Talk:Stolen Honor/Archive 2

additional material deleted
I removed this material just now with edit summary which explains reason for removal: "remove additional sherwood personal material - please repost this on sherwood personal article - Stolen Honor is article is not about Sherwood, per se but other article is". 17:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * While Sherwood shared in a group Pulitzer for investigation of a fund-raising scandal involving a Vatican cover-up, the neutrality of his reportage has been questioned. In 1992 the PBS program Frontline examined Sherwood's book Inquisition, which claimed to be an independent investigation of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.  During that investigation, a letter surfaced in which James Gavin, an aide to Reverend Moon, stated that he had reviewed the book before publication, and suggested revisions that Sherwood had promised he would incorporate before the final manuscript went to the publisher.  Sherwood had previously worked for the Washington Times, owned by Moon and the Unification Church.


 * I don't have too much of a problem, except what is the criteria for removing content of a central figure on another page, i.e. Glenn Smith on TfT and John O'Neill on SBVT?? I would suggest looking at either or both criteria to set policy rather than on a case-by-case basis:


 * Person has a significant amount of information that would go beyond a mere stub.
 * Person is known for any significant reason beyond founding the group.


 * Just a thought. --kizzle 17:40, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make John O'Neill and Glenn Smith pages. This in fact, is the right way to go. Also, the infor which should go in on the personal pages ias all the personal flaws and foibles. They must go there so that any tit-for-tat edits and rebutals do not glog up related pages. This is the rule that was intsituted at TfT and which get rebuttals off that page: TfT argumwents are about issues relating to GWBMSC and for that reason are shunted there. Same thing here. Sherwood persomnal issues are about Sherwood himself. Glogging SH is POV edits such as Gamaliel is demanding is farcical. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 17:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If this stuff on Sherwood goes, all of the info on Sherwood should go, including the "decorated Vietnam veteran" and "pulitzer prize winner", as none of that relates to SH either. You can't keep the good Sherwood info and then ship off the Moonie stuff to another article. 17:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel, you are totally off base again. A limited about of personal detail is fine as it helps segue the atricle flow in a rational manner. You are simply trying to inject "moonie" accusations here to discredit Stolen Honor itself. Frankly, the more you edit, the more it;s clear that your bias is the soruce of conflict. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 17:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No matter how many words you put in bold it won't change the fact that you are sugarcoating Sherwood's background by including only positive things about him like his pulitzer and his Vietnam service and excluding negative things about him like his moonie connections. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 17:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "Tom Ridge" connection is included at JML's insistance - as it tends to show Republican connections - a valid point to raise in a partisan race. The "moonie" accusation is a more generalized slur and belongs only on personal page -if anywhere. Also please note for the record that Gamaliel (see above) expressly calls the "moonie" connection a negative. This is precisely what I have said Gamaliel is up to: trying to insert POV material to drag down Sherwood and with him, the validity of the documentary itself. POV bias laid bare! 18:00, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Way to go Perry Mason. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * By saying to exclude all the Information, Gamaliel is attempting to INCLUDE POV stuff? Lyellin 18:17, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought the key point of the passage about Sherwood's book was not that he had ties to the Unification Church, but rather that, while purporting to produce an independent investigation, he was actually giving the subject of the investigation prior review of the text, and even making changes requested by the subject. This violation of normal journalistic procedure is relevant to his credibility.  JamesMLane 18:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, if (and only if) you can make a rational case for journalistic flaws, provided that there is a genuine - and reported on - issue there, then it would be enough to detail that issue on the personal page and have a one or two sentence pointer link to that page. Personal problems belong on the personal page. I am simply amazed at how you are disregarding the very principles you've previously insisted on regarding segregation of material. Frankly, you are simply trying to muck things up here. This is the lowest you have ever stooped. 18:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to share the following information which Rex just left on my talk page:


 * If you restore that text again, I am going to file an RfA against you. Rex071404 19:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He is, of course, referring to the text discussed here, which he has currently reverted five times in about 2-3 hours. I assume that, if it comes to the RfA he threatens, I will have witnesses that the issue had not been "already been debated and resolved", as he claimed? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex just makes it up as he goes along. Let him file, there's already two open RfAs against him.  It'll just save us the trouble of filing the third.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sherwood information in Stolen Honor article
As the prior talk page (see archive ) and my edit summaries have made clear, the personal information for Sherwood belongs on his personal article, not in the Stolen Honor article. 20:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The article is about the documentary. The documentarian in question has been praised for past efforts, and he has also been criticized for violations of journalistic integrity.  That is relevant to the documentary.  The information which is personal, rather than professional, is the information you keep putting in about the documentarian being an executive vice-president of the WVC3 group and the like.


 * No matter how much you claim that "the prior talk page" and "my edit summaries" "made it clear", as much as you claim the issue "has already been debated and resolved", these claims are not true. Continuing to make false claims simply establishes further that you have either no intention or no capability to participate in Wikipedia in good faith.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:00, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Feldspar, your bad faith is evidenced by the title change you made here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 21:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You are coming late to this dialog. This core group of editors has already discussed this and as evidenced by the treatment of a number of articles - not just this one - the apporpriate place for the additional material is the personal article page for Sherwood himself. Frankly, I am beginning to think you hate "moonies" or something and are hoping to slander Sherwood by association. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 21:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Either that, or you were acting in bad faith to call it "personal" information in the first place. I have changed it again, to something more accurate.


