Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 1

message: Please comment here before deleting or changing my edits of today.
Rex071404 15:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have made some corrections  08.12.04 

message: Rex justified his deletion of this factual information by writing, 'Leave Marshall link it (though I question it's relevance) but delete name of group due to false implication - no evidence SBVT are "friends" of Bush - too POV)'.  Yes, Marshall has a POV.  For Wikipedia to say that all these SBVT types are friends of Bush who are doing a politically motivated smear job of Kerry would be POV.  It would also be POV for Wikipedia to take the opposite stance and say that they're all genuinely motivated by a search for the "Truth".  The NPOV approach is to report these various views and criticisms impartially.  If we were to suppress Marshall's commentary because there's no evidence that they're "friends" of Bush, we'd also have to refer to the organization simply as SBVT, because there's no evidence that they're actually "for Truth".  Instead, however, we can leave in the full name "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", along with the text of Marshall's satire, because the context (notably, the attribution in each case) makes clear that we're reporting views, not endorsing them. JamesMLane 20:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, it might be appropriate to have a short section of opinion on SBVT — including links to both pro & con views.  As is often pointed out, Wiki does report opinion.  In my view, the original placement of the Marshall line was a little out of context— even though I'm the one who linked it originally.  Earlier, I went ahead and cut the dry remnants of the JM reference along with a Coulter reference.  If people think it would be beneficial, I could add those two back (maybe along with a couple others) under an Opinion heading.Wolfman 21:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I cut Marshall yesterday.  He makes the same point Kerry does, so it was a bit redundant.Wolfman 00:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Josh Marshall

message: SBVT has released a second ad . Anyone want to write this one up? Initial reactions: while it is true that Kerry did say these things, to be fair, the context was his presentation of the findings of the Winter Soldier Investigation. He never claimed to have personal knowledge of any of these atrocities. Whether this was a betrayal depends on your point of view. -khaosworks 07:11, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should give it a week.  There are surely going to be press articles checking facts on this, reactions by Kerry, etc.  So, why not let the dust settle a few days before trying to write it?Wolfman 16:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Ad

message: I'm adding some stuff about William Rood, because it contradicts SBVT claims, and is therefore relevant to this article. -SV 07:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the amount of work done in the write-up, but that level of detail, particularly since it simply reiterates the Chicago Tribune article, is disproportionate and not really needed. Rood's defense of Kerry is already mentioned earlier in the article, and a link is provided to the Tribune article. --khaosworks 08:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree (with both statements)- you might have sought to reintegrate at least some of that material into the article, in the appropriate slot. Or you could have been creative, and moved it to its own article, maybe under the name William Rood. You seem to be relatively new here, and there is a typical tendency for newbies to think statically about articles and article development in general. There is no limit on space; if it merits inclusion, it should be included. Lastly, the article in question belongs to a membership site, and whenever possible we try to link to open alternatives, or use excerpts. Since the material is copyright, we cannot copy it wholesale, but we can quote from it. I would have been more than happy to see a responsible editorial trimming of what I included, but you will find that outright deletionism is not a valid substitute for editorship. Thanks, and nice work on TARDIS BTW.-SV 18:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. We're all just trying to make a better article here, of course. But my basic question is - how does this amount of detail help? What it boils down to is that Rood's account supports Kerry and contradicts the others. The article doesn't go into as much detail (right down to excerpting) from the opposite side. Perhaps you could move the details to its own entry. -khaosworks 18:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have already figured this out on your own, but excerpts can be a good thing, the more explicit the information, the better people can be informed, to better decide for themselves what to think. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my mind there is a distinction between the accounts of officers who were not actually there, as compared to the account of one who actually was. In the context of this extreme disparity in credibility, its quite appropriate to elevate the observation of political motive to the top of the article. -SV 21:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: As a step to restore at least some of the information, I've attempted to summarize the essential points in Rood's account that responds to specific SBVT charges. -khaosworks 19:08, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rood 

message: I'm a little concerned that we're cutting too much.  We are getting bogged down in detail, but I think it's important that we document fully the claims of this group.  In other articles I've said that we're under no obligation to examine every charge and counter charge, and this is true.  However, this is an article about a group whose entire existence is dedicated to making charges, and even if they are easily dismissed on factual grounds, I think it's important that we note that. Gamaliel 18:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree, but we should also keep in mind that encyclopedia articles are not designed to be completely comprehensive, we should keep to the essentials, and external references are also supposed to be used. We should try to keep a happy median between the two extremes. What should be gone into detail is evidence that is not simply a he-said-he-said (which can go on forever), but stuff that can help us examine the veracity of such claims. -khaosworks 18:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  I don't think we really disagree on any of this, it's just a matter of nitpicking on where we draw the line. Gamaliel 20:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Its also important to note that wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia; while we want to limit article length to reasonable levels, there is no reason to seek the omission of material, as it can all be categorised under appropriate subordinate articles. To branch into new articles is more useful than detrimental, and the resistance by some who seek to omit information, under pretenses of preserving space, are more detrimental and useful. See also m:Academic Standards Disease -SV 21:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of space.  Space is cheap.  It's a matter of the reader being able to wade through information.  I agree that important information should be included.  That's what good editors do; they highlight the important facts by weeding out extraneous detail to produce a readable whole.  Reporting every little undocumented and unsupported blow in an argument of this complexity is just too much. That said, I absolutely agree with you that Rood's eyewitness testimony deserves some space, especially since none of the critics were eyewitnesses.Wolfman 22:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add: once again, I don't disagree. My intent in removing the rather large number of excerpts was not for reasons of space, but of relevance and to a certain extent balance. That being said, I have been persuaded that Rood's account deserves more going into, and have attempted to do so by editing and condensing it down to the salient points without going into so much detail that we are in danger of losing the wood for the trees. -khaosworks 22:53, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  cutting too much? 

