Talk:Texans for Truth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconUnited States: Texas Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Archive1 - created 09.25.04

TfT and SBVT[edit]

TfT and SBVT must receive the same editorial treatment, because:

  1. They are both 527 groups
  2. They are both formed to oppose the other team's candidate
  3. They are both attacking veracity of the other candidate's military service

These three similarities make the groups themselves functionally the same. Simply because TfT has come late to the game and has less of a fact basis upon which to make accusations thant SBVT, does not make these groups dissimilar. Any attempts to prolong the editorial differences between articles regarding these groups is unjustified and inherently POV [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have an objection to the wording "other team's candidate": theoretically, 527 groups are independant nonprofit organizations and are not on a "team". Kevin Baas | talk 16:56, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

How would you prefer to refer to the objective fact that one group opposes a Democrat and one group opposes a Republican? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again Rex, you insisted on the SBVT structure. So, that is a pretty weak argument coming from you. How about you explain why your proposal is appropriate without worrying about SBVT. See Rex's comment below. Wolfman 17:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman's edit just now[edit]

Wolfman's editorial inclusion just now of embedded pointers to "GWBMSC" helps alleviate much of the POV problems. I will continue watching for this. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:05, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

rex's edit[edit]

The sentence you removed was simply part of the description of what the ad says. I frankly am not familliar with these papers, all I did was watch the ad a few times and reiterate what it said. Rephrase it if you like, but I would prefer it inside to detail the charges in the ad. - --kizzle 07:22, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

No! That allegation is patently false. Including it here would force me to rebut it here. Please study up on the topic first. You are being fooled by the ad. Bush has signed his form 180, Kerry has not. This is a matter of public record. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I looked around and aside from conservative websites couldn't find anything to prove that Bush signed form 180. Could you please give us a source for this? Some of the sites say he signed it in February, yet there is nothing in the Press Briefings from February saying it happened. I'm thinking people are getting confused by the release of the payroll records and Scott McLellan saying that everything we had we made available. AlistairMcMillan 08:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Judicial Watch sued the government to get all Bush's records and recently won. The only way they could win, was if the records they sought were "public". They only become public if a release is given by the person the records are of, in this case, Bush. Once they are deemed "public", organizations like Judicial Watch are able to get copies under FOIA (freedom info act). Now whether or not the actual release itself was a "form 180" or some other form, I am not 100% sure. The release disparity between Bush/Kerry is not being widely reported as the media is in Kerry's camp and wants to obfuscate the fact that Bush has released and Kerry has not. See this [1]. It's from Judicial Watch and makes clear that there are Kerry records being withheld. Please look into the Judicial Watch angle and you will probably find what you require to be satisfied that I speak the truth on this. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 09:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay now I'm even more confused. Judicial Watch sued to get access to Kerry's records, not Bush. They have gone after the White House on a number of things (Haliburton etc) but I can't find anything relating to Bush's military record. AlistairMcMillan 09:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Found it. It was the Associated Press that filed the Freedom of Information Act request. And their winning their case (under Judge Harold Baer) doesn't imply that all records are public. As far as I can tell, certain records (including medical) are still protected until Bush says otherwise. Do you have any proof Bush signed a 180? If you don't then that sentence needs to be restored. AlistairMcMillan 10:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The sentence does not refer to form 180, neither does the ad. In fact the ad is too vague to even be a rational accusation. If that text is restored, I am putting rebuttal. The way I have edited it is perfectly fait to both sides. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex Rex Rex. You mentioned form 180, I'd never heard of it until you brought it up. I located Standard Form 180. You said Bush has signed his form 180, Kerry has not. I made a good faith attempt to find something to back that up but couldn't, because he hasn't.
The ad says You pledged to release all of your military records. But you've not signed the papers to do so. If you watch the ad in the background you can see a form with the words REQUEST PERTAINING TO MILITARY RECORDS which bears a striking simiilarity to the title of Standard Form 180 INSTRUCTION AND INFORMATION SHEET FOR SF 180, REQUEST PERTAINING TO MILITARY RECORDS.
How clear do you want them to be? AlistairMcMillan 17:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey you wanted to add your rebuttal. I was just adding mine.  :-)

Do you really think Scott McLellan or Dan Bartlet are credible when they say "we have released everything"? AlistairMcMillan 18:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links to the main article[edit]

To appease Rex, I was willing to tolerate a second link to George W. Bush military service controversy. Now, however, we have four wikilinks to the same article. This is absurd. I suggest:

  1. Un-link the reference to Bush's National Guard record in the first sentence. Instead, make "National Guard" a piped wikilink to United States National Guard.
  2. Expand the reference at the end of "Membership and organization" along these lines: "This article describes only the participation in this long-standing dispute by the Texans for Truth organization. For a comprehensive review of the allegations, responses, and evidence, see George W. Bush military service controversy."
  3. Remove the two remaining references.

That treatment will give the reader an idea of what's in the linked article. No purpose is served by the current setup of reiterating the link over and over. JamesMLane 07:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unless you allow local rebuttal to allegations, for each allegation a pointer to the other page is required. I'd be ok with one pointer after each "advertisement" synopsis. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In other words, if you aren't allowed to trumpet your POV at every opportunity, then you'll insist on a clear violation of Wikipedia linking policy. Your comment assumes that our readers are idiots who'll read the comment I suggested, putting Texans for Truth in the context of the broader debate over Bush's behavior during the war, but who then won't remember that context a minute later, when they read the summaries of the ads. Therefore, you think we have to tell them about it, over and over again, lest anyone miss the point that TfT's statements are merely allegations in a much broader dispute. JamesMLane 08:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML's non-constructive taunt, is being ignored by me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 08:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I repeat JMLs comments (maybe they won't be ignored this time). This is an objective article to describe what the TfT organisation is. Wikipedia is not a non-partisan (or dual-partisan) investigation committee designed to thoroughly weigh evidence on both sides of the debate within purely descriptive articles. Get over it, there are hundreds, if not thousands of bulletin boards and other forums where you can bandy about allegations, secret evidence, rumours and counterpoints - this isn't one of them.--ZZ 12:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I personally am abstaining from whether or not rebuttal should be included (I have my own opinions but it seems like there is reasonable dialog, don't want to jump on the bandwagon)... but regardless the sentence I put in should stay in, we do not simply remove points from SBVT because they are partisan but rather discuss them. Since this article is forced to be an offshoot of GWBMSC, it must contain all information about TfT that is not redundant in GWBMSC, unless some parties here want to merge the two to achieve true parity to SBVT. Merely describing a partisan ad is not POV. --kizzle 17:31, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Also, there's a logical fallacy in your reasoning... you cannot assert the consequent simply because the antecedent is true.
"If George Bush signs his 180 form, all his public records are released"
If P then Q
"Since all his public records are released, he must have signed his 180 form"
Since Q, then P <-- Fallacies:Affirming the Consequent --kizzle 17:41, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

