User talk:Gunbirddriver/Archive

Welcome

Hello, Gunbirddriver! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — SpikeToronto 04:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your article

Hello. I went over the article you have posted on your userspace and made some changes. I highly suggest you read about citing sources, categorization, and wiki markup. I fixed most of the major problems with them for you, but just for future reference. Also your article lacks wikilinks. This should be fixed at some point. However, before you do that, I suggest you read about notability. Your article doesn't seem to fit the notability guidelines on Wikipedia. If this is true, then when it is posted to the article space, it will be deleted. Good luck, and feel free to ask me any questions you may have! — GorillaWarfare ^talk 03:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Pickett

Thank you for the kind words on my talk page. I have modified your edit to show how you can have multiple pointers to the same citation (sort of the way that printed books use Ibid.). Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Stars and Stripes 87

I am ready to move my article on Stars and Stripes 87.

The first problem is that the name Stars and Stripes 87 currently redirects to a general page titled Stars and Stripes (yacht) which lists all the boats that were called Stars and Stripes. Stars and Stripes 87 is listed there. I would like to change that to a link for my article on this particular Stars and Stripes yacht.

Second, I do not know how to move my article into the main wikipedia field.

Thanks for any help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you could provide a link to this article I'd be glad to take a look and move it if it is ready to be in the main space. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:47pm • 06:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It is on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gunbirddriver#Stars_and_Stripes_87_.28US_55.29 Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do that, article has enough reliable sources. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:56pm • 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll get an admin to move it, just a sec. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:58pm • 06:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the existence of more than one yacht named Stars & Stripes 87, it would make sense to move the draft to the target Stars & Stripes 87(US 55). That move would not require an admin, I can do it for you. However, I suggest a little more cleanup before moving. (See link to feedback for more details)--SPhilbrickT 16:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Though there are many boats named Stars and Stripes, there is only one boat named Stars and Stripes 87. That would be US 55, the 12 Meter Dennis Conner sailed to regain the America's Cup off Fremantle, Australia in 1987.

Thanks. I'll keep working.

Looking much better. On name, I could have sworn I saw two Stars & Stripes 87, but now I see the other one says Stars & Stripes 86. That one (at Stars & Stripes (yacht) says "built in 1987" and adds "(US 56)". There were two built in 87? And the earlier one is US56 and the later one is US 55? Sounds confusing. I hope you can shed some light on it.--SPhilbrickT 20:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The two boats were built in 1986. The dates for construction given in the Stars and Stripes (yacht) page are not correct. As evidence, the Louis Vutton Cup (Challenger series) began in October of 1986, and as both boats were competing to participate, they were both sailing in 1986. I can cite a reference to use in correcting the other page. The final two boats were built about the same time, with Stars and Stripes 86 (US 56) being completed somewhat ahead of Stars and Stripes 87 (US 55). The two final boats were nearly equal in boat speed, but the 87 boat got the nod to represent the syndicate and throughout the campaign received ongoing work to try to increase her speed, with the 86 boat used as a reference to compare the changes against.

Okay you guys, I gotta get on this.  : )

Thanks for the info, it helps explain the apparent oddity. If you can support that with a reliable source, it would be good to add it to the other article.--SPhilbrickT 21:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is General information on images and here is information on uploading images--SPhilbrickT 21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was able to add the info box. The image I was hoping to use is at the link below. It looks pretty daunting trying to figure out if I could use it. I have read through quite a bit of the information and it raises questions I have no means by which to answer. I think I would go without a picture of her for now. Here is the link if you have an interest to see what I was hoping to use:

http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/racing/images/1987_final.jpg

She is sailing in the cup finals against Kookaburra III. You can see from the photo that she is on opposite tacks, sailing her own race, making no attempt to cover Kookaburra III. The racing off Fremantle was beautiful, with big wind, waves and spray, lots of blue water and blue sky... and a great story to go along with it all.

Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice pic, but I agree that getting permission might not be easy. Go without a pic for now. Do you want it moved into main space? You can do it, or I will if you're not sure what to do. (I notice you are adding 4 tildes to your edit summaries - that isn't necessary - thanks for using edit summaries, many new editors do not, but it is good practice.--SPhilbrickT 12:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, assuming the article should be Stars & Stripes 87, it requires a move over a redirect. Something I don't know how to do, but will figure out. I suggest that you not do it yourself, as it is non-standard. Tell me when you think it is ready, and I'll look up what to do - I suspect it is easy, but I should check.--SPhilbrickT 12:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Turns out it requires an admin to do it. I'm not one. You can request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves or just let me know and I'll fill out the "paperwork".--SPhilbrickT 12:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you could help make the move request it would be a big help. I believe we would need the mention of Stars and Stripes 87 on the Stars And Stripes (yacht) page to be a link to the new page on Stars and Stripes 87. Thanks greatly for your help!

We'll let the page move go through, which may take a couple days, but should be routine, then we can addr ess the link on the Stars And Stripes (yacht) page. --SPhilbrickT 18:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Article has been recreated in article space and user can retain own user page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Gunbirddriver → Stars & Stripes 87 — Requested because the existing target is a redirect; (the editor has created a page about that yacht). Note that the talk page should not be moved, as the editor created the article in the user page, rather than a user subpage, so this talk page should remain as the user talk page. SPhilbrickT 18:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not necessary

[The proposed title is not the redirect, which has an "and", not an ampersand. Stars and Stripes 87 should be changed to a redirect to Stars & Stripes 87.]

I don't think this move of material from user space to wiki space is necessary as a page move. User:Gunbirddriver has used their user page as a sandbox to create a new article (a very good start, especially for a first article, though rather techie in places). The simplest solution would be just to move the code from the user page to Stars & Stripes 87. There is no value in retaining the edit history, as it has been created entirely by one editor.

In future suggest the editor either creates a new page from scratch at its proper title, or creates a sub-page as a draft, such as User:Gunbirddriver/Stars & Stripes 87. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, though I cannot insert a functioning link to it from the Stars & Stripes (yacht) page. Also I am concerned that if I remove the content from my user page the article will be affected. Does more need to be done?

I messed up by not having learned how to create pages and sub pages. It looks like just a matter of inserting a bit of code following my user name. More than one page that I could work on would be great.

Anyway, thanks all!! Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, how do I get my user page to stop redirecting to the article on Stars & Stripes 87? Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my reply at User talk:Richard New Forest#Stars & Stripes 87. Richard New Forest (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks much! Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Iowa class battleships

These ships are always referred to as fast battleships. The effort that went into making them fast, fast enough to keep up with the Fast Carrier Strike Force, was considerable. It paid off in the longevity of the careers of these ships.Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Edits to Ulithi

Hello! Thanks a ton for taking the time to expand the Ulithi article. It's something I've wanted to get to for quite some time. However, can you please cite any new information that you add to the page? As it is, the article is far under-referenced, and if any more is added, it only compounds the problem. Thanks, in advance. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I guess the Wiki guide for citing can be found here [1] Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. That is part of the problem, that much of the source data is from servicemen that served there, and though the information is pretty good, I am not sure if their postings would qualify as adequate sourcing. On the other hand, you would not find news articles written about Ulithi as it was kept a secret and not mentioned directly in any of the press of the time. I will keep looking around and see if I can get some good sourcing. Meanwhile, I will slow down on the additions.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I would think some sourcing is better than none. Also, the base was mentioned in publications at the time when it was taken, but most follow-up squelched after the decision to use it as an anchorage rather than Peliliu. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Ommnomnomgulp, I believe I am done adding information about the Ulithi atoll and it's role as a Naval base in WWII. I would love to get a good photo of the anchorage, with the hundreds of US ships laying at anchor there. There are a number of them on the web. They are all taken by Navy photographers and so are now in the public domain. That would really help to bring the image home of the remarkable thing that happened there. I have never loaded a photo onto the wiki system and it may take me some time to figure it out.Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Naguma's Battle Report No. 6

Chūichi Nagumo wrote this report following the battle. In the first section he summerizes what he thought going into the battle, and then provides evidence to support this assumption from after the battle. It is found in the section titled

Part I: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS

3. Mobile Force Commander's Estimate of the Situation

a. Although the enemy lacks the will to fight, it is likely that he will counter attack if our occupation operations progress satisfactorily.

b. The enemy conducts air reconnaissance mainly to the West and to the South but does not maintain a strict vigil to the Northwest or to the North.

c. The enemy's patrol radius is about 500 miles.

d. The enemy is not aware of our plans. (We were not discovered until early in the morning of the 5th at the earliest.)

