Talk:Swiftboating/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Smear" RfC

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 the article should say that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a political smear campaign against John Kerry" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the article say in Wikipedia's voice that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a "political smear campaign" against John Kerry? Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Jake asked me to comment. I must say right out that my political views are almost the exact opposite of Jake's, but I assume he must have realized that. I am not myself going to edit the article--I could probably restrain my bias, but I do not think the effort involved would be worthwhile. But there is no advantage in overstating a case. That the term is used to refer to a blatant organized political smear of the most outrageous and cynical sort is perfectly clear. It does not in the long run matter what side the various parties were on: Gerrymandering is the term for biased redistricting, even for those who have no idea what political party Mr. Gerry tried to favor. In the short run, of course, this term is much more likely to be used by those of the political persuasion that was harmed by it.

It is very hard to summarize a complex position in a few words; this is why we have such protracted disputes over titles and tags. I do not think the content of this article biased: I think it fairly describes the situation, and is based on reliable sources. But I cannot say the same about the wording. The term "smear" is used too often. It is not necessary to use emphasis and repetition and multiple quotes to say that this was negative propaganda intended and perhaps successful in influencing an election by bare-faced lying: the facts just have to be stated. No unbiased reader will be in any doubt about what happened, or why the term continues to be meaningful. Those who have a bias one way or another will not be convinced in any case, and there is no need to overly accommodate or refute them. The example I first used in Wikipedia to explain this, and I think still the best example, is the article on Stalin: it does not repeatedly say he was a cruel tyrant, nor does it need it. It reports what he did, and the conclusion is unmistakable. The few remaining people in the world who support his actions will go on thinking as they do, but everybody else will themselves see the meaning: we do not have to spell it out for them.

For example, the phrase in the 2nd paragraph " the political smear campaign conducted by..." should read . "The campaign conducted by.... " Apart from the description being unnecessary, while the reference used to support it is a perfectly good reference for the article, the quote given does not exactly support the wording. It might be possible to find one that does, but there is no need to: it would be cherry-picking. For events like this ,enough people will have said enough things, that one can find quotes from RSs to support almost anything. Selecting quotations can be as much bias as using negative or positive words.

In writing articles, it is best to avoid all adjectives of quality, or praise or dispraise, or of emotional import. going to the other end of the article, "Many Swift boat veterans..." is a classically improper use of "many." The NYT knows how not to use adjectives, and says "Some" and the end, while avoiding any adjectives in most of the account.

Incidentally, I do not consider the NYT a "left" newspaper, then or now. It is and was then further to the left than the Washington Post, but that isn't saying much. The NYT did not oppose the war till the very end.

As for the tag, at this point, I support it, until the wording is fixed. But it's more important to fix the wording throughout, not just there, than to argue about where to put the tag. (Personally, I think this tag for an article of this nature is a little silly in any case--it will be obvious that an article on this subject will have a disputed POV no matter how it is written.) DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

...the phrase in the 2nd paragraph " the political smear campaign conducted by..." should read . "The campaign conducted by.......the quote given does not exactly support the wording. It might be possible to find one that does, but there is no need to: it would be cherry-picking.

"Cherry-picking" indeed, and a blatant mis-representation of a POV opinion as a universally accepted fact in "Wikipedia's voice". This issue was also previously deliberated within Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and resulted in the following 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) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Multiple scholarly sources confirm that the SBVT conducted a smear campaign rather than a notional 'truth' campaign. Media pundits agree. For instance, Michael Getler, the ombudsman of PBS, reprinted a number of letters from viewers who felt that SBVT was about truth, but Getler gave executive producer Christopher Bryson a chance to respond. Bryson says his investigations led him to believe that the SBVT "smeared Kerry's military record", and he points to investigative news stories that support his position. Getler ends his column by saying the SBVT story was weaker than that of top Navy brass who examined the matter and supported the Silver Star Kerry earned in combat. Even Republican John McCain said that the SBVT attacks were "dishonest and dishonorable". To me, "dishonest and dishonorable" is the essence of a smear. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The 2010 book Campaign finance reform: the political shell game says unequivocally that the SBVT attack was a smear campaign. This book is part of a reference series called "Lexington studies in political communication". Co-author Melissa M. Smith is assistant professor of communication at Mississippi State University. Co-author Glenda C. Williams is associate professor of telecommunication and film at the University of Alabama and 2009-2010 president of the Broadcast Education Association. Co-author Larry Powell is professor of communication studies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Co-author Gary A. Copeland is professor and chair of the Telecommunication and Film Department at the University of Alabama. This book is certainly a scholarly source. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The 2010 book ''Campaign finance reform: the political shell game'' says unequivocally that the SBVT attack was a smear campaign.

