Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 7

• SBVT Archive 1 (Aug 28)
• SBVT Archive 2 (Aug 31)
• SBVT Archive 3 (Sep 1)

Neutrality Concerns

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their allegations about John Kerry is a very controversial subject. You should know that some reviewers feel that this article may not yet have fully achieved the completeness and balance necessary to meet Wikipedia standards for neutrality. This is not the fault of the editors, who are working hard toward that goal. The present article represents their best efforts to date, and improvement is continuous. You can help by contributing any additional information or correction of errors which you may become aware of. Please be sure of the accuracy of your information, provide source references, and be careful to maintain a neutral tone. Discussion of specific concerns that have been expressed regarding the content of this article will be found elsewhere on this Talk page. Feel free to participate.

1st paragraph, accuracy please

• This is not substatiated as being accurate:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), formed in 2004, is an organization of American Swift Boat veterans of the Vietnam War chartered under Section 527 of the U.S. tax code to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential aspirations. This group is devoted to questioning his war record, particularly with regard to the merit of his medals and the veracity of his testimony about the Vietnam war.

• "Charter" is the wrong word (see Brooking Link below)

• Here is an IRS link to instructions regarding "Political Organization Notice of Section 527 Status"

• 527 watchdog group [1]
• Brookings Link: According to the IRS: "When there are no formal organizational documents, consideration is given to statements of the members of the organization at the time of its formation that they intend to operate the organization primarily to carry on exempt function activities. See generally, 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.527-2(a)(2)-(3) (organizational and operational tests for "political organization" status). A political organization does not need to be formally chartered or established as a corporation, trust, or association; a separate bank account in which political campaign funds are deposited and disbursed only for political campaign expenses can qualify as a political organization. Thus, an organization may maintain a separate bank account used solely for exempt political activities and the account itself could qualify as a Section 527 political organization".
• According to the Brookings Link (see above) the IRS rules are clear in that: "When there are no formal organizational documents, consideration is given to statements of the members of the organization at the time of its formation that they intend to operate the organization primarily to carry on exempt function activities."

I interpret this to mean that this statement from SBVT web site: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant.'', is in fact the qualifying declaration of purpose which identifies SBVT's activities.

While I am open to adjusting the text to accomodate the group, I must point out that the text which I put in earlier, is more accurate than what's in there now. My previous version:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group formed in 2004. The stated purpose of the group, according to the SBVT website is: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant.[2]The SBVT group is devoted to questioning Kerry's war record, particularly with regard to the merit of his medals and the veracity of his testimony about the Vietnam war. SBVT's activites are condemned by some as being a partisan effort against John Kerry's U.S. presidential campaign.

However, as a softer alternative, I am also willing to also offer this:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group formed in 2004. The stated purpose of the group, according to the SBVT website is essentially this: 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter charges John Kerry has repeatedly made, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant.' [3] The SBVT group has devoted considerable effort to adversly highlighting John Kerry's service record, particularly with regard to the merit of his medals and the veracity of his 1971 testimony about the Vietnam war. SBVT's activites are condemned by some as being a partisan effort against John Kerry's U.S. presidential campaign.

It's obviously not NPOV to assert that the group's purpose is "to accurately portray" Kerry's service. If you want to believe that that's their purpose, and that they independently and objectively investigate each witness, and decide to accept the account that they find most credible, and it's just a wild coincidence that on every single point they accept and publicize the anti-Kerry version while not spending one dime of their Republican money to publicize any facts favorable to Kerry, fine, you go right ahead and believe it. On your own time. The article shouldn't say that, any more than it should say that they're a bunch of political smear artists who are out to hurt Kerry in any way they can. JamesMLane 04:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As we have already discussed on other pages, it's not relevant what either of us believe. Rather what's relevant is what the true facts are. In this instance, it is a true fact that SBVT delcares their purpose to be such and such or so and so. It certainly not POV to report a paraphrase of SBVT's self-stated purpose - especially since I have softened the tone to avoid bias. If you oppose including this true fact, you are being inherently POV. In any case, the word "charter" is definately wrong. Read the Brookings Link (see above) Rex071404 04:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, for you to oppose the posting of SBVT's self-stated purpose simply because you believe that self-stated purpose to be a lie, would be the same as me saying that we cannot report Kerry's campaign promises because I think those are lies. Rex071404 04:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't oppose putting their self-state purpose somewhere in the article, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. As to why the first paragraph is superior, I have covered these points earlier in talk. Please refer to my arguements above. --Nysus 12:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem changing "chartered" to "organized." --Nysus 12:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, we report their sanctimonious self-serving claims. We just don't report them in a way that implies endorsement. On a controversial point like this, we have to report both sides fairly. Your version gives much more attention to SBVT's claims. To correct that imbalance would lead to wordiness that's ill-suited to the introductory paragraph. As I thought was clear, my comment was in the context of what should be in the first graf, not what should be anywhere in the article. The introduction can't conveniently get into presenting both sides of the opinion divide and so should present objective facts. Somewhere up above I summarized what I considered proper for the intro as follows:

The key points about SBVT are: group of Viet vets, they attack Kerry re Vietnam, controversy over the substance of their charges, also controversy over their conduct vis-a-vis 527 status. The last point should be in the intro but along the lines of: "The Kerry campaign has also charged that the group has coordinated its efforts with the Bush campaign in violation of campaign finance laws."

