UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Allegations Concerning John Kerry's Purple Heart Awards
The Purple Heart is a military decoration awarded for injuries sustained in combat. During his four months in Vietnam, John Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts. Having three Purple Hearts allowed Kerry to request a Thrice Wounded Reassignment to return from Vietnam after serving only four months of a twelve month tour.
Pertinent Purple Heart Qualifications
The SBVT alleges Kerry did not qualify for his first and third Purple Heart awards. These allegations depends both on factual evidence and application of the Purple Heart award criteria. The factual allegations will be discussed separately below. Here we briefly review the award [ [1]] pertinent to the SBVT allegations. These are:
The SBVT allegations that Kerry did not qualify for the award generally rely on items 2 and 3.
Allegations Concerning Kerry's First Purple Heart Award
John Kerry's first Purple Heart was awarded for an injury sustained on December , 1968.
The SBVT alleges that Kerry lied about the circumstances of his first Purple Heart in the account given to historian Douglas Brinkley and on other occasions.
The SBVT alleges that Kerry did not qualify for the award because his injury was not caused by the enemy, as no enemy were involved. This is based on the eyewitness account of Adm. William Schachte. It is supported by the absence of an after-action report, which would normally have been filed if the enemy had been engaged. This SBVT allegation is disputed by eyewitness accounts from Kerry and two enlisted men.
The SBVT alleges that Kerry did not qualify for the award because his injury did not require treatment by a medical officer, as it was so minor. This is based on the eyewitness account of Dr. Lewis Letson. It is supported by the absence of a personnel casualty report, which would normally have been filed if someone had been wounded.
The SBVT alleges that Kerry lied in order to obtain his Purple Heart. This is inferred by the conclusions that he was not qualified for the award and the fact that he received it nonetheless.
John Kerry's Account
According to Kerry's account, he was in the sole officer in command of a skimmer on a covert mission to disrupt Viet Cong smugglers. When a flare fired from the boat surprised a group of men on shore, Kerry and his crew opened fire. Kerry's M-16 jammed and as he reached for another gun he felt a piece of shrapnel hit his arm. After the enemy fled, "running like gazelles", Kerry and his crewmates destroyed the smugglers' beached sampans and returned to Cam Ranh Bay.
Schachte's Account
The principal eyewitness supporting the SBVT allegations is retired Rear Admiral William Schachte [2], formerly Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Schachte is not a member of the SBVT, but has said he admires them as "men that are willing to stand up and put up with what they've been putting up with just to tell the truth – of what they know to be the truth." He originally declined to be interviewed for the SBVT book, but after the controversy erupted he said that he realized he had a duty to "step up and be heard" as a matter of personal honor. He did not appear in a SBVT ad, but told his story in a television interview with Lisa Myers of NBC News [3] and a print interview with Robert Novak. [4] Shachte has said his only motive was "to tell the truth". However, critics have noted that he was a contributor to the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, and also donated to Bush as a primary candidate in 2000.
At the time of the incident, Schachte was a lieutenant and the senior, second in command officer of Coastal Division 14. He has stated he was the senior officer aboard Kerry's skimmer that night. Schachte said that he and Kerry opened fire on a sign of movement suspected to be guerillas. Schachte asserted that there was no hostile return fire and that Kerry was wounded by a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher he fired himself.
SBVT member Larry Thurlow has stated that, at the time of the incident, Steve Gardner told him that Kerry had received an injury due to a mistake he made when he fired an M-79 close aboard and was hit by his own shrapnel. [4] ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/) However, Gardner himself was not aboard the skimmer that night. [5] ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240001)
Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon, who claim to have been on the skimmer that night, dispute Schachte's account. They deny that Schachte was present. Zaldonis has stated that "Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer." Runyon added, "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three." Statements by Runyon and Zaladonis support the version of events given by Kerry himself. They believe, but are not completely certain, that the skimmer received return hostile fire; Runyon commented, "It was the scariest night of my life." Runyon also stated that he is "100 percent certain" that no one on the boat fired a grenade launcher. [6] ( http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/) [7]
Anonip, I made a reply to your last post over on SBVT. Do we want to move this discussion somewhere else? It's a little messy over there. -- Nysus 01:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Getting into an edit war with Wolfman is a total waste of time, and just irritates the heck out of those of us who are trying to whip the article into some sort of useful shape, and are lost in a blizzard of edits. Please stop. (And rest assured I'm saying the same thing to him.)
I removed the second sentence, and replaced it with the line from the WPost, for two reasons. First, they say basically the same thing (no other docs of this form have been found), and the WPost line is a major media quote (which it's harder to object to). Second, insisting that you have to have it 100% your way is a guarantee of deadlock with someone else who's the same way. They say about the same - can't you just leave it alone? Noel 17:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Noel, As I've tried to explain, the text I added states the argument concerning the authenticity of the documents for which the WPost references provides some specific evidence. This places the WPost reference in context and makes clear what the argument is. This is helpful to the reader. The only purpose served by deleting this text is obfuscation. If Wolfman can provide a reasonable justification for this deletion, I would like to hear it. Otherwise the text should remain, for the benefit of the readers and the Wikipedia. Please understand that I do not intend to engage in an edit war. My purpose here is to address Wolfman's behavior. This is not a new problem. Anonip 05:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As you have recently expressed interest in this article, please see Talk:Killian_documents#A_poll. Wolfman 18:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Wolfman. Please let me know when the number of respondants reaches 0.1% of the Wikipedia community. Anonip 19:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wish I did. My earlier RFCs produced little response. Anonip 22:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Response I composed for the Killian discussion. But I think it's more appropriate for a private discussion.
Alright, but not briefly :-) In addition to the inference I draw from the panel's wording, here are my views about the typographical evidence. I wouldn't bet the farm on any of them, but combined they do create some doubt in my mind.
Okay, one-by-one (briefly):
I don't claim there isn't doubt in your mind. But you're not an expert. And I don't think you've seriously considered the evidence. I think you haven't in part because you don't think it's necessary, because you think even if you were 100% convinced based on the evidence you shouldn't impose your conclusion on Wikipedia. What I'm saying is that this is the expert's conclusion, not mine (although I have examined their evidence), and it is not seriously disputed by any competent source. I don't think any reasonable person who seriously reviewed the evidence would dispute it (including you). And I don't think NPOV applies to facts which are not in serious dispute. I don't think our difference is actually about the evidence, it's about your understanding of NPOV. So if you'd just admit that you can't give a specific reason from a competent source to doubt the expert conclusion, but you don't need to based on your understanding of NPOV, I would accept that. Otherwise, I'm holding out for a specific reason from a competent source.
And honestly, this isn't personal (there are plenty of others who share your misguided :-) understanding of NPOV).
Thanks, I look forward to hearing what Ed has to say. In the meantime, which of the items you enumerated above do you think qualify as specific reasons from competent sources? Anonip 03:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Could you identify your sources then, please? Anonip 21:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
while convincing exactly no one of the merits of your argument. Wolfman 22:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wolfman, I asked you to identify your sources. It's a simple request. You listed six items which you claimed all qualify as specific reasons from a competent source. Please give your source for each item. If your source is "Wolfman's speculations", that's fine, just say so. (Or say "any 6-year-old", if you must.) As to the question of competence, this quote from the NPOV tutorial may be helpful:
While a 6-year-old might have doubt, it could simply be because they are unaware of, or incapable of understanding, the evidence cited by experts. Do you really want to rest your case on a source with that level of credibility? No, I don't think you're a moron. I just don't think you have seriously considered the evidence. Anonip 22:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting on the Killian documents issue. Are you familiar with the facts concerning the authenticity of these documents? Anonip 00:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I just wanted to clarify. You haven't actually investigated the specific facts in this case, your position is simply based on your understanding of the Wikipedia NPOV principle. You believe NPOV does not permit Wikipedia to state that the documents are forgeries, even if that assertion is not seriously disputed. Correct? Anonip 00:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please bear with me. I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand your thinking. When you say "there clearly is a dispute", are you referring to a dispute about the fact among competent sources, or a dispute about the fact among anonymous (possibly incompetent) Wikipedia editors? Do you believe that the latter, in the absence of the former, requires Wikipedia to state that the facts are disputed? Anonip 03:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm having trouble following you. By "competent" I mean those with recognized expertise (in the real world) relevant to the subject, who have examined the matter carefully, and have stated their expert conclusions supported by credible evidence and clearly articulated reasoning. By "incompetent" (perhaps I should have said "non-competent") I mean those who lack relevant expertise, who have not examined the matter carefully, and who simply assert their beliefs without credible evidence or articulated reasoning. The qualification of competent sources is objective and does not depend on their conclusions. In principle it is possible to have competent sources who reach different conclusions. In that case there would be a serious factual dispute. But what if there are no competent sources who disagree about a fact? Is disagreement by non-competent Wikipedians sufficient to require Wikipedia to treat a fact as disputed? That's my question.
And although I don't think the issue here is about fringe beliefs, suppose the Zaelians believe Abraham Lincoln was an extraterrestrial. Would the Wikipedia article on Lincoln have to say something like: "Lincoln is generally believed to have been born in Kentucky, but the Zaelians believe he was born on Sirius Zeta-9."? Anonip 05:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I actually have read the Wikipedia NPOV pages. I don't disagree with any of it (at least as I understand it). It just seems like common sense to me. Here's what I read in the NPOV tutorial:
This seems to suggest (at least to me) that expert opinion is relevant to how Wikipedia treats a subject. Here's a related quote, from NPOV:
It seems to me that based on Jimbo's criteria, if you can't identify a prominent adherent for a point of view, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article).
There's also this (again from NPOV):
I understood this to mean that if a piece of information is not the subject of a serious dispute, then it can be considered a fact, and asserted as such in Wikipedia.
The question then becomes, what constitutes a "serious dispute"? Applying Jimbo's criteria of "substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" and "should be easy to name prominent adherents", along with the need to actually describe the dissenting point of view, it seemed to me that:
Can you now at least understand how I came to believe this position was consistent with the Wikipedia NPOV policy? Where did I go wrong?
As for my "Zaelians", of course they're hypothetical. But assume they're as numerous as the Raelians you cited. Should their beliefs get prominent treatment in the Lincoln article? Note that I'm only asking about this because you brought it up. I really don't think the issue with the Killian documents is "fringe" beliefs, but rather inadequate research (and of course, my understanding of what NPOV requires). Anonip 17:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, don't be sorry. I appreciate your help. I think you've made your position as clear as you can. There's no need to repeat your answer. You don't have to respond any further, unless you want to.
Yes, I do think there is a difference between a "serious dispute" among those with relevant expertise and an "unserious dispute" among uninformed Wikipedia editors. To repeat a quote from the NPOV tutorial:
That's why I initially asked if you were familiar with the facts concerning the authenticity of the Killian documents. I suspected you were not. Your response suggests that you think it's unnecessary to know the facts, that the NPOV policy is all you need to know. If that's your position, that's fine. (You're not alone in that view.) I just disagree. I think facts matter.
I have not only cited a commonly accepted reference work, I have cited qualified experts who have explained the evidence and reasoning for their conclusions in detail. I have clearly demonstrated that the assertion that the documents are forgeries is a serious, informed position held by qualified experts. No evidence has been offered to show that this expert view is seriously disputed. No basis for disputing it has been indicated. No experts have been identified who hold an opposing view. I simply don't believe that claims made by anonymous Wikipedia editors who are unfamiliar with the evidence is an adequate basis for Wikipedia to characterize the authenticity of the documents as seriously disputed. But again, it seems we disagree.
I'll also menton that I'm somewhat annoyed by your accusations that I don't "truly believe" that the facts are as I say, that I "don't care" about NPOV, and that I am engaged in a "wrong-headed campaign" trying to "find a way around it". Aspersions of this kind do not contribute to constructive discussion. It's better to just respond substantively. Anonip 20:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My comment on Kaisershatner's talk page: You aren't the first to try to correct the massive problems with the Killian documents article. You probably won't be the last. All such efforts will fail. This article is a case study in the limitations of the Wikipedia paradigm. It simply is not possibe to produce a satisfactory treatment of the subject. You are just wasting your time. Anonip 17:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just to warn you: you may not revert a single page more than three times in a 24-hour period, as per the Wikipedia:3 revert rule. ugen 64 07:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Umm... not sure what you're referring to here. Anonip 07:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, now I see. That was a threat. I'll be looking for your justification for reverting my edit on the Earth Day Talk page.
Conversation moved here from Viriditas's Talk page:
What was your reason for reverting TDC on Pablo Neruda? Anonip 23:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What brought his edits to Pablo Neruda to your attention? Anonip 00:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Am I correct in understanding that the edit you reverted attracted your attention because it was made by TDC, who you recognized as having been a problem in the past, rather than because of the content of the edit itself? Anonip 01:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not trying to twist what you stated. I'm trying to understand your explanation. You said:
I understood this to mean: You were scanning Jmabel's contribution list, and his contribution to Pablo Neruda that day at 20:53 attracted your attention. You looked at that page and saw that TDC happened to be editing it. You had earlier become aware of TDC through edits by the sock puppet UDoN't!wAn* and LevelCheck which had brought you to related pages. You then looked at the edit and recognized that it needed to be reverted.
Am I wrong about this sequence of events? Anonip 02:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you seem to be so defensive about this. I did notice your participation at 01:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) in an exchange on Gamaliel's Talk page with Gamaliel, Rbellin, and Viajero discussing concerns with "POV pushing" by TDC. This exchange also happens to include a mention of the Neruda page by Viajero. So perhaps you will understand why I might be a bit skeptical when you say that "TDC has nothing to do with any of this, other than the fact that I happened to revert him." I also noticed that in your justification for the revert which you gave on TDC's Talk page, you said that some of his content additions had been described as "overstated" on the talk page. I did use that word on the Pablo Neruda Talk page, but my comment there was made long after you made your revert. This suggested to me that perhaps your justification was developed after the fact, and that the prior concern about TDC's POV-pushing may have been the real motivation for your revert. Please understand, I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm just trying to understand the dynamics of the editing process here. And again, if I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me. Anonip 04:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anonip, I wonder why you are grilling Viriditas about his revert of material that you yourself raised concerns about on the talk page. Why should he not revert unsubstantiated content and POV just like anyone else? Gamaliel 23:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this because it's my perception that Viriditas reverted TDC based on the prior conclusion that TDC was a "(wrong) POV pusher" and on the edit summary from your preceeding revert, rather than an independent examination of the edit and the related discussion on the Talk page. I don't believe a revert of that sort is helpful. It's just taking sides in an edit war. It's not much different from using a sockpuppet to evade 3RR, and in fact could be felt to justify the use of a sockpuppet to avoid prejudiced reverts. It simply does not contribute constructively to dispute resolution. And my own concerns about TDC's edit in this instance aren't relevant to the larger process issue. But just to make it clear, I raised concerns about TDC's edit on the Talk page in the hope of initiating a more constructive dialog, not to support either side in an edit war. Anonip 01:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't consider my conversation with Viriditas to be a confrontation. I certainly didn't intend it as such. My purpose was precisely to allow him to correct my perception if it were in error. I don't understand your remark that my perception has been wrong before, but I'm always willing to consider that possibility. In any case, the substance of the content dispute is not the issue here. My position is that edit wars are not a constructive method of dispute resolution, and should be discouraged. That is what I am trying to do. Anonip 07:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I asked Viriditas about his revert because I wanted to understand his justification for it. My questions were direct but not impolite. I believe it's neither unreasonable nor unfair to ask for an explanation of a revert. At the time I wasn't aware of Viriditas's response on TDC's Talk page. (I think his willingness to include explanations on the Talk page for future reverts will be helpful.) I also wasn't aware at the time of TDC's angry reaction to the revert on Viriditas's Talk page (because Viriditas had deleted it). While I have some sympathy for TDC's frustration over the edit war, I don't condone the intemperate language with which it was inappropriately expressed. (I'm hopeful that his mediation with Tony will help here.) In retrospect I can understand how Viriditas may have believed that my query had some connection to TDC's allegation that Viriditas was "following" him, although it didn't. This could explain why he reacted defensively and said I was "100% wrong" and that TDC had "nothing to do with" it .
As I've said before, the substance of the Neruda content dispute is not the issue here. But I do believe that discouraging unfair and unproductive edit wars is a positive step toward fair and productive dispute resolution. Anonip 16:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My reason for asking Viriditas about his revert and not TDC (or you) is quite simple. TDC had a lengthy history of activity on the Neruda article. I could review his edits and his explanation and discussion of them on the Talk page. That enabled me to get some idea of where he was coming from. The same was true of you. But Viriditas had no prior involvement with the article, and gave no explanation for his revert either in the edit summary or on the Talk page. In order to get some idea where he was coming from, I had to ask. I do sympathize with TDC's frustration at being reverted without explanation by Viriditas. And I do not approve of edit wars. My purpose is not to support either side, but to discourage both. The substance of the Neruda content dispute is a separate issue from the edit war. As I indicated on the Talk page, my preliminary assessment is that the article inappropriately downplays Neruda's ardent Stalinism, but some of the factual details as presented by TDC may be overstated and need further examination. But as I said, that's a separate issue. Anonip 21:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Moved from Gamaliel's Talk page...
Gamaliel, You own this Talk page, so you can edit it as you please. But you didn't delete my earlier comments. Why this one? Anonip 21:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel then deleted the following response:
Gamaliel, My previous comments were not so much intended to address the specific incident involving you and TDC as they were to raise the general question of whether it is appropriate for an admin to block someone for 3RR in a dispute to which they are a party. So you're probably right to indicate that the issue should be discussed in a separate section. To summarize what was said above:
You position was (paraphrasing): The 3RR is the most unambiguous, clear cut rule imaginable. Three okay, four bad. They either violated the rule or they didn't. There's no subjectivity about counting. They could get bots to do this. The Wikipedia community entrusts people with admin powers because it believes they are reasonable, impartial, and level-headed enough to make certain judgement calls, which includes distinguishing between three and four.
My position was (paraphrasing): The issue is not distiguishing between three or four, but distinguishing qualifying reverts from other edits. This determination seems best done by a neutral party. It seems a good idea, if only to ensure the appearance of fairness, not to block in disputes where one is personally involved.
Your reply was that you disagreed, that you don't think there is anything about "distinguishing" reverts that requires any sort of impartiality.
A point which we did not discuss previously (you deleted my attempted comment), but was suggested by TDC, is that when there are content issues with an article that are unlikely to be exeditiously resolved, a more appropriate admin response to repeated reverts might be to protect the article, under some version, to encourage further discussion of the proposed changes. You pointed out that protecting the article is not an option for an admin involved in the dispute, because protecting an article one is currently editing is prohibited under the rules. I believe you're right, and that's a good reason why it's a bad idea for an admin to block another editor in a dispute they're a party to. If the 3RR block is instead requested from an impartial admin, that admin would have the ability to evaluate the circumstances and decide that protecting the article is more appropriate than blocking one editor. Anonip 01:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're free to post this here of course, but don't make it seem like I've been avoiding anything. We've been discussing this for several days in depth. I deleted your comments because I asked you nicely to refrain from interjecting yourself into my dispute with TDC and noted that if you wished to take this discussion up again I would be willing to after my dispute with TDC was concluded. You responded by posting a lengthy and unnecessary recap of the points that have already been made yesterday, a discussion that could be seen by scrolling up a screen or two. You're just beating the same drum over and over again. Gamaliel 01:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey. I concede, you were right. After the Killian docs, etc., I really thought there was hope, but after a few weeks of bashing around the GWB article, I now agree with your conclusion. This project is a hopeless joke, at least as far as politics is concerned, and possibly in many other areas as well. There's simply nothing to restrain anyone who is obsessive enough and committed enough from introducing thousands upon thousands of irrelevant, poorly sourced, biased, unreliable, or patently false data into these articles, to support whatever view they've come in with. I guess I should take comfort in the fact that I live in a universe where George W. Bush was legitimately elected president, twice, and where tyrants like Saddam Hussein can be brought to heel by the US Armed Forces (ie, the actual universe). Most of the people I've been "debating" think that we live in a world where a shadowy cabal of corporate titans and demonic republicans pulls all the strings. Pity. Kaisershatner 20:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello there. I'm a little concerned that your user name maybe confusing. You may not know this, but many anonymous users (IPs) sign with something like "anon" or "anonymous." Wikipedia policy says that you should not choose names that are "commonly used terms on Wikipedia." So, I'd just like to invite you to change your username (which will move all your past contributions to the new name of your choice) at Wikipedia:Changing username. This is entirely voluntary, but I hope you can see where I am coming from. Cheers, Dmcdevit· t 05:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Would you support an RFC against disruptive POV pusher Gorgonzilla? Erwin
Please check out Talk:Killian documents, Talk:Stolen Honor and Talk:John Kerry. The entrenched editor there are running out of excuses. I have begun pointing them to Wikipedia:Negotiation and Consensus decision-making. When measured by those standards, I believe that Gamaliel, JamesMLane and others can't justify many of their reverts and edits. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Allegations Concerning John Kerry's Purple Heart Awards
The Purple Heart is a military decoration awarded for injuries sustained in combat. During his four months in Vietnam, John Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts. Having three Purple Hearts allowed Kerry to request a Thrice Wounded Reassignment to return from Vietnam after serving only four months of a twelve month tour.
Pertinent Purple Heart Qualifications
The SBVT alleges Kerry did not qualify for his first and third Purple Heart awards. These allegations depends both on factual evidence and application of the Purple Heart award criteria. The factual allegations will be discussed separately below. Here we briefly review the award [ [1]] pertinent to the SBVT allegations. These are:
The SBVT allegations that Kerry did not qualify for the award generally rely on items 2 and 3.
Allegations Concerning Kerry's First Purple Heart Award
John Kerry's first Purple Heart was awarded for an injury sustained on December , 1968.
The SBVT alleges that Kerry lied about the circumstances of his first Purple Heart in the account given to historian Douglas Brinkley and on other occasions.
The SBVT alleges that Kerry did not qualify for the award because his injury was not caused by the enemy, as no enemy were involved. This is based on the eyewitness account of Adm. William Schachte. It is supported by the absence of an after-action report, which would normally have been filed if the enemy had been engaged. This SBVT allegation is disputed by eyewitness accounts from Kerry and two enlisted men.
The SBVT alleges that Kerry did not qualify for the award because his injury did not require treatment by a medical officer, as it was so minor. This is based on the eyewitness account of Dr. Lewis Letson. It is supported by the absence of a personnel casualty report, which would normally have been filed if someone had been wounded.
The SBVT alleges that Kerry lied in order to obtain his Purple Heart. This is inferred by the conclusions that he was not qualified for the award and the fact that he received it nonetheless.
John Kerry's Account
According to Kerry's account, he was in the sole officer in command of a skimmer on a covert mission to disrupt Viet Cong smugglers. When a flare fired from the boat surprised a group of men on shore, Kerry and his crew opened fire. Kerry's M-16 jammed and as he reached for another gun he felt a piece of shrapnel hit his arm. After the enemy fled, "running like gazelles", Kerry and his crewmates destroyed the smugglers' beached sampans and returned to Cam Ranh Bay.
Schachte's Account
The principal eyewitness supporting the SBVT allegations is retired Rear Admiral William Schachte [2], formerly Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Schachte is not a member of the SBVT, but has said he admires them as "men that are willing to stand up and put up with what they've been putting up with just to tell the truth – of what they know to be the truth." He originally declined to be interviewed for the SBVT book, but after the controversy erupted he said that he realized he had a duty to "step up and be heard" as a matter of personal honor. He did not appear in a SBVT ad, but told his story in a television interview with Lisa Myers of NBC News [3] and a print interview with Robert Novak. [4] Shachte has said his only motive was "to tell the truth". However, critics have noted that he was a contributor to the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, and also donated to Bush as a primary candidate in 2000.
At the time of the incident, Schachte was a lieutenant and the senior, second in command officer of Coastal Division 14. He has stated he was the senior officer aboard Kerry's skimmer that night. Schachte said that he and Kerry opened fire on a sign of movement suspected to be guerillas. Schachte asserted that there was no hostile return fire and that Kerry was wounded by a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher he fired himself.
SBVT member Larry Thurlow has stated that, at the time of the incident, Steve Gardner told him that Kerry had received an injury due to a mistake he made when he fired an M-79 close aboard and was hit by his own shrapnel. [4] ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/) However, Gardner himself was not aboard the skimmer that night. [5] ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240001)
Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon, who claim to have been on the skimmer that night, dispute Schachte's account. They deny that Schachte was present. Zaldonis has stated that "Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer." Runyon added, "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three." Statements by Runyon and Zaladonis support the version of events given by Kerry himself. They believe, but are not completely certain, that the skimmer received return hostile fire; Runyon commented, "It was the scariest night of my life." Runyon also stated that he is "100 percent certain" that no one on the boat fired a grenade launcher. [6] ( http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/) [7]
Anonip, I made a reply to your last post over on SBVT. Do we want to move this discussion somewhere else? It's a little messy over there. -- Nysus 01:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Getting into an edit war with Wolfman is a total waste of time, and just irritates the heck out of those of us who are trying to whip the article into some sort of useful shape, and are lost in a blizzard of edits. Please stop. (And rest assured I'm saying the same thing to him.)
I removed the second sentence, and replaced it with the line from the WPost, for two reasons. First, they say basically the same thing (no other docs of this form have been found), and the WPost line is a major media quote (which it's harder to object to). Second, insisting that you have to have it 100% your way is a guarantee of deadlock with someone else who's the same way. They say about the same - can't you just leave it alone? Noel 17:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Noel, As I've tried to explain, the text I added states the argument concerning the authenticity of the documents for which the WPost references provides some specific evidence. This places the WPost reference in context and makes clear what the argument is. This is helpful to the reader. The only purpose served by deleting this text is obfuscation. If Wolfman can provide a reasonable justification for this deletion, I would like to hear it. Otherwise the text should remain, for the benefit of the readers and the Wikipedia. Please understand that I do not intend to engage in an edit war. My purpose here is to address Wolfman's behavior. This is not a new problem. Anonip 05:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As you have recently expressed interest in this article, please see Talk:Killian_documents#A_poll. Wolfman 18:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Wolfman. Please let me know when the number of respondants reaches 0.1% of the Wikipedia community. Anonip 19:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wish I did. My earlier RFCs produced little response. Anonip 22:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Response I composed for the Killian discussion. But I think it's more appropriate for a private discussion.
