Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 9

Parallel debate
Some of the debate on this discussion page is also taking place on Talk:Swiftboating. For exposure to the full discussion, it would be wise to check that page. Crockspot 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User 70.112.89.248 revert
I have reverted an edit by user 70.112.89.248 as non-compliant with Wikipedia "Controversial Topic" guidelines. The purpose of those guidelines is to discourage edit wars (as is apparently underway with this edit) and to encourage consensus building through dialogue in the "talk" environment. I will advise user 70.112.89.248 of this action and that I am, in no way, making a determination as to the merits of his proposed edit.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jake. Thanks for opening up the discussion.  I'm not sure the editor understands the issue at hand, so it's good to bring it here instead of an edit war.  For what it's worth, I think it's clear that the term is not one simply used by "liberals" in a pejorative way. --EECEE (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and, FWIW, I think it's a pejorative both coined and predominantly promulgated by the left side of the political spectrum and, by and large, neither universal in its use on the left nor universal in its disdain by the right. Also, FWIW, I'm not particularly motivated to debate nor defend either construct as neither view offers any possibility of absolute, empirical encyclopedic truth. Attempts to somehow qualify or quantify the degree of its universality as a "fact" in this article are, IMHO, not only POV and OR...but absurd.  It should suffice for the purposes of this article (and I think everyone could reasonably stipulate) that the term was successfully coined by those opposed to the SVPT effort and is currently being predominantly employed as a pejorative.


 * Also, FWIW, I'm rather content, in fact, to see the term in use ad infinitum (and interpreted as the recipient deems appropriate) as it, rather ironically, affords the Swiftvets and their allegations a degree of longevity and staying power that they might never have dreamed of or anticipated. What was it the aging starlet said?  The only thing worse than them talking about me is them not talking about me? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. --EECEE (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

World Net Daily - RS?
I have reverted an undiscussed edit/deletion citing World Net Daily as an unreliable source. A brief look at the RS noticeboard contained no definitive censensus on the assertion. Opinions were varied. Comments? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WND is assuredly not a reliable source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than your opinion, please cite Wikipedia RS criteria that WND fails to demonstrate. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The reliability of WND as a source has been questioned and discussed many times, and the result has always been the same: Unreliable, except as a source for its own opinions. It does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source for factual content., , , ,
 * The limited search criteria you used (omitting instances of "WND", "World Net Daily", etc.) shows only 12 hits out of hundreds that exist, and even those few generally agree that WND is not a reliable source for factual content. Have you tried to find sourcing support for the content from more reliable sources? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look at the additional "WND RS noticeboards" you kindly provided and I'm simply unprepared to agree with your assertion that some definitive consensus has been made precluding sourcing WND.


 * In fact, while I'll have to spend more time digesting its entirety (though there's surprisingly less discussion than I had anticipated in your 6 links), a quick read noted no mention at all of journalists/commentators who have elected to associate their work with WND which, I think by anyone's standards, is a reasonable indicy of the reputability of a publication. Just for the record, here's a few...Roger Hedgecock, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Larry Elder and...yes, Bill Press.  Now, you may not be fond of their particular ideology (save for one), but it somewhat strains credulity to suggest that individuals with established credentials such as these would associate their names and professional reputations with an enterprise that is widely regarded as "unreliable" in the journalistic community, regardless of an arguably tilted turnout in RS noticeboards.  More tomorrow. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the political talking-heads that have associated themselves with the publication (Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Jerome Corsi, Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Roger Hedgecock, Bill Press, Dennis Prager...) are an indication of reputability, or lack thereof -- thank you for strongly making my point. None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way, and the one or two contributors that do have journalist experience (i.e., Stossel) are contributing as commentators and not as journalists. WND does not claim any responsibility for the accuracy or content of its columnists contributions. Most of those columns, by the way, are syndicated and printed in any and all publications that pay for them, including WND - regardless of the reputations of those publications. As noted above, WND might be used as a source in a Wikipedia article for "opinion", but not for statements of fact. When factual information sourcing (on other than exercise equipment) is required, we should cite not Chuck Norris, but actual reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is currently in progress at RS/N and I'll reserve further comment here pending some resolution there. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't care what the journalistic "community" considers reliable or not. We have our own tougher standards you will adhere to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't care what the journalistic "community" considers reliable or not.
 * Res Ipsa Loquitor
 * We have our own tougher standards you will adhere to.
 * Oh my... --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not RS. I googled when I started and found the RS noticeboard. There has never been agreement there by any majority it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There has never been agreement there by any majority it was.
 * Nor is there a clear consensus that it isn't RS by Wikipedia standards. Your acknowledgement of that fact... --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WORLD_NET_DAILY_final_answer_needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...is evident and appreciated. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WND is not now and never has been a reliable source. Every discussion, and there have been many, has made it clear that they are an unreliable source for anything they claim. Your claim that there is no consensus is untrue. Woogee (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The burden is on the community to reach a consensus that a source is reliable, not the other way around. I'm not interested in getting in an edit war with an editor who refuses to hear.  The RSN thread he started linked, as has every thread on the subject I've looked at, has stated the same thing:  WND is only considered a reliable source about its own opinion, not as a reliable source for verification of anything else.   //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, FWIW, I didn't start the RSN topic but...c'mon in, the water's fine...and it's a fine day for sacred cow tipping. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies & corrected; but the point still stands -- the RSN has spoken definitively on this multiple times, as have the editors responding here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but pardon me while I explore your purported definitive "consensus" and upon what criteria/substance it is based. (P.S. nor did I link to the RSN topic either) --JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you just trying to make a point? I don't see anyone supporting your position (here nor at RSN), yet there are more than a handful of editors rebuking it.  Explore and become enlightened all you like, but I don't think there's much more discussion to be had here.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced, thus far, that your purported consensus on WND unreliability is based on anything more than a large preponderance of archived "me toos" from respondents offering little more than worthless cheerleading or qualified acquiescence to WND sourcing utilizing WND unreliability as a given...as is the case so far in the ongoing RSN. In terms of substantive support for that "given", any concrete demonstration of the purportedly egregious WND "unreliability" has been MIA. Of the six RSN's I have reviewed thus far (linked above) I've seen...nothing.  Very curious indeed. I have some more reading to do, starting with the World Net Daily article. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're doing it wrong. YOU have to prove it's reliable, not the other way around. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be quite accurate, the community has to come to a consensus that WND is a reliable source (not the other way around); I've yet to see any inkling of community consensus towards accepting WND as a reliable source for anything beyond its own opinions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Swiftvets.com - RS consideration
User:Dlabtot has deleted the Swiftvets.com sourcing in a second and third  undiscussed citation deletion. I encouraged discussion of these unilateral deletions in my edit summaries when I restored the original citation and have now done so on his talk page.

IMHO, Swiftvets.com is RS for the included content as it is reflective of its own assertion and opinion. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerome Corsi Cite - Sourcing
It appears that participants in the discussion over the sourcing for the Jerome Corsi/Museum photo content may be, perhaps, missing a beat. I will attempt (hopefully) to shed some light.

First, I had no hand (to the best of my recollection) in either the initial composition nor subsequent discussion (if any) relating to either the inclusion of that cite or its sourcing, nor has there been any expression of concern (that I'm aware of) regarding RS considerations for that same sourcing. An editor has now objected to the use of WND as a supporting source under RS, it has been (perhaps temporarily) removed as a source and discussions are now ongoing in RS/N relating to WND RS considerations at the behest of that same editor. We'll see what transpires from that.

In the interim, there is now a single source for the cite remaining, hosted by I'm not sure whom, which purports to be a representation of a "press release" issued by Jeff Epstein of "Vietnam Veterans for the Truth" as an advisory to the publication of the incorporated material by "KerryLied.com".

On the suggestion of an editor to, perhaps, find another source, I managed to find an internet archive link to the ORIGINAL publication source, "KerryLied.com". 2 editors have now objected to and deleted the provided original source and, thus far anyway, appear to be resigned to acceptance of the remaining source...which is somewhat odd.

I'm not sure if those concerned editors are aware of it or not (and you will kindly forgive any seeming but unintended condescension), but "KerryLied.com", as I understand it, is was the online website for "Vietnam Veterans for the Truth".

Am I to understand, given the above, that under RS considerations, a purported source hosted by an unknown entity is more RS-desirable than an internet-archive link to an ORIGINAL source?

Comments? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously not -- the solution, per policy, is to remove any sources that don't meet WP:RS, and also remove any information not verifiable in actual reliable sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Were the WND cites for the Corsi and O'Neill quotes? If so, wouldn't they qualify as a reliable source for the quotes?  They would not be included to support  any other point, if I recall their placement correctly. --EECEE (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Corsi" WND cite was removed by User:Jon Osterman


 * The O'Neill cite was from the SVPT website and was curiously removed without comment (and, perhaps, by mistake) by User:Timrollpickering


 * I'm restoring that one.


 * As per the most recent WND RS/N, opinion was divided as to WND's RS status with slightly more editors favoring WorldNetDaily as RS on an individual, contextual basis.  Unfortunately the RS/N was prematurely aborted before something more definitive might be established.  One thing fersure, WND does not suffer from the purported Wikipedia-global RS opprobrium cited by the editor who started this particular RS ball rolling.
 * This edit, as a result of this RS hoopla, now presents a bit of a quandary. It certainly must be cited in order to support its article legitimacy, yet WND appears to be the only even quasi-RS source available who actually reported the story (fancy that).  Tabling for the moment WP:UNDUE issues raised by the paucity of sourcing, WND as RS for this edit is, IMHO, not only acceptable...but apparently indispensable. Cite it...or lose it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a complete and total mischaracterization of the discussion, indeed it stretches WP:AGF beyond the breaking point. Link to RSN discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If I'm reading the RS/N notice correctly, WND is not considered a reliable source for factual content. However, my question had to do with citing WND solely as the source of the Corsi (and O'Neill?) quotes.  It surely is a reliable source for a statement an individual made to WND, isn't it? --EECEE (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It surely is a reliable source for a statement an individual made to WND, isn't it?
 * I believe the salient phrase is "not generally acceptable" which, of course, would qualifiy its RS status as conditionally acceptable (it should be considerably higher but that's a discussion for RS/N). It should be noted that the RS/N contributors were pretty evenly divided as to WND's status as "conditionally" RS. However, if there's an example of a circumstance for this "conditional" RS, surely this must be one. I've looked for alternative sourcing and found none. Perhaps you may have more success. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like most sources are just as "generally unreliable" as WND ... that is, they tend to agree with Corsi and O'Neill's viewpoints. It just seems silly to exclude a perfectly accurate source for a quote when it is not being used to support any other claim made in the article.  After all, isn't the quite biased SBVT website considered an acceptable source for SBVT claims?  Anyway, I see that the reference to UFC stayed in, so if worse came to worse I guess there could be a brief excerpt from the book.  The whole thing just seems misguided, but that's just my opinion of course.--EECEE (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick search shows numerous Wikipedia cites for WorldNetDaily (perhaps for its own opinion/content...but I'm not inclined to do an exhaustive survey). As Corsi is a regular contributor to WND, I believe WND is RS for this content and, barring provision of some alternative sourcing (which appears unlikely), the WND citation should be restored. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To better clarify the current non-supported content, here's the sequence of edits... My attempt to restore that long-standing WND source was reverted by User:Blaxthos... When I provided a link to the original source of the material, User:Blaxthos deleted it... When I restored the link to "KerryLied.com"... User:Blaxthos deleted it again... When apprised that the only remaining (and also long-standing) source for the content was, in actuality, a self-published URL of a "KerryLied.com" principal, User:Blaxthos deleted that as well... JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit summary: WND is surely not a reliable source, inclusion not necessary since there are other sources listed)
 * (edit summary: "kerrylied.com" is obviously not a reliable source either -- this is moving into disruptive editing territory...)
 * (edit summary: Provided link is the original source of the cited material-if you have a problem with the content, take it to talk),
 * (edit summary: a url like kerrylied.com is quite obviously inappropriate per BLP, RS, etc..)
 * (edit summary: removing improper sources, per points raised in talk)
 * You don't think that a website called "KerryLied.com" might just a problem with WP:IRS? There is no possible argument that such a website has been established by a reliable source with an intention to perform a proper analysis of a situation. Accordingly it cannot be used on Wikipedia for commentary on anything other than the fact that it exists (if that information were of encyclopedic value). Also, the WP:RSN discussion clearly established the obvious: WND is also not a reliable source except for factoids like that it exists. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't think that a website called "KerryLied.com" might just a problem with WP:IRS?
 * Perhaps you had better re-read. It was I who pointed out the problem with the remaining sourcing for the Corsi content about which Osterman and Blaxthos were apparently ignorant. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Without further observations on WND as RS for the Corsi content, my intent is to soon re-instate the WND citation per the talk discussion above. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Innapropriate sourcing
The current article contains the following text... "SBVT supporters question whether these witnesses are reliable because they spoke 'in the presence of a Communist official',[60] but their account of enemy fire is substantially the same as that previously given by another former VC to an AP reporter[61] and by the American witnesses, including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day, Larry Clayton Lee.[62][63][64][65]" Reference [62] (the "Rood" article) does not support that language. Lee is referenced once in page 2, paragraph 18 of the original article, and the context of that mention is irrelevant to the current article text as written. I intend to remove the reference pending further comments. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're trying to interpret the citation too narrowly. It's directly on point: it was written by someone who was actually there, and was written with the express intent to rebuke ads by the SBVT. The citation given certainly supports the text "and by the American witnesses", as it's a firsthand account by the actual witness.  I think the source is fine.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're trying to interpret the citation too narrowly.
 * I'm not "interpreting" anything. I'm reading the exact text referencing Larry Lee from Rood's commentary. That commentary makes no reference to the following text which it is purported to support (Lee's account of enemy fire supporting a former VC's account)...
 * ...their account of enemy fire is substantially the same as that previously given by another former VC to an AP reporter [61] , and by the American witnesses ...
 * Perhaps the remaining 3 citations do, but I haven't yet checked them. This Rood citation, however, is irrelevant to supporting the assertion contained in the existing text. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ReWrite Article
Based on the valid concerns posted by JIJ the article appears rife with WP:NOR, [WP:BLP]] and WP:POV issues. I am going to tag the article for a rewrite and work on the more obvious examples. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your rationale is for removing almost all the external links. Would you please give one? Dlabtot (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The prodigious number of WP:EL's in this article would seem to violate the policy on EL
 *  3. Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
 * Are there other examples here on Wikipedia where you can point to no less than 89 EL's in a single article? I am surprised that an experienced editor such as yourself, would have such a poor grasp of policy on this subject. Also, do you have any comments on JakeInJoisey's page? He raises many valid concerns. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree this article needs a rewrite. It doesn't read like a wikipedia article, it reads like and investigations and rebuttle of the group itself. Not at all balanced and for sure full of WP:NOR, [WP:BLP]] and WP:POV issues as was stated., — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.11.21 (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RfCs on "Swiftboating"
For the consideration of interested editors, there are currently 3 active RfCs in progress within the Swiftboating daughter article talk page. Comments are solicited. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

John Kerry VVAW controversy AfD petition
For the consideration of interested editors, the article John Kerry VVAW controversy, a subject formerly residing within this article and to which this article now links, is the subject of an AfD petition. Comments are solicited. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits - Feb, 2012
I came here to the Talk page per your suggestion, and expected to find a discussion explaining your revert. I don't see it, so let's start one. Could you begin by explaining that cryptic edit summary that accompanied your revert of my edit? It almost appears that you undid my correction of an unsourced assertion in the article on the grounds that the error has existed "for quite some time". No, that can't be right, so I'll look for your elaboration here. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (rv consensus established language stable for quite some time - plz discuss in talk) --JakeInJoisey
 * I came here to the Talk page per your suggestion, and expected to find a discussion explaining your revert.
 * It's "BRD", not "BRRD"...and the onus for amending consensus-developed and long-stable content is upon the editor who would advocate for that change.
 * I don't see it, so let's start one.
 * I have a much better idea. I'll defer further discussion as to the merit of your now unilaterally imposed edit pending resolution of several related RfCs. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's neither BRD or BRRD ... and no one has amended "consensus-developed" content. The cited text "critics consider" failed verification, so I simply corrected the wording and subsequently added additional source citations.  There is nothing BRD about it.  There is also no change to "consensus-developed" content (and yes, I've thoroughly reviewed Talk page archives 7 & 8, which you have elsewhere erroneously cited as supporting your claim to consensus).  If you could provide a specific explanation of your concerns with my edit, that would be most helpful.  Or, if you prefer, you can defer further discussion based on whatever excuse you find convenient - the article will still be here. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Amended Text - Inre Al French Affidavit
I have amended the following text...
 * The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to.

Use of the word "admitted" is clearly a weasel word and a POV inference of duplicity. Mr. French "acknowledged" an assertion that was already expressed in his affidavit. The cited source does not support the WP:SYNTH of the now amended text. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect; nowhere in his affidavit does French express that he had no firsthand knowledge to substantiate his accusations. The "duplicity" is implied by his casting aspersions without firsthand knowledge, irrespective of whether he admits or acknowledges it.  That being said, "acknowledged" would be equally appropriate in this context. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the consideration of interested editors, the actual language of Swiftvet Al French's affidavit (italics, emphasis mine)...
 * ...was and has been misrepresented in numerous erroneous sources. This misrepresentation appears to have commenced with a single newspaper report  which then proliferated and was repeated multiple times in major media (eg. ABC News) and internet venues (eg. Daily Howler) in the remainder of the 2004 election campaign.  It's most recent iteration (to the best of my knowledge) occurs in Media Matters Eric Boehlert's Lapdogs: How the Press Lay Down for the Bush White House . JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The single word difference — 'or' instead of 'and' — doesn't change the substance of the KGW news report: that citizens were outraged at French after swearing to facts that he never personally witnessed. The article clearly explains that French admitted his assertion was based on the stories of 3 other people, making your "and/or" descrepency in the article a non-issue.  The complaint was that he should know better than to issue an affidavit containing hearsay-based "beliefs" instead of facts, and "that that kind of ridiculous statement would never pass muster in a court of law".  But hey, on the upside, you've dug up yet another reliable source conveying that the Swifties conducted a "poorly constructed smear campaign". Xenophrenic (talk)
 * The single word difference — 'or' instead of 'and' — doesn't change the substance of the KGW news report: that citizens were outraged at French after swearing to facts that he never personally witnessed.
 * And their outrage was, apparently, just as unfounded in law (see hearsay exceptions for one) as was the reporter's story in fact. But I'll simply defer to the Oregon State Bar Association and their rejection of "claims that French lied in his anti-Kerry affidavit"...and it is quite easy to understand a mis-characterization of French's acknowledgement as an "admission" when you misquote "knowledge OR bleief" as "knowledge AND belief". JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With the exception of an inconsequential single word ('and' instead of 'or'), you have yet to show a factual inaccuracy in the news stories. I'll also simply defer to the Oregon State Bar, who didn't reject any claims, and instead said they were not in a position to affirm or refute his statements.  The same panel would come to the same determination about me if I swore in an affidavit that it is my "belief" that JakeInJosey is trying to murder me.  Just because it is technically legal, that doesn't make the behavior any less outrageous. So the outrage is indeed well-founded.  Interestingly, that same ethics panel confirmed French was indeed a liar (having lied to his boss, among others).  I guess we'll just have to take small comfort in the fact that French was fined four grand and suspended for a couple weeks over his eagernesss to spread rumors instead of facts.  Viva la Smear Campaign! Xenophrenic (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that he stated that he was "able to swear" and did swear under penalty of perjury that the contents of his affidavit were true and correct without qualification; of course he had no basis upon which to make such an unqualified assertion. The fact that he admitted - or acknowledged - that he had no firsthand knowledge of the events he described as “facts” goes to the core of the problem. As an aside, a lawyer like him should know better. --EECEE (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
Apparently the ideologues have been at play since my last visit and the opening paragraph (which had been acceptable to all for quite some time) was changed to reflect POV negative connotations. Characterizing the SBVT's initiative as an attempt to "discredit" John Kerry's military service is not only innaccurate and disputable but decidedly POV with obvious negative connotations. With thanks to James Lane for the refresher course... JakeInJoisey 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted James Lane's edit in an attempt to find some common ground as a starting point for what I can only describe as the gratuitous POV editing of (as I recall) an opening paragraph which a general consensus found to be acceptable for quite some time. I'll research more tomorrow for specifics and documentation but it seems apparent there are those not content to leave well enough alone. JakeInJoisey 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Derex 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "You are mistaken" hardly qualifies as justification for an edit by anyone's definition. Please direct me to your justification for this edit. JakeInJoisey 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's considerably more lucid, and less obnoxious, than "Apparently the ideologues have been at play since my last visit" .... But, it was very nice of you to revert James "in an attempt to find some common ground as a starting point".  You're a swell guy. Derex 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion or my opinion as to the motivation of editors is irrelevant to the process itself. Please provide justification or a link to justification for your edit or I will revert to what was a consensus opening paragraph arrived at quite some time ago. JakeInJoisey 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, we do not have a consensus for either version. Please discuss the merits of your change before further engaging in a revert war. Derex 19:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I myself expressed no opinion whatsoever as to anyone's motivations. But you are indeed correct that your expressed opinion is wholly irrelevant. Derex 19:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jake, my edit summary said, 'I don't care about "discrediting" but the lead needs to note that SBVT focused on Kerry's military record (as opposed to his tax policy or whatever)'. That's the justification.  Derex made the same point in his ES.  You've provided no explanation except your assertion that the article didn't always read that way. No, it didn't.  It's been improved.  The specific issue of whether the lead section should particularize SBVT's attack on Kerry hasn't been the subject of discussion, as far as I remember, so it's misleading to imply that there was a prior consensus on the point.  A dozen or so people have edited the article since that description was added.  We've tried to accommodate you by removing the word "discrediting" (though, to my mind, it's perfectly accurate).  If you think the current text reflects a bias, please explain why. JamesMLane t c 14:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I already stated, I have no objection to re-considering the opening paragraph, but you offer no justification other than your assertion that it "needs to note that SBVT focused on Kerry's military record" (which, I would also argue, is an inaccurate descriptive in and of itself.)  Why, exactly, does the introduction "need to note" that?  At what point do you draw the line as to introductory content? Isn't it more prudent for the sake of introductory conciseness to assume that a reader is, at least, somewhat familiar with the nature of this rather hi-profile controversy?  I'm all-modem...please elucidate.


 * I am also somewhat puzzled as to why this "necessary" edit wasn't somehow addressed by you in earlier deliberations in which you were a rather vocal participant. In fact (if my research is accurate), the opening paragraph has remained essentially the same since it was edited by Derex on 17 September 2005, Revision as of 19:43. (I've not yet identified the date of it's original composition or editor). Now, you may assert that there was no consensus, but I'd offer that, in an article with this level of contention, 7 months of survival is a rather remarkable period of longevity.


 * As to whether I stated or implied some bias in YOUR text, please read my statement more carefully. My remarks were directed towards the edit (and the editor) containing the word "discrediting" and I appreciate your apparent concurrence as to it's NPOV? character.
 * (On edit: Re-reading my note, I was unclear as to my POV objection. It didn't apply to your subsequent edit. I am objecting to your edit on the grounds that it is an unwarranted expansion of the introductory)


 * Pending further discussion, I'm reverting to the version that achieved agreement (at least between Derex and myself) on 17 Sep, 2005 and remained essentially unaltered up to the date of this most recent editing adventure.JakeInJoisey 19:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It needs to note that because this is an article intended to convey information. And that is what the Swift Vets did &mdash; they criticized Kerry's actions regarding the war. That is why they are notable, and that is why an article exists on them.  Wikipedia articles should serve the reader, and you need to indicate how removal of this fundamental part of the SBVT's prominence from the lede serves the reader. Derex 20:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have my own opinion as to what this article, as currently comprised, is intended to do, but that's another matter altogether. Be that as it may, I assure you that your perception of "what the Swiftvets did" and "why they are notable" varies considerably from mine and I will do my best to see that opinion also reflected in any consensus expansion of the introductory.  But that's placing the cart before the horse...


 * What serves the reader is logical presentation of facts, conciseness and good writing. I am at a loss to understand how such a "fundamental" element of the introductory managed to escape the purview of dedicated editors such as yourself and JML during the 7 months of its existence. I'm unconvinced by your argument that it's "fundamental" at all and any expansion of the already well-written introductory is unnecessary, unwarranted and to the detriment of the article.


