Talk:Swiftboating

Current RfCs

These requests for comments are open on this page:

• RfC - NPOV and "Smear"
• "Smear" RfC
• Where does the term "swiftboating" come from?

This topic is also under discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Swiftboating. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit objections are non-specific or non-sequitors

In your unjustified reverts, you state that the videos were not about the his military record. non-sequitor, the article mentions that his anti-war activities were criticised. The videos the swiftvets used were about the anti-war activities. If you wish it to apply only to his military record, you should support your POV that the criticism of the antiwar activities should NOT be in the article. Are you wanting to remove that? What is your excuse? --68.35.3.66 (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. Given that you are not prepared to discuss changes before making them I have amended the text, leaving the video reference in place. You amendment confused the criticism of a fact (the anti-war record) with a non-fact, the unsubstantiated accusations against his military career. This is an article about the phrase "swiftboating" so I don't think the anti-war video is relevant (it is to the Kerry article), but I'm OK to leave it as phrased as the confusion is removed.--Snowded ^TALK 07:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you supply the actual quote and context from the book which substantiates this rather conclusive statement: "The challenges to his military record were not substantiated". The wikipedia article on the subject mentions affidavits. I could see "not conclusive" or "disputed". If this is the authors conclusion, I think an attributed quote of the author should be used, rather than just a reference to a whole book, so that the statement is not laid out there as if it were a fact. It is obviously not an establishable fact, but someone's conclusion. thanx --68.35.3.66 (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look it up when I get home (I am traveling) but it was an extensive example so you may need to read the whole thing. You might want to find a reliable third party source that substitutes the claims if you want to go down that route, reading the article itself, there is no substantiation for the claims. --Snowded ^TALK 05:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It has long been an established fact that the bulk of the Swifties claims were not only unsubstantiated, but refuted, since the 2004 election season - but not soon enough to help Kerry. If they were merely criticisms or inconclusive claims, we wouldn't be describing the smears as "swiftboating" someone. I remember PBS heads commenting about it here:

In stating that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "smeared Kerry's military record" we carefully and believe accurately summarized and characterized a great deal of objective reporting by established media organizations, respected media watchdog groups, and an official Pentagon investigation, regarding whether Kerry had accurately represented his war record, and whether his service medals were justified.

We wrote our interstitial based on reporting by, amongst others, the Washington Post, the Center for Media and Democracy, the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, historian Douglas Brinkley ("Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War"), and the Navy Inspector General.

The record is clear. As a young man John Kerry did what the men in our Civil War story did, he went to war for his country, and in his case was awarded medals for his bravery. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was organized in advance of the 2004 election and funded by operatives with close ties to the political machine seeking the re-election of President George W. Bush. The media campaign by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which attacked Senator Kerry's military record was reported and judged to have been a successful political effort to undermine Kerry's deserved and honorable credentials as a decorated veteran. In this regard it can accurately and fairly be described as a smear. (At the time Senator John McCain judged the group's attacks "dishonest and dishonorable.")

It's a long read, but it contains many still-active links to some of the fact-checking that was done at the time. I'm curious about the "videos the swiftvets used were about the anti-war activities" you mentioned above. What videos were those? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That was puzzling me to, unless it was an argument that protesting against the war invalidated your war record which would be absurd. --Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Remainder of discussion, not about article improvement, moved to User talk:68.35.3.66 for continuation... Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, I doubt that the book invented the term swiftboating, so while it perhaps concluded the attacks on his record were unsubstantiated, it was his supporters that used that belief to popularize the term "swiftboating". So there is a link missing here that the book doesn't supply. Do the users of the term also believe the questioning of his statements about being in Cambodia were also unsubstantiated or his repeating of allegations of war crimes by fellow veterans was unsubstantiated?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"I doubt..." You are welcome to your doubts, of course, but for the purposes of Wikipedia articles, we need content supported by reliable sources. This article is about "Swiftboating", a term that is synonymous with a dishonest, untrue smear campaign - named after the political activities of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth against John Kerry. It appears to me that you are not arguing about the meaning of the term "swiftboating", but you are instead arguing that some claims made by SVPT were not dishonest or untrue. You should be directing those efforts toward the content in the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and John Kerry military service controversy articles. The meaning of "swiftboating", in the American lexicon, is quite clear cut. If you believe the SVPT's campaign against Kerry has been inaccurately characterized, you need to make that case in the SVPT article. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I'm not arguing about the meaning of swiftboating, although you might be surprised to find it also is used in a positive sense as a goal to be aspired to when encountering a similarly smarmy candidate, i.e., "how can we swiftboat him" is synonomous with what are his vulnerabillities and hypocrisies. But why direct me to other articles, when this article discusses whether the claims of the SVPT are unsubstantiated or not. There are references that dispute Kerry's Winter Soldier Investigation activities and claims that were highlighted by the SVPT that are as solid as the reference used to support the "unsubstantiated" claim in this article. Yet, I see that you are obstructionist in that article. Perhaps we just need to remove the unsubstantiated claim in this article. It isn't needed at all. That is a reasonable compromise.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask you to refrain from personal attacks. You are welcome to remove unsourced content, or add citations as required. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above, I think removing the sentence making judgements about the validity the SBVT claims is a good compromose. Any discussion of that should be taken to teh SBVT. Visitors need to know what swift boats were, but authors whose opinions are being cited had nothing to do with the origination of the term swiftboating or apparently in spreading its usage.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not a compromise - its your POV. There were government reports as well. Please stop editing the article until you reach agreement here. --Snowded ^TALK 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you should read the discussion, the text you restored was not disputed as to its being justified by its source, but rather whether this is the appropriate article for it. The source and the government reports you don't cite were not related to swiftboating becoming used as it is. this article is not the appropriate place to document which of the SWVT allegations were justified and which weren't. There were some of both. In any case the statement does not belong in a history or background of the term getting its meaning. If it belongs at all, it would be in some kind of post-mortem. The article in NPOV without the statement that I removed as a compromise. Since I am the only one proposing compromises here you and X are not editing in good faith. Which of my other compromises are acceptable to you, or propose some of your own. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole point about "swiftboating" is that it is a lie told to achieve a political effect. The truth or otherwise of the assertion is therefore relevant and the government and other sources clearly state that the accusations were false. Please stop making accusations against other editors who disagree with you. --Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, so in addition to the meaning of the term, this is also about the justification or not of its coming into use for that purpose. Wikipedia is not supposed to just selectively just include supporting evidence for such as use, but a more NPOV position.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't compromise when it comes to facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The line we are currently discussing is not a "fact", it is an opinion. What is a fact, is that the line represents Farhad Majoo's opinion. Perhaps we can compromise by explicitly attributing the opinion to Farhad Majoo and making it more NPOV by giving other opinons.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to impose a POV, see comment by Xeonophrenic above. --Snowded ^TALK 19:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, Snowded, you are going to have to do better than point to Xenophrenic. Even "facts" cannot be assumed, even if they are obviously true to someone with your POV. The Farhad Manjoo source does not support Xeno's fervent "unsubstantiated" opinion. Here is the quote from the book: "The veterans lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims ...". Hmmm, lack of "compelling" evidence is not "unsubstantiated", after all, Kerry also lacked compelling evidence that he was in Cambodia, or that Nixon was president in Christmas of 1968. Someone has been using this book as a source in bad faith. The book is not a formal investigative report but a prolonged essay. It is not full of quotes and footnotes. It is not trying to be particularly precise in its use of terms, so even if it did use the term "unsubstantiated", that would hardly establish it as a fact. Unless you can come up with better support for putting Manjoo's unattributed and mischaracterized opinion in the article, the best compromise is to remove that sentence. Alternatively, his opinion should be properly presented and explicitly attributed, and then we should find another opinion to balance it, so that the article remains NPOV. If you insist on putting Manjoo's opinion in the article (why is his opinion so special?) I propose this as a statement that turns his opinion into fact, because the only "fact" is that it is his opinion. "In Farhad Manjoo's opinion the veterans lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims"--68.35.3.66 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is tedious, your points have been handled elsewhere in this discussion. You do not have agreement to the change. --Snowded ^TALK 06:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't revert if you are unwilling to participate. If you can't provide the support for the "unsubstantiated" opinion in the supplied source, don't revert in somekind of faith that Xeno can just because he called this opinion a "fact". But first, you evidently didn't read "this discussion" before you mischaracterized it. I read the pertinent parts of the book and provided soupporting text for the change. Show where that had been handled previously?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Try not to make assumptions, check out the Navy Inspector General's reports if you want more data. If by "participate" you mean tedious repetition of the same points to an editor who just doesn't like it, then I'm not playing - the points have been made above, you simply don't like them. Future postings on my talk page by you which fail to follow WP:AGF will be deleted as vandalism. --Snowded ^TALK 09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, provide new wording and a cite based upon the inspector generals records. Once again you don't appear to have read the current discussion.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. The article is about swiftboating as a concept. This is not place to debate the merits of the campaign against John Kerry. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Boy are you confused. You are actually agreeing with me! Could you have mistakenly agreed with Snowded out of habit? The sentence in question, which we probably should just delete is about the merits of the campaign against John Kerry. One of the compromises I proposed was just to delete the sentence, the others are to properly cite it as the opinion of Manjoo. If you are going to participate, try to be more careful.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's well sourced, correct, NPOV, and appropriate. Keep per snowed et al. Verbal chat 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one that has checked the source? --68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No --Snowded ^TALK 20:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you did look at the source, then you didn't come up with anything but the sentence I already conveniently quoted which does not support "unsubstantiated".--68.35.3.66 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

New York Times: Mr. Kerry has stretched the truth here and there, but earned his decorations. And the Swift Boat Veterans, contradicted by official records and virtually everyone who witnessed the incidents, are engaging in one of the ugliest smears in modern U.S. politics. --Snowded ^TALK 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You forget Snowded...I check sources. You've tried to slip in another opinion piece as a source. This one was an op-ed, what next a letter to the editor? [1]--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll mark this resolved. Verbal chat 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the source cited in the article, and it doesn't support "not substantiated" any better than the source that is cited. I will leave the citation needed notice in their a couple more days before removing the statement. The statement should not even be in there, since three of us have agreed that any issue of whether the claims of the SBVT were or were not true should be taken to the SBVT page.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, If we want to discuss the merits of the SBVT here, despite 3 of us being against, I am not opposed to allowing opinion in, but it should be explicitly identified with whose opinion it is, whether Manjoo's or Kristol's or whomever. And there should be no original research mischaracterization of their opinions, using them to support statements stronger than what their own statements would justify. That is the proper way to get opinion into Wikipedia. Even on the science pages, conclusions that are the least bit controversial are attributed to persons or scientific bodies that have stated them. This issue is far from scientific with claims and unreliable memories and biased eye witness evidence on each side.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC) RESET INDENT. The latest edit puts a clearly exaggerated claim by Majoo as a fact, despite alternate sources, such as SBVT affidavits and John O'Neill and Scott Swett's books. If this article is to even approach NPOV, that statement is not appropriate, except perhaps as a quoted opinion from one source. More accurate is to say what I edited before, which is that the issue remains in dispute, with evidence from both sides, some of it contradictory. Anything else simply slips the entire controversy under the rug, asserting, in a truly "world without facts" manner, something that is not only an opinion, but an obviously incorrect one. Does anyone seriously believe that there were no facts in the SBVT attacks? Hence, I am reverting back to the more neutral wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustnado (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to Xenophrenic's reverts, the comment holds. Majoo's claim is an exaggeration. Majoo is a writer for a publication known for its POV, and this exaggeration is in line with that POV, and is clearly not a statement of fact. The more recent wording before Xenophrenic's revert is a correct characterization of the facts and the controversy. Majoo makes the claim, as the wording says. That Majoo made the claim does not give his claim the status of fact, given his POV, the single sourcing, and the clear evidence that at least some of the claims were based on obvious fact (such as the televised and recorded remarks of Kerry to the U.S. Senate). To call it "fact free" is to pretend that such evidence does not exist, inappropriately relying on one "reliable source" instead to create a fiction. I have reverted the wording to a more neutral and more correct form.Gustnado : ►Talk 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The content in the article is cited to reliable sources. Your edits have not been supported by reliable sources, and have been reverted. If you have an issue with reliability of sources used, you may raise that issue at WP:RSN (where you will get a faster response if you spell the names of sources correctly). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Majoo is a "reliable source" - it is whether a single phrase lifted from that source can be treated as a reliable fact. The statement, whether from a reliable source or not, does not belong in a dictionary. It is an exaggeration and is refuted by the many facts presented at the time, which are in the public record (including Kerry's testimony to the Senate in 1971). The "reliable source" argument is a smoke-screen and inappropriate. I am restoring the wording to that which an objective observer would clearly agree is more appropriate.Gustnado : ►Talk 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:V states:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true.

The content is published in a reliable source, and has been restored. Your argument for removal does not appear in any reliable sources, so your removal has been reverted. You can argue all you want that "an objective observer would clearly agree" the earth is flat, but it isn't going into a Wikipedia article when reliable sources say otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Manjoo's book is a reliable source

Manjoo's book is essentially an extended editorial use swiftboating as a mere anecdote to support is overall concerns in theme not directly related to swiftboating. There is no evidence that he did any research in the area, but just assumed and characterized, perhaps based upon what he thought was general knowledge. I think this section from wikipedia reliable sources is relevant:

"As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

This source is one person, not known for, or claiming expertise in this particular area, with no references or other evidence that he did any fact checking. Since his book is mere opinion, any statement derived from it, if appropriate at all, should explicitly identify it as his opinion and probably, quote him directly.

