Wikipedia

Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 6

< Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Archives

I have made #'s 4 and 5 today [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 22:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, the entry (formerly) at the top of the Talk page which explains to readers about the NPOV dispute should not be archived. Anonip 22:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? I went back a looked at this page pre-archive [1]. I see no message to which you refer. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 04:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Per the group's concerns, I have deleted some of the links. I am pretty sure I have been fair about that, taking some from both sides, including some of mine from today. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 00:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the issue of proliferating links, let me clarify what I don't believe:
  • I didn't advocate deleting the entire section. I said we could consider trying to prune it. "Prune" does not mean "uproot".
  • I don't agree with what I take to be Rex's implication, in the post immediately above, that the correct NPOV approach is to include (or to exclude) the same number of links on each side of an issue. Instead, in an ideal world, editors would collaborate to decide which links were sufficiently valuable to the reader to merit inclusion. For example, suppose someone holds a press conference to say that, a few years ago, a well-known corporate CEO connived with him to fix prices. That induces someone else to come forward a few days later with a similar story. A few days after that, the Department of Justice announces it's beginning an investigation. Then the accused executive goes on Meet the Press and denies all. These events might produce four separate news stories, three of which are against the executive and only one of which is for him. Wikipedia might nevertheless include those four links if each was worth including. (We wouldn't necessarily include any. Wikipedia is not a collection of links!) Our primary obligation is to give the reader a neutral and informative article, not to follow some artificial numerical formula intended to give the appearance of fairness.
  • Although I just described how the process would work in an ideal world, I don't believe that we live in an ideal world. Under the current circmstances, the project of trying to prune the list of links would be more trouble than it's worth.
Accordingly, I favor making the "External links" section pretty much of a free-fire zone. Let's just let people insert links. We'll draw the line only at misleading descriptions. Adding descriptions should be encouraged. Some readers will regard Human Events as a totally biased rag unworthy of attention, and others will hold the same opinion about the Boston Globe, so it's appropriate that our links to those publications are labeled. JamesMLane 03:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right now, there are 28 links in the links section. These are somewhat reasonably divided along the lines of the two camps of editors here, with a slight lean towards pro-Kerry. That said, I don't have any problems with that section at this time. If no one else does either, I suggest we follow a general rule regarding additions: If or when you add a new link, if possible, delete the weakest of your camp. In other words, if you've been posting pro-Kerry links, remove a PK, if SBVT, remove one of those. Using this rule, we will prevent rapid link creep. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 05:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think James is correct. There's no point in bickering further over this section. It's really a pointless section, with no possiblity of agreement over standards. If it stays in (and I think it shouldn't), free fire it is. That will at least keep it broadly reflective of actual media coverage, albeit lengthy. Wolfman 07:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I plan to keep an eye on things along the lines of what I have outlined. I am not expecting any problems, provided the entire link section is not deleted. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 07:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Plan what you will. I did not delete your links. I'll ask you not to delete mine. Wolfman 07:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've added some additional links to balance Wolfman's links from tonight. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 09:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ditto Wolfman 16:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is my strong opining that Satire/Opinion links have no place in this article. I will remove them until this is discussed. Apparently, an editor insists on including such links because other editors on other articles have included them in other articles. But I refuse to let some petty turf battle going on in some other article spill over into this one. Until Satire/parody links are discussed with a reasoned approach here, I will continue to rv their addition. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The good reason is: editorial consistancy between articles. Also, please do not characterize my comments as pertaining to "petty turf battles". The other article in question was Axis of evil and is a substanative article about President Bush's elucidation of the concepts of a list of roque states. And, because Bush and Kerry are locked in a campaign struggle, it is vitally important that we not exclude parody against one, when we allow it against the other. My position on this other page was that parody did not belong. However, I was forced into allowing it, if done tastefully. Nysus, you will need to either visit that other page and get up to speed on the dialog betwen Gamailel, JamesMLane and myself on this, or else you will be handicapped in the discusssion. Personally, I agree that in most serious articles, most of the time, "satire / parody" could be left out without undo harm to the aricle. However, on the topic of "parody" inclusion, I am up against what I see as another burst of the pervasive pro-Kerry/anti-Bush bias which I have referred to from time to time. Even so, unless and until I get agreement from those other two editors, I am going to have to enforce the editorial consistancy myself. The satire/parody links are going back in and are staying in, at least until Gamaliel and JamesMLane speak on the matter too. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 16:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What happens in the Axis of evil article should stay in the Axix of evil article. I'm not editing that article and have no interest in editing that aritlce. I have an interest in editing this article and maintaining its integrity. Again, your inclusion of these links is controversial. Therefore, before you add them, we should try coming to a consensus here first. I'm interested in hearing JML's and Gamailel reasons for including them. If they are good reasons or I am outvoted, then they should be added. Until that time, they should be left out because they are in dispute and should be talked out first. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I mention this other article to point out that there are editors from there who are also here and who have already taken a strong Wiki policy based position on the inclusion/exclusion of links. Because I have informed you of that, your refusal to wait until they check in here so they can add their input, is clearly not good on your part. JamesMLane especially, checks in here often - you need to be more patient. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 17:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with removing Satire as part of a package rollback. The parodies are interesting links, no doubt. But Wikipedia is not a collection of links. So the function of any link should be to enhance the readers understanding of the issue by linking to pertinent material or alternative sites not elsewhere referenced in the article. It is my view that the 'News', 'Editorial', and 'Satire' sections do not serve this function, and should be removed entirely. In fact, I would propose the following be the entirety of the External Links section. Note that FactCheck is nonpartisan, equally ruthless acrosss the political spectrum. But, I would be ok with moving FactCheck links into the text of the appropriate sections. Comments solicited.

Proposed External Links Section

First-hand accounts

SBVT and Kerry campaign pages

FactCheck Analysis

Copied Rex's comment (below) to here - Wolfman.
As stated earlier, any attempts to gut the links section will be opposed by me. Wolfman, it was you and your cohorts who initiated this issue by originally packing the links section with pro-Kerry ones. Suffice it to say, I made a reasonable suggestion last night and you disregarded it. What were your words "game on" or something like that? JamesMLane predicted what would happen and I guess he's right. It's too bad you refused my suggestion. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 16:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There was no packing. That section was formed when this was still a fairly small news story. We were able to track the major events with a few links to stories from major newspapers. Now comes Rex throwing in links to conservative rags like Newsmax. Well, that ain't USA Today buddy. They don't even make the pretence of being "fair and balanced". In a utopian wikipedia, we might be able to pare this down to 3 or 4 truly significant & neutral overview articles by the media. Let's be realistic, that's just not going to happen. So the options are (a) cut it entirely (b) open it to all links that meet the definition. As you know (a) is my preferred alternative. If (b) is the consensus, I can do that too. Wolfman 17:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is your negative view of certain conservative news sources which makes you dismiss NewsMax.com by calling it a "rag". I do not hold some of you sources in high esteem, but I am not hurling insults about them either. Even so, are you saying yo want to disallow NewsMax? Other than you claiming power to censor links, why should I agree? Will you in return, yield to me and let me state which of your sources ought to be disregarded and deleted? I think not. So then, how can you say its rational, what you are suggesting? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 17:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Did I delete it; no I did not. Did I try to censor you; no I did not. My whole point is that this is a dispute which cannot be resolved. Because there are no objective standards. That is why I think it ought to go, that and it being redundant. Wolfman 17:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus and Rex discuss "1971"

