Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 6

message: I have made #'s 4 and 5 today Rex071404   22:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Right now, there are 28 links in the links section. These are somewhat reasonably divided along the lines of the two camps of editors here, with a slight lean towards pro-Kerry. That said, I don't have any problems with that section at this time. If no one else does either, I suggest we follow a general rule regarding additions: If or when you add a new link, if possible, delete the weakest of your camp. In other words, if you've been posting pro-Kerry links, remove a PK, if SBVT, remove one of those. Using this rule, we will prevent rapid link creep. Rex071404   05:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think James is correct.  There's no point in bickering further over this section.  It's really a pointless section, with no possiblity of agreement over standards.  If it stays in (and I think it shouldn't), free fire it is.  That will at least keep it broadly reflective of actual media coverage, albeit lengthy. Wolfman 07:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Plan what you will.  I did not delete your links.  I'll ask you not to delete mine. Wolfman 07:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added some additional links to balance Wolfman's links from tonight. Rex071404   09:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ditto Wolfman 16:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  28 links 

message: It is my strong opining that Satire/Opinion links have no place in this article.  I will remove them until this is discussed.  Apparently, an editor insists on including such links because other editors on other articles have included them in other articles.  But I refuse to let some petty turf battle going on in some other article spill over into this one.  Until Satire/parody links are discussed with a reasoned approach here, I will continue to rv their addition.  Nysus Gulf War I Vet   16:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The good reason is: editorial consistancy between articles. Also, please do not characterize my comments as pertaining to "petty turf battles". The other article in question was Axis of evil and is a substanative article about President Bush's elucidation of the concepts of a list of roque states. And, because Bush and Kerry are locked in a campaign struggle, it is vitally important that we not exclude parody against one, when we allow it against the other. My position on this other page was that parody did not belong. However, I was forced into allowing it, if done tastefully. Nysus, you will need to either visit that other page and get up to speed on the dialog betwen Gamailel, JamesMLane and myself on this, or else you will be handicapped in the discusssion. Personally, I agree that in most serious articles, most of the time, "satire / parody" could be left out without undo harm to the aricle. However, on the topic of "parody" inclusion, I am up against what I see as another burst of the pervasive pro-Kerry/anti-Bush bias which I have referred to from time to time. Even so, unless and until I get agreement from those other two editors, I am going to have to enforce the editorial consistancy myself. The satire/parody links are going back in and are staying in, at least until Gamaliel and JamesMLane speak on the matter too. Rex071404   16:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens in the Axis of evil article should stay in the Axix of evil article.  I'm not editing that article and have no interest in editing that aritlce.  I have an interest in editing this article and maintaining its integrity.  Again, your inclusion of these links is controversial.  Therefore, before you add them, we should try coming to a consensus here first.  I'm interested in hearing JML's and Gamailel reasons for including them.  If they are good reasons or I am outvoted, then they should be added.  Until that time, they should be left out because they are in dispute and should be talked out first.  Nysus Gulf War I Vet   16:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satire/Parody Links 

message: I would agree with removing Satire as part of a package rollback.  The parodies are interesting links, no doubt.  But Wikipedia is not a collection of links.  So the function of any link should be to enhance the readers understanding of the issue by linking to pertinent material or alternative sites not elsewhere referenced in the article.  It is my view that the 'News', 'Editorial', and 'Satire' sections do not serve this function, and should be removed entirely.  In fact, I would propose the following be the entirety of the External Links section.   Note that FactCheck is nonpartisan, equally ruthless acrosss the political spectrum.  But, I would be ok with moving FactCheck links into the text of the appropriate sections.  Comments solicited.
Proposed External Links Section
First-hand accounts
* Jim Rassmann account from The Wall Street Journal.
* William Rood account from The Chicago Tribune.
* Jim Russell Letter to the Editor, Telluride Daily Planet.
* William Schachte statement (National Review)
* William Schatche interview with NBC News.
* William Zaladonis interview with NBC News.
SBVT and Kerry campaign pages
*SBVT home page
* Search JohnKerry.com for "swift boat" - JohnKerry.com
FactCheck Analysis
*First Advertisement
*Second Advertisement
:Copied Rex's comment (below) to here - Wolfman.
:As stated earlier, any attempts to gut the links section will be opposed by me. Wolfman, it was you and your cohorts who initiated this issue by originally packing the links section with pro-Kerry ones. Suffice it to say, I made a reasonable suggestion last night and you disregarded it. What were your words "game on" or something like that? JamesMLane predicted what would happen and I guess he's right. It's too bad you refused my suggestion. Rex071404   16:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no packing.  That section was formed when this was still a fairly small news story.  We were able to track the major events with a few links to stories from major newspapers.  Now comes Rex throwing in links to conservative rags like Newsmax.  Well, that ain't USA Today buddy.  They don't even make the pretence of being "fair and balanced".  In a utopian wikipedia, we might be able to pare this down to 3 or 4 truly significant & neutral overview articles by the media.  Let's be realistic, that's just not going to happen.  So the options are (a) cut it entirely (b) open it to all links that meet the definition.  As you know (a) is my preferred alternative.  If (b) is the consensus, I can do that too. Wolfman 17:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: It is your negative view of certain conservative news sources which makes you dismiss NewsMax.com by calling it a "rag". I do not hold some of you sources in high esteem, but I am not hurling insults about them either. Even so, are you saying yo want to disallow NewsMax? Other than you claiming power to censor links, why should I agree? Will you in return, yield to me and let me state which of your sources ought to be disregarded and deleted? I think not. So then, how can you say its rational, what you are suggesting? Rex071404   17:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I delete it; no I did not.  Did I try to censor you; no I did not.  My whole point is that this is a dispute which cannot be resolved.  Because there are no objective standards. That is why I think it ought to go, that and it being redundant. Wolfman 17:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for External Links