Then later in the article there'd be ample space to expound on SBVT's self-presentation as seekers of wisdom and truth, as well as their opponents' characterization of them as sleazy smear artists. And, no, I don't mean that those exact words should be used, both phrases being hyperbole to make my point (a rhetorical technique that I've noticed isn't always understood). JamesMLane 05:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wish to delete these

This article is about SBVT, not about "First-hand accounts" by Kerry supporters. Rex071404 04:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First-Hand Accounts

• "This Is What I Saw That Day" by William Rood, Chicago Tribune, August 22, 2004
• "A Veteran for Truth" - Telluride Daily Planet Letter to the Editor by Swift Boat veteran Jim Russell

These first hand accounts directly contradict SBVT claims and thus are relevant and belong here. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. Both of these are from men who wrote explicitly because they were upset with some aspects of the SBVT charges. They surely have as much role here as Schatche.

In that spirit, you might add the Schatche & Zaladonis interviews to the section, and any others you have. I suppose the name of the section might have to be adjusted slightly to avoid implying as factually endorsed by wiki either Schatche or Zaladonis (since they differ). Keep in mind that the idea of this section is lengthy first-hand descriptions of events, not just a paragraph or two from an article or interview. In other words, let's avoid linking to every article where Thurlow says 'no fire' and Rassman replies 'yes there was'. Wolfman 05:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possible bifurcation of article

Rex wants to delete links to the eyewitness information that contradicts SBVT's charges, on the ground that the article is about SBVT. One possibility would be to follow that approach to its logical conclusion. This article would be about SBVT itself, as an organization. The article would cover (in terms of sections as I write this) the current 1. Membership, 2. Media activities, parts of 4. Controversy (4.2 Connections with Republicans, 4.3 Connections with the Bush campaign, and 4.4 FEC complaints), and some of the external links. It would have only a terse summary of the substance of SBVT's allegations and of the responses thereto, followed by a link to the sibling article, on the controversy about Kerry's service. That article would have the recounting of the he-said-this-but-they-said-that-and-the-file-says-the-other-thing kind of disputation. These two articles would link to each other, and the John Kerry article would link to both.

This arrangement would clearly be superior if SBVT were likely to be an ongoing organization that would get involved in other controversies, which might similarly be spun off. My guess, though, is that SBVT will pretty much go inactive after the election. Therefore, the issue is whether splitting the stuff up this way would help the reader when there's only one major substantive controversy. Some readers presumably don't care about what section 527 allows and want only to get all the information they can about what Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam. Others, I assume, don't see much contemporary relevance to knowing whether a particular piece of shrapnel came from the Viet Cong or from Kerry's own shot, but want to know more about an organization they'd never heard of before and which has suddenly become prominent. Both groups would be served by the division.

As long as this is the article where the evidence supporting SBVT's charges is presented, though, it must also be the article where the evidence undercutting those charges is presented. JamesMLane 04:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do we really need to discuss this at all? This is silly just on the face of it. Refutaions of SBVT claims are critical pieces of information about the organization. If every article just contained good things or claims only from the subjects of the article, then this would be a collection of press releases, not an encyclopedia. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I certainly don't mean that this article would recount, in loving detail, all of SBVT's charges against Kerry, with quotations from supporting witnesses, while ignoring the refutations. I mean that all that stuff, the support and the refutations, would be moved. This article would have the stuff that relates strictly to the organization itself, along with something along the lines of: "SBVT has charged that Kerry lied about his service in Vietnam and that some of his medals were undeserved. Kerry and his defenders have disputed these charges. For a discussion of the documents and eyewitness accounts relied on by each side, see [[John Kerry Vietnam service controversy]]." JamesMLane 05:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please make a sub-page showing your new proposed layout. If it looks right, I might be willing to accept it. I am wary though, of making an changes that amplify the pro-Kerry / anti-SBVT tone which I have already complained about. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:51, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My understanding:

You wish to make 'Allegations and Evidence' a separate article, leaving the rest essentially as is. And moving the first-hand accounts possibly with some of the other links to the 'Allegations' article.

Is that correct? That might be acceptable to me, I'd need to see a rough mock-up.

How are we to prevent detail creep about allegations and evidence from re-infecting the main article? I think we would need to agree to refer to the allegations in the main page only in very general terms. And any allegations referenced need to be consistent with what is on the allegations page. For example, no mention of 'self-inflicted wound' on the main page, just 'first PH questioned' (if anything). Wolfman 05:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I strongly oppose. I prefer that all information stay on one page and be better organized. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well then, I guess it's moot as this was intended as a compromise with Rex. Or was someone else advocating for this too? Wolfman 06:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggested it primarily as a compromise with Rex. Obviously, the primary material refuting the SBVT claims is worth reporting, and if there's to be no separate "controversy" article, then it all belongs here. Bifurcation would have some advantages, besides trying to accommodate Rex, but unless everyone else wants to do it, it's probably not worth the hours upon hours of user time it would take, in terms of Rex's reverts, complaints, tendentious edit summaries, amendments to the ArbCom counter-complaints, etc. JamesMLane 13:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How many are still alive ?

This: "Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam" is misleading. It falsely implies a) all of them were asked to sign-on, and b) all of them are still alive. More relevant is how many are still alive and how many were asked to sign-on. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How do you propose it be changed? --Nysus 06:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note that I would assume that the reader has half a brain and, like you, would take the facts you point out into consideration. --Nysus 06:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's just no way of knowing how many are alive. How about 250 signed as one sentence. In another, to give context, note that there were 3500 who served. Otherwise, people have absolutely no idea what the relevant population is. Wolfman 06:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there are some links which keep a tally - I will look. Also, where did the 3,500 number come from? How do we know that's correct? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif Read this]] 06:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please note that some of the signers are not SwiftVets and some of the signers are widows of SwiftVets on their behalf. If you want to dig into this detail, you need to deal with those issued. Let's get it right if we're going to fool with it. I have no idea where 3500 came from, but I would speculate that it's from the SBVT webpage.Wolfman 07:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I looked that up and that number is mentioned in a USA Today article: [4]

Someone edited in a challenge to the signatures, from which I removed some inflammatory rhetoric. The current phrasing is copied below:

Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam, the names of some 250 appear on the group's statement against Kerry. However, a number of veterans whose names appear on the letter deny ever giving permission for their names to appear and allege that SBVT has not removed their names upon request. [5]. Wolfman 18:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph with Schachte's Account of Mission

Note: I archived a bunch of stuff that is moot since anon ip has quit. However, this paricular issue is still very much on the table, so I retrieved it. Sorry for the screwups, if anyone was on here at the time. Wolfman 19:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm planning to add the following paragraph summarizing Schachte's account of the incident after the paragraph introducing Schachte. Please record you objections below.