I am wondering if others are finding Rex's edits as disruptive as I am or if I'm the only one? If I'm not the only one, what actions can we take against him to stop him from continuing his disruptive behavior? It's my opinion that we must seek outside assistance in the matter. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, you are the one disrupting and refusing to wait fr completion of dialog - as well as utterly disregarding clearly rational explanations. I have already reported you for vandalism today. Would you accept mediation? I am offering to go to mediation with you. Do you accept? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 16:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think the mediator would say the same thing as me. Namely, that any changes to stable text the was previoulsy discussed and agreed upon needs to be talked out first. I have repeatedly tried to discuss the changes you have made so you can justify them but unfortunately, you have decided not to do so. I don't understand why. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Great, you make the request for the mediator, I am going to post an RfC about "1971" being in the 1st paragraph or not. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]]
Is that what you are proposing to go to mediation over? The inclusion of the 1971? Well, then, before I ask for a mediator, why don't you simply look at the compromise language I have repeatedly asked you to read? I posted it there at least 24 hours ago. Why do you refuse to avoid all discussion about your changes in the talk area and ignore the compromise language I have proposed? Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I used your comprise language, with some minor tweaks and got reverted. If you want to agree on a version which you will support, that's fine - but I feel YOU must defend the deletion of the 1971 fact. After all it is a fact and should not be excluded without just cause. We can discuss it right here (see section title change above). I await your stated reasons for deleting "1971". When you answer, please wait for my reply[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 17:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You never commented on my compromise language and I have never seen a revision where you tried to use it. Please comment on it here. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif
Please answer 1st: Yes or No: Is there any way you will you agree to allowing "1971" to appear in the 1st paragraph? Answer this, and we can continue talking. If you don't answer, there is no dialog - I must know if your mind is closed or open, before we proceed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 17:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please see my compromise that I have already offered. You will see that I have already agreed to have "1971" appear in the article long ago. I offered this compromise a long time ago. You repeatedly ignored my offer and made your own change anyway. You never discussed my compromise.Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 17:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RfC filed just now here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 16:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, it is my reading that you are misunderstanding the nature of Nysus's concerns. Your RFC is over a trivial detail. The dispute, however, is not trivial. Wolfman 17:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Rex, you deleted this comment of mine as the sole change in an edit. This is the second time you have deleted a comment of mine in this fashion. How would you like it if I ran around deleting your comments? Wolfman 17:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, please see that your RfC has been deleted by a sysop Mirv here His comment makes clea that you are wrongly focused on me, rather than the articel content. Mirv also makes clear that one one RfC listing on this is needed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 17:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Again, I will ask that you comment to my proposed compromise language about 1971 that I added 24 hours ago. Why haven't you done this? Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif
I have repeatedly given you my reason: You never discuss your controversial changes in talk. Here's the process that's been happening:
  1. You make changes to relatively stable portions of the article that have existed for quite some time.
  2. Someone rejects your change and states reason.
  3. You insist on revering the revert back to your version and ignore any attempts to discuss the controversial change.
1st you must explain your opposition to the inclusion of "1971". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 17:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I already have, Rex. How many times do we have to go over this? I have offered compromise language that includes the date in there. You have completely ignored discussion around my compromise language. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif
Rex, I have already explained my opposition to it and offered a compromise. However, you have refused to discuss the compromise. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif

Here, Rex, here is the entire discussion we had around "1971". You'll see my compromise offer and how you refused to acknowledge or discuss it:

1971 testimony

Please take note, unless I am mistaken, John Kerry has only given "testimony" about Vietnam only once. That was in 1971, in front of a US Senate committee. Information written in a book is not "testimony". The term testimony, when used to describe John Kerry talking in front of Congress refers to the fact that Kerry was under oath when he spoke. If he ws under oath in 1986, we can add that date too. However, let's not get confused on our word usage here, ok? And Nysus, let's not be "admittedly nitpicky and minor" either, ok? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]]

The problem is that SBVT isn't just going after his testimony in 1971, they are going after just about everything he ever did and said about Vietnam. That includes his book, his formal testimony, and other statements he has made. You could change the last sentence to the "veracity of 1971 testimony and his beliefs about the Vietnam war." I could live with that.
P.S. Please stop making changes to the article that are challenged by me and others. Appropriate etiquette is to take them to talk, work out a deal, and then make the changes. File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:42, 5 Sep 2004 14:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, you suggested we write "his beliefs" - SBVT does not claim to be mind readers - they are addressing only Kerry's history and his statements. This is getting redundant - I keep answering you and answering you, but you don't even reply to a simply yes or no question. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 17:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for finally responding. Why did it take you so long? How about instead of beliefs we write "statments." And you are incorrect, I have already answered you in this compromise language that I posted long ago. It is you, unfortunately, who has caused this to drag out. Nysus File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 17:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I again am required to publicly call attention to Rex's disruptive editing techniques. He has repeatedly made edits to stable sections of the article mutually agreed upon and previously discussed (particularly the first paragraph). This alone is not a problem. But when such changes are challenged, he continues to make the same change before meting out the differences in the talk area. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:42, 5 Sep 2004 14:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, I am required to publicly call attention to Rex's disruptive editing techniques. I'm considering ways to get this behavior sanctioned by the rest of the community and stopped. Does anyone else agree this needs to be done? Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:42, 5 Sep 2004 14:58, 6 Sep 2004 15:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, you can make all the accusations and insults that you like against me, and the group together can try to boss me into giving in, but that does not change the fact that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, themselves, on their web site, (as I have already pointed out several times, describe their purposes thusly: "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. We speak from personal experience -- our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.". Frankly, I have already yielded too much on the 1st praragraph. The 1st paragaph should, on a verbatim basis, include that exact quote (or at least a subset of it). But since you and the others got in such a snit about that several days ago, I worked towards consensus. However, I will not yield on the inclusion of the 1971 date. The sentence, as I am writing it, makes it clear that the PARTICULAR focus of SBVT is the service/medals and the 1971 testimony. Notice that it does not say "exclusive". Your editorial objection is groundless. I am restoring that edit until YOU can demonstrate that the verbiage I am using does not say what is plainly does say - which of course is impossible - so stop reverting me until you have a better suggestion than what you keep reverting me to. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 16:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that before you erroneously accuse me of insulting you, you scroll up a few paragraphs and read my response to you and my suggestion for a compromise. I have shown repeatedly that I am willing to work with you. You have not shown the same courtesy. That is why I am suggesting action be taken against you. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No article that wishes to remain neutral would ever place a direct quote from SBVT about their purpose into the lead paragraph. It's clearly POV. Therefore, it would have to be offset by a similar verbatim quote from the Kerry campaign. Obviously, this kind of stuff doesn't belong in the article, never mind the first paragraph. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex, despite your claim above that you worked toward consensue, the record shows otherwise. You have repeatedly avoided discussing your changes in the talk area. Instead, you have insisted on reintroducing you controversial changes back into the article without discussion. I feel this is poor etiquette and these kind of techniques are disruptive to the editing process. I think the rest of the community would agree. Nysus Gulf War I Vet File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As stated earlier, any attempts to gut the links section will be opposed by me. Wolfman, it was you and your cohorts who initiated this issue by originally packing the links section with pro-Kerry ones. Suffice it to say, I made a reasonable suggestion last night and you disregarded it. What were your words "game on" or something like that? JamesMLane predicted what would happen and I guess he's right. It's too bad you refused my suggestion. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 16:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1971 Poll

Question: Include "1971" in first paragraph? (To reply to this poll, add your signature to the Yes or to the No section - if "No", please explain your opposition below your reply)

  • Yes - (I do not have objections to the inclusion of "1971" into a sensibly written version of the first paragraph)

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 17:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Pdbailey 04:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) More information and more specificity is better than less.

Nysus

  • No - (I do have objections to the inclusion of "1971" and have explained my reasons below)

How to handle 1971 dispute

Question 1: Rex should work with Nysus on his proposed compromise language that includes '1971' before making a change.

  • Yes

Nysus

(and he is doing so) [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 18:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • No

Pdbailey 04:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) These two are not capable of resolving this issue.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) Just flip a coin and get on with it. It can't possibly be all that important.

Question 2: Rex has shown disruptive behavior because he has repeatedly refused to discus proposed compromise language with Nysus.

