Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

5 Skippers

For those who are interested, the bit about the 5 skippers was from this Washington Post story, It says, in part:

Two other Swift boat skippers who were direct participants in the March 13, 1969, mine explosion on the Bay Hap, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire." A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later.

This story (and another good Washington Post article) are already listed at bottom of the page. Noel 18:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here we go again

Soon after the page was unprotected, Rex edited the introductory section to delete the information about Vietnam veterans disputing the charges, for which he substituted the much blander "do not support" (which would be accurate if they had never said anything at all, or said they didn't remember what happened). There is no basis for slanting the intro in SBVT's favor this way. In fact, there'd be some justification for quoting the "lies" type language right up front. JamesMLane 21:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, both Sannse and I are keeping an eye on the page, so if things get too heated and/or an edit-war begins, it will be protected again. May I suggest that any change other than simple addition of data (e.g. "X said Y" or "document X says Z") be run past here first to see how people take it? I will review the changes to the intro paragraph and see if the changes meet NPOV. Noel 23:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree - I am being very careful and I take issue with JML's personal attacks. Also, what JML fails to mention is that he made the 1st edits to that section today, not me. [1] [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chill out, OK? Noel 23:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, if I explain on the Talk page why there are problems with a particular suggested wording, that isn't a personal attack on the author. You cannot immunize your edits from criticism just by crying "personal attack". For example, I said that you had deleted certain information. If you want to discuss the subject constructively, drop the claim that this is a personal attack and explain why you think the information should be deleted. JamesMLane 23:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You flat out claimed that I enagaged in "slanting the intro". From my perspective, such a statement is false and an attack. At the very minimum, your edits have as much "slant" as mine do. Stop pointing the accusation finger and it will stop pointing back at you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Medals: "Combat" or "Service"

One of the main allegations against Kerry, is that some of the PH medals were granted for injuries that were not sustained in combat. I absolutely oppose introducing the medals by calling them "combat medals". This is in dispute - therefore "service medals" will have to suffice. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are combat medals in that they're awarded for combat. There's no dispute about the nature of the Bronze Star, Silver Star and Purple Heart. What SBVT disputes is the legitimacy of Kerry's having received combat medals, and the sentence states SBVT's position on that disputed point. JamesMLane 23:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SBVT is not merely "challeng(ing) the legitimacy of some of Kerry's combat medals". Rather, what they are doing is flat out saying that Kerry obtained medals which should be given for meritorious action in combat via fakery, exaggeration and/or fraud instead. A combat medal gained through nefarious methods, properly speaking, for the person in possesion of it, was not earned for combat. Calling them combat medals infers that they were legitimately earned and are only being challenged. This establishes a pro-Kerry bias for the predicate on the medals and is therefore unacceptable. On the other hand, "military service medals" is sufficiently encompassing and sufficiently vague that we are not pushing one way or another - we are letting the readers decide - after they read the article. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with you here, that "[c]alling them combat medals .. establishes a pro-Kerry bias". They are indeed medals that were awarded for his participation in combat events, and SBVT people are not saying he got them for organizing supply depots; rather, they are disputing whether his role in those combat operations was actually one for which he woule have deserved those medals. I think it's fine to say something like 'SVBT does not agree that these medals were properly awarded, because they claim things happened differently', or something like that. Noel 04:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Flat out saying still equals Challenged. Unles they prove it, Kerry admits it, and everyone acknowledges it, none of which has happened. Did he earn his medals in Combat? yes. Is the veracity of the citations for the medals challenged? Yes. But no matter if the medals were correctly given or not, they were given originally for combat. Lyellin 00:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! It is only your contention that "he earn(ed) his medals" and I especially disagree that the circumstances around the source of his injuries was uniformly "combat"! This bias of yours, towards presuming a predicate of truth towards Kerry is, I feel, exactly what Fred Bauder is talking about and which you argue so strongly against. Perhaps (1) of the PH medals were "earned". The others, and the BS and SS were obtained through false, padded and "sugarcoated" action reports. That is my view and I will not just sit here and let you force a biased predicate into the lead paragraph! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not forcing it into the paragraph. In fact, I haven't even edited the paragraph. I am though, trying to draw a distinction. SVBT, and the others who believe that those medals were not earned, are the accusers. They must prove their position to be true. As of yet, they have not done that (or at least, have not been generally acceptable of doing that). Just because you believe them does not make it official. What we do have are the combat citations, and records from the time, entirely independent of Kerry or his campaign, showing that he was awarded these medals for action taht took place during combat. I don't have a bias towards Kerry because I believe we need to report what is currently regarded as the truth, as the truth, and an arguement against that belief, as what it is, an arguement, and not the be all and end all of ideas. Lyellin 00:55, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's unreasonable to expect that either side will eventually prove their version to everyone's satisfaction. I think the best we can hope for is to list all the evidence, and then state the position that various significant groupings take. Something on the order of 'documents A, B and C say a, b and c; contemporary diaries/letters P and Q say p and q; and people X, Y and Z now say x, y and z', and then 'Kerry defenders say X, Kerry crticics say Y, and others say Z'.

I don't think you can dismiss all the charges as complete bilge-water, because it's not just one or two disgruntled people saying things, with zero contemporary documentation to back their version. On the other hand, there's lots of evidence, including contemporary documentation, on the other side too.

On the other other hand, they don't call it "the fog of war" for nothing - people may genuinely have perceived different events. Military history is often notoriously difficult to write - some details of what happened in some of the night naval engagements off Guadalcanal still baffle historians. Quite often you never find out "for sure" what happened in an engagement - and those are non-contentious ones! My guess is we'll never know for sure now, so many years later (human memory is so fallible - as I have seen from personal experience), exactly what happened in a poorly recorded, minor engagment. We're just never gonna know "for sure".

So let's focus on listing the evidence, and summarizing the various positions, OK? I doubt anything better is really a viable goal at this point. Noel 04:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

L and JML: As Ronald Reagan said "there you go again". You say this: "They must prove their position to be true" but that statement is 100% false. Unless you are starting with the presumption that Kerry's personal history as you know it to be is as you suggest official, then you cannot arrive at the conclusion that SBVT "must prove their position to be true". Certainly for you, as a (preferably) impartial editor, who is aiming for NPOV, a group which has made national news with substantially credible accusations, the threshold of proof has already been met enough to vitiate the premise that the pro-Kerry view is a starting point which must be disproved. For gosh sakes, there are three - count them - three substantially different Silver Star citations known to be extant for Kerry.

Even Kerry is unable to supply a single "official" version of how that medal was awarded - not without contradicting parts of two of his other Silver Star citations.

More so, a retired Admiral - one with no dog in the fight - has gone on record as asserting that Kerry definately wounded himself for 1st PH.

Multiple witnesses are on record that Kerry's injury in the buttocks was also accidentally self-inflicted.

And there is more, much more, but what do you only want to do? Accept the pro-Kerry view on all these contested issues at face-value.

To me, such presumptions are nonsense and I reject out of hand that Kerry's personal history - as he has shared it so far (which does not include anywhere near a full military records release) - is anything approaching "official".

Cherry-picked releases of one's personal military records are absolutely 'not "official".

Not only that, but in case you didn't know it, the "official" US military authorities are fully authorized to - at any time - rescind any award which was garnered through fraud or deception. Simply because they've not done that with Kerry, does not mean it couldn't happen.

Frankly, if he keeps over-touting his service record, I wouldn't be surrprised if his 1st PH and Silver Star are subjected to even more adverse scrutiny than they already have been. Both "officially" and in the harsh assessment of society at large.

There are indeed a substantial number of Americans who are utterly convinced that Kerry has overtstaed his record - both back at the time when he wrote his own reports which formed the basis for his service awards and more currently, now when he keep overstating his record on his web site.

For example, Kerry's web site has proclaimed that his Silver Star has a "V" for valor - yet no such awards were ever given during Vietnam (or at any other time). A simple web search would reveal this to you and yet, you persist in insisting that face-value assessments of Kerry personal history arre "official"?

I am simply baffled by such logic and reject it flat out. As far as I am concerned Kerry "earned" only (1) PH (and perhaps the Bronze Star). All the rest are utterly unearned and fully undeserved. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look, you're entitled to your opinions about Kerry's medeals, but you need to accept that you're not going to convince everyone to agree with you. You can argue until you're blue in the face (if you're not that way already :-), and you won't get there. Please settle for making sure the article gives all the evidence on both sides, along with coverage of how various groupings interpret the evidence. Getting upset really isn't going to help (trust me, been there, done that before on things like this :-). Noel 04:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Noel offers excellent advice. This Talk page isn't here so we can discuss Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the organization; it's here so we can discuss Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the article. We don't sit around trying to decide whether SBVT is really a bunch of embittered diehard Kerry foes willing to say anything to hurt him in revenge for his having publicly disagreed with their views about Vietnam in 1971. We'll never reach agreement on that. The question is what goes into the article (and, alas, that superbly crafted summary of mine doesn't, because it's a wee bit too POV).

I will agree with Rex to the extent of saying that the article should not say that Kerry earned his medals for combat in Vietnam, given that whether he earned them (at least some of them) is disputed. What's an undisputed fact, though, is that he was actually awarded these medals on the grounds of valor exhibited in combat or injuries received in combat. The Bushites are entitled to say that he shouldn't have been, but those are the actual stated grounds for the awards. To describe, as a "combat medal", a medal that's customarily awarded to people who distinguish themselves in combat, is NPOV. The recognition of opposing points of view is accommodated in this very sentence by the statement that SBVT has challenged the legitimacy. As for adding "subsequent" in the last sentence of the second paragraph, it's confusing because the complaints came after some of the ads but before others. The body of the article gives the dates of the ads and the Kerry complaint, and I'm adding the date of the other complaint, so there's no need to try to get into that level of detail about the chronology here in the introduction. JamesMLane 05:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, a useful point. It's incorrect to say "Bushites are entitled to say that he shouldn't have been", because not all Bush supports (e.g. McCain, IIRC) agree with that. People can probably be divided into three groups - people who support Bush, people who support Kerry, and people who support neither - but the division into people who think Kerry deserved the medals, people who think he didn't, and people who don't have a firm opinion is an orthagonal division (although of course some of these 9 'compartments' may be sparesely populated). It's important, in a heated topic like this, to think clearly, and speak accurately... Noel 14:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have restored the term "military service medals". The article is more that detailed enough if the readers want to believe a pro-Kerry standpoint - they can do that. We as editors however, cannot broadcast one. There is bona-fide controversy. I have explained my views on this. The points I have raised have not been refuted sufficiently to justify the change that JML is driving for. I simply will not just sit back and agree that medals which substantial evidence shows were obtained illegitimately, ought to be described as "combat medals" in the opening paragraphs. Either make your case that "military service medals" does not bridge the gap between our views, or leave the edit alone. I have already acknowledged and acted on JML's concerns when I added "military" to "service medals" making "military service medals". It is now JML who is trying to dictate and who won't be flexible [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They simply are combat medals. Perhaps unjustly awarded, but they are still combat medals. This is a term which usefully distinguishes them from numerous other military medals. The article is quite clear that their legitimacy is challenged, but they are still combat medals even if he actually went out and bought them at an antique shop. Wolfman 06:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, what you are saying is patently false. One need not be engaged in combat to earn a Purple Heart, even if earned legitimately. One qualifying predicate (among several) is that the injury must be imposed on you from the enemy. If you are sitting in the latrine taking a dump, and an enemy mortar round lands near the john and wounds you, you are entitled to a Purple Heart. Under no circumstances though, is taking a dump a combat activity. You are simply wrong. Therefore, it is your obligation to make the case that "military service medals" does not bridge the gap between our views. If not, you are not engaging in Consensus decision making and your changes would therefore be invalid. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How is taking a dump "not a combat activity"?Pedant 00:25, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

Additionally, even regarding a Silver Star, the formal requirements to obtaining one do not specify "combat". Whether you know this or not, in the vernacular of the USA military "action" and "combat" are not the same. [2] Having said that, while it is more likely that an SS medal would typically stem from some form of combat than a PH, even on an SS, "combat" itself is still not required. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And if you think I am making this up, please read Lyndon Johnson's Silver Star citation here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some relevant history:

• The page was protected following an edit war in which Rex was repeatedly insisting on having his way with the article, even though no other editor agreed with him. This is the same Rex who now says that I'm "trying to dictate and ... won't be flexible."