It can be found here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/rep/Midway/Nagumo/#I-3

Binksternet was right that the comment did not refer to Admiral Yamamoto. I did not initially realize that Nagumo was referring to himself when he used the phrase Mobile Force Commander.

Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Preservation of Japanese Naval Assets for a Decisive Naval Engagement

The following are a number of different sources that essentially speak of the gradual realization by naval commanders that the war would be a carrier dominated war. This was true for the commands of both the United States and Japan, but the point was brought home harshly to the USN at Pearl Harbor, and to Japan six months later at Midway.

from Garzke, William; Dulin, Robert. Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. United States Naval Institute. p. 3. ISBN 0870211013. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

"... however, it was not until December 1941 when the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sunk by Japanese aircraft in the South China Sea and the American battlefleet was severely damaged at Pearl Harbor that the importance of the battleship was seriously questioned." p. 3

From Parshall, Jonathan; Tully, Anthony (2005). Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway. Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books. ISBN 1-57488-923-0.:

"Thus, the Japanese believed that bringing greater fire power to bear at decisive ranges they would be able to defeat more numerous opponents. The seeds of this dogma had already been planted during the Navy's formative years, as the Japanese naturally adopted the policies of their mentors, the Royal Navy, which advocated an aggressive attitude toward naval engagements. But Tsushima cemented the notion that the big guns were the final arbiter of any naval encounter, a belief further reinforced by the clash of heavily armed battle lines at Jutland." p. 404

Anyway, I posted all of these on the discussion page for Japanese battleship Nagato, though at this point I think the discussion should be on either your talk page or mine. The fact that there were plans to build more carriers does not mean that the high command had abandoned the battleship. The evidence is that this occurred, but only after learning the hard lessons at Midway. Ironically, the nation whose high command opened the war with a massed carrier air strike did not understand the significance of their success in terms of what it said about the future of Naval combat. It was the US Navy that top to bottom understood this change. For those who had been proponents of carrier warfare, namely King, Halsey and the like, Pearl Harbor won the argument for them. There was no further discussion. Not so in Japan. The necessity for the carriers to be viewed as the major strategic asset was not apparent to the Japanese until after Midway. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me that 89.110.243.56 is operating under the assumption that Japanese carrier task force groups operated much as the USN operated their carrier task force groups, and that the carrier was placed in a defensive center position, with the surrounding ships adding their guns to the defensive firepower of the group. This is a common misconception, and is addressed in Shattered Sword by Pashall and Tully, who did a great deal of work looking at Japanese carrier doctrine and operational procedures in their work on the battle of Midway. They state:

"It should be noted, too, that contrary to some Midway accounts that describe the Japanese escorts as being in a ring around the carriers, this is not strictly correct. At this point in the war, the concept of a tight ring formation optimized for antiaircraft screening, (i.e. the active defense, via combined gun power, of a capital ship), was unknown to the Japanese. While the U.S. and the Royal Navy were already using such defensive alignments, ring formations did not appear in Japanese doctrine until mid-1943. During the course of 4 June, those destroyers that were not assigned as plane guards were pushed out to the extreme perimeter of the formation to act as air-raid warning pickets. Thus, while the formation might have appeared as a ring from the air, the escorts on the perimeter were there for different purposes than an American ring formation and were much farther out from the high-value assets." (Shattered Sword p. 138)

Parshall and Tully based their comments on the Japanese Mobile Force Tactics, p. 15 issued by the Yokosuka Kokutai in August 1943. It matches with the photos we see of the Japanese carriers at Midway, performing violent evasive maneuvers, seemingly alone in the ocean.

