User talk:JamesMLane/SBVT intro

I like the substance fine. As to style, I'd rather avoid the use of parentheses in the first paragraph. But substance is more important, and it seems fine to me. Wolfman 06:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note from JML: "Version 2" is the one that incorporates the edit signed:Nysus 06:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Changes by Nysus to create "Version 2"

Aside from cleaning up the language, I did the following:

• Added a sentence in there about the impact the group had on the campaign. Imagine if it's the year 2020 and someone is looking at this article. It's very important to talk about the real impact these guys had on the election.
• Added the fact that the ads appeared in hotly contested states. This shows that a prime motivation of the group was to cost Kerry the election. I think that's a very important point, too. --Nysus 06:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As to the first point, I don't think we should try to keep modifying an encyclopedia article week by week to reflect shifting poll results. I'd agree with you to the extent of saying that, after the election, we might want to include something in the introduction about the group's real impact on the election, although even then it would probably be hard to pin down. Right now it's premature. I agree with thinking about how the article will look in 2020 but that should be deferred to a post-election revision. As to the second point, there seems to be agreement on including the statement that the group was formed "to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential aspirations." Their targeting of their advertisements is merely supporting evidence for that statement, so it can be developed in the article where we give more detail about the ads. JamesMLane 13:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. But there has got to be something in the article, I don't really care what, that conveys the idea that SBVT basically dominated the news about the presidential race in August and that this wasn't just some backwater organization that didn't make a difference in the campaign. There should be something specific mentioned to illustrate that point. Do you agree? The first version doesn't do that. --Nysus 01:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In general I agree, though I think that "dominated the news" might be going it a bit strong. Without exaggeration, we could certainly point out that a major goal for any group like SBVT is to get free media -- to have the attack become so newsworthy that it's included or at least summarized in TV news shows, newspapers, etc. where you haven't paid for it. By that standard, the SBVT campaign was certainly a big success. I have no problem with saying so in the article. Right now, the article says, in discussing the first TV advertisement, that the ad "generated tremendous media attention and debate about the group and its cause." One reasonable modification would be to apply that characterization to the whole campaign, not just the first ad, perhaps by adding some text under the "Media activities" heading and before the first subheading. I think there might also be poll data available about how many people had seen the ads and believed them. Here I'd exercise some caution about asserting that the ads made a difference in the campaign. By Election Day the whole thing could be seen as an irrelevant distraction that ended up not swaying many votes (or it might have significantly hurt Kerry, or it might have generated a backlash that helped him -- right now we don't know).

There's nothing along these line in Version 1 because that version deals only with the first two paragraphs of the article. That doesn't mean that I want to delete the current reference to the "tremendous media attention". I just don't think it needs to be in the intro. Would your concerns be met if we develop these points in the body of the article, perhaps under "Media activities"? JamesMLane 02:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When you quoted me, you took it out of context. I want something in the first two paragraphs that illustrates that SBVT "dominated the news about the presidential race during the month of August." I don't see how you can disagree with that statement. OK, maybe you could argue it dominated for 3 weeks instead of the whole month. But clearly, SBVT was a major topic of debate for the presidential campaign. There needs to be something in the first paragraph that distinguishes it as such. Perhaps a dollar figure on how much it spent or the fact that it was mentioned on the front page of the NYT xx amount of times. Like I said, I don't really care what it is.

And I miswrote when I said there has to be something in the "article." I meant the first two paragraphs. --Nysus 03:08, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's modifications to JML's examples

Version 1:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), formed in 2004, is an organization of American Swift boat veterans of the Vietnam War, registered under section 527 of the U.S. tax code to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential aspirations.

SBVT criticizes Kerry with regard to his military service history while he was in Vietnam (particularly some of the medals he received) and his subsequent activities in opposition to the war in the early 1970s. SBVT has expressed these positions primarily in a book and via television advertisements that feature certain American Vietnam War Veterans who oppose Kerry.

---

Version 2:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), formed in 2004, is an organization of American Swift boat veterans of the Vietnam War, registered under section 527 of the U.S. tax code to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential aspirations.