POV piling-on[edit]

The current attempts to inject anti-Bush POV in a "piling-on" manner is what I warned the group I would be watching for. Be advised that the path you are headed down is apt to lead to aggressive re-edits. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not piling on. is describing the SBVT piling on Kerry? On general principle, I don't think the sentence should be removed as it does not contain any statements of analysis but rather of description, but if you are so *sure* and it is *public record* then it shouldn't be too hard to find a link to when he signed this form, or more information on it. Then, when you find it, try putting it into the paragraph and see... but don't take away what's already there as it is merely descriptive and not analytical. --kizzle 18:14, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Alistair, if what you put in is true, then can you quote them directly? --kizzle 18:18, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Please see my edits above under the rex's edit heading. Rex was wrong when he said Bush had signed his SF 180 form [2], Bush has done no such thing. He was wrong when he said Justice Watch had recently won a FOIA request, it was the AP [3]. He was wrong when he said that proved everything was public, because documents are still dribbling out three months later. He is wrong when he says the ad does not refer to form 180 (which he brought up), because it quite clearly shows a form in the ad that has exactly the same title REQUEST PERTAINING TO MILITARY RECORDS. He says the ad is too vague but You pledged to release all of your military records. But you've not signed the papers to do so. sounds pretty damn clear to me.
And about the The spokesperson for President Bush has responded to this, saying that he indeed has released his service records and in doing so, signed the required forms bit Rex wants, the ad is so new I can't find any source for anyone responding to it. Anyway I wanted to point out that they have been saying for years "yep, now we have released EVERYTHING" only for something to pop up a few months or a year later, so even if they have said that it doesn't really have any credibility. AlistairMcMillan 18:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree, I would want that up, ideally I'd just like it to be like "The Bush Administration said the same thing in January and September --kizzle 19:15, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
The thing is though I can't find any response from any spokesperson to the second ad. It only came out on Friday after all. I have a feeling Rex just made that bit up. So until he (or someone else) comes up with a source that defense should stay out altogether. AlistairMcMillan 19:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And Rex, describing the content of the ad is NOT anti-Bush. AlistairMcMillan 19:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about we wait until someone has actually responded to the ad BEFORE adding their response? AlistairMcMillan 20:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is the charge which has already been responded to. The ad only repeats and re-alleges the chrarge. Contemporaneous response to a re-hash of the same old charge (ie: records!) is not required. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fantabulous. Scott said there were no more document in February. More documents have come out since then... including THIS month. How can you take Scott's statement seriously enough to use it as a defense? Why not pull out a quote from Ari in 2000 and use that as a rebutal, it'll be just as valid? Or whoever was Bush's Press Secretary while he was running for Governor of Texas?
Without a doubt they will respond to the ad in a day or two, why not wait until then to add their response? AlistairMcMillan 21:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

McClellan's Actual Response - Kizzle[edit]

Sorry to spam, I think the following discussion is what Rex uses to justify, all we have is payroll records, not service records.


Q Scott, a couple of questions I have -- the records that you handed out today, and other records that exist, indicate that the President did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February or March of 1973. I'm wondering if you can tell us where he was during that period. And also, how is it that he managed to not make the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, the records that you're pointing to, these records are the payroll records; they're the point summaries. These records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. These records --

Q That wasn't my question, Scott.

MR. McCLELLAN: These payroll records --

Q Scott, that wasn't my question, and you know it wasn't my question. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? And why did he not fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?

MR. McCLELLAN: These records -- these records I'm holding here clearly document the President fulfilling his duties in the National Guard. The President was proud of his service. The President --

Q I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, if you'll let me address the question, I'm coming to your answer, and I'd like --

Q Well, if you would address it -- maybe you could.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, John. But this is an important issue that some chose to raise in the context of an election year, and the facts are important for people to know. And if you don't want to know the facts, that's fine. But I want to share the facts with you.

Q I do want to know the facts, which is why I keep asking the question. And I'll ask it one more time. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? Why didn't he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President recalls serving both when he was in Texas and when he was in Alabama. And that is what I can tell you. And we have provided you these documents that show clearly that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. And that is the reason that he was honorably discharged from the National Guard. The President was proud of his service.

The President spent some of that time in Texas. He was a member of the Texas Air National Guard, and he was given permission, on a temporary basis, to perform equivalent duty while he was in Alabama. And he performed that duty. And the payroll records, that I think are very important for the public to have, clearly reflect that he served.


Mr. McCLELLAN: All the information that we have we shared with you in 2000, that was relevant to this issue. And all the additional information that has come to our attention we have shared with you. The President was asked about this in his interview over the weekend, and the President made it clear, yes, I want all records to be made available that are relevant to this issue; that there are some out there that were making outrageous, baseless accusations. It was a shame that they brought it up four years ago. It was a shame that they brought it up again this year. And I think that the facts are very clear from these documents. These documents -- the payroll records and the point summaries verify that he was paid for serving and that he met his requirements.


MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, no. People asked for records to be released that would demonstrate he met his requirements. The records have now been fully released. The facts are clear --

..... yet later

Q One other thing on this. To corroborate these records, will the President do two things -- one, will he authorize the relevant defense agency in Colorado to release actual pay stubs for the President? And if those don't exist, will the President file a form, as he can do at the IRS, to at least look for a '72 or '73 tax return that would corroborate what you claim are payroll summaries that he actually got paid for this duty?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think this information is his payroll records. It is my understanding this is the information that is available from his payroll records. And it shows the days on which he was paid. So that's the information that I understand is available. In terms of tax returns, the President, like most Americans, does not have his tax returns from some 30 years ago.

Q But it's possible that he could file a form requesting the IRS to search if they have a return for '72 or '73. Is he willing to do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Obviously, if there's any additional information that came to our attention that was relevant, we would make that information available.


Q Scott, so, for example, in January '73, the President served, according to this, on January 4th, January 5th, January 6th in either Texas or Alabama -- according to document five. Is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: You are paid for the days you serve. You have the documents right in front of you. These are documents straight from the Personnel --

Q Is that "yes"?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- straight from the Personnel Center in Colorado.

Q Is that "yes"?

MR. McCLELLAN: I said you are paid for the days in which you serve. And, again, we're talking about 30 years ago, Elisabeth. The President recalls serving in Alabama. He also recalls serving in Texas. That's what he recalls. And that's why --

Q But, again, -- I know you're going to bat this down, but there are people who --

MR. McCLELLAN: You know, there were a lot of people calling for these records to be released. We finally came across these records. They have been released, and these documents reflect the fact that the President met his requirements and fulfilled his duties.

