Talk:Stolen Honor/Archive 3

message: Currently, there is dialog ongoing at John Kerry regarding SH. I am interested to make this article more "wikified" along the lines of the GU article. Speficically, I intend to list the facts about run time, actors, release details, etc., such as is seen on the GU page. Please dialog here if you have questions. I will wait several says before proceeding, so as to invite comment. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   21:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Going Upriver]] and [[Stolen Honor]] 

message: In TDC's preferred version almost the first thing presented to the reader after the intro, before any discussion of the controversy over the video, is a laundry list of the veterans interviewed in it.  This list is not very informative; the only individual there who seems to be independently notable is Kenneth Cordier, whose notability is already discussed in the article body.  I think it would suffice to include, in the "External Links" section, a link to the sub-page of the Stolen Honor website where the list was evidently taken from in the first place. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laundry list 

message: Based on the information from JML (see above) it appears that such titles as I have now chosen for this section are acceptable to him. So be it. As for JML and his person-based argumentation, I believe he is engaging in ad hominem attacks. He is welcome to disagree. Also, as to JML's statement above, a careful review of his pattern of constantly reverting me either by himself and/or closely on the heels of Gamaliel and/or closely in other patterns, could reasonably lead to the conclusion that his sole objection to my edits, is that I am making them. Certainly, that is an ad hominem pattern of reverts - so far as I see it. Additionally, when he goes ahead and makes the section heading about the fact that I have opposed his edit rather than what the edit is about, he is again focusing his argument on me, the implicit message being that somehow it's wrong because I did it. After all, he did characterize my edit as "attempted surpression". And, since he does not support his charge of "supression" it's clear that he derisively calls my edit "supression" as a means of making it appear faulty - simply because I made it. Yet, by his own statement (see above), JamesMLane is confirms that he is indeed engaging in ad hominem attacks and mis-focusing his argruments on me, rather than the edit under discussion. For the record, the issue at hand here is that JML wrongly insists on inserting details regarding Sinclair Broadcast Group into the article about Stolen Honor. And, he is doing so to make a point about SH, which is 'SH is bad', which he has already made clear (via the many reverts and edits he's helped with on this article since inception, various comments of his and his general edit pattern), is what he thinks. I contend that JML's insistance on putting the excess Sinclair details here does nothing but push his POV Rex071404  216.153.214.94   18:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]'s repeated efforts at person-based argumentation 

message: During the 2004 campaign, the Sinclair Broadcast Group announced plans to air the film shortly before the election.  This occasioned a controversy about whether, in light of the film’s anti-Kerry content, such a broadcast would violate Federal Communications Commission rules or would otherwise be illegal or unfair. Rex071404 made multiple reverts to remove a passage discussing various aspects of the controversy about the possible broadcast of the film. (, , etc.)  Other editors restored the passage.
In Rex071404’s most recent edits, he has reworded the passage.  There is no agreement on his new wording, which has not yet been discussed.  His version still omits any form of these sentences, which other editors had restored:
More than 100 advertisers pulled out their ads. The public controversy caused Sinclair stock to drop considerably.
There has been some discussion above.
====Summarized argument for inclusion====
The planned broadcast of this film was one incident in the history of Sinclair.  The appropriate way to present the information about the controversy is with a detailed account in the article about the film and a brief summary in Sinclair Broadcast Group.
====Summarized argument for removal====
Rex071404 wrote in  edit summary: “rv - Remove excess text specific to Sinclair- this article is about the documnetary itself. Excess Sincliar details belong on a Sinclair page”.  In a later ES, he reiterated: “rv - restore my previous edt - as stated, this article is not about Sinclair”.  On this talk page, he added, “I even made an edit that gives you a highly viable link from Stolen Honor to Sinclair Broadcast Group, which is where your anti-Sinclair material belongs (if anywhere).”
====Comments about 2004 controversy====
* Include.  This article is the proper place for the full exposition of the controversy occasioned by the plan to broadcast the film, including the effects of that controversy on Sinclair.  The disputed sentences merit inclusion.  Furthermore, even if Rex071404 goes back to trying to remove the other information, it should also be included. JamesMLane 11:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The stock price drop was then politically motivated.  That Democratic union pension funds would violate their fiduciary duty to pension-holders to make a political point is interesting, but if the stock drop is to be included, that context should be included, as well as the fact that the stock more than rebounded by December. -- FRCP11 15:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (2) Controversy about planned broadcast

