: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.