Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 5

message: Rex wrote in an edit summary, '"No SBVT members were actually on Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated". - this may be false and is in dispute and is too POV)'.  Which SBVT member makes a claim of the type this sentence says doesn't exist?  If there is such a member, then it might be that, for example, Gardner says he was on board for the second Purple Heart, but he doesn't support any of the attacks on Kerry about it, so SBVT doesn't quote him about it.  If that's the case, sentence would need rewording. JamesMLane 05:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is also the issue of the Schachte guy who claims to have been on the boat with Kerry.  His claim is in dispute.  Nysus Gulf War I Vet   07:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Schatche is not a SBVT member Wolfman 07:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yeah, I forgot that.  I would recommend something along the following lines: "No SBVT member that served on Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated has publicly stepped forward." Nysus Gulf War I Vet   07:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Gardner was present, yes? Rex071404   08:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gardner has only charged that Kerry lied about Cambodia.  But Kerry never got a medal for going to Cambodia so the sentence is accurate.  However, my feeling is the sentence is too full of subtle, technical truths and stretches a little too far to get a point across. Nysus Gulf War I Vet   08:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Eyewitness accounts

message: Wolfman's edit summary said: "First-hand accounts - cut date for symmetric style with others. or would it be better to add dates to all?". I say it's much better to add the dates. All links should be dated and chronologically listed whenever possible. These links, in series, help readers follow the flow of the story. Notice how this story started with lesser known web news sites and moved into the mainstream as well. This can be seen when the links are dated and kept in order. This is interesting and informative to the readers Rex071404   18:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st hand account / interview dates 

message: Please take note, unless I am mistaken, John Kerry has only given "testimony" about Vietnam only once. That was in 1971, in front of a US Senate committee. Information written in a book is not "testimony". The term testimony, when used to describe John Kerry talking in front of Congress refers to the fact that Kerry was under oath when he spoke. If he ws under oath in 1986, we can add that date too. However, let's not get confused on our word usage here, ok? And Nysus, let's not be "admittedly nitpicky and minor" either, ok? Rex071404  
:The problem is that SBVT isn't just going after his testimony in 1971, they are going after just about everything he ever did and said about Vietnam.  That includes his book, his formal testimony, and other statements he has made.  You could change the last sentence to the "veracity of 1971 testimony and his beliefs about the Vietnam war."  I could live with that.
:P.S. Please stop making changes to the article that are challenged by me and others.  Appropriate etiquette is to take them to talk, work out a deal, and then make the changes.    16:42, 5 Sep 2004 14:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nysus, you suggested we write "his beliefs" - SBVT does not claim to be mind readers - they are addressing only Kerry's history and his statements. This is getting redundant - I keep answering you and answering you, but you don't even reply to a simply yes or no question. Rex071404   17:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Nysus, you can make all the accusations and insults that you like against me, and the group together can try to boss me into giving in, but that does not change the fact that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, themselves, on their web site, (as I have already pointed out several times, describe their purposes thusly: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. We speak from personal experience -- our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.". Frankly, I have already yielded too much on the 1st praragraph. The 1st paragaph should, on a verbatim basis, include that exact quote (or at least a subset of it). But since you and the others got in such a snit about that several days ago, I worked towards consensus. However, I will not yield on the inclusion of the 1971 date. The sentence, as I am writing it,  makes it clear that the PARTICULAR focus of SBVT is the service/medals and the 1971 testimony. Notice that it does not say "exclusive". Your editorial objection is groundless. I am restoring that edit until YOU can demonstrate that the verbiage I am using does not say what is plainly does say - which of course is impossible - so stop reverting me until you have a better suggestion than what you keep reverting me to. Rex071404   16:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that before you erroneously accuse me of insulting you, you scroll up a few paragraphs and read my response to you and my suggestion for a compromise. I have shown repeatedly that I am willing to work with you.  You have not shown the same courtesy.  That is why I am suggesting action be taken against you.  Nysus Gulf War I Vet   16:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: No article that wishes to remain neutral would ever place a direct quote from SBVT about their purpose into the lead paragraph.  It's clearly POV.  Therefore, it would have to be offset by a similar verbatim quote from the Kerry campaign.  Obviously, this kind of stuff doesn't belong in the article, never mind the first paragraph.  Nysus Gulf War I Vet   16:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Rex, despite your claim above that you worked toward consensue, the record shows otherwise.   You have repeatedly avoided discussing your changes in the talk area.  Instead, you have insisted on reintroducing you controversial changes back into the article without discussion.  I feel this is poor etiquette and these kind of techniques are disruptive to the editing process.  I think the rest of the community would agree.  Nysus Gulf War I Vet   16:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  1971 testimony