• How can you know "no other editor agreed with him"? People who agree don't vote, they only read and nod. Page History only shows disagreements. And this is argument from authority: experts/everyone agrees so it must be true. SEWilco 17:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I tried to deal with the impasse by setting up a sandbox. Rex suggested a couple versions of the introduction here. Both of Rex's versions used the phrase "combat medals".
• When the page was unprotected, I made this edit to add an introduction along the lines of what had been discussed in the sandbox. I used some of what I'd written, some of what Nysus had written, and some of what Rex had written. The introduction that I inserted used the phrase "combat medals".
• Rex made this edit that changed part of the introduction but left in the phrase "combat medals".
• Only thereafter did Rex decide to change "combat medals" to "service medals".
• Despite the foregoing, Rex now describes the use of the phrase "combat medals" as "the change that JML is driving for". He hasn't expressly made his usual claim that his own version is the "baseline", but that seems to be the import. To restore the version that's been there throughout the process described above now somehow becomes a change that must be justified.
• And, of course, it hasn't been justified, because Rex now unilaterally informs us that the points he raised "have not been refuted sufficiently".
• In short, Rex is right, everyone else who has commented on this point is wrong, and any refusal to recognize this Manifest Truth constitutes a failure to engage in Consensus decision-making.

Rex, my opinion differs from yours. I think that you haven't justified the change from "combat medals". By itself, it's not a big point, but I think the narrative above is a good illustration of recurring aspects of your editing practices. JamesMLane 06:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, your accusations are once again totally false. First of all, the sandbox petered out due to lack of comments from others. And trying to hold me permanantly to a partially completed work-in-progress is disingenuos. Second, I absolutely have proven that not all medals of the type which Kerry posesses are always, by definition, "combat medals". This is the core of JML's current position and I have refuted it. Please read the proofs I have provided including links before you again go and say things that are simply false. The bottom line is that "military service medals" encompasses all medals and is an accurate term in this discussion and for the use I have put it to. However, it is not always true that medals of the type Kerry has arise only from combat. And on top of that, the precise circumstances out of which Kerry's obtaining medals sprung is in dispute. JML, you have not made your case and no matter how many fraudulent "bullet lists" of accusations you hurl at me, until you make you case, I am not persuaded. I've heard your point of view - you claim they are combat medals. I have shown you that you are wrong - why is it so hard for you to admit that? And finally, you brought this on yourself tonight by unilaterally grabbing what you wanted from the "sandbox" and running with it - without asking for ratification or consent for those who participated at the "sandbox". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What's the problem with JML's most recent edit? He stated your point explicitly in the introduction. I don't get it; how does that expand the disagreement? Or do I misunderstand the point you have been trying to make? Wolfman 07:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I find it interesting that you would chastise me for acting "unilaterally". It seems to me that your deletion of the word "combat" was done unilaterally. So I unilaterally inserted a phrase that was found in the proposals of several other editors, and that other people had had time to object to, and you unilaterally deleted it. At any rate, I invite you to consider the latest change I made to the intro. I thought the best way to achieve NPOV was to spell out the dispute raised by SBVT. This way, it will be absolutely clear to the reader that there's disagreement over whether Kerry was in combat in the incidents for which these medals were awarded. I was striving for language that wouldn't prejudge the dispute either way. JamesMLane 07:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, at this juncture, any suggestions you make which do not include addressing the validity and appropriateness of using "military service medals" vs. "combat medals" are void due to your refusal to deliberate. I have 100% addressed the usage and terminology aspects of those two terms. I have clearly addressed and answered the points you raised and yet, you refuse to acknowledge this. Frankly JML, at this point, I feel that your previously declared and ongoing intention of trying to get me "hard banned" from this Wiki has so poisoned your dealings with me, that it is unreasonable for me to expect you to address points I raise. Even so, here is an additional overture to you: If (but only if) you respond here regarding my points (as raised above), I will view your comments as coming in good faith. But if you do not, I will not speak with you again for any reason on any page - you decide: either we are dialoging or we or not - until you reply to the "military service medals" refutation of "combat medals",I have nothing further to say to you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I personally have a problem with the word "medal". It's obviously POV because the sheer mention of the word medal alone connotates that Kerry was rewarded for something which we all know he clearly did not do. Medals are only given upon people when they perform deeds that are worthy, since it is clear that Kerry did not in fact earn these medals, I think that we need to change the wording on this. Possibly "decorative items" like used below, or "decorative-like substance". Until someone can prove me wrong, which you can't, I am going to keep this change and revert any change to the contrary.

this matter simply cannot be decided because it must rely on personal definitions of "combat medals". simply because Wolfman reverted it to "medal", I don't believe that this was a direction towards clarifying the article but rather that it is appeasing one side. I myself believe that these can be described as combat medals despite the fact that it is *possible* to obtain a purple heart without actual enemy fire. If we agreed upon "combat medals" (which you did and have for a long time), I don't believe that the sheer usage alone constitutes POV, as we are clearly and distincly identifying that these medals are questioned. Simply because they are questioned is not a reason to drop the "combat" in "combat medal" for that is what they were awarded for according to the public record. We have extensively covered, linked, and analyzed why it is questioned in the first place, thus I see no reason to drop "combat" or assume POV. In addition you concede yourself that some of the medals might have been awarded through combat... if we REALLY want to attach NPOV to such word specificity, I want it said "medals earned both through combat and not" which would be ridiculous, of course.

one more thing, Rex, am I wrong or did he receive that purple heart for injuries sustained inside his boat where he crushed his arm in addition to the self-inflicted wound? Wouldn't this alone be grounds for awarding the purple heart?--kizzle 21:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"To describe, as a "combat medal", a medal that's customarily awarded to people who distinguish themselves in combat, is NPOV." JamesMLane

I strongly disagree. Participants should be mindful that the use of the term "combat medal" is a civilian descriptive and not one generally used by the military themselves. The military (who are, after all, the issuing authority) describe these as "Awards and Decorations", "Service Medals" or "Service Awards". Evidence of this fact can be found in almost any military biography (eg. during his service John Doe was the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with "V" device and the Army Commendation Medal.) Whether these A&Ds relate to combat or not is specified within the text of the award with the exception (there might be others) of the "Combat Infantryman's Badge". Hence, I agree totally with those arguing that the term "combat medals" is a civilian misnomer and is, hence, a biased affectation and transparently POV when used to describe John Kerry's "Awards and Decorations". I believe the military, as the authoritative source, has given you the answer to this dispute. They are "Military Service Awards" or "Awards and Decorations". JakeInJoisey 19:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Referencing Wolfman's recent edit, here is a link from the National Personnel Records Center utilizing the traditional military references to service medals and awards. I will provide others if appropriate...

National Personnel Records Center

(St. Louis, MO)

Military Awards and Decorations

Requests for the issuance or replacement of military service medals, decorations, and awards should be directed to the specific branch of the military in which the veteran served. However, for Air Force (including Army Air Corps) and Army personnel, the National Personnel Records Center will verify the awards to which a veteran is entitled and forward the request with the verification to the appropriate service department for issuance of the medals.

http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records/awards_and_decorations.html

Please provide documentation that supports your desired use of the term "combat medals".JakeInJoisey 00:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do they give out Silver Stars for shuffling paperwork? I thought not. But in case you are being pedantic instead of petty, here's an example of the military using the phrase "combat medals" in the title of an officially published and sanctioned book. [3] Wolfman 00:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you still have a problem with this wording I would be comfortable with replacing the phrase "combat medals" with Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. That I think would cover your pedantic point while still communicating to the reader that these are combat medals, not paper-pusher medals. Wolfman 02:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I noted in the history tab that it seems to indicate that I somehow deleted Wolfman's original edit of his comment above. I can assure this group that if it was done by me, I sure as hell don't know how it happened. I'm more than aware that edits to this page are documented and to delete someone elses edit is not only stupid but pointless.

As to the documentation provided, I should have realized earlier that in the universe of written military history, someone, somewhere would have used the term "combat medals". While I believe that using the traditional military descriptive would better serve NPOV in this article, I'll yield the point to Wolfman and to the use of the term "combat medals". However, the statement still needs revision as the SVPT is not contesting all of Kerry's awards.

As to the "petty" comment, I've been wondering if or when the first ad hominem would arrive. Let's just say that for a "petty" consideration, you appear to have spent a fair amount of time on the subject yourself...even have a section named after you. As to being "pedantic", perhaps a bit more pedantry and a bit less punditry in the composition of an encyclopedia might almost be a virtue. Lord knows this article needs it.JakeInJoisey 02:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you allude to the previous discussions which settled the matter, I have no idea why we're rehashing it now. Also, which of the medals are they no longer contesting? That should be noted in the article. Wolfman 03:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We're re-hashing it now because I don't believe that it's the normal terminology used by the military when referencing those service awards. I believe it's use here is inappropriately motivated by a POV desire to highlight Kerry's "combat" experience when elements of that "combat" experience are in dispute. I cited you an example from a suggested authority and how they reference the awards, and you cited me what might be considered a legitimate counterpoint. As your document showed, it is not universally and scrupulously applied and, based on that, I yielded the point.

As to the service awards, I don't believe SBVT is contesting Purple Heart #2.JakeInJoisey 04:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See below in your "proposal" section, O'Neill has at the least called PH #2 "controversial". Your comment is otherwise interesting, because conversely it seems to me the desire to strike "combat" is inappropriately motivated by a POV desire to downplay Kerry's combat experience. However, some indicator that the dispute is about combat awards is absolutely essential to understanding the story. The military hands out all sorts of ribbons and decorations for brushing your teeth and wiping your ass properly. Criticizing those would be no big deal. Criticing combat medals is a big deal. Wolfman 04:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman's medal edit

Wolfman has very graciously just now, made what rightly can be described as a consensus edit. He used the term "medals" alone - without "combat" and without "military service". This is acceptable to me, if it's acceptable to the others. Thank you Wolfman. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the version that makes clear the basis on which the Navy awarded the medals and the basis on which SBVT challenges them:

"SBVT has alleged that Kerry received some of his combat medals after incidents that did not involve combat, and it has criticized his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress."

Inasmuch as those seem to be the key points on each side of the dispute, it seems appropriate that the introduction should bring them to the reader's attention. Obviously, we can't try to cram everything into the introduction, but I think adding a few words along these lines is reasonable and is fair to both sides.

As for Rex's comment of 7:24, I frankly don't understand quite a bit of it. It's apparently intended to tell me what I have to do to persuade Rex that I am acting in good faith. But Rex's opinion of me is as irrelevant as my opinion of SBVT. Instead of trying to influence Rex's opinion of my character, I'd prefer to focus on what the article should say. I'd like to hear from Rex or anyone else who thinks that the version I quoted above fails the NPOV test, or who has any other criticisms of it. JamesMLane 08:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For those who don't know; elsewhere on this Wiki, JML has declared that it is his intention to try to get me kicked off - "hard banned". Bearing that in mind, and in light of his staunch refusal to address the points I've raised this evening, I have adopted the position that JML is not being forthright with me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 08:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The details of any dispute the two of you have going are not relevant to the content of the article page. Can you please take your personal differences elsewhere, and restrict discussion here to the content of the page, please? If nothing else, this page is growing fast enough without adding that content too! Noel 14:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is JML who is carrying on a vendetta aimed at "hard banning" me. I cannot control what he does or does not do. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 14:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Times JML has mentioned hard-banning on this page: 0

Times Rex has mentioned hard-banning on this page: 3

How exactly is JML carrying on a vendetta aimed at hard banning you? --kizzle 20:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excessive edit rate

Since this page was unprotected yesterday, it has seen 30 edits - many of them part of an edit war, with content being added and removed. You all need to calm down, or I will ask another admin to come in, review the situation, and protect the page again. Noel 15:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see - looking at the timestamps, it died down about 12 hours ago, and things have been quiet since then. So things aren't as bad as I thought, first looking at the log. Still, let's try and keep the edit rate less than frenetic, OK? Noel 15:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That tends to be the pattern with these pages. Something gets changed without discussion, someone else reverts. It goes back and forth, some talk dialouge (or perhaps not dialouge, just posting) occurs while this going on, then it goes entirely to the talk page, and then more stuff gets added to RfC, RfM, and ArbCom's. Well, perhaps I'm being jaded, but you get the picture. It's been like this for almost a month now. Lyellin 15:21, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Lyellin. In this particular instance, I'm going to go out of my way to avert another pointless edit war, by waiting to see what comments people have on my proposed change. As is often the case on Kerry-related articles, however, the Talk page is unusually active, and any specific attempt at constructive resolution that's on the Talk page tends to get shoved up and out of sight. Therefore, I'm repeating my suggestion below, with its own headline. This is an attempt to have it readily available for discussion without constantly reverting to it in the article. JamesMLane 16:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for the introduction

For the introductory summary of the SBVT attack on Kerry, I inserted this version of the troublesome sentence:. My attempt was to mention the basis on which the Navy awarded the medals and to explain the basis on which SBVT challenges those awards:

"SBVT has alleged that Kerry received some of his combat medals after incidents that did not involve combat, and it has criticized his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress."