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   17:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finally responding.  Why did it take you so long?   How about instead of beliefs we write "statments."  And you are incorrect, I have already answered you in this compromise language that I posted long ago.  It is you, unfortunately, who has caused this to drag out.  Nysus   17:58, 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 

message: As stated earlier, any attempts to gut the links section will be opposed by me. Wolfman, it was you and your cohorts who initiated this issue by originally packing the links section with pro-Kerry ones. Suffice it to say, I made a reasonable suggestion last night and you disregarded it. What were your words "game on" or something like that? JamesMLane predicted what would happen and I guess he's right. It's too bad you refused my suggestion. Rex071404   16:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preservation of links section 

message: Question: Include "1971" in first paragraph?
(To reply to this poll, add your signature to the Yes or to the No section - if "No", please explain your opposition below your reply) 
*Yes - (I do not have objections to the inclusion of "1971" into a sensibly written version of the first paragraph)
Rex071404   17:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  1971 Poll 

message: Question 1: Rex should work with Nysus on his proposed compromise language that includes '1971' before making a change.
*Yes
Nysus
(and he is doing so) Rex071404   18:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle 1971 dispute 

message: Nowhere in the first several sections or first dozen paragraphs does this article provide the most obvious and unarguable fact about this organization:
SBVT was founded and funded by Republican activists to oppose John Kerry's presidential campaign, primarily because Kerry's service in Vietnam is widely perceived as more honorable and admirable than the President's avoidance of overseas service. 
Not a single fact in that sentence can be refuted with honesty. These are the most important facts about the whole controversy. Not until the reader understands this do all the other details even begin to make sense. Alteripse 19:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your comments.  It has been proposed that a second paragraph be added just below the 1st that gives a brief overview of the importance and impact of SBVT.  However, your paragraph is a little bit loaded, particularly the last bit which states: because Kerry's service in Vietnam is widely perceived as more honorable and admirable than the President's avoidance of overseas service.  No one has evidence to suggest that is why SBVT formed. Nysus 19:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: My personal opinion is that it was a well orchestrated campaign designed to deliver maximum damage to Kerry.  I think there is some legitimacy for the organization.  I believe that some SBVT vets, many with axes to grind, honestly think Kerry is not a man of integrity and did not deserve his medals.  However, I don't think they are the ones driving the agenda of the SBVT.  I think professionals, people who stood to make a lot of cash orechestrating the campaign and who also have a pro-Bush bias, are the ones who really drove the group and organized it into what it is today.  Of course, that's just my opinion.  I have absolutely no proof.  Nysus
My understanding is that SBVT was formed in response to the publication of Tour of Duty by historian Douglas Brinkley, which some swift boat veterans who served with Kerry believed to contain false statments concerning his Vietnam service. Anonip 20:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: With due respect to both of you, it's simply not possible to pinpoint one precise reason why SBVT came into existence.  It's kind of fruitless to try to track one down because usually life isn't made up of simple cause and effect actions.  Instead, history is a confluence of thousands of smaller complex events that interweave and interact in such a way to make larger, more significant events pop into existence.  Sorry to wax philosophical here but I'm just tyring to nip speculative conversation that doesn't really get anywhere.  Nysus