Interested editors will please note that, when the legitimacy of this assertion as purportedly evidenced in 2 different page citations was challenged for verification, this editor was either unable or unwilling to provide the required verification and the purported source was removed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This RfC is fundamentally flawed on numerous levels...not the least of which is its failure to address the substance of the objection I raised. Instead of soliciting comment on the propriety of the existing language per WP:NPOV policy, its very formulation presupposes the WP:NPOV legitimacy of stating, in "Wikipedia's Voice", that "...the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a 'political smear campaign' against John Kerry" despite clear WP:NPOV guidance to...

1. Avoid stating opinions as facts.

2. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

It is those 2 WP:NPOV considerations that are, IMHO, by no means settled questions as proponents of the current language would have it and serve as the crux of the debate that needs to occur and for which I raised my NPOV objection. There will likely be several RfCs to be had, and their necessity will become readily apparent as this discussion progresses. As far as this RfC itself is concerned, it is highly presumptive for a heavily involved party to establish an RfC without first soliciting input from all interested parties and the current language is likely to produce nothing more than a referendum on Swiftvet popularity. It should be withdrawn as both ill-considered and premature pending development of this discussion as we progress towards consensus resolution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to support your statement that these are "seriously contested assertions". Remember we reflect the balance of reliable sources here, not a balance of political opinion. --Snowded ^TALK 08:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no intent to be responsive to debate within the framework of, IMHO, an ill-considered and premature RfC that presumes the legitimacy of the question it poses. It is the WP:NPOV legitimacy of that very question that is at issue here. This RfC is tantamount to submitting a case to the jury before the specifics of the case are even argued. I am fully prepared to engage the thrust of any and all of your arguments, at length, within the framework of the "Dispute" section I established (to be hopefully supported by a legitimate "POV Section Tag") and not in an RfC which effectively solicits a verdict bereft of the requisite ajudication. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do not respond in the context of this RfC, the article text will be determined without your input. The thing to do is offer wording that best represents your position. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The POV bias inherent in your RfC question is breathtakingly profound and renders it illegitimate right out of the starting gate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If only you could be as breathtakingly profound with your wishes for the article. Without being clearly stated they cannot be acted upon. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My "wishes for the article" remain clearly stated at the top of the section I established for NPOV discussion, now POV dispute, of the existing content...and that discussion continues and has now commenced in earnest, this premature and biased RfC notwithstanding. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You raised it at ANI and now you have some more editors involved. The have "determined" to raise an RfC question, live with it. --Snowded ^TALK 17:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jake, you have suggested "Described by critics as a political smear campaign" rather than "Since the political smear campaign conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry". You apparently wish to have the article give the impression that the SBVT campaign was mounted in good faith and that they may have had legitimate concerns about Kerry's heroism in combat. I want the article to come from the position that the SBVT campaign was not in good faith and that its claims were not founded in fact. Therefore, this RfC is exactly in line with your complaints about the article, and it is remiss of you to refuse involvement. Settling this RfC will settle whether we say "critics" describe the SBVT attack as a smear, or whether scholars (and therefore Wikipedia) describe it as a smear. I expect that collateral issues regarding the SBVT attack will be affected by this RfC such as whether the SBVT campaign was discredited, and whether the SBVT charges were unsubstantiated. I would suggest taking part in the process. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

...it is remiss of you to refuse involvement..."

On the contrary. It would be derelict of me to lend whatever sense of credibility my participation here might bestow upon this patently biased RfC. The discussion continues above. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you both. I agree with DGG, this whole article needs cleaning. Binksternet, just because you think your bias is correct doesn't mean we need to introduce it to the article. What happened needs to be presented, without bias or malice aforethought. The reader needs to be allowed to see and understand the facts of the case and make up there own mind. Jake, this also means your bias is out as well. Facts only. Padillah (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jake, this also means your bias is out as well. Facts only.