Inasmuch as those seem to be the most hotly contested points, it seems appropriate that the introduction should bring them to the reader's attention. I don't think it carries an implication that Kerry deserved the medals. It reports that he received them, and it mentions the stated justification on the basis of which they were awarded, both of which points are certainly true. This wording also spells SBVT's stated view that one of those essential underlying factual allegations was false. I think that's fair to both sides. After I inserted this sentence, Rex reverted. Rather than re-inserting it I offer it here for comments, objections, suggested improvements, etc. JamesMLane 17:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the suggestion, and coming here with this. I haven't studied the situation around each of the medals in detail; however, I did read a lot of material about the Bronze Star incident (in an attempt to form a full picture of my own), and I'll extrpolate from that. I'm fairly leery of the phrase "Kerry received some of his combat medals after incidents that did not involve combat", because i) then we get back into the whole big 'are they combat medals or not' brou-ha-ha, and ii) because there was combat (e.g. in the Bronze star incident, one boat was mined, and there was another large explosion close aboard Kerry's boat - if that's not combat I'm not sure what is). The issue rather is in some subtler details (which I won't rehash here) So here's my suggestion, a revision of yours:

"SBVT has alleged that the details of the incidents in which Kerry received some of his medals were not correctly reported, and that he therefore may not have deserved those particular medals. It has also criticized his post-war behaviour, both his accounts of the Vietnam war (particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress), and the protest in which he discarded decoration items."

I couldn't think up a better phrase than "decoration items" to cover both the ribbons, and medals themselves, that he says he pitched over the fence - please improve that part! Also, I pondered for a long time over "reported" - I had "described" at one point, but felt it wasn't formal enough to cover all the paperwork, including citations. So, there's my shot. Someone else's turn! :-) Noel 18:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I approve... maybe "decoration paraphenalia" although that doesn't sound too much better. --kizzle 20:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm late to this party, but there appears to be some pro-Kerry bias in the introduction. Why is it necessary to qualify the Kerry "support" as follows..."Other Vietnam veterans, a number of whom served directly under Kerry or who witnessed the incidents in question..." when no such qualification (both of which which are ALSO applicable to members of the SVPT organization) is applied to the SVPT membership? This "qualification" might suggest to the uninitiated reader that Kerry's "supporters" are somehow unique in service "directly under Kerry" or in "witness(ing) the incidents in question". Steve Gardner, an outspoken member of SVPT, ALSO served "directly under Kerry." In fact, Gardner served MORE time under Kerry than ANY of Kerry's "band of brothers." As to "witness(ing) the incidents in question", hopefully anyone interested enough in this issue will stipulate that SVPT has established their bona fides in that regard. --JakeInJoisey 09:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) (sorry...timestamp is wrong...added it several hours after I had posted)

That's because of the vets that signed the SBVT petition, only Gardner served on the same boat as Kerry. No one else did. And none of them witnessed the incidents, so there are no bona fides to establish. See John Kerry military service controversy for the details, as the paragraph indicates. The statement, as is, is accurate. -khaosworks 04:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, you fail to address the point I'm making. As Gardner ALSO served directly under Kerry, qualifying Kerry's "BOB" as having served "directly under Kerry" implies some "unique" qualification to their testimony that is lacking in the SVPT testimony. In the least, in equity, if this qualification of the "BOB" is allowed to stand it must be pointed out that a member of SVPT ALSO served directly under Kerry, and for LONGER than ANY of the "BOB". Secondly..."none of them witnessed the incidents"? Are you serious? --JakeInJoisey 09:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) (sorry...timestamp is wrong...added it several hours after I had posted)

Well, it does, because those that served directly under Kerry support his view of matters, and Gardner's only criticism is that they never crossed into Cambodia, which also those others that served on Kerry's vote don't directly contradict. The membership of Gardner is mentioned further down in the article. I concede that there is just one incident which involves the eyewitness testimony of other SBVT members, the Bronze Star incident, but none of them were on the same boat. Dr. Lewis Letson did not witness the incident that earned Kerry his first Purple Heart - he treated him after. SBVT's criticism of Kerry's second Purple Heart is based on the testimony of Admiral Schacte, who is not an SBVT member. -khaosworks 05:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Well, it does, because..."

1. "...those that served directly under Kerry support his view of matters..."

This is an untrue statement on its face. Steve Gardner served directly under Kerry and does NOT "support his view of matters."

From Dean Esmay's Blog, "Dean's World"...

"I spoke this time with Steve Gardner, a southern gentleman from North Carolina who served under John Kerry's command, on his Swift Boat, for two and a half of the three months that John Kerry served in combat in Viet Nam. Gardner also served on that boat and several other boats in Viet Nam before Kerry ever arrived in the combat zone. We spoke over the phone on the morning of Friday, October 29.--Dean

DW: How long did you serve with young Lt. Kerry?

SG: Two and a half months of his four month tour.

DW: All on same boat?

SG: Absolutely. On the PCF-44.

Dean's World

2. "...and Gardner's only criticism is that they never crossed into Cambodia,..."

Not true. Steve Gardner disputes at least 2 Kerry version of events...

a. "Christmas in Cambodia"

b. "The Sampan Incident"

3. "...which also those others that served on Kerry's vote don't directly contradict."

Nor, to my knowledge, are they willing to CORROBORATE. His own campaign had to concede that "Christmas in Cambodia" was a fabrication and has yet to produce ANY documentation or corroborating testimony from ANY source to substantiate Kerry's claim of EVER having been "in Cambodia" other than Kerry's own claim.

4. As you "concede that there is just one incident which involves the eyewitness testimony of other SBVT members", I believe my contention that the SVPT ALSO meets the same "qualifications" as the BOB as stated in the intro is amply supported.

Therefore, I believe the following to be a fair statement of the FACTS that require no further "qualifications"

Other Vietnam veterans disputed the criticisms of Kerry's medals and supported Kerry in his presidential aspirations. --JakeInJoisey 20:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In reconsidering the above, perhaps the following might be an agreeable compromise?

Other Vietnam veterans who also served with Kerry disputed the criticisms of Kerry's medals and supported Kerry in his presidential aspirations.JakeInJoisey 21:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I'm agreeable to that. -khaosworks 21:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the phrase "for valor in combat" from the following... "The group challenged John Kerry's accounts of his wartime service, arguing that he did not deserve some of the service awards given him by the United States Navy for valor in combat. This is simply an inaccurate descriptive for several of the awards in contention, in particular Purple Heart #1 and Purple Heart #3. A Purple Heart is not awarded for "valor in combat" and, in fact, the military uses a specific means of so designating extraordinary valor, the "V" device. JakeInJoisey 04:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edited the following to include "some of" and "elements of"

The group challenged John Kerry's accounts of this wartime service, the legitimacy of some of his combat medals awarded by the U.S. Navy, and elements of his later anti-war activism.

SBVT is not disputing the legitimacy of all of Kerry's service awards. Nor did they challenge his "anti-war activism" per se as this statement would seem to indicate. SBVT acknowledged his right to "anti-war activism". It was the character and veracity of certain of his activities and verbiage that were challenged.

Exactly which combat medal do they agree with? Absolutely not the SS, BS, or 1st PH. Here's what O'Neill said of the PH's. "Each of these decorations is controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two cases, incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the injuries were caused by his own hand and not the result of hostile fire." If they no longer challenge one of these, let's get it on record in the article that, by God, Kerry deserved a medal. Until then, changing your "some" to "all" is more accurate. Wolfman 04:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Membership

I rv'd Kizzle's addition of the following text...

In fact, only one member, Stephen Gardner had actually served on the same boat as Kerry.

This inserts POV into the text in that it presupposes acceptance of the disputed contention that only those who served in Kerry's immediate crew comprise a narrow universe from which legitimate testimony on Kerry's service might be offered. (A subject of discussion and further editing to come) The very use of the phrase "in fact" and the word "only one" are descriptives characteristic of conclusions and rebuttals, not actual statements of facts. Let's omit the two and see how it reads, shall we?...

One member, Stephen Gardner, actually served on the same boat as Kerry

Quite a different slant, isn't it? However, if you insist, I'll work with it. How 'bout this...(minus "had" which feels grammatically incorrect)

Only one member, Stephen Gardner, actually served on the same boat as Kerry, although his service under Kerry was of considerably longer duration than any of Kerry's other crewmates.

(specifics to follow upon agreement over text)JakeInJoisey 21:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake - I don't have a problem with the edit, except for the qualification that "his service under Kerry was of considerably longer duration than any of Kerry's other crewmates." First, it seems sort of unwieldly in that sentence. Second, while it may be arguable that any of Gardner's info should go in this portion, as long as there are other descriptions of members, a reference to Gardner seems appropriate. However, the qualification as to the length of time he served seems more appropriate elsewhere - maybe the second to last paragraph in that section? Third, I think the term "considerably longer" is a matter of relativity. Something like "he served the longest under Kerry" or somesuch would be my suggestion. EECEE 21:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

EECEE, 'preciate the input.

1. Unwieldy? I'll try for better prose.

2. I agree, a reference to Gardner's membership as a Kerry crew member IS appropriate. The question is where, is it presented NPOV, and how often. Upon further reading of the Membership section, you find the following...

Stephen Gardner, the sole SBVT member who served on the same boat as Kerry...

Now, instead of "only", we find "sole". Is there a POV message being sent here? Quite frankly, the emphasis that's being placed on a non-military, artificially narrow definition of "served with" is a festering sore that I'll defer addressing for the moment.

3. Service duration/description...If service directly under Kerry is deemed to be that important, then it seems only logical that duration of service under him must also be worthy of note. Steve Gardner served under Kerry for approximately 2 1/2 months of Kerry's 4 month tour of duty, longer than any other enlisted member of Kerry's BoB.

Given the above, I would suggest that one of the two descriptions of Gardner's status as the only SVPT member to "serve under" Kerry is redundant, POV inspired and in need of deletion. Assuming this one will remain, I offer the following...

Only one member, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat as Kerry, although his service under Kerry was longer than any of Kerry's crewmates.JakeInJoisey 00:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake, welcome to Wikipedia first of all :) Your reason for reversion is something which is important to keep in mind while editing an article, in that implications can be derived from seemingly innocent text which drastically alters the literal meaning the same way sarcasm drastically alters the literal interpretation of the text taken alone. However, we cannot remove sentences simply because they imply other things, we just have to make sure they are not unfairly or irrelevantly added. The reason that I state below is why I added prominance to this sentence. Simply removing a sentence because you are afraid of what conclusions the readers will draw is not justification for removing information. If there is other information to draw upon to put this information in a different light, such as Gardner serving the longest amount of time with Kerry, then by all means it should be included in the article. I agree with EECEE in that including it directly in the same sentence is a bit lengthy, as it is a general description of the membership of the organization. Lets include it when it goes into detail about Gardner himself, or something along EECEE's suggestion.--kizzle 23:07, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, I agree with you that posting in the relevant topic on the talk page is ideal, but in practice this page is more organized chronologically rather than by subject or topic... I tried to implement a permanent subdivision on a talk page once to keep all subsequent discussions organized by topic, but it never works out (I barely recognized your posts on this page as they were up in conversation chains that ended 3 months ago)... --kizzle 23:07, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Let me quickly respond to this comment as it is administrative (although quite important, at least to me). I'm more than happy to go with a consensus just so long as there's some method to this madness. However, for the life of me I don't understand why it wouldn't be more facile to group article discussions under the same framework headings as the article itself. As it is this discussion area is tough to navigate through, and just because an editing discussion might have ended 3 months ago there's no guarantee that it won't be addressed again, especially in this topic. Doesn't it make sense to group the discussion by content so that prior discussions on section content might be more easily referenced? In fact, why not move this off-topic conversation to a separate area? I'd do it but I haven't yet tackled the "move" feature.JakeInJoisey 04:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake, just tellin ya how it's normally functioned in the past, that's all :) Wikipedia is very fluid, so if you want to organize this talk page, I suggest archiving all previous content and renaming the titles of current sections so that they make sense. --kizzle 05:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

To JakeInJoisey and kizzle: Hmmm, how would this look?

" Stephen Gardner, a SBVT member who was also the longest serving crewmate of Kerry's (dates of service go here), appeared in the group's third television advertisement ..."

Then delete the reference to the dates of service in the TV ad paragraph (it's okay, it was my addition). EECEE 01:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

EECEE, quite honestly I think mine reads a bit better and also satisfies (at least for the interim) Kizzle's desire to highlight specific additional information. My problem is that this "info" is again repeated in the TV ads section. It is, quite simply, redundant and, IMHO, POV inspired. I mean, how many times must a reader be reminded that Steve Gardner is the only SVPT member to have served as a member of Kerry's crew (for whatever relevance it may have)? (Kizzle, I'm not ignoring your comments and fully intend to reply, but with limited time I wanted to try to complete the dialogue with EECEE.)JakeInJoisey 03:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi JakeInJoisey - Yes, I see your point, and I agree it is redundant to say Gardner was the "sole member" who served on the boat in the TV ad part. That's why I suggest leaving the first reference alone and changing the second reference as above.