As to the more central question of the Japanese understanding of the usefulness of battleships as weapons at the start of the conflict, it is directly addressed by the same two authors in their review of the impact that the battle of Midway had on Japanese naval doctrine, as follows:

The battle plan for the carrier fleet was changed drastically as well. Much like the agonizing reappraisal that the U.S. Navy had undergone in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the Imperial Navy now grappled with the doctrinal consequences of its own calamity. Combined Fleet for the first time now explicitly recognized that the aircraft carrier was "the center, the main objective, of the Decisive Air Battle; surface forces will cooperate with them." The battle squadrons of the navy were subordinated to the purposes of the carriers - a radical shift in attitude. Given its earlier triumphs, of course, it is ironic that the Imperial Navy had taken six months to longer than its opponents to come to this conclusion. But from now on, battleships and other screening units were to be directly incorporated into the carrier fleet, and would steam with them to the anticipated battle. (Shattered Sword p. 392)

This was supported by their review of the Senshi Sōsho, the official Japanese war history documents, whose many volumes were published between 1966 and 1970, all in Japanese. Only recently have these volumes begun to be translated into English.

Now, as to the actual use that the Japanese Navy made of the Nagato, and whether or not the Naval command considered her obsolete at the outset of hostilities, those are two different questions. To answer them we would need to know how the IJN used its naval assets, and in particular what they did with the Nagato. There were great operational differences between the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy. Much to the surpise of the Japanese, the US Navy kept its fleet at sea and on station for extended periods of time. It was able to do this through the use of forward resupply bases it built through the course of the war. These were: (Majuro, Kwajalein, Enewetak, Ulithi) and finally Leyte Gulf. Convoys of resupply vessels were constantly underway from the forward base to the fleet at sea and back. The Japanese had no such capabilities, and as such their fleet would remain in port, conduct training runs and sortie in force when an operation was scheduled or a threat appeared. As to the Nagato specifically, we had best refer to the Tabular Record of Movement (TROM) for the ship in question. I have reviewed it, and clearly the Japanese did not intend to keep the ship cooped up in port. It was the flagship of the Combined Fleet at the time of Pearl Harbor. She was present in the main body at the Battle of Midway. The next two years the Japanese waited for a decisive battle to present itself, and the ship was stationed either at the naval base at Truk or their major base base at Lingga. It was part of the main battle force when the fleet sortied for the Battle of the Philippine Sea, and then again four months later at the desperate Battle of Leyte Gulf, which spelled an end to the Japanese Navy as an effective fighting force. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Joe Foss, ace of aces

I think Bong had five victories when they sent Joe back stateside. This phrase "Ace of Aces" in caps is tied to Bong's name, in part because Kenney wrote a book about Bong with that as the title, and beyond simply being the pilot with the highest number of confirmed kills, it conveys the meaning that he was the "best" fighter pilot. Racing to be on top of the list was important to the pilots flying toward the end of the war. It certainly was on the mind of McGuire, and may have played a role in his demise. Joe was not interested in having the most kills, and when he did finally manage to finagle his way back into combat the Navy brought him back as a CO, with the expectation that he would fly less combat and manage the air group. Bong's elevation in rank to major did not come with the expectation that he would take less of a role in combat missions. To the contrary, he was allowed to free lance, and push his score higher. He was a very aggressive pilot and he lost a lot of wingmen. He didn't mean for that to happen, you needed to be a very good pilot to stay with Bong when he got a chance to attack Japanese aircraft. But the "best" fighter pilot of the war? Joe thought the question itself was vain in light of the losses they had suffered, one of whom very easily could have been him had the breaks fallen a slightly different way. Looking back after the war, Joe was surprised to recall the number of times he was almost killed, whether it be crashing into the jungle, skitting off the airfield barely missing the parked aircraft, a machine gun bullet passing through his canopy or striking the back of his seat, or crashing into the ocean and trying to get himself free of the sinking aircraft. Joe knew he was lucky to survive the war and was just doing what he thought to be his part. A lot of the fellows he flew with didn't survive. The fighting of the war was a joint effort, and the point was to win the war as soon as possible. "All we were interested in was knocking down every plane that we could so the suckers wouldn't be back the next day," he told the Los Angeles Times in 1994. He never questioned the Marine corps listing Boyington as the Marine pilot with the greatest number of confirmed kills. It wasn't until after Joe's death that Marion Carl pressed the Corps to correct the record, which they declined to do. Joe had all the right stuff, and it was fellas like him that fought and died and won the war. America's ace of aces? Yes, that is how he was referred to in the early months of the war when the nation needed heros, and he is still referred to as an ace of aces today. He didn't ask for the title, and in fact it meant little to him. But to act now like it did not happen, to create a title out of the phrase and assign it to a single individual is to forget the desperate days over Guadalcanal in the fall of 1942. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• He was the "ace-of-aces" but is not the "ace-of-aces" of the United States; the term refers only to the pilot who had scored the most victories in any conflict, nothing else. He once was that pilot in World War II, but others eclipsed the mark he set, which by the way, only conferred on him the joint accolade of America's top ace as his official score did not break the mark set by Eddie Rickenbaker. In a very famous incident, Boyington and Foss got into a physical altercation in 1949 with "Pappy" coming out much the worst and the argument was over who was the "best." Nonetheless, Foss never claims that distinction in any of his writing and even in his book, Top Guns does not elevate his status in any way. Despite your admonitions that he is still referred to as the "ace-of-aces", that is tied only to a historical context, as every source, scarce one, indicates that Foss was once called that, but remains one of the most successful combat pilots of the war and likely the "true" Marine Corps "ace-of-aces", as historian Barett Tillman now contends. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

