Talk:Swiftboating/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Smear" RfC

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was the article should say that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a political smear campaign against John Kerry" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the article say in Wikipedia's voice that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a "political smear campaign" against John Kerry? Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Jake asked me to comment. I must say right out that my political views are almost the exact opposite of Jake's, but I assume he must have realized that. I am not myself going to edit the article--I could probably restrain my bias, but I do not think the effort involved would be worthwhile. But there is no advantage in overstating a case. That the term is used to refer to a blatant organized political smear of the most outrageous and cynical sort is perfectly clear. It does not in the long run matter what side the various parties were on: Gerrymandering is the term for biased redistricting, even for those who have no idea what political party Mr. Gerry tried to favor. In the short run, of course, this term is much more likely to be used by those of the political persuasion that was harmed by it.

It is very hard to summarize a complex position in a few words; this is why we have such protracted disputes over titles and tags. I do not think the content of this article biased: I think it fairly describes the situation, and is based on reliable sources. But I cannot say the same about the wording. The term "smear" is used too often. It is not necessary to use emphasis and repetition and multiple quotes to say that this was negative propaganda intended and perhaps successful in influencing an election by bare-faced lying: the facts just have to be stated. No unbiased reader will be in any doubt about what happened, or why the term continues to be meaningful. Those who have a bias one way or another will not be convinced in any case, and there is no need to overly accommodate or refute them. The example I first used in Wikipedia to explain this, and I think still the best example, is the article on Stalin: it does not repeatedly say he was a cruel tyrant, nor does it need it. It reports what he did, and the conclusion is unmistakable. The few remaining people in the world who support his actions will go on thinking as they do, but everybody else will themselves see the meaning: we do not have to spell it out for them.

For example, the phrase in the 2nd paragraph " the political smear campaign conducted by..." should read . "The campaign conducted by.... " Apart from the description being unnecessary, while the reference used to support it is a perfectly good reference for the article, the quote given does not exactly support the wording. It might be possible to find one that does, but there is no need to: it would be cherry-picking. For events like this ,enough people will have said enough things, that one can find quotes from RSs to support almost anything. Selecting quotations can be as much bias as using negative or positive words.

In writing articles, it is best to avoid all adjectives of quality, or praise or dispraise, or of emotional import. going to the other end of the article, "Many Swift boat veterans..." is a classically improper use of "many." The NYT knows how not to use adjectives, and says "Some" and the end, while avoiding any adjectives in most of the account.

Incidentally, I do not consider the NYT a "left" newspaper, then or now. It is and was then further to the left than the Washington Post, but that isn't saying much. The NYT did not oppose the war till the very end.

As for the tag, at this point, I support it, until the wording is fixed. But it's more important to fix the wording throughout, not just there, than to argue about where to put the tag. (Personally, I think this tag for an article of this nature is a little silly in any case--it will be obvious that an article on this subject will have a disputed POV no matter how it is written.) DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

...the phrase in the 2nd paragraph " the political smear campaign conducted by..." should read . "The campaign conducted by.......the quote given does not exactly support the wording. It might be possible to find one that does, but there is no need to: it would be cherry-picking.

"Cherry-picking" indeed, and a blatant mis-representation of a POV opinion as a universally accepted fact in "Wikipedia's voice". This issue was also previously deliberated within Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and resulted in the following compromise language currently incorporated...

After the election, the group was credited by some media and praised by conservatives as contributing to Kerry's defeat while critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign.

That same qualified "...critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign" must also be reflected here per WP:YESPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Multiple scholarly sources confirm that the SBVT conducted a smear campaign rather than a notional 'truth' campaign. Media pundits agree. For instance, Michael Getler, the ombudsman of PBS, reprinted a number of letters from viewers who felt that SBVT was about truth, but Getler gave executive producer Christopher Bryson a chance to respond. Bryson says his investigations led him to believe that the SBVT "smeared Kerry's military record", and he points to investigative news stories that support his position. Getler ends his column by saying the SBVT story was weaker than that of top Navy brass who examined the matter and supported the Silver Star Kerry earned in combat. Even Republican John McCain said that the SBVT attacks were "dishonest and dishonorable". To me, "dishonest and dishonorable" is the essence of a smear. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The 2010 book Campaign finance reform: the political shell game says unequivocally that the SBVT attack was a smear campaign. This book is part of a reference series called "Lexington studies in political communication". Co-author Melissa M. Smith is assistant professor of communication at Mississippi State University. Co-author Glenda C. Williams is associate professor of telecommunication and film at the University of Alabama and 2009-2010 president of the Broadcast Education Association. Co-author Larry Powell is professor of communication studies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Co-author Gary A. Copeland is professor and chair of the Telecommunication and Film Department at the University of Alabama. This book is certainly a scholarly source. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The 2010 book ''Campaign finance reform: the political shell game'' says unequivocally that the SBVT attack was a smear campaign.

