Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 4

message: This: "Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam" is misleading. It falsely implies a) all of them were asked to sign-on, and b) all of them are still alive. More relevant is how many are still alive and how many were asked to sign-on. Rex071404  06:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you propose it be changed? Nysus Gulf War I Vet   06:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Note that I would assume that the reader has half a brain and, like you, would take the facts you point out into consideration.  Nysus Gulf War I Vet   06:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I am pretty sure there are some links which keep a tally - I will look. Also, where did the 3,500 number come from? How do we know that's correct? Rex071404  Read this 06:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that some of the signers are not SwiftVets and some of the signers are widows of SwiftVets on their behalf.  If you want to dig into this detail, you need to deal with those issued.  Let's get it right if we're going to fool with it.  I have no idea where 3500 came from, but I would speculate that it's from the SBVT webpage.Wolfman 07:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I looked that up and that number is mentioned in a USA Today article: 
Someone edited in a challenge to the signatures, from which I removed some inflammatory rhetoric.  The current phrasing is copied below:
Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam, the names of some 250 appear on the group's statement against Kerry. However, a number of veterans whose names appear on the letter deny ever giving permission for their names to appear and allege that SBVT has not removed their names upon request. .
Wolfman 18:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many are still alive ? 

message: Here is a partial list of improvements I believe necessary to achieve acceptable NPOV.
* allegations and evidence
:*allegations re 1st purple heart
::*medal and reassignment intro
::*allegation summary
::*Schachte acccount
:::*explanation of skimmer ops
:::*schacte invention of skimmer ops
:::* always two officers on board
:::*Hibbard debriefing
:::*objection to PH request
::*Kerry acccount
::*general veracity - Kerry lied about circumstances
::*medal qualifications -  Kerry not qualified for medal
:::*enemy action
::::*self-inflicted - plus Schacthe "got hit"? W.
:::::*heat of battle? - plus Schacthe "firefight"? W.
:::*medical treatment
::::*Letson statement - plus "you'll just have to take my word for it"? W.
::::*Hibbard statement - plus repeated misidentifaction of wound location? W. 
::*medal aquisition - Kerry lied to obtain medal
:*allegations re 3rd PH
::*medal qualifications -  Kerry not qualified for medal
:::*enemy action
:::*medical treatment - not required
:*allegations re Thrice Wounded Reassignment
::*medal qualifications -  Kerry not qualifiy for medals
:*allegations re Sampan incident
:*allegations re war crimes claims — is this not covered in 2nd ad? or you want more? W.
:*allegations re discarding medals -Already mentioned in article under 4th advertisement
This is of course only a start. There are other problems which must also be addressed, and they will be added in due course. 
Please feel free to add to the list, but do not delete any items. We will strike items out as we reach agreement that they have been addressed. 
All editors  are encouraged to begin addressing any of these items with edits, insofar as they are willing and able to do so. Anonip 12:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All any of asked in regards to this was a real explanation.  Though I don't agree with your reasons, at least you have provided a couple now.  When they are resolved, you can keep the tag upon provision of more specific reasons.  I'm personally not too hung up on the NPOV tag itself.  What I don't like is refusal to back up claims, and I think that has been the source of some of our difficulties.  As you can see, I am not intransigent when a good faith effort to do so is made.  So yes, let's move on.  Wolfman 15:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Your current gentle words aside, you have in the past created just such an impression.  But I appreciate your clarification.  And your apology. Wolfman 19:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Problems 

