Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 7

message: For those who are interested, the bit about the 5 skippers was from this Washington Post story, It says, in part:
 Two other Swift boat skippers who were direct participants in the March 13, 1969, mine explosion on the Bay Hap, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire." A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later.  
This story (and another good Washington Post article) are already listed at bottom of the page. Noel 18:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 5 Skippers

message: Soon after the page was unprotected, Rex edited the introductory section to delete the information about Vietnam veterans disputing the charges, for which he substituted the much blander "do not support" (which would be accurate if they had never said anything at all, or said they didn't remember what happened).  There is no basis for slanting the intro in SBVT's favor this way.  In fact, there'd be some justification for quoting the "lies" type language right up front. JamesMLane 21:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, both Sannse and I are keeping an eye on the page, so if things get too heated and/or an edit-war begins, it will be protected again. May I suggest that any change other than simple addition of data (e.g. "X said Y" or "document X says Z") be run past here first to see how people take it? I will review the changes to the intro paragraph and see if the changes meet NPOV. Noel 23:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree - I am being very careful and I take issue with JML's personal attacks. Also, what JML fails to mention is that he made the 1st edits to that section today, not me.  Rex071404   22:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chill out, OK? Noel 23:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, if I explain on the Talk page why there are problems with a particular suggested wording, that isn't a personal attack on the author.  You cannot immunize your edits from criticism just by crying "personal attack".  For example, I said that you had deleted certain information.  If you want to discuss the subject constructively, drop the claim that this is a personal attack and explain why you think the information should be deleted. JamesMLane 23:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again

message: it appears that the issue the page went to protection over has been resolved.  are there any further specific objections supporting the npov tag?  Wolfman 07:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: On the npov tag, no one has yet raised objections in response to my query yesterday. So, I am removing the tag.  If someone comes along with new specific objections, just list them here and re-instate the tag. Wolfman 23:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: protection/npov resolved?

message: The Navy has finally weighed in on the medal issue -- in Kerry's favor.  I'm not sure exactly where to insert this given the present structure of the article.  The report addresses all the medals, but there is at present no general discussion of the medals, just a section on each.  I propose adding an introductory paragraph under 'Allegations' stating that the medals are challenged.  We could reference the IG report there once, rather than mentioning it 3 or 4 times below.
The Navy's chief investigator concluded Friday that procedures were followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy memo.
Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group. The group has also asked for the release of additional records documenting the Democratic presidential candidate's military service.
...
"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed," Route wrote in the memo sent Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England.
"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." Wolfman 15:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: in the words of Stewie Griffin... "Victory is mine!!!" (yes that comment was made towards shaping this article, i have to figure out how first) --kizzle 16:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For the moment, I've just added a new major section as the easiest quick fix.  But, I'm open to other suggestions. Wolfman 17:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: minor point, as far as I know, the Admiral did not use that phrase - the reporter quoting the Admiral did.  the direct quotes refer to "medals". Wolfman 21:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Link is in the article (and in 1st sentence of section).  At any rate, isn't your point moot now?  The Inspector General of the US Navy just investigated and ruled that each of these medals (supposedly awarded for his combat activities) were in fact properly awarded.  Doesn't that simply re-emphasize their status as combat medals?  But whatever, I don't personally care whether they are called 'combat medals' or simply 'medals'. Wolfman 00:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wolfman, did the report explain why there were multiple (and slightly different) citations for the Silver Star?  As for Rex's saying that we should now all open our minds, I have always tried to be as open as possible to good ideas, from everyone participating.  In this instance, I see no merit to the argument that the Admiral's choice of one phrase "proves" that all other phrases are unacceptable.  By that logic, we couldn't even call these medals medals.  They were "awards".  That would be silly, of course -- they were medals, they were combat medals, they were Vietnam-era military service awards, and I think I've seen one of Kerry's critics refer to them as "hardware".  The phrase "Vietnam-era military service awards" is military jargon along the lines of "personnel entrenching implement", but we can call a spade a spade.  The single issue most prominently raised by SBVT is whether anyone was firing at Kerry at critical moments.  The intro can't detail all of SBVT's charges, but I think it's more informative to the reader to put the reference to "combat" up front.  As for "1971", I think that "early 1970s" is better but it doesn't make much difference.  JamesMLane 00:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The story doesn't mention anything about the SS multiple cites.  But, I did see a link somewhere today that mentioned one of Judicial Watch's complaints was that only the SecNavy (& not Zumwalt) had the authority to issue a citation.  That probably accounts for the IG wording "properly delegated authority". (I suspect Judicial Watch has put their original request on the web.)  I did also find a copy of the IG's letter to Judicial Watch — it's only trivially different than what's quoted in the text. Wolfman 01:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Inspector General report on medals

