Talk:Stolen Honor/Archive 1

message: I don't have too much problem with the article, it just reads like the back of the box the video is on.  I wonder if you can find any critical analysis of the video as well. --kizzle 03:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
:This is still new. Not much about this out there yet. Rex071404   03:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old discussions 

message: the pulitzer site does not list him as a winner or finalist. 
http://www.pulitzer.org/Archive/archive.html
also i saw where Bill O'Reilly said he won a Peabody.  can't verify that either at the peabody site.  http://www.peabody.uga.edu/archives/search.html
can somebody give a link where these awards are documented?  thanks Wolfman 04:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: O'Reilly never won a Peabody.  Al Frankin called him on this lie and that was the source of that dustup they had at the ABA convention which you may have heard of. Gamaliel  04:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: thanks.  Wolfman 20:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  sherwood - pulitzer 

message: The article on Texans for Truth takes care (at Rex's insistence) to note its founder's ties to the Democratic Party.  In fact, in checking the article just now to confirm my recollection on that point, I found that the information is duplicated.  I'll delete one of them, but I'll leave one in, because I agree that people wanting to know about TfT can legitimately consider the underlying political orientation.  The same is true here, though.  Sherwood is no independent journalist, setting out to uncover the facts and let the chips fall where they may.  He's a partisan.  His ties to the Bush administration are as relevant to this article as Glenn Smith's ties to the Democratic Party are to the TfT article, so I'm restoring that deleted information. JamesMLane 03:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: now that's parity :) --kizzle 03:42, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
I was the one who originally put some of the background info about Sherwood in. Wolfman(?) moved it to Sherwood's personal article. I think it's validd for both, in it's current form. Rex071404   03:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sherwood's bias

message: The reference to "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" has spawned some minor editing squabbles.  Because it's obvious that Nevins was referring to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, one change that's been made (I think by two different people) has been to wikilink the term to the SBVT article.  Rex has angrily reverted such links, saying, e.g.: 'There is no such group as "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" for an editor to make that link is grossly POV!'
Now, trying to put the reader in the picture without appearing to lend Wikipedia's imprimatur to Nevins's partisan slam at SBVT by linking, I added an explanation of what he meant, noting that it was a "derisive reference".  Rex has deleted that sentence with the comment, "JML - you are speculating - You have no proof other than you own opinion of that!"
So, Rex is now asserting that there is no such group as Swift Boat Veterans for Bush, but he thinks it's just my opinion that Nevins meant SBVT.  Well, Rex, if there is no SBVB, then what did he mean?  His meaning is completely obvious (not just my opinion) to those of us who know about SBVT.  Not all readers will have that background, though.  Frankly, I thought I was going out of my way to accommodate your POV and provide a link to your beloved SBVT article, but if you don't want it, so be it.  Odds are that other editors will come along and, upon seeing the unlinked term "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush", will want to link it to something.  My edit is a clear improvement on the current text but it's yet another minor point where you'll get your way by virtue of your demonstrated willingness to engage in endless reverts and denunciations. JamesMLane 03:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No JML, that's a valid point.  It's a reference that some people might actually confuse as being a real group.  I'll support that. --kizzle 03:58, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
JML, you have many time said that we are not to "spoon feed" the readers. Frankly, it's very gratifying to see you stew in your own juices - that and the fact that you are just plain wrong on this issue. If you "explain" your suppositions, it is your POV being injected. For all we know, the man mispoke or was being snide or perhaps was misquoted or maybe he actually thinks there is a "SBV Bush". If you want to find a better quote for the Kerrry side, go find one. As it stands, you don;t even see that I was the one who put this quote in as a courtesy to your side in the first place. Now you are trying to beat me with it. Also, since there are two anti-Kerry quotes, but only one pro-, why don;t you go find another pro (a reasonable one) and we'll see if have two of each calms your water. Rex071404   03:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Rex, NPOV does not mean we cannot use our brains.  You know perfectly well that he was making a snarky reference to SBVT.  The reader may not know that.  Spoonfeeding is when you emphasize an interpretation that is clear from the facts.  Here, a reader may have no idea what the reference is about.  Clarifying that is not spoonfeeding.  Sic is not appropriate; sic is used for errors.Wolfman 04:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: what?  you have some sort of problem comprehending simple english? Wolfman 05:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Swift Boat Veterans for Bush