message: * Include.  This article is the proper place for the full exposition of the controversy occasioned by the plan to broadcast the film, including the effects of that controversy on Sinclair.  The disputed sentences merit inclusion.  Furthermore, even if Rex071404 goes back to trying to remove the other information, it should also be included. JamesMLane 11:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The stock price drop was then politically motivated.  That Democratic union pension funds would violate their fiduciary duty to pension-holders to make a political point is interesting, but if the stock drop is to be included, that context should be included, as well as the fact that the stock more than rebounded by December. -- FRCP11 15:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments about 2004 controversy

message: If you disagree with Sherwood's premises in Stolen Honor, the most effective way to demolish his credibility is NOT to rebut his documentary point by point - that would take too long, and it might fail because people would have to watch the video to find out whether you were right or wrong. It's better to trash his reputation by linking him with someone who is already despised by the public.
The WP article on Carlton Sherwood insinuates that he changed his book to make its object look good - which of course casts suspicion on the whole rest of book. If you disagree with Sherwood's conclusions in Inquisition (book), the last thing you want is anyone actually reading the book. They might learn something you hope to keep hidden. So you trash his reputation in the hopes that people WON'T read the book.
How should Wikipedia handle this? Merely by reporting accurately that Sherwood's critics have cast suspicion on (or expressed doubts about) his credibility. Go into as much detail as you like, about WHY they think he's not credible. But also allow the same article to have balancing detail by Sherwood fans, explaining why they do regard him as credible.
I'm trying to state this in general terms that all can accept, but I realize some of you will cast doubt on my objectivity since I am a long-time and devoted follower of Sun Myung Moon, the object of Sherwood's lengthy Inquisition. Uncle Ed 02:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, Ed, I don't see that you're any less objective than the rest of us.  Opinions on specifics about this article tend to correlate with opinions about the 2004 election.  We're all human (FSVOH, as a recently deceased friend of mine would have said).  As to the specifics here, I can't prove to you that I'd feel exactly the same way if Sherwood's book had been about the Girl Scouts, but I assure you I would.  I addressed this point on September 29 -- that's September 29, 2004, to give you an idea of how long we've been discussing a subject about which Rex accuses us of failing to negotiate.  I wrote: "I think we should specify that the issue was the prior review. The point isn't to pound away at any Moonie connection. It just seems unbearably coy to try to report that the subject had access to the text without mentioning who the subject was."  In fact, I'd think that to omit the name could be considered offensive to the Unification Church, as if it would be unfair to poor Sherwood to cite any connection with so disreputable a subject. JamesMLane 08:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Credentials of Carlton Sherwood

message: Media Matters for America wrote:
:One week after talking to Regnery, FRONTLINE obtained a copy of a letter addressed to Sun Myung Moon. The letter was written by James Gavin, a Moon aide. Gavin tells Moon he reviewed the "overall tone and factual contents" of Inquisition before publication and suggested revisions. Gavin adds that the author "Mr. Sherwood has assured me that all this will be done when the manuscript is sent to the publisher." Gavin concludes by telling Moon, "When all of our suggestions have been incorporated, the book will be complete and in my opinion will make a significant impact. ... In addition to silencing our critics now, the book should be invaluable in persuading others of our legitimacy for many years to come."
:Although he refused an on-camera interview, Carlton Sherwood told FRONTLINE that the Unification Movement exerted no editorial control over his book. 
The Carlton Sherwood article hacks up this quote to make Wikipedia lend credence to it. I'm not complaining that it's a copyvio, because that's easily fixed. Uncle Ed 02:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Matters quotation

message: (copied from User_talk:Gamaliel#Bad_faith_revert) 09:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you asked.  My problem is that you have heavily altered or eliminated my recent edits (which were an attempt to compromise and satisfy all parties involved) without any discussion or dialog, while expecting others to do so for before changing your edits and acting like no one else is attempting to dialog or compromise.  I suggest you follow your own advice and dialog before making these changes or our dispute will most likely continue. Gamaliel
That's a hoot - I have been dialogging, it's you who swooped in and wiped out my edits with a revert. And it was edits which you reverted, not a revert. I never agreed that an article goes to a posture of stasis after each time you edit it.  I've made clear my views - it's up to you to justify your revert - I have justified my edits. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   09:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have made a good faith effort to compromise, which you have ignored while you continue to act as if you are the only one dialoging and attempting to compromise.  I will continue to revert if you do not engage in dialog regarding these edits. Gamaliel 09:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]]'s alleged bad faith revert 