Alright, but not briefly :-) In addition to the inference I draw from the panel's wording, here are my views about the typographical evidence. I wouldn't bet the farm on any of them, but combined they do create some doubt in my mind.
Okay, one-by-one (briefly):
I don't claim there isn't doubt in your mind. But you're not an expert. And I don't think you've seriously considered the evidence. I think you haven't in part because you don't think it's necessary, because you think even if you were 100% convinced based on the evidence you shouldn't impose your conclusion on Wikipedia. What I'm saying is that this is the expert's conclusion, not mine (although I have examined their evidence), and it is not seriously disputed by any competent source. I don't think any reasonable person who seriously reviewed the evidence would dispute it (including you). And I don't think NPOV applies to facts which are not in serious dispute. I don't think our difference is actually about the evidence, it's about your understanding of NPOV. So if you'd just admit that you can't give a specific reason from a competent source to doubt the expert conclusion, but you don't need to based on your understanding of NPOV, I would accept that. Otherwise, I'm holding out for a specific reason from a competent source.
And honestly, this isn't personal (there are plenty of others who share your misguided :-) understanding of NPOV).
Thanks, I look forward to hearing what Ed has to say. In the meantime, which of the items you enumerated above do you think qualify as specific reasons from competent sources? Anonip 03:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Could you identify your sources then, please? Anonip 21:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
while convincing exactly no one of the merits of your argument. Wolfman 22:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wolfman, I asked you to identify your sources. It's a simple request. You listed six items which you claimed all qualify as specific reasons from a competent source. Please give your source for each item. If your source is "Wolfman's speculations", that's fine, just say so. (Or say "any 6-year-old", if you must.) As to the question of competence, this quote from the NPOV tutorial may be helpful:
While a 6-year-old might have doubt, it could simply be because they are unaware of, or incapable of understanding, the evidence cited by experts. Do you really want to rest your case on a source with that level of credibility? No, I don't think you're a moron. I just don't think you have seriously considered the evidence. Anonip 22:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting on the Killian documents issue. Are you familiar with the facts concerning the authenticity of these documents? Anonip 00:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I just wanted to clarify. You haven't actually investigated the specific facts in this case, your position is simply based on your understanding of the Wikipedia NPOV principle. You believe NPOV does not permit Wikipedia to state that the documents are forgeries, even if that assertion is not seriously disputed. Correct? Anonip 00:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please bear with me. I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand your thinking. When you say "there clearly is a dispute", are you referring to a dispute about the fact among competent sources, or a dispute about the fact among anonymous (possibly incompetent) Wikipedia editors? Do you believe that the latter, in the absence of the former, requires Wikipedia to state that the facts are disputed? Anonip 03:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm having trouble following you. By "competent" I mean those with recognized expertise (in the real world) relevant to the subject, who have examined the matter carefully, and have stated their expert conclusions supported by credible evidence and clearly articulated reasoning. By "incompetent" (perhaps I should have said "non-competent") I mean those who lack relevant expertise, who have not examined the matter carefully, and who simply assert their beliefs without credible evidence or articulated reasoning. The qualification of competent sources is objective and does not depend on their conclusions. In principle it is possible to have competent sources who reach different conclusions. In that case there would be a serious factual dispute. But what if there are no competent sources who disagree about a fact? Is disagreement by non-competent Wikipedians sufficient to require Wikipedia to treat a fact as disputed? That's my question.
And although I don't think the issue here is about fringe beliefs, suppose the Zaelians believe Abraham Lincoln was an extraterrestrial. Would the Wikipedia article on Lincoln have to say something like: "Lincoln is generally believed to have been born in Kentucky, but the Zaelians believe he was born on Sirius Zeta-9."? Anonip 05:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I actually have read the Wikipedia NPOV pages. I don't disagree with any of it (at least as I understand it). It just seems like common sense to me. Here's what I read in the NPOV tutorial:
This seems to suggest (at least to me) that expert opinion is relevant to how Wikipedia treats a subject. Here's a related quote, from NPOV:
It seems to me that based on Jimbo's criteria, if you can't identify a prominent adherent for a point of view, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article).
There's also this (again from NPOV):
I understood this to mean that if a piece of information is not the subject of a serious dispute, then it can be considered a fact, and asserted as such in Wikipedia.
The question then becomes, what constitutes a "serious dispute"? Applying Jimbo's criteria of "substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" and "should be easy to name prominent adherents", along with the need to actually describe the dissenting point of view, it seemed to me that:
Can you now at least understand how I came to believe this position was consistent with the Wikipedia NPOV policy? Where did I go wrong?
As for my "Zaelians", of course they're hypothetical. But assume they're as numerous as the Raelians you cited. Should their beliefs get prominent treatment in the Lincoln article? Note that I'm only asking about this because you brought it up. I really don't think the issue with the Killian documents is "fringe" beliefs, but rather inadequate research (and of course, my understanding of what NPOV requires). Anonip 17:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, don't be sorry. I appreciate your help. I think you've made your position as clear as you can. There's no need to repeat your answer. You don't have to respond any further, unless you want to.