Q And the fact that some of his officers don't recall ever seeing him, are you suggesting that they just don't remember after 30 years?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I'll let them speak for themselves. I'm not sure that they exactly said it in that way. Some different ones said different things.

Q They have. They have spoken for themselves. They don't remember.

Q What is your answer to them about why they don't remember seeing the President?

MR. McCLELLAN: That the President recalls serving. I just said that.


Q: You keep saying the word, "serve." Define "serve."

MR. McCLELLAN: He met -- he served both in Alabama, and he served both in Texas.


Last Choice example:

Q It's your position that these documents specifically show that he served in Alabama during the period 1972, when he was supposed to be there. Do they specifically show that?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think if you look at the documents, what they show are the days on which he was paid, the payroll records.

Yeah I know that is what Rex is referring to. I scanned through all the February press briefings this morning. That doesn't change that documents have come out THIS month. Scott's statements from February obviously don't apply now. They obviously aren't referring to the SF180 that TfT are referring to. AlistairMcMillan 21:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The FoxNews link is an accurate part of the historical record. The fact is that as written right now (my most recent edit), the section is fair to both sides. If you want to keep upping the ante, go for it. Just be aware that when you cross the Rubicon here, I'm going "all in". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

not good when you got 2-7 offsuit. and how is a direct quote from upping the ante? --kizzle 21:33, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
My ace on the hold is that I won't let you guys deal from the bottom of the deck. If you do, I'm going to draw against you over it. Do you feel lucky? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
REX for god's sake. In February Scott says there are no more documents. In September more turn up. How can you use the February statement as a defense that there are no more documents? That doesn't make any sense?
I only put the September stuff in to prove how ridiculous the February statement is and now you want to keep it in? I'm really beginning to wonder if your aim here is to turn every anti-Bush page into a massive convoluted mess, so that no one will ever actually manage to read even one page from beginning to end. I bloody edit pages here and I can't be bothered to read all the way through SBVFT, I get about a third of the way and lose interest every bloody time. AlistairMcMillan 21:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, with comments like that, I question your grasp of the subject matter. The new stuff turned up from a lawsuit against the defense dept. not Bush. Bush's spokesperson said "apparently". What is it about that word that you don't understand? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wait a sec, you're going to add a rebuttal where McClellan says they have "apparently" released all records? That's a pretty weak rebuttal. And does your wife know how long you spend on the computer each day trying to get the last word? --kizzle 22:12, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Rex, you question MY grasp of the subject matter? You are the one who made a whole list of mistakes his morning (my time):
* Bush has signed his form 180, Kerry has not. This is a matter of public record. NO he didn't and NO it isn't
* Judicial Watch sued the government to get all Bush's records and recently won. NO they didn't
* The only way they could win, was if the records they sought were "public". NO it doesn't work that way
* The sentence does not refer to form 180, neither does the ad. The ad bloody well DOES refer to SF 180
* In fact the ad is too vague to even be a rational accusation. WHAT???
Really bloody simple:
  1. Scott says there are no more documents in February APPARENTLY
  2. Documents turn up in early September, proving pretty conclusively there ARE more documents
  3. TfT release a video in late September calling for more documents
  4. We point to Scott's statement in February that there are no more documents APPARENTLY???
Does this make sense on your planet? Do you think it proves your case? AlistairMcMillan 22:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


how is the line, "BOTH kerry and bush have not signed to release all records" POV? --kizzle 23:18, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Don't you understand yet? Everything that even suggests anything even slightly unpositive about Bush is POV. Bush's honorable discharge is enough to prove he was the bestest Air National Guardsman EVAR. But Kerry's honorable discharge AND pile of medals just proves the guy is french. AlistairMcMillan 23:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
hahaha :) makes sense to me! --kizzle 23:26, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Wait, Kerry got an honorable discharge? that is just too good... why didn't someone bring that up before, cause if Bush's military questions are answered by "He got an honorable discharge", then so should Kerry's. --kizzle 00:21, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
But that doesn't count because... uhm... err... Kerry's uhm... uh... got a funny hairdoo. AlistairMcMillan 00:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is N.P.O.V? (This seriously needs to be worked out)[edit]

I think we have a very warped sense of NPOV going on here.

NPOV is not the vain hope that two opposing biased views will cancel each other out (what Rex is proposing, both sides presenting their arguments).

NPOV is the absence of any biased views, outside of context (i.e. quotes, descriptions and other unavoidable, but clearly presented instances).

Mentioning the P.O.V. statements of TfT in describing the TfT organisation is not violating NPOV. Placing rebuttals to the TfT opinions DOES violate NPOV, as it discredits the organisation, no matter how weak or supposedly NPOV such evidence is. That turns the NPOV article into an editorial subjective discuission, something that encyclopedias are not.--ZZ 00:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hallelujah. AlistairMcMillan 00:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I only partially agree. The wiki surely has room for facts which may either rebut or support some group's opinions. The question is whether those facts go in some separate article with a link, or whether they go in the group's article. Part of wiki policy is to present opinions, including opinions about these groups, and the facts certainly influence those opinions.
Personally, I think the place for the majority of the facts here is in the Bush military service controversy page. (And a similar 'controversy' page ought to eventually be created about Kerry for SBVT, but Rex has effectively vetoed that idea). Wolfman 01:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Wolfman, while ZZ I think you're technically correct, I personally don't mind a bit of detail if it is *well-documented* and *cited* heavily.--kizzle 02:00, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
kizzle, I look at this page now, after a lapse of some hours, and I see revert upon revert as people bring in new arguments and citations to support or oppose the charges against Bush. Thus, the problem is that when someone presents detail, even if "*well-documented* and *cited* heavily", the consequence is that someone else wants to present the other side. It's certainly notable that Rex wants the article about Texans for Truth to include a statement from Bush's spokesperson from before Texans for Truth was even formed, but that's only one striking example of the larger pattern: The article about Texans for Truth drifts away from its nominal subject and moves toward being a rehash of George W. Bush military service controversy. That's why I believe that the only way to deal with this is to make it clear that this article is about TfT and its media comments, while the evidence for its position, plus the other attacks on Bush, plus the evidence for those attacks, all gets covered in George W. Bush military service controversy, with a single link here explaining the division of "turf" between the articles. Unless we adopt that approach, I don't see much chance that this article will ever stabilize. JamesMLane 03:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If a group, any group is attacking either Kerry or Bush, if and when we quote or recap the views of that group, if that "view" comes across as an attack, a discrete rebuttal ought to be allowed. There is no other reasonable way to do it. If not, then "pregnant" unrebutted attacks will be built into sentences by partisan editors across the Wiki [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If only we could spin off a John Kerry Military Service Controversy.... I don't agree that a rebuttal ought to be allowed... at least not on this article, as this is merely to describe the Texans For Truth article. There is already a discussion on this specific topic, i.e. the rebuttal about record release is clearly on the GWBMSC page. The link above is good to re-direct anyone interested in the details, and I don't think anyone coming to this page is going to merely assume that a highly partisan attack group's claims are true by default. --kizzle 03:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Smith info edit by JML[edit]

