Talk:Stolen Honor/Archive 1

Old discussions
I don't have too much problem with the article, it just reads like the back of the box the video is on. I wonder if you can find any critical analysis of the video as well. --kizzle 03:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is still new. Not much about this out there yet. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 03:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Title of article
I have reverted the deletion of the content of this article and the substitution of a redirect. For an article on a video titled Stolen Honor, the correct article title is Stolen Honor -- not Stolen Honor Documentary or Stolen Honor Smear Job or any other POV title that an editor might want to give it. JamesMLane 01:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * JML, now I am absolutely convinced that the "M" in your name stands for "mendacity". You are 100% fully aware that the video is indeed a documentary. Please read the link: http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/index.asp

And frankly, if this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_911 were not a well known movie, the link for that would better inform if the word "documentary" was in it. However, since the pro-Kerry media gave Michael Moore so much free publicity everyone what already knows what "fahrenheit 911" means. 04:17, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You mean "Farenheit_911_Quasi_Documentary". And maybe the American public knows what "farenheit 911" means is because the movie grossed $118 million at the box office.  just a thought. --kizzle 23:20, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

sherwood - pulitzer
the pulitzer site does not list him as a winner or finalist. http://www.pulitzer.org/Archive/archive.html

also i saw where Bill O'Reilly said he won a Peabody. can't verify that either at the peabody site. http://www.peabody.uga.edu/archives/search.html

can somebody give a link where these awards are documented? thanks Wolfman 04:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * O'Reilly never won a Peabody. Al Frankin called him on this lie and that was the source of that dustup they had at the ABA convention which you may have heard of. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 04:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read this link please see section which says: "1980 Gannett News Service, for a series by Carlton Sherwood, John Hanchette and William Schmick on a fund-raising scandal involving the Pauline Fathers, and the Vatican's role in covering it up." Being the lead writer of a group Pulitzer, does indeed make one a prize winner. 04:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * thanks. Wolfman 20:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Media Matters" link
I deleted the Media Matters link because it is only about Sherwood personally and would not belong anywhere except on his personal article - and then not even there as "media matters" is nothing more than a ogranized hit piece site run by democrats. 20:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * ok, goes to sherwood article. actually i agree somewhat with you about media matters. but, i also feel the same way about human events, national review, newsmax, frontpagemag, etc.  but those get linked in as notable sources, so why not media matters? Wolfman 20:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but MM is the least thinly veiled and most utterly singular in it's mission to attack. In fact, most of those others are bona-fide quality news sites (newsmax.com being the quality laggard). But MM by it's own self description, is a partisan "rebuttal" site, not a news site. By linking to it, you are inviting me to start linking to Powerline blog, CaptainsQuarters and LittleGreenFootballs. I urge you to reconsider. 20:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What fun! Then we'll go to dailykos, buzzflash, democraticunderground, atrios, bartcop. Partisan point scoring, a party in a box. let's face it, of all the sites mentioned so far in this section _only_ mediamatters makes factchecking their primary mission.  yes, they factcheck for conservative errors, but at least it's factchecking.  the rest are 90% opinion. Fishboy 22:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agenda driven "fact checking". It's about as valid as John Blutarski doing an underware check of coeds in Animal House. Yes he has a mission, but how legitimate is it? 22:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Facts are facts, having an agenda can't change them. Fishboy 22:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Facts are only accepted as being prima-facially true if un-rebutted (1st rule of evidence). If you insist on inserting POV "facts", you will force me to rebut them. 22:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * How does your description of the first rule of evidence apply to censoring Media Matters link? --kizzle 23:16, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, as I understand it, your position is that we should include external links to several sites attacking Kerry and championing the video, and we should even include quotations from a few of them, but we must not include even one link, like MediaMatters, that raises any doubt about the video? This is obvious and unacceptable bias. JamesMLane 03:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Media Matters link refers only to Sherwood presonally. JML, at TfT you established a doctrine of exactness when it comes to links. We must now adhere to that doctrine here. The MM link is only accetpable at Sherwoord personal article, not at Stolen Honor. If you put it here, I will take that as a declaration by you of open editorial warfare. Also, please note hat Wolfman agrees about the MM link and where it should go (see above) 03:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sherwood's bias
The article on Texans for Truth takes care (at Rex's insistence) to note its founder's ties to the Democratic Party. In fact, in checking the article just now to confirm my recollection on that point, I found that the information is duplicated. I'll delete one of them, but I'll leave one in, because I agree that people wanting to know about TfT can legitimately consider the underlying political orientation. The same is true here, though. Sherwood is no independent journalist, setting out to uncover the facts and let the chips fall where they may. He's a partisan. His ties to the Bush administration are as relevant to this article as Glenn Smith's ties to the Democratic Party are to the TfT article, so I'm restoring that deleted information. JamesMLane 03:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)1


 * now that's parity :) --kizzle 03:42, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I was the one who originally put some of the background info about Sherwood in. Wolfman(?) moved it to Sherwood's personal article. I think it's validd for both, in it's current form. 03:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We need to find some sort of standard for what bio goes in and what goes out. Sherwood the brave fighter on the war on terror in but lunatic Moonie operative out? 04:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Swift Boat Veterans for Bush
The reference to "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" has spawned some minor editing squabbles. Because it's obvious that Nevins was referring to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, one change that's been made (I think by two different people) has been to wikilink the term to the SBVT article. Rex has angrily reverted such links, saying, e.g.: 'There is no such group as "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" for an editor to make that link is grossly POV!'