At the time of the incident, Schachte was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. As operations officer, Schachte had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. The skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. According to Schachte, Kerry accompanied him as a volunteer on his last skimmer mission. During the mission he and Kerry briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or other indication of enemy contact. According to Schachte, Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

(Please don't edit the above.) 63.224.35.238 00:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In Unfit for Command, O'Neill claims that Kerry and Schachte were on the skimmer together, using the call signs "Robin" and "Batman" respectively. I believe Schachte has said this too. But an article in the Boston Globe from June last year [6], for which Schachte was interviewed, claims that those call signs were used for the skimmer ("Batman") and its larger support craft ("Robin"). All accounts seem to say that there were just three sailors on the skimmer, and I also read some accounts that said the skimmer was crewed by Kerry, Schachte and an enlisted man. So, if Schachte is telling the truth then when they say Schachte was not there either Bill Zaladonis or Patrick Runyon or both are lying about having been on the skimmer themselves. 172.185.110.115 02:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Schachte is an Admiral for gosh sakes. Doesn't this give him any credibility with you? Rex071404 03:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not any more credibility than anybody else. -khaosworks 03:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then I guess Kerry has no more credibility than Bush, does he...? Rex071404 03:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Got it in one. Nobody starts from a privileged position. We go by the evidence from that point on. -khaosworks 03:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attn: khaosworks; On the John Kerry Talk Page, you recently said this: "Actualy, the New York Post (not the Times) is a tabloid with very plain Republican leanings, and the Washington Times (not the Post) is also right-leaning. Helen Thomas resigned from UPI after it was bought by News World Communication, who publish the WT. As an aside, News World was founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Not saying anything about this one way or another, just FYI when it comes to credibility and possible bias. --khaosworks 06:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)". How does this sqaure with your contention that the Admiral should not be afforded credibility? It seems that you do in fact input more credibility onto certain persons. so then, why do you deny now? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think S is probably confused, not a liar. But Admirals can lie: John Poindexter. Wolfman 04:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True, but lies usually occur when someone has "a dog in the fight". In this instance it's clear that Schachte does not. On the other hand, Kerry does. And that's why Kerry has his surrogates out there lying for him. Rex071404 07:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Schachte does not? He's been a contributor to the Bush campaign for 2000 and 2004. -khaosworks 07:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They're not necessarily lying. They may just be confused. It was a long time ago. They may have somehow gotten the idea they were there, and then filled in some vague memories with details from Kerry's account. (Kerry doesn't mention Schachte either, and it's hard to believe he could have forgotten.) But obviously, if Schachte is right, and he really was there, the Kerry/Zaladonis/Runyon version has a big problem. 63.224.35.238 03:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here again, we don't need to spoon-feed the reader to support an anti-Kerry position. The current version of the article reports Schachte's rank. If any particular reader thinks that's relevant to Schachte's credibility, fine, we've provided the information. Whether we think it gives Schachte any credibility is irrelevant. JamesMLane 03:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we please confine the discussion here to objections to the proposed paragraph? So far, we have none. Anyone else? 63.224.35.238 04:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. The skimmer crew always included two officers. apparently not, assumes R&Z are wrong
2. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. again assumes account, also did these cease when S left?
3. but there was no hostile return fire or other indication of enemy contact. assumes account, should be according to S

Basically, all of this needs to be clearly marked as Schatche's account. Right now, it sounds like we are endorsing this as established fact.

Also, you seem rather insistent on demanding responses in a short time. People have lives. You might just have to wait a day. Wolfman 04:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Wolfman and add the questions that I was writing while he posted his comment. First, what's the source for the stuff about Schachte's role in devising the plan? Second, and more important, what's the reason to include that information here rather than in the article on William Schachte? If, as someone stated above, Schachte isn't an SBVT member, then his role in setting Navy tactics in Vietnam doesn't seem relevant to the SBVT article. (Actually, even if he were a member, I'd have trouble seeing the relevance.) JamesMLane 04:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look. This is Schachte's account. I thought that was clear, but I guess not. And you're quite correct, it's inconsistent with the story told by Kerry et al. That's the whole point. Don't worry, I will include a paragraph giving Kerry's story for comparison. I'll be happy to add whatever qualifying language you think is needed here to make the source clear. What do you suggest? This section concerns the factual basis for the allegations by the SBVT concerning Kerry's 1st Purple Heart. Schachte is their key witness. His role in the 'swift ops' mission is very relevant to his account. I was just encouraging responses, not demanding them. You think I didn't know you'd have to object to SOMETHING? :-) 63.224.35.238 05:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the April 2003 Globe interview Schachte is said to have described the action as a "firefight" and to have said that Kerry "got hit". This needs to be mentioned, as it does not square with your phrasing in the paragraph of 'no hostile return fire'. You can give the current version, but the discrepancy needs to be somehow noted -- goes to memory (not veracity).Wolfman 05:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's try this:

At the time of the incident, Schachte was the second-in-command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. Schachte states that he went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total, with Kerry accompanying him on his last one. According to Schachte, during the mission they briefly opened fire at signs of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or indication of enemy contact. However, in an interview with the Boston Globe in April 2003, Schachte described the incident as a "firefight" and said Kerry " got hit", but not seriously. [7] Schachte now claims Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