Yes, I do think there is a difference between a "serious dispute" among those with relevant expertise and an "unserious dispute" among uninformed Wikipedia editors. To repeat a quote from the NPOV tutorial:
That's why I initially asked if you were familiar with the facts concerning the authenticity of the Killian documents. I suspected you were not. Your response suggests that you think it's unnecessary to know the facts, that the NPOV policy is all you need to know. If that's your position, that's fine. (You're not alone in that view.) I just disagree. I think facts matter.
I have not only cited a commonly accepted reference work, I have cited qualified experts who have explained the evidence and reasoning for their conclusions in detail. I have clearly demonstrated that the assertion that the documents are forgeries is a serious, informed position held by qualified experts. No evidence has been offered to show that this expert view is seriously disputed. No basis for disputing it has been indicated. No experts have been identified who hold an opposing view. I simply don't believe that claims made by anonymous Wikipedia editors who are unfamiliar with the evidence is an adequate basis for Wikipedia to characterize the authenticity of the documents as seriously disputed. But again, it seems we disagree.
I'll also menton that I'm somewhat annoyed by your accusations that I don't "truly believe" that the facts are as I say, that I "don't care" about NPOV, and that I am engaged in a "wrong-headed campaign" trying to "find a way around it". Aspersions of this kind do not contribute to constructive discussion. It's better to just respond substantively. Anonip 20:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My comment on Kaisershatner's talk page: You aren't the first to try to correct the massive problems with the Killian documents article. You probably won't be the last. All such efforts will fail. This article is a case study in the limitations of the Wikipedia paradigm. It simply is not possibe to produce a satisfactory treatment of the subject. You are just wasting your time. Anonip 17:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just to warn you: you may not revert a single page more than three times in a 24-hour period, as per the Wikipedia:3 revert rule. ugen 64 07:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Umm... not sure what you're referring to here. Anonip 07:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, now I see. That was a threat. I'll be looking for your justification for reverting my edit on the Earth Day Talk page.
Conversation moved here from Viriditas's Talk page:
What was your reason for reverting TDC on Pablo Neruda? Anonip 23:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What brought his edits to Pablo Neruda to your attention? Anonip 00:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Am I correct in understanding that the edit you reverted attracted your attention because it was made by TDC, who you recognized as having been a problem in the past, rather than because of the content of the edit itself? Anonip 01:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not trying to twist what you stated. I'm trying to understand your explanation. You said:
I understood this to mean: You were scanning Jmabel's contribution list, and his contribution to Pablo Neruda that day at 20:53 attracted your attention. You looked at that page and saw that TDC happened to be editing it. You had earlier become aware of TDC through edits by the sock puppet UDoN't!wAn* and LevelCheck which had brought you to related pages. You then looked at the edit and recognized that it needed to be reverted.
Am I wrong about this sequence of events? Anonip 02:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you seem to be so defensive about this. I did notice your participation at 01:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) in an exchange on Gamaliel's Talk page with Gamaliel, Rbellin, and Viajero discussing concerns with "POV pushing" by TDC. This exchange also happens to include a mention of the Neruda page by Viajero. So perhaps you will understand why I might be a bit skeptical when you say that "TDC has nothing to do with any of this, other than the fact that I happened to revert him." I also noticed that in your justification for the revert which you gave on TDC's Talk page, you said that some of his content additions had been described as "overstated" on the talk page. I did use that word on the Pablo Neruda Talk page, but my comment there was made long after you made your revert. This suggested to me that perhaps your justification was developed after the fact, and that the prior concern about TDC's POV-pushing may have been the real motivation for your revert. Please understand, I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm just trying to understand the dynamics of the editing process here. And again, if I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me. Anonip 04:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anonip, I wonder why you are grilling Viriditas about his revert of material that you yourself raised concerns about on the talk page. Why should he not revert unsubstantiated content and POV just like anyone else? Gamaliel 23:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this because it's my perception that Viriditas reverted TDC based on the prior conclusion that TDC was a "(wrong) POV pusher" and on the edit summary from your preceeding revert, rather than an independent examination of the edit and the related discussion on the Talk page. I don't believe a revert of that sort is helpful. It's just taking sides in an edit war. It's not much different from using a sockpuppet to evade 3RR, and in fact could be felt to justify the use of a sockpuppet to avoid prejudiced reverts. It simply does not contribute constructively to dispute resolution. And my own concerns about TDC's edit in this instance aren't relevant to the larger process issue. But just to make it clear, I raised concerns about TDC's edit on the Talk page in the hope of initiating a more constructive dialog, not to support either side in an edit war. Anonip 01:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't consider my conversation with Viriditas to be a confrontation. I certainly didn't intend it as such. My purpose was precisely to allow him to correct my perception if it were in error. I don't understand your remark that my perception has been wrong before, but I'm always willing to consider that possibility. In any case, the substance of the content dispute is not the issue here. My position is that edit wars are not a constructive method of dispute resolution, and should be discouraged. That is what I am trying to do. Anonip 07:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I asked Viriditas about his revert because I wanted to understand his justification for it. My questions were direct but not impolite. I believe it's neither unreasonable nor unfair to ask for an explanation of a revert. At the time I wasn't aware of Viriditas's response on TDC's Talk page. (I think his willingness to include explanations on the Talk page for future reverts will be helpful.) I also wasn't aware at the time of TDC's angry reaction to the revert on Viriditas's Talk page (because Viriditas had deleted it). While I have some sympathy for TDC's frustration over the edit war, I don't condone the intemperate language with which it was inappropriately expressed. (I'm hopeful that his mediation with Tony will help here.) In retrospect I can understand how Viriditas may have believed that my query had some connection to TDC's allegation that Viriditas was "following" him, although it didn't. This could explain why he reacted defensively and said I was "100% wrong" and that TDC had "nothing to do with" it .
