Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. I am particularly persuaded by the NPOV and ATTACK rationales. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

John Kerry VVAW controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

A non-article about a non-controversy. Editing the John Kerry article during the 2004 election was an especially contentious process, exacerbated by the fact that we lacked many basic rules and protections like 3RR and BLP back then. Most of the problems were created by a single user, who was eventually banned by Arbcom for a year as a result and later banned permanently for sockpuppeting. This user was a strong advocate for inserting as much negative material as possible about Kerry, and several spinoff articles such as this one were created to appease him and keep this material from overwhelming the article. I had forgotten about this until I stumbled on this article today and I contend that this article does not meet the current standards of Wikipedia. It is about a non-controversy that doesn't exist except in the minds of a few fringe advocates. The few sources that exist are about a minor anti-war demonstration, while most of the rest of the article is unsourced and speculative. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the re-listing of this AfD, I have taken the liberty of re-listing this AfD in the referenced Wikiproject page. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 *  Oppose 23:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Keep or Merge - Specifically back into the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article from which it was purged  forked moved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Having reviewed the Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth archives, I was mistaken in my belief that this article was spun from the Swiftvet article and am changing my preference to Keep. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. This article was spun off from the John Kerry article by JamesMLane, as he notes here.  More recent BLP policies prevent such silliness from being merged back into the Kerry biography, but as explained below, the content already exists in other articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what these allegations have to do with the Swift Boaters, who made up allegations about Kerry's service in Vietnam primarily, not his post-war activities. Could you elaborate about why you think it belongs there? Gamaliel (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Allegations"? Perhaps a citation will better address your question...
 * To many political observers, these ads, “Dazed,” “Sell Out,” and “Medals” seemed to reflect the true reason behind the Swift Boat campaign: during Kerry’s appearance before the committee, he had testified to numerous atrocities and war crimes allegedly committed by the majority of U.S. troops serving in Vietnam. The Swift Boat Veterans were, in their own words, still furiously angry over what they dubbed his betrayal. Another spot, “Friends,” tied Senator Kerry to Jane Fonda, another anti-Vietnam activist.
 * "Non-controversy"? Does the NY Times generally produce 7 page explorations of "non-controversies"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This was not a seven page exploration of his possible attendance at one single meeting, it's an exploration of his anti-war activism. It's pretty clear that his anti-war activism is important and that some people were angry enough about that to make up things about him decades later.  But that's not what this article is about, it is about two "controversies", a small demonstration which is already amply covered at John_Kerry, and an imaginary controversy about some meeting which he may or may not have actually attended.  The section about the latter is unsourced and the controversy is non-existent except on the fringe and only discussed in passing in articles like the one you posted about his activism. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and an imaginary controversy about some meeting which he may or may not have actually attended.
 * You may have missed this, among many others...
 * Campaign spokesman David Wade said Kerry had confused the Kansas City meeting with an earlier meeting in St. Louis.
 * But that's not what this article is about...
 * What this article is "about" is what WP:V sourcing says it is "about". The notability of this controversy is clearly established per WP:V, WP:RS sourcing and is a major element in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth treatment. That it was shunted from the main article ostensibly for space and is now being recommended for deletion in its entirety is almost laughable...were it not so pathetically POV. In deference to TLDR, I'll refrain from further argumentation and yield the floor to other interested editors. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What this article is "about" is what WP:V sourcing says it is "about".
 * I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What's really laughable and pathetic here is trying you fly the banner of WP:RS when this sham of an article is largely unsourced and then claiming other people are acting in a POV manner.  You are the one dragging POV into what should be a civil discussion about deleting a half-assed article that fails about seven or eight of those WP acronyms you are throwing around.  Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ...this sham of an article is largely unsourced
 * You are, of course, entitled to your opinion...as are the other editors who will hopefully offer a similarly dispassionate opinion. In the interim, I'll look forward to collaborating with you as we work together to improve this article per the  section tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You say you wish to duplicate the information (yet again) in an article created by a single-edit IP editor from Joisey? I'm with Gamaliel in requesting that you elaborate as to why.  I don't see that you've addressed his question above. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would strongly urge any editor to read the preface to Gerald Nicosia's 2004 new edition of "Home to War" before weighing in on this article subject's notability. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the point you are trying to make with this material? No one is contesting the notability of VVAW or Kerry's participation therein.  What is at issue is here is the notability and verifiability of the two "controversies" in this specific article.  Gamaliel (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Read it; you've made a strong case that we should have an article about the VVAW. Now, would you care to make a case for a Wikipedia article about whether or not a politician attended a meeting, or just part of a meeting, or no part of the meeting, where a frustrated activist proposed a "late night beer-talk" over-the-top action that the politician doesn't remember, the veterans never took seriously, and that the FBI didn't deem important enough to report or act upon? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, would you care to make a case...