That edit just now was a good example of a proper editorial edit [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle link[edit]

The funny thing about that is, the same organization (Democracy 21) sued SBVT...--kizzle 17:23, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

there we go. JML added reference to TfT. --kizzle 17:35, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

JML's biased edits[edit]

It's one thing to quote an actual person who's in the ad, but it's quite another to give free ink to the voiceover itself. JML, cut the bunk or I'm going new-clear here. Frankly, I am so sick of JMLs's POV edits I could shout! Everyone take a look at the decriptions of the ads in SBVT and then see what JML is up to here. SBVT does not quote the voiceover of the ad. JML is trying to make trouble! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is an article about a group whose pretty much sole purpose is to run TV ads. So we can't even quote from the most important thing about this group? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 17:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's attempt to censor the truth[edit]

Of course this section heading is silly but I didn't want my edit summary to locate my comments in a section called "JML's biased edits".

I edited the text about the second advertisement in reaction to the previous version, which descreibed what the ad "suggests". (I think Rex had written "infers", by which he probably meant "implies" since that pair of words is sometimes confused.) All these choices to characterize the ad are misleading. They give the impression that there's some circumstantial evidence that the ad alludes to in the hope of leaving the impression that Bush hasn't signed the release papers. That impression would be false. The ad says, "you've not signed the papers". Instead of slogging through edit wars over "infers" versus "suggests" versus "contends" versus "alleges" versus "states" versus "reports" versus "reveals" or whatever, the least controversial approach is not to characterize the content but just to quote it. If there's a paraphrase that doesn't give a false impression about the ad's content, and that Rex will accept without a dozen reverts and edit summaries accusing everyone else of bias and threatening retailiatory edits, ArbCom complaints, or all the usual panoply of Rexian-style collaborative editing, then, fine, I'll accept a paraphrase. I just think a quotation is less likely get reworded over and over before it stabilizes. JamesMLane 18:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We also have here another striking instance of how Rex wants to impose rules on everyone else while refusing to apply them to himself. Time after time, Rex has added some blatant pro-Bush POV to an article, and then, when it's deleted, reverted with an edit summary insisting that no one can delete anything while dialog is continuing on the talk page. Here, of course, when the insert (a verbatim quotation of undisputed accuracy) is one that Rex doesn't like, he feels perfectly free to delete it even though there's been no consensus to that effect. The practical effect of implementing Rex's statements would be that every article must appear in the form that Rex wants, regardless of other editors' opinions, unless and until a lengthy dialog on the talk page persuades Rex to change his mind. Welcome to the Rexopedia. JamesMLane 18:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, what you are trying here is not what was done at SBVT and that's hypocrisy! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I protected the page as it is, without the two "contoversial" quotes from the ads in question. I agree that limited quotes can belong, but could be written better into the paragraph. Rex would seem immune to reason, judging by his actions. -SV 18:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am raising objections and the only response I get is the same old re-insertion from the others. They have insisted on certain rules, yet they don't even follow them. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with the first ad pgph. This may be better wording for the second:

The second advertisement (video) reiterates the charges against George W. Bush that he did not fulfill his military service requirements but also accuses George H. W. Bush of pulling strings in order for his son to get into the Texas Air National Guard. The advertisement also quotes Bush's statement on Meet the Press (February 8 2004) where he claimed that he would authorize release of his records. The ad narrative calls on Bush to release his records: "You pledged to release all of your military records, but you've not signed the papers to do so. Sign them now. Keep your word." Bush, the TFT group asserts, has not thus far signed the actual form (Standard Form 180) to effect the release.

-SV 19:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this wording. --kizzle 19:07, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

If we go this route, I am going to have to receive equivilent editorial license on SBVT. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this is less POV:

The second advertisement (video) reiterates the charges against George W. Bush that he did not fulfill his military service requirements but also accuses George H. W. Bush of pulling strings in order for his son to get into the Texas Air National Guard. The advertisement also quotes Bush's statement on Meet the Press (February 8 2004) where he claimed that he would authorize release of his records. The ad narrative calls on Bush to release his records. Bush, the TFT group asserts, has not thus far signed the actual form (Standard Form 180) to effect the release.

JML has always said "let's not spoon feed readers" and used that argument to block edits of mine. The readers can watch the video - we are giving them a link. We do not need to give free ad space to repeat allegations verbatim. If that allegation goes in, I want rebuttal in too. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, NPOV does not mean Rebuttel! We don't just put in pile after pile to even the score, we work to make it NPOV, so stop making that threat/demand. Secondly, everyone has any editorial license on any article- no one is keeping you from editing an aritcle, unless you are banned from it. Lyellin 19:30, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, but I do understand Rex's frustration: If JML has done as Rex has claimed, it would seem to imply a double standard that needs to be dealt with at mediation. My sense (preliminary) is that Rex is grinding an axe, and has chosen this battle poorly: the addition of quotes on the SBVT page by Rex and other GOP biasers, was more than likely both unnecesary and gratuitous. That said, its an entirely bi-partisan pandemic that fine-tuned compromises do not materialise. I hope that both JML and Rex and other polemicists can submit to the will of the majority for a satisfactory compromise. -SV 19:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Smearing JML and Rex with the same brush is grossly unfair. JML has repeatedly shown willingness to compromise and go with consensus and has at times bent over backwards to placate and accomodate Rex's constant objections. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex, you claim that "the only response I get is the same old re-insertion from the others". That accusation is simply false. I specifically said, with regard to the second ad, that the paraphrase you had written was misleading, and I explained why. You haven't answered. I also said that I'd accept an accurate paraphrase if anyone wanted to propose one. You didn't propose one. Instead, you followed your usual course of multiple reverts, with the result that you've managed to add yet another page protection to your growing tally.
After you passed up every opportunity to make a constructive comment, it was SV who did so, by recommending better integration into the paragraph. In response to his suggestion, I drafted this proposed revision, encountering an edit conflict when I saw the other versions already posted:
The advertisement also criticizes Bush for his failure to sign the military's Standard Form 180, which would authorize the release of his service records. Over a picture of Bush and the text of his statement on Meet the Press (February 8, 2004) that he would release his records, the narrator says: "You pledged to release all of your military records, but you've not signed the papers to do so. Sign them now. Keep your word."
As to the specific texts, it's somewhat misleading to say that TfT "asserts" that Bush hasn't signed, as if the point were in dispute. Rex asserted on this talk page that Bush had signed the form 180, but when challenged, he couldn't provide a single reference to support that claim, and retreated to saying he was "not 100% sure." If Bush had signed it, I think his flacks would be publicizing the fact. We don't need to qualify as "asserted" statements that aren't seriously disputed.
I agree, but the issue is in the context of the advertisement. You can start a separate article on George W. Bush US National Guard service record to deal with the material of the claims - here the issue is the ad, and what the ad claims. -SV
I'll respond to SV's comment in a moment but I want to try to get this much posted without hitting these interminable edit conflicts that somehow mysteriously occur on pages where Rex is involved. JamesMLane 19:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Blah Blah Blah - JML shut up with your intentional taunts. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As for the question that S V raises about SBVT, there is in fact no "double standard". That's just another example of how Rex constantly complains about imagined bias and the fictitious pro-Kerry cabal. (Read his comments about how we follow him around, and about how he's glad we don't know his real name, if you want further insight into his temperament.) The fact is that the SBVT article follows exactly the approach that I'm trying to apply here: It summarizes the contentions of each advertisement, using paraphrases and, where appropriate, direct quotations. For example, see Swift Boat Veterans for Truth#Third television advertisement: An ad that accuses Kerry of lying is quoted, verbatim, at greater length than the quotation from the TfT ad that I inserted. (This quotation from the SBVT ad is given even though we link to a transcript as well as a video of the SBVT ad, so all readers could readily see it for themselves, whereas at this point we don't have a link to a transcript of the second TfT ad.) Furthermore, if Rex thinks that any of the summaries at SBVT are inaccurate, he could explain the problem on the Talk page, just as I took the trouble to explain here why his summary of the TfT ad was inaccurate.
Our summary of the first TfT ad states, as a fact, that Bush was assigned to the Alabama Guard in 1972, when the man quoted in the TfT ad says Bush wasn't there. Do we need to say, instead, that TfT "asserts" that Bush was assigned to Alabama? No, we don't, because the point isn't in dispute. I think the same reasoning applies to the second TfT ad. The TfT ad is based in part on the fact that Bush hasn't signed the papers to release his records. I think it would be pointless to say that TfT "asserts" he was assigned to Alabam and "asserts" that he hasn't signed the forms. We don't need to label every single statement in the ads as a TfT assertion.
By the way, S V, you protected the page but forgot to put up the "Protected" template. JamesMLane 20:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TfT vs SBVT[edit]

