Jump to content

Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Untitled

Notice. In this edit, someone inadvertently inserted the entire discussion twice. I have now cut back the top section under the assumption that people were adding to the bottom. If this causes important discussion to be removed, please try another fix. Wolfman 20:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

63.224.35.238's edits reverted

Wolfman, what's up? Why are you deleting my contributions? -- 63.224.35.238

See the comments made at the Edit Summary header: essentially, what you're putting in is a pretty huge change to the page, and should be discussed in sandbox before putting it up in a whole chunk to avoid any edit wars. Not dismissing your work - let's just talk about it a bit first. -khaosworks 04:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sandbox? How does that work? -- 63.224.35.238

Write out and discuss/propose the edits here, on the talk page, and explain why you are making them. Lyellin 04:54, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, btw - you might want to consider creating a user id. It definitely helps your credibility on Wikipedia in general rather than being an anonymous IP address. -khaosworks 04:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How do I get my id and timestamp to appear, like you guys? Wolfman -- type in 4 tildes (~) in a row

Ditto, on what Khaosworks said. A bit of background. This is obviously an extremely sensitive topic given current events. Just about every line of the present article has already been disputed and compromised over. It's tempting for new editors to make drastic changes. But, if we allow that, we basically have to start each section all over, every time someone new comes along. Most changes can be made incrementally, that's preferable. For dramatic changes, please post you proposal in a sandbox where people can review it and compromises can be made. That way, we can have a reasonably stable article on the main page while differences are being settled over large changes. Thanks for asking. And yes, Khaosworks is right about getting a name, it helps. (I'd also suggest reading through the existing discussion including the Archive (see top of page). Wolfman 05:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Use ~~~~ -khaosworks 05:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revised section on First Purple Heart

/First Purple Heart

moved your sandbox to the link above. keeps this page readable. Wolfman 05:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion. You have posted a large change to the section and asked all the other editors to explain what's wrong with it. A different approach would be for you to explain to everyone else what is wrong with the current consensus version. Then we could incrementally work together to come to a new consensus. Alternatively, you could make gradual changes to the current write-up -- allowing time for other editors to review and possibly change the incremental steps. Neither is a requirement. But either would help build good-will and trust. Thanks. Wolfman 05:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Um, perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why my contributions have to go to the sandbox, while others (the same ones who objected to my edits) continue to edit the main page? Shouldn't they be reponding to their issues with my edits first? May I suggest we agree to make no further changes to the 1st PH section until the objections to my previous edits have been dealt with? 63.224.35.238 19:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have been invited to make incremental changes to the main page. We asked you to submit drastic changes to a sandbox. In the meantime, incremental improvements to the main page can still be made. Note that some improvements requested by you have also been included as incremental changes. That's the usual procedure for a contentious article. Wolfman 19:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, now you're saying we shouldn't use the sandbox, I should just add my edits one by one? 63.224.35.238 19:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's in fact what I suggested in the first place. Note that one by one does not mean do them all separately, but in the space of a couple hours. However, at this point it seems evident that some of your proposals will require drastic changes. Those should be sandboxed. Also, if more minor changes are strongly opposed on some reasonable ground, then those should also be sandboxed. Wolfman 19:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but on the sandbox page you later said "Let's do the sandbox till we can get some sort of consensus." I thought that's what we were doing. But while I was waiting for you to respond on the sandbox page, you were busy making your own edits on the main page. But let's move on. As you can see below I'm opening sections here for each of my proposed edits. Make known your objections there, and perhaps we can make some progress. 63.224.35.238 20:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zaladonis Speculation about Schachte Confusion

Zaladonis clearly "claimed" that Schachte said that. The claim may in fact be true, then it's a "true claim" rather than a "false claim", but it's still a claim. But if you think "claim" is perjorative, I don't object to the change if you're sure it's true. Where did Schachte say he was on many skimmer missions with Kerry? I'm not doubting you, I just may have missed it. 63.224.35.238

And why did you delete my mention of the statement by Schachte? 63.224.35.238 20:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You referenced it yourself, I believe. Schacte said in his MSNBC interview that he was with Kerry on the missions up to and including the evening Kerry sustained the injury that resulted in his first Purple Heart. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5840657/ , about halfway down:
Myers: …What proof do you have that you were actually in that boat that night?
Schachte: Well, my report back to the division commander, the fact that we had officers in those boats, the fact that I was in the boat for those that we did up to and including that evening. And what I saw.
Myers: But, there's no documentation.
Schachte: No, listen, we're in a wartime environment. We didn't write up doctrines and stuff. We made the necessary reports – if you had a Casualty Report, After-Action Report, Operational Status of the Boats [Report], whether they were combat ready or not. I was responsible for all that as the operations officer. But, those are the kinds of things that we kept record of, records of.
Myers: And there would not have been any damage report on that...
Schachte: Correct, there was none-- yeah.
And a bit later on:
Myers: You said you went on, as I recall, that you went on nine different missions.
Schachte: Thereabouts. I'm not sure the number.
Myers: In this skimmer?
Schachte: Yeah, yeah.
Myers: Do you recall roughly where John Kerry's mission was in the sequence?
Schachte: It was the last one I went on. It was the last one I went on.
I didn't delete Schachte's statement - I moved it up to where we introduce Schacte in the article, noting that he says he had "participated in all previous missions up to and including that evening." It just seemed a bit awkward to stick it at the end there as it was. -khaosworks 20:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you read the transcript carefully, I think you'll see that Schachte actually says "[John Kerry's mission] was the last one I went on." He never says he went on more than one mission with John Kerry. He says he went on more than one mission, but doesn't say Kerry was included. The last question and answer could be strictly read to imply that Kerry was only on that one mission, but I won't claim that, although it may be true.

I'll have to think about your placement of the Schachte statement, but it's ok for now... 63.224.35.238 20:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re the Zaladonis speculation, should we really include it at all? Zaladonis has no personal basis for this speculation. Not that it isn't a possible explanation, but that there's really no significance in the fact that Zaladonis is raising it. (Actually, I don't think it really is a very likely explanation, but that's not my basic point here.) 63.224.35.238 23:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Introduction to Purple Heart Section

I'm planning to add the following introductory summary at the top of the 1st PH section. Please record your objections below.

John Kerry obtained his first Purple Heart in recognition of an injury he sustained on December 2, 1968. Along with two subsequent Purple Hearts, this award was the basis of Kerry's request for a "Thrice Wounded" reassignment, which allowed him to leave Vietnam after serving four months. The SBVT asserts that Kerry did not qualify to receive this Purple Heart because his wound was insignificant and was not the result of enemy action, but was caused by shrapnel from his own mishandling of a grenade launcher. They claim that after his request for a citation was rejected by his commanding officer on these grounds, Kerry later obtained one by falsely representing the facts of the incident.

(Please don't make edits above.) 63.224.35.238 20:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  1. Second sentence. Let's do a section on that. They (at least Thurlow) have alleged this was all a "master plan". That sort of thing shouldn't be a throw away line. It needs to be addressed, and evidence laid out.
  2. Several of the specific claims you make about the SBVT position remain unsupported by evidence you have provided. I will agree that they certainly have tried to leave this innuendo without actually standing behind any precise charge. Please quote references to support the following choice of words.
  1. not the result of enemy action (in the sense of the PH regulations please including friendly fire)
  2. mishandling
  3. request for citation & rejected
  4. falsely representing facts

The reason I ask for such specificity is so that we can present specific evidence for specific charges. If you can support these phrases, I have no problem with the paragraph. (except the 3-wound thing which should get more attention). Then, in the body, we can address the exact charges made rather than fight some vague pile of innuendo. Wolfman 20:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Remember, this is an introductory summary. And all the statements are clearly labelled as assertions or claims. Yes, more specifics are needed in the body, including lots of quotes, if you insist. With respect to the Thrice Wounded reassignment, I agree that probably should have its own section. But I also think a mention here is appropriate because it is related to the Purple Heart.
Do you still object to this as an introductory summary? 63.224.35.238 20:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I already said that the summary is pretty much ok, if you can back it up. Lay out the evidence for it now, and it will be fine with me. I'm don't doubt you have it, please just cut and paste some of those online references you were talking about. That way the rest of us don't have to run around fact-checking what the basic assertions actually are. Wolfman 21:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wolfman, I may be confused. Are you suggesting that you believe I'm misstating what SBVT claims about the 1st PH incident? 63.224.35.238 21:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no evidence one way or the other on that. If you provide the simple support for the claims that I asked, then I can give you an answer. You told me in the sandbox that all this stuff is easily available online, so would you mind quickly cutting and pasting it over here? Thanks. Besides, how on earth can we discuss the evidence for the charges if they are not precisely laid out? Wolfman 22:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, If you (or anyone else) seriously believes I'm misrepresenting the SBVT claims here, I'll respond. If you are simply uninformed, I feel no obligation to educate you. I really don't believe I'm saying anything here that would not be clear to any fair-minded person who had a basic familiarity with the key sources on the controversy. Go read O'Neill's book. 63.224.35.238 23:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you can't back up the lead paragraph with any actual documentation I will oppose its introduction quite vigorously. And yes, I do think it's a misrepresentation of actual allegation as I made quite clear in the sandbox. It is probably a fair representation of innuendo. Let me put it this way -- you have not demonstrated why the present lead article is inadequate. If you want to change the existing version, at least have the courtesy to back up your claims. You have no obligation to educate me, and I have no obligation to accept your changes. You yourself said this stuff was easy to find. Could you take 5 minutes to cut and paste it then? Thanks. Wolfman 01:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, Sorry. I've already wasted too much of my time with you. I just don't believe your objection here is reasonable. But maybe I'm wrong. Does anyone else agree with Wolfman that I'm misrepresenting the SBVT claims here? 63.224.35.238 02:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What I would like is some footnoting so that it is clear that SBVT are making these specific allegations. And I'm also asking what's lacking in the current section (not just lead paragraph). -khaosworks 02:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kaos, I want to be sure I understand. You're saying you believe I'm misrepresenting the SBVT claims here? As for what's lacking, have you looked at the new paragraphs I propose to add? (More to come, by the way.) Briefly, the problem is that the section as currently written does not adequately summarize the allegations and evidence concerning John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart. It does not give the reader a clear understanding of what the allegations and evidence and issues are. Isn't that what it is supposed to do? As for the lead paragraph, it's just not a very good introduction. It does not summarize what the basic allegation is. It just starts in with some of the evidence, and not the most relevant evidence at that. 63.224.35.238 02:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

