This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I started this article after being referred to an OpEd piece in the Washington Times by Sanders, [1] wondering who he was, and not finding an article on him on Wikipedia. Here's a link to his Federal election contributions, as reported from FERC by opensecrets.org: [2]. If the link rots, the necessary info is his name and zipcode (94104), which I saw on a site for San Diego political contributions that I found on Google but lost track of (I started trying Firefox today, and I dunno where to find the overall History...). Anyway, the info that he was big into defending Kerry from the SBVT from day 0 was what I was looking for, and now it's here. Andyvphil 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I ran across a mention of WS appearing in Douglas Brinkley's Kerry-in-'Nam book Tour of Duty on p.254. [3] If someone has a copy and there's cite-worthy material there, please insert it. Andyvphil 10:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not worth a mainspace cite, but here's the cite for Sanders' deputy assistant secretary title(?1994-1997?): [4]. Andyvphil 11:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and here's a resume: [5]. No time now for me to dredge it. Andyvphil 11:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be some contention as to whether the silver medal revocation should be included. At this time, the only substantiation anyone can offer for this claim is the following post on a personal web site:
http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=179944&sid=a751c24c0d07cf22a148a45bb299b69d
There is currently no evidence to prove that the revocation has occurred. All of the following references refer back to this one forum post. I am suggesting that until someone can confirm the validity of this forum post, that the information about the revocation of a Naval Medal be left off of this page.
:You forgot to mention Fox News.
[1] Fox News is a very reputable news organization. The fact that several MAJOR American news organizations are reporting this - up to and include the Navy Times - should count for something. General Zukov 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
General Zukov (
talk •
contribs)
My apologies, I added the Fox News after my first edit. I still don't see where Fox News or anyone else cites a reliable source. The Navy Times would absolutely be a credible source, if their article could be located on their website. I have yet to find it :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benace ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
References
Some dude keeps deleting information regarding the announced revocation of the Silver Star award. It seems to me that the editor is pushing some kind of POV since he states that references by both the Boston Globe, Fox News, and the Navy Times are not good enough for him!
See for your self:
In the July 18, 2011, issue of the
Navy Times, it was announced that Navy Secretary
Ray Mabus revoked the
Silver Star, the nation's third-highest valor award, which was awarded nearly 20 years ago to retired Capt. Wade Sanders of San Diego. A spokeswoman for Mabus confirmed the secretary's decision, which he made in August 2010 following a review and recommendation by the Navy Department Board of Medals and Decorations. "Mabus signed a memorandum in which he revoked the previously awarded Silver Star," said Capt. Pamela Kunze.
[1]
[2]
"Had the subsequently determined facts and evidence surrounding both the incident for which the award was made and the processing of the award itself been known to the Secretary of the Navy in 1992, those facts would have prevented the award of the Silver Star," Kunze said.
General Zukov 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
General Zukov: I have been removing this for the reasons mentioned in my post above. Each one of those articles reference back only to the forum post on the SwiftVets web site. It may be hard to believe, but I am not trying to push any agenda or view here. I am merely trying to create an atmosphere of journalistic responsibility. The fact that large news companies such as Fox and Boston Globe have re-printed or paraphrased information from a personal forum post does not make that information reliable. None of the sources have offered any substantiation or cross-check other than to refer to each other's articles that all refer back to the same SwiftVets forum post.
My question to you is: can you find any original source for the claim that Wade Sanders's silver star has been revoked? One that does not refer back to either the SwiftVets forum post or the Navy Times article (unless the actual Navy Times article can be found on their official web site)? I have been searching for quite some time today, but have not found anything reliable. I have no doubt that the information is accurate, but we need to be able to verify it before posting it here. It is the gross lack of verifiable citations that has been giving Wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benace ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:Do you not understand how the news is reported and disseminated? What you are asking for is impossible. One could argue that the Navy Times is just repeating what someone else told them. FYI - the Navy Times is NOT an official government publication. It is owned and run by the Gannett Company, which also produces USA Today newspaper and several local papers. Yeah, my original sources kinda sucked, but a quick Google search found all those others. General Zukov 23:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
General Zukov (
talk •
contribs)
:::: This, truely, has to be the stupidest disagreement that I have ever seen. The fucking Secretary of the Navy PERSONALLY signed the order stripping this guy of that bogus award!! Are you guys just trying to push a liberal POV by creating a controversy where there really is none? Are any of you saying that this award revocation did not happen or that this report is somehow false? Yeah, I didn't think so. Stop screwing around and wasting peoples' time with this BS. that is why so many people get frustrated with Wikipedia and all the quality editors quit. General Zukov 16:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link for anyone else who wants to jump into the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wade_Sanders General Zukov 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
General Zukov (
talk •
contribs)
How would someone in the Navy received a Silver Star in 1992 anyway? Was he a corpsman with the Marines in Gulf War 1 or something? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.63.82.53 (
talk)
04:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:He got it for stuff that supposedly happened during Vietnam. Every so often you hear about a guy getting a long-overdue award. in this case, he asked for an upgrade (I think) to a previously awarded Broze Star. General Zukov 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
General Zukov (
talk •
contribs)
Entire sentences in the "personal" section appear to have been copy and pasted directly from the Signon San Diego piece. I have put some sections in quotation marks to prevent possible copyvio, but more work on this is probably needed. There may also be other instances of copyvio in the article, from this or other sources. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: The problematic material appears to have been added by
User:ZHurlihee with
these edits in July 2011. The piece being copy and pasted from was published in December 2008. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk) 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Actually added much earlier - still checking. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk)
14:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Gannet has scrubbed Sander's from military.com. I cant find his profile and all his articles are redirected back to the editorial page. You can still see the cached copy though [7]. How do we cite his work for Military.com? ZHurlihee ( talk) 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone, namely Xeno, explain why the article needs 3 whole paragraphs on his conviction and also explain why its not a WP:WEIGHT issue?