At SBVT, the people who are interviewed in the ad are quoted. At TfT JML, is trying to quote the narrator of the ad itself. The TfT method being tried here is way more POV in it's end result. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the first place, your statement is false. If you take the time to read Swift Boat Veterans for Truth#Fourth television advertisement, you'll find this passage: "The advertisement describes Kerry as a man who 'renounced his country's symbols,' a reference to a Vietnam War protest...." The quotation is from the voiceover in the SBVT ad. In the second place, your statement would be irrelevant even if it were true. The purpose of these articles is to give people information about the contents of the ads, including the witness statements and the voiceovers. The language I've suggested above for summarizing the TfT ad attributes the quoted portion to the narrator, so no one will be in any doubt about the source. JamesMLane 20:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wrong again JML. Unlike why you are trying to do here, the SBVT words are not a 1st person verbatim repeat of the exact words being spoken. Rather, it's a recap description. Also, what about the "spoon feed" principle? And it's not a matter of "attribution" rather it's a matter of you turning this Wiki into a verbatim echo chamber for accusations - which you won't allow rebuttals to! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML admits he is shilling for TfT[edit]

He said this: "The purpose of these articles is to give people information about the contents of the ads...". What a crock! The purpose of the article is to give the reader a general sense of TfT's existance and activities - not stick the readers noses into unrebutted specific details of the allegations! One-sided presentation is POV! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

don't the TFT advertisements come under activities?? Ads are all TFT has done AFAIK (unless both Rex, JML and you other Americans are hiding something) so this article should contain not much on any other activities (as they don't exist)--ZZ 03:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, but giving people information ought not to rise to the of level turning an article into an echo chamber for unrebutted partisan attacks. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


People need to chill out. Seriously.

The concept of spoon-feeding is applying subsequent non-descript analysis to a situation and drawing conclusions for the readers. Articles in themselves should be like the premises of an argument, of which the reader applies their own conclusions. Thus...

X is P
Y is Q
Z is R

is all an article should maintain. Spoon-feeding occurs when we also include:

Because X is P and Z is R, this is wrong.

Spoon-feeding, however, does NOT apply to descriptive sentences that merely draw more detail to a subject. These sentences do not contain any analytical statements but rather sharpens our notion of the concept involved.

To bring it back to point, merely describing the advertisement's and either quoting verbatim or paraphrasing is NOT spoon-feeding, as it does not draw conclusions for the readers, but merely helps describe the concept involved.

In addition, Rex, you catching JML on a 'shill'?

What if we removed the subject from his description?

"The purpose of these articles is to give people information about the contents of _______, including (descriptive sentences)..."

isn't this the objective of an article in an encylopedia in itself, independent of subject? --kizzle 20:47, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

A good example of what we should model after is pages on philosophical arguments. Despite the fact that we may not agree with or come to the same conclusions as the philosopher, we still should reproduce his/her viewpoint as accurately as possible, including quotations from his argument. In creating an article discussing a viewpoint or argument, it is NOT POV to quote that viewpoint or argument. --kizzle 20:55, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Allowing only one side in a mud-slinging constest to sling (ie: TfT accuses, but no rebuttal allowed) is hardly the Socratic Method [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is not a debate forum. This is an encyclopedia. And that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about your repeated insistence on deleting these quotes. --kizzle 21:21, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