It's a made up title. Guys were interested in who had the top score, but no one was trying to be Ace of aces. It's just a phrase, which we now consider to mean the highest victory total and we place some significance on it. No question, Bong had the highest victory total for US pilots in the war. But this phrase got attached to Joe's name when he tied Rickenbacker's record, and that was all I was saying. Joe never cared about it and I really shouldn't either. The fact is if he had known they would pull him out of combat when he reached 26 he never would have told them. He thought he should be out there, not selling war bonds. The whole thing seemed kind of off to Joe, and made it hard for him to get back with the fellas. Anyway, I just wanted to get it right and flesh out the story a bit, which you have done nicely. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The term "Swiftboating"

The term was advanced by supporters of John Kerry who were looking to marginalize the criticisms of John Kerry coming from a group of veterans who had served in Swift Boats or who had been prisoners of war. Those supporters of Kerry have a right to express their opinion, but their creation of the term "swiftboating", which was meant to belittle the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, inadvertently smeared all swift boat veterans. Swift Boat veterans not even involved thought that was unfair, and that was the primary point of the Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html

Regarding your comment above, wherein you state: The term was advanced by supporters of John Kerry who were looking to marginalize the criticisms of John Kerry coming from a group of veterans who had served in Swift Boats or who had been prisoners of war. Those supporters of Kerry have a right to express their opinion, but their creation of the term "swiftboating" which was meant to belittle the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth inadvertently smeared all swift boat veterans. Those veterans thought that was unfair, and that was the primary point of the Times article.

Incorrect. The term was not advanced by supporters of Kerry. As your article clearly shows, the criticisms of Kerry were marginalized by the fact that they were unsubstantiated, discredited and even refuted. It is unfortunate that a small handful of Swift Boat veterans, in their attempt to smear a political candidate with deceptive adds and unfounded accusations, besmirched all things associated with Swift Boat vets thereafter in the eyes of the general public. The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (sic) created the term "swiftboating" through their actions, and their attacks and conduct inadvertently smeared all swift boat veterans. Those veterans thought that was unfair, and that was the primary point of the Times article. You should re-read it.

One individual summed it up nicely at the end of that article:

“I think it’s disgraceful that a handful of people have managed to turn ‘Swift boat’ into a synonym for ‘To smear somebody with lies,’ ” he wrote. “I hope you guys can take the term back to connote bravery, courage and sacrifice, like it always has.”

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken on a number of points, which I suppose I am obliged to point out since you troubled yourself to come over to my talk page to offer your commentary.

The article linked above is not ‘’my’’ article. It is a New York Times article which was used extensively on the wikipedia “Swiftboating” page. It is here merely as an easy reference. I am surprised you didn’t recognize it.