63.224.35.238, if you view a simple request for basic evidence that you say is easily available as a waste of time -- then you are of course free to spend your time elsewhere. Writing a new lead in paragraph summarizing the allegations before you have even demonstrated the specific allegations is putting the cart before the horse. How can we gather evidence about the specific charges you plan to introduce in the summary until you specify them precisely? Wolfman 03:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph introducing Schachte

I'm going to add the following paragraph introducing Schachte after the introduction. Please record any objections below.

SBVT's claims about the incident are primarily based on the account of retired Rear Admiral William Schachte [1], formerly Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Schachte is not a member of the SBVT. He originally declined to be interviewed for the SBVT book, but after the controversy erupted he said that he realized he had a duty to come forward. He did not appear in a SBVT ad, but told his story in print and television interviews.[2] [3] Shachte has said his only motive was "to tell the truth". However, critics have noted that he was a contributor to the Bush presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004.

(Please don't make edits above.) 63.224.35.238 20:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  1. Schacte's name should be wikilinked. additional info about him such as JAG should be in that link. his title can stay. that's how we handled Corsi, or would you prefer we say "Corsi, fanatical right-wing, racist, homophobic nutjob"?
  2. I object to the entire remainder of this paragraph (except non-SBVT status). This is an encyclopedia article. None of this has any relevance to his version. Does he send his mother flowers on her birthday too? Wolfman 20:38, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Re your points:
  1. I don't mean to be impolite -- but you're kidding, right? Schachte was Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy. That is a simply a fact. The vitriol you're spewing about Corsi is clearly non-factual name-calling. (I'm not saying it's undeserved, BTW.) Do you really not know the difference? Also, Schachte is clearly a key eyewitness. Corsi was a ghostwriter. None of the factual assertions depend on him. So his credibility is not really relevant, but Schachte's is.
  2. I disagree. Schachte's credibility is an important element of this issue. The fact that he is a reluctant witness is significant. But I do suggest we leave out your comment about the flowers, unless you've got a source. 63.224.35.238 21:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  1. The fact that was Acting JAG may be a fact, but what bearing does this have on his statements? I'm the first to admit that being a lawyer doesn't mean you're any more or less ethical than any other person. Schacte has been many things - we don't have to mention them all.
  2. I would leave both sentences in - that he claims to want to tell the truth, and has had ties to the Bush campaign. But wikify the years, please. -khaosworks 21:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, we just have a disagreement I guess. I simply oppose this. You think we need a paragraph speculating on the motives of each of the dozens of witness to this whole disagreement? In an encyclopedia? Give me a break. If so, I'll get cracking on the rest of them. I believe I'll start with Rood who came forward because he felt the SBVT were smearing and dishonoring the rest of the vets. Wolfman 21:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's different - Rood was coming forward to corroborate a version, that is, Rassman's, in response to Thurlow's claims. Schacte is a primary source for SBVT's allegations about the PH. It's not quite a "he said, he said". This is where it's coming from. -khaosworks 21:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, Rood is in fact the only eyewitness for the Silver Star. Rasssman was Bronze Star.
I'll also go hunt around for the motivations of R and Z. Surely, they also deserve a paragraph of their own on that.
As to Corsi, the factual assertions actually presented may not depend on him. The selection of the facts from his voluminous research that he chose to present does depend on him. We already have documented that the authors stripped favorable material from affidavits. So yes, I do think that Corsi's credibility is extremely important. I have previously removed evidence (inserted by others) as to his motives and credibility. If we establish this precedent, a balanced presentation would require we revisit that section. (just click on his name for a few examples) Wolfman 21:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's a sentence. Do you really feel that strongly about it? I mean, it sounds like what you're suggesting now is more of a threat founded on spite than a serious attempt to improve the article. Let's not go there. -khaosworks 21:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Khaos, I appreciate your evenhandedness, but yes I do feel strongly. No, it's not a threat, and it's not out of spite. It's rhetoric illustrating the perils of going this route. There needs to be one consistent set of standards throughout this article. I feel very strongly about drawing a line and sticking to it. Remember, new editors come along all the time. The only way to keep this article manageable is to have a set of precedents. Wolfman 23:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, You "simply oppose this". Ok, I get that. But what is the basis of your opposition? Just saying you object doesn't advance the discussion. Or are you implying that your objection ends the discussion? Please respond to my points. Do you disagree that Schachte is a key witness? Or that his credibility is an important factor? The JAG is just a basic identification. I don't understand why are you so adamant in contesting this comparatively minor point? I didn't think Rood was relevant to the 1st PH. If you thinks he's a crucial witness on another issue, by all means discuss him there. As for Corsi, his credibility may be an appropriate issue on the topic of the book, but not on the issue of the factual basis (or lack thereof) of the allegations regarding the 1st PH. 63.224.35.238 21:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  1. Obviously he is a key witness to some mission with Kerry. I don't doubt his veracity on that, not do I think the article casts it in doubt.
  2. Everyone else has basic identification too. JAG has nothing to do with SBVT. Put it in the Schachte story.
  3. No, Rood has obviously has nothing to do with the 1st PH. My point is that we have dozens of witnesses discussed in this article. Surely we don't want a paragraph on each of their motives, particularly when their motives have never been seriously impeached (as with Schachte).
  4. This article is not just about one PH. It's a long article; it's got lots of parts. There are not one set of standards for this section and the rest of the article, just because you have taken an interest in this section.
  5. Should we have a statement by each witness disclaiming that "this witness has not stated they came forward 'to tell the truth'"? Obviously, each one of them would say that. It's just that those foolish reporters didn't think they actually needed to quote each witness about that, because it's pretty much obvious that each witness would claim truthfulness. The only difference here is that you have the full transcript.
  6. In short, the only reason to puff Schatche like this is to give him the (unwarranted) sheen of being more eager to be truthful than anyone else.
  7. Those are my reasons. I think they are good reasons. Now, why do you disagree with my position?Wolfman 21:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

63.224.35.238 22:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) replies:

  1. Ok, no disagreement here, I think? Schachte is clearly the key witness supporting the SBVT allegations, regardless of whether he's right or wrong. Whether or not he was on "the" mission, or just "some" mission, is irrelevant to this point.
  2. Readers deserve a basic introduction here, with details in the Schachte story. Do you really feel that strongly in your opposition to this?
  3. The credibility of the critical witnesses is a reasonable subject. I think it's important to make it clear that Schachte came forward reluctantly. If Rood is a critical witnesses in the other controversy, his coming forward should be mentioned there.
  4. I don't understand you point here. I support a single set of standards.
  5. I mainly included the comment about "tell the truth" for stylistic reasons, for a transition from the circumstances of his coming forward to the criticism of his supposed partisan motives. It balanced the sentence. It didn't add any puffery because it was implied by the previous sentence, and of course, as you note, anyone is going to say they just want to tell the truth. Leaving it out made the part about his Bush contributions seem too abrupt. I felt I needed to include the latter because the claim of political motivations has been central to the whole controversy. But I'd be happy to leave the whole thing out.
  6. See above.
  7. Progress, I hope?

Hopefully yes. Note that I add a wikiarticle for Schachte. Toot his horn all you please over there; anyone interested can quickly click on it to get his details. His JAG deal is mentioned there. So, there's no need to talk about it here.

No need to point out he's not in the ad; he's not a member. I don't really much care if you do, so long as it's just mentioned & not emphasized. It just seems pretty obvious already.

We know he did interviews because we've got them linked -- you don't need a sentence for that, just the link.