-khaosworks 05:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Or how about this:

At the time of the incident, Schachte was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. Schachte has said that as operations officer, he had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. According to Schachte, skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte has said he himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. According to Schachte, Kerry accompanied him as a volunteer on his last skimmer mission. Schachte has said that during the mission he and Kerry briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or other indication of enemy contact. According to Schachte, Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

I think we should put the Boston Globe interview in a separate paragraph. 63.224.35.238 05:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why is Schachte's saying that he devised tactics relevant, or that Kerry followed him as a volunteer? I grant you that the "two officers" mention might be relevant, but I'd still consider it tenuous. Also, language needs work - too many "According tos" - it's just not good writing. You can use more concise language and still not sacrifice the substance. The 2003 Boston Globe interview is only directly relevant here because of his contradicting himself. Again, I must voice concern about detail creep. Stick to the essentials. -khaosworks 06:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, how about this:

Schachte has given the following account: At the time of the incident, he was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. As operations officer, Schachte had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. Skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. Kerry accompanied him on his last skimmer mission. During the mission they briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no return fire or other indication of enemy contact. Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to them.

63.224.35.238 06:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Still having that irrelevant reference to tactics, which you have not explained why is necessary to begin with. Tell me why. Who knows, I might be persuaded. Ditto Boston Globe issue. Qualifier at the top of the paragraph is usually forgotten by the time the reader wades through the detail, and it still looks like his claims are phrased as statements of fact. As per JamesMLane below, moving this discussion to his sandbox section. -khaosworks 13:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm having trouble keeping track of all these different versions. In an effort to facilitate the editing process, I've set up a sandbox at User:JamesMLane/Schachte section. People can do actual edits there, making it easier to see what change is proposed, and the discussion can proceed at User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section, so it won't get lost on this talk page as other issues come up and/or the page (now at 89kb) is archived. I notice that the earlier sandbox tried to combine proposed text and discussion on one page, which I think is a big mistake.

I've begun that sandbox talk page by explaining my first draft (the initial sandbox text). It incorporates ideas from various versions above, plus some stuff I added. JamesMLane 10:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

James, this is my proposed edit, and I'd prefer to keep the discussion here. Thanks. 63.224.35.238 14:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The point about Schachte inventing the technique is that it explains why he was familiar with its operational requirements, such as having two officers aboard the skimmer. The latter point is important because it is inconsistent with the account by Kerry et al. The Globe item will go in a paragraph following Schachte's account, which may also include reference to the witnesses indicating that Schachte told his current version of the story in 1968. I believe it will be clear in context that the entire paragraph is Schachte's account. 63.224.35.238 14:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Write up proposed drafts for both paragraphs mentioned for discussion, please. -khaosworks 15:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is my current planned addition:

Schachte has given the following account: At the time of the incident, he was second in command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. As operations officer, Schachte had devised a novel tactical operation called 'skimmer ops', in which a small three-man boat was used to flush out enemy forces for attack by swift boats or aircraft standing by. Skimmer crew always included two officers. Schachte himself went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total. Kerry accompanied him on his last skimmer mission. During the mission they briefly opened fire at a sign of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no return fire or other indication of enemy contact. Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

Discussion of subsequent paragraphs will follow in new section. Any remaining objections to this one? 63.224.35.238 15:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Khaosworks has proposed an entirely satisfactory paragraph above. It contains all the important facts, it phrases them fairly and neutrally, it is concise. I support K's proposed paragraph as it stands. Does anyone have an objection to K's version as the final draft? If so, please provide reasons. I copy his paragraph below for reference. Wolfman 15:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the time of the incident, Schachte was the second-in-command of Coastal Division 14, where Kerry was training as a swiftboat captain. Schachte states that he went on the skimmer for most or all of the missions, about nine in total, with Kerry accompanying him on his last one. According to Schachte, during the mission they briefly opened fire at signs of movement thought to be guerillas, but there was no hostile return fire or indication of enemy contact. However, in an interview with the Boston Globe in April 2003, Schachte described the incident as a "firefight" and said Kerry " got hit", but not seriously. [8] Schachte now claims Kerry nicked himself with a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher that he fired too close to the boat.

My objections to your proposal:

1. does not mention Schachte's invention of skimmer ops
2. does not describe skimmer ops
3. does not mention two officers on skimmer ops
4. disrupts narrative with Globe reference
5. Implies Schachte has changed account

Please state your objections to my current version. 63.224.35.238 15:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the 'two officers' point of the S account is relevant. I fail to see how his supposed invention of the technique or the precise details of the technique have any relevance. How is it disruptive to quote what the good man has said? It implies nothing, it simply factually states what the man has said; there is no leading wording here. It's up for the reader to decide the significance of that. My objections to your version are implicit in my response here. Wolfman 16:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To clarify:

1. goes to Schachte's memory and authority re skimmer ops
2. gives reader basic idea (not precise details) of what was involved
3. agreed
4. disrupts narrative of events in 1968; will come later
5. use of "now claims" is leading, given evidence Schachte said same thing in 1968

Please state any new objections to my last version. 63.224.35.238 16:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anon, please state any objections to my last version, at User:JamesMLane/Schachte section. If for some reason you don't want to use User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section, then state your objections here. By the way, your comment above suggests that you see a degree of ownership in writing that isn't present in Wikipedia. Your attitude seems to be, "I was the one who proposed inserting more detail about Schachte, therefore all discussion of that idea must use my draft as a base, and must take place in the format and forum I prefer." If that is your attitude, you're totally mistaken. If I've misinterpreted you, then I'd be glad to hear your recognition that the concept of "my proposed edit" doesn't give you any particular rights. (One exception is that we sometimes hone two or three separate versions and then poll participants. That's used comparatively seldom, however.) The bottom line is that I have as much right to demand to hear your objections as you have to demand to hear mine.

