthy of emulation...

“Swiftboating” means different things to different people. Liberals, of course, associate it with a sleazy and false attack. My guess is that the 2004 ads were probably true — and they were effective because they a). hit Kerry on his strength, and b). used “real” witnesses to tell the story...This, of course, brings us to a perfect segue — the possibility of introducing some “real” people into the Cain story. What happens if (or maybe it’s when?) one of his accusers goes public?...Let the swift boating begin.[12]

Matt Lewis, "'Swiftboating' Herman Cain?", The Daily Caller, November 2, 2011

Lastly, a "many other" with some rather salient comments...

In a column earlier this year, I spotlighted "swiftboating" as a currently fashionable example of semantic infiltration used to deflect valid criticism of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha and Al Gore. It's a loaded, critical term coined by leftists during the 2004 presidential campaign to counter Vietnam swift boat vets who challenged John Kerry's questionable claims of heroism in that war. I expect liberals to wield the term if they can get away with it. But I cautioned supposedly objective journalists to be wary of joining their cause in the use of that word. Apparently, to no avail.[13]

Mike Rosen, Story is none too 'swift' , Rocky Mountain News, October 27, 2006

“Swiftboating” means different things to different people.

Save for, perhaps, in Wikipedia. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Citing the Rocky Mountain News article above as a footnoted reference...

There has been opposition to the use of this term to define a smear technique, both by media commentators and the Swift Boat Veterans.⁵⁷[14]

Smith, Melissa M.; Williams, Glenda C.; Powell, Larry; Copeland, Gary A. (2010). Campaign Finance Reform: The Political Shell Game. Lexington Books. p. 105. ISBN 0739145665.

Footnote: 57. M. Rosen, Story Is None Too Swift, Review of Reviewed Item. Rocky Mountain News (2006)

This is the same source (citation deleted per failed verification) 16:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC) which purportedly supports the POV disputed language currently incorporated in this article. It now appears necessary to verify that the source cited actually supports the article language in dispute. JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course some people say "swiftboating" is not a smear. However (not counting opinion pieces), all reliable sources say it is a smear. A couple of reliable sources are listed above, but all they do is say that "There has been opposition to the use of this term to define a smear technique"–the sources do not deny that swiftboating really is a smear. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

However (not counting opinion pieces), all reliable sources say it is a smear.

The repetition of a "smear" assertion, regardless of how often, cannot transform an assertion of "opinion" into an assertion of "fact" to be reflected as such under a WP:NPOV consideration for article presentation. The only "fact" that might be legitimately asserted is that this "opinion", which you obviously share, might be more "widely asserted" than its antithesis, an antithesis which is adequately demonstrated and supported in the cites I have provided. In order for your position to prevail under a WP:NPOV consideration, you would have to present sourcing definitively establishing a universality of agreement with a "smear" characterization as applied to the SVPT campaign, and even were you to find such sources, whether ANY "smear" characterization could EVER be established as an objectively discernable "fact" is highly problematical and, IMHO, an exercise in unbridled POV futility. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This issue was also previously deliberated within Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and resulted in the following consensus-acceptable, long-stable compromise language currently incorporated...

After the election, the group was credited by some media and praised by conservatives as contributing to Kerry's defeat while critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign.

That same qualified "...critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign" must also be reflected here per WP:YESPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect; this issue was not also "previously deliberated" at the link you've provided. That deliberation was over whether the article should convey that the smear campaign contributed "to the success of the George W. Bush campaign" versus "to the defeat of John Kerry", and the words 'as', 'for', and 'some'. The "critics consider" verbiage was not the focus of that discussion. While those who consider the SBVT attack a "smear campaign" undoubtedly include the subset "critics", it would be incorrect to imply that only "critics" recognize it as a smear campaign; per WP:YESPOV. Thank you for bringing attention to that matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect; this issue was not also "previously deliberated" at the link you've provided.