I would support condensing your paragraph to the following two sentences:

SBVT's claims about the incident are primarily based on the account of retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, a Lieutenant at the time. Schachte is not a member of the SBVT and initially declined to be intervied for their book. [4] [5]

Another round? Or does that work for you? And by the way, I appreciate you talking this out.Wolfman 23:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

63.224.35.238 23:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) replies, how about this:

SBVT's claims about the incident are primarily based on the recollections of retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, former Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and a lieutenant at the time of the incident. Schachte is not a member of the SBVT, declined to be interviewed for their book, and has not appeared in a SBVT ad. After the controversy erupted he said that he realized he had a duty to come forward with his account. [6] [7]

Nope. Cut JAG (it's wikilinked). Cut the last sentence. Then we're there. Wolfman 23:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

63.224.35.238 00:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) replies (only minor changes):

SBVT's claims about the incident are primarily based on the recollections of retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, former Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy, who was a lieutenant at the time of the incident. Schachte is not a member of the SBVT, declined to be interviewed for their book, and has not appeared in a SBVT ad. He has said that after the controversy erupted he realized he had a duty to come forward with his account. [8] [9]

I know Wolfman will object to this. Does anyone else have a problem with it?

Try phrasing the last sentence as: "He put his account on the record after the controversy erupted." No mention of motivation, but we still need to place it since the previous sentene leaves the question as to non-appearance dangling. Oh, and a pet peeve. Can you write ad as advertisement instead? -khaosworks 00:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

63.224.35.238 00:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) replies, how about this:

SBVT's claims about the incident are primarily based on the recollections of retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, former Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy, who was a lieutenant at the time of the incident. Schachte is not a member of the SBVT, declined to be interviewed for their book, and has not appeared in their advertisements. He came forward with his account after the controversy erupted. [10] [11]
with JAG out (absolutely no relevance, plus wikilinked) this would be acceptable wording to me. Just to be sure though, is the timing actually true? when exactly did Schachte come forward -- does anybody have the date on his affidavit? are these affidavits posted somewhere? Wolfman 01:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Did Schachte swear out an affidavit? I thought he was just interviewed. -khaosworks 01:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I think he may have issued a statement. 63.224.35.238 01:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I assume so. He's in the book, and I thought they claimed to have every account in there under affidavit. I know his account was out before June 16, because it's mentioned in a Boston Globe article then. The press conference was May 4. So, that leaves about a month for him to have spoken out.Wolfman 01:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone else share Wolfman's objections? 63.224.35.238 01:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, my only objection now is JAG. Khaos previously objected to that as well. What's your current position on JAG Khaos? Anyways, give it till morning to let Nysus and any others have a look. Wolfman 01:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My position on JAG is tht same - I don't think it's relevant. It implies that, as a former legal officer, he may be more trustworthy, which is not true. I don't mind the military rank applied to him, but if we put in JAG, we might as well put in every position he's ever been in. Not necessary. -khaosworks 02:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have a new objection. I listed the June 16 date above assuming it was for 2004. In fact it was for 2003.[12] The last line in the proposed revision makes it sound like Schachte never made a peep until after SBVT was formed. Clearly, that's simply not the case if he was talking about it in 2003. So, I have to change my stance. I'll agree to the last version if it cuts both JAG and the last sentence. Wolfman 03:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Schachte did not give a detailed account of the incident to the Globe in 2003, or if he did, they didn't report it. Did you read the article? He seems to have said very little, most likely trying to avoid the controversy. In context (non-participant in initial SwiftVets campaign) the sentence is still reasonable. But if you insist, it could read: "He came forward with a public statement of his account after the controversy erupted." 63.224.35.238 03:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"He came forward with his account after the controversy erupted" -- highly misleading as it naturally implies 'for the first time'. Clearly not the case. I am now curious to see the quote where he talks about coming forward.

Also, where exactly did the Globe get the Batman/Robin stuff if not from Schatche? This sounds to me very much like the same account in the book. Wolfman 04:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your stated intent was to make clear he was a 'reluctant witness' forced by events. Now, it comes out that well over a year ago he was talking about this. No, you can't just amend it to "public statement". Everyone came out with a public statement after the controversy erupted. That phrasing still makes it sound like he had no prior contact or statements on the matter. Wolfman 04:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look. Schachte was talking about it in 1968. He talked privately about it with the SwiftVets as they were organizing, but declined to go public with them. They didn't get a statment from him. His story is in the book based on what he said in 1968, or in private conversations. He made no public statement until after the controversy erupted. Again, the point of the sentence is that he didn't get publicly involved until after the controversy began. That is accurate. For what it's worth, in the April 2003 Globe interview Schachte is said to have described the action as a "firefight" and to have said that Kerry "got hit". [13] But the Globe doesn't give much more detail about what Schachte said. If he had disclosed the details relevant to this controversy, they probably would have reported it. 63.224.35.238 04:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  1. That's fascinating detail about the "firefight" and Kerry "got hit". That definitely belongs in the article.
  2. How exactly is this any different than any of the other witnesses, except S is not a SBVT member (already covered). The clear implication of the sentence is that somehow he is special. Wolfman 04:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  1. Start a topic, propose some language, and we'll discuss.
  2. The point is he declined to get involved in the inital SBVT campaign, but only responded in their defense. Who else did that? 63.224.35.238 05:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  1. "Firefight" is discussed in the Schachte mission section (below).
  2. Yes, that means he's not a member. Basically membership is those who signed the initial statement, otherwise they've only got about 10 members.
  3. Actually it rather seems he responded in his defense. Apparently he gave his account to O'Neill over a year ago to put in the book. Then he was going to just sit tight. When R & Z were interviewed, their story seemed entirely inconsistent with his. At that point, he gave an interview in defense of his own veracity.
  4. Not really doubting it, but what's the source on him declining to be interviewed. Having almost agreed to inclusion of false material in this last sentence, I'd like to check the source on that too. Wolfman 16:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thurlow/Gardner

172.185.110.115 raised the following objection in the sandbox just now.

Hang on. You guys don't think it's important that, when asked who told him John Kerry lied about receiving an injury from hostile fire, Thurlow said it was Steve Gardner, someone who wasn't even there? You don't think that's important? Thurlow goes on national television and lies, and you don't think this article should record that? - 172.185.110.115

This is what was deleted:

'SBVT member Larry Thurlow has stated that, at the time of the incident, Steve Gardner gave him an eyewitness account of Kerry's wound. [14] However, Gardner himself has stated he was not aboard the skimmer that night. [15]'


the last link also appears to show that Gardner has made some inconsistent statements about this. Wolfman 02:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps my cut of this episode, in my eagerness to illustrate good will towards 63.224.35.238, was a bit hasty. 172.185.110.115 raises a good point. Since the credibility of witnesses seems to be becoming one of our concerns, and both these guys are major SBVT spokesmen, this does seem perhaps relevant to the article. Wolfman 00:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where's the lie, though? No evidence that Thurlow is lying about Gardner telling him; nothing to indicate that Thurlow is claiming first hand knowledge; no evidence that Gardner was claiming to Thurlow that he was speaking from first hand knowledge. -khaosworks 01:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Schachte, not Thurlow or Gardner, is the eyewitness here. Thurlow says he heard about the episode from Gardner. Gardner may have heard about it from Schachte, or the unidentified enlisted man on the skimmer, or indirectly from someone else. The story about the incident probably circulated widely after Kerry tried to claim a Purple Heart for his nick. "You won't believe this, but..." That's my take on it, anyway. 63.224.35.238 01:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thurlow says 'on a firsthand basis'. The hypothetical you present couldn't possibly be taken as firsthand.
above comment by 172.185.110.115, if you put 4 tildes (~) in a row, your signature will appear and make the conversation easier to follow Wolfman 02:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Noted. In answer to khasowowks' comment above, Thurlow does claims 'firsthand' knowledge, and that means either he's lying or Gardner lied to him. 172.185.110.115 02:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Saying that Gardner told him at the time of the incident isn't the same as claiming firsthand knowledge of the incident. Does he do so explicitly elsewhere? -khaosworks 02:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
But he claims to have received the information that Kerry lied 'on a firsthand basis'. And 'at the time' refers to the time of the mission, so presumably Gardner claimed to Thurlow like he did on Michael Savages' show that he was on the mission for which Kerry earned his first Purple Heart. 172.185.110.115