As for my objections to your proposal:

• I still don't consider Schachte's claim to have invented the technique to be relevant.
• Although it begins with an intro identifying it as Schachte's claim, and so is technically correct, I think it would be confusing to many readers. By the time you get to the end of the paragraph, a lot of people would have lost track of that point. They'd think they were reading established fact, not recognizing that the introductory attributory sentence was intended to pick up everything thereafter. My version and that by khaosworks are clearer on this point.
• Omission of the Globe reference. One of your stated objections to khaosworks's version is "Implies Schachte has changed account", but based on the Globe story, I think he has changed his account. Now, someone else may argue that he used the term "firefight" loosely in 2003. For that reason, it wouldn't be NPOV for the article to state that he had changed his account. The correct NPOV approach is to provide the facts, in this instance the key quotations from what he told the Globe. I'm not aware of any contemporaneous claim by Schachte (i.e. at the time of the publication of the Globe story) that he was misquoted.
• Your version says there was "movement thought to be guerillas". There's no need to use the passive voice here. Schachte's story is that he himself was in command, that he thought there were enemies moving on shore, that he fired a flare to confirm, that what he saw with the aid of the flare confirmed his impression, that he as the commanding officer thereupon opened fire, and that Kerry joined in after he began firing. I don't think we need that much detail but we don't need to leave open the possibility that Schachte was coolly and level-headedly conducting the mission and then a panicky Kerry suddenly started blasting away at a bird or something. Given that the presence or absence of enemies is one of the major points in dispute, the article should report Schachte's position, which is that he thought there were enemies there. (What he says is that he saw movement and that anyone moving in that area had to be an enemy. He doesn't expressly say it was a designated free-fire zone but that's my guess.)
• Omission of Schachte's record of financial contributions to Bush.
• Omission of clarification re Gardner, as I explained on User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section.
• One big objection I have to your version, khaosworks's and my own is the failure to give a good explanation of how this bickering about the particulars of one minor incident relates to the substance of SBVT's attack on Kerry. I'm leaning toward agreeing with khaosworks that a reorganization is necessary. JamesMLane 18:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

James, I created this Talk section to allow people to record their objections to my proposed addition. If people wish to proposed there own versions elsewhere, that's fine. Some of your complaints seem to be about omissions which I suspect I'll find reasonable, but should go in separate paragraphs. This Talk section is reviewing my proposed paragraph summarizing the first part of Schachte's account. There will be additional paragraphs to complete the account. There was a previous paragraph to introduce Schachte, which is discussed in another Talk section, above. The points you raise will go in subsequent paragraphs, that we will get to. (At least, I thought we would, eventually. Now I don't know.) Please limit your comments here to specific objections to the paragraph I've proposed. Also, don't worry about minor things like passive voice. Those minor corrections can just be edited in place. I don't assert any right of ownership. Why do you think I'm putting my proposal here and asking for comments rather than just editing it in? I'm trying to get a consensus here. 63.224.35.238 19:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

In response to 63.224.35.238: You, understandably, go to pains to say 'according to Schachte' in the last two sentences. However, earlier in the section, in the sentences Wolfman objected to, you don't. This has the effect of making Schachte's claims about there always being two officers, and about he himself always going (that has to be false, unless there were only nine such missions) appear to be the undisputed truth. And we should definitely present Schachte's two versions of the event in the same paragraph. The mention of the Globe interview [9] doesn't need to be long, it just needs to note that Schachte has previously said things that appear to contradict his current statement, and certainly contradict SBVT's claims. I also think the other Globe article [10] is important or at the least that it should be mentioned that according to that account and other accounts there was a support boat and the call signs that SBVT assign to Kerry and Schachte were assigned to the skimmer and the support boat. Schachte and the details about the mission are all being used to support SBVT's claims, but Schachte's previous description of events contradicts those claims, as do other details about the mission. 172.189.188.120 20:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Issue

This is to announce my plan to add an NPOV tag at the beginning of the SBVT article. It should not be construed as a criticism of the intentions or efforts of the current editors. It simply indicates the fact that some reviewers believe the article has not yet achieved an acceptable NPOV. This will alert readers to the concern, and hopefully encourage other editors to join the collaboration to help correct the problem.

I believe the lack of NPOV in the article will be evident to an informed editor. The general problem is a lack of balance due to omission of relevant information. My immediate concern is that the discussion of the SBVT allegations and evidence with regard to John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart is inadequate. For details, review my repeated unsuccessful attempts to correct this problem as documented in the Talk archives.

If anyone objects to my adding the NPOV tag, please so state. Anonip 20:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please state below, as required by policy, the specific missing information or other concern with the article itself (and not the process) that leads to your use of the NPOV tag. Wolfman 20:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have stated my concerns, immediately above. Anonip 20:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I object, based on not knowing what relevant information is allegedly being omitted. Under this user name you have no "repeated unsuccessful attempts" to do anything. Are you the artist formerly known as 63.224.35.238? If so, please bear in mind that most people don't object to including things like Schachte's claim that there were always two officers in the skimer, contrary to what Zaladonis and Runyon say. It would help if you could distill the voluminous discussion to list the specific factual points that you think are "relevant information" and that no one else will agree to include. JamesMLane 20:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, I'm sorry. I should have indicated that the specific details I'm referring to were discussed by me previously using the anonymous ip id 63.224.35.238. Anonip 20:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'd guessed that. The bigger problem is that all those comments are scattered across many kb of talk, much of which is now archived. Even if your prior comments were all as a logged-in user, you wouldn't really be providing proper support for your proposed NPOV tag just by pointing generally in that direction. Offhand I can think of two specific pieces of information that you wanted to include: Schachte's claim to have invented the technique, and his statement that there were always two officers. I thought we were in the process of discussing those points, along with the concern about information that some of us consider relevant but that isn't in your draft, such as the Globe report and Schachte's donations to Bush. If we were to adopt the version at User:JamesMLane/Schachte section, would you insert the NPOV tag? If so, can you provide a numbered or bulleted list of the specific items that support your charge of "omission of relevant information" and that aren't in that version? JamesMLane 21:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, The NPOV tag does not indicate that the article is not NPOV. It simply indicates that the question of whether the article is or is not NPOV is the subject of a non-frivolous dispute. I believe that is clearly the case here. Unless my concerns are completely frivolous, including the NPOV tag is justified. Is it necessary to devote more time to the tag question, or can we move on to the substantive issues? Anonip 21:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