"Critics consider" was offered as proposed language by both opposing participants to that discussion and can be legitimately characterized as consensus-achieved language. That it endured, unchallenged, until your most recent unilaterally imposed edits is a fact about which, hopefully, the administrator closing this RfC will be quite mindful.

While those who consider the SBVT attack a "smear campaign" undoubtedly include the subset "critics"...

Such a remarkable concession {{facepalm}}.

...it would be incorrect to imply that only "critics" recognize it as a smear campaign...

One would, I'd imagine, be rather hard-pressed to provide citations for alleged "supporters" utilizing the "smear campaign" characterization. Perhaps you have some citations to offer that might suggest otherwise? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Critics consider" was offered as proposed language? Really? Please provide a specific diff to the proposal of those two words. I've searched a third time, and I'm still not seeing it. The history I'm looking at (Please see edits here and here) show that two-word phrase was actually introduced a year before — without opposition, consensus discussion, or fanfare — and those two words have not been specifically addressed since. I do see where you have discussed other words and phrases in the same (or adjoining) sentences, but those two words have never been addressed. Perhaps the "proposer" of those two words can direct me to this elusive consensus debate you say was had over these two words; I would really like to see the pro & con arguments about them.

As for your assertion that article content has "endured" too long to be improved, corrected or updated ... I'm just going to postulate you were attempting humor, and not respond to that. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, and to be more precise as you have pointed out, EECEE offered "others view it" while I offered "critics consider" (emphasis mine)...

EECEE: 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 2:07 am, 28 April 2006, Friday (5 years, 9 months, 18 days ago) (UTC-4)

JakeInJoisey: 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.4:53 am, 28 April 2006, Friday (5 years, 9 months, 18 days ago) (UTC-4)

After a tangential discussion on "like" or "as" had atrophied, EECEE posted...

EECEE: 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 7:55 pm, 21 May 2006, Sunday (5 years, 8 months, 24 days ago) (UTC-4)

...then incorporated her desired language into the existing text which now read...

After the election, the group was credited by some media and praised by conservatives as contributing to the defeat of John Kerry [15] while critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign [16].

That implies, barring further objection (about which there was none, to the best of my knowledge, until your recent edits) that the newly edited language qualifying those who employed "smear campaign" as a characterization was consensus-acceptable.

Be that as it may, the purpose of this example is that consensus-acceptable, qualifying NPOV language had been attained in Swift Vets and POWs for Truth as of 21 May 2006 but the same cannot be said of this "Swiftboating" article.

As to your mis-representation of my remarks as asserting...

...that article content has "endured" too long to be improved, corrected or updated...

...that's becoming rather par for the course with you (interested editors will please see the related NPOV noticeboard topic where he ellipses a comment of mine to totally misrepresent my statement) and I'll not dignify it, or this thread for that matter, with further comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, kind JakeInJoisey, I did not misrepresent your remark. I've responded to your assertion the way I understood it; if I have misunderstood, then I'm sure you will correct me. I see that you have not yet done so, so I am left to stand with my present understanding of your remarks. As for your personal attack that I have "totally misrepresent [your] statement" at WP:NPOVN, that also is simply false. Claiming to leave this thread after your personal attacks does not immunize you against my calling you on your bullshit. I'm asking you now to please refrain, and to return this to a civil discussion.

Back to the matter at hand... thank you for providing more specific information about the consensus discussion to which you previously referred. From the quotes you provided above, I was able to track down the actual Diff to EECEE's comment. I discovered, after removing your emphasis, and restoring EECEE's emphasis (in the form of the rest of her actual comment), that your discussion was not about the "critics considered" wording. I see this:

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. 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)

That reveals to me that EECEE's argument was not about the "critics consider" wording, which has been in the article for a year prior to these discussions, and would remain untouched after these discussions. EECEE was actually addressing your completely different concern expressed here:

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 conservatives for contributing to the defeat of John Kerry, while critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign.