Alteripse, It is hardly surprising that SBVT would seek assistance from persons with Republican affiliations in the form of legal consulting, media consulting, financial support, etc. for the purpose of getting their story out. Do you think they would have received such assistance from persons with Democratic affiliations? And no, it's not just the book. The SBVT is outraged that Kerry is distorting the historical record to advance his political ambitions. They believe Kerry's actions render him unfit to be commmander-in-chief, and they feel they have an obligation to set the record straight. That's what they're trying to do. At least, that's my honest view of it. Frankly, I'm amazed that Kerry and the Democrats thought they could try to turn an antiwar hero (which Kerry was) into a war hero (which he was not) without getting called on it. I believe they thought (rightly) that Bush wouldn't complain, to avoid an unfavorable comparison with his own military service record. They didn't realize there would be veterans who would be comparing Kerry's record to their OWN records, not Bush's, and who would have the courage to speak out. Anonip 21:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, but anonip, surely you think it might be possible for people running the show over at SBVT to have ulterior motives, don't you?   Why do you place so much faith in what SBVT says? --Nysus 01:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: It is POV to put SBVT's ows statements about how/why they came into existence into the article and it will lead to an endless escalation of speculative statements about the real reason they are around or how they really got started.  It's best just to avoid the issue altogehter because it's not really important to telling the story behind SBVT anyway.  --Nysus 01:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, in case you didn't notice by the amount of tit-for-tat right here, how to describe the rationale for the genesis of SBVT is one of - if not the most - thorny issues we face. If we try to jam all that into the 1st or even 2nd paragraph, we will end up going backwards, not forwards. The back-and-forth conjecture on this point (and what we say here is mere conjecture as we are NOT one of the founders and do NOT have 1st hand info) must be addressed in the article itself, not the preamble. Rex071404   22:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I have stated before very clearly before that the first paragraph should attempt to be a definition of the SBVT group.  I think any attempt to try to explain the reasons why SBVT came into existence is way off the mark.  It's purely speculative and not really important to getting readers the important facts about the group. --Nysus 01:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Alterprise's statement said the following: "SBVT was founded and funded by Republican activists...because Kerry's service in Vietnam is widely perceived as more honorable and admirable than the President's avoidance of overseas service."  If you can find a source to back up this up and they have proof, I'd agree we should put it in the article.  Is there some kind of internal memo of SBVT that bears this out? --Nysus 12:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as someone who's quite unsympathetic to SBVT, I don't think the last part of the statement (about Bush's record) is even true, let alone provable.  If John McCain (who did serve in Vietnam) had won the Republican nomination and the election in 2000, and Kerry were running against him instead of against Bush, I think the SBVT crowd would still be making their attacks.  They're not primarily motivated by a concern about Bush's record.  They just don't like Kerry. JamesMLane 13:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing perspective

message: I have tried, and failed, to reason with Rex.  So, I'm going to take a different approach and put this up to a vote to the wider community.  I propose that whatever sentence gets the most votes wins.  Please indicate which sentence you would prefer:
*Sentence 1: This group has challenged the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress."
I vote for this sentence 1.  --Nysus 04:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonable. Gamaliel  05:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I like this sentence, but above someone objected to the use of the word "obtained."  Wouldn't "received" or "--challenged the legitimacy of the medals that Kerry received--" (for grammar purposes) be more POV neutral?--Jburt1 18:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A different approach to resolving the dispute 

message: :You can do all the "voting" that you want, but that does not obviate the fact that you have now reduced yourself to making totally false representations about the history of this dialog. Rex071404   04:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, I addressed your baseless allegation above (see edit by Wolfman dated  04:02, 6 Sep 2004) where I point out your "questioning" went challenged by Worlfman and you refused to discuss it and insisted on placing it in the article anyway.  Basically, you treated him like you did me about the "questioning" phrase, with no regard to my thoughts and opinions and without the courtesy of discussing diputed changes in the talk area.  --Nysus 04:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: As you wish.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth&diff=5688588&oldid=5688569 --Nysus 05:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nysus's call to vote 