AnonIP, you wish to move on to "substantive issues", are your (unspecified) complaints leading to the NPOV tag not substantive? If they are substantive, please enumerate them. Pointing in the direction of an incredibly lengthy discussion is not very specific. Wolfman 22:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I support the addition of the NPOV tag [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 22:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, on what specific grounds. Of the 6 grounds you previously specified, I believe that all have been rectified. Am I mistaken? What further specific objections do you have? Wolfman 22:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me try to explain again: This article, as it now stands, offends my sense of proportion and balcance. It does not read well, it does not feel right. It's too harsh, it's too riddled with points and counter-points. And for an article about SBVT, it has too much anti-SBVT mixed in - the anti-stuff should all be listed at the end, point by point. As currently comprised, with a counter-point after each SBVT point, it sounds like pro-Kerry talking point training guide. I am very displeased with the tone and tone is the hardest thing to nail down. It is patently unfair for you to insist that I "justify" my request for the NPOV notice. I have been trying that for days. And yet, the article still lacks the NPOV notice. Having said that, I am now going to turn it around: I insist that the notice objecters demonstrate that the mere presence of the notice so affects the article as to make it unsustainable. If you can't show that, your objections to the NPOV notice is without merit. I am re-inserting the notice. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 23:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you can insist on anything you please, and your insistence will be taken seriously by all the editors who consider you a serious contributor. I note that, in adding the tag, you've given an edit summary stating that you were doing so "per talk dialog". Of course, if the change at issue (the addition of the tag) were one you opposed, you'd be promptly reverting it with some such comment as "Leave it be until the dialog is complete, please!" JamesMLane 00:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, the immediate question is whether there is any objection to me adding the NPOV tag while we work to resolve my concerns. Anonip 23:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When you first asked that question, I responded: "I object, based on not knowing what relevant information is allegedly being omitted." I was referring to your statement, "The general problem is a lack of balance due to omission of relevant information." Your response to my request for elaboration of that statement has not satisfied me, for the reasons I've already explained. My objection stands. JamesMLane 23:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said. Me too :)Wolfman 23:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Me three. That being said, I'm going to go quiet for a while because I'll be away for the weekend in Boston for Worldcon. Have fun, play nice, and hopefully this place is still standing when I come back Monday. -khaosworks 03:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman and James, First let me share with you some of my thoughts concerning the NPOV tag:

1. The main concern of all editors should be the quality of the article, including NPOV
2. The NPOV tag does not indicate that an article is not NPOV. It simply indicates that the question of whether the article is or is not NPOV is the subject of a non-frivolous dispute.
3. If an article is not NPOV and lacks the NPOV tag, there is significant harm because the reader is not warned of the problem and editors are not encouraged to correct it. However, if the article is NPOV and still includes the NPOV tag, the harm is comparatively small because the NPOV warning is merely cautionary. Therefore, the general rule should be: when in doubt, leave it in.
4. All editors have an obligation to respect other editors' good-faith NPOV concerns, especially those of other editors who do not share their personal POV. Therefore objections to including the NPOV tag should be expected only in cases of clear abuse.
5. For articles on controversial contemporary subjects, good-faith NPOV concerns are likely to be common because of the frequent addition of new material. For such articles, including the NPOV tag for extended periods can be expected be the norm.
6. In such cases, extended debate about including the NPOV tag is counterproductive, and should be avoided.

In my statement above I indicated that I have extensive NPOV concerns about the article as a whole and about the discussion of the 1st Purple Heart issue in particular. I made reference to the first several of my specific concerns, which I have already raised on the Talk page, and which are already under discussion, but have not been resolved. My experience here indicates that the process of resolution may be lengthy. As indicated, I also have additional concerns for which I will provide the specifics in due course. While these issues are being resolved, a dispute as to the NPOV of the article clearly exists, and I believe that including the NPOV tag is appropriate. I will therefore respectfully ask you to withdraw your objections.