message: The numerous opinion & news links at the bottom of the page are somewhat arbitrary, and not particularly helpful.  I propose replacing the existing sections with a reference list of links to news & opinion articles actually used in the article as citations.  This provides some measure of which stories & op-eds are important.  Then, listing the references again at the end of the article give the reader an overview of the chronology and scope of the references.  To me, this would provide a much more rational basis for what gets included in the external links section.Wolfman 01:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought that the "External links" section should not include repetitions of links that were embedded in the article text.  As for all the links that are there now, I think a lot of it is unnecessary, but some people might want to look at them during the campaign.  Why don't we wait and prune the list after the election? JamesMLane 04:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: my thinking was originally to eliminate the sections entirely, i don't see a whole lot of value added.  if they stories have important non-redundant information, shouldn't they be cited in the article.  if important stories aren't cited, doesn't that mean we need to add that info to the article instead of tacking on a link at the end? Wolfman 05:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because this is a topic of current interest, there's value in making available a lot of detail that no one will care about in five weeks.  I just think the pruning you suggest will be easier to effect after the election. JamesMLane 05:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. will revisit issue later. Wolfman 15:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal on External Links Section

message: Have removed Allegations & InspGen section here, as they are now in JKMSC.  Also, added links to JKMSC.  This has been discussed in both Talk:John Kerry and Talk:Texans for Truth. Wolfman 02:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[John Kerry military service controversy]] 

message: SBVT has challenged the legitimacy of some of Kerry's combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly what it calls the false "war crimes" charges in Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress.
:Is the italicized phrase accurate?  And what is the "it calls" supposed to modify -- false, false war crimes, false war crimes charges?  I don't know that they've actually challenged his testimony per se, though they have said it "demoralized and betrayed" the troops and POW's.  Ed Poor changed the phrasing to this with a comment about not tip-toeing.  That's fine, but I want to be sure the new phrasing is correct and clear.  Anyone got better info about SBVT's postition?  Wolfman 04:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Note left on Ed Poor's Talk page: Would you mind responding to my Oct 21 comment re: your edit on Talk:SBVT?  I'm not sure I agree with your wording and your perspective would be helpful.  It seems to me that SBVT is broadly critizing the anti-war activities, which is the wording I put in.  The specific mention of the 1971 testimony is covered in the television ads section.  Further, I'm not sure whether the main criticism of the 1971 testimony is that it was "false", or rather that it was a demoralizing betrayal (a charge I have seen made).  In fact, his testimony per se is demonstrably true, as he was reporting the (recorded) charges made during the Winter Soldier Investigation, not making the charges himself.  So, your wording leaves it quite unclear whether SBVT is alleging that Kerry himself lied, or that the testimony he was reporting was itself false.  I haven't seen either allegation made, but they might very well have done so.  Looking forward to your reply.  Thanks.Wolfman 16:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Your comment is confusing. I'm not sure what sort of a reply you're looking for. I'm just trying to characterize the swifties. They don't like what Kerry said about Vietnam combat soldiers. Now, whether they are justified in their criticism of Kerry remarks is another story. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironic.  My comment is essentially that your writeup is itself confusing.  I know they don't like what he said.  But that's not what you wrote.  Did they say he was lying, did they say the charges he truthfully recounted were themselves false, did they just not like the true charges to be aired?  Your writeup leaves at least the 1st 2 of those quite ambiguous.  And I've only seen evidence of the last.  I'll take a stab at fixing it up, and you can edit it from there if you like. Wolfman 02:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I meant to write that SB veterans formed their group to protest two things about Kerry: (1) his claim that US soldiers routinely committed war crimes, and (2) that he got medals for minor injuries. I still don't understand your "ironic" comment. Are you teasing me, or what? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not at all meant to be teasing.  The irony is that my comment attempting to point out a confusion was confusing itself.  Wolfman 19:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: formed to counter what they call Kerry's "phony war crimes charges" and "exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam".
Okay? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You understand my point.  I still don't like "what they call Kerry's 'phony war crimes charges'" because it still leaves the precise source of dislike unspecific.  A reader could easily infer that SBVT charges that Kerry himself lied; if SBVT is not charging this, we shouldn't leave the implication hanging.  I prefer supplementing the current phrasing (which explains the context) with a direct quote from SBVT about the testimony. Wolfman 19:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this quote from the SBVT web site in the last sentence of the introducution: "Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward." Wolfman 01:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wolfman, I was going to correct your misquotation, thinking you had added the superfluous "s" to turn "compel" into "compels", but I checked the source and saw that you quoted them accurately.  Other readers may jump to the same conclusion I did, though.  If the topic weren't so politically charged I'd just routinely put a "[sic]" after the grammatically incorrect "compels".  Does anyone think that would be biased? JamesMLane 02:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would routinely add sic, the only bias would be if you didn't in this case.  I agree that the tag is standard and appropriate. Wolfman 03:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: war crimes charge