As I've said before, the substance of the Neruda content dispute is not the issue here. But I do believe that discouraging unfair and unproductive edit wars is a positive step toward fair and productive dispute resolution. Anonip 16:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My reason for asking Viriditas about his revert and not TDC (or you) is quite simple. TDC had a lengthy history of activity on the Neruda article. I could review his edits and his explanation and discussion of them on the Talk page. That enabled me to get some idea of where he was coming from. The same was true of you. But Viriditas had no prior involvement with the article, and gave no explanation for his revert either in the edit summary or on the Talk page. In order to get some idea where he was coming from, I had to ask. I do sympathize with TDC's frustration at being reverted without explanation by Viriditas. And I do not approve of edit wars. My purpose is not to support either side, but to discourage both. The substance of the Neruda content dispute is a separate issue from the edit war. As I indicated on the Talk page, my preliminary assessment is that the article inappropriately downplays Neruda's ardent Stalinism, but some of the factual details as presented by TDC may be overstated and need further examination. But as I said, that's a separate issue. Anonip 21:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Moved from Gamaliel's Talk page...
Gamaliel, You own this Talk page, so you can edit it as you please. But you didn't delete my earlier comments. Why this one? Anonip 21:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel then deleted the following response:
Gamaliel, My previous comments were not so much intended to address the specific incident involving you and TDC as they were to raise the general question of whether it is appropriate for an admin to block someone for 3RR in a dispute to which they are a party. So you're probably right to indicate that the issue should be discussed in a separate section. To summarize what was said above:
You position was (paraphrasing): The 3RR is the most unambiguous, clear cut rule imaginable. Three okay, four bad. They either violated the rule or they didn't. There's no subjectivity about counting. They could get bots to do this. The Wikipedia community entrusts people with admin powers because it believes they are reasonable, impartial, and level-headed enough to make certain judgement calls, which includes distinguishing between three and four.
My position was (paraphrasing): The issue is not distiguishing between three or four, but distinguishing qualifying reverts from other edits. This determination seems best done by a neutral party. It seems a good idea, if only to ensure the appearance of fairness, not to block in disputes where one is personally involved.
Your reply was that you disagreed, that you don't think there is anything about "distinguishing" reverts that requires any sort of impartiality.
A point which we did not discuss previously (you deleted my attempted comment), but was suggested by TDC, is that when there are content issues with an article that are unlikely to be exeditiously resolved, a more appropriate admin response to repeated reverts might be to protect the article, under some version, to encourage further discussion of the proposed changes. You pointed out that protecting the article is not an option for an admin involved in the dispute, because protecting an article one is currently editing is prohibited under the rules. I believe you're right, and that's a good reason why it's a bad idea for an admin to block another editor in a dispute they're a party to. If the 3RR block is instead requested from an impartial admin, that admin would have the ability to evaluate the circumstances and decide that protecting the article is more appropriate than blocking one editor. Anonip 01:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're free to post this here of course, but don't make it seem like I've been avoiding anything. We've been discussing this for several days in depth. I deleted your comments because I asked you nicely to refrain from interjecting yourself into my dispute with TDC and noted that if you wished to take this discussion up again I would be willing to after my dispute with TDC was concluded. You responded by posting a lengthy and unnecessary recap of the points that have already been made yesterday, a discussion that could be seen by scrolling up a screen or two. You're just beating the same drum over and over again. Gamaliel 01:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey. I concede, you were right. After the Killian docs, etc., I really thought there was hope, but after a few weeks of bashing around the GWB article, I now agree with your conclusion. This project is a hopeless joke, at least as far as politics is concerned, and possibly in many other areas as well. There's simply nothing to restrain anyone who is obsessive enough and committed enough from introducing thousands upon thousands of irrelevant, poorly sourced, biased, unreliable, or patently false data into these articles, to support whatever view they've come in with. I guess I should take comfort in the fact that I live in a universe where George W. Bush was legitimately elected president, twice, and where tyrants like Saddam Hussein can be brought to heel by the US Armed Forces (ie, the actual universe). Most of the people I've been "debating" think that we live in a world where a shadowy cabal of corporate titans and demonic republicans pulls all the strings. Pity. Kaisershatner 20:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello there. I'm a little concerned that your user name maybe confusing. You may not know this, but many anonymous users (IPs) sign with something like "anon" or "anonymous." Wikipedia policy says that you should not choose names that are "commonly used terms on Wikipedia." So, I'd just like to invite you to change your username (which will move all your past contributions to the new name of your choice) at Wikipedia:Changing username. This is entirely voluntary, but I hope you can see where I am coming from. Cheers, Dmcdevit· t 05:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Would you support an RFC against disruptive POV pusher Gorgonzilla? Erwin
Please check out Talk:Killian documents, Talk:Stolen Honor and Talk:John Kerry. The entrenched editor there are running out of excuses. I have begun pointing them to Wikipedia:Negotiation and Consensus decision-making. When measured by those standards, I believe that Gamaliel, JamesMLane and others can't justify many of their reverts and edits. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)