An observation with which I fully concur and about which I intend to demonstrate. Perhaps you might care to contribute your observations on the question I raised above. Under WP:NPOV, is the appellation "smear" a discernible and objective "fact" or is it a subjective "opinion". JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. And a tidy up is a good idea, but the facts are pretty clear as per the sources. --Snowded ^TALK 08:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support The article should reflect reliable sources which state the obvious: swiftboating is a smear. I haven't examined the article recently, but the clean-up proposed by DGG seems desirable although the details may be tricky as it would be undue to simply report the claims by the two sides since I think all claims by the SBVT have been thoroughly discredited by highly reliable sources, including such well known "Democrats" as McCain. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• That is a very clear and sober response. I strongly agree with the above comments of DGG, though I would say the repetitive phrasing and use of quotations in this article represents more than poor wording choices. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support The accuracy of the statement is perfectly clear to everyone except to those with an ideological stake in it not being clear. Gamaliel (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Reliable sources for assertion of fact in Wikipedia's Voice, defined as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, have been presented and cited. The same can not be said of sources refuting this assertion of fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The overwhelming majority of independent reliable sources, both on the right and the left, characterize the campaign as a smear campaign. This is a verifiable fact, and not merely a matter of opinion. Calling the campaign a "smear campaign" in WP's voice is fully justified. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• State as Opinion as that is what "characterize" pretty much means. Collect (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Because that is how it is described in reliable sources. The people conducting the campaign either knew or should have known that there claims were false and their intentions were to influence an election. TFD (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Saying in Wikipedia's voice that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a "political smear campaign" against John Kerry is about as clearcut a violation of WP:NPOV as I have ever seen. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support with DGG's suggested improvements to phrasing. The idea at this late date that this was not a smear campaign is frankly a fringe theory with nothing to support it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is the second RFC I've received on this article, although the second one may be for the RFC below. There seem to be ownership issues with this article, evidenced by a determination to disregard an overwhelming consensus by reliable sources that the SBVT conducted a deliberate smear campaign. Miniapolis (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The POV could be removed easily by rewriting that sentence "Since the campaign, which has been called a political smear campaign..." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested wording implies opinion, and thus would violate WP:YESPOV: Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Your wording actually injects the Point of View that "political smear campaign" is not a factual description, but that the campaign has been merely "called" that. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic to make fun of people who might actually hold that view. Of course, anyone with the ability to step back from a polarizing situation can realize that the assertion is anything but uncontested--the only undisputed fact is that the claim was made, not that it was true. The very existence of this discussion is evidence of the fact that there is disagreement about the terminology. You're not actually serious, though, are you? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Xenophrenic's assertion that Gary's suggested wording implies opinion where there is fact. YESPOV strives to prevent this kind of charade. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended; just updating you on the present state of the discussions. Ample reliable sourcing that meets Wikipedia's criteria for assertion of fact conveys that the SBVT campaign meets the definition of a smear campaign. Zero similarly reliable sources have been provided to date asserting otherwise, nor have reliable sources been provided contesting the findings and conclusions that we do have. (Note: Wikipedians disagreeing with other Wikipedians, and Wikipedians disagreeing with reliable sources ≠ "contested". We're looking for reliably sourced information that contradicts, refutes or updates other equally reliably sourced information.) I'm uninvolved in the "polarizing situation", and have no first-hand knowledge of any aspect of it -- I'm just going 100% on what reliable sources have conveyed to me thus far. You speak as if privy to information of which I should be aware but am not; could I impose upon you to make that reliably sourced information available to us for review? It would be extremely helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To Set The Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry by Swett and Ziegler discusses the campaign as an effort to clear the air or set the record straight, and itclearly disagrees with the "smear" terminology. Therefore, the term is contested and must be identified as a claim rather than a fact. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

...itclearly disagrees with the "smear" terminology.