message: I came here as a result of JML's RFC, and while I have an opinion about Stolen Honor, I don't have much emotional attachment to the article.  Tonight I watched as two editors engaged in a reversion war, and it's not a pretty sight.  The most recent action (as I write this) was a blanket reversion by Gamaliel, which swept away not only some of the controverted material, but also a number of changes that were (or should have been) completely uncontroversial, such as breaking up a run-on sentence.  
Folks, if you're going to work on this article, may I gently suggest that you at least take the time to do surgery, rather than hacking away at the entire product of the person you disagree with?  This is not directed strictly at Gamaliel; there seems to be plenty of bad feeling amongst all concerned.  Maybe it would help if you all stepped back and left the article alone for, say, two or three days, and then approached it with fresh minds and hearts? Brandon39 09:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no bad feelings and am trying my best to make some improvements to the article. At the same time, as you observed, my edits do get swept aside (sometimes in toto) by certain others. It's one of the points I've been raising and it is, I feel, evidence that Gamaliel simply will not engage me in true Wikipedia:Negotiation.  Rex071404  216.153.214.94   09:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have made a number of good faith edits to this article in an attempt to compromise and satisfy all parties. Rex has ignored these edits and significantly altered or eliminated them all the while loudly accusing everyone else of bias and failure to dialog and negotiate. I merely ask of Rex what he loudly demands of everyone else - that he dialog in good faith about these edits. Gamaliel 09:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, I got an edit conflict while posting this.  Rex, will you please finally start using the show preview button instead of making half a dozen small edits in a row? Gamaliel 09:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You miss the point.  I wish you to state what problems you have with my compromise edits and why you keep eliminating them. Gamaliel 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't try to make this about me.  I've repeatedly asked you to dialog about my compromise edits, which you have refused to do.  Are you now quitting the dialog? Gamaliel 17:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanket reversions not helpful

message: The credibility issue is the connective tissue linking several articles:
*Winter Soldier Investigation - Were Kerry and his assemblage of veterans' atrocity tales credible?
*Carlton Sherwood - Can you trust a guy who used to work with the *gasp, shudder* "Moonies"?
*Stolen Valor - book which attacks the credibility of Kerry and his assemblage of veterans
*Vietnam War - can we give credence to the claim that the Communists had the people's best interests at heart? (or Tricky Dick)?
*Iraq War (2003) - can we give credence, etc. (WMD, Saddam gassing the Kurds, allied prisoner abuse)
After 28 years in a church which has neglibile to zero credibility, I'm sensitive to "credibility issues". Uncle Ed 18:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of the credibility of Stolen Honor, I think Sherwood's history of Republican connections is more important than his journalistic lapses concerning his book about the Unification Church.  Note that, further down in the article, where it reports that more than 100 members of Congress called for the FCC to investigate, the article takes care to note that they were all Democrats.  I don't object to including that fact; their credibility, as critics, is arguably affected by their partisan affiliation. JamesMLane 22:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely then all of us in this discussion can agree that a man with Republican connections who produces a documentary video slamming the character of a Democratic presidential candidate deserves ... oops - got caught in syntax problems here, maybe you can guess where I'm going with this Uncle Ed 15:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Credibility in general

message: I'm thinking of dividing the article into:
#a brief section about what's in the video, how it was made, sources, etc.
#attempts by opponents of the video's POV to discredit the video: attacks on the producer's credibility, etc.
I daresay the second section will dwarf the first. Uncle Ed 19:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections?

message: (Begin list here):
:I think I expressed myself too forcefully! Would you please let me back pedal a bit here? I only wanted to draw your attention to the issue of Wikipedia:Civility and to urge you to avoid personal remarks.
:I'm not in a position to impose conditions, but I take your remarks here and on my user talk page as a sign of your sincere intention to discuss the present article in a more friendly and cooperative way.
:Why don't we just start fresh from this point, and if I see any "personal remarks" that could give rise to offense or otherwise distract us from collaborating, I'll just mark them up like this, with HTML strikeout formats? Uncle Ed 14:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]]'s comments at [[Talk:Stolen Honor]] that [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] has instructed Rex to apologize to [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] for 

message: I saw a movie called Wag the Dog. Twice. It was to me, very sad, actually. The only character I liked in it, or had any respect for, was the Wille Nelson character. And he wasn't even a hero.
The idea that dishonest politicians can get away with murder is very disturbing. 
But what do you propose to do about it? Sure, I smell elephant shit. I feel the floor tremble everytime the elephant shifts his weight. I'm not pretending that everything's fine.
I'm not saying that you should "relax, take it slowly" as in Cat Stevens's song Father and Son either!
I do not counsel anarchy or rebellion OR selling out. We need restoration, and if we help each other we can do it. Uncle Ed 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The tail wags the dog