So as I stated before, there has not been a consensus discussion focused on the "critics considered" wording -- wording that has existed in the article a year before the above discussion, and years after it. If you would like to try again to find a consensus discussion about the two words, "critics consider", you are welcome to, but review of consensus policy shows that even if you should find such a debate, consensus can change. I still think it's worth searching, if you are sure such a discussion exists, if only to review the pro and con reasoning for the "critics consider" verbiage in detail. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• COMMENT The sources say smear, and we reflect what the sources say. If you think those sources are partisan or not reliable in some way make the case. --Snowded ^TALK 18:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources say smear, and we reflect what the sources say.

Very well. And how, under an NPOV consideration for presentation of content, would sources that assert no opinion in that regard or that might, in fact, be considered favorably inclined towards characterizing SVPT revelations as accurate (perhaps even commendable) be reflected in such an NPOV assessment for presentation? For example, as to the former, here's the final line summation to FactCheck.org's treatment of SVPT...

At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth. [17]

Their article contains no assertion or even reference to "smear" (save for a single instance of quoting a Kerry supporter). Now, while this is no ringing endorsement of SVPT veracity, it also refrains from any characterization of the campaign as a "political smear". In fact, it allows for the plausibility that the (an) SVPT allegation(s) MIGHT be closer to the truth than Kerry's own "version of reality". How should this "Swiftboating" article reflect what that source, or a boatload of others, "doesn't say"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You quoted the "final line summation?" Incorrect. The summary is at the top of that article - you know, where they say the SBVT is refuted by crew members that were there, and by Navy records. What you quoted was a sentence that appears right after a McCain statement (in response to just McCain? - maybe, but irrelevant), and it merely states the obvious about resolving 35-year old issues; it doesn't contradict a thing presented in its summary or in its investigation. That source, by the way, is not "characterizing SVPT revelations"; it is investigating the validity of just a single (of many) attack ads put out by SBVT. And as you noted, even this source chose, in its good judgement, to include in its report the "smear campaign" characterization made by a Republican that supported Kerry's and the Navy's version of events. Back to the point at hand: this source does not refute the reliably sourced smear campaign description; will you be providing reliable sources to support your POV tag? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That source, by the way, is not "characterizing SVPT revelations"...

But you evade the point for which the example was offered. Even with corrections appended, the provided source still serves to illustrate the point that a host of stories/commentaries/opinions on the subject of the SVPT campaign do NOT, themselves, characterize it as a "smear campaign". That, alone, renders it far from a universally held assertion. Where is that reality reflected in an NPOV consideration of the existing text? And what qualifies your purported source(s) as an ultimate arbiter of transforming what is an "opinion" into an immutable "fact". Their residence within the unbiased "academia"? This should be fun. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; you lost me again. Reliable sources have been cited supporting the "smear campaign" definition as a factual assertion. You dispute that definition; so the burden is on you to produce reliably sourced refutation. You have been asked to provide reliable sources that refute the ample reliable sources presently cited, and you fail to provide even one. The source you cite above does not refute the reliably sourced smear campaign description; will you be providing reliable sources to support your soon-to-expire-POV tag? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been cited supporting the "smear campaign" definition as a factual assertion.

You're free to assert what you will, but whether a "smear" characterization is an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact" is a judgement to be rendered by Wikipedia editors. Hence this RfC. We'll see. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

From the PBS reference in the Producers response to various comments: "The record is clear. As a young man John Kerry did what the men in our Civil War story did, he went to war for his country, and in his case was awarded medals for his bravery. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was organized in advance of the 2004 election and funded by operatives with close ties to the political machine seeking the re-election of President George W. Bush. The media campaign by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which attacked Senator Kerry's military record was reported and judged to have been a successful political effort to undermine Kerry's deserved and honorable credentials as a decorated veteran. In this regard it can accurately and fairly be described as a smear. (At the time Senator John McCain judged the group's attacks "dishonest and dishonorable.")". I think that is pretty clear don't you? Its not a bad quote to include in the article come to think of it. --Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