SBVT has challenged the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress. The group has primarily made these challenges via television advertisements appearing in hotly contested electoral states, in a book, and in the widespread print and electronic media coverage members of the group received.

Rex's edit summary for the foregoing says, "the opening is supposed to be about SVBT, not others". I think the introduction should give key points about SBVT, whether or not those points involve "others". It's not consistent to say that it's OK to mention Kerry in the opening when SBVT is making charges against him but it's suddenly not OK to mention Kerry when it comes to reporting that he's filed a complaint with the FEC. When significant facts about the subject of the article involve "others", they can and should go in the introduction; see, e.g., O. J. Simpson, where the intro mentions his wife. JamesMLane 04:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, you are trying to suff in facts which belong in the article, into the preamble to the article. If you do that, then I will want more facts in too - this will spiral. Please, simply try to concentrate on how best to introduce the topic - not try to explain it - in the opening paragraph. Surely you udnerstand this, yes?

I propose a simple, six point conceptual outline:

1. Introduction - very brief
2. Background - The how, why and who of SBVT
3. Activities - The what, where and when of SBVT
4. Issues in dispute (both sides) - the charges and the defenses
5. Impact - media attention, impact on campaigns, etc
6. Links

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What I understand is the following guideline, from Wikipedia:Lead section:

The lead should briefly summarize the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and News style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic.

Looking at the two versions in the sandbox and at Rex's suggested modifications above, I think that Version 1 as it stands on User:JamesMLane/SBVT intro best complies with this guideline. Rex's proposed modifications don't include enough information. The lead section should summarize the article, and it's certainly not an accurate summary of this article to mention SBVT's attacks on Kerry but to omit the fact that other veterans have directly rebutted those attacks. (That's a summary of SBVT's website, but it's not accurate as to the actual Wikipedia article, which reports statements of veterans on both sides of the dispute.) It's also not an accurate summary to omit any mention of the charges against SBVT. Some readers who don't care much about who was in a skimmer in 1968 might be interested in reading about who's behind these ads in 2004, so Version 1 lets them know that there are allegations on that score that will be discussed in greater detail in the article. A final point is that some readers may read only the lead section. On a highly controversial subject, therefore, the lead section, by itself, should be NPOV (or as much so as possible without getting into inordinate detail). JamesMLane 13:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Slightly confused

I'd like to participate in this discussion but I'm confused about where I should post comments/versions. We now have versions in two different places. --Nysus 09:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good question. All I can do is give you my view, for what it's worth. The biggest problem I had with Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is that the page grows so quickly that it's hard to know exactly what specific proposed text for the article people are arguing about. A proposal is very quickly buried in all the commentary, so that the actual proposal is several screens back and not easy to find. One idea of the sandbox is to have the draft version in one place (in this instance, User:JamesMLane/SBVT intro), where it can always be readily located, and the discussion about it separated out on an associated Talk page. If there's more than one draft being proposed, then the text of each can be on that sandbox page, but all commentary should be here.

Therefore, the key principle is: Put nothing on the main sandbox page except proposed text. That doesn't mean that all proposed text has to go there. For example, Rex wanted to shorten the second paragraph. He could have presented his ideas by creating a Version 3 on the sandbox page, or by making his comment here and illustrating it with what the text would look like. He chose the second method, but either would have been OK.

A more difficult question is whether to create a new version on the sandbox or modify an existing one. I'd say that a substantial change should be a new version. We won't make any progress if we just get into a revert war over the sandbox. So, continuing with the example of Rex's comment: If, instead of putting proposed text here or creating a Version 3, he had simply deleted all the anti-SBVT information from Version 1 on the sandbox, then I would have restored it. Net result: nothing useful accomplished. It may be that discussion here, and tweaking of proposed versions on the sandbox, will bring them into convergence on a consensus version. If not, we may have two or three versions that have each been considered and refined, which will provide a basis for a poll or RfC. JamesMLane 13:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks I will try get some more up later today or tonight. --Nysus 18:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex version 3 and 4

Version 3:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), formed in 2004, is an organization of American Swift boat veterans of the Vietnam War, registered under section 527 of the U.S. tax code to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential aspirations.