The "not substantiated" statement at issue mischaracterizes what he has said, in a single statement in the book, is not directly supported and does not explicitly identify it as his opinion. This section from the wikipedia reliable sources is relevant:

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."

There is no direct support from the source for the statement. The unwillingness of POV editors here find any quote or accept any compromise using an actual quote or more properly characterizing what Majoo actually wrote, that can serve their purposes, shows that they are violating the reliable source policy and engaged in POV editing.

--68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Majoo's is a respected journalist who has written a book about how we live in a post-fact society. He makes extensive use of the swift boat saga to show how accusations with no basis in fact can influence an election. Given that this article is about swiftboating (the word) not about Kerry it is a highly appropriate source to use. --Snowded ^TALK 20:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You, IP68.35.3.66, have completely mischaracterized the source. The cited source is several hundred pages of scholarly analysis of how and why we can accept belief over fact - something you have, ironically, been demonstrating. Not only is there a chapter on swiftboating, but there are more than 40 references to it throughout the book. This is a work published by 200 year old Wiley (most famous for its peer-reviewed academic and scholastic works), in which there are extensive notations and citations to journals, newsprint, books, articles, etc., and nothing to indicate this is a personal editorial or opinion piece. You appear to be looking at the wrong book. The content of this Wikipedia article cited to this source does accurately convey what this source says. If you have concerns about the reliability of cited sources, you should raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The author didn't do any investigation of his own and didn't come to the conclusion in the statement, and he works for Slate magazine, not a news magazine. Since when does weaving his argument with anecdotes, unrelated to the specifics of the SBVT evidence, count as "scholarly analysis" of the issue at hand. If it did you should be able provide several quotes of relevant analysis, and if it was particulary scholarly, there should be references in the source supporting that analysis. And you should be inviting others to review the source like I have. Try harder.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As you have been asked, take it to WP:RSN if you are dissatisfied. Verbal chat 16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Widely reviewed book from a well-established publisher written by a professional journalist? Exactly the kind of source WP articles should be using. Gamaliel (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you document how it is a source for the statement of interest? --68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(Passing through, this just cropped up on my watchlist) Performing the obvious search, it describes the Swiftboating campaign as 'fact-free' on page 14. I presume one of the editors can provide more context but the phrase you requested the cite for is there. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VdDykSc7sbcC&dq=%22True+Enough:+learning+to+live+in+a+post-fact+society%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=Af6MS4CdFIW6jAe15fDGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22fact%20free%22&f=false Bazzargh (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that --Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there clearly were facts in the SBVT campaign, and not all have them have been disputed, the use of the phrase from Majoo is polemical. If anything, the phrase itself should disqualify Majoo's source, since it is clearly wrong (References previously cited including the O'Neill Book, which containts facts, some of which were disputed, and the affidavits from SBVT members, which contained sworn facts. To use such a loaded and incorrect phrase, found in exactly one book, is editing in bad faith.Gustnado : ►Talk —Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

I see a reliable source cited for the content. I do not see a reliable source from you supporting the removal of that content. I have returned the content. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

While it is original research to assume that the perception by liberals (and Manjoo) that the campaign was "fact free" gave rise to the term "swiftboating", that seems a reasonable inference to me. The text I entered, properly attributes the "fact free" conclusion to Manjoo. The source cited is certainly reliable for Manjoo's opinion, although obviously not for the fact of the matter. The use of the winter soldier videos with John Kerry speaking, obviously establishes certain facts, such as he actually said the words that were coming out of his mouth.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the SBVT's campaign was based on distortion and falsification is not an assumption, not WP:OR, is not something that needs to be "inferred", and is substantiated by reliable sources. Attempts to portray the fact as merely an "opinion of Manjoo's", or trying to conceal the fact with weasel worded statements like "presumably others shared this view" aren't supported by the cited source. I've returned wording that is supported by the cited source. The changes you made were not supported by the cited sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comments in the other section on this. Xenophrenic's comment here is not responsive to the issue. In dispute is wording about whether the campaign was "fact free." It clearly was not, as it made use of facts in the public record. "Fact free" is an incorrect characterization by Majoo, and cannot be used in an unqualified manner. As stated below, the article is reverted to the more appropriate language inserted by 68.35.3.66 .Gustnado : ►Talk 06:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The "fact free" and "lacked any compelling evidence" wording is not in dispute. See this page in the cited source for proof (click on the "Page 14" link to expand the page for context). No dispute. The words are there in black and white. If you feel the source isn't reliable, take it up at WP:RSN - not here. If you feel the source is reliable, but mistaken or not neutrally conveyed, take it up at WP:NPOVN - not here. Making edits while claiming that something is "clearly" this or that, without providing reliable sourcing to back it up, will only end up with your edits being reverted. You may also wish to familiarize yourself with the very first sentence of WP:V. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(Inappropriate personal attacks and soapboxing moved to editor's talk page here.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try and remember that this is an article about the word swiftboating rather than Kerry himself. We have a reliable authority who uses the words "fact free" explicitly. The fact that the Veterans said he was in Vietnam is I suppose a fact but at that point we are getting into the absurd. --Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There were of course, other facts in the campain. Specifically referenced in this article was that the campaign included video from the Winter Soldier investigation. Although, the words coming out of Kerry's mouth were not facts, it is factual that the words came out of his mouth. I assume you removed the video reference, for consistency, since it obviously contradicted the "fact free" statement. Would you care to contact Manjoo, to see if he concurs with the way his opinion is being used? You can ask him if he specifically reviewed all the material to see if it was fact free, or if this was a less rigorous characterization?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, my compromise statement is better supported by the source, since it properly attributes the opinion to the source, an attributed quoatation is the wikipedia way of turning hyperbolic opinion into fact.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not encourage multiple qualifications to statements. This is just another attempt to try and push a political point of view. We use the language of the reliable source, thats the way it works. Deriving conclusions indirectly from your interpretation of a video is called original research. Continued edit waring on your part here is going nowhere, if you are unhappy then use the normal processes in WIkipedai. --Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you can explain how my current compromise pushes a POV. Please don't make any characterizations in the hopes that others won't even look at the text.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See above comment, you are still seeking to qualify a clearly cited statement --Snowded ^TALK 11:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as I thought, there was no way you could portray it as pushing a political POV. BTW, in what way is attributing the opinion to Manjoo a "multiple qualification", hmmm? I think wikipedia standards, would prefer my compromise, which is true and supported by the source, to yours, which is false and hyperbolic and supported by the source, IF one assumes that Manjoo was stating it for the truth of the matter rather than just his opinion. Arguing against the latter, there is no evidence that Manjoo did the detailed review required to reach a "fact free" conclusion. His book is essentially just a prolonged editorial.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you several times Manjoo is writing a book about phenomena such as swift boating and is authoritative in this respect. --Snowded ^TALK 11:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct it is about swiftboating, and more specifically why it and unrelated truthy campaigns "worked", it is not about whether there were actual facts in the SBVT campaign. It assumes there weren't, but doesn't investigate the truth of the matter and should not be a source on the matter. It is a proper source for Manjoo's attributed opinion, although even there, from the context of the surrounding paragraphs, Manjoo does not intend the "fact free" statement the way it is being used here. He would intend it specifically in regards to aspirsions on Kerry's heroism. There is no indication he considers portions of the campaign relating to his anti-war activities including the Winter Soldier testimony to be fact free, yet you are taking his opinion out of context and mis-representing it by leaving the impression that it was in respect to the whole campaign. I am sorry the source doesn't work for your purposes as well as you might hope.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are repeating the same points time and time again, although interesting we now have Winter Soldier brought into play. The meaning in the reference is very clear and supports the current text. That is consensus. You know the remedies if you are unhappy. --Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, there doesn't appear to be a consensus anymore since you went to the extreme "fact free", just you and that xeno... dude.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. There is no consensus. It appears that using a "reliable source" (which itself has a strong POV), trumps any attempt at accuracy. I have pointed out facts that were used in the attacks, and those facts that are widely available (such as government records of Kerry's statements in 1971), but no matter. Since the facts don't say that the SwiftBoat attacks were NOT fact free, the extreme and clearly wrong language "fact-free" is imagined to be the correct language. And yet, in "Unfit for Command", part of the SBVT campaign, Kerry's exact words are quoted (chapter 6), and it is an indisputable, widely published (and televised) fact that Kerry spoke those words. Hence we have clear evidence of at last one fact in the SBVT attack, which is sufficient to refute the absurd "fact-free" language, and to refute the reliability of the so-called reliable source - at least on that issue. No consensus, reverting.Gustnado : ►Talk 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct that using a verifiably reliable source does trump your personal opinion of accuracy. See the first sentence of Wikipedia's core policy: WP:V. Your edits are not supported by equally reliable sources, and have been reverted. You can call it absurd until you are blue in the face, but that is also trumped by WP:V. Your edit warring without the support of reliable sources is disruptive. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno... you are lying again, how can attributing the "fact free" to Manjoo using EXACTLY THE SAME SOURCE, not be an "equally reliable source". I sense a logic or intellectual honesty deficit somewhere. I hope it is just temporary.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be necessary to attribute an opinion when that opinion is given incidentally: we do not imagine that every statement in a daily column has been fully researched, and such a statement may well be attributed. However, it is common practice that when a reliable source has researched a situation, their conclusion is simply presented with an appropriate reference. If there is a similarly reliable source that contradicts the statement, it would be appropriate to include information regarding the differing views. However, the whole point of the term "swiftboating" is that the attack is fact-free; if most of the claims were known to be correct, the attack would not be "swiftboating". Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You apparently imagine an extremely high standard for the use of the term "swiftboating", one that even the SBVT campaign itself is unable to meet. Ironically, the campaign that inspired the term is not itself an example of swiftboating, under this high "fact free" standard. History is full of ironies like this. It still does not justify the inclusion of hyperbolic opinion without attribution as if for the truth of the matter. Do you have any evidence that Majoo has researched "fact free" as used here? Does he discuss whether Kerry traveled to Paris or threw away his ribbons as alleged in ads used in the SBVT campaign (they are available on youtube). BTW, John Kerry's campaign acknowledged these "facts".--68.35.3.66 (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not try to debate the Kerry issue here since this is not a forum. We discuss the application of Wikipedia's content policies: see WP:VERIFY. What you call hyperbolic opinion is a verified statement in a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To whom are you writing, I'm only debating the wikistandards for one statement that is in this article? If it shouldn't be in this article suggest a well reasoned compromise.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well put, I've been trying to make the same point. --Snowded ^TALK 04:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this NPOV?

I just stumbled accross this article and have to say, the sentence "The completely fact-free campaign against Kerry by the SVPT lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims" is in no way shape or form NPOV. I do not care if there is a reference, the wording here is in doubt. If you want to have something along those lines, then you have to cite a specific person who makes said claim---especially on something as poltiically charged as this subject.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Neutrality is the bedrock of the encyclopedia, and while it's fine to include commentary from a reliable source, using charged language to display a particular POV in the article itself is wrong. Balloonman's modification of the text properly enforced our neutrality policy without losing any of the substance of the information. Future inclusions of controversial information should follow that example. -- Atama頭 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is politically charged. That is where my agreement with Balloonman's assessment ends. The sentence,

In the book, True Enough: learning to live in a post-fact society, Farhad Manjoo argues that campaign against Kerry by the SVPT was "fact free" and lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims.

...is a misrepresentation of the source. Manjoo didn't argue that the campaign was fact free any more than he argues that Kerry ran for president. Neither fact is an opinion belonging to Manjoo, and attempting to portray basic facts as his opinion is extremely POV. If it is Balloonman's opinion that the wording is in doubt, then he should provide reliable sources to support that doubt. There is certainly no doubt expressed in the cited reference, so I can only assume the doubt Balloonman is trying to interject is expressed elsewhere. Can you provide a reliable source, please, to that doubt?

As for Atama's observation that the "fact-free" and "lacked any compelling evidence" wording is "charged language", I do agree - but it is there because another editor objected to the equally accurate and supported "unsubstantiated charges" milder wording, and didn't like the paraphrase. The wording isn't there to "display a particular" POV, as Atama incorrectly assumed, but to convey a fact. That fact is: the charges of the campaign were unsubstantiated. It is not the opinion of Manjoo's book that the SBVT has leveled unsubstantiated attacks on Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record in a book and on the air, or that the Navy Inspector General refuted the SBVT claims and concluded there was no justification for looking further into the decisions to award the medals or the anti-war activities. No, the wording is not "in doubt", unless reliable sources are provided that convey that doubt, and I haven't seen any. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You can never factually state that nobody was ever compelled by the evidence. That's a logical fallacy. You can only state that someone wasn't compelled by the evidence, and in this case that "someone" would either be Manjoo, or whatever persons Manjoo might refer to in the source. This is like factually declaring that something is "unbelievable"; odds are that some kook somewhere believes it. If nothing else, the term "fact-free" is just terrible writing. "Unsubstantiated" would be a term without charged rhetoric, and far better. It would be like the difference between stating that a person made unfortunate choices because they led to a life of poverty, or saying that a person is stupid. -- Atama頭 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, Atama has nailed it, when he write, "you can never state that nobody was ever compelled by the evidence." The fact that Manjoo found the evidence uncompelling or the Navy Inspector General found it so, does not make it so. The sentence, as I originally saw it, was one of the most POV sentences I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time.