  • Yes

Nysus

  • No

Rex, please respond to my counter compromise

Here is the thread again so we can be sure you can easily follow:

Please take note, unless I am mistaken, John Kerry has only given "testimony" about Vietnam only once. That was in 1971, in front of a US Senate committee. Information written in a book is not "testimony". The term testimony, when used to describe John Kerry talking in front of Congress refers to the fact that Kerry was under oath when he spoke. If he ws under oath in 1986, we can add that date too. However, let's not get confused on our word usage here, ok? And Nysus, let's not be "admittedly nitpicky and minor" either, ok? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]]

The problem is that SBVT isn't just going after his testimony in 1971, they are going after just about everything he ever did and said about Vietnam. That includes his book, his formal testimony, and other statements he has made. You could change the last sentence to the "veracity of 1971 testimony and his beliefs about the Vietnam war." I could live with that.
P.S. Please stop making changes to the article that are challenged by me and others. Appropriate etiquette is to take them to talk, work out a deal, and then make the changes. File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 16:42, 5 Sep 2004 14:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, you suggested we write "his beliefs" - SBVT does not claim to be mind readers - they are addressing only Kerry's history and his statements. This is getting redundant - I keep answering you and answering you, but you don't even reply to a simply yes or no question. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 17:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for finally responding. Why did it take you so long? How about instead of beliefs we write "statments." And you are incorrect, I have already answered you in this compromise language that I posted long ago. It is you, unfortunately, who has caused this to drag out. Nysus File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 17:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my version - your concern about misleading the readers to too narrow of a focus on 1971 is mooted by the pre-existing inclusion of "particularly with regard to...". All you are doing now is attempting to over-convolute this sentence. And remember, you argued for simplification when you opposed me changing "questioning" to "calling into question". And, you never did address the point I raised about that which is that SBVT is not actually asking questions. Rather, what they are doing is making statements. Now these statements do have the effect of calling into question things about Kerry. But they are not, in and of themselves questions. Even so, as I have stated, I have already yielded some on this when I stopped opposing you on "question". Now it is your turn to yield on "1971". That's how consensus is reached - primarily through give and take. I have given, you have not. Also, I have chores to get to today and will not be back online until tonight - take that into account as in regards to time dealys today between dialog postings. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 18:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Consensus is reached, Rex, when you discuss things, not by jamming a change down someone's throat until you hope they finally give up. As I pointed out that when I first rv your "1971" change, it was a nitpicky change. I tried to discuss it with you. You ignored me and reverted my revert. This escalated until we are at the point where we are at now. It could have all been avoided if you simply discussed it with me in the first place and we both could have saved ourselves a lot of time debating a very minor change that should have been fairly noncontroversial.
At any rate, I am glad to see you now wish to discuss things in a rational manner.
As I have already made clear for reasons stated above, I think your version is slightly inaccurate. I am counter-offering the following sentence which I feel is both more concise and accurate. If you disagree, please tell me why.
"This group has challenged the legitimacy of several medals Kerry received in combat and his past statements about Vietnam, particularly the veracity of his 1971 statements before Congress about the Vietnam War."
I propose one minor adjustment to the above. Instead of "statements" it should say "accounts." Nysus File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is a second alternative: "This group has challenged the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 statements before Congress." Nysus File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 18:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Oops, that should read "veracity of his 1971 testimony" not "veracity of his 1971 statements." Nysus 20:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus says: "I think your version is slightly inaccurate". Really, only slightly? Then it's no big deal. Therefore Nysus made a fight over basically nothing. Also, he doesn't spell out what the inaccuracy is. And he still has not addressed the substantial distinction of "questioning" vs "calling into question". So at this point, if the conversation is stalled, it's still Nysus's fault. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 22:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex, I have already spelled out the inaccuracy. And besides being slightly inaccurate, it is also wordy. See above. I'm asking you nicely to respond to my compromise that would get rid of any language in dispute. See above. Why are you refusing to respond to my compromise again? Do you agree that my above compromise is NPOV? Why or why not? Nysus File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 00:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And, as I've already pointed out numerous times, one of the reasons you kept getting rv'd is because of your rather nasty habit of not discussing the changes in the talk section as you were repeatedly and politely requested to do. When someone disagrees with your change, you absolutely refuse to talk it out, just as you are doing now. I'd love to work with you Rex. I've made every effor humanly possible. You continue to make it impossible, though. I don't know why. Nysus File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif 00:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here is the new sentence I'm proposing that I think will settle all differences of opinion between us. Do you agree or not? Why or why not? "This group has challenged the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress."
I don't like the "Kerry obtained" language, which implies that he went out of his way to get medals. He didn't "obtain" them, they were awarded to him. I suggest that a neutral wording is to say that he received the medals. JamesMLane 06:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes. I agree "received" would be more neutral. --Nysus 00:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Missing perspective

Nowhere in the first several sections or first dozen paragraphs does this article provide the most obvious and unarguable fact about this organization:

SBVT was founded and funded by Republican activists to oppose John Kerry's presidential campaign, primarily because Kerry's service in Vietnam is widely perceived as more honorable and admirable than the President's avoidance of overseas service.

Not a single fact in that sentence can be refuted with honesty. These are the most important facts about the whole controversy. Not until the reader understands this do all the other details even begin to make sense. Alteripse 19:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. It has been proposed that a second paragraph be added just below the 1st that gives a brief overview of the importance and impact of SBVT. However, your paragraph is a little bit loaded, particularly the last bit which states: because Kerry's service in Vietnam is widely perceived as more honorable and admirable than the President's avoidance of overseas service. No one has evidence to suggest that is why SBVT formed. Nysus 19:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, do you have a better proposal for why the group just happened to be formed this summer? Be honest.Alteripse 19:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it was a well orchestrated campaign designed to deliver maximum damage to Kerry. I think there is some legitimacy for the organization. I believe that some SBVT vets, many with axes to grind, honestly think Kerry is not a man of integrity and did not deserve his medals. However, I don't think they are the ones driving the agenda of the SBVT. I think professionals, people who stood to make a lot of cash orechestrating the campaign and who also have a pro-Bush bias, are the ones who really drove the group and organized it into what it is today. Of course, that's just my opinion. I have absolutely no proof. Nysus

My understanding is that SBVT was formed in response to the publication of Tour of Duty by historian Douglas Brinkley, which some swift boat veterans who served with Kerry believed to contain false statments concerning his Vietnam service. Anonip 20:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anonip, it has been publicly revealed that it was funded and advised by some of the same people running or supporting the Republican campaign or actually serviing the in the administration. How can you possibly propose with any integrity that this organization was performed to correct a history book? Alteripse 20:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With due respect to both of you, it's simply not possible to pinpoint one precise reason why SBVT came into existence. It's kind of fruitless to try to track one down because usually life isn't made up of simple cause and effect actions. Instead, history is a confluence of thousands of smaller complex events that interweave and interact in such a way to make larger, more significant events pop into existence. Sorry to wax philosophical here but I'm just tyring to nip speculative conversation that doesn't really get anywhere. Nysus

Alteripse, It is hardly surprising that SBVT would seek assistance from persons with Republican affiliations in the form of legal consulting, media consulting, financial support, etc. for the purpose of getting their story out. Do you think they would have received such assistance from persons with Democratic affiliations? And no, it's not just the book. The SBVT is outraged that Kerry is distorting the historical record to advance his political ambitions. They believe Kerry's actions render him unfit to be commmander-in-chief, and they feel they have an obligation to set the record straight. That's what they're trying to do. At least, that's my honest view of it. Frankly, I'm amazed that Kerry and the Democrats thought they could try to turn an antiwar hero (which Kerry was) into a war hero (which he was not) without getting called on it. I believe they thought (rightly) that Bush wouldn't complain, to avoid an unfavorable comparison with his own military service record. They didn't realize there would be veterans who would be comparing Kerry's record to their OWN records, not Bush's, and who would have the courage to speak out. Anonip 21:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have added some information and opinion but none of what you just said contradicted my sentence, which still sums up the core significance of SBVT. Read it again, you haven't contradicted it. Alteripse

