Talk:John Kerry military service controversy/Archive 2

Primary sources in articles that concern Living Persons
This article looks apparently well sourced, but many of the sources are of dubious quality, most are biased, and many are primary sources. In BLPs, primary sources are to be used sparingly, and only if referred to by reliable secondary sources. (See WP:BLPPRIMARY) This article is a sub-article of John Kerry's biography (a section there lists this article as "main"), therefore, BLP rules (WP:BLP) apply fully here. In BLPs, primary sources should be used sparingly, if it at all, because of concerns of cherry picking (WP:Cherrypicking), synthesis (WP:SYN) and original research (WP:OR). As in all BLPs, anything that is controversial and uncited or based solely on primary sources should be immediately removed. FurrySings (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

FactCheck.org sentence - relevance to "Background"
Relevance? And as questioned in a previous edit summary, why is this addition of yours made to the "Background" section? I've reverted your edit per WP:BRD; please work to resolve concerns about your content additions instead of revert-warring your additions into the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your citing "BRD" for reverting my good faith edit is unsupported by the provisions of "BRD"...

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."


 * ...none of which were satisfied by your edit summaries nor objected to in talk. I'd suggest you state your objections to the content here or we can go the formal POV placard route. Max nix to me...but I'm re-instating the sourced and relevant content pending consensus resolution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please address the above stated concerns. You are, of course, welcome to tag sections as POV, if you accompany that tagging with a description of your POV concerns here on the Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As you have now violated 3RR, that will come pending resolution of your edit-warring. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't violated 3RR; in fact, I've left your edits there against common sense, and am awaiting your input on the above raised concerns (although I am adding content to the same section). Are you indicating that you'd rather try to game up administrative actions, instead of rationally discuss your edits? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't violated 3RR...you'd rather try to game up administrative actions, instead of rationally discuss your edits
 * Oh but you have...and your POV-warrior editing as related to Swift Vet associated articles (which this incident exemplifies) has, at long last, been administratively recognized and noted. It has, quite frankly, driven myself and numerous other editors from this subject  matter (and project) save for an occasional foray (like this one) in an attempt to correct only the most patently egregious POV editorial malfeasance.
 * I have posed an initial question below. I'll await your good faith, "rational discussion" when you've returned from your most appropriate hiatus. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My editing against POV-warriors has been long recognized by both admins and the general editor population for years, it's true. It's also true, as you note, that many of these POV-pushers have been driven from the project (some indefinitely blocked, and a couple permanently community-banned), which is a net-benefit to the project, despite the loss of whatever positive editing they might also have been able to contribue to other subject areas. Your "occasional forays" to push egregeous POVs will always be met with the same. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The content preceding my edit reads as follows...

"Defenders of John Kerry's service record, including nearly all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT's allegations are false."

If source characterizations of SVPT allegations as "false" are/were considered to be relevant to this "Background" section, how is it arguable that other reputable sources (such as this FactCheck.org summary), which express a different characterization of those same allegations, are irrelevant?...

"At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth. 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)" Please explain. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the section pending an actual consensus -- and as you're the one adding it, you're the one he needs to persuade others to include it, not the other way round. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comment is unresponsive to the question I posed. Please don't muddle this thread with irrelevancies and consider reformatting your comment to it's own thread where I'll be delighted to entertain your observation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As there has been no response thus far to my query, I have initiated and RfC to hopefully stimulate some community response. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There was plenty of response the last time you "queried" (01-2012 RfC) about inserting your cherry-picked quote into a related article in an attempt to give a misleading impression that SBVT allegations were something other than dubious, misleading, unsupported, false and smears. Perhaps editors have simply grown weary of responding to your "occasional forays"? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ...the last time you "queried" (01-2012 RfC) about inserting your cherry-picked quote into a related article...
 * Ignoring your personal attacks (about which I've responded on your talk page), it is hardly surprising that you would misrepresent my allusion (once) to the conclusion in question within the aforementioned RfC as an attempt by me to insert that assertion into the subject article. As you well know (and I invite all interested editors to review the RfC for confirmation), I referenced FactCheck's conclusion not to advocate for its insertion but to provide RS sourcing in support of my POV objection. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * JakeInJoisey, please take note that you've been asked at that talk page to specifically point out what it is that you deem to be a personal attack by Xenophrenic. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary section of the Factcheck.org article
This is the actual summary section of the Factcheck.org article. If anything should quoted in this article, it should be a representative part of this: "A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts. But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident."