IMO, it would be a lot stronger of a statement, if you could attribute it to a neutral authority (like the Navy Inspector General) that was made after the fact. Eg I would avoid relying upon sources from 2004 unless quoting something---sources written at the time suffer the fate that they might be politically charged. A single book by a journalist (who works for a very liberal leaning online magazine) may not be seen as compelling as a pentagon study or some such. The fact that the book was published by Wiley, does speak to the quality of the book (Wiley is a MAJOR publisher.) That doesn't, however, mean that the author himself might not be politically biased.

Here's the rub, when dealing with a political statements, we need to take into consideration the fact that people are going to come to the article and read and say "Says who?" or "Where did that come from?" Or "that's POV." Or "that's not true, I read the book the Swift Boaters put out." Making a statement that says "unsubstantiated charges" needs to be tied to the most credible source we can find---preferably one that even the most die hard dittohead couldn't reject. Heck, if given the choice, I'd prefer a conservative leaning source that said the exact same thing, because the people who are most likely to challenge the statement are going to be conservatives!

The current version is closer to being NPOV and accurate, but it still reads like a blog and sounds like somebody on Wikipedia is advocating a stance. I have no doubt that Kerry got screwed and that the facts were embellished/fabricated/what have you. The problem is that we need to have it beyond reproach at first glance, we don't want to force the reader to goto the footnotes to find out who said it. We don't want people to have the initial reaction, "That's POV" or "That's wrong" which is what people will say if we can't tie the statement to somebody/something beyond reproach.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add, just to make myself clear, I do not at all refute the reliability of any of the sources being used, nor do I doubt the accuracy of the statement, if correctly attributed. I'm definitely not out to whitewash the article in any way or remove criticism of the SBVT. -- Atama頭 04:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I approve of the recent changes. Good work. :) -- Atama頭 07:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

getting there

The article is in a much better shape than it was when I stumbled upon it 2 weeks ago, that being said, I've removed the word "unsubstantiated." The word is a politically charged one that has a lot of connotations/meaning, and without impeccable sources should not be used in an encyclopedic in this manner. There are 3 sources provided. The word comes from a NYTimes article written at the time. The NYTimes is known to be a liberal paper and the fact that the Swift Vets were publishing books raises questions as to whether or not the claims were unsubstantiated or whether the NYTimes simply chose to ignore the facts. But the biggest problem with the article, is that it was written during the campaign. During the campaign both sides were casting dispersions on each other and opinions often got mixed in with facts--even by the media. Thus, even though the NY Times article uses the word "unsubstantiated" it is probably not the best source (nor would any source written during the campaign.) The book written by a Salon writer might be a step in the right direction. Again, this offline source appears to be credible (based upon who published it) but it was written by a liberal writer. But even putting that aside, we don't know if he actually wrote that the allegations were unsubstantiated. Even the column by the PBS Ombudsman did not make that claim. If Wikipedia is going to state that the allegations by the Swift Vets were unsubstantiated, then we need a reliable source that says that. What we would really need to use that word is something showing that the Swift Vets position was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated after the campaign was complete. The problem with including it is that the claim is SO powerful and has so many connotations. It implies that not only did the group deceive the public but did so deliberately and knowingly. That there were no facts to support their position and that anybody who accepted their facts were idiots. That word is so loaded that (even if true) without a clear unassailable source, I couldn't support including it in this article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See extensive discussion above --Snowded ^TALK 14:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New compromise statement should do the trick

Here is the new statement I just inserted:

Unsubstantiated attacks on Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record by the SBVT gave rise to the term 'swiftboating' to describe political tactics that are essentially synonymous with a 'smear campaign'.

I don't believe the Washington Post article from which the language I used is taken is enough to substantiate this statement, but in combination with the sites referenced in the PBS ombudsmen article, I think the case is strong that this is a reasonable summary. Some of the attacks were ultimately "unsubstantiated" and that fact is probably responsible for "swiftboating" becoming the term that it is. I kept the last two references, but deleted the Manjoo reference, since its "fact free" statement is not relevant to this compromise text and since the other references contradict it, even with respect to Kerry's military record, must less the whole SBVT campaign. Central to this compromise is the focus on just the attacks Kerry's Vietnam War record. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see any substantial difference in that wording form the previous one which reads better. Also there was no reason to remove an important reference --Snowded ^TALK 11:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you don't read the discussion.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I did, and I think the earlier variation was better and there was no validity in deleting the reference --Snowded ^TALK 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So you vandalize again. Why don't you go back and proofread what you did. The PBS ombudsman link was provided by Xeno... . It is quite good. I restored it because I accidently deleted it. Why don't you ask him to justify it? I guess you haven't been following the discussion, just showing up to do what you THINK is your clique duty. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You deleted a key reference and the original wording was better. As one was on top of another I reverted. You need to stop making accusations (clique, vandalism) when I and others are just trying to get you to discuss changes. --Snowded ^TALK 14:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted again. I could have left the article in Snowded's state, but that would have hurt wikipedia to make WP:POINT. That is not my style. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism does not mean "edits you don't like". Vandalism is defined in the WP:VAN policy, and excludes any good faith edit. You aren't seriously suggesting that Snowded is deliberately trying to damage Wikipedia, do you? -- Atama頭 16:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he was the first time, but when he kept restoring the version that you just restored, without checking it. I think he was purposely not assuming good faith on my part. Evidently you haven't read the discussion, where I asked him to proofread.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And when did you say there was a broken ref tag? Never. You're obviously not here to make improvements, any shred of good faith I had for you before has evaporated. Remember that I was defending your edits when I initially got involved with this dispute, but you've successfully reversed that position for me. Congratulations. -- Atama頭 19:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

excuse me, I'm not a tag expert. I just cut and paste and then look at the preview to see if it worked. Snowded gave my thoughtfully proposed compromise about as much thought as he did his edit, which evidently was putting in a duplicate source without proof reading or realizing it. I doubt he had read Xeno...s new text or the sources Xeno... proposed. I read those sources AND the sources those source cited. I've never asked for support without merit. If yours comes based upon something else I don't want it, and wikipedia shouldn't want it either. So, you now think "fact free" was being proposed as NPOV in good faith? --68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have no problem with the Manjoo reference being part of the compromise I proposed. I just thought it was extraneous clutter since we are no longer going after the "fact free" language. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally, the more references the better, if the references used back up the text. They give more weight to the verifiability of whatever text is using them as a reference. Basically, we're saying that not only do the New York Times and PBS reach that conclusion, but so does this published author. For potentially controversial pieces of text it is even more helpful to have multiple sources. I do know what you mean about "clutter", but in this case it's only adding a tiny ^[4] to the body of the article, and one more entry in a list of 34. (In comparison, iPhone, an article I've spent much time editing, has 196 references, now that is clutter.) -- Atama頭 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You really need to cool down the personal attacks and learn to use the talk page you know. You changed a few words (not a thoughtfully worded compromise that was done b Xeno the day before and removed a long standing reference. Also the matter is still under discussion, we have some new editors involved which has and will help. A polite note that you thought I had made a mistake would have been simple really. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, my compromise was thoughtful. Please assume good faith. If you expect that assumption in return.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note, that just before I proposed my compromise and put it into the article, Xeno... had just made this change [2]. So, I wasn't working off of or disputing some new consensus, I actually appreciated the new sources, adopted and adopted Xeno's language and proposed a compromise qualification that I thought we all could agree to agree on.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Further note, my compromise qualification was based upon the text from the actual NY times source:

" The national counsel for President Bush's re-election campaign resigned on Wednesday, less than 24 hours after he acknowledged that he had provided legal advice to a veterans group that has leveled unsubstantiated attacks on Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record in a book and on the air."

Note the part beginning with unsubstantiated. Since I didn't think this article was enough to establish the truth of the matter, but was a good source for the language, I reviewed the PBS source and the good sources it referenced. I found support there for some of the SVBT attacks on Kerry's military record being unsubstantiated, and some were substantiated, the most detailed source found errors on each side. But I found this to be enough to go with the NY Times language. I didn't see a need to also note that some of the SBVT attacks were also substantiated, since I didn't think that contributed to why swiftboating became used as it was. I think the compromise text I proposed is factually correct and of the propere scope.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it is easy to miss the meat of the PBS Ombudsman reference. You have to go down after the comments to "The Producers Respond". I found this washington post reference there to be particularly helpful in resolving the issues here [3] and easing my mind that the NY Times language could be supported. Without further support, all the NY Times reference offered was a characterization of the reason a lawyer gave for resigning.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoot, I now see that in my original proposal of the compromise that I switched the references. It was the NY Times that was the source of the language, and the Washington Post article referenced by the PBS reference that convinced me that NY Times language could be supported as a compromise. Apologies for the confusion.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

poll is the abrevication SVPT or SBVT?

Xenophrenic thinks the abreviation for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is SVPT and I think it is SBVT. So far the votes are 1 for each.--24.242.102.204 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not decide with votes here on Wikipedia. Additionally, each abbreviation seems to be referring to a separate term. I have edited the article to include definitions for both, so that it is clear to the reader what the abbreviations are referring to. SVPT seems to be referring to "Swiftboat Veterens and PoWs for Truth" (SVPT), whilst SBVT is referring to "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (SBVT). Similar, but different terms. --Taelus (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So which abbreviation should be used in which location? Most of the unsubstantiated attacks on Kerry's vietnam war record were made before September 29, 2004 by the SBVT. The later focus was on his anti-war activities and admitted meetings with the enemy.--24.242.102.204 (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The cited NY times source is dated August 24, which is before the SVPT existed: "CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 25— The national counsel for President Bush's re-election campaign resigned on Wednesday, less than 24 hours after he acknowledged that he had provided legal advice to a veterans group that has leveled unsubstantiated attacks on Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record in a book and on the air." It looks like SBVT is the organization supported by the provided sources.--24.242.102.204 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They are the same organization. We use the most current name (and abbreviation) when refering to that organization. Hope that clears up the misunderstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Support using most current version --Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Why haven't you changed the other instances then? Are you sure you don't just like edit warring? --24.242.102.204 (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend not to take single purpose recently created IPs very seriously I'm afraid. --Snowded ^TALK 14:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Or consistency or sources for that matter, right? Do you read before you edit? --24.242.102.204 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm on an anti-cruft crusade

Does anyone want to pick the 2 or 3 most important examples, or should I just delete the whole list? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I went there. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

November 29 edits

re: incorrect edit summary stating "(rv mass revert of numerous summarized edits)"
I didn't revert. You'll note that I left valid edits (your use of words such as "emanates" instead of "comes from", or "its" instead of "the group's"...), while selectively changing edits that contradict cited sources by attempting to hide the fact that that charges were "discredited", charges were "unsubstantiated", and that the attack was a "smear campaign". It's like Déjà vu all over again. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What I did note were numerous and excessive unsummarized reverts under the guise of a single WP:BOLD edit. Perhaps that's your conception of an orderly approach to article editing. It does not jell with mine. As to...

...attempting to hide the fact that that charges were "discredited", charges were "unsubstantiated", and that the attack was a "smear campaign".

I believe that should read charges "allegedly" discredited, charges "allegedly" unsubstantiated and that the "campaign" was an "alleged" smear campaign...all requiring attribution (not "Wikipedia's voice") and NPOV rebuttal citations (which I will soon provide). I'll see you in the rhetorical trenches...hopefully sooner than later. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, saw that JakeInJoisey eliminated the term "smear campaign" as a neutral description of swiftboating. I know that multiple reliable sources consider swiftboating to be a smear compaign and I found one top level scholarly source affirming this definition. To me it appeared that the article was receiving a whitewash, and I responded to reestablish appropriately strong wording.

We cannot equate scholarly sources with popular ones that accept swiftboating at face value. Our highest quality sources must determine the tone of the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

POV - Section DISPUTE

In an attempt to correct what I consider to be blatant examples of POV composition, I made several attempts to introduce more NPOV-compliant language into this article...all of which were quickly reverted or partially reverted. I'm therefore soliciting consideration/comment from interested editors as to whether the following specific content and the general tenor of this article as currently comprised rises to satisfy consideration under WP:NPOV. I'll commence with what I perceive to be the most egregious example of POV composition.

The current article reads as follows...

Since the political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

This is, IMHO, a declaration of FACT, in '"Wikipedia's Voice"', that the Swiftvet campaign is/was a "political smear campaign". In an attempt to make this more NPOV-compliant, I twice offered the following edit...

Described by critics as a political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

This suggested edit was twice reverted with the following edit summaries...

1. not just 'critics' describe smear campaign as such and...