Because Scott Swett is a principal in the SBVT campaign, I had purposefully avoided citing To Set The Record Straight in the NPOV and "Smear" RfC as evidencing another voice disputing the "smear campaign" characterization and opted, instead, for third-party WP:RS sourcing clearly evidencing this difference in "opinion". It can be noted, however, that Swett's book is cited extensively in project notes for a proposed book, The Truth Wars, by UNC Professor of Sociology Anthony Oberschall. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To Set The Record Straight is self-published and unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To Set The Record Straight is written by SBVT about SBVT, and is therefore WP:NOTRELIABLE for assertion of fact. It is indeed cited by the afore mentioned professor emeritus primarily as a source of attributed quotes by those SBVT principals, much as Wikipedia would cite a published opinion piece by John Smith for a quote by John Smith. I find it interesting that Oberschall, even after having read the TSTRS book, asserts that SBVT decided to discredit Kerry's military service and antiwar activities (see definition of Smear campaign) and "just kept repeating the same charges over and over again, regardless of whether the charges had been discredited" -- and thus concluding, "John Kerry lost the contest with SBVT in the court of public opinion, even though he would have won in a court of law." Xenophrenic (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta Comments

• The text of this RfC, as currently composed, offers suggested language whose adherence to and legitimacy under WP:NPOV policy is currently the subject of an active "POV Section" dispute with an associated (and hopefully conclusive) superior RfC. This RfC, therefore, presumes, IMHO both erroneously and prematurely, the WP:NPOV legitimacy of the very question it poses. Its WP legitimacy will be predicated upon the resolution of a much more fundamental WP:NPOV issue to be rendered in an uninvolved administrative closure of a superior RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Baloney. This RfC is as clear as day. The problem with it is that it is establishing a consensus which is not one favored by you. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • A "consensus" of support, or even the solicitation of support, for an edit that is the subject of an ongoing and as yet unresolved POV dispute cannot be considered legitimate until that overriding issue is resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • For goodness sake, you do not have the right to determine how the matter is to be discussed; your view of POV resolution is idiosyncratic at best. The RfC above is very clear and editors are more than capable of forming their own opinion when they respond to it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 29 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.

Unnecessary, tangential paragraph

I've moved the following paragraph here from the article. What started as a single unnecessary sentence has grown into a playground where the whole SBVT ad campaign debate is being rehashed. None of it belongs in this article. Take it to the SBVT article, or a Kerry medal controversy article or something, and have fun with it there. This article is about a single word - "swiftboating"; it's not about mirroring content from other articles.

In a FactCheck.org analysis of the first of four SBVT TV attack ads, former Swift Boat veterans funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas claimed that Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts. The analysis summary stated that "the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others 'in the face of enemy fire' during the same incident." FactCheck also noted, "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." Judicial Watch had requested that the Navy open an investigation of Kerry's combat medals, as well as his subsequent antiwar activities. The Navy Inspector General stated, "Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards," and that he saw no reason for a full-scale probe. The Navy Inspector General concluded that there was no justification for looking further into the decisions to award the medals or the anti-war activities, and stated, "Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place. Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter.

Xenophrenic (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not make clear that the unnecessary, tangential and excessively long paragraph you quote is your own concoction. The paragraph you actually deleted was:

FactCheck.org analysed the first SBVT TV ad, in which former Swift Boat veterans claimed that Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts. The article noted that "the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records". Comparing the SBVT ad with one by the Kerry campaign, FactCheck also noted, "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." Later, the Navy Inspector General, in a review of Kerry's combat medals, said "Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable..." Nevertheless, the "unsubstantiated" charges against Kerry by the SVPT gave rise to the term "swiftboating" as a synonym for what The New York Times has described as "the nastiest of campaign smears".

I added the context and excised portions of the quotes that you (I'll exercise 'good faith' here) inadvertantly left out, which substantially changed what was being conveyed. Could you point out the "unnecessary" or "tangential" text that was added, so that I may review it? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've observed before that the assertion that the SBVT actually, factually, executed a smear campaign is unnecessary to the definition. I also observed that material already in the article gave the lie to that assertion. If you remove the latter corrective there is no choice but to remove the former falsehood without further delay. Andyvphil (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've observed...

I also observed...

That's fine, but until your observations are published in sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, they do not help to advance the discussion here. Until then, we must rely on existing reliable sources -- and we must convey what they say. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

References

The lead and the "origins" sections are POV messes

The lead and the "origins" sections are POV messes. They don't even come near to summarizing what is in the article. (the "Origins" section is also a summary section) Instead they are just parroting the views of one side of the controversy regarding this term and the SBVT campaign. The latter is grossly mis-characterized. The core complaint of SBVT was Kerry's behavior after he returned from service. That was criticism of undisputed behavior, not something that has been "discredited" or legitimately defined as a "smear" campaign. North8000 (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does the term "swiftboating" come from?