Alteripse, I have contradicted your sentence both as to who founded SBVT and what their primary motivation was. To Nysus, not to disagree with your philosophical thoughts, but I believe my understanding of how SBVT was formed is based on their own statements, not speculation. Eventually I think this should be included in the article. Anonip 21:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but anonip, surely you think it might be possible for people running the show over at SBVT to have ulterior motives, don't you? Why do you place so much faith in what SBVT says? --Nysus 01:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is POV to put SBVT's ows statements about how/why they came into existence into the article and it will lead to an endless escalation of speculative statements about the real reason they are around or how they really got started. It's best just to avoid the issue altogehter because it's not really important to telling the story behind SBVT anyway. --Nysus 01:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I said it was founded and funded by Republican activists for the purpose of opposing Kerry's campaign. Regardless of whether the public members are veterans and regardless of what they said, their funding, timing, legal counsel, organization arose as part of the Republican campaign. Without the campaign the organization would not exist. Without the Republican financing and organizing the organization would not exist. You cannot truthfully deny it. Alteripse 22:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uh, in case you didn't notice by the amount of tit-for-tat right here, how to describe the rationale for the genesis of SBVT is one of - if not the most - thorny issues we face. If we try to jam all that into the 1st or even 2nd paragraph, we will end up going backwards, not forwards. The back-and-forth conjecture on this point (and what we say here is mere conjecture as we are NOT one of the founders and do NOT have 1st hand info) must be addressed in the article itself, not the preamble. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 22:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alteripse, I said SBVT was founded by swift boat veterans for the purpose of refuting Kerry's false statements about his Vietnam record and theirs. Regardless of their sources of funding, etc., if they hadn't served with Kerry, or if they didn't believe he was lying about his and their service, the organization wouldn't exist. Please understand, I agree that the point you're making needs to be included in the introduction to the article (if not the opening paragraph), although it needs to be qualified with "The Kerry campaign complains that the group...", rather than being stated as "an obvious and unarguable fact". Anonip 22:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have stated before very clearly before that the first paragraph should attempt to be a definition of the SBVT group. I think any attempt to try to explain the reasons why SBVT came into existence is way off the mark. It's purely speculative and not really important to getting readers the important facts about the group. --Nysus 01:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alteripse, what you say about the group's raison d'etre is quite probably true and strongly supported by circumstantial evidence. However, it's not possible to prove sufficiently to include as a fact in this article. Wolfman 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This should be added. As Alteripse says it is entirely factual, nothing can be disputed in it. Why avoid printing facts if the facts show someone in an unfavourable light? JoeBaldwin 11:56, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Alterprise's statement said the following: "SBVT was founded and funded by Republican activists...because Kerry's service in Vietnam is widely perceived as more honorable and admirable than the President's avoidance of overseas service." If you can find a source to back up this up and they have proof, I'd agree we should put it in the article. Is there some kind of internal memo of SBVT that bears this out? --Nysus 12:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who's quite unsympathetic to SBVT, I don't think the last part of the statement (about Bush's record) is even true, let alone provable. If John McCain (who did serve in Vietnam) had won the Republican nomination and the election in 2000, and Kerry were running against him instead of against Bush, I think the SBVT crowd would still be making their attacks. They're not primarily motivated by a concern about Bush's record. They just don't like Kerry. JamesMLane 13:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

page protection

mirv has protected this page. i'm not sure what specific dispute prompted this action. however, i believe this is a healthy development given the current frictions, and probably long overdue. i suggest that proposed major changes be sandboxed. when consensus agreement on those is reached (as evidenced by a poll), we can then ask for that particular consensus change to be added. Wolfman 19:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The specific dispute was the "1971" blurb believe it or not. See above for more details. Nysus

No, not "blurb". Rather, simple fact. Nysus attempted to stoke an edit war over the inclusion/exclusion of the year "1971" in referrence to Kerry's testimony about Vietnam. I explained it to him till I was blue in the face and reverted his unsupported deletion of that fact as long as seemed prudent. Then, I got a sysop involved, and well, there you have it. Also, Nysus ignores my questions and over my objections, deleted the "Satire/Parody" sub-section of links - even though I explained to him about Gamaliel's and JamesMLane's view on the validity of "parody" links. Frankly, as aggressive and unilateral as he is, I see Nysus as a more extreme version of me at my previous worst.[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 22:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, the objective fact is that you and Nysus were in an edit war. No one person all by himself can "stoke an edit war". It's amazing to me how you get embroiled in one edit war after another and you're always so quick to blame everyone who disagrees with you. I think you're approaching your two-month anniversary here -- do you happen to have a tally of the times you've been involved in edit wars, RfC's, RfM's, RfAr's, polls, temporary blocks and page protections? You must be setting some unofficial records. You might consider the possibility that it's something about your style, as opposed to the hypothesis that virtually everyone else you come in contact with is continually acting in bad faith. JamesMLane 22:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not so, I begged off and sought official assistance when it became clear it was futile trying to deal with Nysus. Therefore JamesMLane, once again, I can only say that you are simply mistaken - had I still been on the old plan, I would have kept on reverting Nysus. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 22:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex, the discussion here and in the archives will show that I've gone out of my way to work with you. The fact is you have absolutely refused to work out our differences in talk. Anyone who looks back at the discussion will plainly see this for themselves. The simple fact is that you can't simply make changes to language that was already agreed upon several days ago and force a change to it that is challenged without discussing the change in talk. I have stated this several times already. Sorry to sound like a broken record. I'm hoping that you do have a real desire to work out our differences and that eventually what I'm telling you will sink in. Nysus 00:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, just so everyone can be clear about what's going on, here's why the page is frozen:
  1. Rex make changes to stable portions of the article that have existed for quite some time.
  2. Someone rejects your change and states reason.
  3. You insist on reverting the revert back to your version and ignore any attempts to discuss the controversial change.
  4. You then claim it is the other person that must justify their change even though it is you who have made the controversial edit.
  5. After rv'ing your change again, someone offers to discuss it in talk.
  6. You ignore them.
  7. Return to step 1. Repeat.
Nysus 01:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, you have done nothing but re-summarize your contentions - you still have not addressed the issues that I have raised which are:

  1. There is nothing about the current version of the 1st paragraph that makes it defective to the article or that we cannot all live with.
  2. The distinction between "questioning" and "drawing into question" matters and yet, I've already yielded on that.
  3. 1971 does indeed refer to the sole time that Kerry gave testimony about Vietnam
  4. The qualifier of "particularly with regard to..." which is already in the sentence, is more than enough to address your concerns about the total breadth of the SBVT focus.
  5. You deleted (and kept deleting) a links sub-section (and links), totally in disregard to my objections

Here they are, five points, laid out for you nice and neat. Let's see if you actually address them this time. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 02:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, here's my response to all 5 points:

  1. That is your opinion, not mine. I feel the suggested compromise is superior to both the current version and the older version. Do you agree? Yes or no? Why or why not?
  2. My suggested compromise avoids that debate altogether and I feel it is superior to the current version. So, there is no reason to debate it. I wish to move on. That's why I created the compromise language. Do agree that my suggested compromise language makes this debate unnecessary? Yes or no? Why or why not?
  3. This is addressed in my compromise language. Do agree with my compromise language on this?
  4. My suggested compromise avoids that debate altogether. So, there is no reason to debate it. I wish to move on. That's why I created the compromise language. Do agree that my suggested compromise language makes this debate unnecessary? Yes or no? Why or why not?
  5. This is another debate. But I have already addressed why I deleted them numerous times in talk. Your links clearly did not belong in the article and I challenged. You wanted to leave them there without discussing the matter in any fashion. As I've pointed out numerous times, that's poor editing etiquette. --Nysus 02:47, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, I see that your answer to something which I think "matters", is that you "wish to move on". We'll then, why don't you do that? Why don't you move on and leave my edits alone? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 02:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wish to move on with my compromise language. Do you? Perhaps not because you have chosen to completely and irrationally ignore it, just like you completely and irrationally ignored my first attempt to compromise with you. So, I'll ask you point blank: Do you have any objections to replacing the second sentence of the 1st paragraph with my compromise language? If so, what are those objections? --Nysus 03:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is best to finesse contentious issues when possible. To me, Nysus's suggestion seems like a nice finesse avoiding the debate entirely. That's also the purpose of my suggestion re: external links. But the bottom line is there is no need for the article to take an explicit stand on each and every detail. The best compromise is often one which seeks to avoid a contentious issue, rather than one which tries to resolve it. Wolfman 02:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Nice" as opposed the what "mean"? Simply put, if Nysus didn't hold the article hostage over the 1971 issue, we wouldn't even be here. Go back and read his comments - he attempted to start a revert war over a factual date, simply because a particular reply (one of many) to him was not forthcoming in the manner and speed which he demanded. That's extortion and it's not collegial. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 03:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please see my next post, Rex, for the real history behind the "1971 controversy". --Nysus 03:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex, here's another opportunity to talk about a specific compromise. Will you do it? I'll repeat the language I've already offered: "This group has challenged the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress." Do you or do you not think this is language you could live with? Why or why not?