2. pretending that a known smear was merely "Characterized by critics" fails NPOV

While my familiarity with the details of the SVPT/Kerry controversy positively bridles at the highly arguable accuracy of #1 and the subsequent circular logic of #2, I'll defer further comment so as not to prejudice consideration by other editors. Your thoughts/comments are solicited. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you think both sides of the Swift Boat divide are equally credible and should be given equal footing. That is not the case; scholars commenting on the campaign nearly universally say that it was a smear campaign and that the Swift Boaters were making it up. Scholars are our top level authority... if other people say the Swift Boaters were right but scholars say they were wrong then Wikipedia says in Wikipedia's voice that they were wrong. Following that, we name other people who say they were right but we say that they are the minor position. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur, and we have been here before (sigh) --Snowded ^TALK 16:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is part of a political argument. As such it is difficult to obtain a neutral point of view. Thus citing expert scholars, referring to news sources like the New York Times or attempting to establish a consensus of accepted opinion based on the neutral observation of fact is difficult. Whomever one looks to for a source is likely to look at the question from a certain political perspective. JakeInJoisey is not throwing firebombs or attempting to vandalize the article.Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your description of what the problem is. This article is about a word; a neologism in the U.S. political lexicon -- not about the "political argument" Jake is attempting to wage in this article that the Swifties campaign wasn't a "political smear campaign" or that charges made by the Swifties were not "discredited" or refuted. That debate should be taken up (yet again?) in an article about the political campaign against Kerry - not here. Reliable sources do convey that the word "Swiftboating" is indeed widely (almost 'universally', to use Jake's word) used to indicate a political smear campaign. Just because something is "difficult" for some folks to accept, it is certainly not difficult to cite and convey accurate information from reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The word “swiftboating” is not a part of a political argument? Reviewing the talk section of this article, what is the recurring question? A number of editors have tried to adjust the wording. IP editors can be seen above attempting to engage in a discussion regarding the wording (yet again, curiously enough). Their opinion is pushed aside and given no credence. And yet I am expected to believe that how the word is described and defined here is not a reflection of a political view? Let us put it to the test: If someone from the Kerry campaign were to review this article, what part of it would they find troubling?Gunbirddriver (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not a relevant question. The issue here is not to be neutral between two political perspectives, but to accurately describe what the word means based on reliable sources. --Snowded ^TALK 09:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The article fails to do that.Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It does it fairly well, but of course it can always be improved. However it does not have to reflect the views of those who initiated the historical act which created the word. The word means what it means and that is what the article is about. Its not about if that word should mean something else. --Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As you say, the article should be about the word. It should not reflect the political views of those involved. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article should be about the word and about all the aspects of it including its origin. Explaining the origin involves explaining the smear campaign against Kerry. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The article should explain the origin of the word. The article does not do that. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The origin is adequately explained already, this is not the place to go into the campaign against Kerry in detail --Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

By that reasoning, it should neither by the place to speak at length about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how the language noted above can survive any credible consideration under the following criteria as expressed in WP:NPOV (emphasis mine)...

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Perhaps this rather clear WP:POLICY language should be kept foremost in mind in the ensuing discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

However, swiftboating was (and judging by activity here, still is) a smear campaign, as attested by all reliable sources that have commented on the subject. If anyone (outside Wikipedia) really believes it is not a smear campaign, they hold a fringe belief, and Wikipedia should not present a fringe belief as being on the same level as the views presented by reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Not only was the initial Swift Boat smear a political campaign, funded by the super-rich, the term itself has supplanted "smear" to mean the same thing. Speciate (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if nothing more is to be said it is time to consider how the article might be improved. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have considerably more to say. I've yet to read a comment addressing the WP:NPOV issue I raised and am hopeful that someone might yet address it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been addressed. We are not required to be neutral between the Kerry campaign and those who funded the swift boat veterans. We have to say how the word came about and how it is used. --Snowded ^TALK 20:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we want a good article, so we definitely want to be neutral. That does not mean that we take the side of the Kerry campaign or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, either one.Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the above discussions which show clearly that NPOV requires a neutral statement of what reliable sources say—articles never are "neutral" between advocates for a fringe view and mainstream sources. Editing any article requires some basic knowledge of Wikipedia's procedures, and that applies particularly when editing contentious articles where advocates push a fringe view. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The so called Borking of Supreme court nominee Robert Bork is a similar event. Here is how it is handled in the section: Bork as a verb

It was a highly partisan event, with a great deal of animus on both sides of the political spectrum, yet the piece is fairly clean. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving on then, one change we could consider would be to clarify the origination of the term as coming from the left as a pejorative term to describe the actions of the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”.

It is somewhat difficult to determine first mention of the term. Several sources can be offered to support its derivation as a pejorative term used from the left. In a Nov 17, 2007 column from the LA Times, James Rainey wrote a piece titled "Kerry Takes on $1-Million "Swift Boat" challenge"

"Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating.""

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/17/nation/na-kerry17

First mention may very well be in a Aug 21, 2005 Frank Rich New York Times column in which he excoriates President Bush:

"When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21rich.html?pagewanted=all

Paul Krugman of the New York Times used the term in a May 5, 2006 Op-Ed he titled "Swift Boating the Planet" where in he was critical of people challenging the global warming science of James Hansen. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html

Something to consider. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be conflating "Use of the term" with "origination of the term as coming from the left as a pejorative"; establishment of the latter appearing to be your real goal here. I'm sure you can find many sources showing "use" of the term by "the left", like the ones you just listed above. We can also find sources showing "righties" using the term (or derivatives of it), but that doesn't mean conservatives "originated" it, either.

The term was coined in 2004; named after the group that conducted the negative attack campaign, and is now in popular use to describe the employment of similar tactics -- tactics that are non-partisan, can be used by anyone, and have nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. Go right ahead and research early uses of the term -- such information could be an interesting addition to the article, but if you plan on pushing the meme that the term is purely a liberal concoction created to disparage the SBVT, you'll need some rigorously reliable sourcing for that. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I can accept your suggestion that the term was coined in 2004, and that it was named after the group you suggest. Who do you suggest coined the term? You seem to be suggesting the SBVT coined the term. What sources do you have to back that up? If you do not know who coined the term, how do you suggest that be reflected in the article? Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to editors to research when a term was first introduced, or by whom. Our job is to find suitable secondary sources with an analysis. No one is suggesting the SBVT invented the term "swiftboating"—obviously that term was used by opponents of the SBVT, and equally obviously the term is currently understood by people from all sides of politics to refer to the generic act of smearing an opponent using made-up material. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If that were true than I suppose you would want the section "Historical origins" removed. Or if not removed, than you would feel compelled to address the sentence: The unsubstantiated charges against Kerry by the SVPT gave rise to the term 'swiftboating' to describe political tactics that are essentially synonymous with a 'smear campaign'

Is that the case? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The origin of the word must stay in the article. All the reliable sources agree the term arose in 2004. None pin the word on the SBVT who did not seek to coin a word but simply to smear Kerry. William Safire discusses three conflicting versions of how the military Swift boat vessel was named, and he defines its political meaning as understood from 2004 on. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The article implies that it was the SBVT themselves that created the term, and I believe we all accept that that is not the case. There is a principle of first mention that is of some importance, particularly when speaking of neologisms, which is the reason for the various citations offered above, all of which show a person from the left using the term to describe the SBVTs criticism of Presidential candidate John Kerry, and one of which is suggested as a possible first mention. In addition, you have the LA Times article by James Rainey, where in he states unequivocally:

"Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating.""

I do believe the LA Times is a source that would meet Wikipedia’s standards. In addition, we have Johnuniq conceding that it is broadly known. In fact, he states it is obvious. I agree, this is in fact the case, though we apparently are shy of mentioning it here. Should we be? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please be specific—mention what? It would not be satisfactory to put a slant into the article to imply that Democrats think the term is a smear (with the suggestion that, well, they would wouldn't they, so the original claims may well be true). Mutiple reliable sources show that swiftboating is making up lies to discredit an opponent—it is not just one of the standard Dem/Rep disagreements. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree. The term is broadly understood to mean a smear, and the article should not suggest an equivalence.

I would state that originally it was a term created by the left as a means to respond to and undermine the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and then go on to say the term entered the general public vernacular and came to mean any smear campaign or campaign intended to undermine a candidate. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable third party source which says that? --Snowded ^TALK 06:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is the one you have already listed on the page as the 9th reference for the article:

Swift-boating: The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths.

BBC Glossary: US elections BBC News, US & Canada url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15730790

Specifically that it was a term used to respond to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the best I could find thus far was this from Mark Whittington:

"Instead of learning of the folly of running a liberal war veteran whose account of his service was, to put it charitably, dubious, they decided to rewrite history. John Kerry was not called out on a series of lies and hypocricies. No, instead it was he who was slimed by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, by a bunch of "chicken hawks" (i.e. people who dare to support the War on Terror who did not themselves serve in combat.) He was "swift boated." The term has become useful for the left." Mark Whittington "The Evolution of a Political Slogan: Swift Boating the Truth" Yahoo Network October 8, 2007

I don't know much about Mark Whittington or the Yahoo News Service.

I will keep looking, but I still believe we have enough to consider some change in the wording for the reasons stated above.Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Another related cite...

...even if it is impossible to determine what exactly happened on those muddy riverbanks over 30 years ago, the Swift Boat Veterans’ accusations were credible and exhaustively documented. Those who use the term “swift boating” seem to have collective amnesia: They have forgotten that the Kerry campaign was forced to admit that statements the candidate had made about his war record were inaccurate, such as his claim that he crossed into Cambodia in Christmas of 1968.

Mark Hemingway, National Review, February 22, 2008

JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting advertizement source for that book by the webmaster of the SBVT website, and the author's in-law. But in matters political, I guess opinions are a dime a dozen.

And yet another related cite...

"Swift-boat is shorthand for the brilliant, despicable Republican campaign strategy in 2004 that turned John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a negative factor in his campaign. The phrase has become more broadly the term for a particular category of campaign tactics and has even become a verb. To "swift-boat" somebody is to use these tactics against him or her. ... We might more usefully argue about the definition of swift-boating. There have, of course, been dirty politics and outrageous infamies since the beginning of the Republic. Swift-boating is not about that. Nor is it merely negative campaigning. There's nothing wrong with criticizing your opponent if the criticism is accurate and important. Swift-boating's essence is a particular kind of dishonesty, or rather a particular combination of shadowy dishonesties. It usually involves a complex web of facts, many of which may even be true. It exploits its own complexity and the reluctance of the media to adjudicate factual disputes. No matter how thoroughly a charge may be discredited, enough taint remains to support an argument. The fundamental dishonesty is the suggestion that the issue, whatever it is, really matters. This is how swift-boating differs from its cousin McCarthyism, which deals in totally baseless charges that would be deeply serious if true. Swift-boating is McCarthyism lite. There is usually a little something to the accusation but not enough to make it legitimately matter.

Xenophrenic (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why bless his heart...

...the reluctance of the media to adjudicate factual disputes.

With the exception, of course, when there's a prospect for conservative blood in the water. Yet there is, at least, one notable exception to that "adjudication" vacuum where some actual investigative reporting was conducted...Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post...but I digress. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dobbs describes blood in the water in Vietnam; the blood of young guys who are not yet politicized. Dobbs' investigation turns up nothing that disproves the Kerry camp's version of events: "Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode". Dobbs hints broadly that the SBVTs were motivated not by Truth but by Anger over the prominent anti-war stance that Kerry took upon returning stateside. Jake, I get the impression that your takeaway of the Dobbs article is not quite what Dobbs intended. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression that your takeaway of the Dobbs article is not quite what Dobbs intended.

What Dobbs "intended" is known only to Dobbs himself. While it might make for an interesting divergence, his "intention" can, in the final analysis, only rise as high as informed speculation and I see no purpose in such an exercise here. My sole point inre Dobbs is that in an atmosphere of "reluctant" media "adjudication" (per Kinsley), Michael Dobbs' short week of stunning investigative journalism was a notable (if not sole) exception. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The term was not coined to undercut SBVT's efforts. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

While the BBC source notes that the Democrats did use the phrase, it does not support your assertion that "originally it was a term created by the left as a means to respond to and undermine the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." As for your Whittington source: certainly not a reliable source for the assertion of fact, and doesn't appear to have the required reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. From that same "source", reading "Senator Kerry had a problem in the fact that he came from Massachusetts. This meant that he had taken a far left political tact that would be considered obnoxious and even dangerous for most of the rest of the country. So clearly he could not run on his record. Neither could John Kerry run on his personality. John Kerry was and is a cold, arrogant person who has a sense of entitlement and self absorption that is so great that a Bourbon prince would have been shocked to witness it." ... tells me all I need to know about citing it for legitimate, factual information. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds more like an editorial. There is another from Dennis Byrne of The Chicago Tribune that says similar things in an editorial.

All right then, here is where the wikipedia rubber meets the road. Multiple valid sources are cited stating the derivation of the term comes from the left, the reason is not nailed down and I suppose we are left to ponder why. The article as it stands says the term emanates from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, and we are left to decide what is to be done, if anything. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We should be careful to not confuse "derivation of" with "use of", and we should be clear on what "multiple valid sources" we are referring to ... I see the BBC Glossary one noted above. The article as it stands says the term emanates from the group and its campaign. If your concern is, as you stated before, that "The article implies that it was the SBVT themselves that created the term", perhaps we can make it clearer by replacing "emanates from" with "is derived from" or "refers to"? What do others think? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

... tells me all I need to know about citing it for legitimate, factual information.

Amusing...as this is, quite obviously, an expression of opinion. Was "Whittington" revealed to be a pseudonym for John O'Neill himself, that, in itself, wouldn't be legitimate WP grounds upon which to preclude its use. Surely you're not suggesting that "facts about opinions" cannot be WP:RS when emanating from biased sources? I didn't think so. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hiya, Jake ... was there something there that needed a response from me? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh no. You mean I was hastily presumptive? Say it ain't so. Must be a vestige of the "Conspiracy Theory" kerfuffle. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen, it’s been demonstrated the article has an issue that should be addressed, and the question is what, if anything, is to be done about it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you had said that you want be a balance between the Kerry Campaign and the SBV supporters. But that is not what the article is about. Its fine as it is --Snowded ^TALK 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I said the word was part of a political argument, and as such it was difficult to obtain a neutral point of view. I did not argue the article should equally represent each camp. In suggesting that no one from the Kerry camp would have anything but agreement with the article I was suggesting that a bias may have inadvertently crept into the article. I argued that attempting to bring a neutral point of view to the article is something that should be strived for. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

While this content is not the content about which I established this section, the content at issue could easily be made more compliant with NPOV by an edit such as...

