Talk:Fulbright Hearings

message: Please help flesh out the article - see Google Search Rex071404   05:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help please 

message: What happened to the Kerry quote and other content?
Rex071404   05:44, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It now appears that while this article is being groomed by Neutrality, the above text is on the bench waiting to be re-inserted again in a few minutes. I hope this is the case and I will check back later on that. Rex071404   05:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it a "rhetorical question".  I think he would've been happy to get an answer.  In any event, giving the text of the question is enough to let the reader decide whether it was rhetorical, or outright grandstanding, or a vivid and effective way to make his point.  With that change, if there's to be an article on this event, I have no objection to the inclusion of the first paragraph.  The second paragraph shouldn't be included unless we make clear the basis of Kerry's testimony, as we do in the John Kerry article ("Kerry summarized the statements of participants who said they had seen such acts, but he did not claim to have seen them himself").  My bigger question is whether a single hearing merits an article.  It's of interest now only because Kerry is running for President.  The information relevant to that aspect of it is given elsewhere.  Having a separate article to impart such additional details as the starting time of the hearing seems very dubious to me. JamesMLane 06:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Most of this was written by Neutrality who jumped right in with both feet - he must have found the article himself right after i started it. Personally, I like this much earlier version better. I agree that the Kerry "disclaimer" you want is fair. My goal with this page is to have an available link to point to in case editors are still stuck on the 1971 date inclusion. Rex071404   08:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry quote 

message: I'd like to restore the wiki links section which Neutrality deleted as redundant. Rex071404   21:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fulbright Wiki links 

message: :I think this hearing needs a little bit of context.  Are hearings of a single witness common? Why did they hold this one? Kerry mentions that he didn't have much time to prepare. Was the question of whether or not to hear him a controversial one? Gamaliel  21:41, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interested in Fulbright's background, that's what the Fulbright article is for. Gamaliel  22:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Of course. But not back at what he did in 1956 or what his relationship with Clinton. Gamaliel  22:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, a missing part of the context is what resulted from the hearings.  The intro says that seven bills were pending and provided the background for the hearings.  What were the seven bills and what happened to them.  Mulp 17:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  context 

message: Frankly, I am amazed at the bottom feeding habits of both JamesMLane and Gamaliel in their efforts to once again try to sidetrack reasonable editing efforts of mine.
Think about this:
# I started 1971 Fulbright Senate Vietnam war hearing as an article
# Neutrality quickly came behind me a redirected it to Fulbright Hearing
# Neutrality basically hijacked the initial editing of Fulbright and was making so many fast and furious chnages that I stepped back to avoid edit war and edit conflicts
# I stood patiently by, waiting to see what editing would occur here.
# Some time went by with Gamaliel and JamesMLane, basically not nosing in yet.
# Then, all of a sudden, after I make a few measly edits to this article which I started, then Gamaliel and JML start rushing in to inject their domineering brand of choking control. "No Links! Bah!" "Use our verbiage choices only!"
# Suffice it to say, after seeing what Neutrality did in hijacking Fulbright, when I started Stolen Honor Documentary, I was ready for the jackals who swoop in.
# This time I picked a more concise name (Stolen Honor Documentary is a fine name)
# And this time, I wrote the article in toto, prior to posting it.
# So, what are the anti-Rex jackals left with?
# Making a fight about "redirects" and attacking my FoxNews link!
# Hey Gamaliel and JamesMLane, since the two of you are such geniuses, why don't you come up with some new page ideas yourselves, instead of stalking mine and making trouble?!
# As far as I am concerned, both Stolen Honor and Stolen Honor Documentary are acceptable names. But, if Gamaliel and JML demand no-redirects, then I am happy to reverse the original redirect which turned Stolen Honor Documentary into Stolen Honor. 
# In any case, I am not going to just sit back and let those two editors keep following me around this Wiki starting trouble. I am going to defend my edits from the single minded pro-Kerry bias which they keep attempting to inject into each and every Election 2004, Kerry or Bush related article I edit.
Rex071404   00:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, your having started the article gives you zero special privileges.  Zilch.  Nada.  I've reverted your conversion of the Stolen Honor article into a redirect.  As a side issue, your "moving" it by doing a cut-and-paste job would have obscured the edit history from anyone reading the article who didn't know where to go look for it.  That's a disservice to the reader and a problem under the GFDL. JamesMLane 01:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I have edited the link in question to read as Stolen Honor Documentary (do a mouse-over or view the source to see what I have actually done - it looks the same but is not). If JML and Gamaliel won't accept this, then it's clear they are nothing but trouble makers. And if they do accept it, then it's clear they either were incapable or unwilling to offer this solution which I have provided. Rex071404   04:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you like Stolen Honor Documentary, a POV link trying to give the video a patina of objectivity.  My own POV would call for something like Stolen Honor attack video or something else derogatory.  Because there is no reason that either POV should be reflected here, I'm returning the link to its obvious, natural, NPOV form. JamesMLane 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: No, they do not.  According to their website, they call the film Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal. Gamaliel  04:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stolen Honor]] vs. [[Stolen Honor Documentary]] 