While that may indeed be the scientific system of "spoon feeding" it does not address JML using that term to block me in the past, but wanting more leeway for himself now. And in any case, what I just said about sticking noses into the details is true. If they want more, we have provided the link - let them watch it. If not, I am going to rebut! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for "contents", we need not quote verbatim the allegations of a pointedly POV narrator (note it's a "narrator" - not even a actual person with a real world gripe as at SBVT). We can simply state, in synopsis form, the gist of the ad. Please re-read above and go re-read SBVT. There is a disparity in editorial standards being advanced by JML, et al here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But that's the point. This article is not a discussion, it is a descriptive article of a group that's sole existence is to provide a point of view. In addition, this article's sole purpose is to describe that group, and thus in doing so we must describe as accurately as possible what it's viewpoint is, as describing a philosopher, or a famous author, or anyone else who is famous for a viewpoint. Quoting this point of view is not POV per Wikipedia standards, it is only analytical statements or emotional connotations attached to the form of the message that constitute as POV in a Wikipedia sense. --kizzle 20:58, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Wrong! The end result of an article that repeats specific accusations, ought not to leave the reader with only one half of the story. Period! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've already wasted enough time today dealing with Rex, so I'm not going to hunt up all my uses of the term "spoon-feeding", but I think I've generally applied it to Rex's incessant attempts to tell the reader what conclusion should be drawn from the facts. For example, in the John Kerry article, we told the reader that, when Kerry received his first wound, a piece of shrapnel was removed, some antibiotic was applied, the wound was bandaged, and Kerry lost no time from duty, conducting a regular patrol the next day. All those were the facts. Rex concluded from those facts that the wound was minor. The spoon-feeding came because he wanted our article to tell the reader that the wound was "minor" -- just as, when we provided the fact that Kerry's second tour of duty in Vietnam lasted four months, Rex wanted to say that it was "brief". By contrast, my proposal for the description of the TfT ad provides factual information that's otherwise not in the article. Spoon-feeding in the Rex style would be to say that the ad makes the "telling point" that Bush hasn't kept his word, or some such. I think it's a telling point (albeit on a minor issue), but it would be improper for me to insert that conclusion. Readers can see what the ad says and judge for themselves. JamesMLane 21:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
JML the wound was minor - that is an irrefutable medical fact, yet you would not allow the use of that word. On the other hand, the narrator you want to quote is an actor's voice parroting a POV partisan advertising script. This certainly calls for rebuttal. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, not wrong.
"(Wikipedia is not) Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively on what advocates say, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. Go to Usenet if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views—and good luck"
By quoting directly, we fulfill the objective requirement in reporting on what advocates say, thus at the very least that criteria is met. Whether or not rebuttal should be included is a separate matter, but these quotations are completely justified by:
  1. Articles must report objectively on what advocates say
  2. Quoting a direct source's POV is objectively describing that advocates opinion.
Thus, Quoting a direct source's POV is justified --kizzle 21:09, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

"as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view" means that rebuttal is warranted in the case of a verbatim repeat of a pointed partisan attack. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then at the very least you can't find a flaw in my argument that the quotes need to be absent. Will put them up when it gets un-protected. --kizzle 21:17, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
In addition, using your justification, what is your view on me adding a rebuttal after yours, so as not to end the article with an oppositional statement, which clearly is POV?--kizzle 21:19, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are saying. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I have to explain it to you, it's too much bother. --kizzle 21:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Obvious snide sarcasm - aimed at stirring up past problems. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, please act a bit more professionally. Kizzle, Rex is right that articles have a criticisms section. Rex- You can introduce your crits into a separate section, if you like, as long as they are not yours, but those of newsmakers of being documented. At this early stage, it seems that the campaign funds violation is the only issue, and there is nothing factually wrong with the claims they make. Please, if you add a rebuttal section, do so without your usual bias. -SV 21:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with criticism. I just have a problem with removing direct quotations. --kizzle 22:13, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
"Bias" if there is one, is implimented on reciprocal basis only so as to cancel out opposing bias - along the lines of active noise cancelling headphones. Please take a look at the article Lawrence v. Texas to see where I was able to get past a trouble maker and reach consensus with a group of non-agenda dominated editors. Notice I didn't say driven, but dominated. JML and Gamaliel are, I feel, dominated by a pro-Kerry anti-Bush agenda. Kizzle I am not sure about. Regarding him, I'm sensing that he just doesn't like to expereince anything he considers as "being bossed". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In other words Rex, you are wasting people's time with your philandering loiterous boring polemicism, and occasionally lower your high standards enough to find a working solution. You are in need of attention and seek it by causing argument and hassle rather than getting things done. You completely ignored my call to write a crit section and just went off on how great you are. This kind of thing should be done someplace else, like LiveJournal. -SV 22:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Philandering"? How so? Also, based on your personal attack, you should recuse yourself. You are hardly in a position to mitigate problems when you add to them by hurling insults. Also, please clarify your word choice of "loiterous". [4] And I did not "ignore" your call for a "crit" section. Rather you are calling for something that does not solve the problem. The problem is excess unrebutted POV material. I have offered an alternative version above and the only argument against it is the claim that I am censoring "the truth". Har! That's exactly what JML did when he blocked the word "minor" from John Kerry regarding his 1st injury. My appeals the "the truth" there fell on deaf ears. JML wants to do here far worse than what he blocked me from doing there. There is no reason why Consensus decision making methods can't help us agree on a mutually acceptable text. I have offered a version and the only objection to it is an objection that has been rejected elsewhere as an editorially insufficient reason by the same editors who now offer it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, I simply needed an adjective to throw in there that implied a promiscuity regarding the application of polemics and bias. I do apologise for it, though Im often forced to use rude language with conservatives just to gain their respect, such that it warrant they pay some attention to the actual material. But you could have also criticised my use of a run-on sentence part with three adjectives. On the one hand you say 'this is about maintaining an equity with the SBVT article' and on the other you say you have 'offered a solution to the problem here.' I have agreed with you on two or three of your points, but none of those has any bearing on the quotes in question. What exactly is your point with this article other than to disrupt it? If you have a problem with bias, take it to mediation or arbitration, rather than being a (insert choice ad-hominem) here. -SV 23:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please get off the war path of high dudgeon aimed at me personally and look at the section of text I offer as a solution (see below). Please note that the only objection to it so far has been argued against as being an invalid basis to object, by the same people who now raise it. Having looked at my version, will you accept it? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What is your version? What is the objection that has been rejected elsewhere as editorially insufficient? (Provide links or copy and paste)... --kizzle 23:25, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Rex's version[edit]

The second advertisement (video) reiterates the charges against George W. Bush that he did not fulfill his military service requirements but also accuses George H. W. Bush of pulling strings in order for his son to get into the Texas Air National Guard. The advertisement also quotes Bush's statement on Meet the Press (February 8 2004) where he claimed that he would authorize release of his records. The ad narrative calls on Bush to release his records. Bush, the TFT group asserts, has not thus far signed the actual form (Standard Form 180) to effect the release.