 * Yes, I am coming late to this dialog. This is presumably why you believed that if you falsely asserted that the issue had "already been discussed and resolved", that I would not know better.  Now you are asserting that the "core group of editors" has already resolved that the place for "the additional material" is the personal article page for Sherwood.


 * Firstly, given your unwillingness or inability to represent others accurately, I feel no reason to accept your representation that the "core group" has settled the issue for all articles. Secondly, by grouping it all together as "the additional material", you are obscuring the fact that some of the material (mostly that which you yourself added) is purely about Sherwood the person, and some of the material (including everything that I have added) is about Sherwood's record as a documentarian.  Falsely describing it all as "personal" information that should go in the personal article does not resolve the question.


 * Finally, your accusation that I "hate 'moonies'" is laughable. Do you have any evidence for this?  Any particular reason you're ignoring the very logical reasons I've presented why the quality of a documentarian's work is relevant to a documentary, in favor of your unsupported theory of a prejudice against "moonies"?  It doesn't matter if it's the Unification Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Citibank, the Oddfellows, the ACLU or the Flat Earth Society.  If a journalist says he's doing an "independent investigation" and then it turns out that the topmost levels of the organization he's "investigating" had access to and any amount of editorial veto power over that "independent investigation", then it says something about that documentarian's work that is relevant to any future "independent investigations".


 * You saying this "given your unwillingness or inability to represent others accurately" shows that you are off base here. The article is about the documentary. There is no "others" (as in person) at issue in this article. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 22:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Then what about John O'Neill on SBVT and Glenn Smith on TfT? Do we take off all personal info about them as well? --kizzle 23:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Rex? There's a thing called the three revert rule.  Please abide by it.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does not apply when reverting overt vandalism, which is what your repeated injection of inappropriate content is. 22:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, could you cite the exact text that states that more than three reverts are allowed to revert overt vandalism. AlistairMcMillan 23:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Rex, I am sure you would like to believe that you are the sole determiner of what is relevant to this article and what is not. However, your merely wishing to believe it, pretending to believe it, or even actually believing it, does not make it fact:  there are others such as myself, such as James M. Lane, such as Gamaliel, who do not agree with you about what is relevant to the article.  These are the others whom you misrepresented when you asserted on my talk page that the issue "has already been debated and resolved".


 * Now even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually understood this, and were saying something along the lines of "We are not the issue here, and should not be under discussion; we should confine our debate to the article subject itself," well, I can only point out that you violated this yourself with your bizarre accusation that I must hate the Unification Church, since that is who Sherwood worked for and whom he chose to do an "independent investigation" of and whom he turned over some measure of editorial power to.