Quick logic quiz: Ten people say, "I have firsthand knowledge that A happened." Nine of the ten are lying, the tenth one isn't. Question: Did A happen? 63.224.35.238 02:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's not the point. You yourself have made an issue of trying to fluff witness credibility. Well here are two of the major spokesmen for SBVT speaking on it's behalf to major media organizations. And at least one of them has it wrong. Does that not go to the credibility of these witnesses and of SBVT's care with charges and evidence? Remember, this article is about SBVT, not really about Kerry. It seems to me you are trying to have it both ways. Wolfman 02:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, are you suggesting we should move the specifics of the controvery over Kerry's Vietnam record to the "John Kerry" article? Maybe so. Schachte is not a SBVT member. Neither are the POWs who appeared in the second ad. So it's really gotten bigger than the SwiftVets per se. Is that what you're thinking? On the immediate subject, I think you're making way too much of Thurlow's statements. Thurlow is not media-savvy. I don't believe he intended to claim he was an eyewitness of the 1st PH episode. One has to be careful with transcripts of oral interviews. But regardless, feel free to question Thurlow's credibility where his credibility is important to resolving the factual issues. That's just not the case with the 1st PH episode. 63.224.35.238 03:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  1. I personally have no objection at all to you moving whatever you like over to John Kerry.
  2. This section (of talk) has nothing to do with Schachte.
  3. Thurlow is a lead spokesman. The question is truthfulness, not media-savvy.
  4. Interesting comment about oral interviews, considering that's your basis of evidence about Schatche.
  5. Again, the article is about SBVT, not about Kerry per se. The credibility of lead SBVT spokesman and witnesses is itself an issue. Wolfman 03:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The material that was deleted makes clear that Thurlow wasn't claiming first-hand knowledge, but that he was relying on Gardner. It's relevant to say that Gardner wasn't there, to make clear that Gardner also wasn't claiming first-hand knowledge, even assuming for the sake of the argument that he actually said such a thing in the first place. As for the contention that Gardner was passing on what someone else had told him, Matthews was impatient with the vagueness about the source of the charge, and was pretty clearly pressing Thurlow for the name of someone with first-hand information. The passage reads:
MATTHEWS: And he told you that at the time? Steve Gardener—in other words, if I get him on the show, he‘ll say he told you, Mr. Thurlow, at the time this happened...
THURLOW: He‘s going to say...
MATTHEWS: ... that he didn‘t deserve...
THURLOW: He‘s going to say...
MATTHEWS: ... that John Kerry got an award he didn‘t deserve?
So, when Thurlow sticks to Gardner as the source, I think it's overly charitable to say that, well, maybe Gardner was just passing on what someone else said. Nevertheless, the article doesn't have to get into that. Thurlow identifies Gardner as the source, so the reader is entitled to know that Gardner isn't a first-hand source. Some readers will conclude that Gardner must have been passing on someone else's information. Other readers will conclude that Gardner is lying, or Thurlow is lying, or both. I don't think we should endorse either conclusion but we should present the facts. JamesMLane 03:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph with Schachte's Account of Mission

I'm planning to add the following paragraph summarizing Schachte's account of the incident after the paragraph introducing Schachte. Please record you objections below.

At the time of the incident, Schachte was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. As operations officer, Schachte had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. The skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. According to Schachte, Kerry accompanied him as a volunteer on his last skimmer mission. During the mission he and Kerry briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or other indication of enemy contact. According to Schachte, Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

(Please don't edit the above.) 63.224.35.238 00:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In Unfit for Command, O'Neill claims that Kerry and Schachte were on the skimmer together, using the call signs "Robin" and "Batman" respectively. I believe Schachte has said this too. But an article in the Boston Globe from June last year [16], for which Schachte was interviewed, claims that those call signs were used for the skimmer ("Batman") and its larger support craft ("Robin"). All accounts seem to say that there were just three sailors on the skimmer, and I also read some accounts that said the skimmer was crewed by Kerry, Schachte and an enlisted man. So, if Schachte is telling the truth then when they say Schachte was not there either Bill Zaladonis or Patrick Runyon or both are lying about having been on the skimmer themselves. 172.185.110.115 02:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Schachte is an Admiral for gosh sakes. Doesn't this give him any credibility with you? Rex071404 03:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not any more credibility than anybody else. -khaosworks 03:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Then I guess Kerry has no more credibility than Bush, does he...? Rex071404 03:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Got it in one. Nobody starts from a privileged position. We go by the evidence from that point on. -khaosworks 03:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attn: khaosworks; On the John Kerry Talk Page, you recently said this: "Actualy, the New York Post (not the Times) is a tabloid with very plain Republican leanings, and the Washington Times (not the Post) is also right-leaning. Helen Thomas resigned from UPI after it was bought by News World Communication, who publish the WT. As an aside, News World was founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Not saying anything about this one way or another, just FYI when it comes to credibility and possible bias. --khaosworks 06:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)". How does this sqaure with your contention that the Admiral should not be afforded credibility? It seems that you do in fact input more credibility onto certain persons. so then, why do you deny now? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think S is probably confused, not a liar. But Admirals can lie: John Poindexter. Wolfman 04:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
True, but lies usually occur when someone has "a dog in the fight". In this instance it's clear that Schachte does not. On the other hand, Kerry does. And that's why Kerry has his surrogates out there lying for him. Rex071404 07:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Schachte does not? He's been a contributor to the Bush campaign for 2000 and 2004. -khaosworks 07:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They're not necessarily lying. They may just be confused. It was a long time ago. They may have somehow gotten the idea they were there, and then filled in some vague memories with details from Kerry's account. (Kerry doesn't mention Schachte either, and it's hard to believe he could have forgotten.) But obviously, if Schachte is right, and he really was there, the Kerry/Zaladonis/Runyon version has a big problem. 63.224.35.238 03:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here again, we don't need to spoon-feed the reader to support an anti-Kerry position. The current version of the article reports Schachte's rank. If any particular reader thinks that's relevant to Schachte's credibility, fine, we've provided the information. Whether we think it gives Schachte any credibility is irrelevant. JamesMLane 03:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we please confine the discussion here to objections to the proposed paragraph? So far, we have none. Anyone else? 63.224.35.238 04:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  1. The skimmer crew always included two officers. apparently not, assumes R&Z are wrong
  2. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. again assumes account, also did these cease when S left?
  3. but there was no hostile return fire or other indication of enemy contact. assumes account, should be according to S

Basically, all of this needs to be clearly marked as Schatche's account. Right now, it sounds like we are endorsing this as established fact.

Also, you seem rather insistent on demanding responses in a short time. People have lives. You might just have to wait a day. Wolfman 04:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Wolfman and add the questions that I was writing while he posted his comment. First, what's the source for the stuff about Schachte's role in devising the plan? Second, and more important, what's the reason to include that information here rather than in the article on William Schachte? If, as someone stated above, Schachte isn't an SBVT member, then his role in setting Navy tactics in Vietnam doesn't seem relevant to the SBVT article. (Actually, even if he were a member, I'd have trouble seeing the relevance.) JamesMLane 04:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look. This is Schachte's account. I thought that was clear, but I guess not. And you're quite correct, it's inconsistent with the story told by Kerry et al. That's the whole point. Don't worry, I will include a paragraph giving Kerry's story for comparison. I'll be happy to add whatever qualifying language you think is needed here to make the source clear. What do you suggest? This section concerns the factual basis for the allegations by the SBVT concerning Kerry's 1st Purple Heart. Schachte is their key witness. His role in the 'swift ops' mission is very relevant to his account. I was just encouraging responses, not demanding them. You think I didn't know you'd have to object to SOMETHING? :-) 63.224.35.238 05:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the April 2003 Globe interview Schachte is said to have described the action as a "firefight" and to have said that Kerry "got hit". This needs to be mentioned, as it does not square with your phrasing in the paragraph of 'no hostile return fire'. You can give the current version, but the discrepancy needs to be somehow noted -- goes to memory (not veracity).Wolfman 05:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Let's try this:
At the time of the incident, Schachte was the second-in-command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. Schachte states that he went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total, with Kerry accompanying him on his last one. According to Schachte, during the mission they briefly opened fire at signs of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or indication of enemy contact. However, in an interview with the Boston Globe in April 2003, Schachte described the incident as a "firefight" and said Kerry " got hit", but not seriously. [17] Schachte now claims Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.
-khaosworks 05:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Or how about this:

At the time of the incident, Schachte was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. Schachte has said that as operations officer, he had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. According to Schachte, skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte has said he himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. According to Schachte, Kerry accompanied him as a volunteer on his last skimmer mission. Schachte has said that during the mission he and Kerry briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or other indication of enemy contact. According to Schachte, Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

I think we should put the Boston Globe interview in a separate paragraph. 63.224.35.238 05:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why is Schachte's saying that he devised tactics relevant, or that Kerry followed him as a volunteer? I grant you that the "two officers" mention might be relevant, but I'd still consider it tenuous. Also, language needs work - too many "According tos" - it's just not good writing. You can use more concise language and still not sacrifice the substance. The 2003 Boston Globe interview is only directly relevant here because of his contradicting himself. Again, I must voice concern about detail creep. Stick to the essentials. -khaosworks 06:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, how about this:

Schachte has given the following account: At the time of the incident, he was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. As operations officer, Schachte had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. Skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. Kerry accompanied him on his last skimmer mission. During the mission they briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no return fire or other indication of enemy contact. Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to them.