But you continue to miss the purpose of this exercise. It is stipulated (at least I certainly will) that assertions of "smear" are readily available. In the cite above, the author's "smear" assessment is based upon a personal belief in Kerry's "deserved and honorable credentials as a decorated veteran"...a significant point of contention in the Swiftvet allegations. As is also noted (and acknowledged) by Mr. Getler within the same article, "many others" do NOT share that same "assessment". How, when making a consideration for NPOV presentation of this issue, can a credible editorial consideration treat this contradiction in "assessments" as something other than a difference of "opinion"? But it gets worse. Even assuming that one might somehow reconcile a diversity of views and arrive at a determination that "smear" is a factual assertion (not that we're there yet, but IF), how could one then credibly argue (a discussion that will not, hopefully, be necessary) that this purported "fact" is "uncontested and uncontroversial", a determination that MUST be made in order to present this "factual" content "in Wikipedia's voice" ? JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We know that many people dispute the fact, just as we have people who believe that the green feathered serpent God of the Mayans will return this year to restore peace and harmony (references available and presented a a respectable think tank in Washington a few years back). The point is not there there is disagreement, but what is said by reliable sources. If you read the whole of the quote its not just his belief he references several other authoritative bodies. In Wikipedia (as has been pointed out to you so many times) we balance what is said in the sources, not what may or may not be believed by protagonists in the debate. I have yet to see a single source from you which provides a counter on the reality of the smear. All you do is find quotes on controversy which is not disputed. --Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

All you do is find quotes on controversy which is not disputed.

Perhaps you'd better reconsider or clarify what you just said. If you are acknowledging that the subject is "controversial" (which it most certainly is), then you've also just acknowledged that the existing text violates WP:NPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Its controversial, no question what so ever of that. So are many other subjects such as evolution. Articles on controversial subjects (well all subjects actually) are not required by WP:NPOV to balance across all opinions, they are required to reflect what is said in, and the balance across, reliable sources. At the moment those are all very very clear - it was a smear campaign. Unless and until you produce some counter sources the POV tags are not valid and will be deleted. --Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless and until you produce some counter sources...

That may well be necessary should common sense not prevail on the question of "opinion" vs. "fact". We'll see. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Common sense" is meaningless. This is not a debate club, please provide sources or drop it. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fact. When scholars use the term casually as fact, it's fact. The SBVT campaign was in fact a smear campaign. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is, of course, the "appeal to authority" refuge to which your rather indefensible position must, IMHO, inevitably retreat. Unfortunately, with no prior experience in discussing your purported absolute, I'm rather ignorant as to the WP parameters for consideration and general consensus precedents that have been established as to the merits of such an appeal and whether your presented "scholarship" is even a legitimate WP consideration in elevating what is clearly an "opinion" to the level of an established "fact". However, I'll look forward to the learning/research experience and to the opinions of interested editors as to your position. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

When scholars use the term casually as fact, it's fact.

In examining your first purportedly "definitive" source, an article by Leo Casey, not only is the term "smear" used "casually" in referencing the SVPT campaign, it is used only once and as a tangential comparative, and is neither the subject of the treatment or is its legitimacy as a characterization of the SVPT examined in any depth whatsoever. That lack of "academic substance" notwithstanding and, perhaps, considerably more relevant, Mr. Casey's personal ideological bias is rather clear. In that regard, what is also a "fact" is that an "appeal to authority" (or "argument from authority") can be fallacious. Perhaps an examination on the credibility of your postulate as it relates to this "source" you offer as persuasive and conclusive might be illuminating.

Per the first source (save for Wikipedia) returned in a "Google" search...

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.

Person A makes claim C about subject S.

Therefore, C is true.

"Nizkor" continues...

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:...

Now, while your proffered source might arguably qualify as an "authority" under most of the "acceptable standards of assessment", #4 is, IMHO, quite problematical...

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are(a) (sic) of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious...If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.