My reasoning: the first mention is in context of what members actually knew or served with Kerry - if length of time entered into it, you would also have to say that Lts. So and So served longer than Lt. Thus and So. It seems logical to include the reference to the time he served in the place it would bolster Gardner's case - ie, he made his comment about going to Cambodia as one who served the longest on the boat. Thus, the first mention is that he is the only SBVT member who actually served on the boat, period. The second mention doesn't repeat that information, but tells people that he was there awhile. EECEE 05:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

EECEE...Unfortunately that fails to resolve my original objection, that the use of the word "only" and "in fact" are POV just as is the use of the word "sole". I feel my suggestion offered a fair compromise...Kizzle may have his "only" (minus "in fact") but I'd like the counterpoint of Gardner's length of service under Kerry. Or, we can just omit Kizzle's edit entirely and revert, as he is repeating information already contained in a subsequent part of the same section.

Nor do I agree that offering a counterpoint of the duration of Gardner's service under Kerry mandates a litany of service time for others. The characterization is being offered ostensibly to highlight the alleged importance of serving directly under Kerry. In that regard, Gardner's status as longest serving crewmember under Kerry is germane.

My proposal...

Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam, the names of some 250 appeared on the group's statement against Kerry. Most did not serve at the same time or in the same place as Kerry. Only one of the SBVT members, Steve Gardner, served on the same boat under Kerry, although his service under Kerry was the longest of any of Kerry's crewmates.

Steven Gardner, who appeared in the group's third television advertisement, contended that Kerry's account of crossing into Cambodia was false. JakeInJoisey 06:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I've moved your reply from the middle of my post. It's late and I'll reply tomorrow.JakeInJoisey 09:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't repeat information, I simply moved the sentence. Second, I think my previous sentence was a perfectly good compromise, "Of those SBVT members that were in Vietnam with Kerry, only one served directly under him." The reason why "only" is there is because i don't know any other way to introduce "one"...note that I removed "only" in a later mention from "only" one quarter of the population believes SBVT, but in this case simply saying "Of those SBVT members that were in Vietnam with Kerry, one served directly under him." Only is used because there is just one. Also, I'm not so sure such a quick dismissal of other crewmembers service times is correct, I'm not sure personally how I feel about this one, but I don't follow your immediate reasoning as to why it should be left out. There seems to be a contradiction in your reluctance to approve my first line because of the subtle inferences that weaken the validity of the SBVT group, yet you want Gardner's service duration under Kerry because of the subtle inferences that strengthen the validity of Gardner's account. --kizzle 08:50, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Upon first reading this I agreed with you about the mentioning of Gardner's duration being for POV purposes and went to the article to support that position by deleting it. Then upon reading the passage again, the advertisement immediately following is about disputing Kerry's claim to have gone into Cambodia. Since one potential response to that point was that Kerry just made an honest mistake on the date, noting that Gardner served so long, is relevant to his dispute of ANY incursion into Cambodia for the date in question and the significant number of other dates he can speak for. The denial is more significant than if he had only served with Kerry on just the one date Kerry mentioned. I hope the mention of the duration makes more sense now.--Silverback 09:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I agree completely that Gardner's service record should be included, I was merely pointing out that you can't deny one sentence because of its implicit weakening message then want to include another sentence because of its implicit strengthening message. If it's true, its true. If the meaning of the sentence is obviously supposed to contradict its literal interpretation, then it should not be included, like this gem: "Bush never served in the army according to CBS News and Dan Rather"... obviously we are supposed to take that sentence differently than the literal interpretation. However, in either of these statements, if the sentence provides more detail and its literal and actual interpretations are the same, then it should be included regardless of implicit negative/positive connotations. --kizzle 18:19, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that most did not serve at the same time? Overlapping in time seems more likely than overlapping in place if by that we mean based at the same location. Is there documentary analysis?--Silverback 12:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know you think it's pure POV, but the schoolmarm in me just doesn't think it belongs there. Sorry. EECEE 06:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

EECEE, I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused as to the "it" you're refering to. I would really like to resolve this to your satisfaction. I appear to be missing something here.JakeInJoisey 07:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To JakeInJoisey - Sorry, guess I wouldn't make a very good schoolmarm after all. I simply meant that as far as reading the membership paragraph for sense, the phrase "although his service under Kerry was the longest of any of Kerry's crewmates" just doesn't look right in the description of Steve Gardner as the only member serving under Kerry. It seems to me to fit better as a qualification for his comments about Cambodia. Just my opinion.

By the way, I reverted another edit about members who conducted operations or were based with Kerry vs. served at the same time or place as Kerry. I think there is a real distinction. EECEE 17:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To ALL - Don't know how we got to this: "In fact, only one of the members who had served with Kerry, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat under Kerry," but we've ended up with a redundancy of a sort. Obviously anyone who served on Kerry's boat also "served with Kerry." If no one objects, I would like to edit out the "who had served with Kerry." Then keep whittling as you like. EECEE 05:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I certainly concur...it is redundant and I've omitted it from my proposal above.JakeInJoisey 06:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll go edit then. Talk amongst yourselves. EECEE 06:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Added the following follow-up material and slightly revised content to reflect source information...

This allegation prompted SBVT to present an e-mail from each individual that indicated their desire to be included among the signers. [4] SBVT also stated their intent to correct the SBVT listings accordingly.JakeInJoisey 17:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I see they said something in reply! Personally, I wonder if this whole point is too tangential to include in the first place. After all, some have expressed mixed feelings about signing, while others might wish they had signed, and still others might have mistyped their names ... and on and on. If anything, what about a simple statement along the lines of "A controversy arose over the inclusion of some names but was resolved by their removal."

Which leads into the fact that there seem to be a few too many bytes on that page. Maybe it's time for an overall cleanup. Definitely weeding out the dead links. Do we editors do this or is it up to the administrators? EECEE 17:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I see they said something in reply!

Well, when your original allegation gets rebutted (apparently to the satisfaction of the same paper that originally printed it), an attempt to remove egg from face is not to be unexpected. I included only material to rebut the allegations as posted.

Frankly I could live with deletion of the entire inclusion, but I plan on using my delete key sparingly.

If anything, what about a simple statement along the lines of "A controversy arose over the inclusion of some names but was resolved by their removal."

I'm sorry, but without noting evidence that appears to debunk the allegations, your statement would leave the impression that SVBT made an error in composing their list of supporters that was rectified by the removal of names.JakeInJoisey 19:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. However, the rebuttal was disputed, and I'm sure the disputation will be disputed and so on. I'd vote for deletion of the whole silly thing, but I know what you mean about hesitating with the delete button. Can you come up with another short sentence? Does anyone else have any thoughts? EECEE 19:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problem with 1971 and associated links

I have a problem with the 1971 testimony in the opening of the page. The opening paragraph leads us to believe that the 1971 testimony is "particularly" what the SBVT is addressing, yet there is no mention of this in the entire page. I don't have a problem with it, but I want to see some mention of this, because it seems to me that to claim dispute in the veracity of the testimony but then apply no subsequent analysis leads one to prematurely conclude that this dispute by default is justified. I see a page that Rex has been editing about this testimony, are we all on board on this external article in shaping it? no offense but I do not trust Rex (nor myself) to single-handedly flesh out a NPOV article on an issue like this.

If this truly is one of the main issues SBVT addresses, there should be some analysis or link (see also) to a page containing analysis of such dispute, otherwise we are much more inclined to conclude by default that this dispute is justified. I just did a quick glance at the article and couldn't find any additional mention, if i did miss a spot I still think there should be a link to more in-depth analysis either to another page or a section within the article. --kizzle 20:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, Thurlow (one of the leaders of SBVT) is definitely exercised over the Congressional testimony, as described in this Washington Post story:

Thurlow .. said he was angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return to the United States and particularly Kerry's claim before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. troops in Vietnam had committed war crimes "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

I seem to recall that one of the SBVT TV ads was also about this topic, and I think I recall another WPost article which talks about how that is something that really upsets them; check in the links section. I agree it should be covered somewhere, but Rome wasn't built in a day! Noel 22:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Amen to that Noel :) . can any resident conservatives (i.e. Rex) briefly and succinctly state what exactly is false in his 1971 testimony? and like I said, don't bite my head off if there is mention here and there, I just want a summary of highly-specific gripes with the testimony. thanks. --kizzle 23:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, you are coming late to this discussion, please go back and read the last several weeks (months even) of the associated talk pages: SBVT, John Kerry, etc. Also, the "truth" or lack thereof of Kerry's testimony is only one aspect of his critics concerns. Please go review in detail the allegations against Kerry at www.stolenhonor.com or www.swiftvets.com, if you want more details about this from Kerry's accusers perspective. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's some sort of discussion about the testimony over on the Kerry Talk page. I think JML pointed to the Winter Soldier page as the relevant article. Wolfman 02:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Winter Soldier Investigation article is about the information which Kerry used in his 1971 testimony. SEWilco 15:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, 1971 date absolutely must stay in where it is. SBVT makes clear that the 1971 testimony is a major part of their problems with Kerry. Feel free to add detail about this in the article, but hands off that date! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you carefully read what I am actually asking, I am asking for something in your favor. We are merely stating that the veracity of the 1971 testimony is a particular issue that SBVT is focusing on. This, from reading your last several posts, is highly important to be included in the intro paragraph. The only problem is that there is no section that actually addresses this particular section. As a reader, without digging through months and months of pointless talk pages, I want to know in an organized section what constitutes this dispute of veracity. Otherwise I don't think its fair to simply point out that the veracity of the testimony is "particularly" in question when there is no support for it besides bits and pieces here and there. So, either remove the 1971 OR help your case and just put like "For more detailed discussion on this testimony see Winter Soldier " in the intro paragraph. I would prefer the latter. Of course, if I'm the only who sees the lack of info on this then i don't want to force. Does anyone see a reason not to include a link to Winter Soldier? --kizzle 15:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i just added a link to both Fulbright and Winter, I as a reader would be very interested in those two topics if i was coming to SBVT, but you can decide and see if one is more relevant than the other if we don't want to include both links. --kizzle 18:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All editors are entiled to edit the article. Just bear in mind, if 1971 is removed I will revert. [[User

Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i wasn't suggesting that. calm down. --kizzle 05:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please don't make provocative comments like that. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

what was provocative about that?--kizzle 06:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It infers that I am not calm - calmness being generally preferred - as evidenced by your suggestion that I attain it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ok, chill out. --kizzle 18:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex. These links need to be included somewhere on the page. You yourself said that the 1971 testimony is a particular issue addressed by SBVT . So this can be a main issue yet there can be no mention of it on this page?

I am reverting back not because I believe that I am right, but simply because I asked this group several times if anyone had a problem and no one said they did (including you, your only problem was if I removed the 1971 mention)... please discuss here why you want to remove these links from the intro and get a group opinion before you do.

Once again, I want to be absolutely clear that I am reverting not simply because I think I'm right, but I followed correct procedure to ask the group first. Please do the same. --kizzle 18:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, those links belong elswhere in the article, not in the lead section. I'm re-reverting as that section was fairly stable before you injected those links. The link to Fulbright is especially an error as I started that page myself, on purpose, so there would be a non-controversial page to point to about the meeting. By linking to that up front, you drag that page into the ongoing POV battle by making it a likely target of POV edits since it is so prominent in this article. Please re-think - your action is il-advised. Even so, I am waiting until tonight to re-revert you so as to give others a chance to wade in with comments here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe my action is ill-advised, I asked the group several times if anyone had a problem and even you didn't have a problem in your response. So let us wait for others to cite their opinion before we change something on the page, that is all i ask.

I don't see how justifying removing those links because they will incite edit wars is a valid premise. Why, again, is the link to Fulbright especially an error, I don't understand your point? Simply linking to your Fulbright page is wrong? I don't see how that is correct. If as a group we are truly opposed to (see also) links then let us include some mention of it in the opening paragraphs, such as:

particularly the 1971 testimony of John Kerry in his Winter Soldier Investigation and the Fulbright Hearing.

or something to that effect. Let us wait for others to chime in. --kizzle 18:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the links don't necessarily need to be in the intro. We linked to Kerry VVAW controversy under the 4th tv ad section. It seems fine to me to use the same wording 'for futher details see ...' under the 2nd tv ad section to link to winter soldier. As to Fulbright Hearing, that ought to be linked too (or merged into Winter Soldier). It's not appropriate to avoid linking because you think other editors will participate on a page; broader participation is to be encouraged, not discouraged.