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 discussion is that the article should say that the term comes from Democrats. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the article say that the term "swiftboating" comes from Democrats, or from the Left, or none of these? Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• "Democrats". That the Democrats are the Left, then or now, is a matter of judgment. But that the Democrats used it first is a rather obvious matter of fact, so obvious it need just be mentioned. I think it is in the process of becoming more general, but that's hard to determine. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I agree with DGG. That is what the sources cited previously state. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

When I looked for "first use" a year ago I couldn't find anything so I'm more sure what we can say here. --Snowded ^TALK 08:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I doubt that a reliable source will be found that identifies the source of the term. It's often the case with a neologism like this that a few people independently come up with similar terms, and one variation comes to dominate public discussion. While it's likely that the term "comes from Democrats", it is also likely that it was invented by a journalist with no known political leaning (and was then enthusiastically adopted by Democrats). One of the refs (BBC Glossary: US elections) says "Swift-boating: The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths." However that is just a quick overview for BBC readers, and cannot be regarded as a reliable authority on the origin of the term. If a reliable source identifies the origin, of course the article should include that, but it would be misleading for the article to suggest that swiftboating is a term "used by Democrats" because non-Democrat reliable sources also use that term (example: '"Swift boat" has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears' [1]). Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with this analysis. The term likely was used simultaneously by unaligned journalists rather than just Democratic Party ones. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The references cited say otherwise. Here they are again:

"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

This is now the third time I have placed these sources on this discussion page, and yet those editors that do not wish to make any change in the wording of the article still seem to be unaware of them. I find that very odd, and am hard pressed to explain it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Third time? Then this must be the third time you get asked to please propose your new text for the article, so that we may review and discuss it. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is, and also the third time answered.

We could say that Swiftboating is a term created by Democrats to describe the campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to undermine the presidential campaign of John Kerry.

Placed in the article, the opening paragraph could read like this:

The word swiftboating is an American neologism created by Democrats to describe the campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to undermine the presidential campaign of John Kerry. It is pejorative, inferring an unfair or untrue political attack. The term has entered the general public vernacular and has come to mean any smear campaign or campaign intended to undermine a candidate.

Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, advocates for a point of view rarely engage in the discussion (by considering what was said, and responding appropriately)—instead, we just see repetitions of a core statement. Just above, I explained about the BBC glossary, and why "created by Democrats" is totally inappropriate because no one knows who created the term. I also explained that unduly emphasizing ""used by Democrats" would be misleading. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I assumed since you essentially agreed that nothing further was required. I can see now that I must endeavor to make it perfectly clear why the statement of yours above argues for a change. You state "While it's likely that the term "comes from Democrats", it is also likely that it was invented by a journalist with no known political leaning (and was then enthusiastically adopted by Democrats)." Either way, invented by Democrats or enthusiastically adopted by Democrats, supports essentially the same narrative. You are now suggesting that since it is not known precisely which individual used the term first, it could have been anybody of any persuasion, therefor no information about the use of the term should be conveyed. This is clearly false. One's inability to place the term on a particular individual does not mean there should be no comment on the broad use of the term by Democrats. We are speaking of the origination of the term, so I assume you can conclude on your own why a New York Times article from 2008 would not make a compelling counter-argument.

The BBC source is clear in its identification of Democrats as the party who gave the term its broad use. Likewise the LA Times piece. You suggest that the BBC in this instance should not be considered reliable enough to support such a statement, you have no response on the LA Times piece, you suggest no other group or party as a likely candidate for the origination, nor do you provide any references that would support some alternative theory to the origination of the term. Is that correct? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Re the proposed text. We are talking about a neologism here and they emerge. The BBC reference is a glossary of terms used in the election, in that context "given by ..." does not mean created by. Its also one paragraph not a considered article. --Snowded ^TALK 05:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are speaking of a neologism. The emergence of the term is the thing that we are speaking of here. Excellent. In this case the word emerged in a great hurry. In fact, the word was a part of a political argument, and its creation had a purpose. The article as it now stands ignores this important history of the word. The phrase “given by” in the BBC text confers not only origination, but ownership. The BBC source is interesting as it is a reference currently cited by the editors and which no one had a problem with, until now. It is not the only source that places the word at the footsteps of the Democrats, rather it is one of several. For your edification, here is another to go with those already cited above:

Democratic candidates and their partisans in the blogosphere use this word to mean smearing their candidates for public office with lies and innuendo. (Henry P. Wickham, Jr. April 20, 2008 The American Thinker) http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/redefining_swiftboating_and_re.html

Almost as compelling as the evidence that shows the derivation to have been from Democrats is the lack of evidence of any competing claim to origination. Nothing has been offered by any of the editors that would like to avoid mentioning the history of the term. Taken together, there is little choice but to amend the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC Glossary confers origination and ownership? No, it certainly does not. It does not indicate origination or ownership. 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". Let's keep this factual, please.

When pressed for reliable sources to refute the existing reliable sources of factual assertion, Jake offers an opinion piece that cites the book by the SBVT website operator as it's proof. Now you, when similarily pressed, offer an opinion piece that cites the book by the SBVT website operator as proof. Based on that, you say there is little choice to amend the article? Good one. Please read: WP:NOTRELIABLE, then finally provide the requested reliable sources supporting your assertions. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources have been provided to support my position. None have been provided with a contrary view. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Try reading what other editors have said about your "sources" and respond to those arguments please. And per the comment below be aware than canvassing is not permitted on wikipedia, it can get you blocked and/or topic banned. --Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read their comments and do not find them compelling. You seem to suggest that there is no evidence to suggest that the phrase originated from the left, or Democrats specifically. Evidence provided you claim is unreliable, though the reason why varies. I have yet to see the reason for the dismissal of the LA Times piece. Perhaps I missed it. The point is to try to improve the article. I do not see any interest in that goal among the four of you that continue to comment here. The only editor here not previously a part of the discussion is this DGG, whom JakeInJoisey seems to have invited. If I have made an error than you are free to report me, but that does not improve the article nor does it help your position. Throughout I would say the four of you have been rather testy, condescending and argumentative. This is fine by me, but it does make it seem odd to see you now turn and play the victim. Again, you are welcome to report whatever infraction you have found me guilty of. Certainly, the whole of the discussion and comments should be reviewed. There is nothing here I feel concerned about. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your judgement of what is or is not compelling doesn't count, you have to counter the arguments made. The LA Times piece says that the Democrats have come to use the term and that is about it. I can't see how it supports an NPOV label, it would support a statement that the issue was controversial, but that is not disputed. You have canvassed here and here but you have now been warned. Please stop it or yes it will be reported. Whether they involve themselves or not is not relevant. --Snowded ^TALK 07:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The same should can said of your judgment. A case has been made, you have failed to refute it. We are going in circles here. If you have anything new to offer I would be happy to review it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and would you mind not WP:CANVASSING editors who have previously pushed similar pov memes to join in? Thanks again, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

...the existing reliable sources of factual assertion...

Facts not in evidence. Oh, it's quite "factual", alright, that smear "assertions" have been offered and that is a stipulation easily made. But are they "assertions of opinion" or "assertions of fact"? There's the rub...and the first question to be resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered above, and never refuted: assertion of fact. Next question? Since we are lacking a legitimate concern supporting the NPOV tag, I see no reason for it to stay on the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Democrats (qualified) - As the only option available, though '"Something Else"' would be my option of choice had I been afforded the choice. Assuming that "comes from" refers to employment of the assertion as identified in WP:RS sourcing, "Democrats" are specified in three of those sources. That's not to suggest, however, that the article (based solely on those 3 sources) could legitimately state or imply that it is ONLY "Democrats" who employ the appellation since it has assuredly been used, albeit perhaps rarely, by someone other than a "Democrat". For the purposes of this article, "...employed predominantly by those critical of the SVPT campaign" would be, IMHO, a legitimate and NPOV presentation of this content. All that being said, if by "comes from" you are referring specifically to the "genesis" of the eponym (and I believe it IS an "eponym" based upon some recent education in that regard), I believe that "those critical of the SVPT campaign" is about as specific as one can (or needs to) get as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Those opposed to it is what would be correct. Not all Democrats used the term "smear" and thus to ascribe it to Democrats qua Democrats is wrong. It was, and remains, a statement of opinion, and thus per WP policy should be so ascribed tothose holding that opinion, and cied to them. Collect (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Leave it out. Ascribing the word "swiftboating" to either the Democrats or the left introduces a political POV and (as stated above), there's no consensus of RS as to its origin. Miniapolis (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The RfC text is vague in its use of the phrase "comes from" and, therefore, will elicit responses based upon whatever interpretation an individual attributes to it. "Comes from" can be legitimately interpreted as referring to either "genesis" or "use". JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:50, 30 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.