...emanated from sources opposed to the SVPT campaign...

...assuming, of course, NPOV is a goal here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded is just one editor. One of many. It would appear he is fine not considering what appears to me and others as a problem. Yes, neutral point of view is the goal, and an article can be biased in many forms. I'd still like to hear from some of the others before I would suggest a course of action. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My suggested course of action is to follow consensus which is that no one has shown any problem with the article, let alone an NPOV problem. Continuing to debate the issue is merely providing oxygen to those who would misuse Wikipedia to suggest that there just might be some truth behind the swift boat smears. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that correct? No one has shown any problem with the article. There is no bias to the views of anyone who has been writing and monitoring this article, and keeping it locked in to its present form? Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a discussion, not a debate. And it's politics, and politics is partisan. This article is written about a word, a slur, attached to an historical event, highly partisan, and the word was formed in a political context. You would have me believe that the piece has been written and maintained in a neutral manner. You are not open to the possibility that your judgment is influenced by your own political viewpoint. If that were the case I would say I am impressed. But we all know the truth. You cannot have one political viewpoint dominate the editing and still believe you are looking at a neutral article. I believe that is worth addressing. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite regrettably, the rhetoric employed throughout this talk page by those opposed to an NPOV re-consideration of this article content is replete with transgressions of WP:AGF, some overt, most not so overt but ad hominem nonetheless. It reflects, IMHO, an abysmal failure to adhere to both the letter and spirit behind WP:NPOV principles. It's high time for the solicitation of a more broad editorial perspective as to these NPOV issues and that will be my intent. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no response.

These articles in wikipedia are of some importance to me. Wikipedia intends to be an encyclopedia, and as such its editors must guard themselves against presenting information in a biased manner. This article fails that test, and we have been unable to even make the most modest of changes on a piece of information relevant to the article and which a number of editors here note as being an obvious point. I am going to go ahead and tag the article as being in dispute. I am happy to try and help resolve the problems the article has. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reiterating what has been said above, most recently by Johnuniq, the NPOV concern(s) haven't been defined here. We can't fix a problem that no one here is willing to legitimately describe, so tagging the article is premature. Placement of tags requires that their justification be clearly presented here on the talk page, so that concerns may be properly addressed. I'll be removing the tag until the related, actionable concern is defined here. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Gunbirddriver, if you do not have a specific suggestion for improvement then your complaints are not actionable. Such vague complaints do not merit a couple of tags on the top of the article.

What I think it comes down to is that you and Jake have been arguing for a balance between two political views while Xeno, Snowded, Johnuniq and I have been arguing that such a balance cannot be entertained if the scholarly sources are completely lopsided, which they are. The scholarly sources are skewed in the direction of the swiftboating term being a false smear and a fabrication against Kerry. Past discussions around this argument have included Atama, Bazzargh, Gamaliel and Verbal making the same determination against a parade of IP editors and Gustnado. The hard-won consensus is that scholarly sources about the facts of the case trump the notional balance of political views. This matter has been settled over and over again. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that some do not think there is an issue is a part of the issue. I have discussed this at length already and there is no response. The origin of the term is important, as you yourself have said Binkesternet. Multiple citations state that it originated from the left, two of those (The LA Times piece and the BBC) unquestionable meet criteria as reputable sources. Both have thus far been ignored. The BBC citation in particular is already presently used in the article but its content have been partially ignored. The reason why is at question, and speaks to an effort to slant the piece. This apparently is new ground for you. The tag does not require your agreement, rather its presence indicates disagreement. Please leave the tag up until resolved. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Propose some text using the cites you favor, or remove the tags. Vague disagreement is not actionable. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

...and while you are crafting your proposed text, you should know in advance that neither the LATimes article, nor the BBC Glossary source, support your "it originated from the left" verbiage. Neither source says where it "originated"; both sources only say that Democrats give that name to (or label) smear tactics as such -- which they do (but so do non-Democrats). Please don't confuse usage with origins. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy Break - Elevate to POV Section Dispute

Reclaiming this topic, I am elevating the issue I initially raised to section dispute status and will tag the article accordingly. The issue is clearly delineated in my opening remarks (please read them again) and has not yet been addressed by any respondee save for tangential and irrelevant diversions from the issue. Hopefully this will stimulate an infusion of editorial perspectives as is the purpose of an article tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

To hopefully facilitate discussion/resolution, I will briefly re-state the basis of my POV objection. The current article reads as follows...

Since the political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

This is, IMHO, a declaration of FACT, in '"Wikipedia's Voice"', that the Swiftvet campaign is/was a "political smear campaign". Per the guidance offered in WP:NPOV, I re-offer the following edit for consideration...

Described by critics as a political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

I would be interested in hearing comments as to why the following guidance from WP:NPOV...

...an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.'

is NOT clearly controlling here. Replacing the example text...

...an article should not state that 'swiftboating is a smear campaign', but it may state that 'swiftboating has been described by critics as a smear campaign.'

...should demonstrate, IMHO, that this is a WP:NPOV no-brainer. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Tagging an article requires you to raise an argument here supported by reliable sources. Neither of you have done that, until you do its not valid to tag the article. --Snowded ^TALK 15:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your rationale is specious. If you remove this tag again, your action will be brought to ANI for consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you are trying to take a political position which is not supported by the sources. NPOV policy requires us to balance sources not political views and those sources basically say that it was a smear campaign, which is how the name came about. Threats are always entertaining. Please try and address the content issue and that does not mean making statements as you have above, it means making proposals supported by reliable sources --Snowded ^TALK 16:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of arguments at Wikipedia, but it is rare to find one as misguided as the above claims (without evidence) that there is an NPOV problem. The article uses Wikipedia's voice to say that swiftboating is a smear because that is what reliable sources say. Everyone knows it's a smear, and the only contrary opnions come from those who reject what multiple reliable sources have stated. There is no NPOV problem in this article, just as there is no NPOV problem at Evolution, despite the fact that there is no mention of intelligent design in that article. There is no evidence that intelligent design is "true", and there is no evidence that swiftboating is anything other than a smear. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Binkersnet: Text has been proposed, as I said above:

I would state that originally it was a term created by the left as a means to respond to and undermine the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and then go on to say the term entered the general public vernacular and came to mean any smear campaign or campaign intended to undermine a candidate.

As said previously, we could remove the section asserting that it was created to undermine the SBVT and simply not comment on why such a term would have been created by the left. We could confine ourselves to state that it was a term that was created by the left which has subsequently entered the general public vernacular. Citations offered:

"Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating."" http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/17/nation/na-kerry17

Swift-boating: The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths. BBC Glossary: US elections BBC News, US & Canada url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15730790

@xenophrenic: The term ‘given by’ confers origination. That is to say the source is stating the Democrats are the party that generated the creation of the word.

@Johnuniq: I agreed that the word means smear campaign, as you can easily see above.

No, I agree. The term is broadly understood to mean a smear, and the article should not suggest an equivalence.

The question of whether or not the word means a smear campaign is not the point of contention.

@Snowded: I have said repeatedly that my goal is to have a neutral viewpoint in a wikipedia article. I believe you also have that same goal. I have not said I seek a balance between the Kerry Campaign and the SBV supporters. You would have to willfully misconstrue what I have said to arrive at that conclusion, as I was very clear on the point. It strikes me as curious that you keep making this claim. Regardless, the allegation itself does nothing to address the point presented. Thus your statement:

"Tagging an article when you are not providing any properly sourced proposals on the talk page is disruptive editing."

I am going to ignore, unless you need me to again take you through the proposed change in wording and the sources that support that change. This article was tagged as a means to move toward resolution. Removing the tag and claiming there is “no issue” and “no citations offered” after scores of citations and a lengthy commentary underscores the problem this article may have faced for some time. The tags are temporary and are a means by which we seek to resolve issues. I am going to return the tags for now, and I will remove them soon when the issue comes to a conclusion.

Gentlemen, if you believe that the term did not come from the left than please present your supporting evidence.

Lacking that then you need to change the article to reflect the origination of the term as citations have suggested. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Gunbirddriver, we have a small problem here that we need to clear up. I established this section to address a specific instance of compositional bias in a specific section that I have now elevated to dispute status (a tag for which was removed and is now in ANI for a consideration/determination). In the interim, you have raised an objection in this same section on different content which you have now elevated, by tagging, to a "POV Article" dispute. Two observations if I might...

1. It would probably be best for an orderly resolution if the 2 individual issues were housed in separate "Dispute" sections in talk...(and, perhaps, labeled so as to differentiate). May I suggest that you establish another section to do so? In that way, interested editors could be linked directly to the relevant discussion.

2. I'm not aware of your level of familiarity with dispute tagging, but it appears that yours, specifically, is a "POV Section Dispute" as opposed to a "POV Article Dispute". I thought you might want to reconsider your choice of tags. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of you are doing the community the courtesy of providing any sources that support your perspective. The statement that scores of citations have been provided is simply not true. If I have that wrong then I will apologise, but I can't see any. Maybe you can help us all by listing them here? --Snowded ^TALK 09:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of you are doing the community the courtesy of providing any sources that support your perspective.

I will not presume to speak for Gunbirddriver's perspective, only my own. I am fully prepared to offer citations voluminous enough to satisfy WP:V, WP:RS foundational support for my positions, but there is another consideration bearing on this issue as yet unaddressed (at least that I can see) that is, IMHO, considerably more fundamental and which needs to be considered and discussed. That issue is the proposition that an appellation of "smear" is something that can be objectively and empirically established "in fact" as opposed to a subjectively determined "opinion" fraught with all of the obvious considerations that "opinions" bring to bear upon a WP:NPOV presentation of content. I believe resolution of that fundamental question must be achieved as a prerequisite to any further progress towards resolution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Then lets see some of those citations, until you let us take a look you are going to get no where. --Snowded ^TALK 20:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you've misconstrued my comment. The question I raised, "is 'smear' an objectively discernible "fact" or a subjectively determined "opinion", is generic and not specific this article. I have no specific cites to provide but am seeking editorial opinion on that question. Do you have one? Even better, do you have cites that would lend themselves to an informed resolution to this question? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are ample reliable sources that convey the campaign was a smear campaign. No reliable sources have yet been produced to refute that fact (definitely some opinion commentary to that effect, though). Either you are "fully prepared to offer citations" or you "have no specific cites to provide" ... we should nail that down now, so that we can advance and conclude this discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are ample reliable sources that convey the campaign was a smear campaign.

Be it "convey", "state", "declare"...all are assertions. However, per WP:NPOV guidance, in order make an editorial determination as to an appropriate NPOV presentation of this assertion, editors must make an assessment as to whether this "smear" assertion, as applied to the SVPT campaign, is an expression of "opinion" or a statement of legitimate, empirically establishable "fact". Furthermore, even IF, by editorial consensus, an SVPT "smear" assertion COULD be WP:V treated as a legitimate "fact", a question would then ensue, per the same WP:NPOV considerations...is that purported factual assertion "uncontested and uncontroversial"? (a characterization against which I will provide ample supporting citations...if and as necessary).

Sooooooo....first things first. Can the existing text, "Since the political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth..." survive the first NPOV hurdle? Is it an assertion of "opinion" or is it an assertion of an established "fact". IMHO, it is a partisan-inspired expression of opinion offered as an expression of fact (as are likely MOST "smear" assertions offered by the target of an attack). Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Or, as I should probably hasten to add, we can forego this entire exercise by utilizing the following more NPOV suggested language...

Described by critics as a political smear campaign...

JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Some "source" food for thought (emphasis mine)...

“You can’t lead America by misleading the American people,” said Kerry, who has been struggling in recent days against charges — denounced by Democrats as smear tactics — that he lied about his actions in Vietnam that won five military medals.

In N.Y., Kerry asks GOP to halt 'fear and smear', Associated Press, Aug. 24, 2004

The Associated Press understood that the "smear" appellation, as directed at the Swiftvet campaign, was hardly objective fact. So should any prospective reader of this article per WP:NPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The AP article is during the campaign. Have you any reliable sources that, post campaign, following consideration of the facts give any credence to "smear" being anything other than a smear? --Snowded ^TALK 06:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Lost me. The wording in the article is supported by reliable sources of factual assertion (not opinion). Your refutation of that present wording is not. Please remedy that. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

re: @xenophrenic: The term ‘given by’ confers origination. That is to say the source is stating the Democrats are the party that generated the creation of the word. -- Gunbirddriver

No, it certainly does not. It does not indicate origination. In addition, it does not indicate any relevance between party affiliation and the coining of the word. The word was coined as a shorthand term to represent the tactics used by a political group during a presidential campaign. The political affiliation of the very first person to use the term "swiftboating" as a verb to describe "smear campaigning" is irrelevant, and given the roughly equal split between lefties and righties in the U.S. political environment, it is equally likely to have been first used by either faction. Holding the "I personally still don't think the campaign was a smear campaign" opinion ≠ basis for NPOV dispute over the meaning of "swiftboating". Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC - NPOV and "Smear"

WP:NPOV, "Explanation of the neutral point of view", offers the following guidance...

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Is the characterization "smear", as applied to the Swift Boat Veteran for Truth campaign, a statement of "opinion" or is it a statement of "fact"? Comments on what criteria you have used and/or editors should consider in making such a determination would be helpful.