 * Finally, do you have some basis for classifying an edit made in good faith that you do not happen to like as "overt vandalism"? Besides, of course, your assertion that the page as it stands represents a group consensus, an assertion which we have already determined to be false.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. Fishboy tightened the offending section of text. I have tweaked Fishboy's edit. I am ok with this now, if the others are too. 23:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You do not have the authority to declare that the issue is "resolved". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nor you, to dominate or inject POV edits. 00:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If you can explain where I got the power to "dominate", I'd be interested to hear it. It'd be a bummer if I was omnipotent and everyone forgot to tell me.  As for POV edits, very well.  I'll continue my unbroken record of making only those edits to this article that add more relevant information.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While you may consider your POV vandalism "relevant" it does not belong here. Your anti-Sherwood information belongs on the article page that deals with Sherwood. This page deales with the Stolen Honor documentary and only slightly with Sherwood himself. 01:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I like the Fishboy version. I don't mind a wording tweak to imply that no one has suggested the contract is improper, but I do think a whole sentence (as in Rex's) is a bit heavy stylistically. Wolfman 02:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, if someone found a way to integrate that information into the wording, I would not object. However, the idea that a sentence should be inserted to defend Sherwood against claims that no one has made, while sentences that describe claims that have been made about his journalistic work are not relevant because they are about Sherwood, is inconsistent on the face of it.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds ok I guess, but if we don't stop the sockpuppet vandal Sahara then we won't have a stable base to build on. Will someone please inform Sahara that Fishboy, Wolfman and Rex071404 are in essential agreement which does not include the text which keeps getting injected (see edit history). 02:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Jam it up your ass. I'm not in agreement - and you expect anything from me while you're still calling me a "sockpuppet vandal". Yeah...right. Sahara 02:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sahara, any simple review of your edits reveals that you appear to be a sockpuppet. This edit by you makes it clear that you are well versed in proper formatting of wiki links. Such skill is not does not develop in just (7) edits, as yours appears to have. Also, you have only 13 edits total, all but one relating to this article and all in the last 45 minutes. Also, while you may think it's funny to tell people to "Jam it up your ass" or to call them a "nazi" in your edit summaries, I do not think it is. On the other hand, on the outside chance you actually are a bona fide new user, I am happy to start over with you. To start over, please join the in progress dialog here and stop the insertion of that text unless and until you get group consensus. 02:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess you could say I'm "well versed". I've made a handful of contributions as an anon, anyway, and I've been browsing pages for a few days. And my edits are all in the last 45 minutes because I only registered the account today. If you are actually willing to dialog with me and stop simply trying to censor opinions you don't agree with, then fine - I'm happy to talk. Sahara 02:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. Rex accuses many people of being a sockpuppet. --kizzle 04:09, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle don't stoke the flames. Gamaliel and I have reached a mutually acceptable version. Please see if you are ok with what's in there now. If not please comment here. 04:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Sahara and Rex
Sahara has called Rex071404 "nazi boy". Rex has reciprocated by calling Sahara "sockpuppet vandal". All these comments are improper under the policy of no personal attacks. It's Sahara's first day on Wikipedia, but Rex, you've certainly been around enough to know better. A mere ability to wikilink is no proof that a user is experienced. In any event, Wikipedia allows the creation of multiple accounts as long as they're not used for improper purposes, e.g. voting more than once. For example, if some other user chose to set up a different account name for editing political articles, so as not to have you engaging in your ususal practice of namecalling, threatening, and leaving diatribes on other people's talk pages, that would be permitted. Although you frequently cry "sockpuppet", you toss around allegations of vandalism even more freely. You've been told already that the term "vandalism" means something other than "disagrees with Rex". As is stated on Vandalism, even a violation of the NPOV policy doesn't render an edit vandalism. Your listing of Sahara on Vandalism in progress is a blatant abuse. JamesMLane 02:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't know this was against policy. If he refrains from calling me "vandal" and "sockpuppet", I'll try to refrain from calling him other things. Sahara 02:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * One of the curses of dealing with Rex and his ilk is that even if he engages in personal attacks, you aren't allowed to respond in kind. Believe me, I know what a pain it is.  I've been putting up with Rex's nonstop harassment for more than two months now.  But we have a couple of arbitration proceedings pending against him already, and losing your cool in response to his outrageous provocations only gives him the opportunity to raise his favorite defense, namely that he's under constant attack by a cabal of people who hate him.  Try not to use personal attacks to express your justifiable anger with him.  Focus instead on the merits of the specific question at issue. JamesMLane 02:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The specific (question at) issue being the insertion of too much BIO information about Sherwood into this article. As JML's edits will show, he wanted something in so as to show the Republican/Sherwood nexus. And since JML's wishes are also part of a good Consensus decision making dialog, I agreed to that. With no objections from others, the text went in. Then after others such as Gamaliel demanded even more - basing their demand on the point that the little which was in, mandated more - and after many reverts back an forth, Fishboy stepped in with an edit, which until Antaeus Feldspar and then Sahara stepped in to attempt to re-inject Gamaliel's preferred addtional text, sufficed to meet (more or less) all stated complaints to date. Now Sahara is going against the general consensus of Fishboy, Wolfman and myself (Rex0717404) who more or less agree on Fishboy's last version. At best, Gamaliel's version is supported by himself, Feldspar and Sahara with JamesMLane seemingly sitting this out. Having said all that, I am going to keep reverting that revert edit of Sahara until he stops acting unilaterally and addresses the principle of personal criticisms belonging on the Sherwood personal article, not here. 03:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you and two people is a consensus, and three people (perhaps four) against you is, well, irrelevant? I'm afraid I don't see how that works. Sahara 06:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I was "sitting this out" only because I didn't have time to deal with this plus all the other things that called for my attention. I devoted a lot of time to putting together Requests for arbitration, which I mention here because it arises primarily from Rex's conduct in the course of the dispute about this article.  Contrary to Rex's comment below, the dispute cannot be considered "resolved" at this point.  The "not up to par" language doesn't seem very good to me. JamesMLane 07:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * JML, please offer you concerns here ASAP. It is equally important that your concerns be heard and accomodated by the group as anyone else's. I am very interested in hearing your editorial concerns regarding this article. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 16:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read this please
I have added this:


 * Some critics of Sherwood have contended that his journalistic methods are not up to par - see Carlton Sherwood for more information about him personally.

Hopefully, this will address the concerns of those who think negatives about Sherwood himself must get some ink in this article too. 03:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel's / Rex's edit just now
Please note, the dispute appears resolved. Also note, the previously mentioned .gov web site domain name does not bring up any site, nor did I find it in a .gov whois database. I have deleted that name as a result. 03:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Did a google search on the sitename. The name is accurate, it's just that they haven't launched; they are months behind schedule.  But since they don't exist yet, I agree that the webname is not useful, it's just likely to make people try to access a non-existent site. Wolfman 14:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion for actual consensus
I have a suggestion for how we might get a better idea of where consensus really lies. I think we can all agree on two basic principles:


 * Not all information about Carlton Sherwood is relevant to an article about the documentary Stolen Honor.


 * Not all information about Carlton Sherwood is irrelevant to an article about the documentary Stolen Honor.

My suggestion is that we list out the information, in statement form, that any of us feel is relevant to the article, and discuss them individually. Proposed variations on statements already listed should be listed with their original statement.

Example:


 * AA. Carlton Sherwood is a Vietnam veteran.
 * AB. Carlton Sherwood is a decorated Vietnam veteran.
 * BA. Carlton Sherwood has won a Pulitzer prize.
 * BB. Carlton Sherwood was in a group that won a Pulitzer prize.