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
ZHurlihee ( talk) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
::The guy is a damn pervert and convicted felon. Who cares?? The only reason why any body knows of this guy is cuz he's a pedophile and his bogus award was taken away. How about you guys just delete everything negative about this guy - like y'all been trying to do from the beginning? General Zukov 04:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
General Zukov (
talk •
contribs)
The current inclusion of Sander’s defense throws the section out of wack and is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. While all major POV’s should be represented, we really don’t need more than a brief sentence from Sanders on why he did what he did. In fact, when reading the sentencing memorandum, his excuses and claims of being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time fall to pieces.
According to the memorandum, he first tells the FBI that he had no child pornography on his computers and if he had downloaded any it was only because he believed it was adult porn. His story then changed to his story to claim that his obsessive compulsive behavior drove him to "research" child pornography. The prosecution and the agents investigating it stated it was a transparent excuse. ZHurlihee ( talk) 20:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll play along. Sources indicate that numerous letters were sent in support of Sanders; why select this particular one to showcase in this article? Xenophrenic ( talk) 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about this, but my view is that the Kerry letter should stay in. It's not uncommon for people to support defendants before a judge sentences the person. It also makes some sense given Sanders's involvement with Kerry's campaign, which is also mentioned in the article. I would change the wording so it reads: "Senator Kerry wrote a supporting letter before Sanders was sentenced." I don't see why we need the phrase "longtime friend" - their history is already documented in the article. I also don't see why we need to repeat the phrase "child pornography". The proposed sentence is more succinct and I think reduces Xenophrenic's concern about it being anti-Kerry.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
00:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I started this article after being referred to an OpEd piece in the Washington Times by Sanders, [1] wondering who he was, and not finding an article on him on Wikipedia. Here's a link to his Federal election contributions, as reported from FERC by opensecrets.org: [2]. If the link rots, the necessary info is his name and zipcode (94104), which I saw on a site for San Diego political contributions that I found on Google but lost track of (I started trying Firefox today, and I dunno where to find the overall History...). Anyway, the info that he was big into defending Kerry from the SBVT from day 0 was what I was looking for, and now it's here. Andyvphil 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I ran across a mention of WS appearing in Douglas Brinkley's Kerry-in-'Nam book Tour of Duty on p.254. [3] If someone has a copy and there's cite-worthy material there, please insert it. Andyvphil 10:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not worth a mainspace cite, but here's the cite for Sanders' deputy assistant secretary title(?1994-1997?): [4]. Andyvphil 11:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and here's a resume: [5]. No time now for me to dredge it. Andyvphil 11:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be some contention as to whether the silver medal revocation should be included. At this time, the only substantiation anyone can offer for this claim is the following post on a personal web site:
http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=179944&sid=a751c24c0d07cf22a148a45bb299b69d
There is currently no evidence to prove that the revocation has occurred. All of the following references refer back to this one forum post. I am suggesting that until someone can confirm the validity of this forum post, that the information about the revocation of a Naval Medal be left off of this page.
:You forgot to mention Fox News.
[1] Fox News is a very reputable news organization. The fact that several MAJOR American news organizations are reporting this - up to and include the Navy Times - should count for something. General Zukov 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
General Zukov (
talk •
contribs)
My apologies, I added the Fox News after my first edit. I still don't see where Fox News or anyone else cites a reliable source. The Navy Times would absolutely be a credible source, if their article could be located on their website. I have yet to find it :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benace ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
References
Some dude keeps deleting information regarding the announced revocation of the Silver Star award. It seems to me that the editor is pushing some kind of POV since he states that references by both the Boston Globe, Fox News, and the Navy Times are not good enough for him!
See for your self:
In the July 18, 2011, issue of the
Navy Times, it was announced that Navy Secretary
Ray Mabus revoked the
Silver Star, the nation's third-highest valor award, which was awarded nearly 20 years ago to retired Capt. Wade Sanders of San Diego. A spokeswoman for Mabus confirmed the secretary's decision, which he made in August 2010 following a review and recommendation by the Navy Department Board of Medals and Decorations. "Mabus signed a memorandum in which he revoked the previously awarded Silver Star," said Capt. Pamela Kunze.