Opinion or Fact? 17:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Responses

• Opinion - While I suppose it is plausible that a particular allegation or political attack might rise to such a level of universally acclaimed abject mendacity so as to establish it as a virtual "smear" in "fact", this is surely not the case with the Swiftvet campaign. As the assertion clearly emanates from predominantly partisan sources,[4][5][6] it must be considered an assertion of "opinion" under any WP:NPOV consideration for NPOV presentation of that content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To further illustrate the diversity of "assertions" as to the characterization of the Swiftvet campaign, the following from Michael Getler as ombudsman for PBS (emphasis mine)...

There are undoubtedly large numbers of people who would agree with the characterization of the Swift Boat campaign as a smear on Kerry — who was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and Silver Star while serving in Vietnam — while many others see it differently.[7]

Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman, July 13, 2007

Are those "many others" making an assertion of "fact" as well? JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And the following, from "many other" Michelle Malkin...an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact"?...

“Swift-Boating” does not equal smearing. Swift-Boating means exposing hard truths about corrupt Democrats.[8]

Michelle Malkin, "'Swiftboating' (V) Telling the truth about Democrats", February 21, 2008

JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, are you calling that a reliable source? --Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, are you calling that a reliable source?

Are you calling that an "opinion"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And from another "many other" who finds an alternative "swiftboating" perception to be worthy of emulation...

“Swiftboating” means different things to different people. Liberals, of course, associate it with a sleazy and false attack. My guess is that the 2004 ads were probably true — and they were effective because they a). hit Kerry on his strength, and b). used “real” witnesses to tell the story...This, of course, brings us to a perfect segue — the possibility of introducing some “real” people into the Cain story. What happens if (or maybe it’s when?) one of his accusers goes public?...Let the swift boating begin.[9]

Matt Lewis, "'Swiftboating' Herman Cain?", The Daily Caller, November 2, 2011

Lastly, a "many other" with some rather salient comments...

In a column earlier this year, I spotlighted "swiftboating" as a currently fashionable example of semantic infiltration used to deflect valid criticism of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha and Al Gore. It's a loaded, critical term coined by leftists during the 2004 presidential campaign to counter Vietnam swift boat vets who challenged John Kerry's questionable claims of heroism in that war. I expect liberals to wield the term if they can get away with it. But I cautioned supposedly objective journalists to be wary of joining their cause in the use of that word. Apparently, to no avail.[10]

Mike Rosen, Story is none too 'swift' , Rocky Mountain News, October 27, 2006

“Swiftboating” means different things to different people.

Save for, perhaps, in Wikipedia. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Citing the Rocky Mountain News article above as a footnoted reference...

There has been opposition to the use of this term to define a smear technique, both by media commentators and the Swift Boat Veterans.⁵⁷[11]

Smith, Melissa M.; Williams, Glenda C.; Powell, Larry; Copeland, Gary A. (2010). Campaign Finance Reform: The Political Shell Game. Lexington Books. p. 105. ISBN 0739145665. 

Footnote: 57. M. Rosen, Story Is None Too Swift, Review of Reviewed Item. Rocky Mountain News (2006)

This is the same source which purportedly supports the POV disputed language currently incorporated in this article. It now appears necessary to verify that the source cited actually supports the article language in dispute. JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course some people say "swiftboating" is not a smear. However (not counting opinion pieces), all reliable sources say it is a smear. A couple of reliable sources are listed above, but all they do is say that "There has been opposition to the use of this term to define a smear technique"–the sources do not deny that swiftboating really is a smear. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

However (not counting opinion pieces), all reliable sources say it is a smear.

The repetition of a "smear" assertion, regardless of how often, cannot transform an assertion of "opinion" into an assertion of "fact" to be reflected as such under a WP:NPOV consideration for article presentation. The only "fact" that might be legitimately asserted is that this "opinion", which you obviously share, might be more "widely asserted" than its antithesis, an antithesis which is adequately demonstrated and supported in the cites I have provided. In order for your position to prevail under a WP:NPOV consideration, you would have to present sourcing definitively establishing a universality of agreement with a "smear" characterization as applied to the SVPT campaign, and even were you to find such sources, whether ANY "smear" characterization could EVER be established as an objectively discernable "fact" is highly problematical and, IMHO, an exercise in unbridled POV futility. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• COMMENT The sources say smear, and we reflect what the sources say. If you think those sources are partisan or not reliable in some way make the case. --Snowded ^TALK 18:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources say smear, and we reflect what the sources say.

Very well. And how, under an NPOV consideration for presentation of content, would sources that assert no opinion in that regard or that might, in fact, be considered favorably inclined towards characterizing SVPT revelations as accurate (perhaps even commendable) be reflected in such an NPOV assessment for presentation? For example, as to the former, here's the final line summation to FactCheck.org's treatment of SVPT...

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. [12]

Their article contains no assertion or even reference to "smear" (save for a single instance of quoting a Kerry supporter). Now, while this is no ringing endorsement of SVPT veracity, it also refrains from any characterization of the campaign as a "political smear". In fact, it allows for the plausibility that the (an) SVPT allegation(s) MIGHT be closer to the truth than Kerry's own "version of reality". How should this "Swiftboating" article reflect what that source, or a boatload of others, "doesn't say"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You quoted the "final line summation?" Incorrect. The summary is at the top of that article - you know, where they say the SBVT is refuted by crew members that were there, and by Navy records. What you quoted was a sentence that appears right after a McCain statement (in response to just McCain? - maybe, but irrelevant), and it merely states the obvious about resolving 35-year old issues; it doesn't contradict a thing presented in its summary or in its investigation. That source, by the way, is not "characterizing SVPT revelations"; it is investigating the validity of just a single (of many) attack ads put out by SBVT. And as you noted, even this source chose, in its good judgement, to include in its report the "smear campaign" characterization made by a Republican that supported Kerry's and the Navy's version of events. Back to the point at hand: this source does not refute the reliably sourced smear campaign description; will you be providing reliable sources to support your POV tag? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That source, by the way, is not "characterizing SVPT revelations"...

But you evade the point for which the example was offered. Even with corrections appended, the provided source still serves to illustrate the point that a host of stories/commentaries/opinions on the subject of the SVPT campaign do NOT, themselves, characterize it as a "smear campaign". That, alone, renders it far from a universally held assertion. Where is that reality reflected in an NPOV consideration of the existing text? And what qualifies your purported source(s) as an ultimate arbiter of transforming what is an "opinion" into an immutable "fact". Their residence within the unbiased "academia"? This should be fun. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; you lost me again. Reliable sources have been cited supporting the "smear campaign" definition as a factual assertion. You dispute that definition; so the burden is on you to produce reliably sourced refutation. You have been asked to provide reliable sources that refute the ample reliable sources presently cited, and you fail to provide even one. The source you cite above does not refute the reliably sourced smear campaign description; will you be providing reliable sources to support your soon-to-expire-POV tag? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been cited supporting the "smear campaign" definition as a factual assertion.

You're free to assert what you will, but whether a "smear" characterization is an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact" is a judgement to be rendered by Wikipedia editors. Hence this RfC. We'll see. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

From the PBS reference in the Producers response to various comments: "The record is clear. As a young man John Kerry did what the men in our Civil War story did, he went to war for his country, and in his case was awarded medals for his bravery. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was organized in advance of the 2004 election and funded by operatives with close ties to the political machine seeking the re-election of President George W. Bush. The media campaign by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which attacked Senator Kerry's military record was reported and judged to have been a successful political effort to undermine Kerry's deserved and honorable credentials as a decorated veteran. In this regard it can accurately and fairly be described as a smear. (At the time Senator John McCain judged the group's attacks "dishonest and dishonorable.")". I think that is pretty clear don't you? Its not a bad quote to include in the article come to think of it. --Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

But you continue to miss the purpose of this exercise. It is stipulated (at least I certainly will) that assertions of "smear" are readily available. In the cite above, the author's "smear" assessment is based upon a personal belief in Kerry's "deserved and honorable credentials as a decorated veteran"...a significant point of contention in the Swiftvet allegations. As is also noted (and acknowledged) by Mr. Getler within the same article, "many others" do NOT share that same "assessment". How, when making a consideration for NPOV presentation of this issue, can a credible editorial consideration treat this contradiction in "assessments" as something other than a difference of "opinion"? But it gets worse. Even assuming that one might somehow reconcile a diversity of views and arrive at a determination that "smear" is a factual assertion (not that we're there yet, but IF), how could one then credibly argue (a discussion that will not, hopefully, be necessary) that this purported "fact" is "uncontested and uncontroversial", a determination that MUST be made in order to present this "factual" content "in Wikipedia's voice" ? JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We know that many people dispute the fact, just as we have people who believe that the green feathered serpent God of the Mayans will return this year to restore peace and harmony (references available and presented a a respectable think tank in Washington a few years back). The point is not there there is disagreement, but what is said by reliable sources. If you read the whole of the quote its not just his belief he references several other authoritative bodies. In Wikipedia (as has been pointed out to you so many times) we balance what is said in the sources, not what may or may not be believed by protagonists in the debate. I have yet to see a single source from you which provides a counter on the reality of the smear. All you do is find quotes on controversy which is not disputed. --Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

All you do is find quotes on controversy which is not disputed.

Perhaps you'd better reconsider or clarify what you just said. If you are acknowledging that the subject is "controversial" (which it most certainly is), then you've also just acknowledged that the existing text violates WP:NPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Its controversial, no question what so ever of that. So are many other subjects such as evolution. Articles on controversial subjects (well all subjects actually) are not required by WP:NPOV to balance across all opinions, they are required to reflect what is said in, and the balance across, reliable sources. At the moment those are all very very clear - it was a smear campaign. Unless and until you produce some counter sources the POV tags are not valid and will be deleted. --Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless and until you produce some counter sources...

That may well be necessary should common sense not prevail on the question of "opinion" vs. "fact". We'll see. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Common sense" is meaningless. This is not a debate club, please provide sources or drop it.  — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fact. When scholars use the term casually as fact, it's fact. The SBVT campaign was in fact a smear campaign. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is, of course, the "appeal to authority" refuge to which your rather indefensible position must, IMHO, inevitably retreat. Unfortunately, with no prior experience in discussing your purported absolute, I'm rather ignorant as to the WP parameters for consideration and general consensus precedents that have been established as to the merits of such an appeal and whether your presented "scholarship" is even a legitimate WP consideration in elevating what is clearly an "opinion" to the level of an established "fact". However, I'll look forward to the learning/research experience and to the opinions of interested editors as to your position. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

When scholars use the term casually as fact, it's fact.

In examining your first purportedly "definitive" source, an article by Leo Casey, not only is the term "smear" used "casually" in referencing the SVPT campaign, it is used only once and as a tangential comparative, and is neither the subject of the treatment or is its legitimacy as a characterization of the SVPT examined in any depth whatsoever. That lack of "academic substance" notwithstanding and, perhaps, considerably more relevant, Mr. Casey's personal ideological bias is rather clear. In that regard, what is also a "fact" is that an "appeal to authority" (or "argument from authority") can be fallacious. Perhaps an examination on the credibility of your postulate as it relates to this "source" you offer as persuasive and conclusive might be illuminating.

Per the first source (save for Wikipedia) returned in a "Google" search...

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.

Person A makes claim C about subject S.

Therefore, C is true.

"Nizkor" continues...

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:...

Now, while your proffered source might arguably qualify as an "authority" under most of the "acceptable standards of assessment", #4 is, IMHO, quite problematical...

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are(a) (sic) of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious...If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.

One need only to consider the subject or read a few sentences into this source treatment to comprehend the rather deep ideological bias of the author. Your purported "scholarly" source fails, rather dismally, to be the decisive WP:RS scholarly "authority" you purport it to be. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And evidently people who disagree with you (like the one RfC) are biased; not a good basis of argument. What is clear from the sources is that all that qualify as reliable basically say that it was either a bunch of lies, or a smear or variants on that theme. It is not acceptable, if we are to represent the balance of those sources, to have any wording which implies the accusations might be true unless and until sources are provided which say that. We might choose another word than smear of course. --Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And evidently people who disagree with you (like the one RfC) are biased...

No, I assume they are offering good faith responses to what is a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate RfC which presumes, IMHO erroneously, the WP:NPOV legitimacy of the question it poses. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fact It's what the word means regardless of the word's origins. While Michel Malkin may define it as "telling the truth", one does not hear for example Gingrich describing his own attacks on Romney's career as "swiftboating". TFD (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Fact All reliable sources verify that the campaign was and is a smear. Is there any reliable source suggesting that those in the SBVT team had any reason to believe what they were saying? (Note that a blog with subtitle "Swiftboating = Telling the truth about Democrats" fails RS.) If they knew so much about the topic, they should have known that they were at the least grossly misrepresenting the situation (as verified by all reliable sources). Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • • Alas - Gettler of PBS specifically only uses "smear" as part of quoted commentary, and specifically does not make any claim other than that quotes from named individuals showed their opinions. Bryson in his letter, in fact, refers to Cowan's quoted words as "commentary." Cheers - but statements like "all reliable sources" which forget the ones which do not agree with the WP:TRUTH are still reliable sources. Collect (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Meanwhile you argue elsewhere that the fact an opposition member once referred to one of the leading members of a government party as a "fascist thug", that is sufficient to call that party fascist. Could you please aim for consistency. TFD (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
        • • • TFD, your errancy is getting tiresome. I have never said that any party is fascist based on a single person's opinion. I have noted that saying that no one called the CDR in Rwanda "fascist" was not borne out by reliable sources, and the "fascist thug" comment I suspect is from that set of reliable sources I have searched Wikipedia for anything remotely resembling your claim and came up without one I invite anyone to search every page for "'Collect' 'fascist thug'" and post their findings about my posts.. The "fascist thug" post was made by TFD at -2:08 26 January 2012 and states:

              Your allegedf UNESCO report is actually a report by Reporters Without Borders (who receive part of their funding from UNESCO) and you appear to be relying on a footnote. Your last source is a French translation of a book by the English journalist Linda Melvern, which is critical of the UN, and says that the Rwandan Patriotic Front once described the CDR envoy and radio and television boss, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, as a "fascist thug". Could you please not misrepresent sources. TFD (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC) .