Citation "quote" parameter

It is my understanding that the purpose of the "quote" parameter within citation templates is to facilitate locating the citation source should a link fail, not to cherry-pick text one might deem relevant to the text cited or that might support a particular POV. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your understanding. Here is the text from the template documentation page: "quote: Relevant text quoted from the source." FurrySings (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference...and education. My recollection was from quite some time ago involving resolution of a dispute (I do not recall being a party to) as to appropriate text and length of text to be incorporated into a citation. Since that experience, I've generally employed a methodology of citing a minimal amount of the first sentence in constructing NPOV citations. I'm not sure that my erroneous understanding of the rationale isn't a more prudent approach, but I'll now approach this from a new perspective. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The quote parameter can help in a number of ways. One of them is to supply relevant text. I think that it is misused if made to hold a quote that does not meet Wikipedia standards for neutral tone. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swiftboating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsweek.com/id/55728/output/print

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Discredited?

The notion that the ads against Kerry have been, according to this entry, "discredited", is total garbage. The claims dealing with whether Kerry actually earned his medals ended up being secondary to the attacks on his anti-war activities after his three month tour in Vietnam. That Kerry threw away his medals at a war protest, compared American soldiers to Genghis Khan and asserted US troops were routinely committing war crimes are actions that are a matter of public record and are absolutely indisputable. Kerry's political career arose from these anti-war activities. None of the Swiftboat claims regarding these activities have been "discredited" and simply making a blanket statement that all the ads are untrue, which is what is being done in this entry, is pure bullshit. This entry is insanely one-sided nonsense. 74.134.145.218 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Would have to agree with that assessment. This article could be much improved. Plot Spoiler (talk)

It's not even close to an objective fact that the campaign of SBVT was 'discredited' as the article claims. (McQ. "REDEFINING "SWIFTBOATING"". quando.net. http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=8366. Retrieved 18 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)) This shows the pervasive leftist bias of many articles dealing with contentious issues in American politics. There is not a good faith effort to present the controversy (or term) with NPV, rather there is a concerted effort to shape the article into a pointed attack on the conservative viewpoint. This article is an example of that, as is the article on "Death Panels". Attempts to rectify these results in leftists using their institutional power at Wikipedia to fix the debate into support of leftist orthodoxy.

It is unfortunate because it makes Wikipedia much less useful, that it can not even permit discussion of one side of a huge debate. According to Wiki editor "death panels" are a myth, an "swift boating" is discredited. No alternate views will be permitted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The political view taken by the left is pushed forward in the article, that is clear to see, but that is the point of view taken by the preponderance of the media. To present an alternative you would have to have reliable sources that could be used to defend such a position. Some exist, (for example the LA Times) and some effort has been previously made to include them, but the group of editors that tend to control the page dismissed them. Even sources used in the article to defend a position they approve, such as the BBC Glossary of US Political Terms, is rejected when it is pointed out the same source also asserts a point of which they do not approve. The problem with the editors being inflexible is that the article itself is reduced to a political tract, and the credibility of wikipedia as a whole is called into question. I don't like the phrasing in the article as it distorts the reality and totally mis-characterizes the veterans involved, but the bottom line is in order to change the article you would have to find a number of "reliable sources" supporting the SBVT position from a media which itself is partisan and which went out of its way to attempt to marginalize the Swifties and the POWs. It's a tall order. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the article is labeled 'Controversial' the Origin section of the article really needs a reference to what allegations were made and how they were discredited.
I'm no Wikipedia contributor, but it seems to me that this article does not live up to the usual standard of not making assertions without specific references.
(e.g. "many people think that A is unfounded". What people? And how do they think it's unfounded?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.149.164 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No. This article is about the word: Swiftboating. If you want detailed information about the group that made the allegations, what allegations were made, and the controversy generated when their claims were debunked and the members revealed as political hacks, then you'll need to click on the links to those articles for that information. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)