[1]
[2]
"Had the subsequently determined facts and evidence surrounding both the incident for which the award was made and the processing of the award itself been known to the Secretary of the Navy in 1992, those facts would have prevented the award of the Silver Star," Kunze said.
General Zukov 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
General Zukov: I have been removing this for the reasons mentioned in my post above. Each one of those articles reference back only to the forum post on the SwiftVets web site. It may be hard to believe, but I am not trying to push any agenda or view here. I am merely trying to create an atmosphere of journalistic responsibility. The fact that large news companies such as Fox and Boston Globe have re-printed or paraphrased information from a personal forum post does not make that information reliable. None of the sources have offered any substantiation or cross-check other than to refer to each other's articles that all refer back to the same SwiftVets forum post.
My question to you is: can you find any original source for the claim that Wade Sanders's silver star has been revoked? One that does not refer back to either the SwiftVets forum post or the Navy Times article (unless the actual Navy Times article can be found on their official web site)? I have been searching for quite some time today, but have not found anything reliable. I have no doubt that the information is accurate, but we need to be able to verify it before posting it here. It is the gross lack of verifiable citations that has been giving Wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benace ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:Do you not understand how the news is reported and disseminated? What you are asking for is impossible. One could argue that the Navy Times is just repeating what someone else told them. FYI - the Navy Times is NOT an official government publication. It is owned and run by the Gannett Company, which also produces USA Today newspaper and several local papers. Yeah, my original sources kinda sucked, but a quick Google search found all those others. General Zukov 23:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
General Zukov (
talk •
contribs)
:::: This, truely, has to be the stupidest disagreement that I have ever seen. The fucking Secretary of the Navy PERSONALLY signed the order stripping this guy of that bogus award!! Are you guys just trying to push a liberal POV by creating a controversy where there really is none? Are any of you saying that this award revocation did not happen or that this report is somehow false? Yeah, I didn't think so. Stop screwing around and wasting peoples' time with this BS. that is why so many people get frustrated with Wikipedia and all the quality editors quit. General Zukov 16:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link for anyone else who wants to jump into the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wade_Sanders General Zukov 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
General Zukov (
talk •
contribs)
How would someone in the Navy received a Silver Star in 1992 anyway? Was he a corpsman with the Marines in Gulf War 1 or something? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.63.82.53 (
talk)
04:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:He got it for stuff that supposedly happened during Vietnam. Every so often you hear about a guy getting a long-overdue award. in this case, he asked for an upgrade (I think) to a previously awarded Broze Star. General Zukov 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
General Zukov (
talk •
contribs)
Entire sentences in the "personal" section appear to have been copy and pasted directly from the Signon San Diego piece. I have put some sections in quotation marks to prevent possible copyvio, but more work on this is probably needed. There may also be other instances of copyvio in the article, from this or other sources. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: The problematic material appears to have been added by
User:ZHurlihee with
these edits in July 2011. The piece being copy and pasted from was published in December 2008. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk) 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Actually added much earlier - still checking. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk)
14:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Gannet has scrubbed Sander's from military.com. I cant find his profile and all his articles are redirected back to the editorial page. You can still see the cached copy though [7]. How do we cite his work for Military.com? ZHurlihee ( talk) 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone, namely Xeno, explain why the article needs 3 whole paragraphs on his conviction and also explain why its not a WP:WEIGHT issue?
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
ZHurlihee ( talk) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
::The guy is a damn pervert and convicted felon. Who cares?? The only reason why any body knows of this guy is cuz he's a pedophile and his bogus award was taken away. How about you guys just delete everything negative about this guy - like y'all been trying to do from the beginning? General Zukov 04:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
General Zukov (
talk •
contribs)
The current inclusion of Sander’s defense throws the section out of wack and is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. While all major POV’s should be represented, we really don’t need more than a brief sentence from Sanders on why he did what he did. In fact, when reading the sentencing memorandum, his excuses and claims of being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time fall to pieces.
According to the memorandum, he first tells the FBI that he had no child pornography on his computers and if he had downloaded any it was only because he believed it was adult porn. His story then changed to his story to claim that his obsessive compulsive behavior drove him to "research" child pornography. The prosecution and the agents investigating it stated it was a transparent excuse. ZHurlihee ( talk) 20:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll play along. Sources indicate that numerous letters were sent in support of Sanders; why select this particular one to showcase in this article? Xenophrenic ( talk) 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about this, but my view is that the Kerry letter should stay in. It's not uncommon for people to support defendants before a judge sentences the person. It also makes some sense given Sanders's involvement with Kerry's campaign, which is also mentioned in the article. I would change the wording so it reads: "Senator Kerry wrote a supporting letter before Sanders was sentenced." I don't see why we need the phrase "longtime friend" - their history is already documented in the article. I also don't see why we need to repeat the phrase "child pornography". The proposed sentence is more succinct and I think reduces Xenophrenic's concern about it being anti-Kerry.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
00:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)