One possibly appealing re-organization would be to spin off the medal details into a 'Kerry military controversy' page. That way, this article would be just about SBVT rather than a detailed examination of the allegations. That approach would be symmetric with Texans for Truth, as well as the other allegations in SBVT.Wolfman 23:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, am I reading you correctly, do you support moving the Winter and Fulbright links out of the intro? I want them out of there ASAP. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't really have a problem with moving them to the relevant television ad. I'm not so much supporting the move, but I don't see what the problem is just yet — we've already done the medal toss thing that way. Wolfman 00:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I just want the links to both of those somewhere on the page, doesn't have to be in intro, as long as its a relevant place and preferably not in the external links, its slightly more important than that. --kizzle 03:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

protection/npov resolved?

it appears that the issue the page went to protection over has been resolved. are there any further specific objections supporting the npov tag? Wolfman 07:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the npov tag, no one has yet raised objections in response to my query yesterday. So, I am removing the tag. If someone comes along with new specific objections, just list them here and re-instate the tag. Wolfman 23:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Inspector General report on medals

The Navy has finally weighed in on the medal issue -- in Kerry's favor. I'm not sure exactly where to insert this given the present structure of the article. The report addresses all the medals, but there is at present no general discussion of the medals, just a section on each. I propose adding an introductory paragraph under 'Allegations' stating that the medals are challenged. We could reference the IG report there once, rather than mentioning it 3 or 4 times below.

The Navy's chief investigator concluded Friday that procedures were followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy memo.

Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group. The group has also asked for the release of additional records documenting the Democratic presidential candidate's military service.

...

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed," Route wrote in the memo sent Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England.

"In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards." Wolfman 15:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

in the words of Stewie Griffin... "Victory is mine!!!" (yes that comment was made towards shaping this article, i have to figure out how first) --kizzle 16:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the moment, I've just added a new major section as the easiest quick fix. But, I'm open to other suggestions. Wolfman 17:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please take note that the Admiral refers to Kerry's medals as "Vietnam-ear military service awards", which as I was saying, proves that they ought not to be referred to as "combat medals". Perhaps next time, the other editors who argue with me at every turn would instead open their minds and stop automatically concluding that I am just trying to be difficult. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

minor point, as far as I know, the Admiral did not use that phrase - the reporter quoting the Admiral did. the direct quotes refer to "medals". Wolfman 21:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please provide link. And does it say "combat medals" or just "medals"? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Link is in the article (and in 1st sentence of section). At any rate, isn't your point moot now? The Inspector General of the US Navy just investigated and ruled that each of these medals (supposedly awarded for his combat activities) were in fact properly awarded. Doesn't that simply re-emphasize their status as combat medals? But whatever, I don't personally care whether they are called 'combat medals' or simply 'medals'. Wolfman 00:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, did the report explain why there were multiple (and slightly different) citations for the Silver Star? As for Rex's saying that we should now all open our minds, I have always tried to be as open as possible to good ideas, from everyone participating. In this instance, I see no merit to the argument that the Admiral's choice of one phrase "proves" that all other phrases are unacceptable. By that logic, we couldn't even call these medals medals. They were "awards". That would be silly, of course -- they were medals, they were combat medals, they were Vietnam-era military service awards, and I think I've seen one of Kerry's critics refer to them as "hardware". The phrase "Vietnam-era military service awards" is military jargon along the lines of "personnel entrenching implement", but we can call a spade a spade. The single issue most prominently raised by SBVT is whether anyone was firing at Kerry at critical moments. The intro can't detail all of SBVT's charges, but I think it's more informative to the reader to put the reference to "combat" up front. As for "1971", I think that "early 1970s" is better but it doesn't make much difference. JamesMLane 00:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The story doesn't mention anything about the SS multiple cites. But, I did see a link somewhere today that mentioned one of Judicial Watch's complaints was that only the SecNavy (& not Zumwalt) had the authority to issue a citation. That probably accounts for the IG wording "properly delegated authority". (I suspect Judicial Watch has put their original request on the web.) I did also find a copy of the IG's letter to Judicial Watch — it's only trivially different than what's quoted in the text. Wolfman 01:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• JW request (txt).
• IG response (pdf).

Looking through the JW request, it seems they threw in just about every possible allegation. The IG found merit in none of them. Wolfman 01:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal on External Links Section

The numerous opinion & news links at the bottom of the page are somewhat arbitrary, and not particularly helpful. I propose replacing the existing sections with a reference list of links to news & opinion articles actually used in the article as citations. This provides some measure of which stories & op-eds are important. Then, listing the references again at the end of the article give the reader an overview of the chronology and scope of the references. To me, this would provide a much more rational basis for what gets included in the external links section.Wolfman 01:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've always thought that the "External links" section should not include repetitions of links that were embedded in the article text. As for all the links that are there now, I think a lot of it is unnecessary, but some people might want to look at them during the campaign. Why don't we wait and prune the list after the election? JamesMLane 04:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with JML about the repetition issue, with the exception of utterly essential links, such as the firsthand accounts.

I think most of the pruning should come from the news section as most of the articles are just reporting some small aspect of the issue and really are of no service to anyone in any way. The links should tell you more about the topic, not less than what's already in this article. Does anyone really care what the Syndey Morning Herald had to say about the issue?

Perhaps we could get a group of volunteers and assign each a small number of articles to evaluate and then give their opinion on which ones should stay or go. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 04:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

my thinking was originally to eliminate the sections entirely, i don't see a whole lot of value added. if they stories have important non-redundant information, shouldn't they be cited in the article. if important stories aren't cited, doesn't that mean we need to add that info to the article instead of tacking on a link at the end? Wolfman 05:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Simply because this is a topic of current interest, there's value in making available a lot of detail that no one will care about in five weeks. I just think the pruning you suggest will be easier to effect after the election. JamesMLane 05:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ok. will revisit issue later. Wolfman 15:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a new participant in this innovative experiment in consensus (truth?), I would like to weigh in as a proponent of more is more. Let me state at the outset that I am an SVPT supporter and that my initial sense of the content of this compendium of links is that it is weighted heavily pro-Kerry. That I found it necessary to post a C-SPAN link to the initial SVPT press conference at the National Press Club on May 4, 2004, indicates to me that SVPT participation in this experiment has been, perhaps, cursory at best. My intent is to rectify that at my leisure.

I take issue with JamesMLane's observation that "no one will care about (a lot of detail) in five weeks." A "lot of detail" is history's benefactor and, with the emergence of the "New Media", we have experienced, I believe, a watershed moment in the evolution of historical documentation. Let's allow an interested purveyor of this moment in time the intellectual latitude to make a determination of saliency and worth on his/her own. They should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff in short order. JakeInJoisey 08:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi there - I notice that plenty of the external links are now dead. Maybe time for another cleanup? - EECEE, 26 Jan. '05

John Kerry military service controversy

Have removed Allegations & InspGen section here, as they are now in JKMSC. Also, added links to JKMSC. This has been discussed in both Talk:John Kerry and Talk:Texans for Truth. Wolfman 02:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

war crimes charge

SBVT has challenged the legitimacy of some of Kerry's combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly what it calls the false "war crimes" charges in Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress.

Is the italicized phrase accurate? And what is the "it calls" supposed to modify -- false, false war crimes, false war crimes charges? I don't know that they've actually challenged his testimony per se, though they have said it "demoralized and betrayed" the troops and POW's. Ed Poor changed the phrasing to this with a comment about not tip-toeing. That's fine, but I want to be sure the new phrasing is correct and clear. Anyone got better info about SBVT's postition? Wolfman 04:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note left on Ed Poor's Talk page: Would you mind responding to my Oct 21 comment re: your edit on Talk:SBVT? I'm not sure I agree with your wording and your perspective would be helpful. It seems to me that SBVT is broadly critizing the anti-war activities, which is the wording I put in. The specific mention of the 1971 testimony is covered in the television ads section. Further, I'm not sure whether the main criticism of the 1971 testimony is that it was "false", or rather that it was a demoralizing betrayal (a charge I have seen made). In fact, his testimony per se is demonstrably true, as he was reporting the (recorded) charges made during the Winter Soldier Investigation, not making the charges himself. So, your wording leaves it quite unclear whether SBVT is alleging that Kerry himself lied, or that the testimony he was reporting was itself false. I haven't seen either allegation made, but they might very well have done so. Looking forward to your reply. Thanks.Wolfman 16:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your comment is confusing. I'm not sure what sort of a reply you're looking for. I'm just trying to characterize the swifties. They don't like what Kerry said about Vietnam combat soldiers. Now, whether they are justified in their criticism of Kerry remarks is another story. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ironic. My comment is essentially that your writeup is itself confusing. I know they don't like what he said. But that's not what you wrote. Did they say he was lying, did they say the charges he truthfully recounted were themselves false, did they just not like the true charges to be aired? Your writeup leaves at least the 1st 2 of those quite ambiguous. And I've only seen evidence of the last. I'll take a stab at fixing it up, and you can edit it from there if you like. Wolfman 02:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I meant to write that SB veterans formed their group to protest two things about Kerry: (1) his claim that US soldiers routinely committed war crimes, and (2) that he got medals for minor injuries. I still don't understand your "ironic" comment. Are you teasing me, or what? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, not at all meant to be teasing. The irony is that my comment attempting to point out a confusion was confusing itself. Wolfman 19:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Precise wording

Okay, I did some googling. I think I can guess what's so confusing:

• In 1971, Kerry quoted other veterans as having admitted to war crimes such as rape, cutting off ears, etc.

• Swift boat veternas are citing Kerry as having accused those veterans of the war crimes.

The difference is: in 1971, Kerry testified that others had told him they committed crimes (this is hearsay evidence, of course). Swifties apparently view this as giving hearsay evidence and infer that Kerry himself is accusing the US soldiers. Kerry defenders are saying, "Oh, no, he's just passing on what they said."

I think the intro paragraph should say:

formed to counter what they call Kerry's "phony war crimes charges" and "exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam".

Okay? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You understand my point. I still don't like "what they call Kerry's 'phony war crimes charges'" because it still leaves the precise source of dislike unspecific. A reader could easily infer that SBVT charges that Kerry himself lied; if SBVT is not charging this, we shouldn't leave the implication hanging. I prefer supplementing the current phrasing (which explains the context) with a direct quote from SBVT about the testimony. Wolfman 19:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added this quote from the SBVT web site in the last sentence of the introducution: "Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward." Wolfman 01:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I was going to correct your misquotation, thinking you had added the superfluous "s" to turn "compel" into "compels", but I checked the source and saw that you quoted them accurately. Other readers may jump to the same conclusion I did, though. If the topic weren't so politically charged I'd just routinely put a "[sic]" after the grammatically incorrect "compels". Does anyone think that would be biased? JamesMLane 02:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you would routinely add sic, the only bias would be if you didn't in this case. I agree that the tag is standard and appropriate. Wolfman 03:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

References to the controversy

I don't like the way we now handle linking to John Kerry military service controversy. We have an introductory section that summarizes the SBVT allegations and briefly mentions the counterarguments to those allegations. Someone who comes to this article looking for information on Kerry's service, as opposed to the organizational information about SBVT, won't find out until much later in the article that there's another whole article available detailing the pros and cons. Then, when we do link to the other article, we link to it over and over again, which looks stupid.

Another point is that, despite the creation of the separate article, this one still has a fair amount of the pros and cons scattered here and there. The problem is that giving a detailed account of each advertisement creates an imbalance if there's no mention of or at least link to the response.

One alternative that occurs to me is to remove a lot of the substance about the allegations, and also the countering quotations from Kerry crewmembers, moving anything into the other article that's not already there. That would make the discussion of each specific ad less informative, but improve the article's focus on the SBVT as an organization. Comments? JamesMLane 03:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the awkwardness comes from organization, not substance. What I'm thinking at the moment is that we keep everything as is except that we remove the multiple links to John Kerry military service controversy at the end of each advertisement/book subsection and consolidate that into a paragraph that says to the effect of "For a detailed discussion of SBVT's allegations, see John Kerry military service controversy." -khaosworks 08:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Connections With Republicans

I propose the following initial addition to this section (highlighted)...

SBVT characterized itself as a non-partisan group both in the legal sense and in spirit. But critics have alleged partisanship, categorically denied by SBVT, pointing out that several prominent individuals who assisted the SBVT also had close ties to the Republican Party.

Rebuttal and supportive material (eg. John O'Neill's descriptive of George Bush as an "empty suit" and his expressed preference for a John Edwards candidacy) plus additional text editing will be offered when I have the time and inclination. This, however, at least makes note that claims of "Republican partisanship" have not gone unanswered by SBVT.