message: two-thirds of this article is somewhat selective quotes from kerry from the hearings on day 3.  the entire text of those hearings is on wikisource (linked at bottom of page).  kerry's initial statement is not particularly long anyway, so why is it being repeated in such detail here?  why not just link to the full text? Wolfman 03:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because right after I created this article, Neutrality hijacked it from me with his own massive amounts of edits which kept deleting and overwriting mine - while I was in the middle of editing. Considering how he reverts me wherever possible, I begged off from an edit war so  as to come back to it later, which I am now trying to do. Look at the edit history and talk history if you want confirmation of that. The redundant, verbose quotes of Kerry are from Neutrality . Early on, I had the page looking like this . I only inserted the FoxNews link for balance after the Neutrality hijacking. Rex071404   03:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then.  I like the style of your version better, though I'm sure some useful tweaks have been made to the wording in the meantime.  Such a large portion of his testimony has been quoted, that it seems better to me to direct the reader to the wikisource for that section.  Significant things like the "how do you ask a man" quote should be mentioned here.  But this article is not really in line with policy relegating original sources to wikisource. Wolfman 04:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that the quotations could usefully be pruned but there's no reason to drop the background information about the hearing.  I'll try to make some edits to the larger version, but I don't support the drastic rewrite that Rex implemented two minutes after asking Wolfman's opinion of it. JamesMLane 05:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Rex, just to set the record straight, you deleted considerable information from the article.  The only discussion here was about pruning the quotations, and even that wasn't a general consensus (though I happen to agree with it).  You posted a sandbox version (improperly making the sandbox in the article namespace rather than in your user page, by the way).  Two minutes later you implemented your proposal in the article itself.  Your edit summary stated that I should "please fool around with the sandbox verison [sic]".  Tell me, Rex, why is that your unilateral preference must immediately become the article text, while everyone else is relegated to modifying the sandbox?  How about if we do it the other way around -- that proposed changes are discussed here, possibly with the aid of reference to a sandbox, but that meanwhile the article stays in substantially the form it's been in?  Why is it that you consider yourself perfectly free to delete my inserts before any consensus on the point has been reached here, when you're so vocal in condemning much smaller deletions by other editors?  In short, when will you decide that being in a minority politically, and constantly whining about a cabal, doesn't give you the right to run roughshod over everyone else? JamesMLane 06:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Hold on now, I was arguing that the quotes should be substantially pruned down.  I wasn't signing on to a specific alternative just yet, as my previous comments show.Wolfman 20:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikisource 

message: As I indicated I would, I have added three additional links. I believe they are all germane. Therefore, please discuss them here if you want to delete them, stating your reasons. Please be reminded, it is my view that in its current state, this article needs links to stay balanced. Rex071404   08:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New links added 

message: Stop using copyrighted indexing material from Lexis-Nexis CIS/Index.
: Copyrighted material from Lexis-Nexis CISIndex is not being used.  The annotations and abstracts in the Fulbright Hearing article, while noted in the CIS Index, are also contained, VERBATIM, in the Public Domain compilation of hearing proceedings produced by the Government Printing Office.  I understand your confusion when you see similar text in the CIS Index, but please note that CIS is *NOT* the original source of the abstract summaries being used. -Rob
* CIS NO: 71-S381-18 
* Format of Congressinal Information Service material is shown in User Guide 
* About CIS
::The repeated removal of the entire text of the article, on the basis of alleged copyvio, has included extensive passages that were developed over a period of time by several editors here and that don't appear in the CIS material.  See, for example, this version of the article.  As for the CIS material, it doesn't look to me as if it was anything CIS created.  My recollection of seeing the federal government's publications is that they do include this kind of listing of witnesses.  Nevertheless, I suppose the only way we're going to get off the treadmill of endless revert wars and copyvio claims is for someone to go to a depository library and look at a paper copy of what the federal government generated in 1971. JamesMLane 16:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIS copyright violation 

message: I just came across this article almost by accident, while I was looking for some mention in WP of the earlier Fulbright Hearings, back in 1966-7. Amazingly, there seems to be no mention whatsoever anywhere in Wikipedia - not even in the Fulbright bio article! (Yes, I intend to rectify that situation... ) Wow - what gives??!! I am both stunned and appalled that those hearings have apparently been entirely omitted. 
I see from the talk page for this article that there was some sort of discussion of Fulbright that was removed (correctly) because it went into a number of unrelated issues. But it seems to me that not including some concise historical context/background for the '71 hearings is doing a real disservice to the readers. I have a feeling that the original editors who labored on this article back in 2004-5 no longer have it watchlisted, but I'm hoping that somebody can tell me whether there was ever any reference to those earlier hearings in an older version of the article. 
Cgingold 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier Fulbright Hearings 

message: I was just wondering if we should add an article about Chris Matthews making small mention of these hearings because he referenced them on his show last night while talking about having hearings on Iraq. Let Me Finish... segment JoeMonkeyPotato (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardball with Chris Matthews 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fulbright Hearings. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091206095147/http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp to http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified