Talk:Texans for Truth/Archive 1

Memos
The so-called "memos" which are behind part of this story are alleged to be forgeries. 16:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex whether these documents are forgeries are not has absolutely nothing to do with TfT. It belongs in the article about the controversy about George Bush's National Guard service.  I'm removing it. --Nysus 16:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss before deleting
Nysus, I object to you making deletions without discussing them 1st. Please discuss and wait for answer. Thank you. 17:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, Rex, now please respond to my concern that the information you wish to insert into the language is not relevant to TfT. I will give you an entire 24 hours to justify why you think the data you wish to insert into the article has anything to do with TfT.


 * 1) TfT isn't the group that produced the documents. The Pentagon actually uncovered them.  So, as I stated above, your link and the claim that the documents are forgeries has nothing to do with TfT and belongs in the article about George Bush's national guard service.
 * 2) Your citation is to an obscure blog that cites a discussion board on another web site. It simply is not a  credible source of information.  So, to display my infinite amount of patience with you again and the great lengths I will go through to compromise with you, I'm willing to let stand an unsubstantiated charge from a severley biased and unreputable source that will be in the article for at least 24 hours.  --Nysus 17:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, Rex, can you please explain why you think your version is superior to mine? I don't see that you added anything (except biased and unsubstantiated claims). My version is below, which is also more concise and to the point. Please explain what problems you have with it.

The Bush-Cheney campaign dismissed TfT as "a smear group launching baseless attacks on behalf of John Kerry's campaign that will be rejected by the American people." Questions about his National Guard record have dogged Bush since 2000 when he first ran for President. Newly uncovered documents and news stories coinciding with the TfT ads fanned the controversy over his National Guard service two months before the election. The White House maintains that "the president served honorably in the National Guard, fulfilled his duties and was honorably discharged." --Nysus 17:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not to cause further strife, but I removed it myself for two reasons. One is that this is not the proper forum for discussing the details of this controversy, the proper forum is George W. Bush military service controversy. Also, a blog entry is not a proper, reliable source for encyclopedic information. We could find blogs which deny the Holocaust, promote creationism and a flat earth, and discuss the 27 shooters in the JFK assassination, but we shouldn&#8217;t be sourcing them here. In any case, if I thought this was the proper forum, I would add this blog posting from Andrew Sullivan: &#8220;If the docs are forgeries, why would the White House have released two identical copies that it had in its possession after the CBS broadcast? Did the White House forge them as well?&#8221;   18:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for chipping in Gamaliel. As you see, we both agree for the same reasons.  --Nysus 18:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm reverting Rex's revert back to my version as he has provided no justification for his changes other than "I have no time to talk". Rex should return to make those changes and discuss them here when he does have time to talk instead of reverting now. And for the record, the first revert was made by Rex, despite what his edit summary claims. 18:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just removed several links from the page. None of these are from reputable sources, nor do they provide information to the group. They are also inherantly partisan. Lyellin 03:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Attempt to seed article with bogus news stories
I just reverted an addition to the links section for the following reason: This supposed "related news" item is not related to TfT and is not from an established reputable news source; cnsnews is a division of "Media Research Center," a right-wing propaganda house. Adding this link would be akin to linking to moveon.org for a news story. --Nysus 19:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is merely a disagreement of our editor's perspectives. Please desist form removing my links. Thank you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 20:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The link has no relevance to this article and belongs in George W. Bush military service controversy. Feel free to add it there, but it does not belong here and I am removing it on that basis. 20:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assessment. And I am restoring the link on that basis. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 20:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links
This was on my talk page:

Reverted your links. Nysus and Gamaliel have both given good reasons for the links not being included. You have given no reasons for them being included. Before reverting them for the umpteenth time please give your reasons. AlistairMcMillan 02:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In reply to the above, the links I am posting are equally germane as the current link from WAPO. I am restoring my (2) links. Reason: Relevance. 02:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex
Three independent people, now, have reverted Rex's change. Yet, he continues to make his change without any reasoned justification whatsoever.

I'm not going to hold my tongue about Rex anymore: this fucking bullshit needs to stop. Please sign below if you wish to file a complaint against Rex and agree with the statement below. --Nysus 02:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'''Statement: I have read the history and discussion of this article. It is clear to me that Rex is going out of his way to be disruptive. I desire an administrator review his work on this article to determine if it merits a ban of Rex's further contributions to it.'''

--Nysus 02:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I endorse this statement.

 * 1) Kevin Baas | talk 03:42, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC) Rex's conduct on this page is completely opposite of his conduct on Swift Boaters for Truth, which caused him to be banned from editing three articles.  His purported judgements are clearly hypocritical, and strongly biased.
 * 2) JamesMLane 04:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) In principle, Rex's conduct certainly merits a ban.  I endorse the statement but with two caveats.  First, I'm not completely clear on the extent to which current Wikipedia rules allow a single administrator to block a problem user from editing a particular article.  It may be that the rules allow such a block for only a limited time, but I endorse the maximum block permitted.  Second, I'm aware that Rex hasn't been editing this article for very long (although he's already managed to violate the three-reverts limit).  My judgment is based in part on my knowledge of his conduct on numerous other articles, which demonstrates that his actions here were not a temporary aberration.
 * 3) Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Wolfman 16:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) do agree disruptive, don't necessarily agree ripe for intervention

Comments and discussion

 * I disagree, if you bothered to read the links I am posting, you will see that they are equally germane as the WAPO link you are not complaining about. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 02:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Validity of links
On the front page of the "Texans for truth" web site, is says this "In other words, Bush failed to fulfill his military duty while others were dying in Vietnam.". Claims along these lines are the central focus of TfT and for that reason, links which tend to illustrate Bush's side of the story regarding National Guard service are indeed germane. Simply because some of these links may also be relevant elsehwere on this Wiki, does not make them automatically prohibited here. The larger disputes regarding Bush are the "set" of all the complaints about him. Tft and their allegations are a "subset" and as such, links that well serve this TfT page may also be worthwhile elsewhere - they are not mutually exclusive. 02:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, first your quote there is taken way out of context. Here is the full paragraph the quote is in: "Texans for Truth, established by the 20,000-member Texas online activist group, DriveDemocracy.org, has produced a 0:30 second television advertisement, "AWOL." The ad features Robert Mintz, one of many who served in Alabama's 187th Air National Guard -- when Bush claims to have been there -- who have no memory of Bush on the base. In other words, Bush failed to fulfill his military duty while others were dying in Vietnam."  TfT is alleging Bush is AWOL only on the fact that the Mintz did not see Bush, not based on the genuineness of any documents.


 * The Washington Post article mentions TfT. That is why the Washington Post article is included in the list of links.  Your cnsnews.com link, however, mentions nothing about TfT.  Nor does it mention anything about any of TfT's specific allegations (that involved Mintz).  Also, the article is about "forged" documents.  TfT had nothing to do with these documents.  Therefore, it is not "Related News."  In addition, as has been pointed out several times, it is not a reputable source of information (see above).  Until you address each of these points, I strongly recommend the CNSNews should go away.  --Nysus 03:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, this is your fourth revert against 4 independent people and is more evidence of your disruptive editing techniques. We are watching you now, very closely. You won't get away with your antics for much longer. --Nysus 03:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't respond well to threats. Nor do I appreciate mass deletions of multiple links. The cabal of link deleters here has deleted multiple links which I have posted. You have addressed only one. What about the others? And also, your complaints do not address the topical connection which is National Guard and documented service. Nor does it address the set/subset issue I raised. No harm is being done by my links - there are only four of them at this point -and no benefit acrues to the article from your effort to force a very narrow vision of the topic on the reader. The links are valid and I think they should stay. Even so, if you can make a clear argument against each of the four links as to how they actually harm the article, I might be inclined to agree on a link by link basis. Bear in mind though, the story only broke today. Therefore, as links to other sources which you are unable to denigrate show up on the web, your argument will lose that (weak) leg. Therefore, you would be well advised to think long and hard before trying to send me back the the drawing board as my inclination would be to find two links for eveyone one you bump - so as to have some still standing when you are done shredding them. Are you sure that is the course you want to take? Please advise [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 03:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * TfT is a group that has so far placed one ad with one allegation. All the other editors involved in this article have simply asked that the links you place in the article should have relevance either to TfT or their one allegation.  Is this really unreasonable to you?  As TfT makes more allegations, you can place links relevant to those allegations in the links section.  If a link doesn't have anything to do with TfT or their one allegation, we believe that placing them in George Bush controversy article about his National Guard service is more appropriate.


 * Your statement above is quite revealing of your true intentions, by the way. You said "you would be well advised to think long and hard before trying to send me back the the drawing board as my inclination would be to find two links for eveyone one you bump."  That shows real good faith there, Rex.  --Nysus 04:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, how do you consider holding multiple articles basically hostage, over the objections of a large amount of editors editing in good faith? Lyellin 03:46, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

How is it a "hostage" situation when plain as day, I have explained my views and am waiting for a reply? You can answer on behalf of Nysus if you so choose (see my detailed concerns above above). 03:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Because you threaten to put up a NPOV tag unless people agree with you. Because you insist that others must dialouge with you, but you can make any changes you want without dialouge. because you insist that since you believe something, we must include it, and you threaten to have two links for every one removed, etc, etc, etc. basically, it's like 'If you don't agree with me, I'll do everything possible to freeze progress on this page'. Hostage, and not good faith. Lyellin 04:40, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * My take on the disputed links:
 * &#65279;American Spectator: no information about TfT except that MoveOn is behind it, which is already in the article; delete
 * mlive: additional detail about TfT funding, at a level of detail not appropriate for the article; keep
 * HillNews: not even a passing mention of TfT; belongs in George W. Bush military service controversy article if anywhere; delete
 * CNSNews: not even a passing mention of TfT; belongs in George W. Bush military service controversy article if anywhere; delete
 * As I read the talk and page history, this means I agree with Rex on one of the four and agree with everyone else on three of the four.


 * I also point out that, before getting into the external links controversy, I made two edits that didn't relate to the links at all. I would appreciate it if anyone tempted to make a knee-jerk revert would first do me (and our readers) the courtesy of actually reading those edits before reverting them.  Thank you. JamesMLane 04:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * For what its worth: I agree with JML on the four links. The mlive funding article is fine.  The others, if they belong anywhere on Wikipedia, do not belong here.  AlistairMcMillan 04:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The focus of TfT is GWB's Guard service. that being hte case, a succinct recap from Byron York is helpful to the readers.
 * Even if there is some information redendancy by includeing American Spectator, it is topical and german and does not detract from the article.
 * I have however, yielded on the CNS link as I can appreciate that other editors (though not readers) may see a straw dog element to it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 04:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, I agree that a succinct recap is helpful to the readers. The succinct recap here is that the Bush campaign says "the president served honorably in the National Guard, fulfilled his duties and was honorably discharged."  There's then a link to the Wikipedia article that provides more information.  Internal links are generally preferred to external ones.  Although a columnist for a right-wing magazine is obviously not a neutral source, the York column has enough informational content that I wouldn't object to its being an external link in the George W. Bush military service controversy article. JamesMLane 04:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We are making progress with Rex
Good job! I feel that Rex is finally beginning to recognize that he must justify his reverts with more than an implicit "I'm right" attitude. He is now actually trying to justify his edits, something he has never done before. I applaud Rex for coming around. We need to still be diligent with Rex, however. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. Keep up the good work. --Nysus 04:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

False documents
Everyone, please read this ABC News link. Personally, I feel this is germane to this article as TfT is attacking GWB on Guard service. The common aim (defeat GWB) and context (via guard attacks) of his attackers, does I feel, create a sufficiently strong nexus and justification for inclusion. 04:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * So, documents that were irrevelant to TfT's ad are possibly faked. The nexus isn't anything Rex. If TfT were using these documents as their source, alright... but it was my understanding that the ad came out unrelated to the docs that were released. Besides, it worries me a bit that the Bush administration is releasing faked docs... *shrugs* Correct me if I'm wrong on the TfT and memo link. Lyellin 04:32, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Lyellin, having dialoged with you in the past, I know you are an intelleigent young man. Therefore, I ask; please reconsider the premise of this: "Besides, it worries me a bit that the Bush administration is releasing faked docs... ". It totally mistates the chain of custody for those documents. Certainly you are not suggesting that the chain of custody actually passed through administration hands, are you? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 04:45, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, it seems that by your logic, I could collect several external links that are hostile to Bush on this issue, like the AWOL Bush website, and add them to the external links on the George W. Bush article. After all, they're germane to that article, as they're directly about Bush.  That's a pretty clear nexus, I'd say.


 * So, how about this as a compromise: The external links you're trying to insert in the Texans for Truth article will go in, and in return the anti-Bush links from the George W. Bush military service controversy article will go into the "External links" section of the George W. Bush article. How does that sound?


 * My answer, of course, is that both sets of additions would be a bad idea. We've tried to make life easier for the reader by putting the TANG controversy stuff all in one place.  Short references in related articles are sometimes appropriate, but not a full blow-by-blow rehash.  The point is that the argument for limiting the level of detail and of linking in the GWB article is also the argument for doing the same thing here. JamesMLane 04:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, I see no "barter" as being appropriate here. Please reconsider what you are saying. It sounds as if you are actively trying to carry-over a POV from article to article. This would not be good, if in fact that's what you are suggesting. 04:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I was pretty sure you'd miss my point, Rex. Again and again I find myself wasting time trying to explain such things to you.  My basic orientation, as a lawyer, is that there are general principles that govern a particular kind of dispute, and the application of those principles doesn't depend on who's involved in a particular case or which side happens to benefit on this occasion from "a government of laws and not of men".  My comment had nothing to do with "trying to carry-over a POV from article to article", whatever that means.  Rather, my comment was to explain why one general rule (cover a subject in one place, with cross-referencing as appropriate) was better than an alternative general rule (take arguably germane facts or links and promiscuously insert them anywhere and everywhere they might be germane).  I was wasting my time because you don't believe in the underlying approach of having one set of rules.


 * As another example, let me ask you about this situation: A user sees something in an article that the user thinks should be removed. Is the user obligated to raise the point on the Talk page, and leave the material in the article until there'a a consensus to delete, or at least until the discussion has run its course?  Some of your edit summaries here suggest that you think the answer is "Yes" when the material being deleted is something you think should stay in.  On the other hand, when the material is something you think should come out, you feel perfectly free to delete it without so much as a mention on the Talk page, let alone waiting for the discussion to conclude.  See, e.g., this edit.  In other words, you insist that other users follow a supposed "rule" that you've proclaimed, but then you act as if that same rule doesn't apply to you.


 * One can make a case for either side of the question of whether there should be such a rule (discussion as a prerequisite to a deletion). There is no colorable case to be made for Rexian Exceptionalism, however. JamesMLane 05:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Relevancy is the issue
Let me attempt to explain this in simple terms: The subject of this article is Texans for Truth. Links to articles which do not mention Texans for Truth do not belong in the Texans for Truth article as they are irrelevant to the Texans for Truth article. We already have an article discussing the George W. Bush military service controversy called George W. Bush military service controversy and any articles about the George W. Bush military service controversy and not about Texans for Truth belong in the George W. Bush military service controversy article.

Your continued insistence on inserting irrelevant right-wing articles makes me doubt that a NPOV article is your aim here. I notice that you have not attempted to bring over any anti-Bush articles linked to from George W. Bush military service controversy to this one. 04:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This WAPO article makes clear that TfT and Dems are acting in concert to harm GWB about Guard service. This WAPO story makes clear what I was trying to tell you all along - the links which kept getting deleted are indeed relevant [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 05:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Then you should have added that WAPO article and not articles which don't even mention TfT. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that relevancy is a big issue. I break NPOV down to objective criteria: relevant, significant, proportional, representative, accurate. And I'm a nazi when it comes to these terms. ;) Kevin Baas | talk 06:55, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

opps - i forgot that communism, esp. Krushevic, was against the free flow of ideas, and that that connotation stands in my joke -- i refute that belief. someone had, earlier, on another page i think, mentioned "nazi". I meant, by my striked comment, to mock the excessive stigmatization of something as pov by using certain words, which is overdrawn; exaggerated and therefore, ironically, pov itself. Yet at the same time I meant to say that I hold stringintly to stated criteria because I accept that my views, as well, could be unconsciously bias. A joke which probably noone would have gotten. Kevin Baas | talk 07:11, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

NPOV tag
Until this group of editors stops deleting those links without proper cause, I have added an NPOV tag. 04:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My point above is made for me. Hostage. Lyellin 04:54, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Next step is for him to get the page frozen. That'll show us!  --Nysus 05:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup, I was right. Happened a lot quicker than I thought. Wow, two frozen pages in 3 days.  Good job, Rex!  --Nysus 05:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't blame me. If it were at my behest and on my preferrence, the links in dispute would still be in the article. I've heard this pickle referred to as "the wrong version" [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 05:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I said it before and I'll say it again: this fucking bullshit has got to stop. Rex's disruptive pattern is clear for everyone to see. Please sign below if you feel Rex is being purposefully disruptive. And I will take it a step further and say that if you don't sign, I think you are aiding and abetting him. --Nysus 05:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(OK, OK, I crossed the line a bit there. But I am getting extremely frustrated.  It seemed like we were making progress with him and then he does this.) --Nysus 05:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please sign below.


 * 1) Dealing with him is like banging your head against the wall.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with the substance.  Although I wish Nysus had not resorted to profanity, I can understand that he has been subjected to extraordinary provocation. JamesMLane 05:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Wolfman 16:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this list - 05:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the list. Kevin Baas | talk 06:53, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

More proof that the links I wanted deserve inclusion

 * 1) "Texans for Truth launched a campaign this week seeking to uncover the answers to persistent questions surrounding President George W. Bush&#8217;s absence from his National Guard service while in Alabama."
 * 2) "One anti-Bush group distanced itself from the controversy Thursday amid suspicion that it was a possible source of the purported memos. The group Texans for Truth, which has received support and assistance from MoveOn.org, was formed in late August and has created a television ad critical of Bush."

The links I wanted are relevant and those who blocked them are not showing otherwise, only arguing, not showing. 15:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * the first link is just TfT explaining what they did. Again, not related to the documents that have been called into quesion, taht you were linking too. The second link is again from a news source that several people have questioned, and at best it spends the entire time talking about this unrelated documents, and the fact that TfT WASN'T INVOLVED WITH THEM. Lyellin 15:40, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lyellin that these links add nothing. Instead of linking to all these attacks on documents that have nothing to do with TfT, what if we included something like this when and if the article is unprotected: "Soon after the TfT advertisement began airing, CBS News released documents it said were written by the late Jerry B. Killian, the commander of the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s.  The documents put Bush in an unflattering light, but their authenticity was challenged by some document experts.  See more detailed discussion here.  The questioned documents were not used in the TfT ads, and TfT has stated that it was not the source of the documents."  We can assume that any further developments about these Killian memos, pro or con, will be chronicled in the George W. Bush military service controversy article, and this link will automatically pick it up.  If TfT starts running another ad that does make use of the Killian memos, then of course we'll have to revisit this section. JamesMLane 16:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the point of this section would be, other than to placate Rex. I'm not sure we should spend so much time on a connection that doesn't exist and isn't alleged by anyone except Rex and maybe some fringe right-wing bloggers. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 16:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * perfect. I don't believe Rex is the only one who links the CBS documents to TfT... it seems like a common perception and thus should be addressed.  and to be fair to rex, the substance of this debate rather than the superlative rhetoric is not partisan in my opinion, we should hold a standard of uniqueness to links that we include be it for or against, or in the search for balance include every link from every paper that describes the situation.  if a proposed external link contains no new information than it should not be included.  one question though in response to Rex, how does one show if not by argument that something is relevant?  a simple citation or link does not justify relevance, only interpretation through argument does, as what link can you provide that intrinsically demonstrates relevance? redundancy should be addressed before relevancy. --kizzle 16:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel, my main motivation in suggesting this was indeed to placate Rex, by showing that the TfT people who served in the Guard weren't backing these disputed documents. For the reason kizzle states, I suppose it might have some independent value, if some readers would be confused about who's behind the different allegations against Bush. JamesMLane 17:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Has the TfT/memo connection been alleged elsewhere? I haven't seen that idea beyond this talk page.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 17:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The true power of "right wing" 'blogs
Some editors here assert that a "blog" citation in regards to debunking accusations against GWB has no validity. In fact, some here have argued that all 'blogs are inherently inferior to mainstream media. Well if that is true, speficially in regards to this topic of GWB guard service records and the utter fraud CBS tried to foist on the citizenery this week, I challenge the editors here to refute this 'blog column. 17:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's what I don't understand. If these documents were indeed a forgery, why did the White House release identical copies of these memos then? And can someone please shed some more light on the White House response to this (i.e. when their versions were released, under what pretext, any reaction?)...--kizzle 17:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) The issue for me about blogs (and I visit several on a daily basis) is that they have no obligation to be objective or present all sides of the issue, so they should not be relied upon as a sole source of encyclopedic facts.
 * 2) The issue on this page is not whether or not the CBS documents are authentic. The issue is what they have to do with Texans for Truth.  The answer so far is absolutely nothing, and the CBS documents should not be mentioned here until that changes, either by TfT running an ad with the memos or by some proven (not alleged by some blog) connection between the memos and TfT.
 * 3) This isn't the forum for debating the authenticity of documents that have nothing to do with TfT.  With that said, chew on this link:.
 * Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 17:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i agree. and i found the answer to my previous question, maybe someone wants to put this in the other page... documents white house released as "official" were simply faxed copies from CBS... 


 * I am also quite wary about posting links to blogs on the article. The talk page, fine, anything goes.  People reading them should understand that the information from the people on them is, on avg., as reliable as that of a user on wikipedia.  Citing them as factual sources, no - too unrefined.  Maybe on an article about the DNC or RNC there could be a section "Blogs" at the end, listed their blogs, but i'd say that's about the extent of what I'd accept.  Kevin Baas | talk 18:51, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)


 * Your request is irrelevant, as TFT has not endorsed these particular documents. However, several news stories have recently cited experts who dispute the claims of the blog column you mention.  Plus, here's some evidence you can look at for yourself. PC Magazine;  PDF's of several documents with same typeface from the 60's Wolfman 16:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What do the lawyers here say ?
Since it appears that we have at least two editors here who are lawyers, I ask them to consider that we could all benefit from a more structured discussion. I propose an IRAC framework:


 * Issue

The issue, in regards to the links I want in is simple: Yes or No, should they be included?


 * Rule

What does the rule say? I am not sure. Frankly, I thought that the "see also" concept certainly applies to encyclopedia articles.


 * Apply the rule

In applying a rule of "see also", I do feel that links which are at minimum, dealing with subject matter that is close/very similar, topic wise, to the activities of the target of the article, ought to be allowable.


 * Conclusion

My conclusion is a question: How does excluding the links which I want in, make for a better read for the end-user?

(Add your comments below this line - please 20:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC))

How about what do all the editors here say? Which so far, has been overwhelmingly against adding those links. Lyellin 20:39, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Lyellin that everyone's voice should be heard. Perhaps what I can add from my legal experience is that there are frequently multiple rules that can be cited for a particular situation.  Here, the one that seems most apt is the one I alluded to above: that Wikipedia should cover a subject in one place, with cross-referencing as appropriate.  The links relate to the pros and cons of all the accusations against Bush about his relationship with the military.  That subject is covered in George W. Bush military service controversy.  The article on Texans for Truth should be limited to material specifically relevant to its subject, which is, of course, Texans for Truth.


 * To answer Rex's question: When we have an article about Texans for Truth, cluttering it with links that have nothing to do with Texans for Truth is a disservice to the reader. People who want more information about TfT might follow one of those links and be disappointed.  The links might be appropriate for people who want more information about the George W. Bush military service controversy, but those people can probably guess that they should follow the link to George W. Bush military service controversy.  (As I said before, my offhand inclination is that the York piece would be an appropriate external link there.)


 * Now perhaps Rex will explain to us whether, under his suggested rule, it would be proper to add a link to the AWOL Bush website to the external links on the George W. Bush article. It's a link "dealing with subject matter [George W. Bush's TANG record] that is close/very similar, topic wise, to the activities of the target of the article [George W. Bush]".  It seems that, if Rex were to apply his proposed rule to anti-Bush websites as well as to pro-Bush websites, then this link "ought to be allowable."  By my rule, of course, neither that addition nor the ones that Rex is still touting should be allowed. JamesMLane 21:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If a link is subject matter associatable, then under a "see also" policy, provided there are not so many links that they "clutter" a page, then I think inclusion should be presumed.

The meat of the matter really is: What rule shall we operate under that will govern us in inclusion/exclusion of links? Perhaps we ought to have a test:


 * Accuracy (of the link)
 * Relevance (to the current article)
 * See also value (bigger picture)
 * POV balance (no too much of too many one POV way or another)

What ther criteria whould you suggest from which we can form a good test? 22:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like to use these criteria: to make sure that something belongs and is NPOV. Kevin Baas | talk 23:04, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
 * accurate (high signal-to-noise ratio)
 * relevant (low informational distance from topic)
 * significant (codifies an improbable phenomena)
 * proportional (amount of text is in proportion to how much significant info there is)
 * representative (the info in the text represents a random sample of the info about the phenomena, albeit satisfying the above criteria (i.e. this is the recursion criteria))


 * What about the "see also" factor? I see that links can help readers broaden their knowledge base. Not simply confirm what they already know. Hmmm? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 01:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suffice it to say, I am beginning to think that "links" are a major flash point to editorial strife. Is there a Wiki page of guidance with "Wiki" criteria? Or do various confederacies of editors on each and every article "wing it"? Also I do think that information which tends to show that certain papers used against GWB to be forgeries is "significant", don't you? 01:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, you're missing the point. "Significant" isn't enough.  "Reliable" isn't enough.  The links you keep pushing just don't happen to be about the subject of this article.  Why don't you post them on Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy, with a brief explanation, and see how people feel about including them there?  As for the criteria suggested by Kevin Baas, I'd basically agree, but I'd add that "relevance" should be evaluated in terms of the overall structure of Wikipedia's treatment of a topic.  In general, links shouldn't be added to an article, even if there's some relevance, if there's another article that's more on point.  If we had no separate article just on Bush's military service, so that the Texans for Truth article were the only place on Wikipedia where a reader could find this issue addressed, then I'd be more amenable to including the links here.


 * If you insist on addressing the forgery allegations here, then we certainly shouldn't do it in a way that falsely implies that TfT relied on the CBS documents. What do you think about the language I drafted to make clear that the TANG members in TfT aren't vouching for those documents?  Gamaliel made a good point against it, that no one is tying TfT to those documents, but of course that argument applies even more strongly to your beloved links.


 * And, Rex, you still haven't answered how your suggested rule would determine the question of including the AWOL Bush website among the external links in the George W. Bush article -- or here, too, for that matter. JamesMLane 01:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * To the TANG controversy page, perhaps, depending on the quality of link, etc etc. To the TfT page? no. Just read with James said- I didn't feel like repeating it. Lyellin 01:51, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

At this point, my concern is twofold:
 * 1) I'd like this group of editors to come up with an agreed upon list of criteria that we can use to measure the validity of various link inclusion proposals.
 * 2) I'd like rest of you to more deeply consider the point I am trying to make about a "see also" factor.

I don't have a problem with KB's list, except that there is not enough room in that plan to let some links function also as a "window" to related pages. I am frustrated here in that I don't seem to be getting this "see also" (window to other pages) point across.

Think of it this way: This page "TfT", is one chapter in the book of the life of GWB. GWBMSC is another. Let's say for example, there are 50 chapters in the story of his life. Some of those chapters are going to have more in common than others. Surely TfT would have no commonality with say - the potty training of the Bush twins. But, it could resonably be said that potty training the twins would have commonailty with information about GWB's infant years - there would be a common thread of interest for some readers.

Likewise, though TfT most probably does not have threads of common interest with the Karla Faye Tucker story, it certainly is closely involved in the National Guard story. As a result, a few links which point one or more salient elements of that story, would have a common thread of interest to the readers here.

What I propose via the "see other" concept as applied to links, is that the link section ought not to be looked at only to buttress the current article, but also to point to other pages of potential interest. This is analogous to a web ring. In my experience, following a web ring for multiple levels can lead to interesting information discoveries. We are underutilizing the informaitonal conveyence potential of this site, if we limit the links to a strict rule of severe "this-exact-topic-only-ness".

And to answer the question which has been posed to me: Of course a rule, such as this I describe, would be a two way street. If this rule I propose was adopted by these editors here, I would naturally expect that each of us would graciously accede to links that meet this standard, both on ths page - and on others. 04:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, in order to accomodate everyone, if the links sections of an article were arranged thusly:
 * Wiki links
 * On-topic links
 * See other links

With a set of rules such as KB's applied to all of them (allowing for the fact that the lower on the list you go, the greater link latitude is allowed) and good faith assesments between editors, we could rightly agree that a link which tends towards being tangental could be ok, provided that the "see other" section does not suffer from bloat and the links in that section are not, on their face, complete crap. A good example of complete crap would be if I gathered all my anti-Kerry links and poofed together an anti-Kerry screed then posted it to my web site. Links to this, would not be welcome on any article page. On the other hand, an article by Byron York, a well known and widely read writer, ought to be allowed to poke it's nose into a "see other" section. 04:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I suspect there may be considerable differences of opinion over what 'complete crap' is. As it stands, the Bush military controversy page ought to be linked.  Then perhaps the CBS documents issue should be linked from there.  Keep in mind that the documents issue may not be ripe for writing for a few days anyway -- new evidence keeps emerging, with the typeface concern largely discredited on one side, but Hodges changing his story on the other. Wolfman 22:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the "see also" value of links, provided they are clearly "see also"; provided that the reader knows they are different topics and confusion is avoided. Confusion is one form of rhetoric/pov.  I think that's a main contention of a lot of people here regarding near-topic links.  People might think, for instance, that if one thing is discredited, another, related item, is - wich does not logically follow.  So ya, I respect the "see also" value, provided that they are in the "see also" section or otherwise presented so as to securely avoid confusion of context. Kevin Baas | talk 22:56, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Someone may have suggested this already but how about adding the memo links to the GBMSC page (as has been suggested before) but also giving the link to the GBMSC page in the first paragraph more prominence.

Making the first paragraph something along the lines of "During the 2004 election there has been a great deal of controversy about George W. Bush's military service. In September 2004 Texans for Truth, an advocacy group blah blah blah..." AlistairMcMillan 23:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable to me. Kevin Baas | talk 00:28, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)


 * The article is about Texans for Truth, so I don't like delaying the mention of the organization until the second sentence. Note that the current version includes, in the first paragraph, a link to the George W. Bush military service controversy article.  It's not immediately obvious because, to fit into the sentence, it's a piped link with the name "Bush's National Guard record".  Here's a possible rewording:
 * Texans for Truth (TfT) is an advocacy organization registered under Section 527 of the United States tax code to oppose George W. Bush's re-election efforts in the 2004 presidential election. In September 2004, the group began airing advertisements in hotly contested swing states that challenged Bush's National Guard record, particularly as to whether or not he fulfilled his obligations to serve.  For more details, see George W. Bush military service controversy.
 * This makes the link clearer by un-piping it. JamesMLane 01:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I know it is unusual not to mention the subject of the article till the second sentence, but seeing as TfT is purely about GWB's military service...


 * My thinking is that you have the main GWBMSC page and then all the individual pages that explore each issue in exhaustive/excruciating/whatever detail. One for the memos, one for the TfT group, one for whatever pops up next week and another for whatever pops up next week, etc.  Then at the top of each individual page have a sentence basically pointing out that this individual page is just part of a a greater controversy and linking to the main GWBMSC page.


 * That way (I was hoping) if you are pointing out immediately from the get go, that this is just a part of a larger controversy, you won't have people insisting that we need to have pro-memo/anti-memo, pro-TfT/anti-TfT pro-etc/anti-etc links on every single page that even comes within a mile of mentioning Bush's Guard service. AlistairMcMillan 02:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Instead of distorting our article to deal with "people" insisting on unreasonable changes, I'd strongly prefer to make clear the noninvolvement of TfT in the memo controversy. My proposed addition is already pretty far up this page, so I'll restate it here for convenience:
 * "Soon after the TfT advertisement began airing, CBS News released documents it said were written by the late Jerry B. Killian, the commander of the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s. The documents put Bush in an unflattering light, but their authenticity was challenged by some document experts.  See more detailed discussion here.  The questioned documents were not used in the TfT ads, and TfT has stated that it was not the source of the documents."
 * That wording provides useful information about TfT, by noting that the organization isn't involved in the memo issue. In case a careless reader might otherwise draw the false inference that the National Guard members backing TfT endorsed the authenticity of the alleged National Guard documents, this wording would dispel that false impression.  Finally, it provides yet another link to the George W. Bush military service controversy article, specifically to the section about the memos. JamesMLane 03:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My concern with that is, when something else pops up next week to do with Bush or Kerry that is not related to TfT but some insist must be linked from this page, do you then add another paragraph explaining that the TfT are not linked to Bush'sOldDrinkingBuddy or Kerry'sOldHairdresser or whatever turns up? By November, is this article going to end up being two paragraphs on TfT and fifteen paragraphs explaining that TfT had nothing to do with the fifteen other things that come out between now and the election?


 * I still think just linking the GWBMSC page immediately (okay maybe not in the first sentence :) ) and not even mentioning anything else unless it is directly related to TfT is the way to go. AlistairMcMillan 03:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The current version links it in the second sentence. Is that OK with you?  I agree with your concerns about adding an express disclaimer of a relationship between TfT and the memos, but I think it would be even worse to  add external links that don't relate to Tft.  I'd be OK with omitting my proposed sentence, omitting all the contested links that don't relate directly to TfT, and leaving the introductory paragraph as it is.  (I still think the introductory paragraph shouldn't use the term "527" but I've given up on that fight except for the occasional bad-natured grumble like this one.) JamesMLane 04:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Linking GWBMSC in the first paragraph is fine by me. Although I do like you suggestion of moving the link to a separate "For more details, see George W. Bush military service controversy." sentence closing the paragraph more than the one we have right now.
 * To be clear, I wasn't actually planning to make any changes myself. I just had an idea that I thought everyone might be able to agree on.  Something that I hoped might get this page unprotected sooner rather than later.  AlistairMcMillan 04:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question for the group
If there is indeed a missing nexus of issues logic between TfT and the links I want included, why does the very 1st sentence in this article link directly to George W. Bush military service controversy (disguised like this "Bush's National Guard record")? 04:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The memos are part of the GWBMSC. The TfT are part of the GWBMSC.  However (as things stand right now) the memos are nothing to do with TfT and the TfT are nothing to do with the memos.  They CAN both be related to GWBMSC without being related to each other.
 * Garry Trudeau's reward is part of the whole GWBMSC thing too. Should we add links to that on TfT as well?  How about Ben Barnes, do we need to add bloggers opinions about him to this page too?
 * I vote no memo stuff on this page. It should be about TfT and nothing else.  And with that, I bid you good night. AlistairMcMillan 04:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I see it useful to have an internal link to a relevent topic, but not useful to additionly have external links on that topic. That if you feel GWBMSC is reelvant, as a relevent "see also" internal link. From there the reader can go where he chooses. Don't add external links which aren't directly related to the topic at hand. --ZZ 09:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd add a hypoothetical example. Say I was found an awesome link for dogs. It wouldn't be cool to put on every individual dog breed page. I should put it onto the dogs main page which is linked to by those individual breed pages anyway.


 * If we embed the GWBMSC link in the article, we don't need a separate "see also" for it. Wikipedia policy is not to duplicate links.  As between the two choices, I think embedding is preferable in this instance.  I agree with what you say about external links.  JamesMLane 09:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with the positions of AM,ZZ, & JML above. Wolfman 14:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another link question
The South Park article has a "See also" link to FLCL which is not topically related. Based on what others are telling me here (above), shouldn't this link be prohibited? I've seen many examples such as this on the Wiki, where there is not such strict blocking of links 04:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, with a project this size, that is inherently transiant by nature, and does not always have people reading all the guidelines, things happen that perhaps should not. Just because one can find examples of bad style does not make it good style. In this case, we have a very highly read/edited article, so of course we are going to do as much as possible to keep it as close to style as possible. That's not blocking of links selectivly, that's the nature of Wikipedia. Articles with lots of editors work to keep it clean, and sometimes other articles slip through the cracks. Lyellin 04:28, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * To risk sounding hostile -> Are you retarded? Just because someone else has done shoddy work, it doesn't give you an excuse to also. If you see bad examples of wiki-use, fix them, don't use it as excuses for your own misuse, or parade the less-than-omnipresence of other uses. No matter how many of these examples you cite, it will not vindicate you.--ZZ 04:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * in addtion if you look at the FLCL link, you will notice that FLCL is relevant because it contains a parody of Southpark in an episode (I can't believe I forgot that funny bit, I only watched FLCL in March). This link is okay - its internal, its relevent, and it would not be better elsewhere. However I am moving it to the bottom of that list as its the least-related link there.

New developments/article protection
When will this article be unprotected? There are new developments which need to be included. 


 * One way to get an article unprotected is for the discussion on the Talk page to show an admin that the prior disputes have been resolved, so that unprotection won't lead to an immediate resumption of the edit war that triggered the protection in the first place. In this instance, an admin looking over the Talk page would see that we're still where we were at the time the page was protected.  Rex wants to insert some pro-Bush links that have nothing to do with TfT.  Everyone else keeps telling him that they're out of place here.  He adheres to his position.  Before the protection, he "enforced" his position by reverting eight or ten times.  So, if you were an admin looking at this page, would you unprotect it?


 * Now, that doesn't mean it will just sit here forever. People don't like to see a page protected for too long.  At some point, an admin might well decide to take a chance and unprotect it -- possibly at a time when that admin can hover over the page and reprotect it quickly if there's another edit war. JamesMLane 21:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Majority rule" and consensus editing are not the same thing. Please see: Consensus decision making

22:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That is great and everything, but how about actually discussing the problem at hand.


 * Are you still set on including irrelevant links? Will you be satisfied with an explicit link to GWBMSC in the first paragraph of the page? AlistairMcMillan 22:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reaching consensus is the issue at hand. And your biased characterization of my edits as "irrelevant" isn't helping us get there. 23:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I did not call your edits irrelevant, I called the links irrelevant. To be more explicit, links about the Killian memos are irrelevant to the Texans for Truth group.  Please answer the question, will you be satisfied with an explicit link to GWBMSC in the the first paragraph of the page?  If not, what will you be satisfied with?  AlistairMcMillan 23:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And sitting there saying we need to "reach consensus" is all well and good, but it doesn't get us any closer to getting there. That was the point I was trying to make at 22:36.  AlistairMcMillan 23:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alistair, please take a look at the new page White cracker which I recently started. After some wrangling (which you are aware of, because you've taken note of the page) between myself and Neutrality (who came in right after me, again), that page is beginning to shape up nicely. Please see the "links" section. Take notice that Neutrality added a "see also" section of Wiki links to pages which are somewhat related, but not exactly the same topic. My plan is to do the same here, with some of the Wiki links I mentioned. The arguments that have been made against this idea, do not withstand the example set by Neutrality on White cracker (and elsewhere). 00:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the arguments do stand. All three of the see also links on white cracker are NOT already linked in the article. 3 our of the 4 links that you attempted to put into this article were, adn you yourself said you wanted to draw more attention to. That double linkage is what we have been objecting to, and what is against policy. Lyellin 00:47, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex. Please explain the link between the memos and the TfT?  If the only link is that they are both part of the all-encompassing George W. Bush military service controversy then shouldn't a link to GWBMSC in the first paragraph of the article suffice?


 * I just did a ctrl+F search of the article and could find absolutely no reference to memos in the main body of the text. The memos simply are not relevent to Tft --ZZ 22:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * All the links in the White Cracker page are examples of the use of the phrase "White Cracker". See how that works.


 * And not to pick hairs, but you had a "Link" section, I renamed it "External link", you named it "External links" and Neutrality renamed it "See also". Neutrality didn't add the "See also" section. AlistairMcMillan 00:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Just realised that isn't what happened.  AlistairMcMillan 03:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem with the "can't link 2nd time" policy as being implimented is simple: Links which are neatly lined up at the bottom, make an easier to find cross-referrence than imbedded links. This being the case, the easiest way to eliminate a possible Wiki link from being an obvious, easy to find, highly noticable link, is to craftily write it into the middle of the article somewhere. This technique works to the advantage of editors who re-write articles en-toto, as they are able to set the parameters into which they can imbed links. This method thwarts the aims of other editors who wish to make sure various salient links get maximum exposure at the bottom of a page. This is a phenomenon which is prevelant here and does work in favor of re-write specialists (see Neutrality's efforts at Fulbright Hearing for an example of a large-scale re-write). 02:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the policy, go to Village Pump and campaign for a policy change. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Will you be satisfied with an explicit link to GWBMSC in the the first paragraph of the page? AlistairMcMillan 03:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, it's now been almost three full days since you added the HillNews and American Spectator links to George W. Bush military service controversy. It doesn't seem like anyone will try to disturbe them there.  So, can we agree that these links, which have nothing to do with Texans for Truth, don't need to be in the Texans for Truth article? JamesMLane 05:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * JML, as I have explained elswhere, unless and until you also meet your burden of proper dialog by responding to questions posed on talk pages (as they relate to the page being discussed) and until you discontinue you extraordinary vendetta aimed at "hard banning" me, there can be no dialog between us. If you want any answers from me, please initiate a mediation - I will be happy to discuss them there. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 14:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Please answer the question, will you be satisfied with an explicit link to GWBMSC in the the first paragraph of the page? If not, what will you be satisfied with?  AlistairMcMillan 16:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In regards to Bush-related articles, I am satisfied when they are NPOV - or at minimum - not outrageous anti-Bush screeds. 09:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. And what pray tell, would make THIS article NPOV - or at minimum - not an outrageous anti-Bush screed?  In your humble opinion? AlistairMcMillan 09:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A cessation of attempts by those who would inject the views of vapid anti-Bush shills via links and quotes, etc., which mislead the readers. 10:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "vapid" "shills". Tell me, are you capable of even attempting to make NPOV edits here?


 * BTW Wasn't it you who was causing trouble by trying to insert links? AlistairMcMillan 11:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alistair has a good point although I think a little emotion is starting to take over ;)... Rex, what SPECIFICALLY do you want changed about this article to make it NPOV and not an "outrageous anti-Bush screed".  Does that automatically conclude that SBVT is "outrageous anti-Kerry screed?"  Since you have a problem with the current content, please state SPECIFIC examples at SPECIFIC places in the article you want changed instead of just saying its all biased... by applying a POV label to this article without any SPECIFIC justification you are merely insinuating.  Please answer the question:

Will you be satisfied with an explicit link in the opening paragraph to GWBMSC, if not than what SPECIFICALLY do you want changed to make this not "outrageous anti-Bush screed"? --kizzle 15:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ideally, all the anti-Bush editors would quit this page. Other than that, the changes I seek become apprarent to me from time to time. Frankly, at this point, I am going observe what occcurs if and when the page opens. If it's bad, I'll edit it. If not, I won't. Also, read my statment carefully - it is not the editors who are vapid shills, rather it is some of the accusers of Bush who are. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 23:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * So you have no problems with the page as it stands now? And also, you've said before that we need to have pro/anti bush's and kerry's and such, to balance articles. How is it ideal to only have one viewpoint represented. As much as I don't agree wtih you, I relish the fact that there is someone from the other side trying to present points- I just often don't think you succeed, is all. Lyellin 00:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Rex, Will you be satisfied with an explicit link in the opening paragraph to GWBMSC, if not than what SPECIFICALLY do you want changed to make this not "outrageous anti-Bush screed"? Else POV notice is coming down. --kizzle 00:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Since no edits can be made until protection is lifted, we will just have to see. When the page opens, I will edit again. If that does not suffice for an answer, oh well. Even so, my macro answer is: The whole thing stinks. I am going to attempt to re-write as much as I can over time, until it no longer does stink. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 00:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Edits cannot be made but edits can be discussed. The edit war that caused protection was over the issue of whether to include two specific links.  Since then, those two links have been included in an article to which they're more appropriate, an article that's linked to from this one.  It's reasonable for us to ask whether that change in circumstances has changed your opinion about adding the links here.  I would appreciate receiving a straightforward answer to that question.


 * Furthermore, if you think "[t]he whole thing stinks," then even during protection you can express your concerns. You can identify any specific passages in this article that you believe constitute "outrageous anti-Bush screeds".  You can propose alternative language.  That's how collaborative editing works, as opposed to the attitude of "That link is valid and it stays, sorry". JamesMLane 00:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, your personal goal to have me "hard banned" disqualifies you from being an honest broker in discussions with me about this - therefore I will not answer your questions or act on your suggestions. 00:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, if you think I should be blocked from editing this article, you take it up with the ArbCom. Until then, I'm going to invoke a legal technicality -- that you don't have the right to block me.  Whether you like it or not, you have to consider my views, just as I have to consider yours.  Therefore, I repeat my request, which only echoes the request made by others before me: Please tell us whether you'll resume your insertion of those links if the page is unprotected. JamesMLane 01:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * JML, you can "invoke" yourself until you are blue in the face. But regardless of that, unless and until you stop going around to other editors trying to stoke controversy aimed at a "hard ban" - which I notice - you are not denying is your aim, then I have little regard for your concerns and even less respect for you. And no Kizzle, I will not "shut up" about JML's ulterior motives. As far as I am concerned, JML's aim is to create controversy involving me so as to advance his other agenda. For that reason, there is no rational purpose served in me taking anything he says at face value. And as far as specificity goes, I have made my position clear: The entire article reeks of anti-Bush POV and also as far as I am concerned, needs a full re-write from top to bottom. So to answer your implicit question; No, that one single edit you suggest, could not possible pacify my concerns or make me "shut up" as I am aiming for a full re-write of the entire article. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 04:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well it's good to see that your working towards a compromise Rex. So this page stays locked until we all agree to reduce the content of the page to a single three sentences...


 * Texans for Truth are vapid shills. Kerry is a lying frenchman. VOTE BUSH.

That looks like three sentences to me.


 * Can someone please explain to me why this guy is still contributing to any Bush/Kerry/Election2004 pages at all? Any edits that show Bush, Coulter, any Republicans in a bad light are POV while anything that paints Kerry or Democrats in a bad light is NPOV and MUST MUST MUST be included. AlistairMcMillan 04:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex. seriously, shut up about JML and "hard-banning" you, just address the issues. if you have certain problems with the article, please state what they are. Otherwise, if you have no objections, POV notice comes down. I'll ask yet again (someone tally how many times this is).

please state SPECIFIC examples at SPECIFIC places in the article you want changed instead of just saying its all biased... by applying a POV label to this article without any SPECIFIC justification you are merely insinuating. Please answer the question:

Will you be satisfied with an explicit link in the opening paragraph to GWBMSC, if not than what SPECIFICALLY do you want changed to make this not "outrageous anti-Bush screed"? --kizzle 01:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * FYI: I have no problem with the page getting unprotected. And perhaps if the other editors would lay off the few measly edits I've tried to make here, we would not be at this point. I am ready willing and able to ask for the page to be "unprotected". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 04:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I have this straight.
 * You believe that the current version is simply "outrageous anti-Bush screed".
 * Yet you can't specify any actual occurances of this "bias". (smells like SCO, inside joke for computer dorks)
 * Because of this, you are going to make a bunch of major edits without discussing them first.


 * you can send me to arbcom, but that's bullshit. either provide examples or shut the hell up.  i'm sorry, i've finally cracked. please provide specific examples, that's all i can say. --kizzle 05:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say any of that. Rather I said my aim was a re-write to the degree possible. How you can construe such an aim to be intentionally problematic astounds me.

Rex071404 answers Kizzle's question

 * if the article was unprotected today, what is the first thing you would change? --kizzle 05:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would add some "rebuttal" in the 1st pargagrah(s) along the lines of how the Kerry complaints against SBVT are mentioned in the 1st paragraph(s) there. Frankly, the two pages ought to be modeled after each other. If they were, the vast majority of my complaintd would cease to exist. 17:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The difference between the two pages arises from the history of the disputes (the disputes out in the real world, not on Wikipedia). Bush's military service record was the subject of attack for years.  The issue was, naturally, discussed in the George W. Bush article, but, back in March, VeryVerily spun it off to the daughter article, George W. Bush military service controversy.  The controversy was quite fully developed in that article before TfT came along.  Therefore, the TfT article doesn't need to recount all the evidence that support its charges against Bush.  Instead, the article can be limited to information about TfT's role in an ongoing debate.


 * By contrast, SBVT was, by itself, largely responsible for creating the controversy about Kerry's Vietnam service. Thus it happened that there was no pre-existing "John Kerry military service controversy" article; everything wound up in Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.  If we were to model the two pages after each other, then the TfT article would recount all the evidence against Bush, including statements made by people who aren't TfT members, just as the SBVT article includes attacks on Kerry by people who aren't SBVT members.  That would produce a lot of duplication of the anti-Bush evidence.  Obviously, I wouldn't mind if people read that stuff, but putting it into two separate articles just because I really really like it and want people to see it would be blatantly POV.  Therefore, I think we should stick with the current format, in which the SBVT article canvasses all the evidence on both sides while the TfT article doesn't. JamesMLane 18:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When I say "modeled" I am referring to an insertion of a "rebut" against each point as is done on SBVT - the specific example I cite above is a good one. 18:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hallelujah. we're discussing. Rex, while I do share some passive reservations in the same vein as what JML is saying, I am interested in seeing what you have to write. I patently disagree with your large-scale edit on the GWB page because in your attempt to add perspective, you didn't just add facts in the other direction but made up our decision for us. Why don't you offer a possible rewrite on the intro here and we'll discuss, but please limit it to well-documented facts and not "a reasonable person would conclude" or "obviously false" or "thus, these allegations are false" or anything that would tip the scale one way or the other. --kizzle 18:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

still waiting... --kizzle 03:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, you want to change some stuff. Why not go ahead and show people what you want in a sandbox?  This page has been protected for days, and conversation has basically halted.  I gather that the protection dispute involved you, so the ball is sort of in your court to make a proposal.  A sandbox version is one conventional way to do that. Wolfman 04:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The contention that I am somehow holding things up here is false. I have already stated my view that the page ought to be unprotected. 18:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That's nice, but it doesn't matter. The page probably won't be unprotected until the conflicts which got it protected in the first place are resolved, and you've refused to address them. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * See Wolfman's comment... if you are about to make significant changes which you refuse to discuss, there is no point in unprotecting the page. Thus, it is up to you to provide discussion to get around this impasse, since it is you who has a problem with the current page.  If you have problems with the article, discuss them here in SPECIFIC examples, discussion prior to edits is still possible and more importantly is Wikipedia etiquette.


 * Please offer a sandbox version of what you would like to change so that the editors of this page can reach a concensus. --kizzle 18:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not claiming that they are any conflicts. Rather it is the others who are doing that. I am ready for group editing to begin again any time the page is unprotected. 19:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are not claiming that there are any conflicts, does this mean you no longer have a problem with the article? Do you still consider it POV? --kizzle 20:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Have the conflicts which led to page protection been resolved? If not, what are they? Wolfman 20:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know, Rex refuses to discuss them. If he has no more problem, then the NPOV notice should come down as well, in addition to witholding from immediately editing/reverting the article after it is unprotected. --kizzle 20:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, before the page was protected, "group editing" seemed to mean that you relentlessly inserted and re-inserted a couple of links that everyone else kept telling you were irrelevant to this article. The editors who disagreed with you (which I think is everybody else) don't think that pro-Bush content is enough of a justification for including an irrelevant link.  Therefore, other editors kept reverting your insertions, and you kept reverting the reverts.  That resulted in the protection.  An admin considering an unprotection won't be thrilled at the prospect of more "group editing" along those lines.  Your reference to a "full re-write" is unlikely to improve the situation.


 * The purpose of protecting a page isn't to freeze it forever, but to allow resolution of the issues through discussion on the talk page -- a process that, as Wolfman and kizzle suggest, often involves a sandbox. In this instance, however, you've thwarted that process.  For the past week or so, you've persistently refused to engage in any such discussion.  In response to simple questions about points in dispute, to which you could easily give a straightforward answer, you have instead said things like, "Since no edits can be made until protection is lifted, we will just have to see. When the page opens, I will edit again. If that does not suffice for an answer, oh well."  You won't even say whether you'll resume your unilateral insertion of the specific links that everyone else deems irrelevant.  The only detail you've provided is a general statement that the introduction should have some pro-Bush material, but even there you haven't addressed the point that this article is fundamentally different from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.  You pay lip service to "group editing" but, in practice, your actions are not in furtherance of that goal. JamesMLane 20:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. And to turn around what JML is saying: JML surely you do not suggest that an article must remain forever in the future how it is now, do you? And ff not, why do you have a problem with my answer which is: I am going to wait and see. Unless and until I see what, if anything, the other editors do, it's not prudent for me to try to guess what I might do. What you are asking me to do is speculate and I am not going to do that. Also, ffrom your standpoint, what specifically are the as-of-yet unresolved disputes which existed prior to the page preotection. Logically speaking, you have no grounds to question me about anything else. 20:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, if you want the answer to your latest questions, try reading my latest comment, or any of numerous other comments by numerous other editors. The question that may or may not be unresolved -- I don't know since you refuse to say -- is whether you'll continue to try to insert two pro-Bush links that everyone else considers irrelevant to this article because they have nothing to do with Texans for Truth.  Frankly, I can't imagine how you could even ask such a question in light of the multiple comments on that point.  As for the future, no one has argued or even remotely suggested that the "article must remain forever in the future how it is now," nor has anyone argued or even remotely suggested that you have to give a road map in advance as to how you would respond to every conceivable edit that anyone else might make.   JamesMLane 21:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, answer the question: If you are not claiming that there are any conflicts, does this mean you no longer have a problem with the article? Do you still consider it POV? --kizzle 21:01, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)--

The answer I have given on this is the best that I can give: I have no objections to the page being unprotected. My decisions about when and if I will edit this article again are being held in abeyance until I see what other editors actually do here. 00:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Then try this. I am giving you today and tommorow to cite anything you have a problem with.  The article in its entirety is available for you to peruse and find any problems you might have, and there has been ample time for you to find problems, as we have probed this so many times I can't remember how many times we've asked you to name what you have a problem with.  If you do not state SPECIFIC places where you object to the article, then it will be taken that you have no problem to the article at hand, and we will ask protection to be removed and the NPOV tag will be removed.  However, if you immediately edit anything that was there before, it will be immediately reverted, and justifiably so, unless we can possibly get a moderator or admin or whatever they are called to monitor this page when it becomes unprotected.


 * In other words, if you cannot state SPECIFICALLY what problems you have with this page, then it will be taken that you have no problem and any near subsequent edit to material already included in the article will be immediately reverted. After asking what you have a problem with literally over 10 times WITHOUT ANSWERING, I see no choice.  If a moderator would like to come in and weigh, that would be fine, but as the page history shows, this is as best of an example of exhausting dialog that there could possibly be. --kizzle 03:59, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * And by the way, at my rough count I count 14 specific times someone has explicitly asked you why you believe this page is not neutral (specific charges!), and you have NOT answered a SINGLE one. So I was a little under in my previous estimate of 10. --kizzle 06:31, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

SBVT vs TfT
In my view, this statement, by JML: "this article is fundamentally different from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is false. SBVT and TfT are both 3rd party groups attacking a presidential candidate regarding military service. Even if the articles as currently comprised are different, the adversarial relationship between group and target candidate is the same for both - and the editorial treatment each gets must therefore be similar. I've made my views clear about this. The only thing which remains to be seen is if people like JML continue to delude themselves about the groups being "fundamentally different". 01:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, among our communication difficulties seems to be a particular problem in terms of your characterizing my views. I did not say that the groups were fundamentally different.  As you yourself quoted me, I said that the articles are fundamentally different, which is most assuredly not the same thing.  I also explained why they were different. JamesMLane 01:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed that is what you said. And I am saying they should not be - both groups should get worked over equally. The disparity which JML refers to, should not be allowed to continue. 01:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the fact that SBVT provides detailed evidence against the charges? If so, I'd actually like to restructure SBVT to me more like TfT.  That is, the meat of the dispute goes into a 'John Kerry military service controversy' article.  Many of the charges are already handled this way, pointing to the VVAW, & winter soldier pages.  Plus, that's how TfT is structured now, relying on the 'Bush military service controversy' page. I believe JML suggested something like this before for SBVT, but you didn't like it.Wolfman 03:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The pro-Kerry crowd has for weeks stuck it to Bush in every way possible in every article possible. SBVT is the way it is and it's also how TfT is going to be. 03:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, that may be. But SBVT is the way it is at your own insistence. It's a strange argument to first insist SBVT be one way, and then insist TfT be the same way on the grounds that's how SBVT is. Wolfman 03:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Wolfman, in order for me to more fully reply to your comment, we would have to agree on what the meaning of "is" is, in your sentence. My initial reading of your sentence leads me to believe you do not understand what I mean when I say I am seeking "parity" between SBVT and TfT. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 03:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not so, I never agreed to "spin off" SBVT from John Kerry. 21:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle is now making threats 09.22.04
Please see this link here to read the thread which has culiminated in "Kizzle" making threats about this page here. He clearly is unsatisfied with my answers to his many demanding questions - so now he is making threats and demanding punishment against me. 15:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I fully endorse anyone to come read what I said at the link Rex has provided above. --kizzle 16:45, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle and others demand answers
Some here seem to be insistant that I affirmatively state "all conflicts resolved". However, by driving to that goal, they miss another point which is: Parties to a conflict may in fact decide that the issue is mooted or perhaps insoluble. Either of those views would preclude a person from being able to honestly say "all is now resolved" or "these are my only issues". The simple fact is that some here are trying to get me to put a finite limit on the scope of my concerns and I am declining to do that. I simply will not try to "guess" how things are going to go here - not before I see how some of the others behave towards any edits I might make. And in fact, at this point I am undecided as to whether or not I will even edit TfT again. Why others can't accept ambiguity in my answer, puzzles me. The simply fact is, at this point I am ambivalent in regards to this particular article. Frankly, I feel that placing demands on me for "certaintiy" at this point, is unfair. 16:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Parties to a conflict may in fact decide that the issue is mooted or perhaps insoluble"... is that official Wikipedia policy? that seems (at least to me) to be the very antithesis of concensus building. --kizzle 16:50, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Kizzle" if or when you stop mocking, I may respond to you further. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 17:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm serious. I meant no sarcasm or wit in that previous statement.  To declare a conflict "mooted or perhaps insoluble" seems to me to go against the very essence of concensus building. --kizzle 17:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I've encountered such stand-offs as Rex has expressed before, and I can think of nothing that absolutely precludes them. In such a case, to prevent a revert war wherein the most stubborn and unreceptive person wins (who actually should probably lose, as that behavior reflects a more narrow-minded character and thus someone who probably doesn't have as many of the facts) I think a poll should decide a tentative version to be placed in the article, and then discussion should resume, and that version be improved upon incrementally as the involved parties find matters that they can agree upon.  This philosophy of mine, BTW, is what led to the whole GWB fiasco, as this philosophy apparently was not shared by others.


 * In any case, I concur here with Rex that, regardless of policies or anything of the sort, such situations do arise, and I add that they are in many cases more optimal solutions than futile edit wars, and are not against consensus building or any other policy. Kevin Baas | talk 18:00, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)


 * KB, I totally agree with you. I am merely striving to prevent this from happening on this page.  I am actually not in favor of conducting a poll because, seeing as the pro-Kerry editors outnumber Rex like 5-1, it would be over, quick, and done, and I don't think that contributes to concensus building.  I don't think Rex's point should be overruled simply because he is one and we are many.  All I ask is that he simply states what his gripes are about the page so that we can discuss them.  As of yet, he has not provided any specific examples but merely wild accusations.  If we were at an impasse where Rex wants a passage one way, and I disagree and want it another way, then I believe this still follows the spirit of concensus building, but when Rex does not even offer a substantiated claim against specific passages, there is no attempt even at concensus.--kizzle 18:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reasoning, but, admittedly, I am not familiar with the details of the specific situation, so I remain neutral on such matters. Kevin Baas | talk 18:21, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)


 * Kevin, when I tried to post a response to your original statement, I hit an edit conflict and saw that you'd already qualified it as above. What I was going to say is precisely consistent: that I agree with your statement in the abstract, but it doesn't apply to this specific case.  The protection was the result of an edit war in which Rex unilaterally insisted on inserting external links that everyone else considered irrelevant to the Texans for Truth article.  Rex has not given a straightforward answer to the simple question of whether he still wants to insert them here, given the changed circumstances (notably, that they've since been inserted in George W. Bush military service controversy, where they at least have the virtue of being on-topic).  At this point, therefore, we don't even know if there is a conflict, let alone whether it's insoluble.  My personal opinion is that such conduct by an editor does not constitute good faith. JamesMLane 18:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "conflict" here if there still is one, is that the pro-Kerry crowd of "Kizzle", JML and Gamaliel, etc. all want to pin me down to a list of specific "gripes" about the page as it is now. But, not one of them will acknowledge that I do not like the disparities - which I have identified - between totality of the SBVT article and the TfT article. In fact, I have made it clear that I intend to seek parity (approximate, at least) between the articles. Now I know that I write clear English and I know that I have been explicit in explaining my aim. Why this group struggles to hear my answer... well that amazes me, quite frankly. 23:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, I have expressly addressed the point, by explaining the history of the different treatment of the two subjects, based on the different roles played by SBVT and TfT. If you want parity, that would mean that the TfT article, like the SBVT article, would quote all the attacks made on the Presidential candidate on the subject area, not just those made by members of the group.  For example, because the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth quotes Schachte's attack on Kerry, then the Texans for Truth article, to maintain parity, would have to quote Ben Barnes, William Turnipseed et al. concerning Bush.  Is that your proposal? JamesMLane 15:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I see the threat of mediation has greased the wheels a bit...


 * 1) This page is protected because of an accusation of POV you have.
 * 2) Yet you won't identify how specifically to correct this "POV".
 * 3) You also won't specify whether or not you believe this page is POV as it stands.
 * 4) An attempt to persuade you to make a sandbox version of what you think is right was completely ignored.
 * 5) Nothing has been resolved since your initial request for protection.
 * 6) You now want to un-protect the page.
 * Thus
 * Thus


 * 1) At the very least you have halted discussion and thus concensus building.
 * 2) From 5 and 6, your initial request for protection (1) was faulty and unwarranted.


 * You can still get out of all of this by just creating a sandbox version of what you want. --kizzle 23:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Kizzle", by referring to mediation as a "threat", you betray an adversarial mindset. Frankly, if you persist in that approach, our mediation will probably fail because of you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 23:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Riiiiight. Good thing you focused on that rather than addressing my points and conclusions, cause then you'd really be in trouble! :) --kizzle 23:34, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

It begins
Request has been filed. Feel free to comment on it, as I am new to this. --kizzle 18:30, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't be surprised when he refuses. I think your effort is a good idea, but I suspect it's only going to be a first step.  Everything moves at a snail's pace around here.  Perhaps we should look for an admin to keep an eye on the article, not to protect it and then wander off, but one who will enforce the three revert rule and keep things from getting out of hand.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in that he would want to resolve this as quickly as possible.--kizzle 18:55, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have already agreed to mediation with "Kizzle". 22:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to say, Rex, I am quite impressed with your persistence in referring to me as "Kizzle"... who knew it took until the 27th time you did it to be funny. --kizzle 22:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

"Kizzle" if you would simply acknowledge that you butted in on my conversation with Fred Bauder and that no actual accusation of sockpuppetry has been made against you, I would be happy to drop the "". However, until you acknowledge your error, you are and forevermore will remain, "Kizzle", so far as I am concerned. 23:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * How old are you? Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, are you directing that question about age to me? If so, why? 03:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I would think the answer is obvious. If you were using the quotes around Kizzle's name to accuse him of being a sockpuppet, then that would be rude, but it would make sense. But you're doing it for no other reason than because it annoys Kizzle, to retaliate against some bizarre and minor perceived slight. Your explanation is not just nonsensical, it has the added advantage of being petty and juvenile.  Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I almost wish he would just come out and accuse me already and who he thinks I really am. --kizzle 04:03, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

The ""'s around "Kizzle" refer to the hypercritical (and false) claim by "Kizzle" that an accusation has been made. Go to Fred Bauder's talk page and see that for yourself. And if "Kizzle" had not been nosing in, "Kizzle" would not have a bug up "Kizzle's" nose. As it is, it seems that "Kizzle" does. 04:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I told Kizzle of your phrase "please take notice of user Kizzle who appears to be a sockpuppet" He did no "nosing".  You made a thinly veiled accusation about him to a member of the arbitration committee.  Kizzle deserved to be informed.  Forgot to log in at the time.  Anonymously yours, Wolfman.Wolfman 05:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now that the "nosing in" has been explained, I will no longer refer to Kizzle as "Kizzle". Having said that, please realize that no benefit accrued to Kizzle or the dialog by Wolfman alarming him with that notice. My communication to Fred was intended to demonstrate that there was a possible pattern afoot, which seem to indicate oddly fixated new users (such as Nysus - who appears to have dropped out). If I bothered to concern myself with each and every personal talk page sentence that mentions me, I'd be all wrapped up in too many opinions and suspicions. So too with Kizzle. Wolfman; you did a dis-service to Kizzle by needlessly alarming him. No accusation was made and there was nothing going on there that Kizzle needed to be concerned about. Please don't be so hasty to react in the future. 06:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact is, you suggested to an arbcom member that he was a sockpuppet. That seems to me like something Kizzle ought to be aware of.  Chatter like that with some ordinary editor is easily ignored, but not with an arbcom member.  Whether Kizzle was alarmed or not is his business; I certainly said nothing alarming, just passed on a link.  At the least, it gave him the chance to dispute the "possible pattern" you pointed out.  Kizzle & Nysus are no more fixated on those pages than you or I, doesn't make either of us a sockpuppet (though you have suggested it of me in the distant past).  Wolfman 07:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, I explained that "nosing in" from the first time I mentioned this... see here, scroll down about halfway where I say this verbatim:


 * "for the record, look at: User_talk:Kizzle... I did not stalk your user contribution list, some anon-ip forwarded it to me." I still left this message on my user talk, feel free to check it out anytime.


 * I left that message long before Wolfman's comment. Read the talk page next time you continue to slander someone on false pretenses. --kizzle 06:56, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * this conversation has sunk to a new low. --kizzle 04:33, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

It appears that "Kizzle" has run out of steam and is now hurling insults instead of making constructive comments. 05:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you type these things with a straight face. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I have already afforded you a far more share of patience than you deserve. Read Wolfman's comments so you will stop accusing me of "nosing" in, so maybe you can grow up and not be so petty by derogatorily referring to my username. --kizzle 06:32, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * All the extra time it will take you to type those quotations in will make me an extremely happy man and give me more evidence of your conduct at Wikipedia. :) As per butted in on conversation:


 * "For the record, this is a Wiki. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING written anywhere on Wikipedia is public -- there should be absolutely no expectation of privacy in communications on pages here. If you want to have a private communication, you should do so by email. And anyone is welcome to participate in a discussion on any page (provided of course they are reasonably on topic)."


 * --kizzle 23:28, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

(don't forget JML's coment on previous section, kinda got lost in the shuffle) --kizzle 17:21, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Petition to kick out Rex071404 (modified from previous title as page is now unprotected)
Sign below, if you want the article to be unprotected, but only after Rex is blocked from editing it TfT until after the election:
 * 1) JamesMLane 04:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) kizzle 06:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) AlistairMcMillan 16:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Wolfman 19:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Rex has made it clear he has zero interest in participating in a  collaborative editing process with other editors. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) ZayZayEM 02:30, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Plasma 06:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The mendacity of JamesMLane
In my estimation, the mendacity of JamesMLane is made crystal clear by his above "petition" to get me kicked off from editing this page. Suffice it to say, I am of the opinion that he is utterly biased in his approach to editing and has never, not once, dealt with me on the level. On every single election 2004 related page that he and I have jointly edited, he has gone out of his way to try to cause me to leave it, or be blocked. Chief among his tactics has been the utter refusal to accept truth even when it stares him in the face. Here is a perfect example: At John Kerry, the pro-Kerry editors (JML among them) simply would not admit (nor allow as part of the text) the true fact that Cameron Kerry (John Kerry's brother) and Mr. Vallely (who is currently helping Kerry's 2004 efforts) broke in and entered a building in the night time, while working for the Kerry campaign. Here is a new link from NYT which makes it inescapably clear that those two did in fact break in: "So Mr. Vallely and Cam Kerry kicked down the door to the building's basement and hurried downstairs, only to find themselves surrounded moments later by the Lowell police and charged with breaking and entering." Sufice it to say, I am simply fed up with JamesMLane. As far as I am concerned, he is a trouble maker and has no interest in inter-editor peace with those who don't agree with his political views. Perhaps some editors here don't know it, but JML and the pro-Kerry crowd have chased me around this Wiki doing everything in their power to block any detrimental information about Kerry from appearing on any page. And to prove my point, let's see if JML will admit that the new link from NYT which I just posted is a valid enough source to state affirmatively that Cameron Kerry and Mr. Vallely did indeed break in. Fat chance that he will admit it. And he has the nerve to complain because he doesn't like my answers! 05:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A fuller excerpt from Rex's reference:

''That computer was at the center of one of the campaign's most embarrassing episodes. On the eve of the primary, Mr. Vallely and Mr. Kerry's younger brother, Cameron, both 22, had gone out to dinner and returned to their headquarters to learn that an anonymous caller had telephoned to report that the campaign's phone lines were being cut.