63.224.35.238 06:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Still having that irrelevant reference to tactics, which you have not explained why is necessary to begin with. Tell me why. Who knows, I might be persuaded. Ditto Boston Globe issue. Qualifier at the top of the paragraph is usually forgotten by the time the reader wades through the detail, and it still looks like his claims are phrased as statements of fact. As per JamesMLane below, moving this discussion to his sandbox section. -khaosworks 13:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm having trouble keeping track of all these different versions. In an effort to facilitate the editing process, I've set up a sandbox at User:JamesMLane/Schachte section. People can do actual edits there, making it easier to see what change is proposed, and the discussion can proceed at User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section, so it won't get lost on this talk page as other issues come up and/or the page (now at 89kb) is archived. I notice that the earlier sandbox tried to combine proposed text and discussion on one page, which I think is a big mistake.
I've begun that sandbox talk page by explaining my first draft (the initial sandbox text). It incorporates ideas from various versions above, plus some stuff I added. JamesMLane 10:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

James, this is my proposed edit, and I'd prefer to keep the discussion here. Thanks. 63.224.35.238 14:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The point about Schachte inventing the technique is that it explains why he was familiar with its operational requirements, such as having two officers aboard the skimmer. The latter point is important because it is inconsistent with the account by Kerry et al. The Globe item will go in a paragraph following Schachte's account, which may also include reference to the witnesses indicating that Schachte told his current version of the story in 1968. I believe it will be clear in context that the entire paragraph is Schachte's account. 63.224.35.238 14:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Write up proposed drafts for both paragraphs mentioned for discussion, please. -khaosworks 15:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is my current planned addition:

Schachte has given the following account: At the time of the incident, he was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. As operations officer, Schachte had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. Skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. Kerry accompanied him on his last skimmer mission. During the mission they briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no return fire or other indication of enemy contact. Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

Discussion of subsequent paragraphs will follow in new section. Any remaining objections to this one? 63.224.35.238 15:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Khaosworks has proposed an entirely satisfactory paragraph above. It contains all the important facts, it phrases them fairly and neutrally, it is concise. I support K's proposed paragraph as it stands. Does anyone have an objection to K's version as the final draft? If so, please provide reasons. I copy his paragraph below for reference. Wolfman 15:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the time of the incident, Schachte was the second-in-command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. Schachte states that he went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total, with Kerry accompanying him on his last one. According to Schachte, during the mission they briefly opened fire at signs of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or indication of enemy contact. However, in an interview with the Boston Globe in April 2003, Schachte described the incident as a "firefight" and said Kerry " got hit", but not seriously. [18] Schachte now claims Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

My objections to your proposal:

  1. does not mention Schachte's invention of skimmer ops
  2. does not describe skimmer ops
  3. does not mention two officers on skimmer ops
  4. disrupts narrative with Globe reference
  5. Implies Schachte has changed account

Please state your objections to my current version. 63.224.35.238 15:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the 'two officers' point of the S account is relevant. I fail to see how his supposed invention of the technique or the precise details of the technique have any relevance. How is it disruptive to quote what the good man has said? It implies nothing, it simply factually states what the man has said; there is no leading wording here. It's up for the reader to decide the significance of that. My objections to your version are implicit in my response here. Wolfman 16:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To clarify:

  1. goes to Schachte's memory and authority re skimmer ops
  2. gives reader basic idea (not precise details) of what was involved
  3. agreed
  4. disrupts narrative of events in 1968; will come later
  5. use of "now claims" is leading, given evidence Schachte said same thing in 1968

Please state any new objections to my last version. 63.224.35.238 16:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anon, please state any objections to my last version, at User:JamesMLane/Schachte section. If for some reason you don't want to use User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section, then state your objections here. By the way, your comment above suggests that you see a degree of ownership in writing that isn't present in Wikipedia. Your attitude seems to be, "I was the one who proposed inserting more detail about Schachte, therefore all discussion of that idea must use my draft as a base, and must take place in the format and forum I prefer." If that is your attitude, you're totally mistaken. If I've misinterpreted you, then I'd be glad to hear your recognition that the concept of "my proposed edit" doesn't give you any particular rights. (One exception is that we sometimes hone two or three separate versions and then poll participants. That's used comparatively seldom, however.) The bottom line is that I have as much right to demand to hear your objections as you have to demand to hear mine.
As for my objections to your proposal:
  • I still don't consider Schachte's claim to have invented the technique to be relevant.
  • Although it begins with an intro identifying it as Schachte's claim, and so is technically correct, I think it would be confusing to many readers. By the time you get to the end of the paragraph, a lot of people would have lost track of that point. They'd think they were reading established fact, not recognizing that the introductory attributory sentence was intended to pick up everything thereafter. My version and that by khaosworks are clearer on this point.
  • Omission of the Globe reference. One of your stated objections to khaosworks's version is "Implies Schachte has changed account", but based on the Globe story, I think he has changed his account. Now, someone else may argue that he used the term "firefight" loosely in 2003. For that reason, it wouldn't be NPOV for the article to state that he had changed his account. The correct NPOV approach is to provide the facts, in this instance the key quotations from what he told the Globe. I'm not aware of any contemporaneous claim by Schachte (i.e. at the time of the publication of the Globe story) that he was misquoted.
  • Your version says there was "movement thought to be guerillas". There's no need to use the passive voice here. Schachte's story is that he himself was in command, that he thought there were enemies moving on shore, that he fired a flare to confirm, that what he saw with the aid of the flare confirmed his impression, that he as the commanding officer thereupon opened fire, and that Kerry joined in after he began firing. I don't think we need that much detail but we don't need to leave open the possibility that Schachte was coolly and level-headedly conducting the mission and then a panicky Kerry suddenly started blasting away at a bird or something. Given that the presence or absence of enemies is one of the major points in dispute, the article should report Schachte's position, which is that he thought there were enemies there. (What he says is that he saw movement and that anyone moving in that area had to be an enemy. He doesn't expressly say it was a designated free-fire zone but that's my guess.)
  • Omission of Schachte's record of financial contributions to Bush.
  • Omission of clarification re Gardner, as I explained on User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section.
  • One big objection I have to your version, khaosworks's and my own is the failure to give a good explanation of how this bickering about the particulars of one minor incident relates to the substance of SBVT's attack on Kerry. I'm leaning toward agreeing with khaosworks that a reorganization is necessary. JamesMLane 18:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

James, I created this Talk section to allow people to record their objections to my proposed addition. If people wish to proposed there own versions elsewhere, that's fine. Some of your complaints seem to be about omissions which I suspect I'll find reasonable, but should go in separate paragraphs. This Talk section is reviewing my proposed paragraph summarizing the first part of Schachte's account. There will be additional paragraphs to complete the account. There was a previous paragraph to introduce Schachte, which is discussed in another Talk section, above. The points you raise will go in subsequent paragraphs, that we will get to. (At least, I thought we would, eventually. Now I don't know.) Please limit your comments here to specific objections to the paragraph I've proposed. Also, don't worry about minor things like passive voice. Those minor corrections can just be edited in place. I don't assert any right of ownership. Why do you think I'm putting my proposal here and asking for comments rather than just editing it in? I'm trying to get a consensus here. 63.224.35.238 19:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In response to 63.224.35.238: You, understandably, go to pains to say 'according to Schachte' in the last two sentences. However, earlier in the section, in the sentences Wolfman objected to, you don't. This has the effect of making Schachte's claims about there always being two officers, and about he himself always going (that has to be false, unless there were only nine such missions) appear to be the undisputed truth. And we should definitely present Schachte's two versions of the event in the same paragraph. The mention of the Globe interview [19] doesn't need to be long, it just needs to note that Schachte has previously said things that appear to contradict his current statement, and certainly contradict SBVT's claims. I also think the other Globe article [20] is important or at the least that it should be mentioned that according to that account and other accounts there was a support boat and the call signs that SBVT assign to Kerry and Schachte were assigned to the skimmer and the support boat. Schachte and the details about the mission are all being used to support SBVT's claims, but Schachte's previous description of events contradicts those claims, as do other details about the mission. 172.189.188.120 20:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Changes to Lead Paragraph

Kaos, please explain your latest edits to the lead paragraph. 63.224.35.238 15:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe I changed anything of substance, just tightened up the writing of it and fixing some awkard construction, hence my lack of explanation. Besides, it's moot, since Wolfman has reverted it to the one before that anyway. -khaosworks 17:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(sigh). What are Wolfman's objections, then? 63.224.35.238 17:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To anticipate any of Rex's (or anyone else's) objections to the lead paragraph, let me state the following: 1) It's extremely biased to use the SBVT's stated purpose in the lead paragraph. You wouldn't take a quote from George Bush's or John Kerry's web site about their stated purpose and put it in the lead paragraph. 2) Clearly, the objective of SBVT is to undermine voter support for John Kerry. To argue otherwise is not being honest. Why else would they run ads in swing states? And SBVT's own site says: "Now that [Kerry] is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence." Under campaign finance laws, it would be illegal for them to actually say "don't vote for John Kerry." But clearly, they don't want people to vote for John Kerry. Therefore, the lead paragraph, as it reads per Wolfman's latest revert, is accurate and is in no way biased. --Nysus 17:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, I believe you are misinformed. Here is what Wolfman reverted;

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an organization of American Vietnam War veterans formed during the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign to oppose the election of Democratic candidate John Kerry. They assert that Kerry is an unfit candidate because of his Vietnam War record, alleging that he has made false claims of heroism and accusations of war crimes against United States forces in Vietnam. The SBVT is one of many so-called 527 groups which became controversial in the 2004 campaign. Some of SBVT's activites have had the effect of undermining John Kerry's candidacy. [21]

What are his (or your) objections to this? 63.224.35.238 17:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What Wolfman states below is accurate. The lead paragraph stayed relatively stable for at least a week and then changed significantly by Rex (despite my objections in the talk area, which he ignored). I reverted some of those major revisions earlier this morning and then Wolfman reverted it back to the way it was a couple of days ago. --Nysus 17:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, do you have objections to what Wolfman reverted, as quoted above? 63.224.35.238 18:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think like the short-concise version that Wolfman reverted to better. --Nysus 18:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is the consensus paragraph as it has existed, little changed, for weeks:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group formed in 2004 to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential campaign. "Swift Boat" refers to the class of boat on which Kerry and some of SBVT's members served in the Vietnam War. The group is devoted to questioning his war record, particularly with regard to the merit of his medals and the veracity of his testimony about the Vietnam war.