Nysus; In your comments above, you speak about "stable portions of the article ". Let me explain something to you, which was explained to me by this same group of editors several weeks ago: this Wiki is dynamic and may in fact be in flux from time to time. There is no "baseline" version of an article. Rather, there is a group editing environment which requires give and take. In regards to the 1st paragraph, I have already given on the "question" vs. "drawing into question". And what is your reply to that? It's "My suggested compromise avoids that debate altogether and I feel it is superior". While I am glad you feel that what you put forth is "superior", I also am going to have to point out that in addition to being "superior", whatever we pick must be true. Frankly, you seem to have a problem figuring this out yourself, so I will spell-it-out-for-you: It is NOT TRUE that SBVT is questioning John Kerry. Rather, what they are doing is holding press-conferences and releasing advertisements. These communications are statements, not questions. Indeed, to suggest that SBVT is "questioning" Kerry is to fundamentally mis-frame this issue. The SBVT people are convinced (or at least they say they are) that they already know the truth about Kerry, which they say is: Kerry exaggerated and fabricated details of his military service/medals and Kerry slandered and lied about American Solders during his 1971 testimony in front of the Senate Committee. Now Nysus, you certainly seem bright enough to grasp what I am telling you: It is an established fact that SBVT claims they already have enough pertinent information about Kerry to advance their views. Hence, when you insists on describing their activities against Kerry as "questioning" him, you fatally imply that Kerry has information which they need in order to justify their position. This is anathema to what SBVT is contending and it's just plain false. SBVT simply is not "questioning" Kerry. Suffice it to say, I think this is very important and yet, I have already bent on this point. Frankly, it's your by refusal to follow my line of reasoning and hear me on this, that you can't see that I feel I have already cooperated and given. Now it's your turn. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 03:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have been pretty much staying out of this. But I strongly object to the language "calling into question" rather than "questioning". The former implies his conduct was, in fact, questionable. The latter is factual and makes no implication about whether the questions have merit. Wolfman 06:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will not engage in debate with you until you give me the courtesy and respect of responding to my compromise language. Will you give me that courtesy and respect that so far you have never extended to me? --Nysus 03:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The roots of the "1971" controversy

Just so that everyone is clear on what's going on, here's how the "1971" controversy unfolded. Please see past article history and discussion to verify.

  • Sep. 4, 04:18: After failing to lump in the 1971 change with a bunch of other unnecesary changes, Rex adds the 1971 date in by itself. His reason? I quote: "'1971' must go in"
  • Sep. 4, 04:26: I rv the change because it isn't quite accurate. I write: "this rv is admittedly nitpicky and minor, but SBVT has questioned all of Kerry's "testimony" about war including those in his book and before Congress in 1986".
  • Sep. 5, 13:46: Rex reverts the revert stating: "you must offer a supported objection before you keep deleting this factual date"
  • Sep. 5, 15:12: I rv and with the following explanation: "objection already offered in comment; please take this change to talk". Rex opens a discussion in talk area and makes a comment.
  • Sep. 6, 09:33: I respond to Rex and clarify my objections in more detail in talk. I offer a compromise. My compromise says You could change the last sentence to the "veracity of 1971 testimony and his beliefs about the Vietnam war." I could live with that. For more details, see [this.]

But since I suggested that compromise offer, he has absolutely refused to consider any of my compromises in the talk area. In short, he has not attempted to negotiate in good faith with my objections made in good faith.

Nysus, your entire argument is enabled by and (predicated on) the fact that you consistently disregard how much I have already adjusted to suit you - see above. And please sign and date your comments, ok? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 03:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please respond to my compromise language. --Nysus 03:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have - my response, as clearly detailed above is that you have not done enough bending yet yourself. As a result, your so-called compromise is not a bona-fide one. If and when you address the point about "questioning" vs. "calling into question" - which by virtue of my edits, was raised prior to this so-called compromise you now push - then you will have met your burden to have enough standing to insist on a reply on this particular point of yours. You will not get any further replies from me unless and until you address the "questioning" point which I have very patiently explained to you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 03:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I, and others, have addressed your "calling into question" phrase. See previous discussion on this. And, I have offered compromise language to avoid the debate altogether. Still, Rex, you have never responded to one of my compromise suggestions. And it doesn't appear that you will extend me that courtesy. I have made every effort to move forward. I don't know what else to do. I will not debate you any longer because this is obviously going nowhere. I will ask Mirv what I should do. --Nysus 03:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have pointed out to you that the version of text you pushed regarding "questioning" is simply false. It is not true that the SBVT is "questioning" Kerry. Do what you want, but I can tell you this: If you insist on writing sentences into this Wiki that are blatant falsehoods, you will not have much of my support and the little that you do have will decrease the more you continue to ignore me on this. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 03:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You are off topic. You have requested that debate about the date 1971 be resolved. I also agree should be in the sentence and I have included my compromise language. Please respond to it. --Nysus 03:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not so, you have attempted to hijack the debate by falsely suggesting that I am not trying to reach consensus. It was to rebute this false contention of yours, that I backed you up to show that I had already made significant concessions. Also, your contention (above) that you and the others have addressed my concerns about "questioning" is 100% patently false. Just now, I did a word search on this page and each archive of this page for the word "questioning". There is not a single instance of Nysus or any editor uttering that word in a reposonse to the merits of my "questioning" concern. As I read the history of this dialog, I see no evidence that any editor here has addressed the points which I have raised on that. Nysus, I challege you to either provide an edit history link that verifies your claim I have been answered on "questioning" (by you and/or the others) - that or please retract your blantantly false assertion [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 04:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Your "questioning" was reverted by me and others because you refused to discuss it in the talk area after Wolfman rv'd it the first time. See change history dated 6 sep 2004, 04:02 by Wolfman. Then, you continued to try to insert it into the paragraph without justificaiton in the talk area. So, we kept reverting it becuase you did not justify your change in the talk area. Therefore, yes, it has already been addressed by me and other editors. And you still have not discussed my compromise to your "questioning" language in the talk area. I am still very much willing to work with you.
And, so, despite my unbelievable patience with you, you still have yet to talk about a single one of my compromises. Why won't you extend me that courtesy? --Nysus 04:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, again, you are saying things that simply are not true. Simply because you dealt with (by reverting) my edits, does not mean you have addressed the merits of my concerns. Now it could be true that until I laid them out for you so explicitly here tonight, that you didn't understand my concerns about "questioning", but that does not mean you have addressed them. From my vantage point, my concerns have merit and I have explained those merits to you. You must speak to these merits of my concerns on "questioning" as outlined by me this evening, or it will remain true that your assertion you have already done so, is false. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 04:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Rex, your concerns have merit. That is why I am taking so much time and trying to work with you on this. Have I ever said your concerns do not have merit? No, I haven't. I am simply saying we can move forward if we don't get involved over whether "calling into question" or "questioning" is better. It's simply not necessary to answer your question if we can avoid it. Who cares who is "right" and who is "wrong" if we can settle on an alternative that is better than either of these possibilities. And that way, we can both save face. No one wins, no one loses if we just avoid the debate. Why is this hard for you to understand? I have offered by compromise language which I think is superior to both. I'm still waiting to hear your verdict. I am a very patient man, Rex. --Nysus 04:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's great that you are patient. For that I applaud you. In that resevoir of patience, are you able to find enough of it to speak to the merits of my concerns regarding "questioning"? If so, please do so. But if not, please don't tout your patience - it will only make me think you are trying to wait me out. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 04:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please see my fable below. I hope it helps. --Nysus 04:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A different approach to resolving the dispute

I have tried, and failed, to reason with Rex. So, I'm going to take a different approach and put this up to a vote to the wider community. I propose that whatever sentence gets the most votes wins. Please indicate which sentence you would prefer:

  • Sentence 1: This group has challenged the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress."

I vote for this sentence 1. --Nysus 04:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This sentence works for me. Don't like the devoted wording in the second sentence. Lyellin 05:57, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I like this sentence, but above someone objected to the use of the word "obtained." Wouldn't "received" or "--challenged the legitimacy of the medals that Kerry received--" (for grammar purposes) be more POV neutral?--Jburt1 18:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that sentence 1 is more NPOV. I also agree with Jburt1's revision of it. Maastrictian 21:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Sentence 2: This group is devoted to calling into question his military service history and war record, particularly with regard to the merit of his medals and the veracity of his 1971 testimony about the Vietnam war.