One need only to consider the subject or read a few sentences into this source treatment to comprehend the rather deep ideological bias of the author. Your purported "scholarly" source fails, rather dismally, to be the decisive WP:RS scholarly "authority" you purport it to be. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And evidently people who disagree with you (like the one RfC) are biased; not a good basis of argument. What is clear from the sources is that all that qualify as reliable basically say that it was either a bunch of lies, or a smear or variants on that theme. It is not acceptable, if we are to represent the balance of those sources, to have any wording which implies the accusations might be true unless and until sources are provided which say that. We might choose another word than smear of course. --Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And evidently people who disagree with you (like the one RfC) are biased...

No, I assume they are offering good faith responses to what is a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate RfC which presumes, IMHO erroneously, the WP:NPOV legitimacy of the question it poses. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

After more than a month of discussion, I am confirmed that the SBVT campaign was a smear, intended not to establish a Truth but to take Kerry down politically by attacking his record as a war hero. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fact It's what the word means regardless of the word's origins. While Michel Malkin may define it as "telling the truth", one does not hear for example Gingrich describing his own attacks on Romney's career as "swiftboating". TFD (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Fact All reliable sources verify that the campaign was and is a smear. Is there any reliable source suggesting that those in the SBVT team had any reason to believe what they were saying? (Note that a blog with subtitle "Swiftboating = Telling the truth about Democrats" fails RS.) If they knew so much about the topic, they should have known that they were at the least grossly misrepresenting the situation (as verified by all reliable sources). Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • • Alas - Gettler of PBS specifically only uses "smear" as part of quoted commentary, and specifically does not make any claim other than that quotes from named individuals showed their opinions. Bryson in his letter, in fact, refers to Cowan's quoted words as "commentary." Cheers - but statements like "all reliable sources" which forget the ones which do not agree with the WP:TRUTH are still reliable sources. Collect (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Meanwhile you argue elsewhere that the fact an opposition member once referred to one of the leading members of a government party as a "fascist thug", that is sufficient to call that party fascist. Could you please aim for consistency. TFD (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
        • • • TFD, your errancy is getting tiresome. I have never said that any party is fascist based on a single person's opinion. I have noted that saying that no one called the CDR in Rwanda "fascist" was not borne out by reliable sources, and the "fascist thug" comment I suspect is from that set of reliable sources I have searched Wikipedia for anything remotely resembling your claim and came up without one I invite anyone to search every page for "'Collect' 'fascist thug'" and post their findings about my posts.. The "fascist thug" post was made by TFD at -2:08 26 January 2012 and states:

              Your allegedf UNESCO report is actually a report by Reporters Without Borders (who receive part of their funding from UNESCO) and you appear to be relying on a footnote. Your last source is a French translation of a book by the English journalist Linda Melvern, which is critical of the UN, and says that the Rwandan Patriotic Front once described the CDR envoy and radio and television boss, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, as a "fascist thug". Could you please not misrepresent sources. TFD (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC) .

            • Ascribing his own words to me is uncivil and absurd, surreal and WP:EGREGIOUS. I am a firm believer that opinions must be cited as opinions, and have been consistent in that position for a long time on Wikipedia. Having false statements attributed to me is not, however, a good way of presenting your own arguments here. Noting also that I am unable to find a post of mine remotely resembling what you here have claimed, which makes this surreal indeed. Cheers - but recall Wikipedia policy about attacks - especially ones which are errant in the extreme. Collect (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  What PBS feels they have to do does not govern the situation here. Please make a sandbox somewhere with a list of reliable sources that contradict what I and others have said. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Opinion - The arguments made at the top of this section by JakeInJoisey are both compelling and based upon logic and evidence. The arguments for "fact" are totally without merit. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fact and if you check the PBS reference in full Collect you will find it is very explicit - I put it on the NPOV discussion, ditto all other sources quoted so far. Those claiming PoV need to find reliable sources to support their view. --Snowded ^TALK 05:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fact. I have watched all this unfold and am persuaded. Clearly and incontrovertibly a deliberate, calculated smear per the observations, logic and evidence from Johnuniq, Snowed and TFD - not to mention the comprehensive demolition of the "opinion" opinions. Writegeist (talk)