Now, trying to put the reader in the picture without appearing to lend Wikipedia's imprimatur to Nevins's partisan slam at SBVT by linking, I added an explanation of what he meant, noting that it was a "derisive reference". Rex has deleted that sentence with the comment, "JML - you are speculating - You have no proof other than you own opinion of that!"

So, Rex is now asserting that there is no such group as Swift Boat Veterans for Bush, but he thinks it's just my opinion that Nevins meant SBVT. Well, Rex, if there is no SBVB, then what did he mean? His meaning is completely obvious (not just my opinion) to those of us who know about SBVT. Not all readers will have that background, though. Frankly, I thought I was going out of my way to accommodate your POV and provide a link to your beloved SBVT article, but if you don't want it, so be it. Odds are that other editors will come along and, upon seeing the unlinked term "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush", will want to link it to something. My edit is a clear improvement on the current text but it's yet another minor point where you'll get your way by virtue of your demonstrated willingness to engage in endless reverts and denunciations. JamesMLane 03:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No JML, that's a valid point. It's a reference that some people might actually confuse as being a real group.  I'll support that. --kizzle 03:58, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

JML, you have many time said that we are not to "spoon feed" the readers. Frankly, it's very gratifying to see you stew in your own juices - that and the fact that you are just plain wrong on this issue. If you "explain" your suppositions, it is your POV being injected. For all we know, the man mispoke or was being snide or perhaps was misquoted or maybe he actually thinks there is a "SBV Bush". If you want to find a better quote for the Kerrry side, go find one. As it stands, you don;t even see that I was the one who put this quote in as a courtesy to your side in the first place. Now you are trying to beat me with it. Also, since there are two anti-Kerry quotes, but only one pro-, why don;t you go find another pro (a reasonable one) and we'll see if have two of each calms your water. 03:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is an editorial notation of "[sic]"? What about that? 04:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, NPOV does not mean we cannot use our brains. You know perfectly well that he was making a snarky reference to SBVT.  The reader may not know that.  Spoonfeeding is when you emphasize an interpretation that is clear from the facts.  Here, a reader may have no idea what the reference is about.  Clarifying that is not spoonfeeding.  Sic is not appropriate; sic is used for errors.Wolfman 04:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, it really is hysterical to see you talk yourself in circles. 04:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * what? you have some sort of problem comprehending simple english? Wolfman 05:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel vs JamesMLane
Gamaliel is reverting JamesMLane! Fratricide at last as they turn on each other! YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! 04:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) 04:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess he's decided to leave me and go back to his wife. JamesMLane 04:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, he's running off with me. We're all in cahoots! Wolfman 04:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You guys are all just angry because this particular article has proven itself a hardened target against your pro-Kerry bias. 04:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Your ideas are intriguing. Please subscribe me to your newsletter. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 04:21, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * who's angry? not me. also, how is this a 'hardened target'?  it's not a 'target', and it's not 'hardened' -- no one's even had a chance to see it yet. Wolfman 04:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I have to explain it to you, it's too much bother. 04:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * we bow to your superior intellect. --kizzle 04:37, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course, superior to you is not saying much. 04:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * don't even fucking start with me today rex, not a good day. --kizzle 05:00, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * oh yeah, "whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you like glue" --kizzle 05:03, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Oooh potty mouth - Kizzle is such a big boy! 05:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * do your parents know you're up this late on the computer? --kizzle 05:11, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Do yours? 05:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * good one. you so were the kid in high school who got picked on, and now you make up for it by bullying people on an internet bulletin board and pushing people into accepting your admittedly pro-bush anti-kerry bullshit. --kizzle 05:14, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Both of you, stop. Please. You are just increasing tensions, it's not needed, and it does't help either of your cases. Lyellin 05:15, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

done. --kizzle 05:16, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Kizzle owes me an apology - he was vulgar with me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 05:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, it's done. Let it go over. We're not dishing out apologies, we're not determining who owes who one- this is not third grade. This conversation was idiotic, and it's done, and that is what matters. Let it go.


 * Also this is discussion that needs to be kept- if at least for the reason that the continual arbcom stuff that goes on may want to see this. Lyellin 05:23, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I retract all previous statements, they are irrelevant to this matter and should be discussed privately on user talk pages. --kizzle 05:28, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Let the record show that Kizzle refuse to apologize for vulgar language and that Lyellin supports him in that position. 05:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Record noted. --kizzle 05:31, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * sighs* Lyellin 05:34, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I apologize for using profanity against you Rex. I lost my head for a second and mis-intepreted your phrase "If I have to explain, it's too much to bother" as a demonstration of inellectual superiority.  I will not show profanity again. Please archive this page and remove it from the main talk area so that normal dialog can continue.