 * I've already commenced to do just that with the provision of WP:V, WP:RS sourcing for already existing content and the provision of additional WP:V, WP:RS sourced content. While I'm also aware of additional sourcing addressing each of the issues you raise, I've not yet introduced them into the article...and do not intend to do so in this space other than to, perhaps, provide this single example...
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already commenced to do just that with the provision of WP:V, WP:RS sourcing for already existing content and the provision of additional WP:V, WP:RS sourced content. While I'm also aware of additional sourcing addressing each of the issues you raise, I've not yet introduced them into the article...and do not intend to do so in this space other than to, perhaps, provide this single example...
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is (with a few exceptions) properly sourced as to the charges and responses.  These charges were raised against Kerry -- it's a non-controversy in terms of substance, but the right-wing noise machine has considerable ability to bring rubbish to prominence, and this is an example.  Thus, the topic is properly encyclopedic.  Nevertheless, giving all this information in the main bio article would be clutter, so keeping this daughter article is the correct application of WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gerald Nicosia? Right-wing noise machine? Oh my. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think his book played a huge role in bringing this to public attention. It was indeed the right-wing noise machine (talk radio, etc.) that seized on this silliness and tried to smear Kerry with it. JamesMLane t c 05:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think his book played a huge role in bringing this to public attention.
 * Only tangentially. It was Nicosia's re-review, at the behest of Thomas Lipscomb, of the minutes of the KC meeting (previously obtained) and subsequent (perhaps first time) review of boxed FBI files (also previously obtained) that convinced Nicosia he (Nicosia) had made a factual error in his previously published book (Home to War...which also served as a source for the identical factual error in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty)15:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC) as to Kerry's attendance at the KC meeting. To Nicosia's credit (perhaps also somewhat motivated by Lipscomb's apparent doggedness on the issue), this personal revelation inspired both an advisory to the Kerry campaign and provision of those "minutes" to another inquiring reporter, Scott Canon of the Kansas City Star. THAT was Nicosia's "huge role". JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @JamesMLane: I agree with you that "it's a non-controversy in terms of substance", which leaves me wondering how you can justify the existence of a separate article, detached from more suitable articles already conveying the same subject matter with context? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion was closed and has been reopened per comments by a participant who has new information to add. L Faraone  03:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 
 * Merge per Jake. It's notable in the sense that it was part of a larger scandal. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth per JakeInJoisey & Bearian.--JayJasper (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per my original comment three years ago still located at the bottom of the article talk page. This article should be deleted, as its content already exists in other articles (See VVAW for the medal tossing and Kerry's speech before Congress at Dewey Canyon III, as well as the Kansas City meeting; same speech and events described at John_Kerry, and same criticism also noted in Fulbright Hearings.)   Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  03:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - There is more content here than can be comfortably merged. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was an organization, this is a sub-page of a political biography. I don't doubt that there may have been some sketchy motives on the part of some in starting this page in the first place, but it is unquestionably an encyclopedic topic, one of the big pseudo-issues of the day of the 2004 campaign. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I have little sympathy for articles created with the purpose of attacking a living person. The topic is adequately addressed in the main John Kerry article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've taken a little closer look at things tonight. While this is absolutely something that merits encyclopedic coverage, I am now persuaded by Gamaliel and Xenophrenic above that this matter is already dealt with in sufficient depth and with superior application of NPOV at John_Kerry. Carrite (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.