--
 * There is little doubt that FactCheck.org's intent was to impeach the SVPT position. One only needs to look at the commentary sourcing which, with few exceptions, reads like a who's who of Kerry acolytes.  Yet even with that sourcing imbalance, FactCheck.org felt obliged to conclude...

"At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth."


 * NPOV incorporation of this FactCheck.org WP:V, WP:RS "conclusion" as to the to the relative veracity of SVPT vs. Kerry is the issue here and not your above cited content (apparently introduced as an impeachment of that same conclusion?) It's rather irrelevant actually. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. Policy is clear, if you cite a source, you should accurately reflect what it says - that is, paraphrase the summary as above - don't cherry pick a statement out of content. FurrySings (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC - FactCheck.org citation for inclusion
At the conclusion of an August 6, 2004 (Updated: August 22, 2004) article addressing several issues in the Swift Vet vs. John Kerry controversy, FactCheck.org observed...

"'At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.'"

In your opinion, does this statement from FactCheck.org satisfy Wikipedia requirements for inclusion in the John Kerry military service controversy article as a relevant source of opinion as to the relative veracity of the Swiftvets vs. John Kerry on the issues it addressed?

Yes or No? 20:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes

 * Without question. FactCheck.org article content/conclusions have been widely cited within this project and WP:RS is, I should think by now, a given for its own opinion.  Where content is currently incorporated that serves to impeach the SVPT position, WP:NPOV mandates that alternative characterizations related opinions from other WP:RS  sources should also be included. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that your one cherry-picked sentence is a characterization of "the SVPT position". It's from one article, purporting to look at a single ad. FactCheck.org also later characterizes the SBVT claims as "dubious", and also lists the SBVT claims among their "Whoppers of 2004", and also observes, "Giving false claims a free pass, in other words, is more likely to result in false beliefs (a notion with which 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, who didn’t immediately respond to accusations by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about his Vietnam record, is all too familiar)." WP:NPOV mandates that we not let POV-pushers dig up isolated, misrepresentative cherry-picked quotes or sentences and insert them into Wikipedia articles as if they were representative of a valid and factually supported point of view. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that your one cherry-picked sentence...
 * This "cherry-picked sentence" was also quoted by RS sources provided as citations to my original edit (and are provided again, with an additional source, below). Were those sources "cherry-picking" as well?
 * ...is a characterization of "the SVPT position".
 * It is not being introduced as a "characterization of the SVPT position" (correction appended) 12:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC). It is being introduced as a FactCheck.org conclusion as to the relative veracity of the opposing and examined allegations which allows for the possibility that either might be more truthful or less truthful than the other.
 * As to the remainder of your comment, you are free to impeach the SVPT position with whatever cites from FactCheck.org consensus deems to be WP:V, WP:RS relevant, just as this one clearly is. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No