Once the consensus on which statements are actually relevant to this article is determined, it should be easier to come up with a text that represents that consensus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Feldspar, you are beating a dead horse. There is nothing much terribly wrong with the most recent version which arose after Gamaliel's and my last edit. Please go find another article to fixate on. I'd like to suggest John Kerry. There's a plethora of minutia there for you to to hyper-analyze. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 18:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see Civility. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, why don't you see Beating a dead horse? 21:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Rex, but as we have seen numerous times, you are not an accurate judge of when actual consensus has been reached. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind word "Feldspar". 21:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, thank you for the helpful link, Rex. As Beating a dead horse makes clear, it is a retort used when "a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed, mooted or otherwise resolved."  Since none of these are the case here, it's clear that no dead horse is being beaten.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:50, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but thanks to your efforts to hide that information from others, this idiomatic usage may be lost to some. By the way, is "Feldspar" Latin for "vindictive"? Please advise. 01:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

STOP. seriously. both of you. --kizzle 01:10, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Also, Rex, please take away the ""... Alistair showed you Feldspar is not a sockpuppet... assume good faith! --kizzle 01:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Feldspar put my new page Beating a dead horse on the vote for deletion page here as a vindictive swipe at me. While it is true that pages which explain "idioms" verge on dictionary style information, I don't believe such pages are non-encyclopedic. Also, List of idioms in the English language has several other idioms such as Have one's cake and eat it too and Straw that broke the camel's back with their own pages which Feldspar did not see fit to attack as he did mine. Also, in addition to wanting it to be a good page for the Wiki, I created Beating a dead horse so as to have a link to prove to Gamaliel (see above) that I was referring to Feldspar's argument, not him personally. There was no personal attack - and Gamaliel was wrong to make the post he did. Even so, both Feldspar and Gamaliel compound the spite to utter vindictiveness when they try to get the rather nice page I created today, deleted. Frankly, I think they both burdened by warped, spiteful minds. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 01:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see Civility. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:33, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar, your Vfd may very well have merit, or maybe not, I haven't read it. Regardless, it just enhances Rex's sense of being set upon. While I still find him sometimes incredibly frustrating, I have also found him to be sometimes reasonable (though occasionally not) if he does not view you as an enemy. It is only natural that he takes your Vfd as evidence of hostility, even if you truly think the Vfd has merit. Obviously, do your own thing, I'm not trying to boss you. Just saying that cooling things down is sometimes a good strategy, as well as more pleasant for all. Wolfman 04:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree that he takes the VfD as evidence of hostility, or purports to do so. But since he is equally capable of taking the sudden odd appearance of a question mark where an apostrophe appeared to be as "vandalism", or taking the fact that two people agree with each other as proof positive that they are in fact the same person, or taking the observation that only the abuse of multiple identities (and not the mere possession of multiple identities) is not prohibited on Wikipedia as an "admission" that the person pointing out this fact is guilty of possessing and abusing multiple identities, I see no reason to limit myself to only that narrow subset of behavior which Rex would not take as "evidence of hostility", or more likely, take as "permission to instigate hostility".


 * The VfD has merit. If the process is not subverted, it will eventually be decided -- on its merits.  I ask for nothing else.  In the meantime, I would like to know if anyone has opinions for my suggestion for finding out where actual consensus lies.  I'm sure Rex would like us to get back to that subject, instead of discussing an unrelated VfD; after all, if Sherwood's "personal" information is irrelevant to the subject of Sherwood's documentary, the article on "Beating a dead horse" is sure as hell irrelevant to the subject of Sherwood's documentary.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is fine. But, it might be simpler to debate any changes you want. Things that are not currently in: Moon connection, Vietnam vet.  Things that are currently in: Pulitzer, Republican connection.  Which of these do you want to change (or anything else I missed)Wolfman 14:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I think JML's latest version actually nails it pretty well, and I agree with his reasonings of what to keep and what to leave out and why.


 * The only concerns I still have are minor: it seems that we have created one paragraph whose theme is "factors that would affect Sherwood's likelihood to produce an unbiased documentary on the subject," both negative and positive.  However, two factors are missing from that paragraph because they have been placed in the lead paragraph of the article to describe Sherwood:


 * He is a decorated Vietnam veteran (up to reader interpretation whether this makes him an expert on the subject, or too close to the subject to be objective).
 * He shared in a Pulitzer prize for investigative reporting (on the whole, definitely a factor in Sherwood's favor, though stating it this way instead of "Pulitzer prize-winning" leaves it unclear whether this means he did Pulitzer-worthy work, or the group did. Which is as it should be, since we have no firsthand knowledge of which it is.)