As for where my demand to include "the truth" was rejected, (one example) was at the discussion on John Kerry regarding the truth that his 1st wound was minor. With your browser, seach this talk page for "I've already wasted enough time today dealing with Rex" and you will find where JML refers to this episode (and where I respond to his statement). [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not include the quote from the ad? There is no journalistic or encyclopaedic reason to exclude a limited quote from material in question, in fact quoting is better for a summation. Again, this exclusionism does not look good for your ethics. -SV 23:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Allowing it in unrebutted flies in the face of the editorial standards which were forced on me by mob rule at John Kerry and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. On those pages, each and every allegation against Kerry is rebutted. They are not allowing me the same on Bush's behalf here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Once again, it is you who insisted that SBVT be structured that way. Would you like to spinoff a John Kerry Military Service Controversy', to take the medals stuff out of SBVT? Fine, let's do it. But don't use the structure of SBVT as an excuse to change TfT. Wolfman 01:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that SBVT is my "fault". You are welcome to explore "spinning off" as you please, but the issue here is that I have a suggested solution (see above) and no valid objection to it (also see above) has been raised. Therefore, this is the version we ought to go with. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 01:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, am I correct in understanding you no longer object to spinning off the lengthy details of the SBVT medal controversy? Wolfman 02:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is the rule which I want followed: If an allegation against Bush or Kerry is textually included in any manner, local rebuttal should be allowed. It's a simple rule and if followed will alleviate most issues I have with basically all election 2004 related articles. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but everyone else does, because that's just not how wikipedia is done. We're creating encyclopedic articles, not debate forums. As to your section, the only real difference I see is the lack of direct quote, whcih I think should be included, and which you have not explained why it should not be. Lyellin 04:28, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Rex take a look at the Ann Coulter page. None of her quotes (which some people find offensive and inane) are individually rebutted. Why should a single illustrative quote from a narrator of an ad on subject material already explained (Bush says he's released/will release the information/TFT says nay) deserve its own individual rebuttal?
Your comparsion is inane. Bush is not being quoted but Coulter is. It is the Narrator's POV words which mandate a rebuttal. Are we going to repeat verbatim, every accusation with no rebuttal? Great! I will register and post a homebrew video on it. Also, I'll run the video on cable access. All will be done by next week. Then, we can run my narrator's questions verbatim too - with no rebuttal YEEEEEHAAAHHH!!! BTW: What I just said about that .com idea makes about as much sense as what you are saying ought to happen here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could you pelase rewrite that, I can't really understand it. I was not making any comparison between Bush and Coulter. I was comparing the use of direct quote Coulter POV and use of direct quote TfT narrator POV in successfully NPOV articles. As long as the quote is attributed and the source described (TfT is an anti-bush organisation) no rebuttal is needed in a NPOV article. To add rebuttal creates POV.--ZZ 06:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Again, this isn't a political discussion board--ZZ 03:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why no criticisms section[edit]

In response to SV's comment that articles have a criticisms section: This is a daughter article to George W. Bush military service controversy, where all the pros and cons are laid out. That's why this article confines itself to reporting the role of Texans for Truth in the debate, a debate that long predated the founding of the organization. If we start listing all the Bush side's responses, we'll then have to list all the ways the critics point to flaws and inaccuracies in those responses, then the Bush side's rejoinder, etc. Pretty soon we'll end up with a second copy of the main article. This article states that TfT was formed for the purpose of opposing Bush, and that its founder was a Democratic political consultant, and that the Bush-Cheney campaign has "dismissed TfT as 'a smear group launching baseless attacks on behalf of John Kerry's campaign'" and has said that Bush's National Guard service was completely honorable. With all that in the article, along with the wikilink to the parent article, I don't think anyone will assume that a report of the allegations in the TfT ads means that all those allegations are therefore true. JamesMLane 03:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If this article were only accessable via link from George W. Bush military service controversy it would be a "daughter" article. As it stands now, anyone googling or searching via this Wiki can come directly to this page. The "daughter" argument holds no water. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about a Category?[edit]

Could we have a category "Category:George W. Bush", which includes two subcategories "Category:Key events facilitated by presidency of George W. Bush" and "Category:George W. Bush Nation Guard Service Contraversey" (as well as including the individual article George W. Bush and any other relevant articles that do not belong in the subcats - eg. 2000 Election)?? That could solve a lot of problems I think. Similar categories could be created for other presidents (even of other countries). Just brainstorming here anyway (how do cats get created anyway?)--ZZ 06:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML's version[edit]

Rex says, "I have offered a version and the only objection to it is an objection that has been rejected elsewhere as an editorially insufficient reason by the same editors who now offer it." False again. I explained why it was misleading to use your phrase "the TFT group asserts". Now, perhaps you'll let us know if there's anything inaccurate about my version:

The advertisement also criticizes Bush for his failure to sign the military's Standard Form 180, which would authorize the release of his service records. Over a picture of Bush and the text of his statement on Meet the Press (February 8, 2004) that he would release his records, the narrator says: "You pledged to release all of your military records, but you've not signed the papers to do so. Sign them now. Keep your word."

As I previously pointed out, that makes it clear that the quotation is from the narrator of the ad. JamesMLane 03:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

just making sure[edit]

We are including the quotations as stated above (will provide argument upon request) in ENOUGH!, only debate left is whether or not rebuttal is allowed? I think there should be some minor sort of criticisms/rebuttal, but only well-documented evidence.--kizzle 04:30, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the debate is over. JML seems hung up on an invalid "daughter article" concept. If that's why he's opposing me, his position is baseless and invalid.
Even so, I would accept this: "President Bush's spokespersons have consistanly stated that the 'release of records' issue is being intentionally misconstrued by his partisan opponents." [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

but the debate over the quotes being included is over, we are including them. --kizzle 04:34, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

No, I am not sure of that - it depends on what resolution is being offerd and agreed to. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"(Wikipedia is not) Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively on what advocates say, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. Go to Usenet if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views—and good luck"
By quoting directly, we fulfill the objective requirement in reporting on what advocates say, thus at the very least that criteria is met. Whether or not rebuttal should be included is a separate matter, but these quotations are completely justified by:
  1. Articles must report objectively on what advocates say
  2. Quoting a direct source's POV is objectively describing that advocates opinion.
-> Thus, Quoting a direct source's POV is justified
If you don't think they should be included, refute this specifically how it is not true. I personally have a problem with individual commercial responses, but would be open to a criticism section per SV's suggestion. --kizzle 04:41, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Peace Already![edit]

Jeesh, while maybe it just seems this way because I'm new, and admittedly haven't even contributed to this article at all (I'm not American, and very much anti-Bush), but from my outside view at least the bickering here is reaching absurd proportions, and both sides have good points. As a simple matter of policy the TfT article should discuss TfT and only TfT, it's not the place for a complete and comprehensive discussion of the dispute of George Bush's service, especially where there is already an article dedicated entirely to that. On the other hand, Rex, as obnoxious as he may be, is completely correct in pointing out that this isn't really equal treatment given the existence of rebuttals in the SBVT article.

So how about we simply make a solution which meets the claims of *both* sides? Rex or someone else creates a "John Kerry Vietnam Service Controversy" article and puts a full discussion of the issue there, offering his evidence that Kerry is lying, and include a rebuttal of the claims there (though I don't doubt someone a bit more pro-Kerry will want to touch it up a bit). Then remove the rebuttals from the SBVT article. That way both candidates are getting exactly the same treatment, which I think is what Rex is mainly asking for, they'll both have an article discussing the controversy, including evidence, and an article discussing the relevant 527 containing only that group's actions and details. It also will meet the anti-Rex group's requests that TfT be limited to TfT (as it should be).