What are your objections to the existing work of many editors? Wolfman 17:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

personally, I have no objection to adding that they seek to deny Kerry the presidency. that is a sticky legal issue for a 527 group though. Wolfman 17:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, as I mentioned above, it is illegal for them to say that. But clearly, it is their intended purpose to undermine support for Kerry. Please see my comments above. --Nysus 17:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My objections? Easy:

  1. 527 status is an attribute, not a defining characteristic. Shouldn't lead. Also possible perjorative.
  2. allegations by SBVT are the reason for controversy about the group
  3. effect on Kerry campaign signifies potential significance (this wasn't my edit, however)

63.224.35.238 17:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  1. a 527 is a defining characteristic of SBVT since it was established specifically to influence the presidential election. This is unlike a group like moveon.org which was a website that eventually established itself as a 527. As far as being pejorative, can you find a description that also has an entry in the wikipedia?
  2. The version you posted above says about the same thing as the current version but the current versoin is much less wordy.

--Nysus 18:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Wolfman, To repeat, what are your objections to my edits? Also, please list the editors who explicitly approved the prior wording of this section and agreed with your position that it should not be changed without your prior approval. 63.224.35.238 17:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The history is archived; if you're interested go have a look. Your changes require no prior approval from me. But I am also free to make my own changes, including reversions to superior versions. My point is that it has been basically stable for a while, and lots of editors have worked on the page in that time. If you have some serious and reasonable ojection, I am happy to agree to neutral changes. If not, I will oppose them.

Wolfman, you assert that you are "free to make my own changes, including reversions to superior versions". So am I, as you well know. Abusing this freedom by exercising it arbitrarily produces edit wars. That is what you are doing. It is not appropriate behavior. You claim that their is a "consensus" of editors which favors the prior version over my edits. You need to provide some evidence of this. 63.224.35.238 18:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, why do you object to 527 being mentioned, that's what SBVT legally is. That's like objecting to calling IBM a corporation, or MoveOnPAC a PAC, or Harvard a university. Wolfman 18:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think his argument is that 527 is a lot of things but that 527 shouldn't be the defining characteristic. However, I argue that it is a a defining characteristic of SBVT because it was established with the primary purpose of opposing John Kerry in the election. SBVT is, first and foremost, a political animal to so therefore 527 is the best description for the group. Now if another organization had been around since 1990 and then filed for 527 status in 2004, then I think anonymous would have a point. But SBVT exists primarily as a 527 group. Therefore, it is not unfair or biased to characterize them as such. --Nysus 18:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I see. Well then how about calling them something like an advocacy organization and its associated 527 group? Wolfman 18:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In deference to anonymous, I propose the following lead sentence: The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group comprised of Swift Boat veterans who oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential campaign. --Nysus 18:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One slight modification, I would change the last part to read "...oppose John Kerry's bid for President." --Nysus 18:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Minor changes which improve expression without changing meaning do not need to be discussed here. You can make those changes with simple edits. Such edits were already made to my initial edit by another editor. What I'm looking for here are the specific objections Wolfman had which he felt justified him simply reverting our edits. 63.224.35.238 18:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that, but since the lead paragraph is in such hot dispute right now, I thought I'd run it by you fellows. --Nysus 18:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Nysus that "527" is not unfair or biased. It is a little confusing, though. The term needs to be introduced and explained but not necessarily in the lead paragraph. The key points about SBVT are: group of Viet vets, they attack Kerry re Vietnam, controversy over the substance of their charges, also controversy over their conduct vis-a-vis 527 status. The last point should be in the intro but along the lines of: "The Kerry campaign has also charged that the group has coordinated its efforts with the Bush campaign in violation of campaign finance laws." Then later on comes the explanation that they're a 527, that that status imposes restrictions on what they can do, and here are the key points pro and con re whether they've violated those restrictions. JamesMLane 18:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, the words '527 group' links to the "527 group" article. That's where all of the legal details of what a 527 group can/cannot do should be handled. --Nysus 18:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just said it above, but maybe more on point here: how about calling them something like an advocacy organization and its associated 527 group? Anon ip, my objections to your edit are that the original version is more conscise, more accurate, and more neutral. Wolfman 18:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. I want to stress that I do think 527 should appear in the lead sentence somewhere. It is an extremely important aspect of the organization and most certainly is a "defining characteristic" of the organization for the reasons I have given above. Their primary impact has been through the placement of ads on television and theyh have been able to do this because of their 527 status. --Nysus 19:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, I completely agree that it's important. The trouble is that, although the phrase has been in the press a lot lately, it's still somewhat jargon-y. I think a fair number of readers will be mystified. The lead graf should put them in the picture right away, without their having to click on a link. The important implications of 527 status are that they've been placing TV ads and that they're open to legal challenge over excessive coordination, and I have no problem with including those important points in the lead graf. Then later, when the term "527" is first used, a quickie summary of what it means plus a link to the article for people who want all the gory details. JamesMLane 19:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think we only disagree on whether these facts you mention should be mentioned in the first paragraph. I would argue strongly that they should not. My feeling is that the first paragraph should be as short and to the point as possible, like a dictionary definition. And, also like a dictionary, the definition may contain other words that the reader may not know and that the reader will have to look up for clarification. It is not the responsibility of the dictionary to anticipate which words the reader should know and try to clarify those words for the reader. Any clarification should (and does) appear later in the article. --Nysus 20:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wolfman, please be more specific. 63.224.35.238 18:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about this as the first two sentences?

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is a group of veterans who organized to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential campaign. Legally, SBVT is chartered as a 527 group, a tax exempt public advocacy organization. Wolfman 19:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth mentioning here that legally (as a 527) SBVT is not allowed to "directly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate for federal elective office". There are in fact FEC complaints that allege SBVT has done exactly this (with quote goodness). Wolfman 19:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Directly advocate" means they are prohibited from using some key words and tricky phrases in their communications. For instance, they can't say "Vote for George Bush" or "Don't vote for John Kerry." But it is clear that SBVT does not support John Kerry for president. But just because they can't say that directly doesn't make it illegal for them to say it indirectly which is clearly their intent.
I see nothing wrong with characterizing them as a 527 group first and foremost for the reasons I have given above. So, again, I recommend the following lead sentence:
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group comprised of Swift Boat veterans who oppose John Kerry's bid for President.

--Nysus 20:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about this:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is a group of American Vietnam War veterans chartered as a tax exempt public advocacy organization (a 527 group) that opposes the U.S. presidential aspirations of John Kerry. 63.224.35.238 20:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fine by me except I think "Vietnam veterans needs to be changed to "Swift Boat veterans" because its membership is open only to Swift Boat Veterans as stated on their web site. Stating that they are "Swift Boat veterans is far more specific. --Nysus 20:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If alterations are going to be made to the opening section I think maybe 'who oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential campaign' should be changed to 'who oppose the Democratic Party's U.S. presidential campaign'. It seems clear that SBVT are opposed to the Democratic campaign for the Presidency and their claims to be non-partisan are pure bunkum. If their accusations against Kerry and their claims to just be opposing Kerry and to be non-partisan are true then why did O'Neill wait until Kerry had the Dem's nomination in the bag before starting SBVT and why did these people wait so long to come forward? Why not release this information last year or at the start of the primaries or at any point during the last thirty years? Combined with the way their witnesses have changed stories including in just the last twelve months it seems to me that they are obviously partisan and against the Democratic campaign rather than just John Kerry. 172.189.188.120 20:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

72.189.188.120, that may be true. But SBVT denies it and the article doesn't prove it. so it's not really suitable for the lead sentence. Wolfman 20:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Motion to Move the Question

I'm recommending we move on the change to the first paragraph. I recommend the following for the first sentence: The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group comprised of Swift Boat veterans that oppose the U.S. presidential aspirations of John Kerry. --Nysus 20:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ok by me. Wolfman 21:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, my problem with this is that "527 group" has at best a vague meaning to most readers. It needs a brief phrase that gives the reader at least some idea of what it is. Wolfman (I think) suggested some language that I incorporated in my last attempt. What's your objection to it? 63.224.35.238 21:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pasted from my comment on this above: "My feeling is that the first paragraph should be as short and to the point as possible, like a dictionary definition. And, also like a dictionary, the definition may contain other words that the reader may not know and that the reader will have to look up for clarification. It is not the responsibility of the dictionary to anticipate which words the reader should know and try to clarify those words for the reader. Any clarification should (and does) appear later in the article." --Nysus 22:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Using my same logic, I would also take out the line that gives clarification on what a "swift boat" is and put that in the next section. For more detailed info on swift boats, they can click the link to the view the article about swift boats. --Nysus 22:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's getting really cluttered, I can't even find your last attempt. Would you mind posting just the first sentence below? Maybe if we can agree on a single lead sentence, then we can move on to the remainder. Thanks. Wolfman 21:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Try: "an organization comprised of Swift Boat veterans... aspirations of John Kerry, created under Section 527 of the Federal Tax Code." -khaosworks 22:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I like this suggestion a lot. --Nysus 22:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can someone explain what is so wrong with the current intro? It seems succinct and accurate and I don't understand the pressing need for a change. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 22:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since yesterday, it went under considerable change, challenge and debate since before getting reverted back. See talk above and older versions in the history. I'm not sure there is anything "wrong" with it. It's just getting very close scrutiny right now. Like anything, though, there is probably room for improvement. I like khaosworks suggestion above. --Nysus 22:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Human Events