 * -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point. In addition, the current structure introduces Sherwood before we've even described the video.  We could change the introduction to: "Stolen Honor is a 45-minute video documentary that was released in September 2004.  It features...." etc.  Then, after the pro & con, "Stolen Honor was produced by Carlton Sherwood, ...." and then have the negative and positive "factors". JamesMLane 17:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * With Neoconned adding in more information about Sherwood to this article, perhaps it's time to make this change? I've also been looking for more detail on Sherwood's decorations from Vietnam, but I haven't found anything so far.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On TfT, both Gamaliel and JamsMLane supported the exclusion of links I wanted included, yet on Stolen Honor some turn around and demanded the Media Matters link be included - even though it fails the TfT test - in that it's not about the documentary, but about Sherwood himself. And that "moonie" stuff others kept trying to jam in - that's about Carlton Sherwood himself, not about Stolen Honor, the documentary. It's one thing to mention "he also wrote a book about Unification Church" as a snippet of his background on the documentary page, it's entirely something else to try to bring controversy about that onto a page for a topic for which it has no bearing. 15:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think Rex, that people want to exclude all the unrelated sherwood information. If that doesn't happen, the second option would be to have a rebuttal of the "good" information with the inclusion of all the bad stuff. So let's try to remove all of it, eh? Lyellin 15:52, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * We should include important Sherwood information (pro and con) that's reasonably related to the subject of the article. My explanations for my edits:
 * Restore his status as a veteran (which usually wouldn't belong but is OK given that the video is so closely related to veterans).
 * "Documentary" is borderline here, but there's certainly no justification for repeating it.
 * As I said before, the vague "not up to par" language is inadequate. I think we should specify that the issue was the prior review.  The point isn't to pound away at any Moonie connection.  It just seems unbearably coy to try to report that the subject had access to the text without mentioning who the subject was.  I agree that all the details (the Gavin letter, etc.) can be left for the Carlton Sherwood article.  I don't see a need for a duplicate wikilink to that article; the reader who wants to go there should be able to find the link in the first sentence.
 * I didn't understand the point of this sentence: "Some observers note that Sherwood has longstanding Republican ties." It adds absolutely nothing to what follows, which gives the reader the facts about the ties.  I certainly think those ties are important but I don't believe in trying to editorialize for that importance by adding a sentence that serves only to call the reader's attention to them.
 * I didn't make any edit about "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush". It's silly that we don't explain the reference, but Rex deleted my completely NPOV addition ("Nevins was making a derisive referen to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" or some such) so apparently we can't improve this minor point without another edit war. JamesMLane 16:25, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That edit ("Nevins was making ") was rejected on the basis of it being "spoon feeding". Frankly, I am not willing to cut you any more slack than you have cut me. And in any case, it is "spoon feeding" 19:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, you seem not to understand what the word 'spoonfeeding' means. Imagine you are are a reader a year from now who has never heard of SBVT.  You get here from the GSBMSC page.  You see this SBVW reference.  You have no idea at all what Nevins is talking about.  Having an internal link to SBVT is not spoonfeeding, it is adding information that is not already available to an intelligent reader.  Spoonfeeding means adding leading wording to emphasize information that is already clear to an intelligent reader.  Can you see the difference? Wolfman 04:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that this obviously isn't spoonfeeding. Nevertheless, a piped link to SBVT would also be confusing.  I think it's suitably informative and NPOV to state parenthetically that Nevins was making a derisive or derogatory reference to SBVT. JamesMLane 04:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree, your wording seems to me the best solution. Wolfman 05:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is consensus finally reached?
Just now, I have tweaked JML's most recent edit. I am willing to declare "consensus" with this revision, subject to group agreement. And as a show of good faith, I will acquiesce to the deletion of one link. I offer this as the deleted one:

"POW Featured in Documentary Labels Kerry as 'Traitor' " '' Agapepress.org - Sept. 17, 2004, in that it is arguably the most POV in it's title. 19:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

addition for accuracy?
(Nevins was making a derisive reference to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization critical of Kerry's Vietnam war record, anti-war activist record, and presidential campaign.)

No offense, 165.247.204.20, but does this really add to the accuracy of the article? I'm trying to decide. It's more detail about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but SBVT aren't literally involved here (at least so far as has been uncovered yet.) SBVT presumably don't like Kerry's anti-war activist record or his presidential campaign any more than they like his Vietnam war record, but what they're noted for, and surely the reason Nevins invoked the comparison, is their claims to have served with Kerry on the swift boats and to be uniquely positioned to criticize his record of service in the war. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * we have a wikilink for a reason. the interested reader can click there. Wolfman 06:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to give at least a capsule summary, like: "...reference to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry organization." Some readers might want to know at least that much without the bother of clicking.  I agree that, with the link, we don't need to go into a lot of detail about SBVT. JamesMLane 02:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * ok. Wolfman 02:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring?
It seems that, as the Sinclair plan to air Stolen Honor causes more controversy, we might be well-served to divide the article into sections, perhaps the following:
 * The documentary itself
 * Sherwood's qualifications and record
 * Reactions to the documentary
 * The Sinclair controversy

thoughts on such a plan? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm for it, except for Sherwood's qualifications and records, unless it specifically applies to Stolen Honor... all that Frontline stuff convolutes the article if we bring it into here in detail. But I would like to see a fleshed out article about Stolen Honor... MSNBC has some good stuff on it on hardblogger, not sure what the actual link is. --kizzle 22:14, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I already did the refactoring, demoting the first mention of Sherwood so that it comes after the material about the content of and reactions to the video. The Frontline information is relevant to Sherwood's credibility.  I don't think we need to name the Unification Church official who wrote the letter about what Sherwood was doing -- that's in the article on Sherwood -- but I think one sentence about the point is reasonable here. JamesMLane 22:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * JML I meant to phrase that according to what you said before, I am in complete agreement, state that his previous purportedly independent work was subject to prior review, just don't go into detail in this article. --kizzle 18:04, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I think any time you have a journalist who says "Here you go, look at this independent investigation I did" and then it's shown that his investigation wasn't independent, it's information relevant to any other reporting they've done. If Michael Moore came out with a new documentary, I definitely think it wouldn't be right to omit mention of how deceptively Moore has edited in the past.  But yeah, I'd like to see more meat about Stolen Honor itself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It depends. From the unofficial transcript link, Stolen Honor challenges one of the conventional wisdom about the entire Vietnam War; it asserts that there were hardly any war crimes or atrocities committed by American forces--or at least much much less than is currently believed.