message: Okay, I did some googling. I think I can guess what's so confusing:
* In 1971, Kerry quoted other veterans as having admitted to war crimes such as rape, cutting off ears, etc.
* Swift boat veternas are citing Kerry as having accused those veterans of the war crimes.
The difference is: in 1971, Kerry testified that others had told him they committed crimes (this is hearsay evidence, of course). Swifties apparently view this as giving hearsay evidence and infer that Kerry himself is accusing the US soldiers. Kerry defenders are saying, "Oh, no, he's just passing on what they said."
I think the intro paragraph should say:
:formed to counter what they call Kerry's "phony war crimes charges" and "exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam".
Okay? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You understand my point.  I still don't like "what they call Kerry's 'phony war crimes charges'" because it still leaves the precise source of dislike unspecific.  A reader could easily infer that SBVT charges that Kerry himself lied; if SBVT is not charging this, we shouldn't leave the implication hanging.  I prefer supplementing the current phrasing (which explains the context) with a direct quote from SBVT about the testimony. Wolfman 19:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this quote from the SBVT web site in the last sentence of the introducution: "Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward." Wolfman 01:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wolfman, I was going to correct your misquotation, thinking you had added the superfluous "s" to turn "compel" into "compels", but I checked the source and saw that you quoted them accurately.  Other readers may jump to the same conclusion I did, though.  If the topic weren't so politically charged I'd just routinely put a "[sic]" after the grammatically incorrect "compels".  Does anyone think that would be biased? JamesMLane 02:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would routinely add sic, the only bias would be if you didn't in this case.  I agree that the tag is standard and appropriate. Wolfman 03:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Precise wording

message: This is in reference to my partial rv of Khaosworks' recent revision.  As I read somewhere in the Wiki help or tutorial page (I can't find the link at the moment), Wiki etiquette encourages the posting of a proposed change of text (for other than minor edits) for a short period of time to allow appropriate comment from other interested parties.  "Minor edits" are described as "generally mean(ing) spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearrangement of text."  IMHO, Khaosworks' edit contained the addition of substantive content (in addition to several minor edits) yet he chose to categorize it as a minor change.  I elected to partially revert the text in that I take issue with the following edit...(in the meantime reserving the right to object to the blatant POV of this entire article...more later)
Original
When pressed on the issue of denouncing the ads, President Bush called for an end to all 527 political ads which would include those produced by the SBVT.
 
Suggested
When pressed on the issue, President Bush did not condemn SBVT specifically, but rather called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, which would include those produced by SBVT.
 
Now, were this a Court of Law, an objection of "leading the witness" might be sustained.  In a football game, "piling on" might be an appropriate penalty.  It was established in the introduction that the SVPT was a "527". Implicit in the statement "President Bush called for an end to all 527 political ads" is the "condemnation" of the SVPT ads. The intent of the revision appears obvious to me...to further highlight and propagandize the allegation of SVPT and Bush 2004 collusion currently under consideration by the FEC.
Let's play fair here.  I'm of the opinion that this entire article is so biased towards a Kerry defense as to make it indistinguishable from a treatise on JohnKerry.com.  I'll invite you to my user page where I've reproduced this entire article and highlighted all pro-Kerry material in bold, pro-SVPT in italics and benign text in normal font. Is this an encyclopedia or a Kerry apologia?  Giving credit where credit is due, I think it's rather obvious that pro-Kerry sentiment got here firstest with the mostest and has fashioned the tenor of this presentation. I commend you on your prescience.  However, I daresay I have multiple links and sources that credibly rebut the majority of those entries, and it's my intent to insert them into this article (at a somewhat leisurely pace) to counterbalance what I believe is an excessive POV pro-Kerry bias. JakeInJoisey 23:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connections with the Bush campaign 