Nysus's call to vote

You can do all the "voting" that you want, but that does not obviate the fact that you have now reduced yourself to making totally false representations about the history of this dialog. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 04:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex, I addressed your baseless allegation above (see edit by Wolfman dated 04:02, 6 Sep 2004) where I point out your "questioning" went challenged by Worlfman and you refused to discuss it and insisted on placing it in the article anyway. Basically, you treated him like you did me about the "questioning" phrase, with no regard to my thoughts and opinions and without the courtesy of discussing diputed changes in the talk area. --Nysus 04:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Provide a link to the edit, showing summary please. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 04:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As you wish. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth&diff=5688588&oldid=5688569 --Nysus 05:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FYI to group: Here is the edit log from the time span referred to by Nysus, please take note that I have read each of Wolfman's edits from that time span. There is no discussion of the point under contention here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 05:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • (cur) (last) 09:19, 6 Sep 2004 Rex071404 (28 links)
  • (cur) (last) 07:53, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman (28 links)
  • (cur) (last) 07:50, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman (28 links)
  • (cur) (last) 07:43, 6 Sep 2004 Rex071404 (28 links)
  • (cur) (last) 07:33, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman m (28 links)
  • (cur) (last) 07:32, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman (28 links)
  • (cur) (last) 05:38, 6 Sep 2004 Rex071404 m (28 links)
  • (cur) (last) 05:34, 6 Sep 2004 Rex071404 (Links)
  • (cur) (last) 03:21, 6 Sep 2004 JamesMLane (Links)
  • (cur) (last) 00:25, 6 Sep 2004 Rex071404 (1971 testimony)
  • (cur) (last) 00:18, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman (Response to AnonIp proposed PH paragraph)
  • (cur) (last) 00:16, 6 Sep 2004 Rex071404 (Proliferation of links to news articles)
  • (cur) (last) 00:15, 6 Sep 2004 Rex071404 (Proliferation of links to news articles)
  • (cur) (last) 00:05, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman (1st hand account / interview dates)


Rex, here is the edit history of the article where Wolfman clealy reverts your "calling into question" phrase because he disagrees with it. As I already mentioned, it is the edit dated 6 Sep 2004 at 04:02.

  • (cur) (last) 04:15, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman (Editorial and opinion - add link)
  • (cur) (last) 04:10, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman (External links - restore cut story; put 1st hand accounts first)
  • (cur) (last) 04:07, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman (Other - re-insert some cut links. on what basis were these cut?)
  • (cur) (last) 04:03, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman (Other - re-insert cut links. on what basis were these cut?)
  • (cur) (last) 04:02, 6 Sep 2004 Wolfman (calling into question suggests it's questionable; they are attacking)
  • (cur) (last) 20:22, 5 Sep 2004 Rex071404 (News articles about SBVT - remove on Pro-k to balance the removal ot the proSBVT on just prior)
  • (cur) (last) 20:21, 5 Sep 2004 Rex071404 (News articles about SBVT - per group - remove on of my links from today)

--Nysus 05:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my edit history is being reviewed here. But I do strongly object to the language "calling into question" rather than "questioning". The former implies his conduct was, in fact, questionable. The latter is factual and makes no implication about whether the questions have merit. I woud be fine with "challenging" or "attacking". Wolfman 06:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hypothetical questionA Fable

One Zax wants to chop a tree down before sunset because he needs to start a fire tonight. He tries to argue vehemently to all his friends that chopping from the north side is much faster then chopping it down from the south side. Another Zax says the south would be much faster and argues his point vehemently. Then a third Zax comes along and says, "But wait, I think we have a bunch of wood left over from last night, I think we should save ourselves the trouble and look to see if we have leftover wood."

The question to you is, Rex, do you think it is worth it to look to see if there is wood left over or is it better to argue about which direction to chop the tree down from? --Nysus 04:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are kidding right? You want to engage in non-topic hypotheticals, rather than simply speak to the merits of my concerns about "questioning"? I am simply amazed! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 04:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Being the ever so patient man that I am, Rex, I will tell you what this fable means amd spell it out for you. You see, Wolfman is Zax 1. He says we should use the word "attack." And you, Rex, are Zax #2. You think we should say "calling into question". I, Rex, am Zax #3. I say, "It really doesn't matter. There is probably a much better way out!" Now, what is the most reasonable approach here, Rex? --Nysus 05:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and I will patiently point out again that the reason this article was held up was because of the use of the date "1971". I have offered a compromise on that. I have not heard from you, however. --Nysus 05:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh kudos to you Zax #3 - you are oh so superior! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]]

No, I'm just willing to compromise and find a better solution. Are you? --Nysus 05:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have compromised considerably already - you have not. Neither have you addressed the merits of my "questioning" concerns. Rather, you only said that you have. If you have indeed answered me (as you say you have) why don't you either copy that dialog here so we can all see it, or provide us a link? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 05:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's the link, Rex: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth&diff=5688588&oldid=5688569
I argue vehemently that we should start chopping down from the north side. Don't you? --Nysus 05:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This link which you provided above, shows only Wolfman's edit itself. It does not show any talk page dialog. More specficially, it does not show you addressing my concern about "questioning" vs "calling into question". Any other links which you would like to present? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 05:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point, Rex. The reason it doesn't show any talk dialog is because you failed to discuss it in talk. And that is what I have been saying all night long. And now that you are discussing things in talk for a change, the next step is to get you to address my compromises. What do I have to do to get you to do that, Rex? --Nysus 05:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Really? It seems rather that you have made my point - by establishing that you accept edit summary communications to be sufficient. Here is my original edit. [2] Please take note of my edit summary which says SBVT does not actually ask questions they are not "questioning" rather they "draw into question" very important, true distinction. Not you, not Wolfman, not anyone has spoken to that point yet. Also, based on your above concession that there is no talk dialog on this point, it is clear that this statement by you "Rex, I addressed your baseless allegation above..." is 100% false. You can retract it any time now. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 05:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, what if I submitted a totally bogus fact into the article that I insisted was right? Can I then argue that everyone else has to prove me wrong before they revert it? No, I'm afraid that's not that way it works. Similarly, if you make an edit that gets reverted, it must be discussed and debated first before it gets back into the article. That's proper editing etiquette. This is especially true when the langauge has been around quite a while and previously discussed like the 1st paragraph had been. --Nysus 05:47, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And, I guess my fable that I spelled out for you doesn't help. I will just have to spell it out: There is absolutely no need to debate your questioning phrase. I'm willing to keep working with you to help you understand this. I really don't mind. --Nysus 05:47, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You make my point for me: It was me who changed a false statement of "questioning" to a true one of "calling into question". By your principle, the others were required to justify, not me. But even so, I did leave a satisfactory edit summary. And in any case, you have made so many uncorrected false statements here tonight, that I am losing interest in dailoging with you. And this comment by you just now of "There is absolutely no need to debate your questioning phrase" is silly. You are not the custodian of my assessments of need, nor are you an arbiter thereof for this group. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 05:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone care about this? Can we abandon this pointless discussion and move on to matters more substantive please? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ask Nysus if he is willing to leave the 1st paragraph as-is. If he agrees to do that, I will agree to ask for unprotection. If not, then it's clear that his 1st paragraph issues are not resolved and more edit reversions are likely. Also, please see dialog on Mirv's talk page here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 05:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ask him yourself. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is much more than about the 1st paragraph, Rex. This is about how you impose your edits on the rest of us. On that, I will not yield. I say we resolve this with a vote as I have already suggested (see above). I encourage folks to vote so we can move on and resolve this debate with a group effort rather than accepting the dictates of a single individual. --Nysus 05:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, your complaint is that I did not previously spell out my concerns about "questioning" rather than just leave the edit summary which I left. Ok, I understand that complaint. However since I have spelled them out explicitly and in great detail here tonight, what excuse do you still have for refusing to address them? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 06:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please read, read, and reread my fable. I don't know how else to explain it to you. I give up. --Nysus 06:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To what aim? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 06:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sandbox: attempted compromise

In the past, the sandbox approach hasn't accomplished much on this page. I'm trying it again because I find it so hard to keep track of different proposals, etc., when the talk page is constantly filling up the way this one does. Maybe now, with the page protected, people will be willing to edit and discuss a sandbox, if only for lack of anything else to edit.

Therefore, instead of voting in any poll just yet, I've put a first draft at User:JamesMLane/SBVT intro. You can edit it, or comment on it at User talk:JamesMLane/SBVT intro. It covers only the introduction (the portion before the first heading, and therefore before the table of contents).

Salient points: I left in "527", even though I think this term shouldn't be introduced until the body of the article, because no one else expressed agreement with my view. Because Rex doesn't want "questioning", I've tried to follow Nysus's approach of finding a different term. This draft says that SBVT "criticizes" Kerry, which is certainly true. As for the contentious issue of "1971", my general philosophy is that the first paragraph or two should be a summary, to give the reader the quick overall picture. Therefore, in this draft I've referred to Kerry's antiwar activities "in the early 1970s". The section of the article about his Senate testimony notes specifically that it was in 1971. He was also doing various antiwar things in 1970 and 1972. That the testimony was in 1971 is important enough to be in the article but not important enough to be in the first two paragraphs.

