Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 7

5 Skippers

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

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

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

Here we go again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medals: "Combat" or "Service"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some relevant history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wolfman's medal edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive edit rate

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

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

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

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

Proposal for the introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem with 1971 and associated links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All editors are entiled to edit the article. Just bear in mind, if 1971 is removed I will revert. [[User: Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protection/npov resolved?

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

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

Inspector General report on medals

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal on External Links Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Kerry military service controversy

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

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

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