message: In the past, the sandbox approach hasn't accomplished much on this page.  I'm trying it again because I find it so hard to keep track of different proposals, etc., when the talk page is constantly filling up the way this one does.  Maybe now, with the page protected, people will be willing to edit and discuss a sandbox, if only for lack of anything else to edit.
Therefore, instead of voting in any poll just yet, I've put a first draft at User:JamesMLane/SBVT intro.  You can edit it, or comment on it at User talk:JamesMLane/SBVT intro.  It covers only the introduction (the portion before the first heading, and therefore before the table of contents).
Salient points: I left in "527", even though I think this term shouldn't be introduced until the body of the article, because no one else expressed agreement with my view.  Because Rex doesn't want "questioning", I've tried to follow Nysus's approach of finding a different term.  This draft says that SBVT "criticizes" Kerry, which is certainly true.  As for the contentious issue of "1971", my general philosophy is that the first paragraph or two should be a summary, to give the reader the quick overall picture.  Therefore, in this draft I've referred to Kerry's antiwar activities "in the early 1970s".  The section of the article about his Senate testimony notes specifically that it was in 1971.  He was also doing various antiwar things in 1970 and 1972.  That the testimony was in 1971 is important enough to be in the article but not important enough to be in the first two paragraphs.
Nysus, if there are points where you prefer your suggested compromise to mine, one possibility would be to insert a horizontal line on the new subpage and add your own version below that.  We could have both versions on the same page, for ready comparison.  Alternatively, of course, you can edit my draft, if you think the differences are comparatively small.  JamesMLane 05:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: JML, aren't you going to also ask me what I'd would prefer? Rex071404   06:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox: attempted compromise

message: There were several good edits, including spelling and grammar corrections, that have been lost in the revert war. I hope an admin will look through the history and restore these to the protected version. Also, could someone please add the following to the end of the first paragraph in the sub-section Truthfulness in the Controversey section?
:According to an article from the Billings Gazette, two Swift Boat veterans had their names names signed to a letter, published on the SBVT website, that they had never seen and which contained accusations against Kerry that they did not support. 
172.191.81.13 17:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously their contention should be mentioned in the article, with proper attribution.  If there's evidence that they signed on knowingly and willingly, that evidence should also be included in the article, though it shouldn't be described as "proof".  As for corrections that got lost in the edit war, I know that my restoration of the deleted Disinfopedia link was a casualty, but were there other things?  I thought I'd been watching the page and I don't recall noticing any such problems.  JamesMLane 22:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the history, they did all get put back before protection except for your link to Disinfopedia. There were two things that I noticed were missing, but they seem to have gone a while before the protection. 172.188.176.220 01:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to protected version 

message: Per James' invitation to the group, I have made some edits on his sandbox page, and have displayed (2) versions of James' suggested text. Other interested persons ought to do so as well. Rex071404   03:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  JML's sandbox 

message: First of all, while you might believe you are right in this sense, Rex, please refrain from coming up with such terms as "RNAN", for it doesn't exactly help the process of concensus... I may be new here but I think I can safely assume that at the very least its just plain retarded if not offensive.
But here it is.  Nyusus and Rex, please state the questions that each of you claim the other one has not.  If this has already occured, please disregard this section.  Otherwise, in bullet-form, please with no snide comments or analogies or anything, state the questions that each of you claim the other will refuse to address, and then when both of you have stated your questions then please answer.  This can be worked out rather than yet ANOTHER appeal to wikipedia for interference.  if your question refers to something previous in the discussion, just link it, but here is the chance to come clean, ask the other person EXACTLY what you want to be addressed, and lets start from here, because this is starting to get ridiculous.
Thanks anon.  I have been asking Rex to respond to my compromise language.  See this. --Nysus 00:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please sign your comments, or I will not acknowledge them. Rex071404   02:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be so rude, kizzle probably simply forgot to sign his comment.  See Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers:  "Behavior that may appear malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules." Gamaliel  06:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: kizzle, FYI, the reason I set up the sandbox to discuss the specific question of the introduction was that there were other issues being discussed here.  As with many of the articles in which Rex is involved, there are multiple reverts and long arguments on the talk page about numerous disputes, large and small.  (This may be because Rex is a problem user, or it may be because there's a pack of editors who all hate him and follow him around making trouble for him.  Opinions differ.)  I, personally, was finding it very hard to focus on specifics about what the text of the article should look like, which you rightly identify as the proper focus.  I think the sandbox has produced some small improvement in that regard.  It's easier for me to keep track of things, anyway. JamesMLane 21:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  JML> they may also be other reasons invloved - such pro-Kerry/Bush bias among editors, eh? Rex071404   18:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex and Nyusus