 * If Sherwood is right, then this constitutes a major story about the public perception of the Vietnam war. But even in this case, Kerry's role in the misconception doesn't seem important, and there are thousands of other questions that are raised, which Sherwood ignores to zero in and smear Kerry. Even if he's right in his basic assertion, it's still an unbalanced smear job judging from this transcript.


 * However, given the timing of this release, the partisanship of Sherwood, and the general consensus that the Americans did fight a bit dirty, I think it's safe to just call the thing a smear that has some tiny bit of theory which one might try to take seriously, the bait by which it is able to push the slander into the public forum. If Sherwood cares so much about the truth of American war crimes in Vietnam, and correcting 30 years of mistaken public perception, he could have easily made such a documentary without making John Kerry the center of it. The fact that he did shows what he's truly after, and what Stolen Honor really is: an hour-long campaign ad for the Bush Campaign. And I think it indicates that Sherwood doesn't really believe what he's pushing. He would have us believe that a gross public misconception about Vietnam for years and years implies--above all other implications!--that John Kerry is a traitor.


 * Who is cynically using the vets for political and professional gain, exactly?


 * I don't see any reason to give Sherwood's ideas an airing.


 * Thus, I object to a treatment which grants it the status of critical documentary first then raises questions about its integrity. There is a line beneath which a critical documentary is nothing more than an attack with some wild assertions that will no doubt turn out to be grossly exaggerated if anyone bothers to look at it. Stolen Honor doesn't qualify as a controversial critical documentary treatment any more than LBJ's Daisy ad.


 * So I would think the refactoring needs to treat this video as a notable smear rather than a controversial documentary.


 * You raise many good points, but in doing so, you seem to misunderstand the aims of Wikipedia. We are trying to compile the information on the subject which a consensus can agree is factual, even when to do so we must report in the form of "this side claims this interpretation; the other side claims that interpretation."


 * It may be that when the information is compiled, the facts are such that it seems any reasonable person must come to a certain conclusion based on them. But even if we come to such a conclusion, Wikipedia isn't the place for it.  We need to stick with those facts that are verifiable and relevant.  It's honestly hard enough to get people to agree sometimes on which facts are actually verifiable and relevant; we'd never get a consensus on any subject anywhere near controversial on what conclusion to draw from those facts.  (And would you really want us to be able to say "Obviously, Stolen Honor is no documentary, but a big smear" if it meant that over at Killian memos someone could draw the 'obvious' conclusion, obvious to them, that CBS is biased towards Kerry and therefore every conspiracy theory about 'the liberal media' is thereby proven?)


 * I think you've made some valuable contributions to the article already -- finding the link to the transcript, adding the information about Jon Lieberman -- and I hope that you'll continue to contribute. Just remember that it has to be in the right form in order to have the effect you want:  a lawyer can win the case for their client, but they can't do it by keeping the other lawyer from putting forth a case, and they can't do it by stepping into the jury box themselves.  If you want to convince people, bring out the facts that will convince them.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Feldspar makes a good point, we must merely present the facts about a subject and refrain from making conclusions for the readers. --kizzle 18:09, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * (Re Killian: I think it's bad to say the Killian memos or even F9/11 somehow allow Stolen Honor.)


 * My point was that when the question of "is this a flimsy attack or real journalism?" has been answered satisfactorily--and I think all signs are pointing to flimsy attack--leaving around the arguments and presenting it as still a reasonable debatable issue is actually misleading, and in fact is not a responsible way to present the facts. The way facts are presented creates an implication that is often stronger than the facts themselves. I guess this is close to the definition of spin. That is why I objected to the proposed refactoring; the refactoring you proposed seems to imply Stolen Honor is a real documentary with important content that just happens to have a political controversy attached. I doubt this will be a reasonable way of presenting Stolen Honor. --64.174.158.42 21:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * We can give evidence that supports Stolen Honor not being a true documentary but we cannot conclude this for the reader. Your analysis that Stolen Honor is an unfounded partisan attack would fit with my intuitions, yet neither one of us can conclude that for the reader.  Ask yourself, why do you believe it is a flimsy attack?  To answer that question, you would provide me with certain facts or evidence that supports your conclusion.  These facts and descriptive sentences are welcome, and the more in each direction, the better informed decision the reader can make for themself.  Mainly, we cannot "spoon feed" the readers. --kizzle 21:43, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with kizzle that we just give the facts. If one fact about the video is that it quotes a selected group of veterans but doesn't include any independent investigation of their allegations, then that fact could reasonably be reported.  It would be better still if we could quote someone notable as criticizing the video on that basis, and attribut the quotation to the source.  We don't adopt any POV but quoting a POV with proper attribution is fine.  JamesMLane 22:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The point I was making, 64.174.158.42 (BTW, you might want to consider registering) is that what you have said Wikipedia should do, which is to characterize Stolen Honor as a "smear" instead of as a documentary, would in fact require a change in Wikipedia policy -- and that same policy change would allow other people who claim they are drawing equally "obvious" conclusions about the unmeritedness of John Kerry's military service or about collusion between Dan Rather and the Kerry campaign to place those characterizations directly into the articles.