"Smear" is a pejorative, subjective term. And characterization of the Kerry items as such is a controversy with views on both sides. Per wp:npov you can't state the views of one side as fact and/or in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fact. Smear campaign is not a subjective term; it is an objective description with defined parameters -- parameters that are either met or not met based upon fact, not opinion. The attack campaign waged by SBVT does meet the defining parameters of a smear campaign, and is recognized as such in numerous reliable sources of assertion of fact. Per WP:NPOV you can't state a fact as if it were opinion, even if a minority would prefer it. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fact -- as per the plethora of sources that describe it as such, and (as best I can tell) the relative absence of sources that attempt to claim that it is not a smear campaign. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fact - If the reliable sources say it's a smear, it is a smear. This principle should be more widely applied on the project. It's less clear to me that the reliable sources do say that, or with how much unanimity they say it, but those are other questions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Statement of Fact -- unsupported by any reliable source, and therefor inappropriate on Wikipedia The subject here is the characterization "smear", as applied to the Swift Boat Veteran for Truth campaign, in the article as "the political smear campaign conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry". FYI: "smear campaign: noun [...] Definition[:] a planned attempt to harm the reputation of a person or company by telling lies about them... [18] There is no question that O'Neill et al intended to harm the reputation of Kerry. And did. The question is whether they planned to tell lies about Kerry. There is no RS for this assertion. Angered by Kerry's accusations of atrocities by US soldiers, etc., they recalled his war service with considerably less than charity, but there is not a single RS that has been quoted to show that their attacks were made with more than ordinary disregard of exquisite truth. So it's a factual assertion that they planned to lie. Just not true, as far as we know. Andyvphil (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

While I understand your argument, you're not responding to, I'd suggest, the question as posed and are rebutting, instead, the legitimacy of the assertion once made. While the existing text being challenged as POV is, indeed, a "statement of fact" in "Wikipedia's voice", that is not what you're being asked to comment upon. The RfC question is whether, under a WP:YESPOV consideration, an assertion of "smear", in characterizing the SBVT campaign, is an expression of "opinion" or an expression of "fact"...an editorial determination that must be made under WP:YESPOV for an NPOV presentation of the "smear campaign" assertion. Perhaps you might wish to reconsider the question and your response in that light. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant what I said. "Smear" could be a fact. NYT could be a RS on this subject. All that's required is a fact-based article in the NYT showing that the SBVT planned to lie about Kerry, and did. But all we have is various biased sources slurring the SBVT because they swim in circles where (e.g., the NYT) where its just assumed that the SBVT lied and where the editorial review is no better. "Unsubstantiated" simply means all their friends believe Kerry rather than the Swifties. After all, they got their ads on the air with help from... Republicans! That's what Factcheck avers agains them. What further proof is required that they're liars? Andyvphil (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Smear" could be a fact.

You are missing the basis of the WP:YESPOV objection as reflected in the RfC question and, instead, are utilizing WP:OR argument to rebut the alleged "fact" as currently presented. The current language states that it "is" a fact, in "Wikipedia's Voice" and presents legitimate reliable sources characterizing it as such, rightly or wrongly. What the current language ignores is the existence of antithetical assertions disputing that assertion of "fact" as clearly demonstrated in the rebuttal sourcing provided. Our function, as wikipedia editors, is to present both bodies of "assertions" in an NPOV fashion per the WP:Policy mandate (yes, mandate) of WP:YESPOV. Where viewpoints are demonstrably in opposition, it can only be characterized as a subjective difference of "opinion" as to the factual basis upon which each assertion is supported and those differences must be reflected in the article language.

It is decidedly not our function as WP editors to debate, per WP:OR argumentation, the relative merit of EITHER position but rather to present BOTH, via NPOV language composition supported by the provision of WP:V, WP:RS sourcing. While your argument might have merit (assuming some provision of WP:V, WP:RS sourcing), it is unresponsive to the underlying POV issue raised which should preclude any necessity for the argumentation you currently offer.