Pardon me if I seem to be pulling rank, but I've been involved with Wikipedia longer than you have, and my experience doesn't support your view about what's the norm. Most people don't regard the tag as casually as you seem to. Beyond that, I really don't understand your approach. You asked if there were any objections. We explained why we thought the addition of the tag had not been justified. Without addressing our objections, you now ask us to withdraw them. It's my belief that the addition of the tag, on the current state of the discussion, would be bad faith, but I'm not likely to start an ArbCom proceeding over it or anything. Instead of spending a lot of time debating whether the tag is justified, I would rather spend the time working on specific proposed edits that are offered to improve the article's neutrality. JamesMLane 00:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, Thanks for your willingness to withdraw your objection to including the NPOV tag. If Wolfman will withdraw his objection also, and if there are no other objections, we can procede. The understanding will be that the NPOV tag will remain in place until there is general agreement that an acceptable NPOV has been achieved. Anonip 02:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did JML withdraw his objection? Perhaps I am not reading closely enough, but it does not seem so. Regardless, I object to the NPOV tag as well. The article seems fair and balanced to me. I see no substantive objections other than Rex's nebulous claim about "tone" and his demand that the SBVT side of the case be presented without the pesky interjection of conflicting facts until the end of the article. Rex cries "bias" about every ten minutes anyway, so I'm more interested in what your specific, substantive objections are beyond pointing back to archived talk. I second JML's call for a list. This I think would be more valuable to the present discussion than your thoughts on the NPOV tag. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 02:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your last statement. You said, "Instead of spending a lot of time debating whether the tag is justified, I would rather spend the time working on specific proposed edits that are offered to improve the article's neutrality." I understood this to mean that you were willing to withdraw your objection. Can you please indicate whether you are indeed willing to do so? Anonip 02:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I, in turn, apologize for not being clear. I'm not withdrawing my objection. My point was that, instead of having the kind of conversation that we're now having, a more useful approach to your charge of omissions would be for you to identify the omissions that lead you to favor the tag. You could do so with reference to the current article, or with reference to the version I put in a sandbox (User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section), or with reference to one of the other versions set forth in the foregoing talk. JamesMLane 03:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, Wolfman and Gamaliel: I believe that Rex and I have provided more that sufficient evidence to establish that there is in fact a bona fide NPOV dispute concerning the SBVT article, and that including the NPOV tag is therefore justified, and that your continued objection to including the NPOV tag is without a reasonable basis. I know that Rex has already included the NPOV tag, and I appreciate the fact that you have thus far refrained from reverting it. However, I believe it is important that we resolve this issue now, with your agreement, so that we can put it behind us and move on to deal with the substantive issues. I therefore ask you to please reconsider my respectful request to withdraw your objections to including the NPOV tag. Anonip 03:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the tag on the basis that no justification has been provided in accordance with wiki policy. Please provide specific examples of POV as requested by multiple editors. Failure to justify an NPOV tag with a single specific example of alleged POV after repeated requests to do so by multiple editors is clearly bad faith.Wolfman 05:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, please cite the specific wiki policy upon which you rely in taking this action. I would remind you that I have clearly indicated that I have extensive NPOV concerns about the article as a whole and about the discussion of the 1st Purple Heart issue in particular, and I have referred you to the first several of my specific concerns, which I have already raised on the Talk page, and which are already under discussion, but have not yet been resolved, and of which you personally are well aware. I have advised you that I have additional concerns as well for which I will provide further specifics in due course. There is clearly no reasonable basis for denying that a NPOV dispute exists regarding this article, which fully justifies including the NPOV tag. Please explain your reasons for not accepting my NPOV concerns in good faith. Anonip 06:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Please explain your reasons for not accepting my NPOV concerns in good faith." Well, for starters, you haven't stated what the precise concern is. Please give at least one concrete example of POV in the article. That way, perhaps we can just rectify it without slapping on a tag, just as we fixed Rex's specific concerns. NPOV is not some toy to be tossed around lightly, its presence impugns the reputation of wikipedia. You have a responsibility to in good faith point out specific instances before slapping on that tag. "I will provide further specifics in due course" doesn't cut it, especially when you haven't provided any specifics yet.

Please, just list below one single specific instance of POV in the article as it now stands. Is that really too much to ask? Wolfman 06:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, here is your answer: The continued meddling and modification by you and JML of bascially each and every edit by me and AnonIP. That and the overall tone - as has been explained several times, but which keeps disapearing due to archiving. I could supply other reasons, but you asked for just one. Even so, I gave you two. PS: the NPOV tag as been restored. Now you must justify why you say the article is already wonderfully NPOV, or else you are not showing good faith yourself. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 08:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, Please review the points I enumerated above concerning the NPOV tag. I believe that the absence of a NPOV tag in an article which many readers will instantly recognize as lacking NPOV will do far more damage to the reputation of wikipedia than including the tag unneccesarily in an article that has a satisfactory NPOV. Next please reread my previous message. You should not require any additional information in order to accept that a NPOV dispute exists and agree to adding the NPOV tag. If it helps you, James mentioned one of my specific issues in his first message on this topic. I am sure you will recognize it. But I can assure you that there is simply no possibility that the extensive NPOV problems with this article can be fixed one by one in a timely manner. The evident difficulty in getting your agreement to something as simple and obviously justified as including the NPOV tag suggests that the resolution of my substantive NPOV concerns will be a very lengthy process. If you continue to act in an unreasonable manner, it will likely be impossible. There is simply no reason for any further delay in adding the NPOV tag. You are mistaken if you believe that having me specify one particular concern, that you then quickly fix, will allow you to prolong the debate about the NPOV tag. We have wasted far too much time on this matter already. If you really believe that some technicality of wiki policy justifies your refusal to agree to adding the NPOV tag, please cite it specifically, now. It is time to move on. And again I respectfully ask you to withdraw your objection so we can do so. Anonip 08:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is another one POV issue: Wolfman "snipped" my Gardner quote and left this edit summary: "snip Gardner down to relevant part, symmetric with other quotes, that's fair as we do not give full quotes or details of other men, plus move exception to mid-sentence - not central". Frankly, I do not agree that he should be unilaterally deciding how long a quote I insert can be. And, I never asked him to use such abbreviated quotes yourself and I don't agree that simply because he inserts short quotes, so must I. Also, it was only after this method of Wolfman's/JML's against my Gardner quote failed that they went to the other (back-up?) method of saying "duplicate" without even allowing me to address that - which in fact, I have done nicely. I am operating in good faith here - look at the fine 1st paragraph I came up with that none now seem to have a problem with. I think we can do this on other parts too, but I need Wolfman and JML to stop "snipping" my edits so abruptly and with so little discussion with me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 08:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Gardner quote, stated in the third ad, belongs in the section entitled "Third Advertisement." It makes more logical sense for it to be there. If people want full text of quotes, they can easily read transcript or watch video. The point is to be concise without taking the quote out of context. This is an encyclopedia article. --Nysus 13:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman and others, I believe I have made every reasonable effort to obtain your cooperation in this matter. Your continued refusal to withdraw your unreasonable objections compels me to proceed without your agreement, which I regret. But I am unwilling to allow your obstinacy to obstruct progress any longer. I intend to move forward to begin addressing the many specific concerns I have with the content of this article. I must advise you that if you subsequently remove the NPOV tag without first giving a reasonable justification and seeking general consent, I will regard it an act of bad faith and react accordingly.