 * You say it is not a "reasonable debatable issue" anymore, but the problem is that that's opinion, not fact. We need to stick to the facts, that which even those who want to draw the opposite conclusions from ours can agree are established facts.  Obviously, if someone is biased to believe that John Kerry's participation in the Winter Soldier investigation was anti-American treachery, then if Wikipedia were to assert "there is no debate; Stolen Honor is no documentary but an anti-Kerry smear" then not only will it not change that person's mind, it will decrease their trust of Wikipedia as a repository of factual information.  On the other hand, if Stolen Honor contains any repetitions of the claims Sherwood has made that have been found to be untrue, such as that the Winter Soldier investigation had been "utterly discredited", that would be an example of information that could go in the article.


 * There's an old saying in the law that "when the facts are on your side, pound the facts, if the facts aren't on your side, pound the law, if the law isn't on your side, pound the table." Well, if you really do believe the facts are on your side, then help us pound the facts.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Registered. And I think I've been pounding the facts plenty. I guess I am fine with your proposed refactoring, but I think the reader shouldn't have to get to section 4 before a mention is made that Stolen Honor, to many people, looks a whole lot like a 45 minute attack ad for Bush, masquerading as a documentary, run for free by Sinclair on the eve of a close and dirty election. That's almost all you need to know about it. -- Fleacircus 00:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Taking the Fahrenheit 9/11 article as an example of an article about a controversial film: The first paragraph talks about its release, not applicable here because Stolen Honor isn't a theatrical film. The second paragraph says it's controversial and says what it's about; the third paragraph summarizes the praise and condemnation.  On that analogy, what if, before giving the information that's now in the second paragraph here (about the production company), we insert a brief reference to the controversy?  As with Fahrenheit 9/11, the details would be left for development later in the article. JamesMLane 01:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I think you've made a lot of valuable contributions of fact to this article, and at the risk of letting my personal politics show, I hope you keep up that good work, because I think SH is a partisan smear attack on Kerry too, and I hope that the evidence which will convince people that it is gets out to them.


 * On the refactoring, I was suggesting one plan -- I'm not super-emotionally-tied to the one I proposed, or anything, and I guess I also didn't make it clear that I was thinking it might be time to give each thematic section a descriptive header. That would put a table of contents at the top of the entry, so people would actually be alerted to the fact that there was a "Sinclair broadcasting controversy" much earlier than they are now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gerow and Quantum Communications
I'm a little concerned about the terms in the article right now about the links between Red, White and Blue Productions, Quantum Communications, and Charles Gerow. Charles Gerow is called a "Republican operative", and that strikes me as going a bit far -- his record says he's a Republican, but that doesn't make him necessarily an "operative". The other thing is that RW&B is said to be "apparently owned by" Quantum Communications, based on this address information -- but Charles Gerow, head of Quantum, is openly listed as the publicist for the film. Isn't it possible (playing devil's advocate here) that that explains why the address listed for queries about Stolen Honor is Red, White and Blue Productions C/O Quantum Communications? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a very VERY left pov site, as stated on their wiki's main page (found when searched stolen honor wikipedia, as for some reason it didnt show up when i typed in Stolen Honor, but that's where it is). It may have a transcript, but it's not impossible that it was creatively "edited for brevity". I'm for removing the link until a more NPOV source for a transcript (preferably wikisource) can be added. Anyone with me here? --TIB (talk) 06:11, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * The real problem is that is a link to a copyvio. Quotes are fine, but a transcript is not.  Removing link & the tag disputing link. Wolfman 06:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yikes. I didn't think about the problems in linking to a transcript -- I had thought that, like Michael Moore and F9/11, they wanted it out there as widely as possible.  (I could have sworn I read somewhere that RW&B were offering the movie itself as a download over the Internet, like Moore said he wanted people to do with F9/11...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I haven't bought the Stolen Honor video and don't intend to. Whether or not it's offered as a download, does it perhaps say that anyone who wants to circulate the text is free to do so?  That would be quite plausible, since the goal is obviously to hurt Kerry, not to make money.  The point is that I don't think we have enough information to be confident we were linking to a copyvio.  I don't favor the approach of leaving a copyvio on Wikipedia unless and until we get a DMCA takedown notice, but I think a link to someone else's site is another matter.  This link should be restored.  As for the bias, we have lots and lots and lots of places where we link to Free Republic or National Review or similar right-wing sources.  Here, we're not citing one of Kos's opinions as Revealed Truth.  We're linking to his report about a matter of fact.  I don't think it's enough for someone to sit around and say, "Well, Kos is a Democrat, so he might be misrepresenting the facts."  Is there any evidentiary basis for questioning the accuracy of his transcript?  He notes at the beginning that it was rushed, so the reader is warned that there might be errors.  The reader of our article is still better off if we include this link.  Furthermore, I haven't read the whole transcript, but even in skimming it I found plenty of vicious lies about Kerry.  Just what sort of stuff are you speculating Kos might have "creatively" edited out that was worse than what he reported?  JamesMLane 07:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I imagine that the producers would themselves supply a transcript if they approved of one circulating. Why not just include some illustrative quotes in the article?  That's fair use for sure. Wolfman 15:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * True, it's fair use, but to make it NPOV we'd have to include the rebuttals and criticisms. Again see the Fahrenheit 9/11 article as an example.  The back-and-forth about the attacks on the film's accuracy got so extensive that it had to be spun off into a separate article.  As an alternative, I'll see if I can find any policy about linking to a possible copyvio site. JamesMLane 16:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A humorous note
I just got a spam email trying to sell me a copy of Stolen Honor. Touting Sherwood's credentials, it says that he served in Vietnam "before forging a journalistic career."