It is also, IMHO, arguable that this entire section is a "red herring" in that it strains credulity to suggest there wouldn't be elements of "Republican" support, especially in it's nascency, were this a legitimate non-partisan effort. This is clearly an attempt to impeach the messenger as opposed to the message and the very title has the same pejorative overtone that pervades this entire presentation..."GASP! REPUBLICAN SUPPORT!"JakeInJoisey 18:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Republican support" is not the same as "Republican ties," which is the topic in the article. And party ties are, in my opinion, quite relevant in the case of a 527 organization.

In addition, to simply say SBVT "categorically denies" partisanship is not in itself a rebuttal. It seems to me that in most places where an allegation has been referenced, it has been supported with some sort of example. Personal opinions about candidates do not refute objectively provable connections with political parties or operatives. After all, for all we know John O'Neill may have made fun of Nixon's nose, but that doesn't mean he didn't cooperate with the White House in 1971.

Possibly an addition saying something like "SBVT members belong to all parties," or some other objective example would serve your purpose, if it is to rebutt the allegation of partisan ties. EECEE 22:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with EECEE, and I add a technical objection that your version introduces a misplaced participle (the juxtaposition of "SBVT, pointing out that ..." could lead a reader to conclude that SBVT is pointing out whatever's about to be mentioned). I don't see why "SBVT characterized itself as a non-partisan group" is insufficient to convey the denial of partisanship, but if you insist on embellishing the point, I'd follow EECEE's suggestion about party membership, which can be supported by a direct quotation from the group's website. Possible revision:

SBVT characterized itself as a non-partisan group both in the legal sense and in spirit, stating, "Among us are Democrats, Republicans and Independents." But critics have alleged partisanship, pointing out that several prominent individuals who assisted the SBVT also had close ties to the Republican Party.

That puts SBVT's position in one sentence and the critics' in the next, which is clearer. JamesMLane 23:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Connections with the Bush campaign

This is in reference to my partial rv of Khaosworks' recent revision. As I read somewhere in the Wiki help or tutorial page (I can't find the link at the moment), Wiki etiquette encourages the posting of a proposed change of text (for other than minor edits) for a short period of time to allow appropriate comment from other interested parties. "Minor edits" are described as "generally mean(ing) spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearrangement of text." IMHO, Khaosworks' edit contained the addition of substantive content (in addition to several minor edits) yet he chose to categorize it as a minor change. I elected to partially revert the text in that I take issue with the following edit...(in the meantime reserving the right to object to the blatant POV of this entire article...more later)

Original

When pressed on the issue of denouncing the ads, President Bush called for an end to all 527 political ads which would include those produced by the SBVT.

Suggested

When pressed on the issue, President Bush did not condemn SBVT specifically, but rather called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, which would include those produced by SBVT.

Now, were this a Court of Law, an objection of "leading the witness" might be sustained. In a football game, "piling on" might be an appropriate penalty. It was established in the introduction that the SVPT was a "527". Implicit in the statement "President Bush called for an end to all 527 political ads" is the "condemnation" of the SVPT ads. The intent of the revision appears obvious to me...to further highlight and propagandize the allegation of SVPT and Bush 2004 collusion currently under consideration by the FEC.

Let's play fair here. I'm of the opinion that this entire article is so biased towards a Kerry defense as to make it indistinguishable from a treatise on JohnKerry.com. I'll invite you to my user page where I've reproduced this entire article and highlighted all pro-Kerry material in bold, pro-SVPT in italics and benign text in normal font. Is this an encyclopedia or a Kerry apologia? Giving credit where credit is due, I think it's rather obvious that pro-Kerry sentiment got here firstest with the mostest and has fashioned the tenor of this presentation. I commend you on your prescience. However, I daresay I have multiple links and sources that credibly rebut the majority of those entries, and it's my intent to insert them into this article (at a somewhat leisurely pace) to counterbalance what I believe is an excessive POV pro-Kerry bias. JakeInJoisey 23:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Update...looking at this again, it looks like user 70.18.231.7 initiated this edit (without comment) and khaosworks' response was to edit the edit (without comment). My apologies to khaosworks for failing to look deeper into this and encourage 70.18.231.7 to pre-post suggested changes in text before addition as is my intent. JakeInJoisey 03:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Introductory section and Senate testimony

In looking again at the introductory section, I realized that other changes were needed. The placement of the quotation of the group's statement gave the impression that it was a revised version that was adopted after the name change and after the involvement of the POWs, which is inaccurate. That statement was being used earlier. (See, for example, [5].) The detail about Kerry's Senate testimony belongs in the discussion of the second TV ad, where the 1971 testimony is featured.

In 1971, the whole subject of Vietnam was obviously controversial. To make that clear, I've added the broader context of the controversy, namely that Kerry's testimony criticized U.S. policy. JamesMLane 19:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Parody site

There've been multiple parodies of SBVT. The story about Kerry having saved Chic Hecht's life when he was choking after a Republican luncheon prompted "Lunch Room Veterans for Truth" or some such. The one that's now been added -- Harvard MBAs for Truth -- seems to me to be unfunny and, as I said in my edit summary, not particularly enlightening as to the subject of this article. Nevertheless, EECEE has restored it. Do other people see any reason why a reader who's looking for information on SBVT should be directed to this lame site? JamesMLane 13:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Hello JamesMLane - I don't know why anyone who's looking for information on SBVT should be directed to some of the opinion pieces out there either, except that they reflect a point of view on the matter. I didn't put the parody site up, but I just didn't see the reasoning of removing something simply because it is a parody site, unfunny or not. By the way, I've noted before that the entire citation section should probably be cleaned up or updated as so many of the links are now dead. Maybe management can make its decision on parody sites then. EECEE 20:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that any link should be removed simply because it's a parody. I'm saying that this particular link adds nothing to the presentation of information about SBVT. (The links to some of the opinion pieces, pro and con, do at least add something, though whether it's enough to justify retaining them is an open question.) To my mind, the Strap-On Veterans for Truth site is much funnier, but still not worth linking in this article. JamesMLane 11:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh geeze, that IS funny! Straight to the Ann Coulter site with that one. But you do make a good point. At any rate, I'm hoping the administrators will see my prior suggestion and clean up the dead links. Whatever they decide is fine with me. EECEE 05:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kerry was in combat

Jake, with your relentless chipping away, you've now eliminated every last occurrence of the word "combat" from the article. After the way the Republicans sneered at Al Gore because his Vietnam service was in a noncombat role, I think it's important to note that part of the SBVT attack on Kerry was to dispute the official records that showed these medals to have been given for his conduct in situations that involved combat. Instead of asserting that he was in combat, though, I've simply noted that the Navy's accounts say he was, and that SBVT challenged those accounts. JamesMLane 04:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My "relentless clipping away"? I see no other approach to saving the integrity of this unique experiment. I just arrived, and, IMHO, this abject farce of "encyclopedic composition" has been growing nearly unchallenged for 6 months.

Look, it's time for some intellectual honesty in this project if it's to have any worth. This entire article, IMHO, is one giant apologia for Kerry and impeachment of SVPT allegations and witnesses. Please see my talk page for graphic evidence of that fact...and the onslaught of Kerry POV edits continues unabated. (see EECEE's latest edit, which I just reverted, with ZERO discussion from him as to merit) Frankly, I think it's nearly unsalvageable in it's present form and fully intend to challenge this entire article (including it's very structure and subtitles) as blatantly POV as soon as I get the time to understand the Wiki process.

As to your observation above, will you please explain to me what bearing your allegation that "Republicans sneered at Al Gore" in 2000 has on this article? Is this an exercise in vendetta journalism or is it supposed to be an encyclopedic presentation of mutually agreed upon facts on a relatively limited subject?

That Kerry served "in combat" for several of his awards is not even in dispute by SVPT...it is acknowledged. SVPT, however, has specifically challenged Kerry's qualifying criteria for the award of Purple Heart #'s 1 and 3. Implicit in the award of the Purple Heart is the fact that they are earned "in combat" and any gratuitous introduction or highlighting of that fact is, IMHO, nothing more than a transparent attempt to draw a non-germane comparison between Kery's service and that of Bush. Your turn... JakeInJoisey 05:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that the injury was from combat is one of the Purple Heart criteria, which is why Max Cleland didn't get one. The Navy's decision was that Kerry was entitled to all three Purple Hearts, and SBVT argued that that decision was incorrect. So we state both sides. If there's anything inaccurate about my edit, please let me know. I adduced Gore as an example of how, for a political figure, whether or not he was in combat in his youth may become a notable fact years later, in the course of a campaign. I wasn't claiming that the Republican smear job on Gore should be mentioned in this article. I've never edited this article to include that point. Mentioning it here is different, though. The talk page, unlike the article itself, is not subject to the NPOV rule. JamesMLane 14:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Substantive Editing - NPOV/POV?== JakeInJoisey 20:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel...see above reference to non-discussed EECEE addition of substantive material. "(see EECEE's latest edit, which I just reverted, with ZERO discussion from him as to merit) JakeInJoisey 18:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see no discussion of the merits of the specific material. It seems quite relevant to me. Gamaliel 18:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My objection to the inclusion was more procedural. As a newcomer to this project, I'm by no means an authority on "Wikiquette?", but I have done some reading in an attempt to comply with established norms of operation here. I recall reading (I'll post a link when I can find it again) that it is considered proper to post proposed additions/deletions on the "discussion" or "talk" page to allow interested participants a window of opportunity for comment. This applies, as I understand it, especially to articles referencing contentious topics such as this one.

I wasn't here for the evolution of this article. However, judging from the product as I read it, it is HARDLY NPOV primarily due to lack of input from those of us who might support the SVPT position. I read the short SVPT "NPOV" descriptives which are then followed by reams of impeachment and rebuttal material from opposition sources and/or perspectives with little or no SVPT supportive or rebuttal material presented (please see my "Talk" page). It appears that the only means to rectify this seeming imbalance is to either excise much of the conjectural and/or circumstantial material or, perhaps, double the size of this article with the presentation of rebuttal material in support of the SVPT argument. I would prefer the former (which would, IMHO, be a more concise, "encyclopedic" presentation) but am prepared to work with the latter and expect that other participants will pre-post proposed additions as I intend to do. My rv of EECEE's undiscussed addition of material was done in that context.

To that end, I intend to post an NPOV dispute template at the head of this article as soon as I can determine what is appropriate IAW the Wiki process. JakeInJoisey 20:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts on Wikiquette and related issues, FWIW:

• There's no requirement of pre-discussing additions. It's sometimes a good idea, but sometimes it's more useful for the editor to simply make the addition, because then everyone can see exactly what he or she has in mind, how it would be worded, where it would go, etc. Pre-discussion would be much more important for something like re-organizing the article.
• The NPOV policy does not require that equal space be devoted to each competing view.
• If an article is "biased" in the sense that one side of the controversy is presented more thoroughly than the other, it's generally a mistake to try to improve it by excising valid information. Rather, people concerned about the imbalance should supply the additional information that they think has been unfairly omitted. (Just to assure you that this isn't a theory I cooked up to try to bias the SBVT/SVPT article, I can refer you to this edit of mine, from April 2004, where I commented on the pro-religious imbalance in the Shroud of Turin article: "As I understand the Wikipedia approach to balance, one doesn't balance an article by deleting valid elements but by adding the countervailing elements. I've done some of that, and I hope to do more. I agree with you that the current imbalance results from greater activity by pro-Shroud contributors." In examining the Shroud article, I didn't prepare the kind of "graphic evidence" that you cite, although it could certainly have been done. Nor did I try to remove valid encyclopedic passages just for the sake of trimming the pro-Shroud arguments.)
• Incidentally, this article had extensive input from Rex071404, who was a virulent opponent of Kerry. Some of his additions were blatantly POV and were deleted, but quite a bit of the copy he wrote is still in here. Despite Rex's multiple violations of Wikiquette (he's since been partially banned), most of us editing this article bent over backwards to look past his faults and to try to salvage valid material from his edits.
• If an article gets too long, it's generally a mistake to try to shorten it by eliminating information. The better approach is to break off one or more appropriate aspects into daughter articles, where a lot of the detail can be moved, leaving behind a summary and a wikilink in the main article. That way, the information is still available to the reader. Some readers will probably want it. There's no single level of conciseness that's perfect for everyone, but we can serve the readers by exploiting Wikipedia's advantages over paper encyclopedias (we don't have to worry about the overall bulk of the entire work, and we can hyperlink freely among articles). In fact, in this particular case, we started with the article on John Kerry. The controversy generated by the SBVT ads was recounted in such detail in that article that we ended up moving it to a daughter article, John Kerry military service controversy. That article could accommodate some of the detail that's now in this one, but I don't think this one is overly long as it is. The problem in trying to move detail was that some people thought a recounting of the substance of the SBVT allegations was important to this article, and if we go through the TV ads in detail, then we can't relegate all the responses to a different article.