Interested editors will please note that, when the legitimacy of this assertion as purportedly evidenced in 2 different page citations was challenged for verification, this editor was either unable or unwilling to provide the required verification and the purported source was removed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This RfC is fundamentally flawed on numerous levels...not the least of which is its failure to address the substance of the objection I raised. Instead of soliciting comment on the propriety of the existing language per WP:NPOV policy, its very formulation presupposes the WP:NPOV legitimacy of stating, in "Wikipedia's Voice", that "...the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a 'political smear campaign' against John Kerry" despite clear WP:NPOV guidance to...

1. Avoid stating opinions as facts.

2. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

It is those 2 WP:NPOV considerations that are, IMHO, by no means settled questions as proponents of the current language would have it and serve as the crux of the debate that needs to occur and for which I raised my NPOV objection. There will likely be several RfCs to be had, and their necessity will become readily apparent as this discussion progresses. As far as this RfC itself is concerned, it is highly presumptive for a heavily involved party to establish an RfC without first soliciting input from all interested parties and the current language is likely to produce nothing more than a referendum on Swiftvet popularity. It should be withdrawn as both ill-considered and premature pending development of this discussion as we progress towards consensus resolution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to support your statement that these are "seriously contested assertions". Remember we reflect the balance of reliable sources here, not a balance of political opinion. --Snowded ^TALK 08:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no intent to be responsive to debate within the framework of, IMHO, an ill-considered and premature RfC that presumes the legitimacy of the question it poses. It is the WP:NPOV legitimacy of that very question that is at issue here. This RfC is tantamount to submitting a case to the jury before the specifics of the case are even argued. I am fully prepared to engage the thrust of any and all of your arguments, at length, within the framework of the "Dispute" section I established (to be hopefully supported by a legitimate "POV Section Tag") and not in an RfC which effectively solicits a verdict bereft of the requisite ajudication. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do not respond in the context of this RfC, the article text will be determined without your input. The thing to do is offer wording that best represents your position. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The POV bias inherent in your RfC question is breathtakingly profound and renders it illegitimate right out of the starting gate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If only you could be as breathtakingly profound with your wishes for the article. Without being clearly stated they cannot be acted upon. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My "wishes for the article" remain clearly stated at the top of the section I established for NPOV discussion, now POV dispute, of the existing content...and that discussion continues and has now commenced in earnest, this premature and biased RfC notwithstanding. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You raised it at ANI and now you have some more editors involved. The have "determined" to raise an RfC question, live with it. --Snowded ^TALK 17:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jake, you have suggested "Described by critics as a political smear campaign" rather than "Since the political smear campaign conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry". You apparently wish to have the article give the impression that the SBVT campaign was mounted in good faith and that they may have had legitimate concerns about Kerry's heroism in combat. I want the article to come from the position that the SBVT campaign was not in good faith and that its claims were not founded in fact. Therefore, this RfC is exactly in line with your complaints about the article, and it is remiss of you to refuse involvement. Settling this RfC will settle whether we say "critics" describe the SBVT attack as a smear, or whether scholars (and therefore Wikipedia) describe it as a smear. I expect that collateral issues regarding the SBVT attack will be affected by this RfC such as whether the SBVT campaign was discredited, and whether the SBVT charges were unsubstantiated. I would suggest taking part in the process. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

...it is remiss of you to refuse involvement..."

On the contrary. It would be derelict of me to lend whatever sense of credibility my participation here might bestow upon this patently biased RfC. The discussion continues above. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you both. I agree with DGG, this whole article needs cleaning. Binksternet, just because you think your bias is correct doesn't mean we need to introduce it to the article. What happened needs to be presented, without bias or malice aforethought. The reader needs to be allowed to see and understand the facts of the case and make up there own mind. Jake, this also means your bias is out as well. Facts only. Padillah (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jake, this also means your bias is out as well. Facts only.