You have to wonder whether the marketing weasels cleared that language with Sherwood. JamesMLane 22:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * heh. sounds like an underpaid intern having a laugh at the boss's expense. Wolfman 00:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't even think of that explanation. I was just applying Hanlon's Razor, but maybe you're right. JamesMLane 01:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * JamesMLane, I am not convinced. Please supply more proof. 216.153.214.94 04:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Proof of what? he got the e-mail, you want him to forward it to you?  --kizzle 09:01, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I am not convinced. 216.153.214.94 22:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Proof of what? he got the e-mail, you want him to forward it to you?--kizzle 01:47, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

SH accuses Kerry of personal commission of atrocities
I find the unofficial transcript confirmed here: Sherwood does in fact accuse John Kerry of having personally committed the atrocities that he described in his Winter Solder testimony. My Editor-Sense is telling me it should go into the article but it's not telling me where. Perhaps a "claims made by the video" section? Such a section could also include Sherwood's assertion that the My Lai massacre was "an isolated incident". (Interestingly, Sherwood's spin is that "Were not the cruelties of My Lai exposed by the soldiers there - American soldiers, who refused to participate - whose revulsion compelled them to tell of the horrors they've witnessed?" Glossing over, among other things, that those three soldiers who stopped the massacre and evacuated the rest of the citizens were reviled as traitors by fellow soldiers and branded as liars by the Army -- exactly what Sherwood is doing now to Kerry for claiming that any other atrocities were committed by American troops in Vietnam.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I listened to the show link and compared it to the transcript as I went; the transcript has some minor errors (all similar to "manaculls" for "manacles") but no additions or deletions or changes in meaning. I can't really speak to the accuracy of what the transcript describes as being onscreen but it was never wrong in the few times I had the SH video window visible.


 * As far as opening up the contents of SH to discussion, a resource might be fact check's Swift Boat Vet article where it lists some other well-known atrocities. Another point is that a lot of what Kerry is talking about is free-fire zones which he argues are violations of the Geneva Convention; so to participate in one is a war crime, and to plan them out amounts to a policy of criminality. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1077677/posts Here] is where Kerry describes the sort of war crimes he was asked to commit. That plus encouraging body counts is what Kerry meant when he talked about the policy and tactics making war criminals of the soldiers, and fomenting the atrocities. SH cuts up Kerry's statements trying to present something else entirely. The number of logical fallacies in Sherwood's presentation is dizzying.


 * There's a quote somewhere where Sherwood himself says that he served in a trench area where he never had to be in free-fire zones, but says that he knows Vietnam was "100 wars" and he admits guys in other areas probably had to do bad things. Here.


 * I'm confused: how can you "accuse" someone of doing what he "admitted" to? Didn't Kerry say he committed atrocities?


 * Or did Kerry merely say that he observed atrocities committed by others but that his own hands were clean? Uncle Ed 11:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Two major questions
Anyway, there seem to be two major questions about Stolen Honor / Stolen Valor / WSI: Just about everyone accepts signed, written depositions or affidavits; or sworn testimony given in court under oath. Getting up in front of your buddies, in a warm, supportive environment with no cross-examiners or judges - is this the same? (SH has an on-line clip that seems to show staffers planning for WSI coaching a veteran to "remember" something; this raises questions.)
 * 1) Which sources are credible?
 * 2) Whose analyses are credible?

The main point SH/SV rebuts is the main point of WSI: i.e., that (A) US atrocities were frequent, even routine; (B) that the US either became aware but did nothing because they were callous or planned it in the first place because they were much, much worse than "callous"; therefore, (C) the only solution to this ethical mess is a US pullout.

The main alternate point is that of people who today are called "convervatives": i.e., that (D) US atrocties were far less frequent than Viet Cong / NVA atrocities; (E) that the US took steps to curb these when they became aware but not nearly enough; (F) the evils of Communism justified US support for South Vietnam, despite the 'occasional' US atrocity; therefore, (G) the US should not pull out of Vietnam, even though its troops' hands are not lily-white.

Now, we contributors, if we are trying to get our Stolen Honor article to reflect only the WSI argument (and omit the conservative argument), will just wander around in circles like a blind man doing the dog paddle in the dark. Same if "conservative" Wikipedians try to suppress the Kerry/WSI arguments.

Please allow me to suggest that this article - like the others I listed above as intimately related - describe BOTH points of view instead of trying to prove that ONE of these POVs is the "true and correct" one. Uncle Ed 11:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)