message: Rex has requested a quote from Gardner in the 'crew' section of membership.  I find this not unreasonable, so long as it is consistent in style and detail with the other quotes.  At one point, I had edited it to this version In contrast, Gardner called one claim of Kerry's "categorically a lie".  It is true that this quote is mentioned later.  However, this section of membership is just briefly mentioning attitudes about SBVT claims, not really getting into context for the quote.  The place for detail is, of course, in the later relevant sectins.  We could also insert the full quotes from the other crewman later if they are helpful.  
The line has now gone through various incarnations, and is (at the moment) entirely gone.  I'd like to again suggest my wording above as a reasonable compromise.  Thoughts? Wolfman 15:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got nothing against using a short quote from Gardner.  I just object to taking the quote from the 3rd advertisement and then placing it there.  Nysus Gulf War I Vet   15:37, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand.  Is the "categorically a lie" quote from the 3rd ad?  Or are you referring to some previous version of the line?  In short, do you object to this: In contrast, Gardner called one claim of Kerry's "categorically a lie"? Wolfman 15:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been so many changes and reverts, it has been hard to follow.  All I know is that at one point, Rex took the Garnder quote form the 3rd ad about never being in Cambodia, lengthened it substantially and placed it up in the "Membership" section.  Clearly, the quote belongs in the paragraph about the ad.  To answer your question, the "categorically a lie" is not from the ad and no I don't object. Nysus Gulf War I Vet   15:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I did not "take" that quote from this article and "move" it. The quote I am using (and the preamble about length of time with Kerry) are both from the web and are both factual. I resolved the "Cambodia" section duplication by editing that. Please stop tag-team pressuing me. I have addressed and satisfied the "duplication" issue. Now it is incumbent upon you to justify why you feel entitled to "snip" the length of my quote - I don't agree to that. Also, honest dialog means wait for the answer of the person you want to be "snipping" not just each other, ok? Rex071404 (also, read this) 16:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes quotations need to be snipped, but I don't remember having any objection along those lines to the quotation from Gardner.  It shouldn't be duplicated but should appear in only one place.  Rex made multiple reverts in which he tried to get the quotation in twice.  If he's now finally willing to agree to the basic point that it should go in only once (which most Wikipedians, even the most ardently anti-Kerry, would have seen from the beginning), then the next question is which place is the one place.  The quotation relates to the Cambodia issue, so that's the obvious place for it.  There should be a reference in the "Membership" section to Gardner's stance, and in fact my version notes that he appeared in an SBVT ad.  Rex's version is further defective in that, as I pointed out above, the statement that Gardner was the longest-serving member is, at this point, only his claim.  It should not be stated as a fact unless it's verified.  Until then, I have no objection to including it, but it has to be reported as Gardner's claim.  I mentioned this above, and Rex has never bothered to respond, while, as is his wont, using edit summaries to give lectures about dialog to anyone who disagrees with him.  (As a minor point, I find the phrase "contrasting this" to be a very awkward way of introducing the reference to Gardner.  The article is about SBVT, so I think it's most informative to say "On the SBVT side...." to make clear that we're now referring to a member.  Not everyone on the anti-Kerry side is a member, after all, but Gardner is.)  I have to sign off very soon, but later today, unless someone can explain a good reason for putting the Cambodia quote someplace other than the Cambodia section, I'll straighten it out.  JamesMLane 17:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: If JML doesn't believe the length of service assertion by Gardner, he is free to find a link which rebuts or disproves it. As it stands, Gardner's assertions are equally valid as anyone else's. If you strike his assertion without proof, I will take that as license to strike each and every assertion, referrence to, or link to any assertion that is not supported along the same lines of your reasoning - unless of course I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that ONLY the Gardner assertion's self-validating nature is suspect and not anyone else's? Rex071404 (also, read this) 19:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wolf is mistaken - I never used the word "symmetry". Please do not put owrds in my mouth. And by that standard, Gardner's qoute must stand - he served with Kerry longer - so the details he offered are more germane. Also, one of those Kerry supporters was only with Kerry for one week. I am going to look up that name and include the limited time frame of his service - if I am forced to. Once again, ASK me why I think my edits count - don't TELL me. Rex071404 (also, read this) 19:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Good lord man, did I put it in quotes?  I simply assumed you were asking for evenhanded treatment.  I suppose I should have said Rex has requested that those on the SBVT be treated as more credible and important than anyone else.  Would you have objected to that phrasing too? Wolfman 19:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gardner Quote