Talk:Stolen Honor/Archive 2

message: Sahara has called Rex071404 "nazi boy".  Rex has reciprocated by calling Sahara "sockpuppet vandal".  All these comments are improper under the policy of no personal attacks.  It's Sahara's first day on Wikipedia, but Rex, you've certainly been around enough to know better.  A mere ability to wikilink is no proof that a user is experienced.  In any event, Wikipedia allows the creation of multiple accounts as long as they're not used for improper purposes, e.g. voting more than once.  For example, if some other user chose to set up a different account name for editing political articles, so as not to have you engaging in your ususal practice of namecalling, threatening, and leaving diatribes on other people's talk pages, that would be permitted.  Although you frequently cry "sockpuppet", you toss around allegations of vandalism even more freely.  You've been told already that the term "vandalism" means something other than "disagrees with Rex".  As is stated on Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not, even a violation of the NPOV policy doesn't render an edit vandalism.  Your listing of Sahara on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is a blatant abuse. JamesMLane 02:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't know this was against policy. If he refrains from calling me "vandal" and "sockpuppet", I'll try to refrain from calling him other things. Sahara 02:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the curses of dealing with Rex and his ilk is that even if he engages in personal attacks, you aren't allowed to respond in kind.  Believe me, I know what a pain it is.  I've been putting up with Rex's nonstop harassment for more than two months now.  But we have a couple of arbitration proceedings pending against him already, and losing your cool in response to his outrageous provocations only gives him the opportunity to raise his favorite defense, namely that he's under constant attack by a cabal of people who hate him.  Try not to use personal attacks to express your justifiable anger with him.  Focus instead on the merits of the specific question at issue. JamesMLane 02:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Oh, so you and two people is a consensus, and three people (perhaps four) against you is, well, irrelevant? I'm afraid I don't see how that works. Sahara 06:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was "sitting this out" only because I didn't have time to deal with this plus all the other things that called for my attention.  I devoted a lot of time to putting together Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Rex071404 3, which I mention here because it arises primarily from Rex's conduct in the course of the dispute about this article.  Contrary to Rex's comment below, the dispute cannot be considered "resolved" at this point.  The "not up to par" language doesn't seem very good to me. JamesMLane 07:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks by Sahara and Rex

message: I have added this:
::Some critics of Sherwood have contended that his journalistic methods are not up to par - see Carlton Sherwood for more information about him personally.
Hopefully, this will address the concerns of those who think negatives about Sherwood himself must get some ink in this article too. Rex071404   03:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read this please 

message: Please note, the dispute appears resolved. Also note, the previously mentioned .gov web site domain name does not bring up any site, nor did I find it in a .gov whois database. I have deleted that name as a result. Rex071404   03:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a google search on the sitename.  The name is accurate, it's just that they haven't launched; they are months behind schedule.  But since they don't exist yet, I agree that the webname is not useful, it's just likely to make people try to access a non-existent site. Wolfman 14:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamaliel's / Rex's edit just now 

message: Just now, I have tweaked JML's most recent edit . I am willing to declare "consensus" with this revision, subject to group agreement. And as a show of good faith, I will acquiesce to the deletion of one link. I offer this as the deleted one: 
"POW Featured in Documentary Labels Kerry as 'Traitor' "  Agapepress.org - Sept. 17, 2004,
 
in that it is arguably the most POV in it's title. Rex071404   19:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is consensus finally reached? 

message: (Nevins was making a derisive reference to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization critical of Kerry's Vietnam war record, anti-war activist record, and presidential campaign.)
No offense, 165.247.204.20, but does this really add to the accuracy of the article?  I'm trying to decide.  It's more detail about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but SBVT aren't literally involved here (at least so far as has been uncovered yet.)  SBVT presumably don't like Kerry's anti-war activist record or his presidential campaign any more than they like his Vietnam war record, but what they're noted for, and surely the reason Nevins invoked the comparison, is their claims to have served with Kerry on the swift boats and to be uniquely positioned to criticize his record of service in the war.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: we have a wikilink for a reason.  the interested reader can click there. Wolfman 06:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to give at least a capsule summary, like: "...reference to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry organization."  Some readers might want to know at least that much without the bother of clicking.  I agree that, with the link, we don't need to go into a lot of detail about SBVT. JamesMLane 02:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. Wolfman 02:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition for accuracy? 