The article reads more like an opinion piece than it does an objective news piece. For example the statement: “‘Swift boat’ has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears, a shadow that hangs over the presidential race” is just asserted. There is nothing offered in the article to support the claim. Secondly, you should note that the source is the New York Times, a news organization well known as a liberal news source, and one that endorsed John Kerry for the presidency (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html). Lastly, the piece itself makes a weak argument that swift boat veterans are angry with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Not counting Mr. Kerry, nine swifties are mentioned in the piece, all of whom were dismayed over the mud flung on their service, but only two of which were said to blame the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. One of those two was Fred Short, the dual .50 caliber gunner on Kerry’s boat. In addition, it mentions that 3,600 swift boat veterans exist, but only mentions that “some” veterans dropped out of the Swift Boat sailors association over the campaign against John Kerry. Most offer comments like these from Larry Wasikowski:

“It’s taken on a life of its own. The problem is, it’s on the wrong side. We would like to be remembered as the one operation in Vietnam that succeeded, totally.”

Clear enough.

As to your contention that I am incorrect, that is not proven by anything you have offered. I have not as yet taken the time to source an alternative view to what has been allowed to be presented thus far in the wiki article, but here are a few that I bumped into today:

"After the election, Democrats and the media continued to attack the veterans, coining and parroting the term “swiftboating” as a reference for underhanded campaign tactics."

- Scott Swett, "Swiftboating: Media, Myth and the 2004 Campaign" Aug 21, 2008

"Instead of learning of the folly of running a liberal war veteran whose account of his service was, to put it charitably, dubious, they decided to rewrite history. John Kerry was not called out on a series of lies and hypocrisies. No, instead it was he who was slimed by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, by a bunch of "chicken hawks" (i.e. people who dare to support the War on Terror who did themselves serve in combat.) He was "swift boated." The term has become useful for the left."

- Mark Whittington "The Evolution of a Political Slogan: Swift Boating the Truth" Yahoo Network October 8, 2007

“Kerry vigorously attacked the Swift Boat Veterans.”

and

“Animosity from veterans toward Kerry goes back more than 30 years, when Kerry returned from Vietnam to take a leadership role in the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Anger reached a boiling point with Kerry's presidential nomination and his own highlighting of his service during the war, a centerpiece of his campaign strategy against President Bush, who served in the Air National Guard and did not deploy to Vietnam.”

- James Peirson “Senator Kerry and the Swift Boat vets” New Criterion August 18, 2008

Sounds about right. All that to say the viewpoint I stated above is valid, is held by a great number of people, and is not in the least bit represented in the wiki article on “swiftboating”. It strikes me that that is a shame.

My final point is a mistake you made here, which speaks to my earlier point on the difficulty of addressing political questions in a neutral manner, which is the Wikipedia directive. The (sic) insertion you made here was unsolicited, and gives away the fact that you are in no way neutral in terms of looking at the question at hand. That being the case, you should in good conscience refrain from further input on the article. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment. You really piqued my interest when you began by promising to point out where I was "mistaken on a number of points". After having read, and re-read your response, I am left waiting for you to point out even one. Perhaps you will do so in a follow-up response? Until then, I'd like to offer observations on some of the things you did say:

• not ‘’my’’ article

Of course the article by Kate Zernike in the NY Times is not "your" article. My choice of words were indicating an article to which you had linked, on your talk page, after you had commented at Talk:Swiftboating about the Wikipedia page that cites that very article. I find it enlightening to learn that you could misconstrue my words as conveying that I thought that NYT article belonged to you, or worse, that I "didn’t recognize it". As a Wikipedia editor who routinely relies on the ability to read the written word and understand what those words convey, perhaps I naively assume that everyone here shares that basic skill, but I shall keep this new insight in mind. I certainly wasn't "mistaken" when I referred to your article link above.

• For example the statement: “‘Swift boat’ has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears, a shadow that hangs over the presidential race as pundits wait to proclaim that the Swiftboating has begun and candidates declare that they will not be Swiftboated” is just asserted. There is nothing offered in the article to support the claim.