While I don't doubt this'll be a big issue in the SBVT discussion area, does this work for people here, or does anyone have any problems? I hope my solution meets the requests of both sides, but feel free to correct me, otherwise can we please get some peace around here!? Plasma 11:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a lot of merit to this suggestion, which isn't new. A while back, Wolfman helpfully dug up our prior discussion of the idea, which Rex strongly opposed: [5]. We wouldn't need to have anyone, let alone Rex, create a new article (which might need someone to "touch it up a bit"? hahaha! Yes, touch it up with a bulldozer). As I detailed in the discussion referenced above, we would just move the relevant sections from the SBVT article. The tricky part would be writing the terse summary that would replace them.
There is a logical and a practical reason not to go this route. The logical reason stems from the role played by each of these organizations in the attack on the candidate. People were pointing out the sleazy aspects of Bush's military career years ago, long before there was a Texans for Truth organization, whereas SBVT was pretty much responsible for raising the attack on Kerry all by itself. (I elaborated my views on this point here.) Thus they're not completely parallel. The non-SBVT aspects of the attack on Kerry can be accommodated within the SBVT article, whereas the non-TfT aspects of the attack on Bush would dwarf the TfT aspects. The practical reason is that it's so incredibly difficult to accomplish the slightest thing on any article relating to the election. This article itself is now protected (for the second time in its short life), and SBVT was protected for a while. All these protections occurred after edit wars involving Rex, who has been banned from editing John Kerry and two related articles because of his multiple violations of Wikipedia policy in support of his pro-Bush POV. Undertaking a major project like the restructuring you suggest is not an appealing prospect under these circumstances. JamesMLane 14:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I do believe Plasma's/Wolfman's solution is the best though. I agree with you JML that these issues existed before with GWB where they did not with JK, and an off-shoot of JKMSC would in most respects be considered a daughter article of SBVT, but I feel that it is not necessarily the appropriate place. I see that before TfT existed, we simply lumped the two together, but the one thing I agree with Rex is that the two attack groups are highly similar and should be treated similarly. This, in my honest opinion, should result in JKMSC being created. Let us re-open "negotiations" with Rex on this matter. --kizzle 16:13, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, just an FYI: To my memory, neither Gamaliel or JamesMLane have ever even once admitted that I was "right" about anything. So thank you, for putting our squabbles aside and looking at the merits of my concerns. As a ressult of your candor here, I am going to re-factor my assessment of you and re-initiate an effort at avoiding unilaterally upsetting your edits wherever possible. I am fully interested to dialog and I appreciate you suggesting we should. What is your proposal? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle's initiative[edit]

Well I don't know how drastic we want to get, but there are several issues which I think should be addressed.
First of all, the material in John Kerry is so highly over-detailed about his military service, there is no reason why any reader would want to know every significant detail of every medal unless it was in the context of SBVT's allegations, thus a re-write on John Kerry tailoring to a casual reader. Of course, I do not want to take away any of the allegations/rebuttal/evidence itself, so anything that gets lost put somewhere on JKMSC. Thus, in short, take all extremely detailed medal-by-medal blow from JK to JKMSC, rewrite to a short paragraph, take detailed info to JKMSC, cite there are numerous criticisms stemming from SBVT, link to JKMSC... something to that effect.
Secondly, take all SBVT analysis statements that do not directly describe some fact about SBVT and move that to JKMSC as well. Thus, we remove all detailed controversy from SBVT and JK to JKMSC.
Lastly, remove most if not all analysis statements from here to GWMSC and stick only to describing the organization. Quotes may be used from the ads themselves... but strictly one-line of rebuttal for each ad is allowed, and will be used as a segway into JKMSC or GWBMSC....
Mainly, if someone hears on the news that there's questions over either Bush's/Kerry's military service, we can offer one place for each that makes sense, rather than on the page of the attack group. It can be introduced in each page something roughly to the effect of "SBVT claims that John Kerry lied about his medals, see John Kerry Military Service Controversy" and "TfT claims that Bush was AWOL, see GWBMSC..." ... of course that is very roughly but it makes it so you go to TfT or SBVT to find out about the groups, not debate the topic.
Just throwing out some rough framework, JML, Rex, Plasma, Gamaliel, Wolfman, see fit to change/debate. just want to get the ball rolling again. --kizzle 17:22, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
also, please if any of this has been discussed before, copy and paste the text you want, lets not go back to we already did this and that. Fresh start! :) --kizzle 17:28, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
one more thing :) ... I wouldn't be opposed as well to a John Kerry Military Service article as well if we want to objectively try and describe his service before we start debating. --kizzle 17:30, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, from your tone and suggestions, it certainly does seem that you are aiming to be an honest broker here. Tentatively, I support what you are saying, carte blanche. I do however, reserve the right to address issues if and when they arrive. Perhaps putting up individual sandboxes for your sugegsted replacment articles, so the can be pre-fabbed and plopped in place all at once, mught be a good idea. Kudos to you Kizzle! Having said this, since I am under attack again by JamesMLane, itt's best that I follow rather than lead at all on this transition. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I took a first step and made:

User:Kizzle/John Kerry Military Service Controversy

Right now, this contains all the detailed allegations from SBVT that do not have to do with political connections, anything with the SBVT organization itself but solely the information against Kerry's record.

User:Kizzle/John Kerry Military Service

Copied straight from John Kerry.... someone should also fill User:Kizzle/New John Kerry Military Summary with a short summary paragraph on Kerry's military service preceded by a "Main article: John Kerry Military Service" or something like that...--kizzle 21:14, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Also, all of these ideas in themselves are really rough, please feel free to butcher my text or ideas. --kizzle 21:14, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

It looks quite good to me, about the only thing I could suggest is that the "John Kerry Military Service" article seems a bit too dismissive of SBVT. Much as I think their claims are false and thoroughly debunked that is not something that should be stated as if it's an outright fact, since it is a matter of opinion, and passing judgement would be very POV. I had a go at editing the page, but can't really come up with a good wording myself, but thought it still worth mentioning for someone who thinks they'd have more luck. Plasma 16:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

lets get it started, ha! lets get it started, in here![edit]

now that things have calmed down a bit, anyone care to comment on splitting it off per my suggestion? I personally think it should be done, but I have no problem either way. --kizzle 18:04, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

you're referring here to the sandboxes? Wolfman 01:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, or unprotecting this page to address the quotes. --kizzle 01:22, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote a very brief intro to JKMSC. Seems fine to me. I'd say go ahead and spawn the article (if others agree). Then, we can work on pulling that info out of SBVT, with a pointer to the article. Wolfman 02:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Made a few more changes to both. Moved most of the criticism section of 'Service' to be the lead-in of 'Controversy'. Few other tweaks, you might want to check the edit history diffs. Wolfman 02:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Spawned them both. Going to inform John Kerry pages... --kizzle 02:41, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)