message: In looking again at the introductory section, I realized that other changes were needed. The placement of the quotation of the group's statement gave the impression that it was a revised version that was adopted after the name change and after the involvement of the POWs, which is inaccurate.  That statement was being used earlier.  (See, for example, .)  The detail about Kerry's Senate testimony belongs in the discussion of the second TV ad, where the 1971 testimony is featured.
In 1971, the whole subject of Vietnam was obviously controversial.  To make that clear, I've added the broader context of the controversy, namely that Kerry's testimony criticized U.S. policy. JamesMLane 19:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory section and Senate testimony

message: There've been multiple parodies of SBVT.  The story about Kerry having saved Chic Hecht's life when he was choking after a Republican luncheon prompted "Lunch Room Veterans for Truth" or some such.  The one that's now been added -- Harvard MBAs for Truth -- seems to me to be unfunny and, as I said in my edit summary, not particularly enlightening as to the subject of this article.  Nevertheless, EECEE has restored it.  Do other people see any reason why a reader who's looking for information on SBVT should be directed to this lame site? JamesMLane 13:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that any link should be removed simply because it's a parody.  I'm saying that this particular link adds nothing to the presentation of information about SBVT.  (The links to some of the opinion pieces, pro and con, do at least add something, though whether it's enough to justify retaining them is an open question.)  To my mind, the Strap-On Veterans for Truth site is much funnier, but still not worth linking in this article. JamesMLane 11:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh geeze, that IS funny!  Straight to the Ann Coulter site with that one.  But you do make a good point.  At any rate, I'm hoping the administrators will see my prior suggestion and clean up the dead links.  Whatever they decide is fine with me.  EECEE 05:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parody site

message: I deleted the comment re SBVT's claim that McCain had no basis for his statement because he had no firsthand knowledge of events.  He didn't need first hand knowledge of what happened in Vietnam to claim that he found the ad "dishonorable," and his statement that he found it "dishonest" could just as easily have had to do with the tactics behind the ad.  After all, in the very same statement he said that "the same deal was pulled on [him]" in the 2000 election, which I would take to mean (in his mind) an attack on a candidate's military record by a purportedly independent group.  EECEE 23:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: McCain Statement

message: SBVT has not itself made any public allegation regarding Kerry's discharge as far as I know.
EECEE 04:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Discharge

message: This link does not go to the article:
:*"These Charges Are False ..." August 24, 2004 - editorial of the Los Angeles Times. 
As newspaper links tend to do, it has presumably timed out and been moved to the paid-access archives. Ellsworth 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: Should the term "swift boating" get it's own subhead in the article?  As in, "Left-wing bloggers are trying to stop the swift boating of a politician by right-wing bloggers."  Or is the term too obscure?  I've seen it used on many of the most popular left-wing blogs (though I haven't seen it on the right-wing blogs yet).  Considering the sizes of the audiences the blogs pull in, should the subhead be re-instated? Ryan 16:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Swift Boating

message: We had some discussion before about listing the various parodies of SBVT.  My feeling is still that they don't add anything to the reader's understanding of this subject, although in some cases they might be worth mentioning elsewhere.  I'm inclined to remove the latest addition, but is there any sentiment for keeping parodies? JamesMLane 11:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parodies again

message: Grazon, please proofread your submissions. We shouldn't mention "Kerry" before explaining who John Kerry is. If you read "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, formerly known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), is an organization of American Swift boat founded by officers who wanted revenge against Kerry for his objecting to the Vietnam war and in some cases the also wanted revenge against him for personel reasons as was the case with John O'Neill." would you understand the sentence? Of course not, it's gibberish. It's a run-on sentence. You misspelled "personal". Who is Kerry? organization of American Swift boat what?
PROOFREAD. Rhobite 04:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Grazon/132.241.245.132 

message: The behavior of enlisted men affected among many incidences of loss of life and maiming while engaged during active military duty can contribute to the death rate or can compel troop members to behave more efficiently, carefully and surely; and can affect the battlefield conditions which might occasion capture rather than escape or annihilation of the enemy.  Beadtot 10/19/2005 19:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mourning and active duty