I have added a section at the top of the Talk page explaining briefly why the NPOV tag is here, and another section with a very incomplete list of needed improvements. Going forward I hope that it will be possible for us to collaborate productively in improving the quality of this article. I must tell you that your persistent unwillingness to cooperate in such a simple matter as agreeing to include the NPOV tag, when clearly justified, greatly reduces my confidence in your ability to act responsibly in resolving my substantive concerns. But I sincerely hope that my doubts in this regard will prove unfounded. Let's all try to cooperate more effectively as we move on. I do believe that acting as a team we can produce an article with a NPOV acceptable to all. Anonip 12:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recent additions

There are 2 recent additions to the page that I question.

1. Paragraph on Regnery. Most of this detail should go in a wikilink to Regnery. How is Regnery's appalling record of publishing white supremacist screeds relevant?
2. Schachte in ties to Republicans. Schachte is not a member of SBVT. It is true he is an important witness. If his ties to Republicans are deemed of potential interest to the reader, they should be mentioned near his testimony. Otherwise, they should go in the wikilink. Personally, I don't find them terribly relevant. A couple thousand buck donation is just chump-change to a guy like Schachte. I think all it shows is that he generally supports Bush, and to me that's not enough to really impeach his credibility. Others may differ though. Wolfman 23:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I differ on the contributions. Schachte's contributions to Bush should be reported, preferably in the section presenting his statements, not in a separate section about SBVT ties to the campaign or to the Republican Party. It doesn't, by itself, impeach his credibility, but it shows one possible motivation. That one of his clients got a contract from the Bush Administration is too remote, though; I would delete that, and also the stuff about Regnery.

While we're cleaning up recent additions, the Gardner quote about Cambodia doesn't deserve to be presented twice, and the statement that he served longer under Kerry than anyone else is, AFAIK, solely his claim. Given that (not surprisingly) people have different recollections of the events of 35 years ago, we shouldn't repeat his unattributed claim as fact unless it's substantiated. The last graf of the "Membership" section should read:

Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner is an SBVT member. All other living members of Kerry's crew support his presidential bid, and some frequently campaign with him. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "pure fabrication" (Jim Rassman), "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky). [11] [12] [13] [14] On the SBVT side, Gardner, who says he served on Kerry's boat longer than any of the others, appeared in one SBVT advertisement in support of the group's charge concerning Cambodia (see below).

So, is this an acceptable package of NPOV improvements -- no Regnery, no federal contract, Gardner quoted only once? JamesMLane 00:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the details of Regnery don't belong here, but they should at least be mentioned and wikilinked. Everything else seems a reasonable compromise. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 01:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If "conservative" is in the firm's self-description, then I agree with you about including that much here. Because you already handled the Regnery part, I've done the rest, deleting the duplicate Gardner quote and the information about the $40 million federal grant to one of Schachte's clients. In addition, it wasn't accurate to say, "The men who served on Kerry's boat, excepting Gardner, have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations...." because it implied that all except Gardner have disputed those accusations; at least one of them is dead. (I don't think the phrase "other living members" from the previous sentence can be assumed to carry over.) I thought it was simpler just to say "Kerry crewmembers", which I think avoids any implication of all Kerry crewmembers.

Neutrality Problems

Here is a partial list of improvements I believe necessary to achieve acceptable NPOV.

• allegations and evidence

• allegations re 1st purple heart

• needs medal and reassignment intro
• needs allegation summary
• schachte acccount

• needs explanation of skimmer ops
• needs schacte invention of skimmer ops
• needs always two officers on board
• needs Hibbard debriefing
• needs objection to PH request

• needs hibbard confirmation
• needs Letson confirmation

• needs allegations re Sampan incident
• needs allegations re war crimes claims
• needs allegations re discarding medals -Already mentioned in article under 4th advertisement

This is of course only a start. There are other problems which must also be addressed, and they will be added in due course. Please feel free to add to the list, but do not delete any items. We will strike items out as we reach agreement that they have been addressed. All editors are encouraged to begin addressing any of these items with edits, insofar as they are willing and able to do so. Anonip 12:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

To be fair to everyone, you shouldn't just say "This is of course only a start. There are other problems which must also be addressed." Please state them up front. --Nysus 12:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One other thing, if you fail to list them up front, I will also rv the NPOV tag. --Nysus 13:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, Your position is competely untenable. The identification of even a single serious NPOV issue justifies including the NPOV tag. There is no reasonable basis for insisting on a complete list (which is impractical in this case). The existence of a bona fide NPOV dispute with respect to this article has already been established. Please refer to the NPOV Issue section above. Continued debate of the NPOV tag is counterproductive. I must advise you that if you remove the NPOV tag without first giving a reasonable justification and seeking general consent, it will be regarded as an act of bad faith. Anonip 13:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC).

Your stated methodology of using the NPOV will create a perpetual NPOV tag. It's quite clear that the you will not accept the article until it is written to your specifications. That is not in good faith. You can't keep trying a man in court until you get a charge that finally sticks. If the above issues about the Purple Heart are resolved, and then you slap another NPOV tag on the article, I will remove it. --Nysus 13:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)