message: (Oregon) Alfred French, 58, a senior deputy district attorney, appeared in the recent ad by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and said: "I served with John Kerry. . . . He is lying about his record." French also signed a legal affadavit attesting to the claim.
But French, in an interview with The Oregonian newspaper last week, said he was relying on the accounts of three other veterans when he said Kerry lied.
"I was not a witness to these events but my friends were," said French, who was awarded two Bronze Stars during the war. 
... That acknowledgement fueled Monday's protest, where the veterans contended French is unfit to serve as a prosecutor after swearing to facts that he never personally witnessed.
... "Mr. French signed an affidavidt defaming John Kerry's military service and then he admitted that he had no first hand knowledge of what he swore to," Stewart said. "To lie in a sworn affidavit goes beyond political smear, it is cause for this assistant district attorney to resign, and resign now." .  
:To be fair, what he said is not technically a lie unless he knows himself that it is untrue. To assert a fact from secondhand sources simply means that his assertions are hearsay and (generally) worthless in an evidentiary sense. Swearing to an affidavit is usually phrased as attesting that the contents are true to to best of one's knowledge. If he had said, for example, that "Kerry is telling the truth about his record," and relying for that assertion on the same three other veterans, it would be the same. -khaosworks 07:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ABCNews link , seems to have sworn to it being "within my personal knowledge".  Khaosworks, you've got some professional background here, it's certainly misleading, but would that phrase legally rule out secondhand material?Wolfman 23:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Yes. Personal knowledge means first hand. If that's not true, that's perjurious -khaosworks 00:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: [Added] I just read the article - should have done that. The swearing also includes personal "belief." That covers him. -khaosworks 00:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Sure, just to be clear those are not my words; it's a quote.  My main point is that the ad features men speaking secondhand, but clearly giving the impression it's firsthand information.  I still don't think the second ad is ripe for writing yet, but just put the link & info here for future reference. Wolfman 07:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondhand testimony in ad

message: I was just about to make the change Wolfman did.  We can (and do) say that Thurlow's current position is inconsistent with his medal citation.  It's POV to say that his position is refuted by the citation, though.  The citation is an official record but it could still be wrong.  That Thurlow now (30+ years later) claims for the first time that it is indeed wrong goes to his credibility but it's for the reader to weigh the facts. JamesMLane 16:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Supposed "refutation" of Thurlow

message: Recently added to the "Bronze Star" section --
"Later intelligence reports confirm the presence of hostile forces, with six Viet Cong casualties from the incident."
This accurately states a point made in a NYT article (which is appropriately sourced).
Unfortunately, the NYT itself never gives its source for this statement!  Readers are left to track it down themselves (if they can) or take the article at its word.
Well, I didn't do the latter.  And here is what I discovered:  The NYT statement comes from the  Command History for Coastal Division 11, posted on Kerry's campaign site  (you'll find it on page 8 of the pdf):
:March 13, 1969: PCF's 3, 51, 43, 93 and 94 with MSF RF/PF troops conducted SEA LORDS operations in Bay Hop river and Dong Cong canal. A mine detonated under PCF 3 and units were taken under small arms fire several times during the operation. Friendly casualties were 8 USN WIA and 1 MSF KIA. Units destroyed 30 sampans and 5 structures and captured 16 booby trap grenades. Later intelligence reports indicated 1 VC KIA and 5 VC WIA.
Please note that this summary of the day's activities includes events preceding the widely discussed on-river events.  It mentions other personnel the Swift Boats transported in order to conduct "SEA LORDS operations", and includes their activities and injuries, in particular, the death of one, and the destruction (in a raid) of 30 sampans and 5 structures, etc.  So how can the Times skip over all of these statements, and simply assume that the Vietcong mentioned were killed and injured by fire from the Swift Boats and not in the SEA LORDS raid?
Practical issue for this article -- the document above is showing up on some blogs, but no regular "news sources" are paying any attention to it, so how do we handle it?  
It seems we should  we can at least add the summary itself and the link to it.  But how best to point out that the summary's reference to 'how' the Vietcong were killed and injured that day is not as straightforward as the Times implies. BruceJohnson 18:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT misreading?  how to handle ?