            • Ascribing his own words to me is uncivil and absurd, surreal and WP:EGREGIOUS. I am a firm believer that opinions must be cited as opinions, and have been consistent in that position for a long time on Wikipedia. Having false statements attributed to me is not, however, a good way of presenting your own arguments here. Noting also that I am unable to find a post of mine remotely resembling what you here have claimed, which makes this surreal indeed. Cheers - but recall Wikipedia policy about attacks - especially ones which are errant in the extreme. Collect (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  What PBS feels they have to do does not govern the situation here. Please make a sandbox somewhere with a list of reliable sources that contradict what I and others have said. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Opinion - The arguments made at the top of this section by JakeInJoisey are both compelling and based upon logic and evidence. The arguments for "fact" are totally without merit. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fact and if you check the PBS reference in full Collect you will find it is very explicit - I put it on the NPOV discussion, ditto all other sources quoted so far. Those claiming PoV need to find reliable sources to support their view. --Snowded ^TALK 05:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fact. I have watched all this unfold and am persuaded. Clearly and incontrovertibly a deliberate, calculated smear per the observations, logic and evidence from Johnuniq, Snowed and TFD - not to mention the comprehensive demolition of the "opinion" opinions. Writegeist (talk)

Please note that there a three RfC's on this page and an NPOV discussion, they need to be reviewed together --Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC Meta Comments

• IMHO, the article language that is the subject of this POV dispute is such a clear-cut, "bright line" failure to comply with the provisions of WP:NPOV Policy 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC) as to render any further discussion superfluous and unnecessary. Without objection, and as 7 days have now passed since this RfC placement, it is my intent to petition for an uninvolved administrative closure to this RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion, I don't think the balance of editor opinion is with you on this. Please ensure you reference the other Rfc here and the discussion on the NPOV notice board. --Snowded ^TALK 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have petitioned for an uninvolved administrator closure at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Hopefully my petition language is satisfactory to all. 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC) JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon a further review of WP criteria for requesting an uninvolved administrator RfC close, petitioning via the Administrator's noticeboard is an escalation of the normal petitioning process. I am deleting the petition there and will first pursue a lower level but more appropriate petition tag placement. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Reinstated - we need someone to look at all the material --Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed my petition...again. You can petition for whatever you'd like, but do it under your name, not mine. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no prerogative to initiate any closing process inre the other two RfCs. That would be the prerogative of the editor who placed the RfC. An appropriate close petition has already been placed within the NPOV noticeboard discussion. Whether a volunteer closing admin for this RfC would consider closure there as well would be up to him/her. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Smear" RfC

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Where does the term "swiftboating" come from?

Should the article say that the term "swiftboating" comes from Democrats, or from the Left, or none of these? Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• "Democrats". That the Democrats are the Left, then or now, is a matter of judgment. But that the Democrats used it first is a rather obvious matter of fact, so obvious it need just be mentioned. I think it is in the process of becoming more general, but that's hard to determine. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I agree with DGG. That is what the sources cited previously state. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

When I looked for "first use" a year ago I couldn't find anything so I'm more sure what we can say here. --Snowded ^TALK 08:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I doubt that a reliable source will be found that identifies the source of the term. It's often the case with a neologism like this that a few people independently come up with similar terms, and one variation comes to dominate public discussion. While it's likely that the term "comes from Democrats", it is also likely that it was invented by a journalist with no known political leaning (and was then enthusiastically adopted by Democrats). One of the refs (BBC Glossary: US elections) says "Swift-boating: The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths." However that is just a quick overview for BBC readers, and cannot be regarded as a reliable authority on the origin of the term. If a reliable source identifies the origin, of course the article should include that, but it would be misleading for the article to suggest that swiftboating is a term "used by Democrats" because non-Democrat reliable sources also use that term (example: '"Swift boat" has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears' [13]). Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with this analysis. The term likely was used simultaneously by unaligned journalists rather than just Democratic Party ones. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The references cited say otherwise. Here they are again:

"Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating.""http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/17/nation/na-kerry17

Swift-boating: The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths. BBC Glossary: US elections BBC News, US & Canada url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15730790

This is now the third time I have placed these sources on this discussion page, and yet those editors that do not wish to make any change in the wording of the article still seem to be unaware of them. I find that very odd, and am hard pressed to explain it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Third time? Then this must be the third time you get asked to please propose your new text for the article, so that we may review and discuss it. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is, and also the third time answered.

We could say that Swiftboating is a term created by Democrats to describe the campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to undermine the presidential campaign of John Kerry.

Placed in the article, the opening paragraph could read like this:

The word swiftboating is an American neologism created by Democrats to describe the campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to undermine the presidential campaign of John Kerry. It is pejorative, inferring an unfair or untrue political attack. The term has entered the general public vernacular and has come to mean any smear campaign or campaign intended to undermine a candidate.

Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, advocates for a point of view rarely engage in the discussion (by considering what was said, and responding appropriately)—instead, we just see repetitions of a core statement. Just above, I explained about the BBC glossary, and why "created by Democrats" is totally inappropriate because no one knows who created the term. I also explained that unduly emphasizing ""used by Democrats" would be misleading. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I assumed since you essentially agreed that nothing further was required. I can see now that I must endeavor to make it perfectly clear why the statement of yours above argues for a change. You state "While it's likely that the term "comes from Democrats", it is also likely that it was invented by a journalist with no known political leaning (and was then enthusiastically adopted by Democrats)." Either way, invented by Democrats or enthusiastically adopted by Democrats, supports essentially the same narrative. You are now suggesting that since it is not known precisely which individual used the term first, it could have been anybody of any persuasion, therefor no information about the use of the term should be conveyed. This is clearly false. One's inability to place the term on a particular individual does not mean there should be no comment on the broad use of the term by Democrats. We are speaking of the origination of the term, so I assume you can conclude on your own why a New York Times article from 2008 would not make a compelling counter-argument.

The BBC source is clear in its identification of Democrats as the party who gave the term its broad use. Likewise the LA Times piece. You suggest that the BBC in this instance should not be considered reliable enough to support such a statement, you have no response on the LA Times piece, you suggest no other group or party as a likely candidate for the origination, nor do you provide any references that would support some alternative theory to the origination of the term. Is that correct? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Re the proposed text. We are talking about a neologism here and they emerge. The BBC reference is a glossary of terms used in the election, in that context "given by ..." does not mean created by. Its also one paragraph not a considered article. --Snowded ^TALK 05:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are speaking of a neologism. The emergence of the term is the thing that we are speaking of here. Excellent. In this case the word emerged in a great hurry. In fact, the word was a part of a political argument, and its creation had a purpose. The article as it now stands ignores this important history of the word. The phrase “given by” in the BBC text confers not only origination, but ownership. The BBC source is interesting as it is a reference currently cited by the editors and which no one had a problem with, until now. It is not the only source that places the word at the footsteps of the Democrats, rather it is one of several. For your edification, here is another to go with those already cited above:

Democratic candidates and their partisans in the blogosphere use this word to mean smearing their candidates for public office with lies and innuendo. (Henry P. Wickham, Jr. April 20, 2008 The American Thinker) http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/redefining_swiftboating_and_re.html

Almost as compelling as the evidence that shows the derivation to have been from Democrats is the lack of evidence of any competing claim to origination. Nothing has been offered by any of the editors that would like to avoid mentioning the history of the term. Taken together, there is little choice but to amend the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC Glossary confers origination and ownership? No, it certainly does not. It does not indicate origination or ownership. In addition, it does not indicate any relevance between party affiliation and the coining of the word. The word was coined as a shorthand term to represent the tactics used by a political group during a presidential campaign. The political affiliation of the very first person to use the term "swiftboating" as a verb to describe "smear campaigning" is irrelevant, and given the roughly equal split between lefties and righties in the U.S. political environment, it is equally likely to have been first used by either faction. Holding the "I personally still don't think the campaign was a smear campaign" opinion ≠ basis for NPOV dispute over the meaning of "swiftboating". Let's keep this factual, please.

When pressed for reliable sources to refute the existing reliable sources of factual assertion, Jake offers an opinion piece that cites the book by the SBVT website operator as it's proof. Now you, when similarily pressed, offer an opinion piece that cites the book by the SBVT website operator as proof. Based on that, you say there is little choice to amend the article? Good one. Please read: WP:NOTRELIABLE, then finally provide the requested reliable sources supporting your assertions. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources have been provided to support my position. None have been provided with a contrary view. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Try reading what other editors have said about your "sources" and respond to those arguments please. And per the comment below be aware than canvassing is not permitted on wikipedia, it can get you blocked and/or topic banned. --Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read their comments and do not find them compelling. You seem to suggest that there is no evidence to suggest that the phrase originated from the left, or Democrats specifically. Evidence provided you claim is unreliable, though the reason why varies. I have yet to see the reason for the dismissal of the LA Times piece. Perhaps I missed it. The point is to try to improve the article. I do not see any interest in that goal among the four of you that continue to comment here. The only editor here not previously a part of the discussion is this DGG, whom JakeInJoisey seems to have invited. If I have made an error than you are free to report me, but that does not improve the article nor does it help your position. Throughout I would say the four of you have been rather testy, condescending and argumentative. This is fine by me, but it does make it seem odd to see you now turn and play the victim. Again, you are welcome to report whatever infraction you have found me guilty of. Certainly, the whole of the discussion and comments should be reviewed. There is nothing here I feel concerned about. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your judgement of what is or is not compelling doesn't count, you have to counter the arguments made. The LA Times piece says that the Democrats have come to use the term and that is about it. I can't see how it supports an NPOV label, it would support a statement that the issue was controversial, but that is not disputed. You have canvassed here and here but you have now been warned. Please stop it or yes it will be reported. Whether they involve themselves or not is not relevant. --Snowded ^TALK 07:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The same should can said of your judgment. A case has been made, you have failed to refute it. We are going in circles here. If you have anything new to offer I would be happy to review it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and would you mind not WP:CANVASSING editors who have previously pushed similar pov memes to join in? Thanks again, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

...the existing reliable sources of factual assertion...

Facts not in evidence. Oh, it's quite "factual", alright, that smear "assertions" have been offered and that is a stipulation easily made. But are they "assertions of opinion" or "assertions of fact"? There's the rub...and the first question to be resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered above, and never refuted: assertion of fact. Next question? Since we are lacking a legitimate concern supporting the NPOV tag, I see no reason for it to stay on the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Democrats (qualified) - As the only option available, though '"Something Else"' would be my option of choice had I been afforded the choice. Assuming that "comes from" refers to employment of the assertion as identified in WP:RS sourcing, "Democrats" are specified in three of those sources. That's not to suggest, however, that the article (based solely on those 3 sources) could legitimately state or imply that it is ONLY "Democrats" who employ the appellation since it has assuredly been used, albeit perhaps rarely, by someone other than a "Democrat". For the purposes of this article, "...employed predominantly by those critical of the SVPT campaign" would be, IMHO, a legitimate and NPOV presentation of this content. All that being said, if by "comes from" you are referring specifically to the "genesis" of the eponym (and I believe it IS an "eponym" based upon some recent education in that regard), I believe that "those critical of the SVPT campaign" is about as specific as one can (or needs to) get as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Those opposed to it is what would be correct. Not all Democrats used the term "smear" and thus to ascribe it to Democrats qua Democrats is wrong. It was, and remains, a statement of opinion, and thus per WP policy should be so ascribed tothose holding that opinion, and cied to them. Collect (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard

FYI for all interested editors, I have posted a solicitation for editorial consideration within the NPOV Noticeboard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool, now would you occupy yourself with finding some authority that supports your position. Newspaper reports when the controversy arose will be ambitious, but all reliable sources I can see support the statement that it was a deliberate smear. If you can't find a source to back up your opinion then its not a POV dispute and the tag can be replaced with a tidy up one, something on which we are all agreed. The need for you to provide sources was made clear at ANI and in some of your discussions on admin talk pages so this request should not be a shock to you. --Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

...some authority that supports your position.

As you've already been advised, WP:NPOV...specifically WP:YESPOV...more specifically "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Repetition of partisan-inspired "opinion" in sourcing (see the various sourcing already presented suggesting the partisan genesis of the appellation "smear"), no matter the extent of that repetition, does not transform an "opinion" into a "fact"...to be so regarded in a WP:NPOV consideration as to presentation of such an assertion. Wikipedia editors are, IMHO, more than capable of recognizing this assertion as a partisan-inspired "opinion"...but that remains yet to be demonstrated. I anticipate that an RfC in that regard will produce both some interesting perspectives and a credible consensus, one way or the other. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea who has advised me of that particular misinterpretation unless you mean yourself. That aside, I gather from your statement here that you do not intend to present any reliable sources which support your perspective? --Snowded ^TALK 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, I will present sourcing when and as needed (and I did so above to lay the predicate for my position - see the AP citation above). IMHO, the first NPOV presentation determination that must be made is independent of sourcing and based, instead, upon WP editorial judgement as to whether the characterization "smear", as used to describe the SVPT campaign, is an expression of "opinion" or an expression of "fact". Should "fact" be the consensus determination (which I honestly can't imagine any credible, unbiased consideration could possibly countenance), the next step would be an NPOV consideration as to whether that purported "fact" is, again per WP:YESPOV, "uncontested and uncontroversial". For that consideration, I would present abundant rebuttal sourcing.