 * This is a quote mine. Within the context of the article it's clear that while the controversy cannot be definitively resolved, that does not mean both sides have equally good arguments.  Adding this quote without that context does not summarize the article fairly or accurately.  Garamond Lethe  21:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Within the context of the article it's clear that....does not mean both sides have equally good arguments.
 * That is your assessment on the relative merit of the opposing positions examined, not FactCheck.org's conclusion as to the relative veracity of those positions...and it echoes the reason that this FactCheck.org conclusion was taken to task by FAIR as not being a "forceful condemnation" of the SVPT ads and for characterizing them not as "false" but as "two different views of reality". While neither you, nor FAIR, nor anyone else might agree with FactCheck.org's assessment, it is a conclusion that was asserted by FactCheck.org and is highly relevant to an NPOV presentation where content impeaching the SVPT positions is already found to be relevant. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Factcheck is a reliable source in general. That is a different issue from whether it is appropriate to use a particular passage from a particular Factcheck article in a particular manner.  Acknowledging the former should not be taken as an endorsement of the latter, which is what it appears that you are attempting to do here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ...whether it is appropriate to use a particular passage from a particular Factcheck article in a particular manner.
 * That determination must be made by WP editors and predicated, per Wikipedia policy, on the provision of RS sourcing referencing (even more importantly, citing) the content in question. Contrary to an argument for exclusion here, that it is a "cherry picked" "quote mine", each of the provided sources (see below) references that same FactCheck.org conclusion in a similar manner, and one (FAIR) with rebuttal argument. Were those authors also "cherry picking" and "quote mining"?
 * What FactCheck.org has stated here (and subsequently defended) directly rebuts a narrative espoused by many that the Swiftvet allegations referenced in this analysis are universally and can be legitimately characterized as "false" and allows for the possibility that those allegations addressed may, in fact, be closer to the truth. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No. It's a cherry-picked, vague sentence from a single FactCheck article, about a single SBVT ad. It contradicts, and is contradicted by, not only other FactCheck.org statements about SBVT claims, but by reliable sources in general. Its insertion into this Wikipedia article appears to serve no purpose other than to mislead readers. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Although it can be argued that since it is verified to a reliable source, and that by attributing the quote, it could be seen as neutral to some, the real question is does the opinion of Factcheck.org have sufficient weight to warrant inclusion in this article. It is my humble opinion, that it does not carry sufficient weight in regards to the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think its legitimate to state that any FactCheck.org assertion as to the veracity of contradictory allegations historically enjoys its own "weight" within Wikipedia. As the specific FactCheck.org assertion was the subject of additional RS explorations (see below), doesn't that argue for the sufficiency of appropriate "weight"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No. It's obvious that the single sentence quoted in isolation represents the opposite of the rest of what Factcheck.org is saying ... isn't it? - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * May I respectfully suggest you are dancing with WP:OR here...as are others who suggest that what FactCheck.org actually "is saying" somehow renders this specific assertion to be uncitable per WP Policy.
 * As i cited in my suggested edit, this FactCheck.org assertion was also "quoted in isolation" in several sources...to include the Florida Times-Union...
 * "Although Snopes.com labels attacks on Kerry’s medals being earned under “fishy” circumstances as “false,” FactCheck.org said in 2004, “at this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.”"
 * ...and FAIR...
 * "Comparing Kerry’s and the Swift Boat Vets’ accounts of what happened in Vietnam, FactCheck declared (8/6/04): “At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.”"
 * Here's another from NBC News...
 * "In what Democrats see as a low blow, the Swift Boat Veterans group has run ads featuring Vietnam vets who accuse Kerry of lying about the military decorations he got in Vietnam."
 * "The nonpartisan watchdog group Factcheck.org investigated the ad and said, ”The veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen. ... 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.”"
 * Whether or not anyone agrees with FactCheck.org's stated assertion on the relative veracity of the 2 positions in opposition (which FactCheck.org also defended) is irrelevant to a consideration as to satisfying Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. It clearly meets that criteria...and expungement of this FactCheck.org assertion is just as clearly WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No. Misleading statement which is contradicted by other FactCheck findings about the larger topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, as I note above, if anything is quoted, it should be the actual summary of the article. FurrySings (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 RS sources have been provided (2 in my original edit), independent of FactCheck.org itself, citing the identical FactCheck.org conclusion. Here's a fourth...
 * "FactCheck.org made much of the fact that Republican donors gave to the Swift Boat Vets, but concludes, 'At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.'[National Review]"
 * Asserting that this FactCheck.org conclusion is not WP:V, WP:RS because of your personal determination that FactCheck.org was somehow in error in rendering its own conclusion (which it subsequently defended) as to the relative veracity of the assertions/allegations it addressed in its own article constitutes a WP:NPOV transgression. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No This sort of general statement that either  side  might be right is not just here, but in any context. not meant to be taken at face value. It's the equivalent of How do you do? — I'm fine and how do you do?   Sometimes it's an admission by the losing side that it can't prove its case but isn't going to change its position. Coming from the winning side it's a polite way to end the argument without embarrassing the opponent. Coming from a news source, it's conventional boilerplate for a journalist who needs to appear non-parrtisan. Factcheck just reported what everyone said, but did not do what a historian would, discuss the factors that might cause bias (such as the conventional wording of recommendations for military awards) and analyze the probabilities.  DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite respectfully, whether right or wrong, your observations are expressions of personal opinion on what FactCheck.org "might have intended" and constitute a WP:OR supposition that FactCheck.org did not intend their conclusion "to be taken at face value". Per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR, we cannot do that in Wikipedia. To that point, four sources provided "took it at face value" and a fifth twice chided FactCheck.org for mischaracterizing, in FAIR's opinion, FactCheck.org's own conclusion. Do you suppose FAIR would have twice attacked FactCheck.org's conclusion (which FactCheck.org actually defended) were it the "boilerplate" you suggest it to be? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, per WP:DEADHORSE. @JakeInJoisey: Have you thought about the implications of your long-term rebuttals of other editors in this topic? It seems there are two possibilities: (a) The other editors are hacks paid to whitewash Kerry articles; or (b) The other editors are fools who, even after editing for years, need links to V, RS, and OR. Is it really likely that all those other editors are so misguided? Or could it be that in fact the other editors are correct? Given that you have focused on an anti-Kerry line since 2005, it is likely that you have occasionally been correct about some point. However, there is so much noise and so many obviously misguided proposals that any usefulness is lost. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted to exchange views in a good faith discussion with any editor who weighs in on this RfC question. I would do so as well with yours, but it is bereft of any V, RS, BLP, or OR WP:POLICY rationale in support of your position about which I might comment and, instead, is yet another ad hominem...which you are apparently willing to employ with some troubling regularity. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No -- DGG nails it, especially re the contrast between what we get from a journalist vs. what we would get from a proper historian. I'll also note that the proposed addition here comes from an editor who has now been topic-banned from Kerry-related articles, in part for sustained POV-pushing; it's hard to see the proposal as other than an attempt in that context, though I think it would merit rejection even if suggested by someone else.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources
This article currently contains 4 source links, some recently updated by User:Eric Rasmussen to what is clearly a self-published source, www.kerryvietnam.org. Per WP:SELFPUB and, more specifically WP:BLPSPS, the use of self-published sources are only permissible in citing content "about themselves" and are never permissible as "sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" himself. These citations are illegitimate and should be removed. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon further examination, this article is replete with citations from this same self-published website supporting clearly WP:OR assertions. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear User: JakeInJoisey: Apologies if this is not the right way to reply. I'm not sure if you actually looked at the materials you deleted from the citations. Many of the citations you removed were direct links to PDFs containing original U.S. Navy documentation. Unfortunately, my site is the only place where many of these materials are still available. Most were originally from JohnKerry.com. Citing these PDFs (directly) is no different than citing the collections at FindLaw, which are not nearly as complete or well-organized, but were largely drawn from the same source. I maintain a firm line between [1] the primary sources (which are collected here: http://www.kerryvietnam.org/index.html ) and [2] my analysis of those sources in response to the controversy (here: http://www.kerryvietnam.org/truth.html ). Anyhow, I'd like to propose the following -- for places in the discussion where citations are needed that only those PDFs can provide, then we simply link to them directly, citing the PDF itself, that is the U.S. Navy document or documents contained therein. I don't however, want to do it without clearing it with you, since it is a lot of work and I don't have a lot of free time. For anyone seeking to examine the controversy, these U.S. Navy documents are crucial primary sources. Please let me know when you respond. Eric Rasmussen (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's not self-published if it's a holding place for PDFs containing US Navy documentation. Either way, linking to them directly should be fine, but may not be necessary. Did you get a response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.133.216.228 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, and since it has been over one year since I alerted this forum to the employment of self-published sources within this article, no other interested editor has seen fit to either act upon or even comment on this issue, save for a single "second the motion" comment above voicing approval for an anti-Wikipedia policy proposal to simply ignore this clear violation of WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS.
 * Without further objection or comment as to this issue, it is my intent to shortly remove any remnant cites still referencing this source from this and, perhaps, other related articles. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One year is the typical waiting period to remove notified citations, is this a wikipedia regulation? The citations were based on US military documents, Eric Rasmussen obviously did not publish those documents. Hurricane Angel (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The self-publish rule is to prevent editors from creating unauthoritative statements of fact, opinions or analysis. I don't think it has any conceptual application to a repository of documents not generatated by the editor, and for which there is no good faith challenge to authenticity.  John2510 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Article problems
The article carefully avoids the main charges.

The main charges of the Swift Boat veterans were that John Kerry was not in the places he claimed to have been and that his testimony before Congress was disinformation and propaganda designed to undermine the United States Armed Forces and give Aid and Comfort to the Communist enemy. The article avoids this central matter of dispute.90.193.163.35 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You would have to provide strong WP:reliable sources to add anything like that. Also please read WP:BLP. Vsmith (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to have misread, as both of those charges are already in this article, and both were debunked. The charge that Kerry couldn't possibly be physically in a place he claimed (Cambodia) fell apart when it was discovered the accuser had also been there, but was now trying to claim he was not. The criticism of Kerry's testimony before a congressional hearing fell apart after military investigation records were discovered which showed that Kerry's concerns were not only well-founded, but were actually understated. As for undermining armed forces and comforting enemies, that happened only after he changed his name from Elvis to John, staged his demise, and moved to Brazil to hang out with Adolf. I think the two of them are still there today. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on John Kerry military service controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060622143259/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/news/politics/story/222504p-191185c.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/222504p-191185c.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.judicialwatch.org/3848.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)