 * edit: I noted that you reverted again. Please do me the courtesy of allowing JML (the author of the edit) and I to continue this discussion to its conclusion.  I have disputed JML's edit and I expect he is more than capable of responding to my objection without your assistance.  Until such time, please refrain from arbitrarily inserting your voice or your edits in a dispute between the 2 principles involved.  You'll have ample opportunity for your own skirmishes down the road.  Reverting JakeInJoisey 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * James is well more than able to defend his own position &mdash; honestly it's a marvel to behold, which I wouldn't say about anyone else here. Nevertheless, I've seen little enough courtesy, and asking a fellow editor to shut up is hardly a start.  I'd be more than happy to agree with your edit, if you'd make a cogent case for it.  You have not done so, in fact you haven't even made a weak case for it; perhaps an empty case.  Derex 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well. I have added the "Controversial Topic" template to this talk page.  Please refrain from marking anymore of your substantive reverts as "minor" for the forseeable future.JakeInJoisey 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright then. Since I trust him, and since you prefer to talk to him, I'll let you and James sort it out for now.  That's so long as you do it here on Talk, rather than by attempted fiat on the article.  Revert wars are frowned upon, but I have such a terribly strong aversion to bullying attempts that I am quite willing to sin. Derex 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely the most biased article I've ever read on Wikipedia. If it were retitled "Everything wrong with Swift Vets and POWs, it might make more sense. This article doesn't even attempt to describe the actual organization, it is just 100% 'to the rescue' of John Kerry. It decidedly links to criticism of the SBVT, but doesn't even support the criticism with fact, if this were "He said/ she said" this article is entirely "he said" without facts.Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then fix it. (Or perhaps you are completely mistaken...) Xenophrenic (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, actually it is not mistaken. This entry seems to exist solely to rebut the charges made by the Swift Boat Veterans.  And why bother fixing it when someone will just change it back.  The Swift Boat Veterans are one of the  main reasons Kerry lost, so I think they got the last laugh in regards to this issue.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of SBVT
Should the introductory pragraph be edited to more explicitly state that the SBVT campaign was based around lies? I think it's important to make clear the difference between people who criticize a candidate for policy issues and ones who exist to commit slander. Also, should it be more explicit early on that the SBVT were organized and run by the Bush campaign?

The first paragraph failed to give credit to the valiant Republican political operatives who were neither Swift Boat Verterans nor POWs and formed the bulk of the support of this group. These valiant men deserve credit for this political operation. Extremism in the service of political ends is justified. 24.136.232.72 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * - Of course the introductory paragraph should NOT be "edited to more explicitly state that the SBVT campaign was based around lies..." because such a statement is an opinion, and not a fact. Don't be asbsurd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.110.251.182 (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the supposed Swift Boat lies more can be mentioned more prominently as soon  as a broader discussion of Kerry's various lies, including his Christmas in Cambodia nonsense, is included.  The bulk of the Swift Boat ads dealt with Kerry's shameful behavior in testifying that American troops were constantly perpetrating various war crimes;  Kerry compared American troops in Vietnam to Genghis Khan.

Pro-SBVT points

 * The "Introduction" now contains the following...


 * During the 2004 race, the group's ads were criticized as distortions of Kerry's military record...


 * While this statement is true, it is also POV in that it fails to acknowledge that the Swiftvet ads also garnered wide acclaim for the substantive nature of their allegations. NPOV requires a proportional representation of that fact. My intent is to amend this entry. Comments? RedMagicMarker 18:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Introduction" now contains the following...


 * ...it was also alleged that they were connected to the Republican party and the 2004 Bush-Cheney presidential campaign.


 * In light of the recent ruling by the FEC which investigated and found no violation of current campaign finance law regarding coordination between the Swiftvets and Bush-Cheney, this statement needs to be re-visited. If it is included, then the FEC ruling in this regard must also be noted. Comments?RedMagicMarker 18:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. The statement that there was a connection is completely accurate and well-sourced.  The fact that the FEC found insufficient evidence to file criminal charges does not negate that.  Sir kris (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's derogatory weasel wording, using "connection" and implying "coordination". How about '...it was also alleged that they were connected to the Republican party and the 2004 Bush-Cheney presidential campaign; the FEC found insufficient evidence to charge them with coordination.'' htom (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. 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/20071122210840/http://www.time.com:80/time/election2004/article/0,18471,689369,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,689369,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070218234533/http://www.boston.com:80/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/24/the_caveat_emperor/ to http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/24/the_caveat_emperor/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070429180814/http://www.citizensforethics.org:80/node/19140 to http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/19140

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 07:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. 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/20060812113723/http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com:80/JebBushSwiftBoatLetter.jpg to http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com/JebBushSwiftBoatLetter.jpg

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 08:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

who is described in "Unfit for Command" as part of Kerry's chain
Despite SBVT's statements that Kerry's "entire chain of command" belonged to the group,
 * is ---> are
 * Joseph Streuli, former commander of Coastal Division 13, Charles Horne, former commander of Coastal Squadron 1, and Art Price, former commander CTF 116 who is described in "Unfit for Command" as part of Kerry's chain of command, were not affiliated with the group.

Despite SBVT's statements that Kerry's "entire chain of command" belonged to the group,
 * Joseph Streuli, former commander of Coastal Division 13, Charles Horne, former commander of Coastal Squadron 1, and Art Price, former commander CTF 116, who are described in "Unfit for Command" as part of Kerry's chain of command, were not affiliated with the group.

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)