Failing to satisfy either of those 2 NPOV considerations, the current language, "...political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry..." would clearly be in violation of WP:NPOV policy. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Jake, a fuller reading of "those 2 NPOV considerations", that whole section of WP:NPOV, in fact, indicates that you may be operating under a misunderstanding. The reliable sources being cited to support the phrasing to which you object are not "opinion" sources; and "uncontested and uncontroversial" has nothing to do with contesting by Wikipedia editors or other non-reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources being cited to support the phrasing to which you object are not "opinion" sources...

Thank you for that...it may save us some time. Quite frankly (and, of course, IMHO), the arguments thus far presented can't even pass a smell test for proceeding beyond NPOV first base (We shall see). However, you are offering (and please correct me if I'm wrong) an "appeal to authority" argument, already suggested by proponents of the existing language (I don't remember by whom initially...Johnuniq perhaps) but not yet argued. My instinct tells me fallacy...but I'm a bit of a WP neophyte in the "appeal to authority" venue so I'll look forward to the learning experience. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing is needed now, if you can't or are unwilling to provide it then you have no NPOV case and the tags go. --Snowded ^TALK 06:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That I "have no NPOV case" appears to be contradicted by the active editing now in progress on the specific content which is the subject of my NPOV objection. As my attempt to resolve this issue via normal discussion with a simple, suggested NPOV edit was rejected and I've had to raise it to a formal "POV Dispute" level, my confidence that consensus attained stability will be established by a spate of BRD editing (and not to discount the future impact of, IMHO, a fatally biased RfC) is next to nil. We've commenced a process to arrive at a consensus-based resolution and it should be continued to fruition, whatever that resolution might be. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll say this once more. NPOV requires us to be balanced over what the sources say. At the moment the ones we have call it a smear. You have said you can supply many sources, but you have failed to do so. Was this just a hollow boast or is there any substance to your claim? --Snowded ^TALK 15:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Response at NPOV Noticeboard JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No sources cited by Jake. He posted only repeated arguments. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a lot of bluster about having them. The RfC responses also support the prior position. If there is no surge of RfC response and no sources are provided in say the next 24 hours then I think we remove the POV tags --Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Swiftboating as personal attack?

I see that sufficient confusion has been created such that the lead now claims swiftboating is a "severe political attack of a personal nature". That misstates the case because everyone who has read anything about it knows that swiftboating involves making or supporting known-false claims (aka lies—see here where McCain called the ad "dishonest and dishonorable"). I totally agree that the article should not unduly labor the point with smear smear smear, but some subtle tweak of the definition is required. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No confusion, just the summarizing of reliable sources. Smith et al say that swiftboating is "a harsh attack made by a political opponent. It doesn't seem to matter if the attack is personal in nature or deals with a candidate's policy issue." Ken Konecnik says "The 'Swift-Boating' personal attack ads..." Rosemarie Ostler says "In 2004 swift boat replaced Willie Hortonize as a synonym for a vicious personal attack on a candidate." James Calvin Davis says "In fact, the distortion of an opponent's personal record for political gain now has a name—“swiftboating”" Jon R. Bond and Kevin B. Smith say "The attacks on Kerry were so effective and damaging that “swiftboating” has become a generic term for a political attack considered personal and unfair." To my eye, the words "severe political attack of a personal nature" are a faithful representation of the literature. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll ponder all that later, but there is no "literature" on a neologism like this (I would love a proper secondary source with an analysis, but that's unlikely). All we have is commentary from observers (and your first link includes a variety of ideas as well as the quoted words, but is focused on campaign financing issues and is not an authority on the meaning of "swiftboating"). Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you had any "literature" sources we would not be discussing the problem. As far as what we have to work with Smith et al are a fine bunch of political science and media scholars, the best sources provided so far. Characterizing them as "not an authority" is nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

PoV Tags

So fear as I can see no sources have been provided that would require any change in the current wording on "smear". Some quotes have been provided that say the subject is controversial, and also groups on different parts of the political spectrum use the word indifferent ways. Neither of which point is really contentious and could be reflected in the article. The RfC responses back the current wording on the one RfC which has had any response. No support has been given to the two editors who added the tag at the NPOV notice board. Given all of that its time to remove the tags, unless we get some sourced material. --Snowded ^TALK 06:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Add the differences of opinion to the article first then. A past RfC has no strong compulsion in favor of removing a tag which you state people still disagree on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So fear as I can see no sources have been provided that would require any change in the current wording on "smear".

That imprecisely misrepresents the substance of my POV objection...that the currently incorporated language...

Since the political smear campaign[3][4] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry...

...is a POV statement of "fact", in "Wikipedia's voice", that the SVPT campaign is/was a "political smear campaign". More specifically in dispute is the contention that this "smear campaign" characterization can be, for consideration under WP:NPOV, legitimately represented as something more than an assertion of "opinion". Per WP:YESPOV, this is the initial determination that must be made in any editorial assessment for NPOV presentation of this assertion and for which I established the RfC and about which have been provided relevant supporting citations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect - I think there may be a case for adding some commentary on continued disagreement, although this article is about the word, not about the political campaign so its not black and white. Whatever the addition or not of that material has no effect on the PoV question which revolves around the statement that is was a smear campaign. I am also referencing the current RfC not a past one.

JakeinJoisey - You are attempting to argue a case not based on what the sources say and which we need to represent. Your opinion as expressed above has not gained community support either here or at the NPOV notice board. Unless there is a change to this, either by participation of other editors, or by you supplying sources then the matter is surely over. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You are attempting to argue a case not based on what the sources say and which we need to represent.

That is not an accurate representation of my POV objection. I am objecting to the presentation of an assertion of "opinion" as an assertion of "fact" in "Wikipedia's voice" and contrary to the policy guidance as expressed in WP:NPOV...

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Whether a "smear" assertion is a statement of "opinion" or a statement of "fact" is a determination to be made by Wikipedia editors and will dictate the appropriate NPOV presentation of that assertion. In the RfC, I have provided both argument and citations supporting what should be, IMHO, an obvious determination that a "smear" assertion is an "opinion" and must be so treated in its presentation in this article.

Your opinion as expressed above has not gained community support either here or at the NPOV notice board.

While that's not quite accurate, I'll not quibble over your observation as this process has only just commenced. I'll remain hopeful that both reason and respect for the integrity of this WP project will motivate concerned editors enough to arrive at a credible and appropriate resolution.

Unless there is a change to this, either by participation of other editors, or by you supplying sources then the matter is surely over.

It's not an either/or, it's both. The first will hopefully occur. The second already has. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provided a single source relevant to the issue and you are the only contributor to your RfC. All you have done is to show that people who were supportive of the SwiftBoating campaign continue to have the same opinion. You have not shown a single third party reliable source which says it was not a smear. The RfC opened earlier has participation and a clear conclusion. --Snowded ^TALK 21:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He has demonstrated that calling it a "smear" is not universally accepted, which is all he needs to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no logic to that because of course people who make a smear will say it is not a smear—by that logic an encyclopedia could never report that anything was a smear. There have been a lot of opinions above, but no sources other than things like this which is a blog with a title that equates "swiftboating" to "Telling the truth about Democrats"—a clear fail at WP:RS. The NYT states '"Swift boat" has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears'—what wording in the article should be used to reflect the many reliable sources like that? Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Or for that matter, that logic applied to any article would mean that we have to be balanced across all fringe opinions however sourced, which is in direct contradiction of WP:NPOV. Collect, if the article says at some point that there remain advocates of the "truth" of the accusations, which is true. Say a sentence would that allow us to move forward or are you taking a more extreme position? --Snowded ^TALK 05:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq: The NYT states '"Swift boat" has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears'—what wording in the article should be used to reflect the many reliable sources like that?

Perhaps?...

The NYT states "Swift boat" has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears.

That's called an "attribution", which is certainly NPOV, as opposed to a declaration of "fact" in "Wikipedia's" voice...

"Since the political smear campaign[3][4] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth..."

...which is decidedly POV. That you would offer such a question suggests, at least to me, a failure to come to terms with the substance of the POV objection I've raised whose validity, rather ironically, is also supported by your own prior observations in this space (emphasis mine)...

"No one is suggesting the SBVT invented the term 'swiftboating'— obviously that term was used by opponents of the SBVT..."

and...

"Everyone knows it's a smear, and the only contrary 'opnions' (sic) come from those who reject what multiple reliable sources have stated."

JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I dispute that this is in any way an "extreme" position, and would note further that saying "no posts in 24 hours" is not based on any Wikipedia policy at all - many times an RfC remains open for a full 30 days - even if more than 24 hours passes between posts thereon. Asserting that a day without a post = end of a discussion is not based on any Wikipedia practices, guidelines, or policies, and, in fact, runs directly contrary to the Wikipedia practices on RfCs and other discussions. Collect (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement that its not an extreme position would be more credible if there was any third party source which even suggested that there was any truth in the accusations. If someone comes up with one that might change things. RfCs often stay open for a month, but they generally also have participants. This one looks pretty dead. --Snowded ^TALK 14:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No counter sources on the smear name, no new contributions to RfC or notice board for over 24 hours --Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think should be the POV tag removal date if no sources are provided to demonstrate an actionable dispute? Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Same time tomorrow? I'm inclined to add a sentence to the effect that it remains controversial as a term, per my note to Collect above. --Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)--Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. There's only smoke here, no fire. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. As is being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, several editors think this has nothing to do with whether the claim is sourced or unsourced, but rather whether it is a fact or an opinion. Because of this, it would be inappropriate to remove the tag based upon sourcing arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the only way you can determine if something is a fact or an opinion is based on what the sources say, unless there has been a radical change in wikipedia policy. If there is an active discussion then OK, but its gone stale here. I still don't see any valid reason for editors to hold back on sharing the sources they say they have. --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Gone stale? Last comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Swiftboating was a few hours ago.

Re: "I still don't see any valid reason for editors to hold back on sharing the sources they say they have", I never claimed to have a source. Quite the opposite; I claimed that sources are irrelevant when determining if something is a fact or an opinion.

Re: "Well the only way you can determine if something is a fact or an opinion is based on what the sources say". Nonsense. If I say Laura Kaeppeler was born in 1988, I can say it in Wikipedia's voice, because it is a factual claim. And of course if someone disputes it, we would go to the sources. If I say Laura Kaeppeler is pretty, that's an opinion and should not be put in Wikipedia's voice. I don't need any sources to establish that it is an opinion. If you tried to say that Laura Kaeppeler is pretty in Wikipedia's voice, I would revert it no matter how many sources you came up with that say she is pretty. And there would no doubt be a lot of sources that say that, seeing as she recently won the Miss America pageant. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No counter sources on the smear name...

I have provided more than adequate "sources" to support what should be an obvious determination...that the characterization "smear", in reference to the SVPT campaign, is a partisan-inspired, partisan-employed subjective "opinion" not universally held...which is the question posed by the RfC.

...no new contributions to RfC or noticeboard for over 24 hours...

The noticeboard has yet to offer a resolution of this POV section dispute (it may yet), legitimately represented by the placement of an appropriate tag, the associated talk section and the recently commenced RfC...an RfC to which neither you or any proponent of your position has yet to offer a response to the question posed. I am fully prepared to accept whatever finding might be made by an uninvolved administrator closure, a closure that will consider both whatever argument is offered and will also weigh (or certainly SHOULD weigh) the degree of POV dispute-resolution participation (or non-participation for that matter) by involved parties. Any removal of the legitimate POV section tag will be disruptive to this dispute resolution process. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't and the one RfC which has had any contribution agrees with the current text (but you said the RfC was biased). Administrators do not determine content that is done by the community. They do deal with conduct however. All that you have shown is that the term is controversial and I will add a sentence into that effect to reflect that material. You have not provided one single authoritative third party source which says that the campaign was anything other than a smear. So unless something changes the tag goes and you can take it to ANI again if you are unhappy --Snowded ^TALK 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't...

That is a determination to be made in the RfC closure and I've no intent to further rebut your personal expressions of opinion in that regard.

...the one RfC which has had any contribution agrees with the current text (but you said the RfC was biased).

Biased, yes, but more importantly, it presumes the legitimacy of the question it poses. If a closure of the RfC I presented finds that "smear", as a characterization applied to the Swiftvet campaign, is an assertion of "opinion", whatever the result of the RfC you reference will be rendered illegitimate as contrary to WP:NPOV policy. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The question posed is perfectly legit—plainspoken and to the point. The RfC based on that question will bring some closure to the question. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And critically that RfC secured participation. --Snowded ^TALK 06:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard, Part II

I collapsed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view to keep the thoughts together, and because that page is only for discussing changes to the NPOV policy, not applications of it. NPOVN is for applications. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur...and, in fact, will remove my response. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view entirely (or I can remove it myself if that is OK). I missed the bit about it not being for applications of NPOV policy. Thanks for the clarification. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just delete it...no harm, no foul...and I can't imagine anyone objecting. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No harm in keeping it there as a pointer to discussion here. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)