Wolfman, Please cite your evidence that Human Events is not a newpaper. (Their website says otherwise.) Or, if you prefer, just undo your mistaken edit. 63.224.35.238 19:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't much feel like checking. So, I change my objection. He is listed on the article as a columnist. "Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist". Note that I inserted him right next to (prior to) Thomas Oliphant's column for the Globe. Do you think that's unfair in some way? Wolfman 19:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is increasingly evident to me that your editing is POV driven. Here's an obvious example: inventing justifications after the fact. Would you have done the same thing for a link to a pro-Kerry columnist? And why are you spending your time on something minor like link organization when there are significant proposed content improvements, which you are blocking, that have not yet been resolved? 63.224.35.238 20:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look. Your smears are really starting to annoy me. I have seen a lot of links to Human Events before, and none of them were newspaper articles. So, I assumed it wasn't a newspaper, but a collection of stuff much like a blog. The reason I did not simply cut it entirely is that I saw it was by a syndicated columnist. I find your tactics of unfounded smear and innuendo hauntingly familiar — hmmm, now where could I possibly have come across such a thing before? Wolfman 20:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
All edits are POV driven. Editors should expect other editors to try their best to be fair and civil to one another, but it is an impossible task to ask them to have no POV. Given this fact, one should never criticize the editor, only the edits he/she makes. One also shouldn't make judgments as to what his/her priorities for editing the article should be. No one is anybody's supervisor here. --Nysus 20:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I said "evident to me". I certainly could be wrong. But I want you to understand my perception. Much of this is due to what appears (again, to me) to be an obstructionist strategy on your part. We probably need to discuss this further. I hope you understand that the annoyance is mutual. And the fact is that I regret the difficulties I'm having collaborating with you. But I think you have an overly aggressive attitude. I also think you seem to be overly defensive of your own POV. And you don't seem much interested in respecting the POV of others. Again, maybe I'm wrong. But that's how you're coming across to me. As for your last, comment, I'm not sure what you are getting it, except that I am aware that you have been involved in what appear to be some similar controversies in the past. 63.224.35.238 20:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As to your last sentence above, you must not be nearly as astute as I gave you credit for.
As to your specific insult about a "pro-Kerry columnist", go check the edit history. You will see that I am the one who moved Oliphant to 'Other'. -- Wolfman
As to your perception of me, I am not surprised. I have an extremely similar perception of you, starting from when you accused me of POV before any dialogue had even taken place. Hiding behind "just my perception" does not make it less of a smear. Why don't you point me to a specific instance of my POV editing, then we can talk about it. Wolfman 20:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As I tried to point out above, no one is going to get anywhere criticizing the editor and his/her motives. Stick to the discussion of the actual edits. You will save yourself much heartache and grief. --Nysus 20:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, I think editors not only have an obligation to be fair to other editors, they have an obligation to be fair to the subject. A wiki is a collaboration, not a competition. Of course everyone has a POV, but they don't have to inject it into the article. It takes effort to avoid that, but it can be done. I believe a group of editors can create a neutral article, even if they have strong opposing POVs. But even one uncooperative editor can effectively obstruct the process. The wiki paradigm just doesn't deal very well with this problem. And my impression is that the arbitration process doesn't help much. I suspect the only effective solution is to allow multiple versions of articles on controversial subjects. Not with the idea that they would be intended to present multiple POVs, but rather that they would be competing efforts to produce a single NPOV article. The readers could then judge which version meets their needs. Some would probably prefer an article heavily biased to their own POV. But editors wanting to create a NPOV article would have an opportunity to do so, and readers looking to find one would be the judges of their success. Eventually those with less success achieving NPOV would wither, I suspect. In the current scenario, there is only one article, which leads to a struggle for control. Not that the failure to achieve NPOV is necessarily deliberate, you understand. It's just that people (on all sides) ofter have diffculty seeing (much less overcoming) their biases.

What I'm really concerned about here are not edits so much as tactics, specifically reverts. Reverts are bad because successive reverts produce unproductive edit wars. Its much better to make corrective edits (as judiciously as possible) rather than reverts. There's at least a possibility that a process of successive corrective edits will converge. One of our current editors seems to make a practice of reverting all but trivial changes, not because of specific objections, but because of a general principle that the existing text is somehow a sacrosanct "consensus", and any changes (other than his own) must be pre-screened on the Talk page. This just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

I also do have problems with some of the objections being made. If you object to something contributed by an editor from another POV that you disagree with, it's generally more helpful to edit or add new material to balance it, rather than just doing a revert. Sometimes it will be possible to combine the two contributions into a balanced expression. In other cases, it is simply better to include both points. But just blocking contributors with other POVs by doing reverts is unproductive, and inevitably produces annoyance. 63.224.35.238 21:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By my count there are, besides you, 5 major editors in this talk in the last 2 days: Khaoswork, Nysus, JamesMLane, 172.*, Rex. Of these five, the merits of your proposals seem to have persuaded just one, Rex. Yet, you complain that I am obstructing improvements. Apparently, most of the editors here are not yet persuaded that they are in fact improvements. Since you have been unable to actually win a discussion on the merits, you start by insulting others baselessly and then move on to complaining about how unfair the process is. You also seem to have some sort of aversion to supplying evidence, even after repeated request, for even the most basic of your factual assertions. Wolfman 21:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I feel you're just making my point. This isn't supposed to be about winning or losing. It's supposed to be about collaboration, not competition. It's supposed to be about creating an NPOV article. Just getting your own POV in isn't the point. Yes, I'm consistently "outvoted". Big surprise. There's a small group of active editors here, heavily unbalanced in POV. I'm sure you all think you're being NPOV. But that's not enough. You have to respect the fact that people with other POVs don't agree. You have to find a way to accommodate them. You can't just say "you're outvoted" or "we have a consensus". I'm frankly surprised that Rex still tries to participate. I don't expect to be here much longer. Then it will be unanimous. Think that's healthy for achieving NPOV? You can leave the tag out, but nobody is going to be fooled. I couldn't understand why you had that edit war over the NPOV tag. I guess I do now. No, I'm not going to waste my time supplying "evidence" for you. If you can't see what I'm talking about just by reviewing your actions and comments over the last two days, I am confident that any fair-minded person will. Or not. Doesn't matter. No need to take a vote. You win. 63.224.35.238 22:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

again, I invite you to point out any specific POV edits I have made. that way we can have a discussion based on evidence rather than innuendo. please do so on my Talk page to avoid cluttering this one further.
also, you falsely implied above that i was referring to evidence supporting your latest smear. as you know, i am referring to your refusal to supply evidence supporting the factual claims you are making. evidence that you have repeatedly asserted that you have easily at hand online, see e.g. this section (above). you refuse to support your proposed edits with evidence that you supposedly have, and yet then you complain that i unfairly revert your edits. Wolfman 22:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Anon, your call for cooperation and accomodation is made less compelling when you accuse everyone else of bias and call backing up your own position a "waste of time". [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 22:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Note: The following is not so much intended as a criticism of others, or a justifcation of my own actions, as an explanation of my perceptions and reactions. It describes how I honestly, if erroneously, viewed things at the time, and view the situation now. It explains where I'm coming from and why I'm going. It is not intended to give offense to anyone, and if it does, I apologize.

Wolfman et al., I'll try to be brief. I came to this wikipedia page thinking it might be a good place to centralize and organize the essential information about the SBVT controversy, on both sides. A wiki is a good medium for tracking current events (at least in theory) because it allows information from multiple sources to be assimilated quickly. I knew there might be issues with edit warfare, but I hoped for the best. Looking at the SBVT article, it was immediately obvious that the section on the allegations regarding Kerry's 1st Purple Heart needed work. It was completely inadequate, mainly because it did not sufficiently address the eyewitness testimony of William Schachte. This wasn't really a surprise. The existing write-up had probably been written before the Schachte interview had come out. It had appeared only a few days earlier, and had been largely buried by the mainstream media. I guessed the editors might be unaware of it. Anyway, there was clearly work to be done. I wrote up some stuff and put it in. It was immediately reverted. I was told that my edit was "too big" (even though I was just getting started), and should be moved to a sandbox for discussion. I did that. Then I was told it was too big for discussion and needed to be broken down into smaller chuncks. I did that. Finally there were objections to the factual content of my additions, as being "minor details" or "irrelevant" or "superfluous". There were also innumerable challenges to content that seemed argumentative to me, and clearly from an anti-SBVT POV. Since at this point I was only addressing what the SVBT was alleging, and making clear this was just their side of the story, I was a little surprised by all the resistance I was getting.