JamesMLane 22:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again JML describes the issue more eloquently than I could have. Any editor can make any edit they choose without discussion beforehand. While it is considered good form to discuss edits to controversial articles on the talk page ahead of time, there is no requirement that one does so, and it certainly isn't grounds for automatic reversion. We can discuss the particulars of the material you apparently object to, but simply removing material for the sake of balance is generally not acceptable. NPOV requires us to present material in a neutral and factual manner, but it does not require us to present an equal number of facts for each "side". If you feel the SBVT case is inadquately represented here in terms of facts and arguments and not in terms of quantity of words, then feel free to insert relevant material. Gamaliel 00:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Gamaliel and James for the enlightening explanation of "Wikiquette." As a newcomer myself, I had assumed that when one adds material one finds relevant, making a note in the history section was sufficient, as I did with the edits in question. I assumed that the "discussion" area was where people worked out their disagreements about the material itself. If anyone thinks my two additions were not factual, or relevant to the topics of SBVT Republican ties or the release of Kerry's records, respectively, I am perfectly willing to discuss.

And note to JnJ - I'm a she, not a he. EECEE 06:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel and JML, I love you guys. If we lived in the same area i'd buy you both a beer. --kizzle 19:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Kerry Website Documents

Hello Sheldon and Silverback - Regarding changes to my statement that “many documents that could only be released to Kerry were made available at his website” : I had originally stated something about it being unclear whether the 31 pages of documents the Navy couldn’t release to JW were included in those Kerry released at his website. Khaos edited it out, pointing out (correctly I think) that it isn’t clear either way. To keep it within the realm of what is objectively verifiable, my new statement didn’t refer to the 31 pages at all - it just basically said there is no dispute that Kerry released documents that couldn't be released to the public.

No one can say for sure the Kerry website documents are a “subset” of those 31 pages or of the universe of documents available to him. Nor can one say for sure they are “some of those documents” available to Kerry. As I said before, though, the website definitely contains documents that could only be released to Kerry, and as they include dozens of pages of fitness reports, applications, orders, etc., I think the term “many” is appropriate.

So I have reverted back to something close to the original statement, but am willing to discuss how you think it could be made more accurate. Thanks. EECEE 23:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rather than argue about whether it is "many", a "few" or a "subset", why not just cite the actual number of documents. I think the overriding point, is that he could have released more documents if he had wanted to be open and forthright.--Silverback 03:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible (for me at least) to tell exactly how many documents of those posted at the website would be subject to the Privacy Act and therefore not releaseable to the public. Clearly a lot are, though.

No one but Kerry or his staff can say whether he had more documents to release, so to say he "could have" released them is only speculation.

Thus, it seems to me most accurate to say many documents that could only be released to Kerry were posted at his website. EECEE 04:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If he had already released them all, there would have been no point in his refusal to be open.--Silverback 06:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More speculation. And it has nothing to do with what I posted. It is not disputed that many documents that could only be released to Kerry were made available at his website. When you can show otherwise, let me know. EECEE 06:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you have the burden of proof wrong, do you have a citation for your claim? --Silverback 06:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silverback - I see you have taken it upon yourself to edit my statement out of the article, and asked for "documentation." Very well, for starters:

>>>The public has access to certain military service information without the veteran's authorization (or that of the next-of-kin of deceased veterans). Examples of information which may be available from Official Military Personnel Files without an unwarranted invasion of privacy include:

Name

Service Number

Rank

Dates of Service

Awards and decorations

Place of entrance and separation

[. . .]

The basic provisions of the Privacy Act, as it applies to military and civilian records at NPRC (MPR), are to provide safeguards for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy by:

permitting the subject to determine what records pertaining to him/her are maintained;

permitting the subject to prevent records that pertain to him/her from being used or made available for purposes other than the purpose for which they were created; and

permitting the subject to gain access to the records, or to have photocopies made of all or any portion thereof, and to correct or amend such records. <<<<

http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records/foia_info.html#mprfoia

>>> Permanent personnel records are protected under the Privacy Act of 1974, and access shall be in compliance with SECNAVINST 5211.5D. Copies of the permanent personnel record may be requested per this article during the period they are maintained at Navy Personnel Command (NAVPERSCOM). <<<

http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/upd_CD/BUPERS/MILPERS/Articles/1070-150.pdf

Some examples of permanent personnel records posted at Kerry's website:

Background Information

DD214

DD215

Duty Recommendation

Emergency Data

Enlistment Contract

Fitness Reports

Honorable Discharge From Reserve

Leave Record

Naval OCS Report

Office Order Memos

Officer Candidate Agreement

Order to Officer Candidate

Qualifications Questionnaire

Recommendations For Next

Record of Discharge

Release From Active Duty

Report of Home of Record

Request For Swiftboat Duty

Research Sheet F4-15

Security Clearances

Service Record

Servicemans Life Insurance

Statement of Service 1967

Top Secret Clearance

Training School Record

Transfer To Standby Reserve

Travel Payment Order

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Feel free to count the pages.

My statement is correct. To say only a "subset" of documents that could only be released to Kerry are at the website is a matter of opinion. It is not objectively verifiable fact.

You will notice from the history of the article that one of the administrators, Gamaliel, replaced this language more than once, each time after JnJ tried to delete it, and he stated that he thought it "quite relevant." See the discussion on substantive editing, POV/NPOV, etc. above. So please do not delete my statement again without resolving the problem here first. Thank you. EECEE 07:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did count the documents, there were 50, most seem releasable without privacy violations, such as the citation records. Some such as the emergency information are obviously private, most are possibly available without violating the privacy act. You are not entitled to assume that every document not in the list would require Kerry's permission, because they list itself only claims to be examples. In this situation, I think "some" is more appropriate than "many", since most of the documents seem routine. I did not count the after action report documents among my count of 50, because those documents appear to be in a different category, than personell file records. Do not change the statement again without resolving the problem here first.--Silverback 09:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have posted to you the actual Privacy Act restrictions on permanent personnel records. The fact that you are unable to determine what constitutes a permanent personnel record does not entitle you to come up with your own number.

Aside from being grammatically incorrect, the edit is inaccurate and misleading. In addition, please go back and read the discussion in the prior topic as to what constitutes proper etiquette at this site.

I have returned most of my original language, with a clarifying change, in proper context, and without any reference to quantity. I am requesting the administrators to view the article and make a determination. Until then, please have the courtesy not to edit my statement again. EECEE 16:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First let me stipulate that "IMHO" is a given to most of what I post.

Frankly the entire paragraph needs a rewrite as it appears to be the product of multiple edits that have lost site of the whole and it reads badly. It also appears that both parties are attempting to finesse the text to a satisfactory POV result. Perhaps a compromise is in order with a re-write...perhaps this as a start?

In response to an FOIA submission by Judicial Watch, the US Navy advised that a lack of release authorization precluded them from providing 31 pages of requested documentation. However, while Kerry has not authorized unrestricted public access to his military records by the execution of an appropriate Form 180, he has made privacy-protected material available on his website. JakeInJoisey 16:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. Let's see what the administrator says. EECEE 17:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To JakeInJoisey : As you see, I've gone ahead and used your suggestion. Thanks again. If the administrator wishes to make other edits or observations, fine with me. EECEE 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Silverback : Evidently requests that you observe basic courtesy in editing will go unheeded. Too bad. You are missing a big part of what makes discussion/posting at Wikipedia rewarding - see JinJ's approach if you want to see a good example. For my part, I am through trying to sort through any of these issues with you. EECEE 06:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you will have more success in engaging people on the talk page if you refrain from demeaning and unsubstantiated statements like misleading, ungrammatical and inaccurate. In those situations I prefer to operate the way I have.--Silverback 07:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Khaosworks - Thanks for checking in. No problem with compromise edits per se, but feel that JakeInJoisey's and Kizzle's previous edits seemed to keep it within the neutral view:

"However, while Kerry has not authorized unrestricted public access to his military records by the execution of an appropriate Form 180, [6] he has made privacy-protected material available on his website. [7]"

Well, if we're ultimately quibbling on what proportion of privacy-protected materials that Kerry put up, a little more detail to pin it down is perhaps more in order. If we don't have precise figures, then the best we can say is "most", or "some", and the above phrasing - "he has made privacy-protected material..." - is not entirely clear as to whether it's all. To avoid any misperception, it's probably better to have the qualifier present. --khaosworks 22:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand. The problem is how to explain that the privacy-protected material is included within total documents released without implying that not all documents have been released, or that only a small portion are privacy protected. Thus, the problem with using qualifiers like "some." How about JinJ's edit, except to say something like "he has made material that includes privacy-protected personnel records available on his website." EECEE 22:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that we don't know that all of the documents have been released, and the probability is that what is on the website isn't all of them, or else there would be no reason for him not to execute the Form 180. Be that as it may, I'm afraid I don't see how the sentence you propose is any more neutral than what is up there at the moment. --khaosworks 06:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We don't know they haven't been released either, and the fact that the Navy couldn't give 31 pages to JW doesn't mean Kerry hasn't released those pages himself. And it isn't true that he had no reason not to sign the Form 180 if he had released all his personnel records - he was very clear he didn't wish to have his military medical records released to the public (he did allow inspection by reporters). I want to have a statement that makes it clear he did release privacy-protected material, and does not suggest that he didn't release everything he had access to (except medical records). That's why I think Jake's statement works, edited as above or not. EECEE 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I edited the following...

The campaign cited an exclusivity agreement with historian Douglas Brinkley; however, according to at least one source, the agreement only requires that quotations from the materials cite his book, Tour of Duty. [8]

substituting "Brinkley himself" for "at least one source". According to the article, Brinkley is the author of the assertion...why be non-specific?JakeInJoisey 20:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I rv'd Khaosworks recent edit....

While Kerry has not authorized unrestricted public access to his military records by the execution of a Form 180, [9] he has stated that all the records in his possession, including ones which are privacy-protected, have been made available on his website. [10]

I don't think this is an accurate depiction of Kerry's current position based on his most recent interview on Meet The Press...

MR. RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians...

SEN. KERRY: I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get--I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.

Now, based on that statement, not all the records he was sent made it to his website, despite his claim of irrelevancy. Also, if the website contained "all the records in his possession, including ones which are privacy-protected, (and) have been made available on his website", there would be no need to "sit down with them and make sure they are clear".JakeInJoisey 01:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I have a problem with the new language. The original statement was a "however" point with respect to the Navy's indication that there were 31 pages they couldn't release. My point being that those 31 pages may or may not be included in the documents Kerry put up at his website. I agree that the receipt of additional documents at the last minute makes any description of any earlier Kerry statement rather irrelevant, but it does not change the fact that the material he posted contains privacy protected material, which all along, has been my point.

I have gone back to the simple statement "However, documents that Kerry made available at his website include privacy protected records."

Short, simple, to the point. And it's something that I think we all pretty much agreed to at one point, though I have lost track. EECEE 06:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS, I moved the "no SF 180" part a little higher up in the paragraph. See if that works for you. EECEE 06:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gardner Sentence

To head off what looks like to be an impending edit war, let me first justify my rewording of this passage. First of all, I read the discussion, I don't see any discussion (including the mention of Gardner) that prohibits me from inserting the sentence into the topic paragraph. It is TRUE that of all the 250 members of SBVT, only ONE member (Gardner) served with Kerry himself. If we simply say that "many of the SBVT members did not serve in the same place or same time", it allows too many logical possibilities to be inferred from the reader, such as: "Only 10 members of SBVT served with John Kerry", and leaves the reader with a vague notion of the proximity of service any of these people had with Kerry. The logical clarification of this ambiguity then only appears in the last paragraph and must be inferred from the statement: "Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT". This is a very indirect way of saying "Of the 250 signatures of the SBVT members, only one member actually served on John Kerry's boat." I merely wished to remove the ambiguity by sharpening the possibilities of interpretation in the first paragraph.--kizzle 21:59, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you might consider reposting this under the "Membership" discussion section where there is already a discussion underway? I'm new to this but I'm quickly finding it's near impossible to keep all this discussion in mind without allocating it to discussion areas referencing the article headings. Please feel free to delete this post if this is agreeable to you.JakeInJoisey 22:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The emphasizing that only one served on Kerry's boat without further qualification, exploits the ignorance of most readers about how swift boats operate. those serving on other boats in the same operations also were in close proximity to Kerry, not just during briefings and debriefings and living quarters back at base, but in coordinated tank battalion type operations and patrols. In a sense, while not on the same boat, they were on the same "team" and living in the same dorm. So while the Garder information is factually correct, it should not be presented in a POV way that uses it to dismiss the only slightly lesser proximity of some of the other members.--Silverback 23:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no problems adding succinct qualifications, but the answer is not to remove the fact altogether. --kizzle 00:10, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

The privacy documents statement

This statement from my most recent version captures in a NPOV way the imprecision about the number and completeness or incompleteness of the release of documents at the Kerry site: "However, personnel records which could only be released to Kerry are among those displayed at his web site" I see no reason to prefer the present version over this one which is fairer to both positions. I have not analyzed the preceding statements with the same precision because most of the focus has been on the role of this one.--Silverback 00:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, my latest attempt at tweaking it has been reverted - oddly enough, back to my phrasing of it a couple of days ago as a compromise wording. I really have no problems with my older phrasing, but EECEE thought that the "many" and "some" were not accurate representations of Kerry's position, who actually does claim that he has released all the records. What seems to be the ambiguity here is whether or not the 31 documents are among the "all" that he claims to be released, which I very much doubt, since the 31 qualification came after his statement claiming "all" the documents were released.