''"Our Internet was the telephone," Mr. Vallely said. "A couple hundred lines and all related to our voter ID, and how we're mailing to them. This was the central organizing tool that we're using." So Mr. Vallely and Cam Kerry kicked down the door to the building's basement and hurried downstairs, only to find themselves surrounded moments later by the Lowell police and charged with breaking and entering. Wolfman 06:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes or No Wolfman, is the New York Times making it clear that those two broke in or not? Also, I see that Kizzle obviously asked for mediation in bad faith. Nothing else would explain how he has jumped aboard with JML in the above anti-Rex petition. Therefore, Kizzle is now once again "Kizzle". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 06:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I will no longer refer to Kizzle as "Kizzle". - Rex071404 06:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think an unqualified statement that he "broke in" would be a technical lie. That is, a statement that is technically true but intentionally misleading so as to be in effect a lie.  See for example "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", or "it depends on what the meaning of is means" That is why I provided the fuller context. Wolfman 16:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Har! Har! Wolfman, that's hysterical! Kicking in a door is by definition "breaking in". Now, whether or not the requisite criminal intent was there to warrant a conviction (or even arrest and charge) for breaking and enterning with intent to commit grand larceny (the actual charge) is another story. But please, do not deny that which is obviously true. It makes it impossible to converse. 19:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My position is clear, an unqualified use of the phrase is misleading; with context (such as I added above), it is not misleading. Your tone here is quite bothersome to me. I have added my name to JML's petition because  I have seen little evidence of your interest in reasonably responding to reasonable questions in the above discussion.  Mockery of my views is not helpful to this discussion, nor is calling JML a liar ("mendacity")Wolfman 19:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * All words have emotional connotations that exist outside the literal meaning. "Breaking in" implies criminal intent although this is not necessarily within the definition of the word.  When someone says "X broke into Y's place" we assume criminal intent.  That was wolfman's comment, in that it may be technically true but does not accurately portray the general assessment of the situation given all the facts. --kizzle 19:06, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Or, he could agree with James's proposal, and thereby support it. Doesn't mean bad faith- he can wish to mediate with you, and also believe you should be banned from here. The two are not mutually exclusive. Lyellin 06:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Lyellin, sometimes you say things that make no sense at all. Have you read "Kizzle's" request for mediation? It explicitly refers to this page. Mediation by definition, is a facilitated dispute resolution process. If "Kizzle" indeed wants to resolve his issues with me via medation, it's axiomatic that he has a predicate duty to let the mediation process proceed towards anticipated fruition, prior to trying an alternative dispute resolution process. And of course, were I to get kicked off of here, "Kizzle's" problems with me here would be mooted and hence, resolved - therefore obviating any need for mediation. BTW: Did you see the new page I started here: Stolen Honor Documentary. And if you don't think I am right about JamesMLane chasing me around the Wiki, trying to make nice for Kerry - guess who the very first editor was that came in behind me at this new page and changed content, calling it "POV" and then re-edited my edit of his edit? Surprise! It's JamesMLane! 06:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I will no longer refer to Kizzle as "Kizzle". - Rex071404 06:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Kizzle can want to mediate with you, solving issues on this page. He can also support page proection removal and banning you from the page. Just because one will negate the other, does not mean that he cannot support both. But regardless, that's not the issue- the page should be. And again, with the James- I think Rex, you can safely say, you have 5 or 6 editors watching you to make sure you are NPOV. James is just one of them. His timing on an article has nothing to do with an evil plot (please, don't start in on the cabal), but a shared interest in topics with you, and a knowledge that you write what he considers to be POV articles. Lyellin 07:11, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... why then do JML (and Wolfman for that matter) edit articles like say Tom Delay and not make sure that the articles for Democrats also have as many derogatory links as that one does? POV, perhaps? Also, you are simply wrong about being able to pursue two tracks at once in good faith. "Kizzle" either wants to mediate and thinks it can possibly work, or he doesn't. If he thinks it has a chance to work, he ought to let it go forward without trying to moot it by signing petitions here. That signature by "Kizzle" here, were it to succeed, would indeed moot our mediation. Please don't kid yourself - they are mutually exclusive paths. 07:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I will no longer refer to Kizzle as "Kizzle". - Rex071404 06:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken, I have not edited the text of Tom Delay -- see edit history or User_talk:Kaisershatner Wolfman 16:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did not say the "edited text", I said "edit articles". You were there Wolfman, Sept, 20:, , and. And one of those (4) edits was a text edit. Even so, that's not the point. The point is, you were there, you obviously edited the links section and yet, look at all the anti-Delay links which remain. Comparing this to the dearth of "anti" links on Democrat politician pages, betrays a bias just as clearly as text edits themselves would. 16:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I did not edit the text. I fixed a wikilink, I moved the quotes section to wikiquotes, I added a category.  I have not even read the article.  I got there because I was disambiguating the broken wikilink and clicked 'what links here'.  I repeat, I have not even read that article.  I know almost nothing about Tom Delay.  It is not my job to go hunt down critical links about every page I barely touch.  I have touched probably a hundred different articles in the past two weeks. Why don't you worry about edits I do make, rather than edits I don't?Wolfman 17:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok fine, consider yourself excluded from the example I posted which cited both you and JML. 19:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is the difference in personal character between Tom DeLay and your average Democrat that makes the content of the pages substantially different. Kevin Baas | talk

As much as I have come to have a newer respect for Kevin Baas, his above comment which insinuates that Tom Delay has an inferior "personal character" compared to the "average Democrat" truly is a perfect example of the pro-Liberal bias of many Wiki editors. 15:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is Ockham's Razor, which doesn't at all involve bias, but rather protects against it by limiting the influence of the imagination. Kevin Baas | talk 19:26, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)


 * I was told by BCorr on my talk page that mediation may not be the process I am looking for if I want to settle a dispute on a page that other editors are involved. I am considering my options, however at the least I want mediation between Rex for this sockpuppet juvenile behavior.  I am considering splitting off the other section into a RfC or possibly other means, I will decide this in the next few hours. --kizzle 16:13, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Now that "Kizzle" has displayed a John Kerry-like inability to stick with his own positions, I see nothing to gain from dialoging with him at all. I agreed to mediation with him in good faith, but now "Kizzle" is backing out. Let it be known by all that I have gone the extra mile regarding "Kizzle" and if he wants to quit mediation, that's his problem and his loss. 16:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It's better than sticking to something you know is wrong, i.e. Bush. --kizzle 17:09, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * And by the way, that wasn't my idea, that was BCorr's. See here. --kizzle 17:12, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Rex what exactly does the criminal activities of Kerry's relatives have to do with an article on John Kerry himself? This is probably the perfect example of your blackwashing tactics on campaign-related pages that a lot of editors and Wikpedians are fed up with.--ZZ 02:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ZayZayEM, since you asked a question, I will answer the question. As for your insult, I'll only say "I'm rubber, you're glue. It bounces off me and sticks to you". Here are some reasons why it matters:


 * 1) Those two were working on campaign business when it occured.
 * 2) John Kerry has Mr. Vallely currently helping on his 2004 campaign
 * 3) The 1972 incident is looked at by many as a Kerry campaign initiated attempt at a dirty trick
 * 4) Currently, a Kerry campaign advisor (Joe Lockhart) has had his name pop-up in the middle of another campaign dirty trick - the forged memos
 * 5) If Kerry's associates criminal activities (your words) don't matter, why do those (allegedly) of Tom Delay's associates matter?

02:44, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "I'm rubber, you're glue. It bounces off me and sticks to you"?????????? you don't know how hard it is not to insert some commentary here --kizzle 03:10, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

He He. Hopefully this unprotect will go well for all concerned. Please note that I requested it from Mirv a few hours ago. 03:17, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Group consent requested

 * From: [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 04:10, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Re: I would like to edit the "First Advertisement" section to read this way:

First television advertisement
The first advertisement features testimony from Bob Mintz, a lieutenant colonel in the 187th Alabama Air National Guard unit in 1972, where George Bush was assigned that year. (See the video and the transcript.) In the video, Mintz states that he never saw George Bush, and is shown explaining that "It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size." The ad concludes by asking: "Was George W. Bush AWOL in Alabama?"

In regards to this contention that Bush did not properly report for duty in Alabama, according to Byron York, writing for National Review "Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times." 


 * I do not agree, for reasons already stated numerous times on this page by several editors. Among the occasions when this subject has already been addressed are comments by Gamaliel  and myself . JamesMLane 04:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The entire second paragraph does not deal with the television advertisement, but with the arguments presented in the advertisement. The George W. Bush military service controversy page deals with these counterarguments quite well, with the added bonus of a spiffy diagram showing where there is evidence for service and where there is not. It should not be placed in this article.
 * None of the first paragraph actively supports the information in the advertisement, it merely summarises it. It is objective and true, and should be left the way it is.
 * I think if Rex would be satisfied with a end-tagline suggesting those who want more in-depth information go to the George W. Bush military service controversy page in return for ceasing his pro-Bush 'ganda, we might agree to concede that. I can understand Rex's fear the link in the introductory paragraph may be overlooked. I have seen several occassions in Wikipedia where importantly linked articles are repeated in a See Also end-tag.--ZZ 04:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ZZ's rationalizations are simple straw dogs, designed to deflect from the truth that the text, as currently written in the article uses these words: The ad concludes by asking: "Was George W. Bush AWOL in Alabama?". These words, as posted in the article inarguably constitute a rhetorical accusation and a very serious one at that. If that specific text remains in the article, it opens the door to a requisite rebuttal so as to avoid POV. There is no two ways about that. And so far as all the previous complaints go, all of them were raised when I attempted to inject links that the text of the article had no rational segues to. With this propsed edit, notice that I have alleviated that issue. I reject ZZ's disgreement and at this point am asking for additional group comment. Also, please note that at SBVT, in the 1st advertisement section this sentence "None of the men in the advertisement served on the same Swift boat as John Kerry, but some patrolled and sailed along side with Kerry's Swift boat on multi-boat patrols" is there and it does tend to rebut in favor of Kerry. Also, the main body of SBVT is titled "Allegations and evidence" and all the particular allegations are laid out and rebutted. I want each and every allegation at TfT to also be rebutted in a similar manner. If not, all rebuttal which favors Kerry must be stricken from SBVT leaving only a report about the "arguments" of the accusations, which is what ZZ claims exempts TfT from rebuttal. 05:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you mean straw-man argument by "straw dogs"? never heard it expressed that way. --kizzle 06:07, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I meant "straw man", but must have been thinking straw dog(s) (an excellent movie by the way). Diversion might even be a better word than straw man. 06:17, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well here's the problem. We have a TfT and George Bush Military Service Controversy page that are separate but deal with highly similar things.  In fact, I think this page should logically be viewed as a daughter article to GWBMSC...  This page should contain the bare essentials describing what Texans For Truth is about.  The second paragraph you wrote Rex seems to me waaaay more relevent in GWBMSC...


 * Any extraneous information that describes anything beyond the literal script itself should be kept to the GWBMSC... The alternative in my mind is that if Rex thinks his second passage is justified, then a whole lot of other material from GWBMSC should be brought in here using the same justification, and that is only going to produce headaches and unnecessary redundancy. --kizzle 06:26, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)