Nysus, if there are points where you prefer your suggested compromise to mine, one possibility would be to insert a horizontal line on the new subpage and add your own version below that. We could have both versions on the same page, for ready comparison. Alternatively, of course, you can edit my draft, if you think the differences are comparatively small. JamesMLane 05:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, aren't you going to also ask me what I'd would prefer? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 06:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The sandbox is offered for editing and comment by everyone. Nysus had repeatedly expressed his frustration at the status of his suggested compromise, so I wanted to make clear to him that I wouldn't mind if he incorporated it into the same sandbox, for convenience. Beyond that, I felt no need to extend personalized invitations to every individal who's been active on this article. Somehow I doubt that Wolfman, Anonip, Lyellin, Alteripse, Gamaliel or anyone else will be raising the question that Rex did -- but, for Rex's benefit, I'll spell out what I think everyone else would understand, namely that everyone's edits and/or comments are invited. JamesMLane 06:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Goodnight everyone. Thanks, James, for putting up the sandbox and breaking up the monotony of the ridiculous back and forth between me and Rex that could have been avoided if only.... Aw never mind!  :) I'll try to make it back tomorrow. But, my wikipedia days may be coming to a close. I have gotten very little work done in the real world over the last couple of weeks. However, it's been a very interesting experience to say the least. I'll do my best to add something here and there and won't go away completely. Best wishes. --Nysus 07:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman raises an objection (this section not created by me, Wolfman)

He did so above, you can read it here. It seems, after all, that there actually is group editorial concern about "questioning" vs "calling into question". Now then, at the same time that Wolfman has concerns about potential inunnedo in the phrase "calling into question", I have a problem with the word "questioning" (see above). I propose we ask JML to write a new 1st paragraph and then each of us can modify it as our own version, then we can compare. Provided we d0 not assert falsehoods, I have no problem with watching out for adverse innuedo. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 06:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is what James has done above in his sandbox statement, rex. Lyellin 06:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, I am waiting to see if JML's offer extends to me. He has not replied to my question. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 06:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've been trying but I keep getting edit conflicts, as is so often the case in any article in which you're involved, Rex. JamesMLane 06:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. Yes or No, am I invited to participate in your sandbox? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]]
Rex, you don't need to be invited to sandbox. Just go. If you have severe differences, start your own alternative. If not, try to work with the basis JML has started. If no consensus is reached on a single version, we'll have to choose amongst alternatives by poll. As to my 'objection', I don't mind a word other than 'questioning'. I just don't like 'calling into question', as it seems to imply the record really is 'questionable'.Wolfman 06:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Based on the vibe I've gotten many times from JML, I prefer to wait for an explicit invite. And bear in mind, if all the editors here, including me, are not invited, then the end product is not representative of group opinion and is therefore invalid. JML would do well to post a group invite. If I am excluded, I will oppose vigorously any attempts by the sandbox group to impose a version on me here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 06:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hooray! Now that we have discussed your "questioning" phrase, Rex, can you now please do me the courtesy of addressing my compromise langauge? Or would you rather continue to debate if the north or south side is quicker? I have inserted my compromise language into the sandbox. I specifically invite you to come comment, Rex. No, I implore you to come over and comment. --Nysus 06:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nysus, the mere fact of Wolfman and you editing the same talk page during the same time frame, does not automatically, for everything, make the two of you a "we". Simply put, he has answered me, you never did. And because you established a precendent by not answering me, I've decided that where possible, in regards to the substance of some and/or all of any dialog points you raise here (or elsewhere) towards me, for an intederminant period of time, if and/or when I see fit, you shall receive no answer from me. And in regards to this policy (here after referred to as "RNAN", or Rex Non-Answers Nysus) being in effect, you will receive no further notification from me. Nor will you received notice, if and/or when I suspend it intermittantly at my discretion. Nor will you receive notice if and/or when I suspend it semi-permanantly or permanantly. So then, now that it's on your foot, we can see how the shoe fits you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 15:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What? We have a page suspension in effect, and now you refuse to dialog. That's a poor attitude. But, I suppose I don't really mind your stance too much, since overall I like the article pretty well frozen as it currently exists.Wolfman 17:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry you feel this way, Rex. However, I will continue to try to reach out to you in the spirit of compromise. I don't think holing yourself off from the discussion will solve anything and will only make matters worse. I guess all I can do at this point is ask that you look back over the history of our many, many dicussions and try to understand that I have offered to resolve your issue with the questioning phrase many, many times with my compromise language. And my compromise language still stands. Feel free to comment on it any time you wish. --Nysus 17:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
James said above it's a sandbox for all- just like every sandbox is. Lyellin 06:39, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Rex, it's apparently too much trouble for you to scroll up about one screen's worth to read my answer to your original question -- an answer that, in a moment of inexplicable whimsy, I placed immediately under the question I was answering. I shouldn't have had to write it out in the first place and I shouldn't have to cut and paste it now. I'm paying a terrible price for my carelessness in not asking that this article be included in your temporary block. Anyway, here's my previous answer, recopied for your convenience, and italicized so that it's easy to find. This is all the invitation anyone is going to get. I'm signing off for tonight.
The sandbox is offered for editing and comment by everyone. Nysus had repeatedly expressed his frustration at the status of his suggested compromise, so I wanted to make clear to him that I wouldn't mind if he incorporated it into the same sandbox, for convenience. Beyond that, I felt no need to extend personalized invitations to every individal who's been active on this article. Somehow I doubt that Wolfman, Anonip, Lyellin, Alteripse, Gamaliel or anyone else will be raising the question that Rex did -- but, for Rex's benefit, I'll spell out what I think everyone else would understand, namely that everyone's edits and/or comments are invited. JamesMLane 06:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
JamesMLane 06:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex, posting it here makes it a group invite. If you had an personal issue with JML's "vibe", then you should take it to his talk page. Stop grandstanding and stop wasting everyone's time. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edits to protected version

There were several good edits, including spelling and grammar corrections, that have been lost in the revert war. I hope an admin will look through the history and restore these to the protected version. Also, could someone please add the following to the end of the first paragraph in the sub-section Truthfulness in the Controversey section?

According to an article from the Billings Gazette[3], two Swift Boat veterans had their names names signed to a letter, published on the SBVT website, that they had never seen and which contained accusations against Kerry that they did not support.

172.191.81.13 17:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is proof available that these two signed onto SBVT knowlingly and willingingly. The only issue now is that they have indeed quit SBVT. This, however, has been taken into account on the SBVT web site. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 18:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why isn't it mentioned at all in the article and where is this proof? And how can these two have quit an organisation they were never members of? 172.191.81.13 18:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously their contention should be mentioned in the article, with proper attribution. If there's evidence that they signed on knowingly and willingly, that evidence should also be included in the article, though it shouldn't be described as "proof". As for corrections that got lost in the edit war, I know that my restoration of the deleted Disinfopedia link was a casualty, but were there other things? I thought I'd been watching the page and I don't recall noticing any such problems. JamesMLane 22:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Checking the history, they did all get put back before protection except for your link to Disinfopedia. There were two things that I noticed were missing, but they seem to have gone a while before the protection. 172.188.176.220 01:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML's sandbox

Per James' invitation to the group, I have made some edits on his sandbox page, and have displayed (2) versions of James' suggested text. Other interested persons ought to do so as well. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 03:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have made more suggestions regarding potential fixes, here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 06:37, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A proposal to get the article unprotected

So what's the status on progress for this article? Where do we stand?

The technical reason the article was frozen was over a dispute over the inclusion of the "1971" date. I think we may have resolved this issue. There doesn't seem to be any objection over my compromise language in the poll above which has 4 votes for it and zero against. Even Rex has not raised a direct objection to it. In fact, he seems to tacitly accept my language because his recommended revision (see JML's sandbox) has my compromise sentence in there.

But I can't be sure where Rex stands because he has stated that he won't talk to me or discuss my compromise language directly for an "inderterminate" amount of time.