An observation with which I fully concur and about which I intend to demonstrate. Perhaps you might care to contribute your observations on the question I raised above. Under WP:NPOV, is the appellation "smear" a discernible and objective "fact" or is it a subjective "opinion". JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. And a tidy up is a good idea, but the facts are pretty clear as per the sources. --Snowded ^TALK 08:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support The article should reflect reliable sources which state the obvious: swiftboating is a smear. I haven't examined the article recently, but the clean-up proposed by DGG seems desirable although the details may be tricky as it would be undue to simply report the claims by the two sides since I think all claims by the SBVT have been thoroughly discredited by highly reliable sources, including such well known "Democrats" as McCain. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• That is a very clear and sober response. I strongly agree with the above comments of DGG, though I would say the repetitive phrasing and use of quotations in this article represents more than poor wording choices. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support The accuracy of the statement is perfectly clear to everyone except to those with an ideological stake in it not being clear. Gamaliel (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Reliable sources for assertion of fact in Wikipedia's Voice, defined as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, have been presented and cited. The same can not be said of sources refuting this assertion of fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The overwhelming majority of independent reliable sources, both on the right and the left, characterize the campaign as a smear campaign. This is a verifiable fact, and not merely a matter of opinion. Calling the campaign a "smear campaign" in WP's voice is fully justified. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• State as Opinion as that is what "characterize" pretty much means. Collect (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Because that is how it is described in reliable sources. The people conducting the campaign either knew or should have known that there claims were false and their intentions were to influence an election. TFD (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Saying in Wikipedia's voice that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a "political smear campaign" against John Kerry is about as clearcut a violation of WP:NPOV as I have ever seen. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support with DGG's suggested improvements to phrasing. The idea at this late date that this was not a smear campaign is frankly a fringe theory with nothing to support it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is the second RFC I've received on this article, although the second one may be for the RFC below. There seem to be ownership issues with this article, evidenced by a determination to disregard an overwhelming consensus by reliable sources that the SBVT conducted a deliberate smear campaign. Miniapolis (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The POV could be removed easily by rewriting that sentence "Since the campaign, which has been called a political smear campaign..." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested wording implies opinion, and thus would violate WP:YESPOV: Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Your wording actually injects the Point of View that "political smear campaign" is not a factual description, but that the campaign has been merely "called" that. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic to make fun of people who might actually hold that view. Of course, anyone with the ability to step back from a polarizing situation can realize that the assertion is anything but uncontested--the only undisputed fact is that the claim was made, not that it was true. The very existence of this discussion is evidence of the fact that there is disagreement about the terminology. You're not actually serious, though, are you? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Xenophrenic's assertion that Gary's suggested wording implies opinion where there is fact. YESPOV strives to prevent this kind of charade. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended; just updating you on the present state of the discussions. Ample reliable sourcing that meets Wikipedia's criteria for assertion of fact conveys that the SBVT campaign meets the definition of a smear campaign. Zero similarly reliable sources have been provided to date asserting otherwise, nor have reliable sources been provided contesting the findings and conclusions that we do have. (Note: Wikipedians disagreeing with other Wikipedians, and Wikipedians disagreeing with reliable sources ≠ "contested". We're looking for reliably sourced information that contradicts, refutes or updates other equally reliably sourced information.) I'm uninvolved in the "polarizing situation", and have no first-hand knowledge of any aspect of it -- I'm just going 100% on what reliable sources have conveyed to me thus far. You speak as if privy to information of which I should be aware but am not; could I impose upon you to make that reliably sourced information available to us for review? It would be extremely helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To Set The Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry by Swett and Ziegler discusses the campaign as an effort to clear the air or set the record straight, and itclearly disagrees with the "smear" terminology. Therefore, the term is contested and must be identified as a claim rather than a fact. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

...itclearly disagrees with the "smear" terminology.