True; because that issue was settled 4 years prior, after numerous reports and investigations into the matter, and is now common knowledge -- that is why it is asserted, rather than opined. The focus of that article, as you can see by the expanded quote, is that 4 years later the word "Swiftboating" is widely used as a verb with heavy negative connotation. The article does not focus on re-hashing the already thoroughly covered reasons behind that negative connotation.

• ...the New York Times, a news organization well known as a liberal news source...

That made me smile. To paraphrase an old addage, "If you can not refute the information, attack the messenger." But to be more accurate, according to the wikilink you supplied in support of your claim, it is well known that the NYT gets described as liberal, and also as conservative — if you keep reading — depending on the source of the name-calling. But hey, all news media is liberal, right? And don't forget universities and institutions of higher learning; definitely liberal. And it is equally "well known" that facts cease being facts once they are presented by these "liberal" sources.

• ...the piece itself makes a weak argument that swift boat veterans are angry with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth...

No, the piece does not. The piece itself makes the argument that swift boat veterans are angry with the negative connotation now associated with the "Swift boat" term. It does not make, nor even attempt to make the argument, weak or otherwise, about the source of that negative connotation, nor about the SBVT. As I mentioned above, those arguments had already been exhaustively and thoroughly debated 4 years prior.

• I have not as yet taken the time to source an alternative view to what has been allowed to be presented thus far in the wiki article, but here are a few that I bumped into...

Please, do take the time to find the required reliable sources, rather than resort to "sources" that you "bumped into". From one Wikipedia editor to another, you are likely to be frustrated if you try to counter reliably sourced assertions of fact with "alternative views" sourced to the likes of SVBT's website operator (Swett), or to simple opinions posted on non-rs blogs. (And just an FYI: neither of the quotes you attributed to Peirson are in the opinion blog post you linked...)

• All that to say the viewpoint I stated above is valid, is held by a great number of people, and is not in the least bit represented in the wiki article on “swiftboating”.

All that, and you have yet to substantiate your viewpoint as valid. Just to be clear about what it is we disagree on, allow me to reiterate from my first post here: Incorrect. The term was not advanced by supporters of Kerry. Please know that I am not disagreeing with you that there are a great many Kerry haters out there. I also don't disagree with you that the "Swiftboating" article doesn't diverge down the tangent of debating the various sides of the Kerry -vs- SBVT controversy; but that is because it should not, and because that is covered in other articles. This article just deals with the facts about "Swiftboating". Your viewpoint that, "The term was advanced by supporters of John Kerry who were looking to marginalize the criticisms of John Kerry" is not such a fact, neither on the source of the term, nor on the application of the term. I'm always willing to review any reliably sourced information to the contrary.

• The (sic) insertion you made here was unsolicited, and gives away the fact that you are in no way neutral in terms of looking at the question at hand.

Allow me to correct this misperception of yours, too. The (sic) insertion was prompted by the "for Truth" portion of the SBVT name. After having read virtually every published word by SBVT and its functionaries; having reviewed each of the ads in detail; scrutinized the subsequently released information, retractions, affidavits, follow-up interviews and independent examinations from all political persuasions, it became evident that the "for Truth" portion of the name could be said "in context" only. If by "in no way neutral", you meant that I am in no way oblivious to the available facts, then I can not argue; but otherwise, that misrepresentation of yours is nonsensical.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times is well known to have a liberal bias, and one does not have to read the wiki article about the Times to be aware of that fact. The sources above appear valid enough to show there is a view other than what has been presented. They may be inclined to side with the Swift Boat vets, but no more so than the Times is inclined to side against them. Swett is the website operator, the Times endorses the Kerry candidacy. And your point is? That is not to say one should ignore the Times, but one should understand its writings in view of its political perspective.

It is hard for me to imagine you reading all that material on the Swift Vote Veterans and remaining so completely unaware of what they were about. I would not bother reading anymore.

It should be obvious even to the meanest of understanding that you cannot ridicule an entities name and still have any claim to objectivity.

It should also be obvious that boldening your writing does not make the words any more persuasive.