I might also suggest that the same WP:YESPOV consideration should hold sway inre assertions of "unsubstantiated" and "discredited", but this "smear campaign" factual assertion is the most egregious transgression of WP:YESPOV and why I have elected to focus on it exclusively. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You wrote the question: "Is the characterization "smear", as applied to the Swift Boat Veteran for Truth campaign, a statement of "opinion" or is it a statement of "fact"?". As it was used in this article it was clearly an attempt to smuggle opinion into the article in the guise of Wikipedia-vetted fact, and if that's what you meant to ask about you should have been less reticent. WP:OR, btw, is a restriction on what Wikipedia can publish, not a restriction on argument on the talk page. I can argue here that Factchect.org's article is biased against the SBVT (which makes its admission of what can't be known particularly compelling) without any RS so stating, using only my own original argument. My actual argument is WP:RS in the light of WP:BLP. To say that SBVT smeared is to say, by definition, that O'Neill and Hoffmann, etc., lied, and BLP requires particularly strong evidence for such an assertion in Wikipedia's voice. WP:RS says that the reliability of a source must be evaluated in context, and we do that through argument on this page that doesn't rely merely on some other allegedly reliable source saying so. Evaluated in context smears in passing of the SBVT by the NYT or some random partisan who wrote a book is a completely inadequate substitute for any explict and specific claim anywhere in usually reliable sources that O'Neill or Hoffmann lied. And I urge you to retract or qualify the claim that legitimate RS have been supplied. The NYT e.g., is a RS when it's a RS, and when it's not it's not. And that's for us to determine here. Andyvphil (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your perceived misunderstanding of both this RfC and how the concept of WP:V, WP:RS relates to NPOV article content composition/presentation is reflected here...

As it was used in this article it was clearly an attempt to smuggle opinion into the article in the guise of Wikipedia-vetted fact...

...and which also suggests an assumed response of "opinion" to this RfC...but I'm not inclined to further discuss your interpretation in this space. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fact per Tom Harrison, Snowded, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fact Simply put, if the majority of reliable scholarly sources describe it as a smear campaign then wikipedia should do so also. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Request close}} Please note that there a three RfC's on this page and an NPOV discussion, they need to be reviewed together --Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC Meta Comments

• IMHO, the article language that is the subject of this POV dispute is such a clear-cut, "bright line" failure to comply with the provisions of WP:NPOV Policy 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC) as to render any further discussion superfluous and unnecessary. Without objection, and as 7 days have now passed since this RfC placement, it is my intent to petition for an uninvolved administrative closure to this RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion, I don't think the balance of editor opinion is with you on this. Please ensure you reference the other Rfc here and the discussion on the NPOV notice board. --Snowded ^TALK 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have petitioned for an uninvolved administrator closure at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Hopefully my petition language is satisfactory to all. 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC) JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon a further review of WP criteria for requesting an uninvolved administrator RfC close, petitioning via the Administrator's noticeboard is an escalation of the normal petitioning process. I am deleting the petition there and will first pursue a lower level but more appropriate petition tag placement. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Reinstated - we need someone to look at all the material --Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed my petition...again. You can petition for whatever you'd like, but do it under your name, not mine. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

@Snowded (who, for reasons unknown, insists on appending meta comments to the dedicated response section), I have no prerogative to initiate any closing process inre the other two RfCs. That would be the prerogative of the editor who placed the RfC. An appropriate close petition has already been placed within the NPOV noticeboard discussion. Whether a volunteer closing admin for this RfC would consider closure there as well would be up to him/her. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For the advisement and consideration of interested editors, I have petitioned User:Sandstein to consider volunteering his services as an uninvolved administrator in rendering a determination/closing for this RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have petitioned at WP:AN for an uninvolved administrative determination/closure for this RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have petitioned at NPOV talk for uninvolved administrator assistance in the closure of this RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.