Because Scott Swett is a principal in the SBVT campaign, I had purposefully avoided citing To Set The Record Straight in the NPOV and "Smear" RfC as evidencing another voice disputing the "smear campaign" characterization and opted, instead, for third-party WP:RS sourcing clearly evidencing this difference in "opinion". It can be noted, however, that Swett's book is cited extensively in project notes for a proposed book, The Truth Wars, by UNC Professor of Sociology Anthony Oberschall. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To Set The Record Straight is self-published and unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To Set The Record Straight is written by SBVT about SBVT, and is therefore WP:NOTRELIABLE for assertion of fact. It is indeed cited by the afore mentioned professor emeritus primarily as a source of attributed quotes by those SBVT principals, much as Wikipedia would cite a published opinion piece by John Smith for a quote by John Smith. I find it interesting that Oberschall, even after having read the TSTRS book, asserts that SBVT decided to discredit Kerry's military service and antiwar activities (see definition of Smear campaign) and "just kept repeating the same charges over and over again, regardless of whether the charges had been discredited" -- and thus concluding, "John Kerry lost the contest with SBVT in the court of public opinion, even though he would have won in a court of law." Xenophrenic (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta Comments

• The text of this RfC, as currently composed, offers suggested language whose adherence to and legitimacy under WP:NPOV policy is currently the subject of an active "POV Section" dispute with an associated (and hopefully conclusive) superior RfC. This RfC, therefore, presumes, IMHO both erroneously and prematurely, the WP:NPOV legitimacy of the very question it poses. Its WP legitimacy will be predicated upon the resolution of a much more fundamental WP:NPOV issue to be rendered in an uninvolved administrative closure of a superior RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Baloney. This RfC is as clear as day. The problem with it is that it is establishing a consensus which is not one favored by you. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • A "consensus" of support, or even the solicitation of support, for an edit that is the subject of an ongoing and as yet unresolved POV dispute cannot be considered legitimate until that overriding issue is resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • For goodness sake, you do not have the right to determine how the matter is to be discussed; your view of POV resolution is idiosyncratic at best. The RfC above is very clear and editors are more than capable of forming their own opinion when they respond to it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Unnecessary, tangential paragraph

I've moved the following paragraph here from the article. What started as a single unnecessary sentence has grown into a playground where the whole SBVT ad campaign debate is being rehashed. None of it belongs in this article. Take it to the SBVT article, or a Kerry medal controversy article or something, and have fun with it there. This article is about a single word - "swiftboating"; it's not about mirroring content from other articles.

In a FactCheck.org analysis of the first of four SBVT TV attack ads, former Swift Boat veterans funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas claimed that Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts. The analysis summary stated that "the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others 'in the face of enemy fire' during the same incident." FactCheck also noted, "At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth." Judicial Watch had requested that the Navy open an investigation of Kerry's combat medals, as well as his subsequent antiwar activities. The Navy Inspector General stated, "Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards," and that he saw no reason for a full-scale probe. The Navy Inspector General concluded that there was no justification for looking further into the decisions to award the medals or the anti-war activities, and stated, "Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place. Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter.

Xenophrenic (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not make clear that the unnecessary, tangential and excessively long paragraph you quote is your own concoction. The paragraph you actually deleted was:

FactCheck.org analysed the first SBVT TV ad, in which former Swift Boat veterans claimed that Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts. The article noted that "the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records". Comparing the SBVT ad with one by the Kerry campaign, FactCheck also noted, "At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth." Later, the Navy Inspector General, in a review of Kerry's combat medals, said "Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable..." Nevertheless, the "unsubstantiated" charges against Kerry by the SVPT gave rise to the term "swiftboating" as a synonym for what The New York Times has described as "the nastiest of campaign smears".

I added the context and excised portions of the quotes that you (I'll exercise 'good faith' here) inadvertantly left out, which substantially changed what was being conveyed. Could you point out the "unnecessary" or "tangential" text that was added, so that I may review it? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've observed before that the assertion that the SBVT actually, factually, executed a smear campaign is unnecessary to the definition. I also observed that material already in the article gave the lie to that assertion. If you remove the latter corrective there is no choice but to remove the former falsehood without further delay. Andyvphil (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've observed...

I also observed...

That's fine, but until your observations are published in sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, they do not help to advance the discussion here. Until then, we must rely on existing reliable sources -- and we must convey what they say. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

References

The lead and the "origins" sections are POV messes

The lead and the "origins" sections are POV messes. They don't even come near to summarizing what is in the article. (the "Origins" section is also a summary section) Instead they are just parroting the views of one side of the controversy regarding this term and the SBVT campaign. The latter is grossly mis-characterized. The core complaint of SBVT was Kerry's behavior after he returned from service. That was criticism of undisputed behavior, not something that has been "discredited" or legitimately defined as a "smear" campaign. North8000 (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)