All this explains my attempt to try to pin it down a bit further by saying that he claims to have released all the documents in his possession. I'm not particularly interested in modifying it away from its current form unless we can find confirmation one way or another that Kerry has released all his documents. --khaosworks 01:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

>>>What seems to be the ambiguity here is whether or not the 31 documents are among the "all" that he claims to be released, which I very much doubt, since the 31 qualification came after his statement claiming "all" the documents were released. <<<

A (belated) point of clarification, Khaos. It doesn't matter if the Navy said it couldn't release the 31 pages of documents before, after, or during Kerry's statement that he had released all the records he'd been sent.

The Navy cannot release privacy protected documents to the public without authorization, even if the individual in question has released them himself.

One has nothing to do with the other. --EECEE 07:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"in fact" and "sole"

"in fact" is not POV in and of itself, but in the context where it comes right after most did not serve with Kerry, it makes it sound like he is the only one that did serve with him, even though he is just the only one who served on the same boat. The use of "sole" is redundant when used with the statement that he served the "most" time. Even if thousands served with or under kerry, only ONE could have served the MOST time, so that language is redundant. I will try to produce some language that preserves the "in fact" words but gives a clearer impression.--Silverback 04:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Umm, exactly how are we defining "served with"?? Does this include everyone who went to Vietnam? Does this include every person who piloted a Swift Boat during that time? Because we really need to flesh this concept out, as the proximity of service any of these men actually had with Kerry is a vital point of contention. --kizzle 05:40, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I had in mind those few who served in swift boats that were co-based with Kerry and conducted some joint operations with him. --Silverback 06:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was going to tackle this at another time (too many logs on the fire). However, I'll start out by noting that the parameters of "served with" seem to be rather malleable on the Kerry side. Remember the way Rood's article was treated by Kerry supporters as the "Second Coming"? Suddenly it appeared that "serving with" was broad enough encompass and give great weight to Rood's statement yet those who worked literally within yards of Kerry for MONTHS "weren't on his boat". In fact, Rood's statement WAS germane and was afforded the weight that it warranted. He "served with" Kerry directly on that mission, and the SBVT "served with" Kerry for 4 months. JakeInJoisey 07:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

McCain Statement

I deleted the comment re SBVT's claim that McCain had no basis for his statement because he had no firsthand knowledge of events. He didn't need first hand knowledge of what happened in Vietnam to claim that he found the ad "dishonorable," and his statement that he found it "dishonest" could just as easily have had to do with the tactics behind the ad. After all, in the very same statement he said that "the same deal was pulled on [him]" in the 2000 election, which I would take to mean (in his mind) an attack on a candidate's military record by a purportedly independent group. EECEE 23:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Discharge

SBVT has not itself made any public allegation regarding Kerry's discharge as far as I know. EECEE 04:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Broken link

This link does not go to the article:

• "These Charges Are False ..." August 24, 2004 - editorial of the Los Angeles Times.

As newspaper links tend to do, it has presumably timed out and been moved to the paid-access archives. Ellsworth 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up and Sort Through Links

There seems to be a need to clean up a lot of the broken links. Some of the articles and documents can be linked through secondary sources. Just takes some patience to find.

In addition, I think many of the links at the bottom of the page are to articles that are not really about SBVT. See for instance, the Sun Times article about the after action report for March 13, 1969; that would more appropriately go on the Kerry military controversy page.

I would like to sort some of this through - ie, cleaning up and resorting links, and where necessary discarding dead links - but first want to see if there's any objection in my doing so. --EECEE 9 July 2005 07:07 (UTC)

Swift Boating

Should the term "swift boating" get it's own subhead in the article? As in, "Left-wing bloggers are trying to stop the swift boating of a politician by right-wing bloggers." Or is the term too obscure? I've seen it used on many of the most popular left-wing blogs (though I haven't seen it on the right-wing blogs yet). Considering the sizes of the audiences the blogs pull in, should the subhead be re-instated? Ryan 16:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

++I've just seen it used in the NY Times [11]. I'd say it's okay to include it now. --EECEE 05:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Parodies again

We had some discussion before about listing the various parodies of SBVT. My feeling is still that they don't add anything to the reader's understanding of this subject, although in some cases they might be worth mentioning elsewhere. I'm inclined to remove the latest addition, but is there any sentiment for keeping parodies? JamesMLane 11:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Not unless they're CLASSIC parodies, which this one is not.

Plus, it needs to be noted that this whole new term 'to swift boat' was created by LIBERAL columnists who are bitter over how effective these veterans were in derailing Kerry's campaign.

Conservatives like me, who think they did an honorable service, don't agree that this term, which is used as a synonym for smear, is appropriate.

So, let's include language explaining that it's just a liberal thang.

Big Daddy 04:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Claims

I have edited the following to include information that mitigates the obviously biased innuendo of that which precedes it. My various attempts to cull information from the FEC website as to the status of these filings yielded one filing (MUR 5565)which was dismissed as "NO RTB" (no Reason To Believe). It's plausible that other filings may have been quietly withdrawn. To the best of my knowledge, there have been NO other FEC determinations published inre these filings and status of pending cases is not available to the public.

If anyone can shed further light on this, please do so.

Barring further documentation of pending or resolved filings, it is my intent to remove this reference as they represent, quite simply, undocumented, unproven allegations.

The group was the subject of complaints to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by the Kerry campaign (of illegal coordination with the Bush campaign) and by independent groups (of illegal fundraising) none of which, to this date, have been deemed actionable by the FEC.--JakeInJoisey 18:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if the complaints were not actionable, the fact that they were filed is an important part of the story. SBVT is important because of its role in the campaign attempting to discredit Kerry. Attempts to discredit SBVT right back are thus an integral part of the story. Under your standard, we ought to delete the whole freaking article, since SBVT's claims were never deemed actionable (see Inspector General's report) and "represent, quite simply, undocumented, unproven allegations." Derex 19:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting, at least temporarily pending further discussion...

Even if the complaints were not actionable, the fact that they were filed is an important part of the story.

Very well, I'll concur, though I'd venture our rationales to be decidedly different. However, it's factually incorrect to state that "The FEC has not, to this date, taken action in the matter" when an FEC determination refuting at least one of those filings is factual, available and sourcable (did you miss my provided link?). On that FACTUAL basis alone, I'm reverting.

SBVT is important because of its role in the campaign attempting to discredit Kerry.

Among many other things. But that's your arguable descriptive, not mine.

Attempts to discredit SBVT right back are thus an integral part of the story.

As I stated already, I concur. Frankly, as I anticipate pending filings (if any ARE pending) to be met with further applications of FEC "NoRTB" determinations, I look forward to using them as illustrative of Kerry futile "(a)ttempts to discredit SBVT".

Under your standard, we ought to delete the whole freaking article, since SBVT's claims were never deemed actionable (see Inspector General's report) and "represent, quite simply, undocumented, unproven allegations."

Let's ease off on the hyperbole. You have your facts and I have mine. Let's present them in an NPOV manner and let an informed reader be the judge.

Now, as to the inclusion AT ALL of this material in "CLAIMS". The title of the article is "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" not "Rebutting Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". As there is an entire subsection already dedicated to "FEC Complaints", the inclusion of rebuttal material in a sub-section that one would ASSUME is to reference SBVT "Claims" is gratuitous, redundant, and smacks of blatant NPOV. It should be removed in its entirety.--JakeInJoisey 22:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

it is still the case, as i read it, that the FEC has not ruled on any of the filings mentioned in the article. you posted the response to a complaint by one "harry scherr" regarding whether SBVT was organized by a corporation. just because the FEC has ruled on some tangential matter filed by a different party has no bearing on the cases mentioned here.[12] now, i may be misreading the file; if so, feel free to correct me. but, i have not been able to find any ruling on the cases filed by kerry, or democracy21 et al, which are the ones mentioned in the article.

regarding hyperbole: it was my understanding that you wished to purge all mention of the FEC complaints; i must have misunderstood, sorry. in the unlikely case my original perception was correct, i don't think pushing the logic to its conclusion is hyperbole.

of course, the article isn't about 'rebutting' them; what a crazy idea. the article is about all aspects of the sbvt phenomenon. surely that includes criticisms. in fact, the beauty of writing a npov piece is that there really is no need to rebut them, even if one desired to. the facts alone take care of that. now, i would agree with you that the whole bit about their tax status and fec is out of place under 'claims'; it makes no sense. i'll go fix it now. my only issue is about neutrally and accurately wording the status of the cited FEC complaints. Derex 00:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

To Grazon/132.241.245.132

Grazon, please proofread your submissions. We shouldn't mention "Kerry" before explaining who John Kerry is. If you read "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, formerly known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), is an organization of American Swift boat founded by officers who wanted revenge against Kerry for his objecting to the Vietnam war and in some cases the also wanted revenge against him for personel reasons as was the case with John O'Neill." would you understand the sentence? Of course not, it's gibberish. It's a run-on sentence. You misspelled "personal". Who is Kerry? organization of American Swift boat what?

PROOFREAD. Rhobite 04:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Mourning and active duty

The behavior of enlisted men affected among many incidences of loss of life and maiming while engaged during active military duty can contribute to the death rate or can compel troop members to behave more efficiently, carefully and surely; and can affect the battlefield conditions which might occasion capture rather than escape or annihilation of the enemy. Beadtot 10/19/2005 19:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia on swiftvets: totally one sided in the condemnation of any swiftvet credibility

atrocious. who approves the user submitted comments? obviously a leftist zealot. the "people" think otherwise, and thats a big reason john f kerry was not given a vot of confidence.

you can clean that up and post it, zealot.

I've been saying the same thing for a long time - pro-Kerry bias on Kerry relatd articles. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I wasn't aware anyone on the planet didn't realize that the Swiftboat Veterans were lying scumbags. I've just gotten around to reading this article, and I don't recall seeing anything that wasn't factual.

Is it pro-Kerry bias if reality happens to be pro-Kerry?--Deridolus 16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia and the editorialisation

i like wiki for non controversial information, like the history of the atari 2600. no irrational sentiment to get in the way of what happened historically. but topics like the swiftboat vets at wikipedia provide little more than a liberals-hijaked defense of john kerry. instead of speaking loudly the arguments that the swiftboats argued, their credibility is called into question and their arguements ignored. men who actually were kerry's peers and fought in vietman and have a story to tell. from wikipedia i learn nothing about what the very subject is about, the swiftvets!

i see a handfull of kerry's peers as defenders cited as sources, and a ton of liberal kook websites. the swiftvets argument is that 90 percent of his peers (those who actually worked with him) thought he was unfit for command, and thad he lied. those are the opinions of people who were there, and matter more than an ignorant critic. his post war activities were a different matter but were just a continuation for these men, of kerry's unfitness. to make public the TRUE things and opinions of john kerry has made the swiftvets a favorite liberal target, not wanting to lose faith in their liberal heroes.

i guess i'll stick to topics here at wikipedia that aren't likely to be dominated and administered by some total liberal wackjob. like the atari 2600.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.74.94 (talk • contribs)

i came back to check this topic

i came back to wiki because i've increasingly been directed here by google on a ton of different topics. its mostly been a pretty good experience, but i initially became "turned-off" by this site (are things even called "sites" still... its more like an intellectual property or company, or something!... anyway) because i once stumbled upon the switboat vets page at wiki. it was practically the most developed and visited page at wiki.

i didnt agree one bit about the disinformation it served. it sucked (and still does). it was long time ago and like i said i've increasingly directed to the site, read about it in the paper or magazines, heard about how its user contributable etc. so after all this time i decided to see if this swifboat page would morph into a better reflection of reality, but nah, i see it hasn't. who needs credibility anyways though, i can always gte that on the history channel (no joke). and peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.74.94 (talk • contribs)