You seem to be rather emotional on this question. Printed out your most recent response is two and half pages of rather charged argument. Perhaps it is not the best ground for you. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"And your point is", you ask, after you attempt to equate Swett with a New York Times news article as sources? I made several points that you appear to have missed. An important one is that the New York Times article we've been discussing meets Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source of assertion of fact, while Swett does not. The commentary pieces from the blogs that you cited also do not. An important consideration is whether or not the published source(s) we use have the required reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The NYT article we've been discussing does, and it isn't an opinion piece, and isn't presenting a "view". Hopefully that helps. Oh, and by the way, the New York Times is well known to have a conservative bias -- everyone knows that, but that doesn't mean it doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source. It still does.

I've never read any material on "Swift Vote Veterans", but by their name alone it's easy to guess that they had the identical goal as the group we're discussing.

Calling a serial killer a serial killer (after reviewing all of the facts that conclude that he is indeed a serial killer) isn't "ridicule", and certainly doesn't negate a claim to objectivity.

Of course boldening your writing does not make the words any more persuasive; you'll get no argument from me on that point. You say "it should be obvious", as if it were not. Are you struggling with that?

"...you should in good conscience refrain from further input on the article."

"You seem to be rather emotional ... Perhaps it is not the best ground for you."

Your concern for my conscience and my emotions is touching, but rest assured that both are intact and in fine shape. I'll make it a point to remain especially engaged with hopes that I can return your kind consideration by assisting you in this matter in any way that I am able. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you really mean to suggest you need me to explain the difference between writing argument and writing in all caps or in bold? That is a bit much. And suggesting that the New York Times is a conservative news source? Prattling on about a typo? Really, the vast majority of what you write does not merit responding to. I must say though, I am touched to see you have such high regard for my opinion. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Film plot length

WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words. Your version of Out of the Past is nearly double the maximum. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about this version of 838 words or so? Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought Stephanos found Jeff by chance. Also, was Jeff in Acapulco first? The grammar is a bit off (e.g. "Preparing the next morning") and the phrasing is awkward in places. We're also supposed to avoid slangy expressions ("give Fisher the slip", "lays low") and contractions. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the films start Stephanous had found Jeff by chance driving through Bridgeport. He had reported the find to Whit, who had ordered Stephanos to return to tell Jeff he was wanted for another job. That was where the movie began, with Stephanous driving into Bridgeport to speak with Jeff. As to the meet with Kathie, Jeff had guessed that Kathie was headed to Acupulco, and was waiting for her there when she first walks through the door of the cantina. "Preparing the next morning" was "Preparing to leave the next morning", which I cut down, but perhaps it was better the way it was. As to the expressions and contractions, we can take those out. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have a lot of changes that do not improve the explanation of the plot narrative. Hiding rather than withholding?! One suggests actively covering up that which otherwise would be seen, the other suggestions being less than forthcoming. Less than forthcoming is the better description, but I don't own the page.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He was "actively covering up". Withholding sounds too passive. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way did he actively "hide" that he was working for Whit? However it sounds, omitting information is different from hiding information. For example, Kathy taking the $40,000 and then telling Jeff she didn't take the money, that would be lying. Her keeping her bank book tucked away in her purse would be hiding. But at the start, when Joe Stephanos was at the gas station telling Jeff that Whit wanted to see, but not telling Jeff that Kathie was already there with Whit, now that is withholding information. Anyway, and more to the point, Kathy already suspected that Jeff was working for Whit. Speaking of seeming "too passive", that was a key aspect of the story, that Jeff was passive to the fate that was going to befall him, but then that is a different question.Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aware that his connection to Whit would be something that Kathie would really want to know, Jeff consciously decided and made no little effort to give her a false impression about him. I consider that pretty active.

Why did you take out the fact that Jeff was found by accident? A major theme of the story is the bad luck that dogs him. As it is phrased now, the reader is given the impression that Stephanos was actively searching for him and somehow knew to look in Bridgeport. Also, "foreboding looking" is WP:POV, while saying she suspects is, as far as I can recall, WP:OR.

Since this discussion shows no sign of ending, maybe it would be better to transfer this to the film's talk page, where others can contribute their two cents. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)