So where does that leave us and where do we go from here? Do we have to wait until Rex accepts the language for the first couple of paragraphs hashed out in the JML's sandbox? If so, that concerns me. I understand his track record of resolving disputes is not good. This makes me worry that the protected status of this article might have little chance of ever getting lifted.

So, in the interests of moving forward, I recommend we accept the proposed compromise language to get the article unprotected for now and continue to work on improvements to the opening paragraphs in JML's sandbox. Does this sound reasonable and can we all agree to this? --Nysus 13:36, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because of the problem of the flood of comments, as I explained on User talk:JamesMLane/SBVT intro, I'm not sure how the compromise language you're now referring to diverges from the text that was protected. In general, I don't object to unprotection, provided it's not taken as meaning that the version thus unprotected acquires a favored status and can't be changed except by consensus or a poll result. Before the latest edit war, I had expressed my opinion that there should be a second paragraph in the introduction, giving more information about the SBVT-related disputes, and I still think so. JamesMLane 14:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the record, Nysus has made (and continues to make) multiple false statements regarding our discussions (and the state of them) and has flat out refused to address certain questions posed to him by by. Whether or not, as a result of his current thinking, he goes forward feeling justified in his thinking, will remain to be seen. However, I ask that the group take notice that there is a "sandbox" page, where compromise versions are beind edited and discussed. I have posted proposed complete versions there, Nysus has not. As far as I am concerned, the current focus is on all of us jointly posting and discussing our changes on JML's sandbox page. Therefore, I see seeds of more editorial disagreement germinating, if indeed Nysus is taking the position that "his" version - rather than JML's or mine - is the only one being paid attention to at this time. Frankly, I reject his suggestion that that is the case an I hereby advise the group that I am seeking mediation with Nysus on the editorial issues relating to this page. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 15:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, your statement about Nysus's participation in the sandbox is inaccurate, although I take partial responsibility for that because I wasn't completely clear in getting the sandbox off the ground. (Wait a minute, can you get a sandbox off the ground? Well, whatever.) I wanted the main sandbox page to be just proposed text, with comments and signatures on the talk page. Nysus posted a new version, with a signed comment explaining his reasoning, to the main sandbox page, but I then split them up. I'm sorry for any resulting confusion. On the main sandbox page, User:JamesMLane/SBVT intro, "Version 1" is what I drafted. "Version 2", which is also a complete version, was proposed by Nysus fairly soon thereafter.
Despite the confusion in this instance, I think it's better to continue going forward without any individual's names attached to anything in the main sandbox page. Of course, people should always sign their comments on the sandbox talk page (User talk:JamesMLane/SBVT intro), but maybe using terms like "Version 1" and "Version 2" instead of "JML version" and "Nysus version" will help everybody focus on the text instead of on the personalities. JamesMLane 19:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Effectitve 09.08.04, Mediation has been requested by Rex071404

To whom it may concern: I Rex071404, have requested Mediation with Nysus, here. This is regarding the SBVT article and related discussions. Those who are interested in those topics, please take notice. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 15:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let it further be known that unless and until Nysus accepts and fully particpates in good faith, in this requested medation, I will definately oppose any efforts of his to "move the question", force "votes" or otherwise establish "his" version of disputed text as a standard or page unprotecting initiator. I contend that there is no agreement, that Nysus has has skirted all rational attempts to reach agreement and has instead made false statements, various outright lies and misquotes. Rather than constructively dailog, Nysus had instead focused on insisting that replies to a particular hypothetical qustion of his (which he labels a "fable"), must be answered on his terms or there is no dialog. As a result, there is no dialog, And there most certainly is no agreement or consensus. Any attempts by Nysus to "move the question" at this point are void as fraudulent due to his steadfast bad faith over the last few days. Indeed, the very fact that he is again pressing, illustrates this. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 15:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, these descriptions sound familiar. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were quoting one of our RfA complaints about you. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 17:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, I have learned the ropes from that process. That's precisly why I sought the assistance of a sysop regarding Nysus's repeated and unwarranted edits and that's precisely why in was my notifications about Nysus's misbehavior here which resulted in the page protection. It was also me who 1st requested an RfC on this page regarding Nysus's continued deletion of "1971" from the text. And it was also me who requested mediation. All this occurred after mnay, many talk edits aimed at reaching consensus with Nysus. Therefore, Gamaliel, since I am indeed following the methods which you (above) indicate is the the right plan, I can assume you will attempt to engage fully against what Nysus has been doing here, yes? After all - it is indeed Nysus, not myself who has been reported against here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 21:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Reporting does not mean guilt. Also, let's not debate this here, please? The page is already very full. Use User talk pages. Thanks. Lyellin 21:59, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
I read this talk page in its entirety just now and it doesn't support your account of what happened at all. It seems instead that Nysus has repeately tried to reach consensus with you and you have rebuffed his efforts with tangental side issues. And this "1971" nonsense, he's repeatedly stated that he has no problem with that being in there at all, so I am baffled as to why you keep bringing that up as if he's against it. Either you are using it as a club against him or you just don't grasp the substance of his objections at all. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex and Nyusus

First of all, while you might believe you are right in this sense, Rex, please refrain from coming up with such terms as "RNAN", for it doesn't exactly help the process of concensus... I may be new here but I think I can safely assume that at the very least its just plain retarded if not offensive.

But here it is. Nyusus and Rex, please state the questions that each of you claim the other one has not. If this has already occured, please disregard this section. Otherwise, in bullet-form, please with no snide comments or analogies or anything, state the questions that each of you claim the other will refuse to address, and then when both of you have stated your questions then please answer. This can be worked out rather than yet ANOTHER appeal to wikipedia for interference. if your question refers to something previous in the discussion, just link it, but here is the chance to come clean, ask the other person EXACTLY what you want to be addressed, and lets start from here, because this is starting to get ridiculous.

Thanks anon. I have been asking Rex to respond to my compromise language. See this. --Nysus 00:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, or I will not acknowledge them. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 02:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No need to be so rude, kizzle probably simply forgot to sign his comment. See Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers: "Behavior that may appear malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules." [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chill out, i just forgot to sign it in case you honestly didn't know this section was posted by me. It seems to me that the point at which we have stopped communication is Nyusus asking Rex to agree or change the compromise language, stated as:

"This group has challenged the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress."

I see attempts and concensus building made on James's page by Rex... why can't these be discussed on this page. Nyusys, I see your link to the section with your question towards rex... can you do us a favor and re-state what question you want answered (I think it just is what Rex thinks of the compromise language but I don't want to put words in your mouth) in simple bullet-form... and Rex please also re-state what questions you want Nyusys to answer.... I think that we don't have to abandon consensus building to mediation yet. --kizzle 19:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

kizzle, FYI, the reason I set up the sandbox to discuss the specific question of the introduction was that there were other issues being discussed here. As with many of the articles in which Rex is involved, there are multiple reverts and long arguments on the talk page about numerous disputes, large and small. (This may be because Rex is a problem user, or it may be because there's a pack of editors who all hate him and follow him around making trouble for him. Opinions differ.) I, personally, was finding it very hard to focus on specifics about what the text of the article should look like, which you rightly identify as the proper focus. I think the sandbox has produced some small improvement in that regard. It's easier for me to keep track of things, anyway. JamesMLane 21:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
JML> they may also be other reasons invloved - such pro-Kerry/Bush bias among editors, eh? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 18:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protected Pages Got you Down?

Need something to edit? Well come on over to Texans for Truth!

I hope folks here will watch the following discussion closely: Texans for Truth talk. Comments from those here in SBVT are more than welcome. I want to avoid another edit war with Rex at all costs. --Nysus 17:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Nysus says: "I want to avoid another edit war with Rex at all costs". This is false for two reasons:
  1. Before the edits here became a war, I sought an RfCc and mediation with Nysus and got a sysop invvolved, thereby averting an edit war.
  2. Nysus is already going hog-wild (along with Gamaliel) in reverting me again at Texans for Truth.
In my view, only Nysus thinks he and I are at war, I on the other hand, am trying to be collegial with him [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 20:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i have tried and tried to get you two to talk about what specifically we are disagreeing on, and that means content of this page rather than previous grievances, but I give up. it seems like some parties here simply do not want to resolve their differences. --kizzle 20:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Nysus - just his reverts to my edits. Also, please do take note that I have actively posted to JML's sandbox and am waiting to see what the other editors think about the (4) choices for a introductory section to SBVT. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404   ]] 21:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth/Archive_6&oldid=934650388"