Around this time I tried a fairly small edit, and it was also reverted immediately. Now I was told that, since there was a "consensus" among the editors about the existing text, any significant edits needed pre-approval on the Talk page (although some other editors seemed to feel free to make their own edits without prior discussion). Meanwhile I tried to work through the objections. The resistance was fierce. Much of it seemed to me to have the effect, if not intent, of trying to exclude inconvenient facts. Even though I was basically just trying to report a summary of who Schachte was and what he had said, there seemed to be an extreme concern about excluding or rebutting facts that might remotely give any kind of credibility to the SBVT allegations. Understand that I have no problem with other editors making additions to adequately represent the other side. I would try to do it myself if they didn't, in order to achieve a balanced NPOV presentation. But it seemed to me that the resistance from the other editors was effectively preventing the SBVT allegations and evidence from being treated in any adequate way. Meanwhile, as I'm trying to slog through all the objections they're throwing up, I find the other editors off putting in this ridiculous speculation from Zaladonis about why Schachte might be mixed up about the dates. Somehow their edits seem to require no prior approval. And funny thing, they all seem to support the same POV.

From there it was all downhill. It became clear to me that the process was going nowhere. One of the editors had made it clear he intended to exercise a veto over any additions he didn't agree with. As I had seen him in action, I didn't doubt it. And I knew he wasn't going to agree to anything. I was clearly wasting my time. There was absolutely no point in continuing. Take a look at the section on the 1st Purple Heart issue. Totally inadequate, and obviously anti-SBVT POV. Too bad. Not surprising, given wiki vulnerability to edit warriors, but disappointing.

Early on there was this edit war over the NPOV tag. I wasn't involved, just an incredulous bystander. I couldn't believe what was going on. Eventually one side won (guess who). But keepng the tag out doesn't change the fact that the article lacks NPOV. And it's so obvious that the tag is hardly necessary. You're fooling no one but yourself.

I seem to be repeating myself. And obviously I have failed to be brief. Why am I wasting more time on this? Lord knows. But I feel compelled to add a discussion of this thing about my refusing to supply evidence. Here's how I remember it:

I had proposed an introductory paragraph for the 1st PH section. It briefly introduced the award and the thrice wounded reassignment that depended on it, followed by a summary of the allegations made by the SBVT. In response I got a bunch of objections from one editor. The 3 wound thing wasn't "relevant", etc. Then there were this series of questions challenging my summary of the allegations, leading to demands for evidence. At first I was confused, thinking he wanted proof of the allegations. I tried to explain that this was just a summary of what the allegations were. The evidence, on both sides, would be presented in later paragraphs. Eventually I realized that he was questioning whether these were actually the allegations.

This just floored me. I believed that I had given a simple, straight-forward summary of the SBVT allegations on this issue, which would be immediately recognized and accepted by anyone, on either side of the issue, who had even the most basic understanding of the controversy. I couldn't believe this editor lacked such understanding. I asked if he really believed I was misrepresenting the SBVT allegations. He said he didn't know one way or the other. Again, I found this unbelievable. Here is this guy, aggressively asserting editorial control over an article on a subject about which he is self-admittedly ignorant of the most basic facts. I still find this very hard to believe, although I'm finally starting to think it might be possible. At the time I thought it just couldn't be true. Still, I did in fact respond to the request for evidence. I said: Read O'Neill's book. I guess I could have given him a link to amazon.com. In fact, I was pretty sure I could easily have found him some on-line links, to excerpts from the book at the Washington Times, interviews with O'Neill, etc.

Yes, I could easily have found those links. But so could he! With Google I did not doubt that he could have found those links in less time than it took him to ask me for them. So my just reading his demand, let alone complying with it, was a waste of my time. I know I'm making an assumption here, but I'm pretty sure he could have found those links for himself at least as quickly as I could have found them for him. I was just not prepared to waste more of my time to do that. Granted, it wouldn't have been a lot of time. But, you know, it adds up. It had already added up a lot. And I was convinced that this was just one more obstacle that he would be creating in an unending stream. After this there would be another, and another, and another. I asked if anyone else doubted that I had accurately summarized the allegations. I thought if no one backed him up, he might back off. No such luck. So I abandoned attempting to make progress on the introduction, and moved on to the section about Schachte and his account, as already described. I thought that would be easy. We were dealing with simple facts, all documented in Schachte's MSNBC interview. How hard could it be to get agreement? Well, you know the rest.

So, finis. 63.224.35.238 04:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had a very simple reason for asking. SBVT has been intentionally vague. That's the essence of a smear. Throw loose, unspecific charges around with a hefty dose of innuendo. For example, look at the first ad. Out of the 15 statements made, only 2 could possibly be refuted. Because the others had no specific content: things like 'you couldn't count on John Kerry'. Well, this article is not going to play that game. Fine, let's report the allegations, but what are they exactly? Get it on record for this article. That way, I can gather evidence as to a specific allegation. How can we even talk about something like "a falsified report" until you tell me which report, filed where, and what it supposedly said. If you can't show me that, ok then. Let's still report the general charge, to which we can the report that it can't possibly be rebutted because no specific allegation was made. See for example how we handled Letson's lie allegation. We simply stated he did not say what the supposed lie is. Is that so hard? Is that too much to ask? Is that being obstructionist? Well then, I guess I'm just an obstructionist. Wolfman 06:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, I find it sad that you would rather spend an hour writing some detailed sob story about how oppressed you are than spend 5 minutes just documenting the wording you wanted to insert. I have looked back over this entire lengthy conversation, thinking that perhaps I had been out of line. But no, I stand by every comment I made and stance I took. Fare thee well anon ip.Wolfman 07:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, I am not surprised that you "stand by every comment [you] made and stance [you] took". I have no doubt that you do. I don't really expect anyone else to waste their time reviewing your behaviour, but I am confident that any reasonable person who did so would readily understand my point of view. You think I wrote a "sob story" about how "oppressed" I am. Again you've clearly missed the point. The issue is not me being "oppressed". The issue is the the wikipedia article not being improved. This is not about me. It's not about you. It's about the quality of the SBVT article. This is not supposed to be a competition. You just don't seem to get that. It has to be a collaboration, or it won't work. This is particularly true for controversial subjects, where unconscious bias makes it difficult to see both sides.

You say that SBVT has been "intentionally vague", which is "the essence of a smear", referring to their first ad. That was a 60-second television spot. It referrred not only to the 1st Purple Heart incident but to many other SBVT allegations as well. It could not possibly have provided adequate detail in the little amount of time available. Which is why they also produced a full-length book to explain and defend their charges in detail. They permitted their book to be widely excerpted, and gave numerous media interviews to respond to any questions about their allegations. If you had made the slightest effort to educate yourself about the controversy you would not have objected to my summary of the 1st PH allegations. Or perhaps you would have objected, but you would have done so with specifics that could be responded to. Your insistance on making unreasonable objections to my proposed additions based on your own willful ignorance of the most basic facts makes effective wiki-style collaboration impossible.

None of my proposed additions said anything about "a falsified report" or how "you couldn't count on John Kerry", so I don't understand how your comments here relates to your objections to my edits. And your article's treatment of Dr. Letson is a perfect example of its deficiencies. Letson has in fact stated the specifics of his allegations. Just not in the TV ad, due to the obvious lack of time. I would have gotten to dealing with that point, eventually, if you had let me get past my first few uncontroversial sentences. 63.224.35.238 18:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Partisan Ties

I object to this heading. It's opinion. It's conclusionary. It's POV. There is no need to characterize the data listed below it this as "partisan". I am planning to remove it. The readers are entitled to draw their own conclusions about what is and is not "partisan". It is not up to us to label entire swaths of the details as such. Rex071404 23:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That kind of got stuck there for lack of a better succint phrase. It was at one point "non-partisan status". At another point it was "republican ties", which seemed to clash with the first subheading. I'm not too hung up on the exact phrase, so long as it is concise, accurate, and descriptive. What alternative would you suggest? Wolfman 23:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What alternative term would be better than partisan? Partisan seems quite neutral to me. C. Straight
Well, it's factually accurate. But does have a pejorative ring to it. I'm thinking maybe have the top heading being Republican Ties, then have the subheading directly beneath be 'Connections with Republican Individuals'. 'Individuals' is kind of an awkward word, but it's not really 'Party' connections either. 'Operatives' would be more precise, but again it's pejorative. Anybody got a better suggestion? Wolfman 03:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How about "Republican Ties", followed by "Connections with the Party"? -khaosworks 03:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is not need for it at all. Strike the entire line. By leaving it in, it poisons the test below it. Also, the sections below are clear enoguh without this heading. Rex071404 03:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are suggesting that the current subheadings be promoted to headings? That would be fine with me. I'll go ahead and do it. If I misunderstand your intent, just rv and clarify here. Wolfman 03:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth/Archive_3&oldid=934650236"