message: I'm a little concerned about the terms in the article right now about the links between Red, White and Blue Productions, Quantum Communications, and Charles Gerow.  Charles Gerow is called a "Republican operative", and that strikes me as going a bit far -- his record says he's a Republican, but that doesn't make him necessarily an "operative".  The other thing is that RW&B is said to be "apparently owned by" Quantum Communications, based on this address information -- but Charles Gerow, head of Quantum, is openly listed as the publicist for the film.  Isn't it possible (playing devil's advocate here) that that explains why the address listed for queries about Stolen Honor is Red, White and Blue Productions C/O Quantum Communications? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerow and Quantum Communications 

message: Daily Kos is a very VERY left pov site, as stated on their wiki's main page (found when searched stolen honor wikipedia, as for some reason it didnt show up when i typed in Stolen Honor, but that's where it is).  It may have a transcript, but it's not impossible that it was creatively "edited for brevity".  I'm for removing the link until a more NPOV source for a transcript (preferably wikisource) can be added.  Anyone with me here? --TIB (talk) 06:11, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
:The real problem is that is a link to a copyvio.  Quotes are fine, but a transcript is not.  Removing link & the tag disputing link. Wolfman 06:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes.  I didn't think about the problems in linking to a transcript -- I had thought that, like Michael Moore and F9/11, they wanted it out there as widely as possible.  (I could have sworn I read somewhere that RW&B were offering the movie itself as a download over the Internet, like Moore said he wanted people to do with F9/11...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't bought the Stolen Honor video and don't intend to.  Whether or not it's offered as a download, does it perhaps say that anyone who wants to circulate the text is free to do so?  That would be quite plausible, since the goal is obviously to hurt Kerry, not to make money.  The point is that I don't think we have enough information to be confident we were linking to a copyvio.  I don't favor the approach of leaving a copyvio on Wikipedia unless and until we get a DMCA takedown notice, but I think a link to someone else's site is another matter.  This link should be restored.  As for the bias, we have lots and lots and lots of places where we link to Free Republic or National Review or similar right-wing sources.  Here, we're not citing one of Kos's opinions as Revealed Truth.  We're linking to his report about a matter of fact.  I don't think it's enough for someone to sit around and say, "Well, Kos is a Democrat, so he might be misrepresenting the facts."  Is there any evidentiary basis for questioning the accuracy of his transcript?  He notes at the beginning that it was rushed, so the reader is warned that there might be errors.  The reader of our article is still better off if we include this link.  Furthermore, I haven't read the whole transcript, but even in skimming it I found plenty of vicious lies about Kerry.  Just what sort of stuff are you speculating Kos might have "creatively" edited out that was worse than what he reported?  JamesMLane 07:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I imagine that the producers would themselves supply a transcript if they approved of one circulating.  Why not just include some illustrative quotes in the article?  That's fair use for sure. Wolfman 15:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it's fair use, but to make it NPOV we'd have to include the rebuttals and criticisms.  Again see the Fahrenheit 9/11 article as an example.  The back-and-forth about the attacks on the film's accuracy got so extensive that it had to be spun off into a separate article.  As an alternative, I'll see if I can find any policy about linking to a possible copyvio site. JamesMLane 16:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute - Daily Kos 

message: Anyway, there seem to be two major questions about Stolen Honor / Stolen Valor / WSI:
#Which sources are credible?
#Whose analyses are credible?
Just about everyone accepts signed, written depositions or affidavits; or sworn testimony given in court under oath. Getting up in front of your buddies, in a warm, supportive environment with no cross-examiners or judges - is this the same? (SH has an on-line clip that seems to show staffers planning for WSI coaching a veteran to "remember" something; this raises questions.)
The main point SH/SV rebuts is the main point of WSI: i.e., that (A) US atrocities were frequent, even routine; (B) that the US either became aware but did nothing because they were callous or planned it in the first place because they were much, much worse than "callous"; therefore, (C) the only solution to this ethical mess is a US pullout.
The main alternate point is that of people who today are called "convervatives": i.e., that (D) US atrocties were far less frequent than Viet Cong / NVA atrocities; (E) that the US took steps to curb these when they became aware but not nearly enough; (F) the evils of Communism justified US support for South Vietnam, despite the 'occasional' US atrocity; therefore, (G) the US should not pull out of Vietnam, even though its troops' hands are not lily-white.
Now, we contributors, if we are trying to get our Stolen Honor article to reflect only the WSI argument (and omit the conservative argument), will just wander around in circles like a blind man doing the dog paddle in the dark. Same if "conservative" Wikipedians try to suppress the Kerry/WSI arguments.
Please allow me to suggest that this article - like the others I listed above as intimately related - describe BOTH points of view instead of trying to prove that ONE of these Wikipedia:POVs is the "true and correct" one. Uncle Ed 11:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two major questions