The SBVT group has engaged in mass media communications which directly challenge the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress. The group has broadcast various derisive contentions against Mr. Kerry via certain television advertisements, in a book, and via the widespread media coverage some members of the group have received. In repsonse to the contentions raised by this group, John Kerry's presidential campaign has offered aggressive rebuttals. It is the differing nature of these contentions and rebuttals and the resulting media coverage, which has resulted in an election 2004 controversy.

Version 4:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), formed in 2004, is an organization of American Swift boat veterans of the Vietnam War, registered under section 527 of the U.S. tax code to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential aspirations. SBVT criticizes Kerry with regard to his military service history while he was in Vietnam (particularly some of the medals he received) and his subsequent activities in opposition to the war in the early 1970s.

The SBVT group has engaged in mass media communications which directly challenge the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war. The group has broadcast various derisive contentions against Mr. Kerry via certain television advertisements, in a book, and via the widespread media coverage some members of the group have received. In response to the contentions raised by this group, John Kerry's presidential campaign has offered aggressive rebuttals. It is the differing nature of these contentions and rebuttals and the resulting media coverage, which has resulted in an election 2004 controversy.

Both of Rex's versions say that Kerry's campaign has rebutted the SBVT accusations. This makes it sound like veterans on one side versus political hacks on the other side. I think the intro should contain one of the salient facts about the dispute, namely that there are veterans on both sides.

On another issue, I was trying to finesse the "1971" controversy by making a more general reference to Kerry's "activities in opposition to the war in the early 1970s". Certainly the testimony was dramatic, but many soldiers in Vietnam at the time, as well as veterans, were very angry at any antiwar activism. If Kerry had never testified, but had done all the other stuff (being at the same event as Jane Fonda, among other outrages), quite a few veterans would still be acting on the hostility they felt, which hasn't gone away. I was hoping that the "early 1970s" wording would get us past the dispute that was reflected in the adding and deleting of "1971". How do people feel about that proposal for the specific point about the date? JamesMLane 02:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My research indicates that Kerry's 1971 testimony and the hearing itself is an iconic event in the anti-war movement. Rightly or wrongly, it seems that the SBVT people are especially focused on that. Also, I do recongize that by us specifically mentioning that date, various readers may seek more details. For that reason, I have started a new Wiki page here. On this new 1971 Fulbright Senate Hearing page, we can present both sides of the issue - Kerry's stated rationales for the testimony, the context of the times, various criticisms or viewpoints, etc. Armed with this page to link to, the import of and need for the 1971 date's inclusion will be more clear [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My experience indicates that some people serving in or returned from Vietnam had a lot of animosity toward the antiwar movement, for years before that hearing. It makes sense from SBVT's point of view to highlight it in their ads, because a 30-second spot needs a quick and easy hook. For them to summarize Kerry's antiwar activities would, by itself, take the whole spot, without leaving any time to berate him. Fortunately for us, we aren't subject to the constraints of a TV ad. JamesMLane 06:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this article is about SBVT and their web site does say the 1971 testimony is a key part of their focus. Simply because SBVT is indeed partisan, does not mean we should unilaterally deem that declaration false - especially since their anti-Kerry activities have indeed included focusing on the 1971 hearing. There is simply no way to rationally introduce SBVT without mentioning that specific date. Also please see this, which is the page I started, now being massaged by Neutrality. You will have ample enough oomph there so as to be sure the date of 1971 does not overly taint Kerry. Also, as evidenced by the substantial article developing there, the 1971 meeting was indeed inconic and noteworthty. It certainly is reasonable that SBVT is fixated on it - Kerry was the only witness! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:44, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the last 2 sentences of Rex's versions. (a) the charges have been rebutted largely by other veterans, not the kerry campaign which basically tried to ignore the SBVT (b) the charges themselves were the cause of the media coverage, not the rebuttals. Wolfman 23:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)